What's in the New UN IPCC Climate Report?

Check out some good recaps from Chris Mooney at Mother Jones and Jason Samenow at the Washington Post.

Climate Change Turning Northeast Into New Hurricane Alley?

Climate change is shifting hurricane tracks away from the Gulf Coast and towards the Northeast, according to a new study that's backed up by both previous research and the historical record. Reports Paul Voosen of E&E News (sub. req.):

By the end of this century, fewer hurricanes are likely to barrel through the Caribbean Sea into the U.S. Gulf Coast, with the storms instead curving back into the Atlantic Ocean -- and possibly toward an East Coast newly sensitive to hurricanes, according to climate models developed by researchers in Hawaii and Miami. [...]

Their results match a modeling study published in 2010 by Hiroyuki Murakami and Bin Wang, two Hawaii-based researchers who used a powerful Japanese climate model to simulate the Atlantic basin. Like [researcher Angela] Colbert, they saw storm tracks shift east. But they went a step further, finding that this shift increased influence of tropical storms for Florida and the northeastern United States.

"I feel these results are very robust," Murakami said.

In fact, a slight eastward shift can already be seen in historical records since the late 19th century, compiled by the National Hurricane Center and corrected by Gabriel Vecchi, a co-author of Colbert's paper and researcher at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These observations are far from definite but do lend some credence to the models' results, Colbert said.

Research also shows global warming is making hurricanes stronger (though climate change's impact on hurricane frequency is still being debated). 

It's not exactly reassuring for this stormy future that Congressional Republicans doing all they can to skimp on Superstorm Sandy aid. Maybe time to cut carbon pollution now?

Bill Nye Makes Talking Climate Science Simple

The best way you can advocate for climate action is to talk about climate science and the need for governments to cut carbon pollution. Talk about warmer temperatures, talk about extreme weather, talk about rising sea levels. Talk to your family, your neighbors, your elected officials.

David Roberts gave progressives a simple map for talking climate change and now Bill Nye and the Climate Reality Project are making it even simplerer with Climate 101:



You don't have to know all the answers to know we need to take climate action now. Don't be afraid to speak up.

If someone asks you something you don't know, tell them that's a good question and you want to find out the answer with them! The internet is never far away and it's loaded with really good climate answers.

Hurricane Sandy, Climate Change & New England's Stormy Future

A new report from Rep. Ed Markey on the impact of climate change on New England:

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) today released a report that pulls together the latest studies on climate change’s negative effects on New England, painting a picture of a region already changed, and in danger of losing essential characteristics and economic engines.

“If climate change continues unchecked, Hurricane Sandy won’t be our October surprise, it could be the new normal for New England, where dangerous storms and other climate effects put lives and livelihoods in danger,” said Rep. Markey, who is the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee and the co-author of the only climate change bill to pass a chamber of Congress. “The Perfect Storm was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime event, but climate change is increasing the chances of these sorts of historic extreme weather events.” [...]

“We have some of the best skiing, fishing and foliage in the world in New England, and it all is at risk due to climate change,” said Rep. Markey. “In order to save our traditions, we need more innovations that will cut the carbon pollution that is changing the very face of our planet.”

Stronger storms, weatier summers, slushy skiing, lower maple syrup production, more ticks, fewer of the tastiest fish ... not a pretty picture.

Let's drill down into what we know about climate change and Sandy as she approaches the East Coast. How is man-made global warming influencing to the storm? Two of the key ways: Warmer water and changing weather patterns. Weather Underground's Jeff Masters details the warm water's influence:

If Sandy makes landfall farther to the north near Maine and Nova Scotia, heavy rains will be the main threat, since the cold waters will weaken the storm significantly before landfall. The trees have fewer leaves farther to the north, which will reduce the amount of tree damage and power failures compared to a more southerly track. However, given that ocean temperatures along the Northeast U.S. coast are about 5°F above average, there will be an unusually large amount of water vapor available to make heavy rain. If the trough of low pressure approaching the East Coast taps into the large reservoir of cold air over Canada and pulls down a significant amount of Arctic air, the potential exists for the unusually moist air from Sandy to collide with this cold air from Canada and unleash the heaviest October rains ever recorded in the Northeast U.S., Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. This Northeast U.S. scenario would probably cause damages near $100 million dollars.

Climate Central's Andrew Freedman explains the shifting patterns:

Such a scenario looks plausible partly due to an unusual, independent weather pattern projected for early next week: a large dome of high pressure between the Canadian Maritimes and Greenland, which may act as a block (it's tecnically known as as a “blocking high”), preventing Sandy from moving out into the open ocean, and instead helping to direct it northwestward, back toward the U.S.

