Several places broke heat records for the day, including downtown Los Angeles, which hit 108 degrees. Van Nuys and Burbank airports set all-time records of 117 and 114 degrees, respectively. The San Diego County community of Ramona reached its highest recorded temperature — 112 degrees — by 11 a.m., forecasters said, and later hit 115 degrees.
The broiling temperatures were the result of a strong high-pressure system combined with offshore winds blowing from the desert to the ocean, said Todd Hall, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Oxnard.
Like many Southern Californians, Hall does not have air conditioning at home and was not looking forward to leaving his nice, cool office.
This isn’t typically what I would write about in this blog, as I typically cover threatening ocean storms. However, this has implications for the Arctic Ocean and possibly mid-latitude weather. An extreme heat event for this particular region…with high temperatures of greater than 40 degrees F above recent normals…will impact the coast of the Arctic Ocean (specifically the Laptev Sea and Eastern Siberian Sea) Wednesday-Friday. This will generate maximum daily temperatures as high as 90-95 degrees near the open ocean coast!
Yes, you read that correctly.
Wednesday Afternoon (local time) high temperatures along the Laptev Sea in Northern Siberia. Widespread 80s to mid-90s, over 40 degrees above normal as forecast by the Global Forecast System Model.
2018 has unfortunately been a prime example of global warming’s effect on the jet stream. And northern Siberia has been getting blowtorched by heat that refuses to quit because of an ongoing blocked pattern favorable for intense heat.
The northern Barents Sea is an Arctic warming hotspot, says Sigrid Lind with the Marine Research Institute in Tromsø, Norway. Changes go from Arctic to Atlantic climate, concludes a study Lind and other scientists have made. The results are published in a recent article in Nature.
The ocean researchers have used a compilation of hydrographic observations from 1970 to 2016, investigating the link between changing sea-ice import and the warming hotspot of the northern Barents Sea. Continue reading “Snapshots from a Hot Planet”
What do I mean by cynical politics? Partly I mean the tacit alliance between businesses and the wealthy, on one side, and racists on the other, that is the essence of the modern conservative movement.
For a long time business seemed to have this game under control: win elections with racial dog whistles, then turn to an agenda of tax cuts and deregulation. But sooner or later something like Trump was going to happen: a candidate who meant the racism seriously, with the enthusiastic support of the Republican base, and couldn’t be controlled.
Recently Tom Donohue, the chamber’s head, published an article decrying Trump’s mistreatment of children at the border, declaring “this is not who we are.” Sorry, Mr. Donohue, it is who you are: You and your allies spent decades empowering racists, and now the bill is coming due.
But racist immigration policy isn’t the only place where people like Donohue are facing a monster they helped create.
When organizations like the Chamber of Commerce or the Heritage Foundation declare that Trump’s tariffs are a bad idea, they are on solid intellectual ground: All, and I mean all, economic experts agree. But they don’t have any credibility, because these same conservative institutions have spent decades making war on expertise.
The most obvious case is climate change, where conservative organizations, very much including the chamber, have long acted as “merchants of doubt,” manufacturing skepticism and blocking action in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Not to put too fine a point on it, it’s hard to pivot from “pay no attention to those so-called experts who say the planet is warming” to “protectionism is bad — all the experts agree.”
Similarly, organizations like Heritage have long promoted supply-side economics, a.k.a., voodoo economics — the claim that tax cuts will produce huge growth and pay for themselves — even though no economic experts agree. So they’ve already accepted the principle that it’s O.K. to talk economic nonsense if it’s politically convenient. Now comes Trump with different nonsense, saying “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” How can they convince anyone that his nonsense is bad, while theirs was good?
But a trade war may be only the start of big business’s self-inflicted punishment. Much worse and scarier things may lie ahead, because Trump isn’t just a protectionist, he’s an authoritarian. Trade wars are nasty; unchecked power is much worse, and not just for those who are poor and powerless.
Consider the fact that Trump is already in the habit of threatening businesses that have crossed him. After Harley-Davidson announced that it was shifting some production overseas because of trade conflicts, he warned that the company would be “taxed like never before” — which certainly sounds as if he wants to politicize the I.R.S. and use it to punish individual businesses.
