Six Degrees:
"A must read for those who can stomach it"


"A must read for those who can stomach it" are words recently used by Stephan Rahmstorf Ph.D., a top notch climatologist at Potsdam University and contributor to realclimate.org. Recently he wrote a book review in Nature on Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet by Mark Lynas. Mark Lynas has spent months trawling through thousands of papers on climate change. The culmination of his research is a book of six chapters, each of which discusses the repercussions of every degree Celsius of potential impact for global warming. So if anyone has ever asked you "What is going to happen?" or "What are the consequences?" this is the book. In Rahmstorf's eyes the book is not perfect but it is still a work of exceptional quality:

His statements are referenced throughout, and, as a palaeoclimatologist, I was familiar with fewer than half of the 500 or so papers he cites. [snip] I have my quibbles with some of Lynas's interpretations and there is the odd error, but such complaints seem petty in view of the overall achievement and importance of this book. [snip] Gloomy as his story sounds, in some cases he may even be too optimistic. [snip] Lynas is a gripping story-teller, making the book infinitely less tedious than the papers it is based on. A must-read for those who can stomach it.

So if somebody asks you "why should I care?" this is apparently the book to read.

Source:
Nature, Degrees of change, BOOK REVIEWED-Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. by Mark Lynas, Stefan Rahmstorf
Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet

Hello and Goodbye Mr. Walrus

Recently Eli Rabett has reported on the opening of the Northwest Passage, a sea route for ships to travel from Europe to Asia via north of Canada. The Washington Post is reporting that the recent ice melt is unprecedented:

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, September sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000. Sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return, with a possible ice-free Arctic Ocean by summer 2030, senior scientist Mark Serreze said.

Clearly records are being broken. But one thing that has flown under the radar of most of the climate blogs is *why* this is important to those concerned about climate change.

#1 Predictions & Rate of Change

The first reason why this is important is the rate of change:

Deborah Williams _ who was an Interior Department special assistant for Alaska under former President Bill Clinton, and who is now president of the nonprofit Alaska Conservation Solutions _ said melting of sea ice and its effects on wildlife were never even discussed during her federal service from 1995 to 2000.

"That's what so breathtaking about this," she said. "This has all happened faster than anyone could have predicted.

In other words all of the worst case scenario predictions made pre-2000 have underestimated the impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change. This stands in stark contrast from the "fear monger" name calling coming out of the CFC's-don't-harm-ozone and Exxon funded Heartland Institute.

#2 Loss of Habitat

The second reason sea ice melt is important is was reported on yesterday in the Washington Post. Walruses are normally "spread over thousands of miles of sea ice" so they can dive down to eat clams, snails and other bottom dwellers. Floating ice is the perfect hunting ground for walruses as it act like a moving conveyor belt allowing them to rest between dives and catch lots of food. Yet the ice has receded to water deeper than their 630 foot diving range and so their natural habitat has literally disappeared. Now the thousands of walrus have picked Alaska's rocky beaches. The walrus has lost thousands of miles of hunting grounds, a natural conveyor belt of food and are not collected in one tiny spot. Clearly things are going to get rather uncomfortable for the walrus.

#3 Albedo

The third, and possibly most important, reason why ice melt is important is the albedo effect. Ice acts like a mirror and shines light back into space. When this ice is gone the ocean will absorb quit a bit more light. The effect is rather strong and during the ice ages the albedo effect was calculated to account for 2/3's of the cooling while CO2 was only 1/3. Melting ice can be a massive positive feedback for global warming.

Of course climate critics like Lubos Motl are praising this as a "Nature's gift". And so the debate starts to exit a scientific field and starts to enter a moral one.



Sources:

• Washington Post, Melting Ice Pack Displaces Alaska Walrus, October 7, 2007
• Ice Ages, solving the mystery, John Imbrie and Katherine Palmer Imbrie
• Shipping
  

Sending The Great Dragon Back to Gehenim:
A Feathered Friend Brings A Gift for Eli



Apparently Eli Rabbet isn't the only bunny fighting serpents (symbols of deception in the Bible). Ophioneus might have been a suitable metaphor since Eli loves to discuss Ethon, but pious literature from the Anno Domini epoch seemed to fit the situation with far more accuracy than classical antiquity.

Bugs of the Corn:
Our Government's Subsidized Killers


Corn-Ethanol is frequently touted as a solution to our energy problems. As discussed on logical science's main site there are some major problems with this statement and there are many professors and even nobel laureates that claim "it would be better if we just burnt oil." In addition to the long list of complaints with regard to corn-ethanols poor energy economics, lack of scalability and 'worse-than-oil'* CO2 problems there are also massive health concerns. One of these health concerns is the under appreciated killer known as E. Coli.

E. Coli can cause several intestinal and extra-intestinal infections such as urinary tract infections, meningitis, peritonitis, mastitis, septicemia and Gram-negative pneumonia. According to peer-review research this little bug is a horribly under appreciated and growing problem:

the pathogenic potential of different groups of E. coli strains for causing intestinal versus extraintestinal disease, and (iv) increasing antimicrobial resistance. In this era in which health news often sensationalizes uncommon infection syndromes or pathogens, the strains of E. coli that cause extraintestinal infection are an increasingly important endemic problem and underappreciated "killers". Billions of health care dollars, millions of work days, and hundreds of thousands of lives are lost each year to extraintestinal infections due to E. coli.

