Worried about wet bulb temps

I'm still grieving that we're over 400 ppm CO2. It happened a few weeks ago but it is still sinking in, at least with me. The rest of the country doesn't seem to mind, except for the brave few environmental bloggers. Alert, alert! Yawn. So now I'm reading some depressing societal collapse stuff and I looked up wet bulb temprature, which I heard Jim Hansen talking about not long ago. So here are a few excerpts from a blog: "To function normally, we have to maintain a core body temperature of around 37 °C. If it rises above about 42 °C, we die...for every 1 °C that the global average temperature rises, maximum wet-bulb temperatures will rise by about 0.75 °C (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 107, p 9552)." When will this happen? It depends on climate sensitivity to CO2. It could be within the century. "Most of the discussion has been about the 21st century, but warming isn’t going to stop in 2100 unless our emissions have fallen almost to zero by then, and that would require heroic efforts,” says Sherwood. “If you consider that carbon releases might be a little higher than the most likely value and that the climate might be quite sensitive to inputs of energy, it’s not too hard to get up to 10, 12 or even 15 °C by the 23rd century.” This, along with the paleontologist research into the PETM, the previous thermal maximum that occurred millions of years ago, should be enough to finally shut James Inhofe up, and let Congress start debating solutions to this catastrophic climate trajectory. That is, assuming that facts are meaningful, which is a questionable assumption.

The Five Stages Of Grief In Reverse

Joe Romm has a good post about how the five stages of grief are reversed for people who care about climate change. The typical five stages are: 1. Denial 2. Anger 3. Bargaining 4. Depression 5. Acceptance But actually, climate science activists (a.k.a. climate hawks) experience THE FIVE STAGES IN REVERSE. Climate hawks begin with accepting the science. What else can one do? Science is the reason so many of us survived childbirth and childhood, science has fed the world, science is the reason computers and the blogosphere exist at all. And yes, science gave us our fossil-fueled wealth. I’m a scientist by training, but I just don’t see how anyone can pick and choose what science you’re going to believe and what not. The scientific method may not be always be perfect in single studies — since it is used by imperfect humans — but it is the best thing we have for objectively determining what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. It is testable and self-correcting, unlike all other approaches. Once climate hawks accept the science, many quite naturally get depressed. The situation is beyond dire, and we aren’t doing bloody much about it, in large part because of the successful efforts of the deniers and delayers. Climate science offers a very grim prognosis if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. After depression comes a serious effort at bargaining. Climate hawks try to figure out what they can do to stop the catastrophe. Taking actions and making bargains at a personal level and a political level — depending on their level of activism. Then comes anger. Once you’ve been at this for a while, you get very very frustrated by how little is happening — by the status quo media, the many anti-science politicians, and especially the deniers, the professional disinformers. Finally, you end up in a kind of denial. It just becomes impossible to believe that the human race is going to be so stupid. Indeed, my rational side finds it hard to believe that we’re going to avoid catastrophic global warming... -end of excerpt- Please note that I appreciate this article by reposting it, and I am trying to be nice to Joe Romm, even though he was not nice to Theda Skocpol. OK, let's be serious, he was a jerk. Oops, I forgot, I was trying be nice, sorry.

A Good Rant on the Mainstream Media's Failure to Cover Climate Change

This was posted by a user named wndrdog on HuffPost: CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY IN HUMAN HISTORY. Period! It is unconscionable, bordering on criminally negligent, that YOU THE MEDIA, catalyst of opinions worldwide, aren't ambitiously covering this topic every day. This is a challenge HUMANS HAVE NEVER FACED BEFORE, TIME IS CRITICAL, and we are NOT AT ALL PREPARED TO FACE IT. So how do we save ourselves from ourselves? One critical tool is YOU, the MAIN STREAM MEDIA!. You MUST pro-actively illustrate the seriousness, urgency, and precariousness of our current state. You MUST IMMEDIATELY RAISE AWARENESS of the impending tipping points of Global Warming. And if the click-thru ratings from your web viewers seem to indicate that they're more interested in J Lo's dress at the Grammy's, then IT IS YOUR JOB TO INFORM THEM that there is something a little more pressing to pay attention to. A fully informed public will demand change from their leaders, and in turn fully-supported politicians will rise to their mandate by strategizing an ambitious path to sustainability. On the other hand, if the MSM continues to feed the public a diet of empty-calorie infotainment, your FAILURE TO INFORM is unforgivable complicity in what is unfolding as the gravest crime in history — humanity marching naively past tipping points that will end civilization as we know it. Here is a link to a petition where you can rant too.

