A new report from the CJR seconds an earlier report from The Guardian in the United Kingdom, that substantial millions of dollars are being donated anonymously, and often secretly, to support dissemination of the denialist point of view regarding climate change and global warming. One could also argue that large sums are donated to groups dedicated to getting the word out that the scientific evidence is overwhelming and that action must be taken. As noted in the reports, however, those groups tend to be more transparent. Regardless, advocacy for or against a problem is meaningless if there is firm evidence against your stance. Given the lack of any scientific support for a denialist position, one must therefore wonder about the motives.

A very nice report on the reports can be found in this article from Physics Today.

The dramatic recent decline in Arctic sea-ice cover is illustrated in new data from Europe’s Cryosat mission. The data currently consists of only a few years right now, so it’s not possible to say if this is a trend or not. Importantly, however, it does reveal that winter ice growth is not compensating for the increasingly dramatic loss of summer ice that is now, unfortunately, a well established trend. Also, the big differences already detected by this mission points to a high variability of seasonal ice growth and loss, a variability that could be indicative of a system in transition. Read more here.

Prominent climate scientists were unwilling Wednesday to do what New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo did: blame climate change for the devastating storm known as Sandy that wreaked havoc along the Eastern Seaboard. Read the full article here.

President Obama, it’s time to talk about climate change.

Partially submerged yellow cabs in a parking lot in Hoboken, N.J., on Tuesday. (Charles Sykes/Associated Press)

The declining areal cover and thickness of summer ice in the Arctic Sea continues, with 2012 shaping up to be another record-breaking year. Read the BBC summary here. These declines are of course predicted as a consequence of warming air temperatures due to anthropogenic global warming, but what really alarms me is the speed at which it is progressing. Basically, ice loss is accelerating every year, and has been since we noted a drastic speed-up in 2007. The consequences of an ice free Arctic will be far-reaching. First there are physical consequences. Losing the ice reduces the regional albedo, and creates a feedback that will continue the acceleration. Furthermore, thinner ice means that more light penetrates into the depths, warming the water beneath. The region’s biology is also changing, and this too will accelerate. Warmer, brighter waters will most likely increase biological productivity in the Arctic Sea, which will be good news for some human industries, but isn’t good news for all. The opening of the seaway, and increasing productivity, will change the ecology of the region, displacing many species, while allowing invasion from neighbouring waters in the northern Pacific and Atlantic. Geerat Vermeij and I wrote a predictive paper about this, oh, 4 years ago now. It is difficult to predict exactly what the consequences of those changes will be because of the problem’s complexity, but they will be large. And finally, of course, opening the sea exposes many many resources of interest to humans, including fossil fuel deposits and shipping lanes. Let the wrangling begin. Noe note though is that the Arctic Sea ice melting will not contribute significantly to sea level rise; that ice is already in the ocean.

Our planet continues to change in response to global warming, and it seems that some of those changes are accelerating. I cannot be certain, and we will only know this in hindsight, but in my opinion we are beginning to cross thresholds. The time for discussion is long past. Now is the time for increased mitigation and implementation of adaptive strategies. I don’t think that we are yet at the point where we need to consider drastic measures, such as extreme geoengineering. But, in the same way that a failure to agree upon and implement effective mitigating measures has brought us to this point, we may well be on our way to addressing this problem with technologically challenging, ecosystem-altering, economically difficult and socially painful actions.

This is a draft figure from an essay that I’ve been working on recently (use your browser to “view image” for a larger size). It is a very simple illustration of (1) the irregular relationship between population size and energy consumption, and (2) the variation of per capita rates of electricity consumption among American states. Here is a relevant excerpt from the text of the essay:

For example, globally the United States ranks first in per capita energy consumption (Figure 2a). Yet, among US states California, the most populous state in the union, has the lowest per capita rate of electricity consumption while Wyoming, with a population 66 times lower than California’s, has the highest rate (Figure 2b). Climatic differences account for some of this disparity, with Wyoming having amongst the coolest summer and coldest winter temperatures in the US. Climate alone cannot account for all the variance, however, because California also has two of the top 10 hottest major cities in the country, along with other populous states such as Texas and Florida. Neither of the latter states is in the top five consumption group. On the other hand, other states in the top five group, such as Kentucky, do not have particularly extreme climates, nor large populations, and therefore have considerable room for reducing per capita energy consumption rates while maintaining high standards of living.