Clearly E. Coli carries massive economic implications. Michael Pollen, who is a New York Times Magazine writer and Berkeley Professor, wrote a book called The Omnivore's Dilemma. This book has been discussed by NPR as well as several higher ups at the USDA:

... a corn fed cow forms a slime covering the rumen which prevents gas from escaping. The treatment is to put a hose down their esophagus to let gas escape. This happens to some, but not all of corn fed cows. A more common problem is liver disease. If the cow eats too much corn in a short period of time, the rumen can become inflamed and ulcerate. Bacteria are able to enter the bloodstream from the rumen to cause a liver abscess. Although now the farmer has to treat the sick cow with antibiotics, it is still more economical to treat disease than offer a grazed diet.

It would also appear that the E. Coli experts at Lehigh Valley Hospital agree:

Q: How can I make sure the food I buy is safe?

A: Cattle that are fed grass instead of grain have less E. coli O157:H7 in their intestines, but most of the beef in supermarkets is from grain-fed cattle.

To make matters even worse all of this antibiotic usage is literally breeding super bugs. A study of 56 E. Coli strains from 20 years ago and 15 different antibiotics found that every antibiotic was effective against every strain of E.Coli. But times are changing. A recent study found that "All E. coli exhibited resistance to five or more [antibiotics]". Many scientists blame the overusage of antibiotics in agriculture as a major part of the problem. And some scientists are worried that farmyard E.Coli will serve as a reservoir for antibiotic resistance genes and these genes might be transfered to other bacteria. Another study found that E. coli O157:H7 actually releases more toxins when exposed to antibiotics. The researchers concluded that patients might be at a higher risk of developing the life threatening hemolytic uremic syndrome and kidney failure when treated with antibiotics. So if antibiotics must be used it is more important than ever to have quick acting drugs. Antibiotic resistance will make that feat much more difficult.

Recently the NYT's reported a 21.7 million pound beef recall due to E. coli O157:H7. While this is certainly a special case it would appear that meat recalls aren't exactly a rare event. A quick search of the web reveals a 25 million pound recall in 1997 and a 19 million pound recall in 2002. Now to make the matter even more complicated it appears that E. Coli in the fecal matter of cows can contaminate crops on farms. The FDA claims the antibiotic resistant E. Coli outbreak in spinach in 2006 has been linked to cattle:

FDA and the State of California announced October 12 that the test results for certain samples collected during the field investigation of the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in spinach are positive for E. coli O157:H7. Specifically, samples of cattle feces on one of the implicated ranches tested positive based on matching genetic fingerprints for the same strain of E. coli O157:H7 that sickened 204 people

So why are we feeding cows corn? Giant Miscanthus, a grass that can grow 13 feet high, is much easier and cheaper to grow than corn. It's even been trumpeted as a very promising bio-fuel.



Funding our nations corn and corn-ethanol industry isn't cheap. The NTU estimates every dollar of ethanol profit costs taxpayers $30 in subsidies. In 2002 congress approved a $190 billion farm-subsidy package with much of it going to corn. If you take away the multi-billion dollar corn-ethanol subsidies and add the costs of E. Coli related health care costs it would be interesting to see if corn could even come close to the economics of grass.

It's not just scientists that are attacking corn. Senator John McCain had also been on the offensive. Well, that is until it cost him the state of Iowa, a major corn growing state, when he ran against George W. Bush. In November 2003 McCain said:

"Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it … Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality."

Using surplus grain and corn cobs to supplement a natural grass diet and balance farming surplus is one thing but spending billions of tax dollars to feed cattle an almost exclusively unnatural diet when many scientists and even politicians claim that it does lots of harm and only benefits a select few is something entirely different. I don't have the time, money or manpower to perform a thorough analysis of this enormously complex situation to arrive at reasonably precise economic impact estimates. And e-mail communication with Berkeley Professor Tad Patzek has informed me that discussion of certain aspects of agriculture is discouraged. A bold claim but nothing worse than the widespread politicization and even blocking of research that has occurred in other fields. Maybe someone with ample resources will produce a Stern style report which will hand reporters more than enough ammo to report on the obvious.

Grass fed beef is supposed to be much healthier for you for nutritional reasons and many claim that it even tastes better. So maybe your local steak house and the average beef conisour will benefit from a switch to grass as well. But the most important thing is simply managing the high starch diet in a way that reduces the amount of antibiotics needed.




*Corn ethanols CO2 emissions are highly dependent upon the fuel used for brewing the beer, distillation (natural gas > coal), costs of transporting the corn over distances and many other factors.

Sources:

• ZillaFag's Unwelcome Visitor, 12/30/06
• USA : L' Escherichia Coli contamine les cultures et tue. L'eau fortement suspectée !
• L' Escherichia coli contamine les cultures en Californie.
• Antibiotic resistance of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and O157:NM isolated from animals, food, and humans., J Food Prot. 1998 Nov;61(11):1511-4. PMID: 9829195
• Pollan, Michael. (2006), The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals,
• NPR, Fresh Air [2002-04-03]:Michael Pollan on beef industry, hormones, antibiotic
• Food and Drug Administration, National Organic Program – Access to Pasture (Livestock): Docket Comments
• Invited review: effects of diet shifts on Escherichia coli in cattle., J Dairy Sci. 2000 Apr;83(4):863-73, PMID: 10791804
• New York Times, Beef Recall for E. Coli Is Expanded, ROBERT D. McFADDEN,
• September 30, 2007CNN, Hamburger recall rises to 25 million pounds, Meat plant workers Burger King, Boston Market anticipate shortages, August 21, 1997
• MarlerClark, ConAgra E. coli Litigation - Multi-state Outbreak
• Medical and economic impact of extraintestinal infections due to Escherichia coli: focus on an increasingly important endemic problem., Microbes Infect. 2003 Apr;5(5):449-56, PMID: 12738001
• Antimicrobial resistance patterns of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157:H7 and O157:H7- from different origins. Microb Drug Resist. 2007 Spring;13(1):44-51. PMID: 17536933
• Walterspiel, J. N.; Morrow, Ardythe L.; Cleary, T. G.; Ashkenazi, S (2003). "Effect of subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics on extracellular shiga-like toxin I". Infection 20: 25-29.
  