Alito As Indicator for State of the Union Speech

Alito shook his head like a partisan at a previous Obama State of the Union speech. For tonight's speech, Obama is expected to mention climate change. If, at the end of that section, Alito is clawing his eyes out and running screaming from the room, then Obama will have likely made a few good points, and there will be reason for ecological optimism for the first time since before Copenhagen. If all we get is an eye roll from Alito, then that's probably bad news for the global climate. It means the speech was something like blah blah blah solar is great blah blah blah all of the above blah let's drill and frack blah oh and we may still approve the Keystone pipeline blah I'm a moderate gimme a break enviros Romney was worse so here's a few million for R&D blah I wish I could do more but Congress is blocking me blah there now let's get back to drone striking.

No A/C for Congress until Climate Bill Passes

Senator Boxer introduced the Government Shutdown and Default Prevention Act that would prevent Members of Congress and the President of the United States from being paid during a default or shutdown of the federal government. I would like to encourage her and other Senators to introduce a climate change bill similar to it. It would mandate no air conditioning for House and Senate office buildings or the Capitol until a climate change bill is passed. Hopefully it will be a good bill, not a big giveaway to polluters. In 2009-10, I was a supporter of the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act.

So funny I forgot to laugh

This group ran a Romney vs. Sandy ad about Romney's climate joke at the RNC.

Send the bill for Hurricane Sandy to Exxon

Who is responsible for all those greenhouse gases that have caused sea level rise, increased extreme weather events, and culminated in Hurricane Sandy this past week? Yes, it's the fossil fuel industry, which drills, imports, and sells the stuff, and then purchases elected officials to not do anything about its side effects (such as climate change). Send the bill for damages to the fossil fuel industry, and then distribute the proceeds to the victims on a per capita basis (with some taken off the top for local government agencies etc).

What the Candidates Should Have Said

Here's a good article about what the Presidential candidates should have said about climate change. Instead, they said nothing, and now they look foolish because Hurricane Sandy is stepping in and saying something. Here are a few good quotes from the article: “Thank you, Jim/Candy/Bob, very much for asking about where we stand on the issue of climate change...Our lives and prosperity depend upon a stable climate...There are some who would like to see American’s dependence on fossil fuels continue, benefitting the few at the cost to many. They are pouring money into misinformation campaigns run by think tanks and front groups that are designed to distort media coverage, undermine education efforts and attack the credibility of those working on the issue...It’s time our oil and gas sector shifts into leadership mode, rather than trying to line the pockets of decision makers in Washington DC. Americans are tired of feeling guilty when they go to fill up their car because they know burning gas is part of the problem but they don’t know why they can’t have the solution of an electric car or a high-speed train ride to work...Climate disruption is a national security issue—an unstable climate will inevitably result in unstable political situations that can jeopardize our energy supply, cause mass migration of peoples, and brew increased conflict and terrorism...Climate disruption cannot be a partisan issue...That is why I pledge, if I am elected, to make addressing climate disruption my administration’s top priority."

Weathergirl goes rogue

Part 1 Part 2

Durban disappointment

Equity or nothing at UN climate talks. Still valid. And Obama knows what this is about. And the importance. He has Stephen Chu on staff. That guy reads books. He didn't get elected by oil companies. They supported Old Man and Alaska Crazy Lady. We have Obama in office now. And this is the best we can get? The US, once again blocking progress at the international climate talks? Continuing to refuse to set targets and timetables? Jonathan Pershing used to work at World Resources Institute, but he is a "realist" as EcoEquity says. What is so realistic about resigning ourselves to a fiery future? Does the climate of Venus sound appealing to you?