Recent studies have shown that blocking highs have appeared with greater frequency and intensity in recent years, which some scientists think may be related to the loss of Arctic sea ice as a result global warming.

And this is just one impact of climate change in one corner of the country - similar stories are playing out with wildfires in the West, drought in the Midwest, and floods in the South. Yet climate change is barely mentioned on the campaign trail.

Why aren't all the Very Serious People seeking Tough Choices to Real Problems silent on climate solutions? You don't think they're only talking about the deficit as an excuse to slash or eliminate Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid to fund tax cuts for themselves because they don't actually care about current or future poor people, do you?

Mann Fights Back, Sues Climate Science Slimers

The Republican war on science faces a new counterattack - a libel lawsuit filed by climate scientist Michael Mann against the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute.

From Mann's Facebook page:

Dr. Mann, a Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has instituted this lawsuit against the two organizations, along with two of their authors, based upon their false and defamatory statements accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky. [...]

In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

Despite their knowledge of the results of these many investigations, the defendants have nevertheless accused Dr. Mann of academic fraud and have maliciously attacked his personal reputation with the knowingly false comparison to a child molester. The conduct of the defendants is outrageous, and Dr. Mann will be seeking judgment for both compensatory and punitive damages.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli clumsy attempt at "investigating" Dr. Mann's work was laughed out of court. Mann has been contemplating a lawsuit for months and is now moving forward, so he must feel he has a much stronger legal case than science's hapless enemies.

Climate Scientists Just Want to Steal David Koch's PRECIOUSSS

Quick reaction to Mitt Romney's now-infamous remarks that the 47 percent of Americans too old, sick or poor to pay income taxes are lazy mooches who want the government to steal more money from rich people so they can get more free goodies.

The war on climate scientists funded by billionaires like the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife and Philip Anschutz makes much more sense when you look at it through this prism. If you already look out the window and see literally half of your fellow Americans as thieves trying to steal from you, well OF COURSE climate scientists are greedy cheaters manipulating the data to back their phony lying hoax so they can get their grubby little stealing hands on more research grants.

It's a cynical, destructive way to view the world (and life), but I understand it. What I don't understand is why anyone would take them and the organizations they fund seriously as a source for climate science, as the PBS NewsHour apparently did last night.

New GOP Climate Change Strategy: Ignore It Altogether

In the past, the climate strategy of Congressional Republicans has been to crow about "sound science" and bitch & moan when hearings don't include spokesmen for polluter front groups. But now they've got a new scheme: Refuse to talk about climate science at all. 

For the 15th time this Congress, House Energy & Commerce Committee Republicans have rejected Democratic efforts to hold a hearing on global warming. That's despite the wildfires raging in the West, drought killing crops in the Midwest, and intense storms knocking out power to millions in the Mid-Atlantic.

Instead of trying to win debates on what to do about things like global warming-fueled extreme weather and sea level rise, Republican leaders are now just pretending the problems don't exist. I'm sure the grandkids will be proud.

David Roberts: Progressives Shouldn't be Afraid to Talk Climate

Some progressives say they're afraid to talk about climate science and the urgent need for climate action because it's too complicated.

In this TED Talk, Grist's David Roberts says climate science easy to understand, it's simple to communicate the danger of climate inaction, and he'll convince you if you give him 17 minutes of your day:


You can follow David on Twitter and subscribe to his Grist feed on Google Reader.

NASA's James Hansen: Continued Climate Inaction "Immoral"

Here's a new TED Talk from Dr. James Hansen, NASA climate scientist. Dr. Hansen explains how he wrote a paper in 1981 predicting "the 21st century would see shifting climate zones, creation of drought prone regions in North America and Asia, erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels, and opening of the fabled Northwest passage. All of these impacts have since either happened or are now well underway."



If you're at the office and can't watch video, read a good summary of Hansen's talk from ClimateProgress.org.

It's a stark reminder that while polluters & their allies accuse climate scientists of being "alarmist," the predictions of climate scientists to this point have more often been too conservative. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just issued its Fourth Assessment in 2007, but many climate scientists already think its predictions were far too cautious given our rapid climate changes and the continued acceleration of global carbon pollution.

By the way, are you familiar with TED Talks? The acronym stands for Technology, Entertainment & Design and the organization describes itself simply as a "nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading." Their podcasts are indispensable - brilliant ideas explained in easy to understand terms in around 15 minutes.

