Tag Archives: Climate Change

City of Angels Will Dump Coal by 2025

Last February 17th, there was a big rally at the Los Angeles City Hall where people demanded action on climate change and an end to our reliance on fossil fuel. The city of Los Angeles gets 39% of its electricity from coal fired plants, so that would be hard.

But today, we’ve learned that “…Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will be “signing papers” in the coming weeks that will wean L.A. from coal-fired power within 12 years.”

Apparently, the mayor made this announcement at a UCLA event discussing related issues, and it was a real jaw dropper, truly unexpected. This will require shutting down two coal plants.


Photo Credit: Alex E. Proimos via Compfight cc

How the US Navy is Leading the Charge on Clean Energy and Climate Change

There will be a discussion on Climate Desk Live about this topic tomorrow, Feb 27th. Details and access to the event are HERE.

Increasingly, the US Navy is leading the charge towards clean energy, which can in turn impact national security an even climate change. Through investments in biofuels, construction of a more energy-efficient fleet, forward thinking about issues like rising sea levels and a melting Arctic, and commitments to reduce consumption and reliance on foreign oil, the Navy is leading the charge of a vast energy reform effort to “change the way the US military sails, flies, marches, and thinks.”

And here’s a fun, related video:

claimtoken-512d0aa6de0dc

The Bloggies

Why does the science community shun the Bloggies?

I was shocked to discover that @bloggies is unaware of the reason that science blogs no longer participate in the contest. @bloggies noted: Prominent climate skeptic blogs tend to campaign for nominations, while other science blogs don’t seem to mention the Bloggies.

Storified by Greg Laden· Tue, Feb 26 2013 10:47:37

@gregladen I don’t know what the reason is myself.The Weblog Awards
.@Bloggies Maybe I’ll write a blog post about it and send you the link if you really don’t know. But really, you must know.Greg Laden
@gregladen Do you mean the reason that climate skeptics are attracted to the Bloggies, or the reason that other science blogs aren’t?The Weblog Awards
@Bloggies Both It isn’t just a matter of attraction or interest, but purpose and intent. Also, "other" is not the right word there.Greg Laden
@gregladen Prior winner history is the only reason I know. I don’t know why no sci bloggers mentioned the category when it was made in 2011.The Weblog Awards
.@Bloggies The science blogging community is fully aware of the situation and there has been commentary on it.Greg Laden
@Bloggies "Another year, another weblog contest duped" http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/18/207555/bizarro-world-bloggies-finalist-for-best-science-blog-is-anti-science-website-wattsupwiththat/Greg Laden
. @Bloggies "..the death of Science in America..the five candidates on the shortlist.. one rabid anti-science blog http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/02/another-sign-of-the-death-of-science-in-america/Greg Laden
.@Bloggies "Bizarro world ‘Bloggies’ finalist for Best Science Blog is … anti-science website" http://sierraactivist.org/2011/02/18/bizarro-world-%E2%80%98bloggies%E2%80%99-finalist-for-best-science-blog-is-%E2%80%A6-anti-science-website-wattsupwiththat/Greg Laden
.@Bloggies "Those that rouse or manufacture enough support, can engineer a win in the submitted category… 1/2Greg Laden
..resulting in awards for a blog that routinely misinforms on scientific subjects and even slanders scientists.” 2/2
.@Bloggies last two tweets from this source: http://climatecrocks.com/2012/01/25/climate-denial-and-manufacturing-legitimacy/Greg Laden
.@Bloggies "… I’d say this has gotten political." http://whateveresque.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=484Greg Laden
.@Bloggies You run a blog award w/a science category. Anti science activists took it over. No legit science bloggers want any part of it.Greg Laden
The Bloggies no longer serves the science blogging community.  If there intent was to do so, they need to change how they do things.  I would like to suggest the addition of a new category: Climate Skepticism. Put the climate science denialist blogs in that category and only valid science blogs in the science category.  That is the only way to regain interest from the science community short of simply banning the fake science blogs. 

claimtoken-512d0aa6de0dc

CO2 is plant food, right?

