Australian PM urged to rethink climate 'policy' after hottest year on record: @guardian http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/03/abbott-urged-to-rethink-climate-policy … #divest
Sunny Sierra raises chilling drought fears: @SFGate http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Sunny-Sierra-raises-chilling-drought-fears-5109706.php … #California #climate #water #divest
Climate change: It's hot - & not just in kitchens of bickering MPs: @smh http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-its-hot--and-not-just-in-the-kitchens-of-bickering-mps-20140103-309jl.html … #globalwarming #divest
Climate Change Could Put 1/5 Of World's Population In Severe Water Shortage: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/03/3113981/climate-change-water-shortage/ … #drought #divest
Australia Rings In New Year with Record-Breaking Heat Wave: @climateprogress http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/02/3111171/australia-new-year-heat-wave/ … #climate #divest
Donald Trump's Hair, The End Of Global Warming and Other Things That Aren't Real: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/02/3112791/time-2014-hottest-year-record/ … #climate #divest
RT ClimateNexusHotNews @ClimateHotNews: Joe Romm catches WSJ whopper: Paper Claims ‘Liberals No Longer Refer To Global Warming Because Winter Is Cold' http://bit.ly/1d5QnbS
RT craigjack36 @craigjack36: If one boat stuck in 1 bit of ice proves there is no global warming One boat stuck in a desert proves there is: http://pic.twitter.com/wFzvOW787H
Cattle producers on lookout for heat stress: @ABCRural http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-02/nrn-heat-stress-02-01-14/5182142#.UsXzoHp_q0g.twitter … #globalwarming #Australia #climate #divest
Showing posts with label joe romm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label joe romm. Show all posts
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Sunday, April 21, 2013
When 'head-on' isn't really
"City tackles climate change head-on" reads a recent article in the La Crosse, Wis., Tribune. Sounds exciting, doesn't it? But the story that follows is a letdown--enough so to inspire this brief blog post.
What La Crosse is doing:
- Hosting a climate change workshop "to build consensus about pragmatic adaptations authorities can make to changing weather." I assume this involved some serious dissemination of information about climate change's impact, so that's a good thing.
- Adding more green spaces on the city's south side to handle the runoff from heavy rain events.
- And ... that's it. Oh, perhaps not--the story makes a point of noting that La Crosse "made clear in its application that climate change a distinct challenge to [its] future."
And that seems to be the point of the headline: the city actually came right out and said, in effect, that it thinks climate change is real.
That too is a good thing, but in fact, "tackling climate change head-on" means, in the simplest of terms, reducing fossil fuel use. Everything else is just papering over the problem. In this instance (the extra green space), it's a little like giving someone with a broken arm aspirin, because his arm hurts.
Energy efficiency and non-fossil energy, as much as possible, as soon as possible, is what we need to do, or as Joe Romm puts it, "deployment, deployment, deployment" of technologies that reduce fossil fuel use. As Mr. Romm puts it here:
"The crucial climate strategy is aggressive deployment of every last bit of available low-carbon technology starting ASAP. Anyone who isn’t in favor of that strategy understands neither climate science nor the current state of clean energy. Sadly, that covers most of the traditional media and so-called intelligentsia."
What La Crosse is doing:
- Hosting a climate change workshop "to build consensus about pragmatic adaptations authorities can make to changing weather." I assume this involved some serious dissemination of information about climate change's impact, so that's a good thing.
- Adding more green spaces on the city's south side to handle the runoff from heavy rain events.
- And ... that's it. Oh, perhaps not--the story makes a point of noting that La Crosse "made clear in its application that climate change a distinct challenge to [its] future."
And that seems to be the point of the headline: the city actually came right out and said, in effect, that it thinks climate change is real.
That too is a good thing, but in fact, "tackling climate change head-on" means, in the simplest of terms, reducing fossil fuel use. Everything else is just papering over the problem. In this instance (the extra green space), it's a little like giving someone with a broken arm aspirin, because his arm hurts.
Energy efficiency and non-fossil energy, as much as possible, as soon as possible, is what we need to do, or as Joe Romm puts it, "deployment, deployment, deployment" of technologies that reduce fossil fuel use. As Mr. Romm puts it here:
"The crucial climate strategy is aggressive deployment of every last bit of available low-carbon technology starting ASAP. Anyone who isn’t in favor of that strategy understands neither climate science nor the current state of clean energy. Sadly, that covers most of the traditional media and so-called intelligentsia."
