New study on global warming and hurricanes

The report from the National Academy of Sciences was not the only climate study released today. A pair of scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research released a study -- to be published in the coming issue of Geophysical Research Letters -- that purports to show that the majority of the warming of ocean waters that led to the horrendous hurricane season of 2005 is attributable to global warming.

Sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic in 2005 were an average of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1900-1970 average:

Made to Break reveals the roots of our throwaway culture

What could be more American than reaching for something new? The U.S. is, after all, a nation founded on the...

A “simple remedy” for global warming

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth has been criticized for not offering enough ideas to solve global warming. But his documentary has not only far exceeded box office expectations, grossing three times the early estimates already; it has also brought in waves of new ideas from well-known thinkers in a variety of fields.

As long as global warming was thought to be a murky scientific controversy, so-called opinion leaders could safely ignore the subject. But now that -- as science reporter Eugene Linden remarked in an interview a couple of months ago -- "the naysayers and deniers are starting to look more and more like idiots," the experts are scrambling for unclaimed ground on which to plant their flag and show their smarts.

Gore links

Over on Salon, Katharine Mieszkowski takes a look at the science in An Inconvenient Truth, chats with some climate scientists, and concludes that Gore more or less got everything right.

ThinkProgress dismantles the right-wing canard -- most recently passed along by George Will -- that there's wide scientific disagreement over humans' role in global warming.

'Winger Debra Saunders struggles mightily to revive the familiar media narrative of Al Gore as narcissist and serial exaggerator. Anonymous Liberal debunks some of the more egregious factual errors and ruminates on the narrative that seemingly won't die.

Once the media has settled on a narrative, it is very hard to change it. Al Gore's recent re-emergence into the national spotlight has resulted in some uncharacteristically favorable press coverage. But Gore's conservative detractors, like Saunders and the National Review's Jonah Goldberg are trying very hard to reassert the old Gore narratives. And mainstream journalists (and even liberal commentators like Frank Rich) have demonstrated recently that the old Gore narratives still shape their views of the man.

But I'm cautiously optimistic that this phenomenon can be more effectively combatted and contained in the future. The reason for my optimism is the emergence of the blogosphere as a factor in American politics.

Let's hope. As AL points out, Daily Howler is the place to go for tireless debunking of these tired narratives.

NAS hockey stick report

So the big climate news today is the release of a report by the National Academy of Sciences (coverage from: AP; NYT; WaPo; MSNBC; NPR; Boston Globe). It's being spun every which way, but at its root it's (yet another) confirmation of basic global warming science.

You've probably heard of the climate "hockey stick." It's a graph from a study led by Penn State's Michael Mann that shows global average temperatures sharply spiking in recent years. A couple of guys named Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick -- a statistician and an economist, respectively -- took issue with the study and claimed that Mann had cherry-picked his data and his statistical tools to produce the result he wanted.

In recent years, the hockey stick has become a cause célèbre among right-wing global warming denialists. It is mentioned with mind-numbing regularity by every crank given the keys to an op-ed page, and has become something of a white whale-style obsession for the Mayor of Cranktown, Sen. James Inhofe.

A new exhibit lets New Orleans residents tell their own stories

In the beginning of July, I arrived in New Orleans for an internship at the Louisiana Bucket Brigade. I met...

The Army Corps of Engineers is the real culprit behind New Orleans’ devastation

The fate of this navigation channel on the Louisiana coast, shown in 1970 (left) and 2001, offered a glimpse of...

The Supreme Court’s carbon-dioxide case

In October, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a case of extraordinary significance: whether or not the feds can regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. While enviros (and a dozen states) have been trying to push the case to SCOTUS for a while, they are nonetheless nervous. The court has been substantially made over with the recent additions of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but nobody's entirely sure how exactly it's changed. Muddled decisions like the recent one on the Clean Water Act do not portend victory, or even clarity. (More on this from Carl Pope.)

Two questions are at issue. Quoting from the appeal (PDF):

1. Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1).
2. Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under section 202(a)(1).

In other words, can the EPA regulate CO2, and if it can, is it required to. That's simple enough, but I've not seen much in-depth analysis of what the ramifications various rulings might be. In the unlikely event the court rules that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2, and must use that authority, it would be epochal. But what about various splits?

What jobs are included in the environmental field?

As director of program development at The Environmental Careers Organization, Kevin Doyle knows a thing or two about job searching. In this recurring column for Grist, he explores the green job market and offers advice to eco-job-seekers looking to jumpstart their careers.

I received an email the other day from a professor who wanted fresh, expert-certified information about the green job scene. (No snickering about the abysmally low standards for "expert" status, please.) His college planned to offer a new environmental studies degree, and the state legislators wanted to know whether graduates would become gainfully employed in exchange for their four years and $80,000. Picky, picky, picky.

"It'll be a slam dunk!" the prof answered. "Employers will greet our graduates like liberators, throwing flowers at their feet when they enter the lobby!" It was a powerfully convincing argument, but unlike some government leaders we can think of, the governor required actual data before ponying up the taxpayer's cash. This is the kind of limited, inside-the-box, "reality-based" leadership our nation's professors must contend with.

At any rate, an academically rigorous search for verifiable numbers set sail. (Translation: an intern typed keywords into Google.) Immediately, the project ran into an iceberg of a question: How does one define "environmental" jobs in 2006?