|
Real Hurricane to Hit New York on Tax Day?
That’s what Dr. Jeff Masters, a forecaster’s forecaster, is suggesting. Category 1, mind you, but still!
If the worst case scenarios of the models come true, the Tax Day Storm of 2007 could cause extensive moderate to severe coastal flooding, costing hundreds of millions of dollars. The areas at highest risk appear to be New Jersey, New York (especially New York City), Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Heavy snow is not expected along the coast, but heavy rains may cause flooding problems. As usual, there is considerable uncertainty about the exact track and intensity of the storm, and we’ll have a better idea Friday what might be in store for New England. However, I believe there is a greater than 50% chance that this Nor’easter will be strong enough to cause significant storm surge flooding along the New England coast. Damages of at least $100 million are likely.
(My italics. GFS model results for this Monday.)
The Taxing Solution to Global Warming
A carbon tax is not a new idea; heck, The Economist proposed a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in l998. But the fact that a few idealistic conservatives (yes, the species still exists) are backing a carbon tax now is news. Especially since just two years ago Andrew Sullivan, the leader of the pack, was actively doubting the threat of climate change.
Better late than never, I say.
Among enviros, the consensus is that any tax actually able to reduce emissions substantially would be politlcally impossible to enact. I’m not so sure. I’m no expert, but I like the transparency of the idea, and its potential to change public attitudes from the bottom up.
An example: in California, where we love our cars, and where public transportation is reserved mostly for the poor and the young, the rise in gas prices has resulted in a leveling off of gas consumption since 2000…despite millions more drivers and vehicles. They said it wasn’t possible, but it is!
[graphic from the aforementioned LATimes story, drawn from state statistics]
NO MORE WATER: Scientists, Oak Trees Predict Drought
After an unusually dry winter, experts in climate and weather are predicting drought for Ventura County and Southern California.
Southern California experienced the driest fall and winter in over a century, according to the National Oceanographic and Atrmospheric Administration, and the drought is expected to continue and widen across the region.
“The outlook for any significant drought improvement from now through spring looks grim for not only southern California but for much of the Southwest as well,” said Douglas LeComte, who forecasts drought for NOAA from his office in Maryland.
Equally bleak but more colorful is Bill Patzert, who works at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, and is known as "The Prophet of California Climate."
"When in doubt," Patzert advises weather forecasters in Southern California, "vote for drought."
Most alarming of all is the conclusion reached by NOAA researcher Martin Hoerling, who compiled climatological studies on the Southwest for the fourth international scientific report on global warming, to be issued in full this year. Because drought is a measure of not only of rainfall but also of temperature and plant transpiration, and because temperatures are rising inexorably across the Southwest due to global warming, Hoerling in a paper (pdf) for Southwest Hydrology wrote that "a near perpetual state of drought will materialize in coming decades as a consequence of increasing temperature."
THE EXTREME MAKEOVER OF CALIFORNIA
According to Henry Diaz, who has been researching meterological records in the West for NOAA since the l990s, temperatures in mountains across the Southwest have risen about two degrees Fahrenheit in the last 30 years. Snows in the high mountains are melting about two weeks earlier than in the past. At lower elevations, such as in Ventura County, the temperature rise has been less, but Diaz says that the Southwest has been in a drought since l999.
"We had a little bit of a reprieve in the last couple of years, which brought us closer to normal," he said from his office in Colorado, speaking of the heavy rains of 2005 and the near-normal rainfall of 2006. "You know precipitation is going to go up and down, week by week, month by month, year by year. But because of the warmer temperatures we have been observing in the Southwest over the last thirty years, we expect higher plant transpiration, with lower levels of soil moisture and recurring drought. This drought is consistent with that overall pattern of higher temperatures."
Patzert looked at records from over 330 weather stations throughout California for the past thirty years for Climate Research and found temperatures had risen nearly two degrees Fahrenheit in the last thirty years, and much faster in urban areas, with Southern California rising fastest of all.
"It’s definitely warmer in L.A.," he said. "Since May it’s been almost five degrees warmer Fahrenheit, versus a thirty-year historical average. We’ve had a lot of unusual Santa Ana conditions, and we’re now in an all-year fire season. I had one of my students look at extreme heat days, which means more than 90 degrees, and he found that we have on average 22 more extreme heating days than a hundred years ago. Our heat waves used to last three or four or five days. Now they can last two weeks. In the last one 180 people died. We’ve had less rain, more extreme heating days, and longer heat waves. I call it the Extreme Makeover of California."