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Meltdown continues: 2012 breaking Arctic records
Not too long ago (July 17, to be exact), I wrote here:
"'7. The Arctic Ocean is projected to become nearly ice-free in summer within this century, likely within the next thirty to forty years.' [It's not hard to find people on the Web, who know what they are talking about, who believe this will happen before 2020. While 2012 is, at this writing, on a record pace for Arctic sea ice melt, it remains to be seen whether a new ultimate summer low will result. What we can say, however, is that there has been no recovery from the 2007 summer low, which was sharply lower than the summer lows in previous years going back to 1979 (when measurements began). You can check out sea ice area through this wonderful interactive graphic, which provides data by day and year. You can "erase" years by clicking on them at the right, and if you erase back to 2007, you will see that the summer low was roughly 3 million square kilometers, almost exactly a whopping 25% below the low of 4 million reached in 2006.]"
While all the results are not in yet, and won't be until the potential melting season ends next month, 2012 has now erased the 2007 lows for Arctic sea ice area. As of today, the ice area reported in Cryosphere Today graphic linked to above stands at 2.65 million square kilometers, well below the '07 low of 2.92 million. The Arctic Sea Ice blog, which appears in the blog list on the right side of this page, has very deep coverage of Cryosphere Today and the several other ongoing measurements of sea ice (extent, area, volume, etc.). All of the groups measuring except one are now reporting new records.
What does this mean to us? Joe Romm explores the question in a blog at Climate Progress (otherwise known as the climate section of ThinkProgress): "In particular, a 2012 Geophysical Research Letters study, “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes,” finds that the loss of Arctic ice favors “extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.”
"'7. The Arctic Ocean is projected to become nearly ice-free in summer within this century, likely within the next thirty to forty years.' [It's not hard to find people on the Web, who know what they are talking about, who believe this will happen before 2020. While 2012 is, at this writing, on a record pace for Arctic sea ice melt, it remains to be seen whether a new ultimate summer low will result. What we can say, however, is that there has been no recovery from the 2007 summer low, which was sharply lower than the summer lows in previous years going back to 1979 (when measurements began). You can check out sea ice area through this wonderful interactive graphic, which provides data by day and year. You can "erase" years by clicking on them at the right, and if you erase back to 2007, you will see that the summer low was roughly 3 million square kilometers, almost exactly a whopping 25% below the low of 4 million reached in 2006.]"
While all the results are not in yet, and won't be until the potential melting season ends next month, 2012 has now erased the 2007 lows for Arctic sea ice area. As of today, the ice area reported in Cryosphere Today graphic linked to above stands at 2.65 million square kilometers, well below the '07 low of 2.92 million. The Arctic Sea Ice blog, which appears in the blog list on the right side of this page, has very deep coverage of Cryosphere Today and the several other ongoing measurements of sea ice (extent, area, volume, etc.). All of the groups measuring except one are now reporting new records.
What does this mean to us? Joe Romm explores the question in a blog at Climate Progress (otherwise known as the climate section of ThinkProgress): "In particular, a 2012 Geophysical Research Letters study, “Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes,” finds that the loss of Arctic ice favors “extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.”
Monday, April 16, 2012
Justin Gillis on connecting the (climate change) dots
There's an excellent and very insightful Q&A interview with Justin Gillis, the New York Times reporter who recently won Columbia University's 2011 Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism, at the Columbia Journalism Review website.
Since I have complained previously about the Times' coverage of climate change (here, here, here, and probably other places as well), it's considerable comfort to know that Mr. Gillis has a largely similar view of what has been happening in the mainstream media on the issue. I'm really impressed with some of the things he has to say:
- "I started taking classes and the more I learned, the more I thought to myself, 'This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?'" (emphasis added)
- "One thing I’m seeing—and I see it in our own paper as well as many other news outlets—is that people are covering the crazy weather we’re having and, more often than not, dodging the subject of whether there’s any relationship to climate change. TV weathermen are dodging that subject. Print reporters are dodging the subject ... [I]t’s a bit of a scandal that there’s not enough connecting the dots for people." (emphasis added)
Hear, hear!