See Peter’s original post here, which also covers the recent alarming finding by NASA regarding Eastern US forests. EG, ” The warming climate this century has caused new stresses on trees, such as insect pest outbreaks and the introduction of new pathogens. Scientists consider both climate change and disease to be dominant driving forces in the health of forests in this region.”

Is Solar Energy Totally Bogus or Something that Gives Hope?

I recently posted a simple Internet meme suggesting that if we subsidized solar energy like we subsidized fossil fuels that this could be good. I posted that on Google Plus an it engendered way over 300 comments, many of which attempted to explain, often rather impolitely, that solar energy was inefficient or in some other way bad. I’m pretty sure most of those comments come to us courtesy of the bought and paid for climate change denialist campaign, funded by Big Oil to the tune of many tens of millions of dollars to date. Most of the commenters were saying similar things, most of which were either incorrect or irrelevant, and far too many of them showed up on this comment at once to be explained by normal internet behavior, at least on my Google Plus page. This was a move made by the denialists, and rest assured … they are doing this more and more often as time goes by.

What I found interesting about this is the fact that the main complaints were about how inefficient, expensive, or otherwise technologically poor those cheap Chinese photovoltaic cells are. I’m not going to argue about that here. I’ve got some friends who have put those photovoltaic cells on their homes and they are glad they did it. I take their word above random anti-Planet internet trolls. I also know that simple photovoltaic fuel cells are used in a lot of highly specialized applications where running a wire to some light or comm device or something is impractical, but a battery charged up by a solar cell will do. The detractors of solar energy are so vehement in their position on this that they would probably insist that building a miniature coal plant next to the remote airport up by the cabin, or next to the highway by some DOT electrical device would be preferable.

Here’s the thing. When I say “solar” I mean energy produced by accessing radiation coming form the sun more or less directly. Wind energy is a form of “solar” because the wind moves around because of the sun. Fossil fuels are solar because it was photosynthesis that converted the Sun’s energy to carbohydrates. But of course I’m not talking about that. I am talking about the hand full of different ways in which solar energy can be harnessed pretty directly including but not limited to cheap Chines solar panels.

The most obvious use of solar energy is passive heating. Back in the 1970s, we (in the US anyway) discovered that there was an energy crisis. We then promptly forgot about it, as various suficial patches were applied and energy seemed to not be an issue any more. But if we were not acting like total morons (which we tend to do) we would have gone ahead and added attention to passive solar to zoning regulations and to best practices in architecture. Of course, that did happen to some extent, but not in any comprehensive or meaningful way. Imagine if most buildings–residential, commercial, built over the last 40 years were built with attention to passive solar design. That would probably have resulted in a decrease in fossil fuel use for those buildings in the two digit percentage range. A lot of buildings have been built over the last four decades. We’d be using several percent less fossil fuel for our buildings today had we done that.

The professional and avocational naysayers of solar energy helped cause us to miss that boat, and they want us to keep missing that boat. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Then there’s direct solar heating. This is another way to use solar energy in which you pass liquids through devices that are set out in the sun (i.e., on your roof). This may be used directly or indirectly to heat the water we use in our buildings. In areas where there is never a significant freeze, such devices can directly heat the water. Otherwise, a non-freezing liquid is used to capture and store the heat, which in turn is transferred to heat water or air inside a home or other building. This may be one of the best ways to use solar energy since it is relatively low tech and can be made of easily obtainable parts. Cheap devices can create essentially free energy. Imagine if most homes, commercial buildings, and other structures built over the last 40 years had a direct solar system to contribute to the heating of water and air in the building. Again, there’d be a few percent off our current annual carbon contribution to the atmosphere.

Then there’s the rather esoteric and very experimental but very cool looking use of solar in which fluids stocked with organisms are passed under the sunlight up on the roof. In one such system, the CO2 rich exhaust from a gas or oil heating plant is passed through a liquid full off algae. The algae live off the CO2 and sunlight, and are strained out to produce … I don’t know, soilent green or something. You can probably burn the algae. This serves as a carbon sink. This is probably not a technology that will make a major contribution to anything until we have genetically modified algae working in concert with solar collectors to do something really interesting.