American negotiators in Durban: Drop all your pre-conceptions about what is "realistic" and what Eric Cantor will say yes to. Contraction & Convergence is the only way forward. Per capita equity is the goal. Obama can push for a Cap & Dividend climate bill that allows him to sign a future climate treaty without 66 Senators. Bohner's grandchildren will thank you in 20 years.

Thank you Occupiers and 350.org folks for being vocal when we need you most.

Mr. Panetta, Please Change the Military's Mission to Saving the Oceans - Declare War on Climate Change

Before Rumsfeld invaded Iraq, he chaired a commission that advocated the militarization of space. Hence, Rumsfeld Invaders (a take-off of the Atari video game for those of you who didn't grow up in the 80's).

Now, Obama has appointed Leon Panetta to be the next Secretary of Defense. Panetta chaired a commission that advocated saving the oceans. Wow. What a stark contrast. The next Secretary of Defense, arguably the 3rd most important person in government (look at the size of that DoD budget!), cares about something other than guns and explosions? Not only that, but he just helped knock off bin Laden. He's an enviro, and he's got cojones too? Now that's an American hero!

If you think I'm gushing too much here, let's get specific: (sources 1 2) For much of his life, Leon Panetta has been a passionate advocate for our nation’s oceans. While a member of the House of Representatives, Panetta authored numerous successful measures to protect the California coast, and was a major factor in establishing the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Panetta also served on the board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and is a National Marine Sanctuary Foundation trustee.

Panetta was Chair of the Pew Oceans Commission, which called for reforms in U.S. ocean management and ocean governance, preserving and protecting coastal habitat, and fisheries, creating sustainable marine aquaculture, and preventing the collapse of ocean ecosystems, and served as Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission.

The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative grew out of the ocean advocacy work done by Panetta’s Pew Ocean Commission and Admiral Watkins’ US Commission on Ocean Policy.

OK, so what does saving the ocean have to do with the military?

Easy. Climate change is turning the oceans to acid. The oceans are absorbing the CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and the resulting acidity is eating away at the species that rely on calcium carbonate for their shells, and the acidity is bleaching the coral reefs, the very things that make the ocean sanctuaries - the ones that Secretary-designate Panetta loves - so beautiful.

Mr. Panetta arguably won the War on Terror by getting bin Laden. We are avenged. Sure, there is still evil in the world. Sure, some Amurkins will want to keep invading countries and blowing stuff up. But seriously, we need to win hearts and minds and the dudes with the guns and the macho mentality are not really helping the cause out there anymore. Let's build some schools and give out some laptops and teach women in those countries how to read. Pull out the troops, and then, Mr. Panetta, here is where you get to take leadership:

Declare War on Climate Change!

You can do it! Amurkins love to go to war. And in the 21st century, the information age, we love to go to war against ideas. Well, unfortunately, climate change is real. But it's also a concept that connects to how Amurkins live their everyday lives. And we're going to need the $700 billion a year in the military budget to take on this challenge of remaking our energy and transportation infrastructure, upgrading our homes and building stock, and learning how to do things locally and organically.

Who better than the troops, those guys that we support, to help us make this difficult transition?

Let's save the oceans, let's take on climate change. And the guy in the seat of power in the Pentagon could actually make this happen. Yes we can...hope...for change!

Climate bill post mortem: part 1 of 1 billion

About why the Senate failed:

"We weren't able to credibly promise political reward or punishment," Bill McKibben said. "The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that's insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That's going to take a few years."

A Grist commenter asks, "what are the limits to plain speech and passion in this landscape? I worry we're about to launch the green movement equivalent of the Adlie Stephenson and Walter Mondale campaigns."

About why the CLEAR Act (Cap and Dividend) would have been better:

Peter Barnes wrote on Grist: don't underestimate "the political value of simplicity. It's hard for politicians to vote for a controversial policy like cap and trade (however it is spun) that neither they nor anyone else can explain. Lots of Americans get that putting a price on pollution makes sense, but if you can't tell them in a few sentences how that price will be set and where the money will go, you re not going to win them or their representatives over."

