Climate Science and the 2012 Election
Climate Science and the 2012 Election
I came from a family that subscribed, in the 1960s, to both the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Technology Review. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is the magazine that, during the Cold War, famously published a clock set a few minutes before midnight. This clock was the evaluation of those at the Bulletin of how far we were from the, well as my grade-school self understood it, the end of the world. The cause for concern for the end of the world was nuclear war.
I have had cause to recall my Cold War childhood recently when my sister told the story of my brother going to roof of his building during the 1965 Northeast Blackout with a fine bottle of wine – or perhaps, cognac, to await the end of the world. His presumption was that the blackout was the darkening of the cities to make them more difficult targets for the bombers. I remember, in the 1960s, finding comfort when the new issue of the Bulletin would come and the clock had not moved forward, and I was quite excited if it moved backwards. I was surprised, recently, when I read that Bulletin had moved the clock one minute closer to midnight because of “inadequate progress on nuclear weapons reduction and proliferation, and continuing inaction on climate change …” Looking at their website you will see that the Bulletin maintains efforts in Biosecurity, Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Power, and Climate Change. The article by Cohen and Miller, Climate Change 2011: A Status Review of US Policy is an excellent summary of the current situation in the US. The final sentence of their essay is, “That action is extremely unlikely to occur unless climate change comes to be seen as a practical, rather than ideological, issue.”
Looking at the political landscape, climate change has fallen from the political discussion; it is a subject that cannot be talked about(some of my writings). Maxwell Boykoff has an excellent op-ed piece in the Washington Post entitled A Dangerous Shift in Obama’s ‘climate change’ Rhetoric. At the center of this piece is how climate change has implicitly been consumed in discussions of energy security, alternative energy, and clean energy. Though the warming of our climate is strongly linked to our burning of fossil fuels, there are many ways to achieve energy security and to develop alternative energy that do not address the causes of global warming. The pursuit of clean energy depends on the definition of “clean,” and this word is easily co-opted by, for example, the reduction of mercury emissions from coal.
Ultimately, we have to talk about management of the climate if we are to address the problems of human-caused global warming. We cannot address one societal challenge with the idea that we will fix the climate change problem by good fortune. When I teach this idea in class, I invoke my experience in management and, namely, it is simply not responsible management to anticipate achieving an important result without someone, some organization, having the responsibility for delivering that result.
Yet we live in a time when politicians are vilified and run out of office when they talk about climate and climate change. As Boykoff noted in his piece, President Obama avoids the climate issue because it is such a political hot button that it completely disrupts and halts progress on any issue where it is invoked. There is the recent incident where an essay on climate change was purged from a collection being put together by Newt Gingrich. I like to think that a couple of the candidates pulled out of the Republican primaries because they felt that their integrity would be too seriously comprised by having to, essentially, lie in order to obtain the trust of their voters.
Bob Inglis was voted out of Congress in 2010. Recently he wrote a piece Conservative Means Standing with Science on Climate Change. Ultimately, Inglis is arguing that if ALL costs of our energy use are incorporated into the equation, then the cost of fossil fuels would be much higher and alternative sources of energy would be more attractive. This coupled with elimination of all subsidies for energy costs, Inglis argues, would allow the market to make the right decision about energy and, hence, the climate. This full-cost accounting is enticing in its philosophical simplicity, but there are many profound implications. It does require accepting the notion that our carbon dioxide waste is harmful to the environment, the assignment of cost to that harm, and a process of linking that cost to energy sources.
As a strategy, addressing issues of clean energy, energy independence and energy security are more politically pragmatic than addressing issues of climate change. They offer a path towards addressing climate change; they are part of the best-we-can-do-at-this-time strategy. However, our inability to actually talk about solving the climate change problem means that we will not address the problem; we will elevate our risks; we will continue to impact negatively our economic and technological competitiveness.
It has fascinated me over the years at how both elected officials and government appointees make far more sense in what they say after they are outside of their government positions. I was a minor manager in the government, and even at my level, I was motivated to saying and doing things that were not the best thing to do to address a problem. Rather, what I did was the expedient and possible and it did advance the problem, but it was not either the best or most cost effective decision. This places the post-government truth teller, like Inglis, into one of the most important roles in advancing difficult problems like climate change. It also, however, points out the stunning inefficiency and ineffectiveness of our politically based determination of priorities in the development of knowledge-based environmental policy. We look knowledge in the face and deny its existence. We make our convenient arguments for the need for more research in the ill-posed pursuit of the illusive final facts. We fall into the diversion-motivated process of always asking for the next piece of information in what can be a never ending series of information discovery.