Then there are the high performance solar systems, of which there are two types. Both involved concentration of solar energy using mirrors or lenses. In CSP, of Concentrated Solar Power, piles of mirrors are used to focus the sunlight on a thing that gets heated way up and runs a turbine. There are many systems like this running around the world, and the general consensus globally is that wherever you have a lot of sun (arid regions, generally) this method of producing electricity is cheaper per watt than some other methods, and on par with the average fossil fuel plant. The other type of high tech system concentrates the sunlight on a device that converts sunlight to electricity.

And, then there are the grand schemes of solar power. Such as…

… TREC, which is a grand vision for connecting solar power in North Africa, wind power from the Eastern Mediterranean to the North Sea, bio-mass, and hydropower with a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) system of power lines to provide assured renewable electricity for the Mediterranean basin and Europe.

… written up here.

So those are several ways in which solar energy can be exploited. Photovoltaic panels is only one way. So when someone suggests that we should consider using more solar energy, maybe subsidize it to get the industry moving along, or simply to make it more common in recognition of the very high external costs of fossil fuels (which are not counted in the actual cost of running coal power plants or driving trucks with diesel, etc.) don’t bring up cheap Chinese photovolatics first.

Every flat roof on a school, parking garage, shopping mall, or other commercial or industrial building that is not grabbing sun in some way and using it for something is an affront against the planet and an insult to our grandchildren.

Solar Furnace Photo Credit: pluvialis via Compfight cc

Obama’s decision on the Keystone Pipeline IS a legacy making or breaking thing.

Is there a problem with John Abraham’s argument about Obama’s Legacy?

John Abraham wrote a piece in the Guardian titled Keystone XL decision will define Barack Obama’s legacy on climate change: Does the president have courage to say ‘no’ to a project that will lock us into decades of dependency on this dirty energy? in which he states: Continue reading Obama’s decision on the Keystone Pipeline IS a legacy making or breaking thing.

Educate yourself about the Keystone XL Pipeline. Please.

I was distressed to find many people who are essentially pro-environment and who generally understand climate change science being less than terribly shocked about the prospect of the Keystone XL pipeline being built. Then I began to realize that many people don’t realize the order of magnitude of the problem. I’m writing a blog post about this which I’ll post Sunday or Monday, but in the mean time I want to provide a list of handy dandy reliable and helpful sources of information about the pipeline and related issues.

Keystone XL decision will define Barack Obama’s legacy on climate change

An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate

Why not Keystone XL. Clear reasons why Keystone XL is not in the U.S. national interest

STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline

Keystone XL: A Tar Sands Pipeline to INcrease Oil Prices (JUST ADDED: PDF file)

5 Myths About Keystone XL, Debunked

Debunking Nature’s arguments for Keystone

The Keystone XL Pipeline: Red herring, symbol, or a piece of a puzzle?

Joe Romm on Climate, Obama, Keystone, and Consequences

New video explains the climate threat from the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

New Analysis Shows Simple Math: Keystone XL Pipeline = Tar Sands Expansion = Climate Change

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?

Charge of the Lite Brigade

On February 17th, some 40,000 people showed up at an event in Washington DC in order to draw attention to the most pressing issue of our time: Climate Change. Another group of people also attended that rally. They represented the Climate Science Denialists, which in the US overlaps considerably with the Tea Party. They wore yellow jackets and called themselves “The Light Brigade.” This follows the tradition of the Tea Party, who in their early days used the nickname “Teabaggers” for themselves, a term which refers to a particular sexual act, or so I’m told. I was reminded of this because the original Light Brigade was a hapless military unit commanded by incompetent boobs who made major mistakes causing the unnecessary deaths of a large number of people carrying out a futile and senseless act.

In other words, the Light Brigade that showed up at the Forward On Climate Rally in Washington DC on February 17th, 2013 of which there were about 15 according to reports, resembles the Light Brigade, the unit of light calvary at Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War that charged to their deaths on October 15th, 1854, in a number of ways. However, the real victims of science denialsm is everybody, not just the soldiers who forgot to question, to reason.

So, in honor of Climate Science Denialism and the new Light Brigade, which I’ve decided to rename the Lite Brigade, I’ve adapted the famous poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. As follows:

The Charge of the Lite Brigade
by Greg, Lord Mockingyou

Half a brain, half a brain,
Half a brain onward,
All in the valley of Climate Change
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
“Charge for the facts!” he said:
Into the valley of Climate Change
Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man inform’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Climate Change,
Rode the six hundred.