"...average families don't understand the intricacies of different carbon pricing mechanisms, but they can distinguish between having their pockets picked and having them filled."

Direct cash dividends to people "allows moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for carbon pricing and not be annihilated at the polls."

Cap and Dividend is "an ambitious, workable and durable emission reducing system that already has some bipartisan traction and could conceivably get 60 votes in a more Republican Senate than we now have."

Dear Kerry-Lieberman Apologists

The macro-economic birds-eye view says that it doesn't matter if we give billions in subsidies (free allowances) to BP and Exxon (or utilities that are burning coal) rather than to the American people. This is looking at "costs" but not "transfers." I think it is stupid to pre-distribute 40 years of allowance value. When Congress created the Federal Reserve, they didn't pre-set interest rates for the next 40 years. Anyway, the political alliances are too fragile to last, and the edifice will crumble under its own weight. And I won't cry for you, Economists. It's time to value people, not corporations. Three cheers to the Nobel committee for recognizing this with the recent award to Elinor Ostrom.

Our goal is to drive up the costs of fossil fuels, but Exxon and BP will invest the ridiculous windfall profits in climate denial and purchasing Congress following the "Citizens United" ruling. We may need to form a Citizens Energy Consumer Cartel to bargain with OPEC and Exxon and BP. This new cartel will say, we'll let you have rising prices in the face of our falling demand for fossil fuels, but we'll need to divide the windfalls and much of it will return to the people to help us make the changes we need to make.

Sure, they won't like it. They may scream socialism, etc. They may flood the airwaves and fund retrograde candidates. But this is a battle for democracy, the Earth, and civilization.

Dinosaur Bones in Coal Minds

This cracked me up! A climate denier comment on a recent Huffington Post article about climate deniers:

09:42 PM on 4/26/2010

"Oil and coal are not fossil fuels. If they were, we would have ran out of those energy sources long ago.
How many dinosaur bones have been found in coal minds? How many fossil remains have been pumped out of oil wells?

Oil and coal are naturally occurring products.

Concerning coal-fired powers plants: as a truck drive I often deliver to one in my state. The only thing that is released from it into the air is steam; and no pollutants are released into the ground or the water supply.. Electric plants have come a long ways in creating energy without polluting the environment."

Exxon behind bin Laden climate tape

I haven't done a conspiracy theory post in a while. Well, OK, maybe I have (some past favorites included Sarah Palin and anthrax), but if so, then here's another one, just for fun.

So, Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change

I can already hear the teabag-climate-denier refrain: “I knew that Al Gore and Bin Laden were friends, and I always thought Gore was a secret al Queda operative, climate change isn't real, I'm an idiot, I don't read books, Sarah Palin is hot, blah blah blah…”

Superficially, Saudi Arabia’s wealth comes from oil, which causes global warming. But oil is also the cause of Western interference in the Middle East. So Bin Laden wants to return to the pre-Western days, by getting the U.S. off Middle Eastern oil?

Seems consistent, but I think there's more to it.

According to Joe Romm, bin Laden called for the “wheels of the American economy” to be brought to a halt to stop global warming. Hmm, this sounds like something the Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, or the chief of Exxon might say about any potential climate legislation. Now we're getting into conspiracy theory territory.

What if the same people who are using bin Laden as their puppet to scare lawmakers into approving trillion dollar defense budgets year after year (remember the Cold War ended back in 1989), and billions in Homeland Security no-bid contracts to look at people naked at airports, and wiretap people's iPhones and blog-tap people's computers, and keep those oil profits coming in until the wells run dry...what if they're now using bin Laden to try to derail climate legislation? Right when the Senate may have the best solution in front of their noses. That's pulling out the big guns (even if the guy is on life support hidden away in some bunker under Abu Ghraib).