I found the October/November 1969 Technology Review in a box of Space-Age memorabilia I packed up from childhood. This issue was entitled “Man Among the Planets,” and the first article was “The Modification of the Planet Earth by Man,” by Gordon J. F. MacDonald. MacDonald in 1969 argued that we had already altered the planet, and that changes produced by humans were already at the scale “caused by nature.” He warned that we needed to do research into large-scale, man-made, and inadvertent changes to our environment. He called for the development of climate prediction. Since 1969 we have taken the observations, we have developed the theory, and we have determined unequivocally that the Earth has warmed and that we the fuel-using people are the primary reason of the warming. As MacDonald called for in 1969, we have placed a lot of emphasis on climate and environmental research, and the results of that research have provided actionable information – knowledge. We look at that knowledge in eye and, as a society, we deny it. We look away. Perhaps, if we look away then it is not really there.
Looking forward to the 2012 election, I don’t expect that climate change will be an oft articulated issue. The issue out front will be jobs, and the prominent link will be made between the exploitation of fossil fuels, new jobs, and energy security. Our approach to climate change will remain quietly in the hands of those savvy enough to use the unique knowledge provided by climate projections and those post-government truth tellers who no longer have to look away.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index
The last month with below average temperatures was February, 1985, making January the 323rd consecutive one above the normal. The last year below normal was 1976, 35 years ago.
FWIW if we use HADCRUT3 it is February 1994 at -0.090 or HADCRUT3v it is February 1994 at -0.072 or CRUTEM3 it is April 1996 at -0.003 or CRUTEM3v it is February 1994 at -0.152.
BTW as I have said if you ever need help don't hesitate to ask
Also just remember 3 little words I WAS WRONG it is ok to be wrong sometimes. I know your track record for the past few days here has not been good but cowboy up you little buckaroo it will get better. LMFAO
For the sake of argument, since I seem to be unable to resist spending my quit-smoking breaks on this blog, I will respond. It is difficult to know where to start though.
1. Ok, spelling first. Spelling is, imho, one of the stupidest skills there is. I leave this for future argument but I really couldn't care less about that.
2. Forget about the constitiushon for the moment, if you think the president doesn't have the pwoer to create jobs, you are wrong. Period.
3. I have never read the constitution. Seriously, I have tried a few times but after the first page or so, in terms of boring, it ranks up there with the US tax code and symbolic logic. I find any burocracy (of which spelling is part) hugely boring.
4. Readign the constitution and understanding it are hugely different things. I think I understand it much better than you do, witness your claim that the president cannot create/destroy jobs.
5. Finally, there is no correspondence between reading/understanding the constitution and being someone America is proud/ashamed of. I am sure Newt gingrich has read and understands the constitution much better than either of us. Similarly, Jane Fonda, Ted Bundy, most lawyers, Dick Cheney and a lot of other cowards/hypocrits have read the constitution and understand it better than either you or me.
Likewise, Babe Ruth, Marilyn Monroe, Jim Bridger, Steve Reeves, Niel Cassidy, ee cummings, many many soldiers etc. have probably never read the constitution. I could be wrong about who has and hasn't read it (e.g. George Bush - has he read it? Who knows) but the point is that being a good American has little to do with who read the constitution or not.
You have some luck though. Thought you have read the constitution, you are still young enough that you may yet do something that makes American proud of you.
"Combining the monthly global land and ocean temperatures, November ranked as the 12th warmest November since records began, at 0.45C (0.81F) above average, making this the 26th consecutive November and 321st consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985."
The January, 2012, report will be out within the next week, and the part that says "321st" will be updated to state "323rd".
Just look to his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. Anyone who is a member of that organization has not the rights and freedoms of the American people at heart.
Link
Gingrich is a corrupt, lying, hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, self-promoting, do-anything-to-get-elected conservative. I'm not sure what would ever make anyone think any true liberal/progressive would like him.
Do you have any climate information to post here? If not, leave.
Newt is, and has always been, for Newt. Neapolitan is quite correct in his claiming Newt is a conservative. Newt campaigns on that he is the true conservative and that he is the one that should run against Obama. Newt lacks the moral integrity one would hope that even a town dog catcher would have. Newt probably is right when he claims to be a conservative. After all, these days, a conservative is anything that the lobbyist want them to be. Newt fits that description quite well. Yes, the liberals will also cater to the lobbyist but, not anywhere near the degree that the conservatives have. The liberals have never had, to my knowledge, any entities as nearly organized and influential as Jack Abramoff and "The K Street Boys".
Who drove the effort to end the Glass-Steagall Act? - (Phil Gramm(R) - U.S. Senator, from Texas)
Here is all you need to know for your future job titles " Would you like to try one of our combo meals today" With the knowledge expressed in your post you will go far.