Figure caption: Energy consumption rates. A – Total primary energy consumption of the world’s 10 most populous countries (China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan), 2009 (BTU = British thermal unit). B – Per capita electricity consumption, United States, 2010. Red – five most highly ranked states (Wyoming, Kentucky, North Dakota, Louisiana, South Carolina), green – five lowest ranked states (California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New York, Alaska). Florida and Texas are in neither group, but have both high populations and climate extremes.

A reader recently submitted a comment which, while expressing a perfectly legitimate personal opinion, quoted material from one of the “Climategate” e-mails. I will not print any material from those stolen e-mails on this blog. The e-mails were obtained illegally, and I consider it a gross violation of both personal and university property. I intend no disrespect to the person who submitted the comment.

“Call me a converted sceptic.”

That quote from a recent piece by UC Berkeley physicist, Richard Muller, in the New York Times. Muller should be congratulated for his objective and scientific approach, and now agrees that the overwhelming majority of ongoing warming is attributable to human activities. HOWEVER, Dr. Muller should not be congratulated for the great disservice that he did to the scientific community when he initially expressed, very publicly, his skepticism for original studies on warming. It is fine, in fact essential, to be skeptical as a scientist. But the proper course of action is to re-examine the study(ies) of which you are skeptical, in scientific and peer-reviewed venues. That is how we test and verify or reject our hypotheses and conclusions. Opinions, no matter how expert, are still merely opinions until tested. Nevertheless, the proper course has been followed, and we should all look forward to the results of Dr. Muller and co-authors’ latest effort. It is, after all, a test of the repeatability and reliability of previous studies. I think that we all need to be careful of not falling into the unqualified and inexpert morass characterized by vessels like Anthony Watts.

The New York Times piece may be found here, and here is an article about that article from the BBC. And a preprint of the study is online here.

“The amendments do not change the long-term trend, but the data now lists 2010, rather than 1998, as the warmest year on record.” Read more here.

The “Altered State: Climate Change” exhibit at the California Academy of Sciences has come down after three and a half successful years. The exhibit opened with the new Academy in September, 2008 as one of the major public floor exhibits. I was the lead science curator for the exhibit, working alongside other excellent Academy staff members as well as external content developers and exhibit designers. I must admit that I was a bit sad to see the exhibit come down, for a couple of reasons. First, I personally put a lot of work into it and developed close relationships with some of the other folks who worked on it. Second, the exhibit turnover is a bit of a sign that the “new” Academy is no longer so new, and we’ve settled into our new home. On the other hand, the exhibit is being replaced replaced by an exciting new one on the science of earthquakes and plate tectonics, another topic dear to my academic heart.

Given all this, it was with mild amusement, and some irritation, that I read this nonsensical piece on the typically worthless “Watt’s up with that?” deniers’ blog by Anthony Watt. The basic premise of that post, a guest post, is the claim that the Altered State exhibit was closed down because the “Academy has given up” on climate change. The post is full of its usual deliberate misinformation, misinterpretation and misdirection, so here are a few brief facts to set the record straight.

1. 1. The Academy has not given up on its study of anthropogenically-driven climate change, nor its efforts to provide information to the general public.
2. 2. All the main floor exhibits that opened with the Academy in 2008 are scheduled for turnover. The exhibits are not permanent. Short-term exhibits run for 6-12 months, and long-term exhibits for 3-5 years.
3. 3. Initial planning for the earthquake exhibit that is replacing Altered State started in 2007, even before Altered State itself was built.
4. 4. The docent supposedly quoted in the post is not a source of information. If the quote is true, then the information offered was both unfortunate and inaccurate. Academy docents are not part of long-term exhibits planning, nor are they privy to exhibit evaluations. But, in keeping with the approach typical of Watt and his friends, no care is given to the accuracy nor reliability of sources or information.
5. 5. By all standards of natural museum exhibits, Altered State was a smashing success.

I am one of the science content advisors for the earthquake exhibit, so I know what I am talking about. That exhibit will complement a fantastic planetarium show, so I hope that you all will visit! Watt and friends included.