Just when the Middle Class is about to get a dividend, a politically supported carbon price to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and to save our coastal cities from eminent extreme weather events (Bechtel I'm sure wanted those lucrative rebuilding contracts), only a proclamation by Bin Laden could scare people into voting against their own best interest, or at least bridge the gap until the next election cycle when the corporations will unleash a bailout's worth of campaign finance, thanks to the Supreme Court of Robotic Enslavement. Here another link to the judiciary-robot theme.

Weird to think that Bin Laden could have a climate policy. Sitting in his cave, reading James Hansen papers? Almost makes him seem like a real human (not a hologram projection created by Rumsfeld's DIA?). Next will we find out he has an opinion on universal health care, or banking reform? I assume it would involve blowing things up, kind of like the Joker in the “Dark Knight,” but I’d start to get worried if he suddenly came out for universal health care and public floggings of Goldman Sachs executives and their puppet Treasury Secretaries. The Supreme Court definitely sided with McWorld the other day with their campaign finance ruling, and if Jihad starts putting out statements favoring people over corporations, they might attract some interest from the semi-populist teabaggers, and that’s kind of troubling. (note to NSA wiretapper: reference Benjamin Barber’s book Jihad vs. McWorld)

Story of Cap & Giveaway

This video is about 10 minutes, by the Story of Stuff folks.

The Story of Cap & Trade from Story of Stuff Project on Vimeo.

Grist has a counterargument here.

I agree with the Story people that giveaways are bad, offsets are mostly a sham, and there's potential for Enron-type shenanigans. But I see why David Roberts of Grist is worried that overly broad critiques of cap and trade may sway the political outcome so much taht we'll end up with nothing, which is Exxon's divide and conquer strategy.

In the end, c'mon Obama and the Democratic majority. Do something, how about Cap and Dividend, Contraction & Convergence, or something. With Obama's 30,000 more troops being sent to slaughter, I'm at a personal all-time Obama-era low in hope for change we can believe in, just in time for Nopenhagen.

Will Copenhagen be the "next Seattle"?

This December is COP-15, the international climate conference in Copenhagen, where the Earth will hang in the balance. Some people are saying it will be the "next Seattle" (a citizen's convergence where the people show the officials that it's time to take our demands seriously). I guess the big demand is 350 ppm, but I'd add in Contraction & Convergence, and Cap & Share too.

http://beyondtalk.net/

http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/

Senate can choose Dividends instead of House Climate Change Giveaway

The House strategy for Cap and Trade was 1) hand out allowances to utilities and other powerful lobbies, and 2) hope carbon costs will remain low (the so-called "postage stamp a day"). But many midwesterners, including North Dakotans Sen. Byron Dorgan and Rep. Earl Pomeroy are sceptical of the "postage stamp" strategy. High-coal states will face major costs, and the strategy puts supporters at risk in the 2010 or 2012 elections.

But the Senate still has time to choose an alternative strategy that sets aside Waxman and Pelosi's vision of realpolitik (that had almost everyone holding their noses by the end of House debate). An alternative strategy would be to level with the American people, tell them that costs might be high, but auction revenues will provide them with a dividend to help cover the costs. Perhaps Van Hollen's Cap and Dividend bill could be modified to limit the tradability of the auctioned permits, and then return the revenues to the people, bypassing the lobbyists and financial speculators.

The Highlight of the House's Energy Bill Debate

I watched the debate last Friday on CSpan. It was disheartening to hear the disingenous Repub arguments, they have already decided to vote no, now time to backfill for reasons why. Um, hoaxy? Al Gore-rrible? Economy? (sorry guys, all of those are weak!)

Among Dems, the highlight of the debate was Rep. John Larson (CT? I'm pretty sure, although after awhile the talking heads seem to blur together, sorry if it wasn't him) who gave a great speech about how we are sending so much money for oil to Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela, that the Repubs should be ashamed of voting against this because they are supporting our enemies and contributing to terrorism (or something like that). It was a way stronger argument than some of the flimsy green jobs stuff which sounds a little like “just wait another 10 years and we’ll have a hydrogen car, we promise.”

