You’ll want to review this when Trump finally does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and  Fox & Friends give a glowing recap.

Huh. I see the video above has gotten 125k views while I wasn’t looking.

Climate blogger Collin Maessen and I interviewed Richard Muller in 2014 at the American Geophysical Union. Muller, a one-time darling of denierville, got funding from, among others, the Koch Brothers, to apply his skeptical eye to climate science and review all the mainstream findings about global temperature and what drives it.
To his credit, Muller hired a crack team of scientists, including a recent Nobel prize physicist, and they set to work.
And, they confirmed what mainstream climate science has been saying for 60 years.

His work came up in a Senate hearing the other day.

ThinkProgress:

After a week full of misleading and inaccurate statements, Energy Secretary Rick Perry remained incredulous and defiant when confronted with climate science-related facts in a budget hearing Thursday.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) informed Perry that scientists have concluded that “humans are entirely the cause” of recent warming, to which Perry responded, “I don’t believe it” and “I don’t buy it.”

And when Franken reminded him this was the conclusion of a team of climate science skeptics funded by conservative petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch, Perry raised his voice and said: “To stand up and say that 100 percent of global warming is because of human activity, I think on its face, is just indefensible.”

Monday on CNBC, Perry falsely claimed that carbon dioxide was not the primary cause of recent global warming, along with a bunch of other nonsense. He also defended his right to be a “skeptic.”

On Wednesday, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) wrote Perry a letter informing him that he was simply wrong. The central role of greenhouse gases — of which CO2 is the “most important” — is “based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world,” the letter read.

The AMS called these “indisputable findings,” and pointed out, “we are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.”

The AMS also explained that while some aspects of climate science are not fully resolved, this wasn’t one of them, adding, “skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.”

On Thursday, at an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Franken asked Perry to defend downplaying the role of CO2 — and Perry reiterated his denial. Oblivious, Perry repeated, “what’s wrong with being a skeptic?”

Read the rest of this entry »

Coal Baron Sues Comic

June 22, 2017

If you saw John Oliver’s satirical piece on the joys of coal and coal mining, (posted here) – that’s earned him a legal threat from the coal baron he made fun of.
Coal barons don’t like being made fun of.

 

Trump announces magical wall will be solar powered.
I’m told, that as communicators, we’re not supposed to make jokes about the stupidity of Trump voters, – because it makes them sad.
But c’mon, people.

Fox and Friends are on board, of course.

President refers to the wall “..keeping drugs out..”. Really?
It’s going to keep all that Vicodin, oxycontin, fentanyl, and Norco that drug companies are flooding into rural areas, that patients, of course, demand…and that the new health care bill will likely not adequately address.

Right, that should do it. Read the rest of this entry »

So How Hot was it…?

June 22, 2017

We’ll adapt. Just don’t plan on travel, don’t burn yourself with the cold water from your tap, and don’t walk your dog – you might kill it.

Pacific Standard:

What’s an extreme heat wave like in a place that’s accustomed to extreme heat? Here’s a snapshot of Monday:

Also on Monday, American Airlines canceled 38 flights previously scheduled for Phoenix on Tuesday—simply because it will be too hot to fly. It’s not necessarily that the pilots and ground crew will need extra rest, it’s that the planes’ wings themselves weren’t designed to perform under such conditions. Hotter air is thinner, and provides less lift, making it difficult for planes to take off.

Pacific Standard again:

As for here in Tucson, where I live, it’s so hot right now, I can’t think straight. Even indoors, a heat like this consumes you. “Cold” water from the tap is hot to the touch. You feel trapped; your daily routine changes to accommodate the inferno. This morning, it was already 85 degrees at 7:30 a.m. Last night, it didn’t drop below 100 until a few minutes before 10 p.m. The last time it was this hot in Tucson, four people died from heat exposure while walking outside. This time around, officials have issued an air-quality advisory to warn of pollution that may become trapped near ground level thanks to the stagnant air.

The atmospheric culprit for the heat is a very intense high pressure, which is itself setting records. Though the statistical databases show this high of high pressure to be an approximately one-in-200-year event, these events have been occurring more often lately—with the last one happening just last year. In short, the background signal of global warming makes the entire atmosphere thinner and less dense, supporting stronger high-pressure centers like the one camped out over Arizona this week, which then tend to get stuck in place—cranking up the thermostat over a multi-state region.

In this video, Phoenix TV Meteorologist Amber Sullins shows how she explains increasing climate fueled heat to red-state viewers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM_XwDKhsas Read the rest of this entry »

One thing that history shows is a 100 percent renewable and limitless heat source – the fight between those who think we can go to an all-sun-wind-water powered world, and those who think you can’t go carbon-free without nuclear energy.

Hostilities have broken out again.

Washington Post:

Scientists are engaged in an increasingly bitter and personal feud over how much power the United States can get from renewable sources, with a large group of researchers taking aim at a popular recent paper that claimed the country could move beyond fossil fuels entirely by 2055.

In 2015, Stanford professor Mark Jacobson and his colleagues argued that between 2050 and 2055, the United States could be entirely powered by “clean” energy sources and “no natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed.”

That would be a massive shift from the current power makeup, as in 2016, the United States got only 6.5 percent of its electricity from hydropower, 5.6 percent from wind and 0.9 percent from solar. Nonetheless, the paper excited proponents of renewable energy, and has been embraced by Sen. Bernie Sanderscelebrity backers such actor Mark Ruffalo and many environmental groups.

But Jacobson’s idea was always contentious. And now, no fewer than 21 researchers have published a study in the influential Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which also published Jacobson’s original study in 2015) arguing that the work “used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.”