• FORTUNE Magazine, McCain's farm flip The senator has been a critic of ethanol. That doesn't play in Iowa. So the Straight Talk Express has taken a detour., Jon Birger, October 31 2006: 12:42 PM EST
• CSmonitor, When corn is king The ubiquitous vegetable is wreaking havoc on everything from public health to foreign policy, argues writer Michael Pollan Matthew MacLean
Matthew MacLean, October 31, 2002

• Characteristics of antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Washington State, 1984-1991., J Infect Dis. 1994 Dec;170(6):1606-9. PMID: 7996005
• Antibiotic Resistance and Distribution of Tetracycline Resistance Genes in Escherichia coli O157:H7 Isolates from Humans and Bovines, Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 March; 48(3): 1066–1067. doi: 10.1128/AAC.48.3.1066-1067.2004.

Corn Ethanol: The Great Boondoggle


The auto fuel known as corn-ethanol has been getting lot of press lately so it seemed like a good time as any to open up the main site's ethanol page for comments. The above pic is an abscessed liver of a cow. Their natural diet is supposed to be grass (cellulose). Corn animal feed, a byproduct of the government subsidized corn-ethanol industry, is mostly ground up corn cobs and is high in starch. The cows liver can't handle high levels of the unnatural diet so farmers will often have to use lots of antibiotics just to keep the cows alive. The result is a much lower quality beef than what comes from grass fed cows. When it comes to carbon dioxide and even energy economics many claim ethanol is a loser as well. To understand why the Nobel Laureate Steven Chu says "it would be better if we just burnt oil" please make the jump to our main website.

Kidnapped!!!!!!

Ms. Sparrow recently forced Mr. Sparrow to take a trip to northern California. There was supposed to be access to the world wide web. Unfortunately Ms. Sparrow meant business when she said "vacation" and Mr. Sparrow could barely even check his email. Apparently Mrs. Rabett, the wife of the beloved long eared professor Eli Rabett, is much kinder than Ms. Sparrow. Internet withdrawal can be a shockingly large pain in the arse. However, lots of wine did ease the pain. If you get a chance I highly recommend Gundlach Bundschu and Loxton. Their red zins and ports are hard to let go. Also, if you are into waterfalls make sure you visit Yosemite in May and not September.

Mr. Sparrow is alive and well and will be blogging and documenting the schism between science and politics within the next 24 hours.

Alarm Bells Are Ringing Willie

The who's who of the oil industry have given ominous predictions about oil demand outstripping supply in the near future.

From the National Petroleum Council:

The findings suggest that, far from being temporary, high energy prices are likely for decades to come. "It is a hard truth that the global supply of oil and natural gas from the conventional sources relied upon historically is unlikely to meet projected 50% to 60% growth in demand over the next 25 years," says the draft report, titled "Facing the Hard Truths About Energy."

"In geoeconomic terms, the biggest impact will come from increasing demand for oil and natural gas from developing countries," said the draft report, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "This demand may outpace timely development of new supply sources, thereby pressuring prices to rise."

The study, which was requested by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in October 2005, was conducted by the National Petroleum Council, an industry group that advises the secretary.

MSN MoneyCentral's soothsayer Jim Jubak writes in The oil squeeze has just begun:

"World will face oil crunch in five years."

That's not exactly the kind of headline you want to read when crude oil is already at $73 a barrel. When things are this bad -- crude prices are up 12% in the past two months as of July 12 -- you don't want to hear that they're going to get worse.

Yet that's exactly what consumers -- and investors -- should expect, the International Energy Agency said in its latest Medium-Term Oil Market Report, issued July 9. The market for oil will get even tighter over the next five years. (And in case you're looking for a way out, natural-gas markets may be even tighter.)

In the IEA's July 2007 Medium-Term Oil Market Report (available via the WSJ), they reach the conclusion of Peak Lite:

Despite four years of high oil prices, this report sees increasing market tightness beyond 2010, with OPEC spare capacity declining to minimal levels by 2012. A stronger demand outlook, together with project slippage and geopolitical problems has led to downward revisions of OPEC spare capacity by 2 mb/d in 2009. Despite an increase in biofuels production and a bunching of supply projects over the next few years, OPEC spare capacity is expected to remain relatively constrained before 2009 when slowing upstream capacity growth and accelerating non-OECD demand once more pull it down to uncomfortably low levels.

Now the former chairman of Shell has come out with harsh words of his own:

Oil industry 'sleepwalking into crisis'

Lord Oxburgh, the former chairman of Shell, has issued a stark warning that the price of oil could hit $150 per barrel, with oil production peaking within the next 20 years.

He accused the industry of having its head "in the sand" about the depletion of supplies, and warned: "We may be sleepwalking into a problem which is actually going to be very serious and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time we are fully aware."