Although now when someone comes on here and cherry picks something to prove you wrong, I don't want to hear you claim cherry picking that would constitute hypocrisy and we all know you are not a hypocrite.
Kudos Sir
To be totally accurate, the final version of the repealing bill was bipartisan to the point of being veto-proof, as noted below:
From here, near the end.
The vote totals mentioned in previous relevant posts were the totals for the prior Senate and House versions of the bill, which both passed and were consolidated into the final compromise version. It was that version that was revoted on in both the Senate and House and subsequently signed into law.
Sound familiar? ;-)
I do not remember all of the details but, Phil Gramm had attached a ryder to a spending bill.
Phil Gramm kills Glass-Steagall Act Clinton did not have the line item veto power at this time. The Supreme Court had already ruled line-item vetoes unconstitutional. Another of the many mistakes made by the Supremes.
The "vote" was on a spending bill!!! The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was a nearly single handed effort led by then Senator Phil Gramm when he attached a ryder to the Senate spending bill and, if I remember correctly, he attached this ryder after the House/Senate final vote on the spending bill. Read the link, in my previous post. ... Some may wish to hide the efforts of Phil Gramm and say that it was a bipartisan effort, but that would not, NOT be true. Clinton did not veto the spending bill, that Gramm had "hid" his ryder in, because he no longer had line item veto power to do so. He would have had to veto the entire spending bill. ... There were two politicians that I watched, like a hawk! Phil Gramm and Tom DeLay. Two of the most corrupt and vile politicians of our time!
I can't say that remember the details of it myself either, and I can't say that I "watched" Phil Gramm as close as you seem to, but I'm not sure that the repeal was inserted after the initial votes or that most of Congress was unaware of it; certainly, he didn't insert it into the House version, as he wasn't in the House.
Anyway, if I remember correctly (I would need to look it up), I do think that there was quite some discussion at the time about the Glass-Seagall Act being repealed and what some possible consequences would be. I also seem to recall that the Glass-Seagall Act had already been significantly weakened by a series of Federal Reserve Board actions prior to its repeal.
Again, I would have to look it up, but I doubt the repeal of Glass-Steagall could really be attributed to one party, or indeed, one person. I'm quite sure that there was bipartisan interest in repealing it long before 1999.
United States re-enters the nuclear age
Commentary: Go-ahead ends 30-year freeze on new reactors.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Southern Co. won approval Thursday to break ground on two new nuclear reactors in Georgia.
The permits, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, mark the first time in three decades the United States has given the go-ahead to a new nuclear-power plant. Read about Southern's NRC permits.
The event is being called historic by the power industry — and anyone even remotely associated with the design, construction or maintenance of reactors.
One of the first positive signs under the current Administration concerning energy policy. GoBama.
Again I am going on memory but, there was discussion of the repeal and Gramm could not get enough support for the repeal. This is when he decided to slip it into the spending bill as a ryder. Clever Boy!! I agree that Gramm did not act alone. He was, however, the main driving force behind it and it was his efforts that got it repealed. There was a LOT MORE discussion AFTER everyone found out what had happened. .. Do you remember that part?
leads to this!
Brasov, Romania
News of shocking death toll and whole regions shut off from the rest of the world by snow and closed roads and railways have dominated headlines from Eastern Europe in recent days. But even as officials struggle to respond to extreme temperatures, many people are forging ahead with daily life, fortified by years of experience and hot drinks.
Temperatures have hit 100-year lows in some parts of the region, nearing minus-25 degrees F., well below the usual level. The death toll across the region now tops 200 – roughly 30 in Poland, 22 in Romania, at least 10 in Bulgaria, and more than 160 in Ukraine, where many people reportedly froze to death on the streets. In Serbia, almost 12,000 people are said to be isolated, trapped in remote villages and farmsteads.
Maybe...I also noticed that Gramm was involved in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 too.
I have to admit that I'm rapidly losing interest in looking though. The only thing worse than researching politics is researching 10-year old politics.
Maybe I'll look more at it later tonight.
* * *
Anyway, concerning efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall, as well the Fed Reserve's actions to weaken it, I did find the following summary.
The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall.
Interesting read, and I'm sure you'll approve of the source. Remarkable some of the sites you'll pull up researching politics--not that I'm sure the PBS link is totally unbiased, but it seems reasonably balanced.
No your not really wrong. Records before 1950 are poor to say the least. They contained very little info on the tropic's temp and virtually none in Africa, so how can you really imply accuracy for anything really prior to the sat era for the globe? You really can't with any level of confidence. How did they even calculate the temperatures over the oceans pre-ARGO? Like a hair in the swimming pool from a boat over the same area everytime? LOL
We currently are globally below average now for the Sat era.
