Climate Climate & Energy

Helpful hints for global warming deniers

Many global warming deniers have moved on from denying the existence or human causes of global warming to denying it's worthwhile to do anything to mitigate it. "Burn all the fossil fuels you want", they suggest, "and adapt to the changes. Doing anything to reduce global warming is too expensive."

In a spirit of reconciliation, I thought I'd put forward some specific proposals to implement their approach.

On a planet with unchecked greenhouse warming, we would have a less predictable climate, warmer on average, but with unpredictable frosts and snowstorms -- some of them in places we currently don't get snow. Drought would alternate with floods. Insects would flourish on a warmer planet, and pests of all types would migrate. And of course storms would be worse than at present, as the average wind speed increased.

If a single new result clashes with the consensus, it’s wise to doubt it

Science is a collective, multi-layered process consisting of three steps. First is the individual scientist testing hypotheses according to the norms of their field. Second, the results of the individual scientist undergo peer-review and are published for the community to evaluate. At this point a result may be considered preliminary, but not proven.

Third, important claims are then re-tested in the "crucible of science" -- they are either reproduced by independent scientific groups or they have their implications tested to insure consistency with the existing body of scientific knowledge. After enough tests/reproductions, a consensus emerges that the idea is correct.

Not — yet, anyway

I know there are Gristmill readers with high hopes for algae-based biofuels. They will enjoy this piece in Popular Mechanics. Here’s the hope: Solix addresses these problems [algae’s finicky growing habits] by containing the algae in closed “photobioreactors” — triangular chambers made from sheets of polyethylene plastic (similar to a painter’s dropcloth) — and bubbling […]

May become U.S.’s first large offshore wind project

This just in: the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has weighed in on Cape Wind's Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), saying that it "adequately and properly complies" with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. The project can now advance to the state permitting process. I believe it is the first U.S. offshore wind project to have a certified final environmental impact document.

How high and how fast?

How high and fast will sea levels rise? An important piece (PDF) by Stefan Rahmstorf in Science concludes:

A rise of over 1 m by 2100 for strong warming scenarios cannot be ruled out, because all that such a rise would require is that the linear relation of the rate of sea-level rise and temperature, which was found to be valid in the 20th century, remains valid in the 21st century.

Dave Morris summary on problems with carbon trading

Dave Morris: "Problems with Carbon Trading."

An outline of his argument:

1. Buying offsets encourages complacency.
2. Carbon trading is inherently susceptible to fraud and manipulation.
3. Carbon trading encourages cheating and rewards low-cost cosmetic changes while undermining higher cost innovation.
4. Carbon trading separates authority and responsibility, undermining coherent, holistic, community-based efforts.
5. We have alternatives -- carbon taxes, and caps without trading.

Read the whole thing.

A Fine Discovery

Some coral may be resistant to acidification, reefs still doomed The world’s oceans are on track to be more acidic by 2100 than they’ve been for 20 million years, thanks to our fiendish friend carbon dioxide. But research by Israeli scientists shows that the coral polyps living in underwater reefs may be able to survive, […]

And the Miliband Played On

Despite talk of cuts, U.K. carbon emissions on the rise It’s too bad surging emissions aren’t cause for joy. Because then the Brits would be dancing right now instead of tearing each other new ones. But alas: data show that U.K. carbon emissions rose 1.25 percent last year, to the highest level since the Labor […]

But does he have to use the word ‘solartopia’?

This short piece from Harvey Wasserman gets pretty much everything right — and by "right" I mean, "in agreement with me." My only quibble is that he spends too much time bashing nukes, and bashing them for the wrong reasons (wrong effective-messaging-wise, not necessarily substance-wise). I’d prefer he bash them because they’re more expensive and […]

We need to rethink all food based biofuels

The lion's share of biofuel bashing on Grist deals with corn ethanol, because we Americans primarily use gasoline for our cars and ethanol runs fine in them, with few modifications. However, our pals in Europe drive a lot of diesel cars and the biofuel crisis over there revolves primarily around biodiesel. I think it is time we recognize that their problem is also our problem. A comment from Pcarbo alerted me to Monbiot's latest take on biofuels. He has now gone so far as to propose a ...

... moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to make fuel from palm oil or sugar cane.