Sources:
The Independent, Oil industry 'sleepwalking into crisis', David Strahan and Andrew Murray-Watson, 17 September 2007
Rigzone.com, US Petroleum Industry Draft Sees Energy Demand Soaring, Bhushan Bahree, Monday, July 16, 2007
MSN Money, Jubak's Journal, The oil squeeze has just begun, 7/17/2007 12:01 AM ET

ToughStations.org:
Pouring Salt On Climate Critics "Contaminated" Wounds

Over at our sister site we've listed some very strong evidence that heat islands do not impact NASA's surface temperature records. Some of the evidence includes two independent satellite system that show the same temperature trend as the surface stations



and the observation that most of the warming is occurring at the north pole (far away from major cities).



One would think that obvious conclusion is that global warming is real and is not a set of false readings caused by urban heat islands.


Despite this, climate change critics (the word critic does not distinguish between denier and skeptic) Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre have been harshly criticizing the surface record. They've been on a nation wide effort to photograph and critique every surface station in the US. Out of 1,221 surface stations they've already photographed and cataloged 33.09% of them. The stations have been ranked anywhere from class 1 (best) to class 5 which are described as:

Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

Professor Eli Rabett recently pointed out that John V, over at Climate Audit, analyzed the temperature records of the worst stations and the best stations.


As you can see from the picture above NASA's temperature trend (black) matches closely with both the best (red) and the worst (green) temperature stations. It would appear that even the most "contaminated" stations the climate critics use to refute global warming (whether or not they are actually part of NASA's temperature record) do a surprisingly decent job of reporting temperature trends. Clearly the surface stations are tough little instruments. It is also wise to notice that the best (red) stations match NASA's readings (black) with very high precision.

So I decided to create ToughStations.org to see just how tough these stations are. ToughStations.org will be posting pictures of the class 5 surface stations, their USHCN identification number, GHCN identification number and the surfacestations.org official critique/description. Each picture will also come with a link to surfacestations.org so you can see all of the pictures relevant to that station. ToughStations.org will post 10 stations at a time until the original 58 class 5's are all posted. Remember, these are the worst of the worst. Since NASA uses satellite photos to remove stations that are near bright lights I will try and figure out which of these stations (if any) are a part of NASA's official temperature record.

Station #1:
28815 TUCSON U OF AZ
Photo not available

Station #2
41715
CHICO UNIV FARM
electronics package within 8" of sensor, asphalt 20'
STO, CHICO UNIVERSITY FARM



For those that can't tell the box in the bottom right is a battery.

Station #3
41758 - 72290002
CHULA VISTA
building/asphalt/vehicles about 3 meters away


Station #4
42910 - 72594000
EUREKA WSO
building/asphalt @ 10 & 5 meters away, tree shading


Station #5
43747 - 74702001
HANFORD
building/asphalt @ 2 meters away large parking lot


Station #6
43761 - 72597002
HAPPY CAMP
building/asphalt/vehicles about 2 meters away


Station #7
43875-74516006
building/asphalt/vehicles about 2 m away, shading
HEALDSBURG FIRE DEPT


Station #8
44713- 74501004
LAKE SPAULDING
building 3 meters away, over rock/boat metal tower

The old location of the sensor:

And the new location of the sensor (on the tower)



Station #9
45032-72492001
asphalt about 3 m away, building 10 m
STO, CITY OF LODI


Station #10
45385
asphalt 1 m away, buildings with a/c unit 3 m
STO, MARYSVILLE FIRE DEPT



Station #11
46074-74516003
building w/ac unit about 3 meters away, asphalt 2 m
MTR, NAPA STATE HOSPITAL

Global Warming Consensus Disproved Again:
Denial Study Part III



There is an obvious scientific consensus on climate change that supports the IPCC. Thanks to propaganda tactics outlined in Frank Luntz's famous memo there has been a massive effort by vested industrial and political interests in hopes of falsely convincing the public that no such consensus exists.

Round I: Benny Peiser

First there was Benny Peiser who claimed he found 34 abstracts out of 1,247 peer-review journals/abstracts that disagreed with the consensus. One of Peisers most obvious errors was including a paper that promoted carbon sequestration and alternative energy through micro-algae biodiesel as one of his 34 'consensus busting' papers. It took him two years to admit he was 97% wrong.

Round II: An Illegitimate Journal

Then there was a survey published in a very small journal edited by none other than Benny Peiser that also rejected the consensus. This journal is not listed in the ISI index's master list of 14,450 peer review journals. A journal that does not make this list is in all probability not a legitimate journal. The surveys credibility was strongly attacked by many scientists that do have publications in top journals.

Round III: A Study of Misrepresentation

Now there is a study produced by the Exxon Mobil funded Hudson Institute. WorldNetDaily is touting this as proof that "500 scientists refute global warming dangers". So I downloaded the PDF of the study and took a quick scan of who these 500 scientists were. A few familiar names popped up. The first of which is the weather channels Heidi Cullen from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO). She is listed as publishing skeptical material which is kind of peculiar since she made newspaper headlines for chastising skeptics on her blog:

“If a meteorologist has an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming . . . . If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise . . . It’s not a political statement . . . it’s just an incorrect statement.”

Obviously there are some pretty major flaws with the Hudson's consensus debunking study. Despite this, I kept on scanning the document. Apparently almost half of the contributors to realclimate.org are skeptics:

Gavin A. Schmidt, University of Virginia
Michael E. Mann, University of Massachusetts
Thibeault De Garidel-Thoron, Rutgers University
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany

The Hudson Institute did have a curious disclaimer though:

The List of More Than 500 Scientists Documenting Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares**
**Citation of the work of the following scientists does not imply that they necessarily support our conclusions.

