The summer of 2012 was the most severe wildfire season Russia had faced in a decade. 2013 might be headed in the same direction after an unusual heat wave brought a surge of fire activity in northern Siberia in July.
A persistent high-pressure weather pattern in the Russian Arctic—a blocking high—contributed to the heat wave, which saw temperatures reach 32° Celsius (90° Fahrenheit) in the northern city of Norilsk. For comparison, daily July highs in Norilsk average 16° Celsius (61° Fahrenheit).
Blocking highs are so named because they block the jet stream from moving rain-bearing weather systems along their normal west-to-east path; this leads to “stuck” weather patterns with long periods of stable air and exceptional heat.
The map above shows land surface temperature anomalies for July 20–27, 2013. Rather than depicting absolute temperatures, the map shows how much the temperatures for that week differed from the long-term average for the area. The measurements were collected by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite. Shades of red indicate temperatures that were warmer than average; blues are below average. Oceans, lakes, and areas with insufficient data (usually because of persistent clouds) appear in gray.
According to English-language outlet The Siberian Times, temperatures of 32 degrees Celsius, or 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit, were recorded in the Siberian city of Norilsk on July 21. The average temperature in July in the region is 13.6 C, or 56.48 F.
The extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented heat wave continues in the central arctic region of Russia. Some locations have now endured 10 consecutive days above 30°C (86°F). Wildfires are erupting in the taiga forests. Norilsk maximum daily temperatures have cooled down a little, but yesterday (July 23rd) it enjoyed its warmest night so far with a low of 20.2°C (68.4°F).
Norilsk, with a population of 175,000, is located at 69° 20’N and 88° 6’E and is the most northerly city in the world with a population over 100,000.
Although the far right, in sheer numbers, represents only a small fraction of the American people, they punch well above their weight legislatively, due to fanatical organizations built up by true believers over decades, and limitless funding provided by deep pocketed foundations, corporations, and individuals.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is one of the least known, but most pervasive and effective arms of the radical conservative, anti-science movement. Well known climate denial institutions like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute are but tiny suckers on the tentacles of ALEC. The primary way that ALEC projects power is by actually writing, and promoting, legislation that strikes at the heart of some of the most important, hard won environmental and social legislation of the last 100 years – including voting rights, environmental law, and public education.
Koch Industries Inc. and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) are among companies that would benefit from almost identical energy legislation introduced in state capitals from Oregon to New Mexico to New Hampshire — and that’s by design.
The energy companies helped write the legislation at a meeting organized by a group they finance, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a Washington-based policy institute known as ALEC.
The corporations, both ALEC members, took a seat at the legislative drafting table beside elected officials and policy analysts by paying a fee between $3,000 and $10,000, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News.
The opportunity for corporations to become co-authors of state laws legally through ALEC covers a wide range of issues from energy to taxes to agriculture. The price for participation is an ALEC membership fee of as much as $25,000 — and the few extra thousands to join one of the group’s legislative-writing task forces. Once the “model legislation” is complete, it’s up to ALEC’s legislator members to shepherd it into law.
(The Center for Media and Democracy) identified 77 ALEC bills that advance a polluter agenda. 17 of these became law. Numerous ALEC “model” bills were introduced that promote a fossil fuel and fracking agenda and undermine environmental regulations. The “Electricity Freedom Act,” which would repeal state renewable portfolio standards, was introduced in six states this year.
Representative Chris Taylor is a Democrat elected to the Wisconsin legislature in 2011. Last week, she attended the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual conference in Chicago. Writing about her experience at The Progressive magazine’s website, she describes her experience inside the “ALEC universe” and writes: “ALEC members have been quietly working out of the public eye to develop their agenda so that when given the opportunity, they are ready to start creating an ALEC nation. That time has come. And they are ready.”
I’ve been pointing out to anyone that will listen, that for young people in America of my generation, having a car was a key not only to mobility, but much deeper, an essential tool for fulfilling the biological imperative. Simply put, you were a lot more likely to get lucky if you, or maybe your Dad, had a sweet ride with a cushy back seat.
Nowadays, the key to paradise is just as likely to be your network on facebook, instagram, and twitter. Result: for millenials, my kid’s generation, a car is less an essential than an expensive, and dispensable, option.
Technology changes things. Give people different options, and behaviors thought to be set in stone can evolve.
Studies show that teenagers are driving less, getting their licenses later, and waiting longer to purchase their first new car. NPR’s Sonari Glinton recently hit the streets to find out why, and discovered not having a car or not being able to afford one, has become a lot more common. The negative stigma around not having a car has also seems to have waned.
“My girlfriend drives me everywhere. That sounds sad, and 20 years ago I’d be considered pathetic, but it’s almost normal now to be that way,” says Mike Clubb, who is in his 20s.
Micheline Maynard, a veteran journalist who’s covered automobiles and transportation issues, now oversees the website CurbingCars.com. She tells NPR’s Don Gonyea that one of the most cited reasons behind this trend of young people waiting to get a car or their driver’s license is simply not having the time.