Terry Schaeffer, a meterologist who has been advising Ventura County farmers on weather conditions since the l970s, hasn’t seen the same degree of heat change in Ventura County. But to explain the current drought conditions, he points to an oceanic trend called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This ocean trend can cause longer-lasting La Niña episodes (which usually bring drier winter conditions) and shorter El Niño episodes (which usually bring wetter winters).
“The theory is that we’re going into a 25- to 40-year drought cycle,” he said. “Not every year will be a drought year, but the majority will.”
IS VENTURA COUNTY PREPARED?
To citrus rancher Jim Coultas of Ojai, global warming means rising costs.
"I’m in agriculture. I depend on a well and a hookup to Casitas reservoir, which costs about 10% more a year," he said. "As the level in the aquifer drops, you get less water out of the soil, and as the temperature goes up, you have to irrigate more. Absolutely that concerns me."
Richard Handley, who serves on the board of the Casitas water district in Ojai, points out that from l910 to 2000, spring run-off from the Sierras decreased 10%. Since the Sierran snowpack supplies much of the state’s water, including about 40% of Ventura County’s needs, he thinks we will all have to make some changes.
"Global warming is only just now something that people are accepting as fact," he said. "It’s sort of like flying by night without radar."
Handley is encouraged by some recent developments, including the removal of water-guzzling exotic species such as arundo dorax from streambeds. He points out that Ventura County survived a seven-year drought in the late 80’s and early 90’s with conservation measures.
Russ Baggerly, also a water district official, thinks the time has come to rethink some of the conservation plans developed at that time.
"Everybody works hard at dealing with water," he said. "The problem is that a lot of the thinking is out of the past and perpetuated into the future. We need to find a way to get a lot of different water companies to work together appropriately so that during a drought we don’t run out."
A DRY SUMMER–BUT NOT A HOT ONE?
Although Patzert flatly predicts the hottest summer ever in Southern California, the next couple of months in Ventura will likely remain cool and foggy, thanks to the influence of the Pacific Ocean.
"L.A. was drier than ever this year, and we were dry in Ventura County, too," said Kent Field, an air quality control meterologist for Ventura County. "But does that portend a long, hot summer? We could have low clouds and fog all summer, like "the summer that never was" we had here back in the l990’s."
Schaeffer points out that "as the pendulum swings into a La Nina period, with cool ocean waters, that is likely to enhance our fog in May and June."
But why should we listen to climatologists and meterologists? Aren’t these experts the same people who this past fall predicted an El Nino condition, with the likelyhood of significant rainfall?
NOAA did predict an El Nino year this past fall, based on ocean observations, with an expectation of above-average rain and snow. Historically, for our coastal region, El Nino years average about 125% of precipitation.
Yet not all NOAA employees–including Patzert and LeComte–had confidence in the consensus prediction. LeComte said he was "nervous" about the rainfall projections, because for his work as a drought forecaster he looks at a variety of forecasting tools, some based on soil moisture levels, and the soil moisture numbers were not corresponding with the predictions based on ocean studies.
Patzert had a more personal reason to doubt the forecast. In his backyard he has an old oak tree, and for years he has noticed that the tree seemed to drop far more acorns before wet years than dry years.
This past fall his tree produced virtually no acorns.
Could an oak tree foresee a weather pattern that scientists couldn’t?
NATURE KNOWS THE SIGNS
Patzert wasn’t the only Southern Californian to notice the lack of acorns this fall. Dave White, who worked for several years as a tree-trimmer in Ojai while becoming a science teacher, also noticed a connection between acorn drop in the fall and rain in the winter.
"Two years ago it was uncanny," White said, "The trees produced a huge amount of acorns before we had those big rains. I asked my tree-trimming buddies about it, and they noticed the same thing. This year I could hardly find an acorn and so I thought, okay, we’re not going to get much rain."
How could an oak tree predict rainfall? One possibility: a tree could sample the level of moisture in the soil over the course of a year and use that trend to guesstimate rainfall over the course of an upcoming season. Statisticians for NOAA and other forecasting agencies have been compiling historical measurements of soil moisture, called "constructed soil analogues," which match soil moisture records at given locations and time periods with rainfall and temperature records. The resulting outlooks are purely statistical, based on past experience, and available on the web. Although not yet approved for public use, LeComte says they are about as reliable as traditional methods for drought forecasts.