At this point I'm literally left speechless. This report is claiming that some of the ardent supporters of the consensus on climate change are publishing consensus debunking work. This is a blatant attempt to confuse and take advantage of the layman with highly technical gobbledy-gook. The fact that something this ridiculous has the name of one of Ronald Reagan's advisers on it makes it all the more bizarre.


Sources:
Hudson Institute,Press Release: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

NYT's Trumpets Bjørn Lomborg

A little background first. Bjørn Lomborg wrote an extremely controversial book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. This book launched a firestorm of controversy with the vast majority of mainstream scientists criticizing Lomborg. An editorial in the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature described Lomborgs work as 'employs the strategy of those who argue that... Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis'. And National Academy of Science member Norman Myers said Lomborg had not done "a fraction of the homework that could give him a preliminary understanding of the science in question." Scientific American has a 12 page article titled "Misleading Math about the Earth" dedicated solely to debunking his book. Clearly Bjørn Lomborg is not a mainstream scientist. Recently the New York Times had two pieces on him. How did the NYT's author John Tierney science columnist and blogger describe him?

Dr. Lomborg believes in global warming but isn’t a zealot — he doesn’t refer to scientists who question the climate models as “denialists,” as if there were some revealed dogma about future climate. [snip] The lesson from our expedition is not that global warming is a trivial problem. Although Dr. Lomborg believes its dangers have been hyped...

In both of NYT's pieces on Lomborg a book is mentioned. The title:

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

That name has been used before. A quick look at Amazon shows that it's first review is none other than climate change critic and fiction author Michael Crichton. He of course gives the book a glowing review. However, the Washington Post's editorial review is in stark contrast of Crichton:

In one case after another, Lomborg asserts, it's cheaper and better to do nothing immediately to combat climate change, but instead to invest in other things.

The deepest flaw in Cool It is its failure to take into account the full range of future climate possibilities. The computer models project outcomes ranging from mild, which he acknowledges, to truly catastrophic, which he ignores. While the chances of catastrophic climate change may still be small, they are increasing: By comparing real world data with the 2001 IPCC projections, researchers have shown that the sea is rising more swiftly than even the worst case scenarios in the projections.

Lomborg's mantra is the supposedly high costs of dealing with climate change. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a detailed analysis of those costs, commissioned by the UK Treasury and reported to the prime minister. Stern, a senior government economist, argues that it's much cheaper to combat climate change than to live with the consequences.

It would appear that the NYT's needs a new science columnist. If there is one thing that the NYT's columnist is good at is realizing what he his. This is from John Tierney's bio:

John Tierney always wanted to be a scientist but went into journalism because its peer-review process was a great deal easier to sneak through.

That certainly seems to describe this situation rather nicely. In full disclosure this post does not intend to criticize Lomborg's solutions. This post is merely pointing out that the logic and supporting statistics used by Lomborg is clearly in conflict with statements given by numerous leading scientists and institutions. The NYT's columnist did not do an adequate job of informing their readers just how controversial Lomborg is.

Update: In the "Further Reading" box of links one, and only one, article Lomborg is cited. This article is also devoid of harsh statements made by Lomborg.

Update II:
The WSJ editorial board member Kimberly Strassel reviews his book in a similar manner:

On the other side are those who don't think that the Earth is warming; and even if it is, they don't think that man is causing it; and even if man is to blame, it isn't clear that global warming is bad; and even if it is, efforts to fix it will cost too much and may, in the end, do more harm than good. Standing in the practical middle is Bjorn Lomborg, the free-thinking Dane who, in "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (2001), challenged the belief that the environment is going to pieces.

Let it be known that the editorial board of the WSJ has avoided invitations from Scientific American to have a simple sit down with the worlds top scientists and learn the material.

Sources:
NYT's, Findings, ‘Feel Good’ vs. ‘Do Good’ on Climate, JOHN TIERNEY, Published: September 11, 2007
NYT's, Tierney Lab, A Cool Look at Global Warming: Your Turn to Take On Bjorn Lomborg, John Tierney, September 10, 2007
The New York Times, SCIENTIST AT WORK/Bjorn Lomborg; From an Unlikely Quarter, Eco-Optimism, NICHOLAS WADE, August 7, 2001

Gigawatt Lasers From Space:
Guaranteeing you a tan in 0.00000000000000001 seconds.



Google isn't picking much of anything up yet but apparently the Japanese space agency (JAXA) and Osaka University are launching test versions of a satellite that will convert energy in space into microwaves and then transmit them down to earth. Apparently they've made dramatic improvements in the technology and if all goes well they hope to build a 1,000,000,000 watt laser to transmit energy from space to ground station collectors. Since the laser is expected to be 22,400 miles up lets hope that the Japanese are good shots. Fully operational versions are expected to arrive in the year 2030. I'd love to see some cost projections. At a few thousand dollars per kilogram, launching stuff up into space isn't cheap.


Sources (poorly translated via Google):
Asahi.com, To convert solar light of outer space to laser light, to the ground development such as Osaka University, 2007 September 04th
JAXA, SPSS - Space Energy Utilization System
Astronautix, Orbital launch vehicle. Year: 1989. Family: Shuttle. Country: USA. Status: Study 1989.