“Many states have now changed teen driving laws, so you have to spend a certain amount of time in the car with a parent,” Maynard says. “And people just shrug and say, ‘You know what, I don’t need to get a license right now.’ ”
Another reason often cited is money. Maynard says the average cost of a new car is about $30,000, before factoring in car insurance. Add in the high price of gas in some places and owning a car is simply too expensive for a young person.
There are also more transportation options available for those without a car, Maynard notes, from bikes, to ride shares, hourly car services and public transportation.
I’m spending a week flying out of Narsarsuaq, south Greenland, with colleague Dr. Robert Fausto, to maintain climate stations equipped to monitor surface ice melt in great detail. Part of the Danish PROMICE network, the stations obtain surface energy and mass budget closure. The closure means that calculated melt matches with observed melt.
Flying across this vast space and on the ground, I’m is struck by how abundant snow algae and other light absorbing impurities can be. The low reflectivity impurities amplify the effects of the increasing melt season. Increased melt means a shorter duration of highly reflective snow cover. The prolonged exposure of an impurity-rich bare ice surface multiplies melt rates. I’ve calculated that without this albedo feedback, the increase in melt rates would amount to half of what’s observed. Some of this feedback is due to ice crystal rounding. Some is due to the impurities. Measuring the relative importance of metamorphic and impurity driven albedo reduction is a subject of our work.
Boots on the ice offer a close look (and to sample) impurities concentrating at the surface. The fact is, much of this dark material is from cyanobacteria and blue-green algae. Photo J. Box.Puddles often form with this kind of ‘algal slick’. Photo J. Box.
While googling Amory Lovins response to misinformation about Germany, came upon this re his study of Japanese renewables. Have only watched the first 15 minutes so far, but looks worthwhile. Japan appears to be the next Germany. As two of the world’s most highly competitive manufacturing economies slip into renewable overdrive, it gets harder and harder for science haters to demonize renewables.
What’s the hottest solar end-market region on the planet? Japan is making a strong case for top billing in 2013, according to recent analysis.
Not content with being the second-hottest solar market this year, Japan appears poised to actually take the top spot after a spectacular first quarter, according to new calculations from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. BNEF’s new calculations for solar installations, which now take into account a surge in first-quarter installations in Japan, span a big range: 6.9-9.4 GW, raising the low end of BNEF’s previous estimate of 6.1 GW. That likely will nudge Japan ahead of China, and well ahead of other top regions including the U.S., Germany, and Italy (the latter two falling off precipitously this year).
Japan was already poised for partial top billing in 2013, after IHS analysts (née IMS Research) suggested that even if installations don’t catch up to China as measured in gigawatts, it’ll likely be tops in terms of revenue thanks to the comparably high prices for PV systems. IHS sees Japan’s share of global PV system revenue rising to 24 percent in 2013, compared with 14 percent in 2012 and 9 percent in 2011.
The letter sent out by Nevada Representative Mark Amodei was in response to a letter Amodei received from a constituent on the topic of climate change.
Amodei represents District 2 which encompasses the Northern half of the state. With the exception of Reno, the district is very rural with ranching and mining being the principle industries.
I’ll let the letter speak for itself.
Dear Mr. […]:
Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on climate change. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
The issue of climate change is very controversial and many scientists disagree as to its causes and how to handle it. I recognize that some scientists believe that global warming is caused by failed environmental practices; however, others argue that these temperature increases would incur regardless due to the warming of the center of the earth. I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to advocate one position over the other. Since, we do not know much about long-term climate change, I do agree we must have an unbiased research effort funded by both the government and the private sector to answer the essential questions about climate change. Since 1990, the U.S. has spent at least $50 billion on climate research.
With sound science and a clear understanding of the natural climate cycles that the earth undergoes, we will be able to develop effective solutions to the human causes of global warming. As legislation to address this issue comes to the House floor for a vote, be assured I will consider it carefully and keep your thoughts in mind.
I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to apprise me of your opinions and hope that you will contact me again should you have any further comments or concerns. If you would like additional information on my activities in the House, please visit my website,www.Amodei.house.gov or connect with me on facebook.com/MarkAmodeiNV2 and twitter.com/MarkAmodeiNV2.
In closing, please know that I consider it a privilege to serve and represent you and your family in Congress.
Sincerely,
Signature
Mark E. Amodei
Member of Congress
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) launched a major television ad campaign criticizing Representative Rodney Davis’ anti-science agenda and for denying the proven science of climate change
I’m kind of stoked that someone is buying serious ad time with the idea that climate change is a big deal, and people care about it. I’m even more stoked that the targeted politicians are more than a little freaked by it. And again, I’m seriously stoked that “climate denier” is now the official descriptor for what these people are.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) today launched a major television ad campaign criticizing Representative Rodney Davis’ anti-science agenda and for denying the proven science of climate change. The ad begins running today in the Champaign-Springfield and St. Louis markets and is part of a nearly $2 million nationwide LCV campaign to hold climate change deniers in Congress accountable for their extreme voting record.
“The American people are tired of Washington politicians like Rep. Davis ignoring basic scientific facts and standing in the way of action on climate change,” said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters.