What Does Poor Scientific Literacy Mean for Climate Action?

The latest National Science Foundation poll on scientific literacy (PDF) once again reveals America's knowledge of basic scientific issues hasn't improved much over the last three decades. While more people know lasers are light-based and antibiotics don't work on viruses, fewer people say the universe began with a Big Bang. And depressingly, a majority of Americans don't know it takes a year for the Earth to circle the sun or that humans evolved from earlier primates.

That's the grain of salt with which I take polling about whether Americans acknowledge climate science. I mean, if more Americans know the Earth is warming than know it takes one year for the Earth to go around the sun ... that's positive from a climate action perspective, right? Especially when the media won't even connect higher temperatures to the climate crisis. The numbers are still pretty poor for knowing that warming is man-made - but as the NSF poll shows, the more complex the concept, the worse the numbers.

Should We Teach Students Climate Reality or Polluter Fantasy?

Here's a new video from the Climate Reality Project - if you agree that the Heartland Institute's science denial has no place in America's schools, sign Climate Reality's petition:

While It Complained of Being Silenced, Heartland Institute Worked to Silence Climate Scientists

The Green Miles has been tracking the Heartland Institute's shenanigans for years now, but even I couldn't imagine something like the scandal that's unfolding today. Leaked internal documents detail Heartland's plan to use a secret funder's money to replace climate science with polluter propaganda in America's school curriculum.

Having once come close to being forcibly ejected from a Heartland conference, I especially enjoyed an aspect of Heartland's public relations strategy as detailed by E&E News reporter Jean Chemnick (subscription required):

Later in the memo, its author warns that the business and financial magazine Forbes, which publishes a blog by Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor, has "begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own."

"This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out," the memo states.

Here's Heartland's 2009 Washington Post ad complaining “politicians…and the media routinely ignore and silence the scientists, economists and other experts who say global warming isn’t a crisis”:

So while Heartland was complaining publicly that they were being ignored & silenced, the documents show they were working behind the scenes to make sure climate scientists were ignored & silenced.

In the sage words of Anchorman ... why don't you stop talking for a while? Maybe sit the next couple of plays out.

UPDATE: Heartland claims the documents were not theirs AND that they were stolen. Wrap your brain around that one.

Will DC's TV Forecasters Acknowledge Climate's Contribution to Warm January Weather?

The DC area's forecast for Friday calls for temperatures near 60 degrees with thunderstorms. In January.

But you won't catch our television weather presenters attributing the bizarre forecast to global warming loading the dice for extreme weather! No, sir! Expect to hear lots of things like, "Wow, tropical weather in January. Uh ... weird!"

If they mentioned our changing climate, they might get angry calls from viewers who find climate reality doesn't fit in with their political views. Here in the DC area, unless your name is Bob Ryan, you're likely to figure it's better to keep quiet about the facts than risk standing up for inconvenient truths. Or maybe, like Topper Shutt, you're a climate science denier yourself.

Learn more about why some TV weathermen aren't straight with their viewers about climate science at ForecastTheFacts.org.

DC Meteorologist Ignores Climate's Influence on Warm November

WUSA-TV Chief Meteorologist Topper Shutt, last covered here giving a shout-out to climate science deniers, blogged recently about the DC region's warm November temperatures:

It was 73 on [November 14], just four shy of the record high and is still mild today but changes are on the way which is what November is all about. November typically features wide temperature fluctuations in the Metro Area. Temperature swings of highs 10 degrees above average one day can be followed by days with high temperatures 10 degrees below average all in the same week. Although rare, it has snowed in November in the Metro Area (we were reminded it can snow in October as well) while November has also seen temperatures in the mid 70s. There have been instances of both extremes that Washingtonians have experienced on this date in the not too distant past.

To use a local example, this would be like writing an article about the recent history development in Arlington's Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and saying, "Some buildings are short while others are tall." While that's true, it also would be completely ignoring the easily perceived upward trend.

Just look at the global temperature trend:

Or to get local as the Capital Weather Gang did, look at DC's Thanksgiving temperature trend:

*Reflects adjusted data to account for later occurring Thanksgiving prior to 1939.

Yes, there will always be day-to-day weather fluctuations, but over the long term, the trend is pointing up thanks to man-made carbon pollution. Even the cool-down that began yesterday only brought our temperatures down to what should be normal.

It's not controversial - it's climate science. The only thing hard to figure out is why Topper Shutt won't give the whole story about how global warming is impacting DC's weather.