"Forecasting skill is fairly modest for all our products," he said. "But when I’m forecasting, I give the statistical models about equal weight with the ocean models. I think their performance is pretty close, and I think in the future we’re going to need to work with more than one kind of forecasting tool."
Patzert is blunter.
"Well, my tree was certainly right this year," he said. "It was more prophetic than NOAA. 1500 civil servants could not compete with one hundred-year-old oak tree."
(This is the linked version of the story: for slightly edited unlinked version, see the Ventura County Reporter.)
Kurt Vonnegut: The Master Who Insisted on Modesty
Kurt Vonnegut, perhaps the most-taken-for-granted of all our writers, died this week. No one has yet captured his unique blend of free thinking and self-deprecation, I think, although Tom Watson comes close for newcritics. For me, Vonnegut’s greatness came out of an unblinking insistence on the foolishness of arrogance, be it personal, military, or planetary.
A couple of quotes not to be forgotten; the first, from David Ulin‘s appreciation this morning in the LATimes:
"The good Earth — we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy."
And from an interview last year in Rolling Stone:
"I’m Jeremiah, and I’m not talking about God being mad at us. I’m talking about us killing the planet as a life-support system with gasoline. What’s going to happen is, very soon, we’re going to run out of petroleum, and everything depends on petroleum. And there go the school buses. There go the fire engines. The food trucks will come to a halt. This is the end of the world. We’ve become far too dependent on hydrocarbons, and it’s going to suddenly dry up. You talk about the gluttonous Roaring Twenties. That was nothing. We’re crazy, going crazy, about petroleum. It’s a drug like crack cocaine. Of course, the lunatic fringe of Christianity is welcoming the end of the world as the rapture. So I’m Jeremiah. It’s going to have to stop. I’m sorry."
Also from the LATimes, this lovely picture taken by his daughter Edie last year:
Conservatives Bicker over Global Warming: Businessmen Lead
It’s the strangest thing: conservatives, Republicans, and partisans on the right continue to squabble over global warming–is it real, should we act?–even as huge corporations call for exactly the sort of emissions-reductions measures that Al Gore and countless other Democrats want to see enacted.
The latest example is the third-largest American oil company, now known as ConocoPhillips, once known as Union 76. After years of doubting the science, this week they called in Washington for legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, preferably a "cap-and-trade" program. CEO Jim Mulva told the Toronto Globe and Mail and other newspapers in a conference call that they want to be regulated:
"At our company, we believe that the science is quite compelling and that climate change is certainly attributed to human activity and to the substantial use of fossil fuels in terms of emissions. We believe quite strongly that now is the time we need a national, mandated framework to handle and deal with climate change."
The Wall Street Journal [$] cast a somewhat jaundiced eye on this conversion, noting:
Companies like ConocoPhillips that are endorsing a federal global-warming cap are doing so largely in the belief that they can shape it to minimize the cost to them. Many companies, eyeing the proliferation of differing global-warming rules in places such as California and the Northeast, are concluding that a single nationwide cap will be less onerous than a patchwork of state rules.
A U.S. policy, they figure, would be easier to integrate into global-warming regulations being implemented in other countries where U.S.-based multinationals like ConocoPhillips also do business.
That integration would make it easier for companies to satisfy any U.S. obligation by buying cheaper emission "credits" from the developing world, where the cost of projects to reduce or offset fossil-fuel emissions is lower. ConocoPhillips’s Mr. Mulva stressed that his company wants a U.S. cap to "have linkages" to policies in other countries.
Nonetheless, the fact that huge corporations are on board for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions cannot be stated too many times, in this reporter’s view. When George Will claims that those who would reduce emissions to preserve our climate are fuzzy in their thinking, he never mentions corporations like ConocoPhillips, Caterpillar, Alcoa, Duke Energy, and the countless other corporations that are working with environmental groups to reduce emissions as part of USCAP.
Gee, I wonder why not? Could it be that it’s easier to incite right-wingers against Al Gore than against GE?
The Red Reef Trail
Plenty of climate change news today: John Kerry (who has run for President) and Newt Gingrich (who likely will) debated the issue live for two hours in D.C. Planet Gore-ites on the far right aren’t happy with Newt’s performance, so it must have gone well for Kerry, who for all his flaws as a candidate, has shown he’s a pretty decent debater.