Carbon to right of them,
Carbon to left of them,
Carbon in front of them
Tornadoes and thunder;
Superstorm’d with surge befell,
Blindly awash in the the swell,
Into the rise of temps,
Into the mouth of Hell
Ocean acidification.

Flash’d all their untruths bare,
Flash’d as they denied in air,
Science and data there,
Charging and lying, while
All the world wonder’d:
Plugged in the battery-charger,
But the coal based grid was broke;
Hannity and Rush they
Reel’d from the IPCC report
Shatter’d and sunder’d.
Then they got a new contract, but
Not the six hundred.

Carbon to right of them,
Carbon to left of them,
Carbon behind them
Hurricanes with thunder;
Superstorm’d with surge befell,
New Orleans went to Hell,
Tea did not come out so well
Lies through their jaws brought Death
Told science to go to Hell,
And left it all to them,
Storms for our grandchildren.

What were they thinking, crazed?
O the wild charges they made!
All the world wondered.
WTF are have they said?
Look at the Light Brigade,
Ignorant six hundred.

Peter Gleick vs Heartland Institute

Peter Gleick, my sbling here at scienceblogs.com (see his blog here) is famous for a lot of things, but about one year ago he went up against the Heartland Institute and in a daring effort of investigative (if avocational) journalism, revealed that right wing conservative/libertarian “think” tank’s nefarious plans to interfere with science education in an effort to discredit climate scientists in the eyes of the American public and our students through a series of rather smarmy tactics, including some really obnoxious billboards.

Scott Mandia at “Global Warming: Man or Myth?” has written a one-year-later retrospective of Gleick vs. Heartland. Check it out: Peter Gleick vs Heartland Institute – Scorecard One Year Later. And the Winner Is?

Scott compares the “accomplishments” of the Heartland Institute over the last year with Peter’s activities to produce a rather lopsided score card that resembles what would happen if the local High School football team went up against the Baltimore Ravens.

Climate Change and Civil Disobedience

At 11:30 AM eastern time today, an act of “civil disobedience will take place around at the East Gate of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue, just east of the picture-postcard zone.” #NoKXL is the hashtag.

It is time, apparently. This is a time when more of the money that is out there is in the hands of a very small number of people and corporations, and many of these people and corporations are paying to maintain the status quo, and that status quo involves keeping our economy, or society, our species firmly planted on a track leading to the edge of a very tall cliff. Not the fiscal cliff or some other cliff, but the climate cliff. Science, common sense, and basic moral responsibility tell us that we need to change direction and now, even the President of the United States is telling us that. But very little has been done, compared to what could have been done, to slow down and eventually reverse direction towards what is clearly a major disaster, or really, multiple disasters which will compete with each other to see which of many bad scenarios ends up being the worst scenario.

So, people are taking to the streets. This just came out:

Sierra Club, 350.org and Commited Citizens to Engage in Civil Disobedience Today at White House to Stop Tar Sands, Keystone XL pipeline

Wednesday, February 13 at 10:45 AM ET

Fifty American leaders–including Michael Brune (Sierra Club), Bill McKibben (350.org), Reverend Lennox Yearwood Jr. (Hip Hop Caucus), civil rights legend Julian Bond, actress Daryl Hannah, Nebraska rancher Randy Thompson and others on the frontlines of climate change–will risk arrest in front of the White House to demonstrate the depth of their support for decisive action against climate change. For the first time in its 120-year history, the Sierra Club will participate in this civil disobedience action to convey the severity and urgency of action on climate.

2012 was the hottest year on record, half the country is in severe drought, and Superstorm Sandy just flooded the greatest city in the world–New York. A global crisis unfolds before our eyes and immediate action is required. President Obama has the executive authority to make a significant and immediate impact on carbon pollution, and he can begin by saying no to Big Oil by rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.Civil disobedience is the response of ordinary people to extraordinary injustices. Americans have righted the wrongs of our society – slavery, child labor, suffrage, segregation, and inequality for gays and immigrant workers – with creative nonviolent resistance. Climate change threatens the health and security of all Americans, and action proportional to the problem is required–now.