The ad highlights Rep. Davis’ dangerous, anti-science agenda and for claimingthat “global warming has stopped 16 years ago.” Documentation for the ad can be found here.
Rep. Davis’ extreme record includes opposing landmark comprehensive clean energy and climate change bill, and President Obama’s common sense climate change plan. The President’s plan would significantly cut carbon pollution from power plants, which are the single largest source of carbon pollution.
Rep. Davis’ positions are out of step with his constituents, and LCV urges them to contact the Congressman to tell him that it’s time to act on climate change. The scientific views on climate change are as solid as any public policy question will ever get. According to NASA, 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is contributing to climate change, and that extreme weather is increasing due to climate change.
I’ve been following the story of the German Energiewende, the transition to renewable energy in which Germany has become a worldwide leader. Craig Morris at renewablesinternational is a great resource in this regard, as is Paul Gipe of Wind-works – but I’ve been waiting for a comprehensive debunking like this from Amory Lovins – well worth the read to keep oriented on why the fossil funded media loves to bash the “existence proof” of a viable, vibrant manufacturing economy switching successfully, and rapidly, to renewable energy. Lovins is, of course, chief scientist and found er of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and one of the earliest and clearest thinking visionaries of renewable energy.
I recently wrote about—and debunked—the renewables “disinformation campaign” that spreads misinformed and falsely negative stories about the growth of renewable energy. A special focus of such disinformation has been reportage on Germany’s efficiency-and-renewables revolution. The impressive success so far of the German Energiewende (energy turnaround) is an important existence proof for the world, because Germany is cloudy, high-latitude, heavily industrialized, highly competitive (it rivals America’s merchandise exports with one-fourth its population), and the world’s fourth-biggest economy.
Perhaps because German success would therefore belie the supposed necessity of fossil-fuel and nuclear energy, some media regularly report the Energiewende’s failure or supposed impossibility. As Ihighlighted, Germany’s renewables revolution is in fact highly successful and strong as ever, but that hasn’t stopped three myths from gaining traction in the media: 1) Germany’s supposed turn back to coal, 2) how renewables undermine grid reliability, and 3) how renewables subsidies are cratering the German economy. None of those are true, and here’s why.
MYTH #1: GERMANY’S TURN BACK TO COAL
An efficient new German coal plant begun in 2006, with fast ramp rates to complement variable renewables, was widely but wrongly heralded on its commissioning in 2012 (Europe’s only new coal plant that year) as signaling Germany’s post-Fukushima turn back to coal—not mentioning that it replaced a larger amount of dirtier and far less efficient coal capacity that was shut down. Moreover, replacing old 35-to-38-percent-efficient coal units with modern 46-percent-efficient ones, like some of the 5.3 GWlikely to come online this year, would save a fifth of their coal even if net capacity didn’t change. And though capacity may fluctuate for a few years, the German Energy Agency expects 11.3 GW of coal capacity to be added and 18.5 GW closed by 2020—a net decrease of at least 7.2 GW.
In fact, as explained here and here, Germany has begun no new coal plants since Fukushima, coal-firedgeneration will decline even more than capacity, lignite has no future, and any of the coal plants planned long ago that are completed—offsetting retiring units—are likely to lose money, just as existing ones donow. Another instance in Hamburg reinforces these points. Yet claims continue to propagate that “Germany alone is building 25 coal-fired plants” (20 of 29 originally proposed have already been stopped, 5–6 more shelved) and that “it has now become very, very cheap to burn coal and as a result, there’s a new coal boom in Europe” (nearly all in Britain and Spain), while renewables are “helping to continue the economic collapse of Germany” (Europe’s strongest economy).
The White House official, who asked not to be identified because the installation is in process, wrote in an e-mail the project is “a part of an energy retrofit that will improve the overall energy efficiency of the building.”
At the time of the 2010 announcement, then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House Council on Environmental Quality chair Nancy Sutley said the administration would conduct a competitive bidding process to buy between 20 and 50 solar panels. The officials did not identify the supplier or cost of the project, but wrote the White House “has begun installing American-made solar panels” and the initiative, “which will help demonstrate that historic buildings can incorporate solar energy and energy efficiency upgrades, is estimated to pay for itself in energy savings over the next eight years.”
–
This is not the first time solar panels have graced the White House’s roof: President Jimmy Carter had 32 installed in the late 1970s to provide hot water, but President Ronald Reagan removed them in 1986. Then in 2003 President George W. Bush installed a photovoltaic system on a maintenance building and two solar thermal units. The system heated the White House swimming pool.
The issue of climate change is very controversial and many scientists disagree as to its causes and how to handle it. I recognize that some scientists believe that global warming is caused by failed environmental practices; however, others argue that these temperature increases would incur regardless due to the warming of the center of the earth. I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to advocate one position over the other. Since, we do not know much about long-term climate change, I do agree we must have an unbiased research effort funded by both the government and the private sector to answer the essential questions about climate change. Since 1990, the U.S. has spent at least $50 billion on climate research.
