Fwd: Climate Progress

[byron lightweaver]

Climate Progress

---

• New York Times to media: Exonerations of climate science and National Academy report should “receive as much circulation” as “the manufactured controversy known as Climategate” - Journalism in the greenhouse ... or the glass house?
• CBO: American Power Act will cut deficit by $19 billion By 2020 - This while creating jobs, cutting oil dependence, and slashing pollution
• NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer — despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance”

New York Times to media: Exonerations of climate science and National Academy report should “receive as much circulation” as “the manufactured controversy known as Climategate” - Journalism in the greenhouse ... or the glass house? Posted: 11 Jul 2010 07:09 AM PDT There have since been several reports upholding the U.N.’s basic findings, including a major assessment in May from the National Academy of Sciences. This assessment not only confirmed the relationship between climate change and human activities but warned of growing risks — sea level rise, drought, disease — that must swiftly be addressed by firm action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on, one must hope that the academy’s report, and Wednesday’s debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies. The New York Times had a great editorial today, “A Climate Change Corrective.” Certainly the recent exonerations and NAS study deserve much, much, much more media attention. It most be pointed out, however, that the NYT overhyped the “manufactured controversy known as Climategate” as much if not more than other media outlets, from the beginning: Here’s what we know so far: CRU’s emails were hacked, the 2000s will easily be the hottest decade on record, and the planet keeps warming thanks to us! The NY Times blows the story Anti-science idealogues spin the NY Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, on “Climategate” N.Y. Times and Elisabeth Rosenthal Face Credibility Siege over Unbalanced Climate Coverage The NYT has had multiple front-page “teach the (manufactured) controversy” stories (see also In yet another front-page journalistic lapse, the NYT once again equates non-scientists — Bastardi, Coleman, and Watts (!) — with climate scientists and Brulle: “The NYT doesn’t need to go to European conferences to find out why public opinion on climate change has shifted…. Just look in the mirror”). Where are the multiple front-page stories on the exonerations and NAS study?  For that matter, let’s remember that the NY Times rejected op-ed/letter from 255 National Academy of Sciences members defending climate science integrity Still, we take what we can get from the islands of sanity — the Tuvalus — at major outlets like the NYT.  Here’s the full editorial: Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible. It was the fifth such review of hundreds of e-mail exchanges among some of the world’s most prominent climatologists. Some of the e-mail messages, purloined last November, were mean-spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a timid reluctance to share data. Climate skeptics pounced on them as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming. The panel found no such conspiracy. It complained mildly about one poorly explained temperature chart discussed in the e-mail, but otherwise found no reason to dispute the scientists’ “rigor and honesty.” Two earlier panels convened by Britain’s Royal Society and the House of Commons reached essentially the same verdict. And this month, a second panel at Penn State University exonerated Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist and faculty member, of scientific wrongdoing. Dr. Mann, who was part of the e-mail exchange, had been accused of misusing data to prove that the rise in temperatures over the last century was directly linked to steadily rising levels of carbon dioxide. His findings, confirmed many times by others, are central to the argument that fossil fuels must be taxed or regulated. Another (no less overblown) climate change controversy may also be receding from view. This one involves an incorrect assertion in the United Nations’ 3,000-page report on climate change in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The U.N. acknowledged the error and promised to tighten its review procedures. Even so, this and one or two other trivial mistakes were presented by some as further proof that scientists cannot be trusted and that warming is a hoax. There have since been several reports upholding the U.N.’s basic findings, including a major assessment in May from the National Academy of Sciences. This assessment not only confirmed the relationship between climate change and human activities but warned of growing risks — sea level rise, drought, disease — that must swiftly be addressed by firm action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on, one must hope that the academy’s report, and Wednesday’s debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies. Surely the NYT editorial board can do more than just hope? Related Posts: U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities” Final ‘forensic’ UK report on emails vindicates climate science and research underlying the Hockey Stick Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions

CBO: American Power Act will cut deficit by $19 billion By 2020 - This while creating jobs, cutting oil dependence, and slashing pollution Posted: 11 Jul 2010 06:26 AM PDT CAP’s Dan Weiss explained the  ‘energy-only bill’ mirage: Why an energy bill could fail without pollution reduction measures or revenue.  Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) recent analysis of the American Power Act, released July 7th, we know the APA would not only cut carbon emissions, but also the nation’s budget deficit: $19 billion by 2020.  CAP intern Laurel Hunt has the story. If enacted, the APA, the comprehensive clean energy and climate bill co-sponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), would: Increase revenues by about $751 billion over the 2011-2020 period and direct spending by $732 billion over that 10-year period.  In total, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce future deficits by about $19 billion over the 2011-2020 period. This week’s CBO analysis is yet another example of a report showing that comprehensive clean energy and climate reform is both economically and environmentally beneficial to the country.  Furthermore, a revenue source is required in any energy legislation in order to finance and spur the coming clean energy revolution.  While an energy-only bill would not be affordable on its own, this analysis shows that the APA could make our critical clean energy investment agenda possible. In addition to slashing the deficit, APA provides opportunities for job creation, stimulation of a clean energy economy, and reduction of dangerous global warming pollution.  The legislation would also achieve all this while also providing relief to working families.  APA is specifically designed to “provide tax credits, cash rebates, or rebates on utility bills to lessen the impact on consumers or households of higher prices that would result from the cap-and-trade programs,” and CBO estimates that APA’s Refundable Credit for Working Families Relief programs will provide $17.2 billion in support to working families via tax credit programs. In response to the CBO’s new analysis, Senators Kerry and Lieberman issued a joint statement urging fellow senators to pass their legislation: There is no more room for excuses — this must be our year to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation and begin to send a price signal on carbon. Many of our colleagues have said they flatly oppose anything that adds a penny to the deficit, so we hope they look anew at this initiative which reduces it. Given that the federal government incurred a deficit of just over $1.0 trillion for the first nine months of the 2010 fiscal year, as CBO estimated in its most recent Monthly Budget Review, this finding should play an important role in the fight.  The impact on revenues from the APA would largely result from the revenues collected from the greenhouse gas and HFC cap-and-trade programs (and a small amount of additional revenue would be generated by assessments levied by the Carbon Storage Research Corporation and from penalties collected for noncompliance). Though there are a number of energy-only bills and oil spill bills floating around in the Senate, the American Power Act is the only among these that more than pays for itself. This CBO analysis clearly demonstrates that, if passed, the legislation will pave the road to simultaneous economic and environmental prosperity. – Laurel Hunt

NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer — despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance” Posted: 10 Jul 2010 02:13 PM PDT Following fast on the heels of the hottest Jan-May — and spring — in the temperature record, it’s also the hottest Jan-June on record in the NASA dataset [click on figure to enlarge]. It’s all the more powerful evidence of human-caused warming “because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect,” as a recent NASA paper notes. Software engineer (and former machinist mate in the US Navy) Timothy Chase put together a spreadsheet using the data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (click here).  In NASA’s dataset, the 12-month running average temperature record was actually just barely set in March — and then easily set in April and topped out in May. It still seems likely that 2010 will be the hottest year on record, but NOAA now predicts that “La Niña conditions are likely to develop during July – August 2010.”  If the La Niña comes fast and deep (as in 1998 and 2007), that could make it a close call in the NASA dataset — and even more so in the satellite record, which is much more sensitive to ENSO ( El Niño Southern oscillation). Blue curve: 12-month running-mean global temperature.   Note correlation with Nino index (red = El Nino, blue = La Nina).   Large volcanoes (green) have a cooling effect for ~2 years.  Source: “Global Surface Temperature Change,” by James Hansen et al., June 2010. Interestingly, June was tied for the third hottest on record for NASA, but was essentially tied for the hottest June in the RSS satellite record (and second hottest in the constantly tweaked UAH satellite dataset). Although I’m sure it’s just another coincidence, but Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab again reports a record low snow cover in the entire northern hemisphere for the month of June (what appears to be a long term trend): Other coincidences include New daily high temperature records beat new cold records by nearly 5 to 1 in June: And of course, meteorologist Jeff Masters reported on June 26 records are being set globally: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Chad, Niger, Pakistan, and Myanmar have all set new records for their hottest temperatures of all time over the past six weeks….  The Asian portion of Russia recorded its highest temperate in history yesterday, when the mercury hit 42.3°C (108.1°F) at Belogorsk, near the Amur River border with China. The previous record was 41.7°C (107.1°F) at nearby Aksha on July 21, 2004. (The record for European Russia is 43.8°C–110.8°F–set on August 6, 1940, at Alexandrov Gaj near the border with Kazakhstan.) Also, on Thursday, Sudan recorded its hottest temperature in its history when the mercury rose to 49.6°C (121.3°F) at Dongola. The previous record was 49.5°C (121.1°F) set in July 1987 in Aba Hamed. We’ve now had eight countries in Asia and Africa, plus the Asian portion of Russia, that have beaten their all-time hottest temperature record during the past two months. This includes Asia’s hottest temperature of all-time, the astonishing 53.5°C (128.3°F) mark set on May 26 in Pakistan….  This week’s heat wave in Africa and the Middle East is partially a consequence of the fact that Earth has now seen three straight months with its warmest temperatures on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. And we’ve just had the 500-year deluges in Oklahoma City and China and Tennessee’s 1000-year deluge. There still are lots of different ways to write about it, lots of different climate scientist interview to put it in context (see here) — and lots of different ways for media to dance around the subject.

You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Progress To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610