Details, Contact Information, Etc. are HERE Here is a letter written by the participants in this action:

We’re here today to show the depth of our resolve that President Obama take immediate, decisive action against climate change—to show that if the president leads, the vast majority of Americans will rally behind him. We’re not here today to protest the president, we are here to encourage and support him. We lived through horrors of Superstorm Sandy, the Midwest drought, wildfires, and the hottest year on record: we know in our bones that the time has come to do more than we have, and all that we can.

The president can’t work miracles by himself. An obstructionist Congress stands in the way of progress and innovation. But President Obama has the executive authority and the mandate from the American people to stand up to the fossil fuel industry, and to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline right now.

And we’re here to show something else—that the movement for a clean energy revolution is a broad and powerful one. In 2011 we were moved by the 1,253 Americans who went jail to protest Keystone in the biggest civil disobedience action in many years in this country. Today we are 50 people at the White House representing millions of Americans in every state, in every community. Today we risk arrest because a global crisis unfolds before our eyes. We have the solutions to this climate crisis. We have a moral obligation to stand stand for immediate, bold action to solve climate disruption. We can do it, and we will.

CO2 and Ocean Acidification

This graphic is from GRID-Arendal, a Norwegian Foundation collaborating with the UN Environment Programme. It shows CO2 concentrations in the ocean going up over a period of 20 eyars, and the corresponding drop in pH over the same time period.

Ocean acidification is a serious effect of climate change.

As CO2 in the ocean goes up, pH goes down
As carbon concentrations in the atmosphere increase, so do concentrations in the ocean, with resultant acidification as a natural chemical process.

There are more climate change related graphics HERE.

Finding Nemo

Climate experts have pointed out that Nemo, the very bad nor’easter that just hit the Northeastern US and Maritimes, is partly an effect of global warming. Some meteorologists have responded with an incorrect response, a recitation of a now tired and useless mumbling retort that I’m afraid may even have it origin among scientists who should know better, and at the very least was kept alive by them for far too long: “Well, you can’t really attribute any given weather event to climate change.” Some regular people who are not climate scientists have repeated that faleshood as well. Then there are people making the claim that a bad winter storm is proof that climate change is not real or reversing or some other such thing. This of course is wrong at so many levels that if a scientist (even a non-climate scientist, just anyone who values critical thinking) said it they would be fired and sent off the humanities in a second. I will also mention this, because it helps us to get at a causal mechanism for what is going on here: Many people have stated, quite clearly on TV and Facebook and all those other good places, that “The Upper Midwest” or more particularly “Minnesota” gets more snow than Massachusetts or the Northeastern US. This is incorrect. Plain, simply, untrue. But that people believe this tell us something about people’s beliefs about the weather and helps explain some things. By the way, I’ve lived in New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota and I can tell you that people who live in the Northeast think Minnesota gets more snow, and people in Minnesota think Minnesota gets more snow. So everybody is wrong and in the same way. This isn’t just a mater of each region thinking they get the most snow.

And yes, as I’ve implied, all these things are connected and I’ll show how. The conclusion of this essay, though, will be the following points: Continue reading Finding Nemo

Science and Science Communication: Self Correcting

Climate change has had a big impact in Africa. We can certainly talk about that some time. But when a David Attenborough BBC special mentioned one aspect of climate change impact they got the facts wrong. Leo Hickman of The Environment Blog at The Guardian noticed the error and wrote a very interesting blog post tracking down how this happened. The BBC, in response, has removed the specific reference from the special.

This is important because it is important to get it right, but it is also important because it demonstrates that those whom climate science denialists incorrectly call “alarmists” are really just interested in the truth, even when it removes or reduces an “alarming” statement about global warming.

Check out Leo’s post: BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough’s Africa…Attenborough claims in BBC One’s Africa series that part of the continent has warmed by 3.5C over the past 20 years…

I don’t like that title because it seems to say that the BBC exaggerated the overall effects of climate change, but really they just got this one fact wrong. But headlines are often annoyingly misleading like that. I doubt Leo wrote the headline. Anyway, go read the post.