But let’s spend a moment with the land. Specifically, with the Los Padres National Forest in Southern California, as seen in a painting by Robert Wassell. This painting, called "Red Reef 4/06," was painted on the trail long before the huge Day Fire. The land looks little like this now, I bet. But it’s worth remembering how it was for this artist…and I love the way he painted those clouds. It’s as if you can see the spin of the earth in the sky above.
Tracking the Biological Signal: Dr. Camille Parmesan
In the early l990’s, Camille Parmesan began studying an obscure butterfly named Edith’s checkerspot. Suspecting that it was responding to higher temperatures in California by shifting its range northward, Parmesan applied to NASA for a grant to study the butterfly’s response to global warming.
"So I devised a project to look for response to global climate change by looking at the whole species range all the way from Mexico to Canada and asking the really simple question, ‘Are we seeing it shifting its range?’ And NASA said, ‘Sure, go for it.’ And gave me three years funding to do this.”
Since then Parmesan has become an internationally recognized authority on the biological response to climate change. Now for the wonderful science program Earth and Sky, she writes a post on the latest work in the field.
We are seeing impacts of current warming on every continent and in every ocean. We’re also seeing very similar responses in very different types of organisms – from butterflies in Finland to fish in the North Sea, from foxes in Canada to trees in Sweden, from birds in Antarctica to starfish in Monterey Bay, California.
Forty-percent of wild species are showing changes in their distributions – shifting their ranges north and south towards the poles and up mountains. An astonishing 62% are showing changes in their seasonal timing: spring is earlier and fall is later. Birds arriving for their spring migration, butterflies emerging from overwintering, trees leafing out after winter dormancy and the first blooms of flowers are all about two weeks earlier than they were 30 years ago across the northern hemisphere.
Although some writers–notably Elizabeth Kolbert for The New Yorker–have brought up this aspect of climate change, in this commentator’s opinion it’s often overlooked. Perhaps that’s because we think that butterflies can adapt to climate change, and glaciers can’t. But it’s my suspicion that we as animals ourselves find it easier to identify with living, breathing, fluttering creatures than bodies of ice, and might pay more attention if we looked more at the "signal" through the eyes of our fellow mortals…
A Technical Note for Bookmarkers
If you’ve been so kind to bookmark me, thank you, but in order to see my new and improved site, you must do a little housekeeping. It’s easy and safe and, in fact, recommended on a routine basis.
Go to the "Tools" section of your browser, and clear out your cache. (Keep your cookies, your bookmarks, etc., of course.) Clearing out your cache will allow your browser to see this site anew.
Thank you…and please let me know if you have any problems.
Chief Justice Roberts Loses a Big One
The Supreme Court is not just the highest court in the land, it is also the forum in which our nation’s most pressing issues are debated most rigorously, with precedents, transcripts, questions, and arguments both oral and written. Congressional hearings, campaign speeches, press conferences and the like all have their time and place, but for truly substantive debate, we must go to the Supremes.
So having taken a look already at the winning argument in the discussion-changing decision of a week ago, let’s take a look at the losing argument. After all, it was a 5-4 decision.
As an unhappy editorial (Jolly Green Justices) in the Wall Street Journal put it: "Someone recently quipped that Justice Stevens considers it his late life’s work to compete for the jump ball that is the jurisprudence of Justice Kennedy, and he seems to be winning most possessions."
It’s true. Both Stevens and Kennedy were nominated to the court by Republicans (Ford and Reagan), and had the EPA lawyers argued their case more cleverly, they might have been able to win this decision on legal grounds. But the "facts on the ground" were against them, and–a little surprisingly–the EPA conceded the seriousness of global warming at the start, and claimed to want to reduce its "harms."
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, seized on this as a concession in his opinion. In oral arguments, he pressed the agency lawyer, Greg Garre, on the matter:
JUSTICE STEVENS: Is there uncertainty on the basic proposition that these greenhouse gases contribute to global warming?
MR. GARRE: Your Honor, the report says that it is likely that there is a — a connection, but that it cannot unequivocally be established.
That weak "unequivocally" did not impress the court. Even Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote a fervent dissent to Stevens’ majority opinion, conceded at the outset Massachusetts’ claim that "Global warming may be a “crisis,” even “the most pressing environmental problem of our time.’"