My enthusiasm is only tempered by a few things. First, Mr. Gillis essentially waves away a goof in one of his recent stories, which included a paragraph about "climate researchers who question the scientific consensus about global warming ..." and in the very next paragraph quoted Myron Ebell, who is described as a "climate skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute." This unfortunate combination suggested that Mr. Ebell is a climate researcher, when in fact he is an economist--and an economist who works for a group that has run TV ads extolling the virtues of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas associated with global warming.
Since I have complained previously about the Times' coverage of climate change (here, here, here, and probably other places as well), it's considerable comfort to know that Mr. Gillis has a largely similar view of what has been happening in the mainstream media on the issue. I'm really impressed with some of the things he has to say:
- "I started taking classes and the more I learned, the more I thought to myself, 'This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?'" (emphasis added)
- "One thing I’m seeing—and I see it in our own paper as well as many other news outlets—is that people are covering the crazy weather we’re having and, more often than not, dodging the subject of whether there’s any relationship to climate change. TV weathermen are dodging that subject. Print reporters are dodging the subject ... [I]t’s a bit of a scandal that there’s not enough connecting the dots for people." (emphasis added)
Hear, hear!
My enthusiasm is only tempered by a few things. First, Mr. Gillis essentially waves away a goof in one of his recent stories, which included a paragraph about "climate researchers who question the scientific consensus about global warming ..." and in the very next paragraph quoted Myron Ebell, who is described as a "climate skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute." This unfortunate combination suggested that Mr. Ebell is a climate researcher, when in fact he is an economist--and an economist who works for a group that has run TV ads extolling the virtues of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas associated with global warming.
Mr. Gillis's comment on this? "I suppose that in retrospect, given how much complaint there was, I wish I had made clear that Ebell is not a scientist, but an economist. I had quoted him many times before and know who he is, what he does, and what perspective he represents." But, of course, it's not enough that Mr. Gillis knows who Mr. Ebell is--that's essential information, bearing directly on Mr. Ebell's credibility, that should be shared with readers.
I noticed this reference when I read the story and was disturbed (actually, pissed would be more accurate) by it. Joe Romm noticed it also, and wrote a post at ClimateProgress titled False Balance Lives at the New York Times, which perhaps accounts for the second thing that bothered me--Mr. Gillis taking a swing at Romm a bit later on in the CJR interview: "I think some people, like Joe Romm, would like us to send a bugler in a coat of mail around with the paper every morning playing taps and proclaiming that climate change is a problem."
Well, gosh, Mr. Gillis, if the media isn't going to do that job for us, who will? As you have correctly said, it's the biggest problem we have, and opinion polls make it clear that the public has no idea of its seriousness. I for one am really grateful for Joe and the folks at Skeptical Science who are keeping those of us concerned about global warming up to speed and doing battle daily with the incessant river of lies and distortions from those in denial about climate change.
Finally, my enthusiasm is restrained by the fact that the Times and most other papers continue to write about America's new-found abundance of fossil fuels with barely a whisper about global warming. I'll have more to say about this soon.
All of that being said, let me end on an up note--I appreciate Mr. Gillis and his efforts to bring more of a focus on climate change and its likely impacts, to one of the leading newspapers in America, and I wish him every success. The work he's been doing at the Times is critical, and God knows, we need all the help we can get.
Monday, April 9, 2012
'You may not be interested in climate change, but climate change is interested in you'
That's the best line in Tom Friedman's terrific column in today's New York Times, pointing out the climate-driven factors that have played an overlooked role in the political uprisings of the Arab Spring (food prices in Tunisia, water shortages in Yemen). Friedman references Joe Romm's excellent Climate Progress blog as well (congrats, Joe!) and concludes:
[W]e should all remember that quote attributed to Leon Trotsky: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." Well, you may not be interested in climate change, but climate change is interested in you.
Folks, this is not a hoax. We and the Arabs need to figure out — and fast — more ways to partner to mitigate the environmental threats where we can and to build greater resiliency against those where we can’t. Twenty years from now, this could be all that we’re talking about. [emphasis added]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)