NASA Releases Their Code:
Skeptics Are Still Upset


NASA has always been reluctant to release it's computer code. The reasoning behind this is as follows:

We publish hundreds of papers a year from GISS alone. We have more data, code and model output online than any comparable institution, we have a number of public scientists who comment on the science and the problems to most people and institutions who care to ask. And yet, the demand is always for more transparency. This is not a demand that will ever be satisfied since there will always be more done by the scientists than ever makes it into papers or products. My comments above stand - independent replication from published descriptions - the algorithms in English, rather than code - are more valuable to everyone concerned than dumps of impenetrable and undocumented code. - gavin

The English version of the code has always been available in what gavin calls "excruciating detail" in the relevant papers. After the miscommunication between NOAA and NASA about the content of NOAA's changing real time data streams the pressure from to release temperature code has changed NASA's tune. It is now available online here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

Hansen also produced a public statement detailing the release in which Hansen made the following comment:

Because the programs include a variety of languages and computer unique functions, Reto would have preferred to have a week or two to combine these into a simpler more transparent structure, but because of a recent flood of demands for the programs, they are being made available as is. People interested in science may
want to wait a week or two for a simplified version.

And if you either read Gavin's previous comment or have done any programing yourself you would know that reading undocumented computer code can be extremely difficult. And in the comments of the skeptic site ClimateAudit.org we have the following comment:

As a general rule I’m not fond of heavily documented code because it introduces an additional point of failure. As code is edited, it begins to no longer resemble the comments unless the extra work to maintain the comments is done as well. And in my experience, this is almost never done. So I’d tend to cut Hansen some slack here on the source code.

Which defends NASA's practice of undocumented code. Despite getting what he wanted McIntyre is not happy:

In my first post on the matter, I suggested that Hansen’s most appropriate response was to make his code available promptly and cordially. Since a somewhat embarrassing error had already been identified, I thought that it would be difficult for NASA to completely stonewall the matter regardless of Hansen’s own wishes in the matter. [snip] Had Hansen done so, if he wished, he could then have included an expression of confidence that the rest of the code did not include material defects. Now he’s had to disclose the code anyway and has done so in a rather graceless way.

And he is apparently digging through reams of red tape to see what he can throw at Hansen:

NASA has very specific standards applicable to software described here . [snip] As I understand it, GISS is part of the Goddard Space Flight Center and is subject to these guidelines. It looks like they apply even to Hansen

Now I personally agree with McIntyre that the code should have been released right away even if it was so unreadable it would have been useless. However, given that GISS research science is operating on a "going-out-of-business budget" I'm starting to wonder if all of this ruckus is just a tactic to prevent any meaningful research from being done. Those standards are for billion dollar rockets and not scientific experiments that can be independently verified by other research teams like the CRU. Hansen has barely enough money to support a skeleton staff and to make sure his lawns are mowed yet McIntyre expects him to jump through more and more hoops? The code is released, the papers were always public and the data is public yet McIntyre wants more blood.... I'd love to know how much sleep Hansen gets.

MiT on Doors and Efficiency

MiT has a new sustainability wiki with page analyzing doors. Apparently the average heat transfer per swing door passage is 78 Wh (267 BTU) which is the equivalent of:

• 1.3 hours of light from a desk lamp
• 4.3 hours of light from a compact fluorescent bulb
• Driving a car 306 feet
• Half a mile jog

And apparently using a revolving door is much more efficient:

On average 8x as much air is exhanged when a swing door is opened as opposed to a revolving door. That's 8x as much new air that needs to be heated or cooled and that's why using the revolving door is a great way to reduce energy requirements on campus. {snip} Our estimates show that if everyone used the revolving doors at E25 alone, MIT would save almost $7500 in natural gas amounting to nearly 15 tons of CO₂. And that’s just from two of the 29 revolving doors on campus!

More at their wiki

Fake News by Fox News & Washington Times Editorial Board

Not too long ago we reported how conservative blogs and even a NYT's editorial had horribly misleading or even blatantly false statements that would have readers believe 1934 was the warmest year on earth. Well Media Matters caught Fox News making distortions as well:

Transcript:

ANGLE: The man behind the website climateaudit.org has forced NASA to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Steve McIntyre had to reverse-engineer NASA's figures because the agency refused to give him the formula it used to make the claim. And McIntyre found out NASA had made a serious mistake. NASA eventually agreed and now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921. In fact, five of the hottest 10 years on record occurred before World War II.

Nowhere do they mention the difference between global and US averages. As for NASA refusing to release the forumalas well that's false as well. The algorithms, issues and choices are outlined in excruciating detail in the relevant papers. To Fox's credit their website does carry an article by a journalist from The Times that correctly reports what went on and even provides a link to the memo (pdf format) written by NASA's head climate honcho James Hansen.

Washington Times

Also, it looks like the Washington Post Op-eds has joined the misinformation foray:

But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.

So what does NASA's current temperature graph look like? Well here you go:



Or go to NASA direct. Just make sure you look at the GLOBAL temperature graphs. It's pretty obvious that 1934 is not the warmest year on global record. I'm sure the readers would appreciate how so many news outlets left that little factoid out. The op-ed then makes an assault on other news outlets as well as the science itself:

Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science. [snip]The media coverage amid this confusion has been execrable. Last week's Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine" without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. Naturally, Newsweek is not very interested in the recent data restatement.

For a more detailed and correct analysis of what actually went on please read my previous post on the subject. One might think the entire editorial board of the Washington Times would not make such a grievous error. All it takes it sending one single email off to NASA or reading realclimate.org.