But Roberts argues that the state of Massachusetts doesn’t have standing–the right–to press a claim against the EPA. Roberts argues passionately, in a blend of Latinisms and blunt English, but it comes down to the claim that because the harm of global warming is "conjecture," that therefore Massachusetts cannot force the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. This is a stretch. As Stevens pointed out, the state has good reason to protect its coastline, even if it has not yet moved significantly inland.
Roberts is on firmer ground when he points out that regulation is not a remedy:
The [majority] contends that regulating domestic motor vehicle emissions will reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and therefore redress Massachusetts’s injury. But even if regulation does reduce emissions—to some indeterminate degree, given events elsewhere in the world—the Court never explains why that makes it likely that the injury in fact—the loss of land—will be redressed.
But this is the nature of global warming. We are already committed to decades of warming, even if we stop emitting today. Stevens repeatedly in his majority opinion talks of "reduction of harms," not of redressing particular losses (say, Cape Cod) with particular remedies (say, gas mileage standards). Roberts’ legal argument runs afoul of physical reality. Who claims that regulating emissions will solve the problem? No one I know. The idea is to avoid disaster, not to promise to roll back the clock.
In an analysis for the NYTimes, veteran reporter Linda Greenhouse wrote:
In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens found five votes for the conclusion that Massachusetts…was also entitled to special deference for its claim to standing because of its status as a sovereign state. Invoking no modern precedent — because there was none — to support this new theory of states’ rights, Justice Stevens deftly turned the court’s federalism revolution, which he has long opposed, on its head and provoked an objection from the chief justice.
This is huge, folks. Enormous. As Juliet Epstein put it in a column for the Washington Post:
Years from now, Massachusetts v. EPA may be seen as akin to the Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion, in which the Supreme Court answered a question that U.S. politicians were unable to resolve.
Justice Scalia seconded Roberts’ dissent, but added one of his own that’s less legal. Essentially, Scalia argues that CO2 is not a matter requiring regulation, in the judgement of the EPA administrator, and that the Court cannot substitute its judgement on that matter. He writes:
…the statute says nothing at all about the reasons for which the Administrator may defer making a judgment.
A more elegant defense for procrastination and non-action is difficult to imagine. But Scalia goes on, quoting the EPA at length on their claim of the "scientific uncertainty" of global warming, and then insisting that CO2 is not an "air pollutant" under the law.
This is a big stretch. Even Scalia admits that the "capacious" phrase from the Clean Air Act describes air pollutants as “any physical, chemical, . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air,” including compounds that would affect weather or climatel. Still he insists that CO2 and methane cannot be regulated because they are not "polluting the air." Huh?
In a footnote he snarks at the majority opinion: "It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an “air pollutant.” This reading of the statute defies common sense."
Scalia seems to have the same difficulty experienced by many others who cannot face the facts of climate. Global warming is complex and can seem contradictory. Drought and floods? Some people can’t seem to wrap their minds around that contradiction, and Scalia can’t seem to contemplate that changing the atmosphere might be harmful even if it doesn’t damage lungs directly.
But note what his narrow definition of air pollution excludes: the harms of global warming. Even the EPA admitted “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and]the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years . . . .”
If despite these harms the EPA cannot regulate CO2 emissions, because (according to Roberts) it doesn’t have the right, and because (according to Scalia), greenhouse gases are not air pollution, what is the point of this agency?
And that’s what Buck Parker, of Earthjustice, remarked on in a story by Elizabeth Shogren at NPR:
"I don’t think that there is a very complicated explanation as to what happening. Simply the current administration has violated environmental laws more frequently and probably more egregiously than administrations in the past, and you have environmental law groups like Earthjustice willing to haul them into court."
And the fact that the administration is losing these cases has to be heartening to enviros, although of course under most administrations, the EPA would already be protecting mountains in West Virginia, working to reduce CO2 and methane emissions, and not rewriting the law to encourage mining, logging, and drilling without the oversight or consent of Congress.
But to the right wing of the Supreme Court that’s not important. When James Milkey, representing Massachusetts, addresssed the Court in oral arguments, and said that global warming is only going to get worse, Scalia asked crisply:
"When is the predicted cataclysm?"
And isn’t that the gist of the argument for doing nothing about global warming? As long as we don’t have a specific date when the sky will fall, that there’s no need to act?