This was an excellent post dealing with temperature anomaly records.
How reliable are global temperature “anomalies” ?
Lets have a peek at active stations and their longevity. Not like the infamous newly created stations capturing record highs all the time like many embellish here eh?
Recent
Yep, I am going to have the utmost confidence in our comparative analysis going way way back in time on a global scale. I don't think so folks. Where are those missing data points?
Long term
I see that Arctic Sea ice area is at a new low for the day, and more than a quarter of a million km2 lower than it was last year on this date--and remember, last year set a new record. The death spiral definitely continues, wouldn't you say? Scientists are predicting another new low this year, and now some are tentatively calling for a loss of all summer ice by as early as 2015...
Oh, did you see those temps in Alaska? Canada? The European coast of the North Sea? Record warmth in places. Rain above the Arctic Circle in February.
Pretty amazing, inna?
I wonder whatever could that mean... ;-)
Here's an ironclad guarantee: come 2012, they'll have to remove the 1981-1990 decade, and add the one we're currently in--and it won't come even close to normalizing things.
Let us start with the annual global analysis from 1997 with a baseline of 1961-1990. Here is the link to their graph.Link notice if you will the anomaly is 0.42.
Now lets look at the annual global analysis for 1998 Link notice now the temp anomaly for 1997 is now a little over 0.50 and every line went up, how could this happen. BTW the 1998 graph still holds today.Link this graph is from their 2011 annual report
Answer by changing the baseline from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000. This big change (-0.0835) will make it appear about 20% warmer. Nice trick
To check and see if this stands up lets check their monthly temp anomalies with a baseline of 1901-2000. Link Now lets take all the anomalies from 1997 and add them up. What do we get for an answer 0.5035 or what is shown on their graphs after 1997
Conclusion after 1997 they changed their baseline from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000 and changed every graph after 1997 but forgot about 1997 and left it up on their site. FNG mistake
FWIW just for fun lets take the -0.0835 and deduct it from the (new, after 1997) February 1994 anomaly of 0.0408 and we get a temp of -0.0427 this new number is now in line with Hadley (C.R.U) and below average just like HADCRUT3v (-0.0720) which also uses 1961-1990 for their baseline.
So how does this work again, please explain it to us all if you would.
It looks like street smarts just took book smarts to school again
Do you know what they use 1971-2000 or 1981-2010 for? I do
Lets hear it Nea I WAS WRONG. They did not remove 1971-1980 nor did they add 2001-2010. What they did add was 1901-1960 and 1991-2000 to 1961-1990 for a base period of 1901-2000 which makes for a clear warming (anomaly) bias.
I consider PBS to be far more unbiased than most news programs. Unbiased, in the sense that they bring both sides of the issue into the story. How accurate is the presentation of the sides??? THAT is what one has to discover for themselves. I do not expect either side of the presentation to unbiased and completely truthful. PBS does allow me to hear both sides and to discover which side has better represented the truth of the story.
I did find the article to be an interesting read. Alan Greenspan's prior success in limiting Glass-Seagall also comes back to my mind. Alan Greenspan was a firm believer in deregulation. He believed that the markets would police themselves. After the melt down of 2007, he admitted that he overestimated the ability of the markets to police themselves and underestimated the amount of greed in the financial markets.
img src="
I am doing great, nymore. I have been very busy the past week. How have you been doing? ... I wonder if the worker that quit on your job, because of his distaste for cold and snow, is now shaking his head for leaving?
Greenspan what a scumbag, his own arrogance along with others destroyed Brooksley Born who used to head the CFTC commodity futures trading commission and who warned them in the late '90s of the problem with derivative trading. She warned them about the financial collapse and they had her run out of town on a rail.
That is true.
The last time we spoke, you were heading out to do some ice fishing with the family. How was the trip?
I am glad to hear that. I have heard that Walleye are a great fish for eating. ... Can you email me one? ;-)
Hopefully, we can plan a trip together someday. Nothing is better than fresh fish!
Sooo,,,,,, the government provided data he used is wrong because of a customized (and noted as such) polynomial problem ? We are not below normal then based on the UAH data because your imageshack picture says something different. Thkso?
I often wonder about how the cloud would react to a Carrington Event as opposed to worrying about AGWT. If it happened, even your PCO2 footprint would shrink :)
I would be ready, you?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-n asa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/
LOL, I gotta see this movie now!
TruthDig.com Link
(I don't brake for trolls)
Viewing: 151 - 198
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index