Sources:
Washington Post, The hottest year: 1934?, August 15, 2007
FoxNews, Blogger Forces NASA to Tweak Climate Data, David Byers,Friday, August 17, 2007
Media Matters,Fox's Angle misrepresented NASA correction to claim 1934 is now "hottest year" on record, Sun, Aug 12, 2007 2:49pm ET

Walk Score & Walking Footprints:
Finding useful crap near you


The boys over at the oildrum recently reported on a new website called WalkScore. It basically finds all of the restaurants, bars, movie theaters, parks, bookstores, coffeshops, etc near you and then calculates their distance from your home address. It's a good tool to use if you want to find a neighborhood to move to or even find stores near you (wherever you are) that you didn't know existed. I'm sure I will be using this a lot whenever I travel. Heck this might even be a good aid in choosing a location for a business.

Recently the Times Online reported that walking produces more CO2 than driving. The problem with their study is that they calculated the emissions of the entire life cycle of beef production (which happens to use 6 barrels of oil per cow) while ignoring the life cycle costs of automobile maintenance and construction. They also assume that everyone eats a pure meat diet and walks as far as they drive. There are many other flaws in this argument highlighted at TreeHugger. The Times Online study does indirectly illustrate a critically important point though.

Conservation seems to the hip thing in Hollywood and nothing illustrates that better than Sheryl Crows recommendation of one square of toilet paper per restroom visit. Conservation is also the main focus of many liberal politicians like Al Gore. Unfortunately while conservation and efficiency will play an important role it will never be able to solve the problem of climate change. According to Chevron conservation won't even solve our supply problem:

Efficiency, improvements, and conservation are part of the solution, but will not, in themselves, meet the need for more energy.

Again, I'm not belittling conservation efforts. Conservation will play a key role but it is simply not the 800 lb gorilla that will change society and "save the environment". Something much more revolutionary in science and politics will have to take place. I will back this statement up with hard data in future posts.

Sources:
TimesOnline, Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’, August 4, 2007
Treehugger, Ask the EcoGeek: Walking Worse than Driving? No., EcoGeek.org on 08. 9.07
FoxNews, Report: Sheryl Crow's Solutions to Global Warming, Monday, April 23, 2007
Digg, Sheryl Crow Suggests Limiting Americans Use To One Square Per Sitting,

Attacking the Consensus Again:
Is it Benny Peiser Jr.?



Apparently there's a paradigm shifting paper coming out in an 'scientific journal'. Straight from the Senator Inhofe (Minority Chairman of Environmental and Public Works) press blog:

LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

In order for this to be true this massive list of sourced and web-linked quotes from scientists, 21 National Academies and pretty much every major scientific organization would have to be wrong. So let look at this study a little closer:

The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment

They also claim that the IPCC is unreliable but their literature review is far more reliable:

But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

Well after checking Sourcewatch.org it seems that the journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who happens to be a climate skeptic. It would also appear that Energy and Environment is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors (science speak for how frequently something is referenced/used/cited) for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals. Ontop of this the journal does not appear on the ISI index's master list of 14,450 peer review journals. The American Chemical Society, a very large and very influential scientific society, published an article harshly criticizing Energy and the Environments credibility.

A while back a social anthropologist named Benny Peiser (who specializes in "contemporary thought and societal evolution") reviewed climate change abstracts and claimed he found 34 that disagreed with the consensus. One of the abstracts discussed the need for alternative energy and carbon sequestration. Amazingly Benny thought that debunked the consensus. After 2 years later Benny finally admitted that he was 97% wrong. Interestingly enough, Benny is also an editor of Energy and Environment. Will this be a repeat? Given that the all of academies of the G8 countries endorsed the IPCC recently it is highly unlikely that there has been such a massive paradigm shift. Will report more when I get my hand on the unpublished paper.

Sources:
Will edit in bibliography of the links later.

"If We Can't Predict the Weather Next Week, How Can We Predict 100 Years into the Future?"
Part of the common arguments from skeptics/deniers series

The Attack on Modellers

One would expect oil funded lobbyists, which have a vested interest in debunking global warming theories, to attack climate models, but sometimes even a few professional meteorologists that do not receive any oil money will make similar attacks. One such professional is the 77 year old Bill Gray which claimed: "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more." Gray attacked modellers in front of Congress by saying "and they trouble is they don't know how the atmosphere ticks. They're people that make assumptions that are not valid, and they believe them."

Gray vs. Climate
Round I : Catarina

In 1979 William Gray said the formation of a hurricane in the South Atlantic was an impossibility:

Genesis does not occur in the tropical southeast Pacific and South Atlantic because the background seasonal climatology is so unfavorable. Although short-term positive deviations of genesis potential may be as large at these locations elsewhere, they can never overcome their strongly unfavorable climatoligical background.

Yet the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, a branch of the UK's Met Office, had predicted that a hurricane would form in the South Atlantic in a globally warming world. So what the models said would occur, Gray said would "never" occur. In March of 2004 such an 'impossible' hurricane formed. Her name was Catarina.


2004 went on to be a record shattering year for hurricanes. The number of intense storms were double of that predicted by William Gray. His explanation was simple: "This year did not behave like any other year we have studied." . Gray's forecasts are based upon comparison to the past. Perhaps in a warming and changing world past observations of seasonal trends won't apply anymore. On the other hand the GCM models forecast based upon our understanding of the laws of physics. This brings up a rather famous quote: "The laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes."