Gaia's Future Debated in the House

It's a day that Bill McKibben, Carl Pope, Stephen Schneider, James Lovelock and Gaia itself have been waiting for. HR.2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the House's first serious attempt to address climate change, is on the House floor. Climate change is a serious challenge. We need to reduce our GHG emissions, and the consequences of not doing so are serious, perhaps threatening the continued existence of half of all species, perhaps eventually including our own.

Do any of these Congresspeople know what they are talking about? Very few have read the bill. It's over 1200 pages. How many Congresspeople understand cap and trade, at all? Or think they understand it, but really don't.

Especially the Republicans. I assume many of them understand that climate change is a problem, or at least are concerned about dependence on imported oil from the Middle East and elsewhere. But they have prioritized short-term power politics over the survival of God's creation, the Earth. The economic scare tactics, skepticism of science, callers on CSpan saying that global warming is a hoax. Mainly it seems they hate Al Gore, and this gives them a reason to announce it to people loudly. Interestingly, Al Gore is not even that liberal, but he stirs up memories of the 90's, which I guess for Repubs was a painful time, it was like Middle School and he was like the Assistant Principal, I guess. Even so, the Repugs are trying to fit what they can into their existing worldview, for example, saying that if there is a problem, it's because of those dark skinned people in the Amazon cutting those trees. If they could say global warming was caused by welfare mothers they would.

Blue Dog Democrats are scared of making any bold moves. Status quo coal and manufacturing control them.

I've been arguing that action on global warming is needed. And I've been pestering everyone around me about it for years going on decades now. But is this bill the right one? We are running out of time. Every year of delay is potentially fatal. Even so, the bill has been compromised. A well-respected analyst told me yesterday that at this point, the bill's main impact will be to pay money to corn farmers to make ethanol, with little or no emissions reductions. On the other hand, showing up to the international climate conference in Copenhagen in December with nothing from the U.S. would just prolong the Bush-era stalemate. China and India are right to say that the U.S. should go first. If those Repugnicans think our economic problems are bad, why don't they go there and tell them to reduce their emissions.

There is the head versus heart debate, or what I call the Christina Aguilera debate (my body's sayin let's go, but my heart is sayin no). For normal people, it's that we know the bill is flawed, but we hope that it will help in some way. I'm not sure which is the heart and which is the head, or in Christina's case, which is the T and which is the A (not as much in the head, sorry, uncalled for). For Repugs, it's that they want to oppose Obama's agenda and if they can personally insult Al Gore while doing so this gives them great pleasure, and if they can fit in some populist rhetoric about jobs (when they actually are the unions worst enemy the other 364 days of the year, and their free trade agenda has cost more jobs than this bill ever could) and the economy (which mainly consists of bank bailouts and ponzi schemes at this point right?), and on the other hand, the concessions in this bill might actually benefit their constituencies (industrial ag, Monsanto, the delay in switching off coal, keeping gas prices high which they say they oppose but they enjoy the campaign contributions from Exxon) but they are so blinded by Gore-hatred they refuse to recognize that, and cap and trade was originally a free market solutions that was an alternative to command and control regulation but if they aren't in front of the parade them they won't go I guess, and they often have grandchildren and like going outdoors, and there may be a small voice in the back of their mind that knows that they would feel bad if they were responsible for ending civilization. But that is a distant echo, which can be easily drowned out with Venezuelan hookers, whiskey, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh.

350 ppm trumps politics. (many enviros think the tipping point for climate collapse will be 350 parts per million CO2 equivalent in the atmposphere, the IPCC sometimes refers to 450 ppm as a goal for 2050 or 2100, this blog has a graphic that shows our current ppm). But there's no silver bullet single solution to climate change, so we should support anything that reduces coal use. It's not clear if ACES will, but it might be a step towards it (squinting, wishing). Maybe strategic opposition can improve the bill, providing a story for the media to cover ("enviros say bill is too weak, allocations should go to consumers not utilities").

If ACES passes, which I think would be a victory for recognition of climate change as a problem, there will still be lots of work to be done, so don't hang up your hat and call it a day yet. Sorry, you can't take the rest of the day off.