Uncategorized

There is no negative feedback in the climate system

The small number of credible skeptics out there (e.g., Spencer, Lindzen) have spent much of the last decade searching for a negative feedback in our climate system. If a sufficiently big one is found, then it would suggest that warming over the next century may well be small.

Most climate scientists, however, are reasonably certain that a negative feedback big enough to overwhelm the well-known positive feedbacks in the climate system, such as the water vapor feedback [PDF], does not exist. Why?

Negative feedbacks tend to dampen out climate change. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or the sun brightens, then the hypothetical negative feedback will counteract the warming, leaving the climate nearly unchanged. While it may be comforting to believe that a negative feedback exists, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the existence of a big negative feedback with our past observations of climate variability.

For example, the ice ages rely on a carbon dioxide feedback to provide their large amplitude. If there were a big negative feedback in the system, then how do you explain the large swings in to and out of ice ages? No way that I know of.

Similarly, the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum is also thought to be the result of a huge release of greenhouse gases. With a large negative feedback in the system, how do you explain the rapid temperature rise during that event?

Texas journalist paddles Gulf Coast to show shifty ecosystem and toxic threats

I've canoed beneath freeway overpasses in Seattle's Union Bay, but I somehow never undertook anything like this: San Antonio Express-News reporter Colin McDonald is kayaking the length of the Texas Gulf Coast, some 370 miles of alternating natural shoreline and industrialized landscape. He's blogging about the journey at Uncharted Coast, so named because the constantly shifting line between land and water has frustrated map-makers for centuries.

Having so far avoided the barges and tanker ships that ply the coastal shipping lanes, McDonald documents the unholy mix of wildlife diversity and intensive industrial use. He encounters a lot of remaining damage from Hurricane Ike and chats up locals who regale him with tales of pirates (of the insurance company variety, but still).

It's a nice bit of explanatory journalism that shows just how little separates resort-lined beaches from toxic sites like the McGinnes storage pits. McDonald also wrote an overview of the trip for the Express-News.

We must strive to meet the U.N.'s low population projection of 8 billion by 2041

Some 43 countries around the world now have populations that are either essentially stable or declining slowly. In countries with the lowest fertility rates, including Japan, Russia, Germany, and Italy, populations will likely decline somewhat over the next half-century. A larger group of countries has reduced fertility to the replacement level or just below. They are headed for population stability after large numbers of young people move through their reproductive years. Included in this group are China and the United States. A third group of countries is projected to more than double their populations by 2050, including Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Uganda.

United Nations projections show world population growth under three different assumptions about fertility levels. The medium projection, the one most commonly used, has world population reaching 9.2 billion by 2050. The high one reaches 10.8 billion. The low projection, which assumes that the world will quickly move below replacement-level fertility to 1.6 children per couple, has population peaking at just under 8 billion in 2041 and then declining. If the goal is to eradicate poverty, hunger, and illiteracy, and lessen pressures on already strained natural resources, we have little choice but to strive for the lower projection.

Slowing world population growth means that all women who want to plan their families should have access to the family planning services they need. Unfortunately, at present 201 million couples cannot obtain the services they need. Former U.S. Agency for International Development official J. Joseph Speidel notes that "if you ask anthropologists who live and work with poor people at the village level ... they often say that women live in fear of their next pregnancy. They just do not want to get pregnant." Filling the family planning gap may be the most urgent item on the global agenda. The benefits are enormous and the costs are minimal.

Sierra Club delivers 'Coal is not the answer' slogans to ACCCE

Is clean coal as oxymoronic (and just plain moronic) as healthy cigarettes? Natalie of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network thinks so. She and others irked by the ubiquitous misinformation of the clean-coal lobby joined the Sierra Club to deliver more than 5,000 anti-coal slogans to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. The Sierra Club's contest for catchy coal smack-downs resulted in the top 10 slogans, including "Coal: Party like it's 1899!" and "Coal: It will take your breath away." The slogans are being featured on a digital billboard-on-wheels, alongside pictures from the Tennessee coal ash spill.

Watch the Sierra Club delivering all the slogans to the ACCCE:

Colbert on cost-benefit analysis

How does he do it? Volume!

One other headline from Inauguration Day

This just in: Scientists say human-induced global warming is real.

Efficiency in the Obama economic revitalization plan

The long green? That's money -- and you all know what "going green" is about ...

Everyone keeps asking the members of President Barack Obama's energy and environment team if the U.S. can "afford" their agenda in light of the economic condition of the nation. (Witness the Washington Post interview with Carol Browner as one example.)

Silly question ... and they get simplistic answers, such as "we will." It's a silly question because it assumes a conflict that isn't there, as do the typical mainstream surveys of public opinion. The New York Times reports on Jan. 18:

Given a choice between stimulating the economy and protecting the environment, 58 percent of Americans said it was more important to stimulate the economy, compared with 33 percent who chose protecting the environment. In April 2007, 36 percent said it was more important to stimulate the economy, compared with 52 percent who chose the environment.

That's a false, unnecessary choice; and simply posing the proposition may generate opposition to the most rational course of action, which is not making the choice.

The way out lies through applying a little concept in economics that many in the environmental community have tended to abhor, at least until attention became focused on energy consumption: efficiency.

Pursuit of efficiency came to be associated with exploitation of workers, despoliation of landscapes and environments, abandonment of community roots and commitments, and many abusive actions of companies large and small in the 20th century.

But most climate change agendas today start with the pursuit of what everyone seems to agree is the low-hanging fruit of efforts to lower emissions: energy efficiency. Many who challenged the necessity of efficiency in the past are now trying to increase it today and into the future.

What gives?

Will Congress get a whiff and vote to clean up dirty diesel engines?

The Washington Post has an interesting note about the armada of diesel buses that have rolled into the nation's capital for the Obama inauguration -- and the need to clean them up.

The opportunity for the "policy change" described in the piece could be at hand as soon as the day after the inauguration, Wednesday, Jan. 21, when the House Appropriations Committee takes up the economic recovery bill. The committee already recognized the desire to include the cleanup of existing diesel engines as part of the stimulus bill. See the bottom of page 4 of the House plan [PDF], which includes $300 million for a diesel green jobs program.

Photos from Plug In America's inaugural parade

Saturday morning, EV RIDRs and Obamamaniacs converged on the Santa Monica Civic Center to advocate for electric vehicles and celebrate President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration. The Inaugural (EV) Parade West, led by Plug in America, attracted over 70 electric and hybrid vehicles to zoom the city streets in PEBO's honor. Four Tesla Roadsters, 40 Toyota RAV-4 EVs, one converted Porsche Speedster, and even one converted EV Hummer H2 (!?) joined the festivities.

(To the New York Times editorial board: I believe these are the folks who will drive Detroit's fuel-efficient and electric vehicles. That is, once they are actually available.)

Check out some parade photos below the fold.

Advertising Standards Authority in U.K. banned a Renewable Fuels Association ad

Last year, when oil prices were peaking, OPEC President Chakib Khelil told an Algerian newspaper that "the intrusion of bioethanol on the market" was responsible for 40 percent of the rise in oil prices -- an asinine, unsubstantiated remark that nobody believed.

The Renewable Fuels Association saw this as an opportunity to promote their own environmentally destructive product with equally asinine, unsubstantiated remarks in an open letter to OPEC. However, George Monbiot complained to the Advertising Standards Authority in the U.K., who subsequently banned the ad. He didn't like their use of the word "sustainable."

I'm not aware of an American equivalent of the ASA, but we sure could use one.