Gray vs. Climate Models
Round II: Seasonal Forecasts

In December of 2004 Gray announced that he did not expect "anything close to the U.S. land-falling hurricane activity of 2004" for the 2005 hurricane season. Gray predicted 11 named storms, 6 hurricanes and 3 major hurricanes. Only a slightly above average year. Unfortunately 2005 was going to to shatter all records. By late may 2005, Gray had upped the forecast to fifteen named storms. While this was an increase it was still only about half of what to come. Meteo-France on the other hand, was using a new form of hurricane forecasting which employs climate models. They predicted 22 named storms. The end game resulted in 28 storms. While both forecasts were off Gray was much farther off than the climate models. Meteo-France was off by 6 while Gray was initially off by 17 and later 13 names storms. Grays margin of error was 2-3 times larger than the Meteo-France's climate models. The biggest margin of error by a major climate model I've found so far is UK's Met office. But even this model which predicted 16.2 storms was much better than Grays initial prediction and was even better than his revised prediction (albeit not by much). Looking at 2005 alone, the climate models are the best forecasters we have. Much better than Gray's intuition and gut instinct and traditional forcasting in general. Surely as our understanding of the climate engine increases these models will only get better and better.

Thomas Kuhn once wrote that anytime there is a paradigm shift in science it will be met with resistance. Accepting climate models might be doubly tough for William Gray as he spent 52 years developing a forecasting method that might now be obsolete. But given that the models are currently outperforming Gray's own predictions and are correctly predicting what Gray thought was impossible then it might be prudent for him to acknowledge that the modellers do in fact know what they are doing.

Source:
Discover, Discover Dialogue: Meteorologist William Gray, Kathy A. Svitil, 09.09.2005
SUMMARY OF 2004 ATLANTIC TROPICAL CYCLONE ACTIVITY AND VERIFICATION OF AUTHOR'S SEASONAL AND MONTHLY FORECASTS, William M. Gray and Philip J. Klotzbach
Meteorology Over the Tropical Oceans, Hurricanse: Their formation, Structure and Likely Role in the Tropical Circulation, William Gray, 1979, pp. 155-218 (quote on 181)
FORECAST OF ATLANTIC HURRICANE ACTIVITY FOR SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2004 AND SEASONAL UPDATE THROUGH AUGUST, William M. Gray and Philip J. Klotzbach

Mountain Top Mining To Expand


From the NYT's

The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.

It has been used in Appalachian coal country for 20 years under a cloud of legal and regulatory confusion.

The new rule would allow the practice to continue and expand, providing only that mine operators minimize the debris and cause the least environmental harm, although those terms are not clearly defined and to some extent merely restate existing law.......

The regulation is the culmination of six and a half years of work by the administration to make it easier for mining companies to dig more coal to meet growing energy demands and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Lots of pics of mountain top mining at Ohio Valley Environmental Health. And here is an EPA article on the effects of this kind of mining. Robert Rapier claims that increased dependence on coal is inevitable. If oil demand outstrips oil supply we will almost certainly start squeezing oil out of coal. If that happens it will be interesting to see what will happen to the Appalachian trail loved by so many hikers.

Source:
Rule to Expand Mountaintop Coal Mining, JOHN M. BRODER, August 23, 2007

Strange Moon

This is Mima (Photo courtesy of NASA) which orbits Saturn. Here is a closeup.

And here is a comparison to something else:

And a quote:

Thats not a moon...It's a space station!!!

Just having little fun :-D

Science, "It's Not that hard"


Sharon Begley from Newsweek wrote an article titled "The Truth About Denial" which aimed to expose the massive disinformation campaign put out by oil companies like Exxon Mobil to obfuscate mainstream science on global warming. The article is great introductory material for those that are not familiar with what is going on. There is still much more that needs to be discussed by the mainstream media (e.g. Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher's continued violation of federal law) but at least the mainstream news is starting to catch on to what is painfully obvious to others. In the talk section a reader asked Sharon Begley:

How can the responsible media best meet their "fairness/accuracy/'balance'" responsibilities in dealing with climate change deniers?

To which Sharon Begley said:

I don't think science is like political or social issues, where all views are of equal weight. To the contrary: in science, there really is a 'right' answer, tho it may take time to emerge, and journalists have a duty to tell readers what that answer is likely to be. Me, I don't do he said/she said, but delve into the arguments and see which has empirical merit. It's not that hard.

This is such an important concept that is so missed by so many. It's too bad as it is basically a quote from the Nobel Laureate on the 200 Deutch Mark:

"Laypeople frequently assume that in a political dispute the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, and they are often right. In a scientific dispute, though, such an assumption is usually wrong."

Unlike many forms of politics, the middle ground is often not a safe bet in scientific matters. Furthermore, traditional "objective" reporting simply does not work well in science, it's just too easy to get caught up in the false objectivity of "balance". If 99.99% of doctors say heroin is bad for your health it is not fair to give equal weight to the 0.01% of doctors (who happen to live in Columbia and/or are anarchists) that say heroin is no big deal. This is of course of the assumption (right or wrong) that one is even interesting in reporting accurately.

Source:
Newsweek, The Truth About Denial, Sharon Begley, Aug. 13, 2007
Resisting Change: Global Warming Deniers
NEWSWEEK's Sharon Begley, Live Talk on Wednesday, August 8, at noon, ET, about climate change denial and its lasting pervasiveness.