In a simultaneous letter in the journal, meanwhile, Jacobson and three Stanford colleagues fire back that Clack’s critique is itself “riddled with errors” and “demonstrably false.”

Jacobson also argued that his critics are biased in favor of carbon-based fuels such as oil, gas and coal, as well as nuclear energy.

The fight between researchers comes as the Trump administration has signaled it does not believe the nation’s electric grid can support a quick and thorough shift toward renewable energy, as Jacobson suggests that it can. As soon as this week, Energy Secretary Rick Perry is expected to release a study of the grid that renewable energy advocates fear will be used to criticize wind and solar and how they affect the grid.

Example: In Cedar Rapids speech/rally, President advocates solar panels on his border wall (the one that Mexico is going to pay for, right?) saying, “That’s the only place where solar actually works.” Read the rest of this entry »

This is interesting.

Alternet::

Electronic artist Moby’s new animated music video sends a clear message about his feelings on capitalism, greed, and President Donald Trump — and the latter’s supporters aren’t having it.

Once Trump supporters caught wind of Moby & The Void Pacific Choir’s “In This Cold Place” video, they began drawing their own conclusion about the artist’s activist message.

“Moby cartoon video corrupting children into hatred and accepting violence against President Trump” reads the headline of a post at the American Thinker blog decrying the “Trump derangement syndrome” apparent in the satirical cartoon.

“The artistic quality and budget of this video overshadow anything Hamas could produce.  But as I see it, Moby and Cutts are breeding fanatics, just as the Palestinians do,” American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson wrote.

Breitbart focused on the dollar-turned-swastika symbolism in the video, as did the conservative Washington Times, who noted that Trump “transforms into a robotic, missile-firing swastika” during the three-minute animated video.

Once Trump supporters caught wind of Moby & The Void Pacific Choir’s “In This Cold Place” video, they began drawing their own conclusion about the artist’s activist message.

“Moby cartoon video corrupting children into hatred and accepting violence against President Trump” reads the headline of a post at the American Thinker blog decrying the “Trump derangement syndrome” apparent in the satirical cartoon.

“The artistic quality and budget of this video overshadow anything Hamas could produce.  But as I see it, Moby and Cutts are breeding fanatics, just as the Palestinians do,” American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson wrote.

Breitbart focused on the dollar-turned-swastika symbolism in the video, as did the conservative Washington Times, who noted that Trump “transforms into a robotic, missile-firing swastika” during the three-minute animated video.

 

 

John Oliver: Coal

June 19, 2017

 

In a cabinet full of fawning, shamelessly pandering, dim bulbs, Rick Perry, well, shines.

It would appear that 97 percent of below-average ex-cheerleader animal husbandry majors do not believe in human caused climate change.  That’s good enough for me.

By the way, you’ll see above that Perry pays lip service to “innovations..coming out of our national labs”, while he and the Trump administration move to gut the very innovation hubs that made the US a leader in the technologies vital to a new century.

Salon:

Energy Secretary Rick Perry is cooking up a case to stifle further federal support of renewable wind and solar energy. He’s ordered a dubiously sourced staff study that is aimed to paint renewables as an unreliable source for the nation’s electric grid.

The study, due June 23, seeks to determine whether federal tax and subsidy policies favoring renewable energy have burdened “baseload” coal-fired generation, putting power grid reliability at risk. It is being spearheaded by Energy Department political appointee Travis Fisher, who’s associated with a Washington policy group that opposes almost any government aid for renewable energy.

Fisher wrote a 2015 report for the Institute for Energy Research that called clean energy policies “the single greatest emerging threat” to the nation’s electric power grid, and a greater threat to electric reliability than cyber attacks, terrorism or extreme weather.

Washington Post:

A congressionally mandated study has found that a key federal energy research program, which the Trump administration is seeking to defund almost entirely, is “not failing and is not in need of reform.”

The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, is a freestanding office designed to operate nimbly and without bureaucracy as it funds breakthrough energy innovations that increase U.S. security and fight climate change.

It was created under a law signed by President George W. Bush and granted its first major funding under President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus legislation — but the Trump administration would like to slash its funding from $ 290 million in 2017 to just $ 20 million in 2018, a 93 percent decrease.

A new study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) certainly won’t help that quest. The study, mandated by the law that created ARPA-E itself, finds that the agency, while still quite young, has had many successes — although it has done a poor job of singing its own praises.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s been an axiom of climate science that “we can’t attribute a specific weather event to climate change”.
Now, at least in relation to certain kinds of events, that’s changing – as the warming signal emerges ever more clearly from the noise.

Climate Signals:

Global warming has amplified the intensity, duration and frequency of extreme heat events. The National Academy of Sciences reports and validates numerous studies as well as two major science assessment reviews that definitively identify the fingerprint of human influence in driving the changes observed to date.

These events occur on multiple time scales—from a single day or week, to months or entire seasons—and are defined by temperatures significantly above the historic average for that period.

The climate has shifted significantly, leading to more heat records in every season. The number of local record-breaking average monthly temperature extremes worldwide is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming.[1] 85 percent of recent record-hot days globally have been attributed to climate change.[2]

The more extreme the heat wave, the more likely the event can be attributed to global warming. However, even the impact of climate change on “moderate” heat waves (i.e. 1-in-3 year events) is dramatic, with a 75 percent share of such heat events now attributed to climate change.

In a stable climate, the ratio of days that are record hot to days that are record cold is approximately even. However, in our warming climate, record highs have begun to outpace record lows, with the imbalance growing for the past three decades.[1] 85 percent of recent record-hot days globally are attributed to climate change.[2]

The world is not quite at the point where every hot temperature record has a human fingerprint, but it’s getting close to that.

Noah Diffenbaugh, Stanford University

 

Read the rest of this entry »