When Pamela Rush flushes her toilet, the waste flows out the back of her sky blue mobile home through a yellowing plastic pipe and empties just a few yards away in a soggy pit of mud, weeds, and dead grass.
On a hot day in mid-May, Rush walked around her yard in rural Lowndes County, Alabama. Flies and mosquitoes swarmed her as she tiptoed near the pit. The smell of sewage was overwhelming.
Rush, 48, a soft-spoken woman with striking brown eyes, has straight-piped her family’s waste into her yard for almost two decades. Her home is on the edge of clay dirt road in the dense Alabama forest, miles from a municipal sewer system. Since Rush struggles with her health and is unable to work, she can’t afford the thousands of dollars it would cost to install an on-site septic system. This is her only option.
Mold grows throughout her house because of the damp, dark conditions, causing multiple respiratory problems for Rush and her two children. “I go to sleep in fear every night,” Rush said as she stared at the pit in her backyard, wiping sweat from her brow. “It don’t ever leave my mind.”
In the rural South, these conditions aren’t uncommon. Many communities from the Black Belt to Appalachia lack basic sewage and water infrastructure. In economically distressed regions like Lowndes County, it’s led to a surge in poverty-related tropical diseases often found in developing countries. Doctors and researchers have observed significant levels of parasitic infections like hookworm and toxocara and conditions for mosquito-borne illnesses like Zika and West Nile.
The risks are accelerated by erratic precipitation patterns and warming temperatures caused by global climate change. But local, state, and federal governments offer little funding to update infrastructure and local health departments have, so far, done little to address this public health crisis, forcing activists and researchers to address it themselves.
–
Less than a decade ago, Dr. Peter Hotez, founder of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, coined the term “neglected tropical diseases.” It refers to about 40 chronic and debilitating infections that occur in poverty-stricken places and also cause poverty due to long-term effects on productivity, child development, and pregnancy outcomes. Continue reading “In the US South, Climate Change Makes Poverty, Disease, Worse”
Since the 30th Anniversary of Jim Hansen’s 1988 climate predictions, the usual climate denial suspects have been furiously spinning the story to distort the record.
Famously, Hansen posited 3 scenarios, A, B, and C – with A assuming very high Greenhouse gas outputs, and very high temp rise – the scenario assumed, for instance, a high increase in chlorofluorocarbons, which were subsequently limited in an international treaty – so not as big a factor.
In addition, it is well understood that Hansen’s model had a somewhat high climate sensitivity, 4° C as opposed to the currently accepted 3°.
In the interviews I conducted last December – scientists conversant with the research discussed these factors, and point out that given our understanding of actual observations in the last 3 decades, Hansen’s model performed extraordinarily well.
The forecast about global warming from James Hansen thirty years so starkly demonstrates that he’s been right all along about the effect of greenhouse gases on our climate, that there’s yet another attempt to make it look bad. The authors, Ross McKitrick and John Christy (“MC”), are so desperate that they resort to making a persuasive argument the only way possible: with bullshit. Shameless bullshit.
Observed temperature since the 1980s has landed between Hansen’s “Scenario B” (what was considered a middle-of-the-road greenhouse-gas future) and “Scenario C” (far less greenhouse gas emissions), but MC (McKitrick & Christy) try to make out that it should have been between “Scenario A” (rapid increase of greenhouse gases) and “Scenario B” because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere turned out to be between those two scenarios. So, they claim, Hansen’s forecast was way off.
The “original” post by MC (McKitrick & Christy) contained this little gem:
“The whole debate has focused on comparisons of the 1988 and 2017 endpoints. Skeptical Science waived away the differences by arguing that if one adjusts for an overestimation in the rise of greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing, Hansen’s 2017 Scenario B prediction was not far off reality.”
As was pointed out at Skeptical Science, greenhouse gases and their total impact ended up nowhere near as high as scenario “A”, and even less than scenario “B”. Result: temperature increase should (according to Hansen) have been nowhere near as high as scenario “A” and even less than scenario “B”. Just like happened.
MC countered by looking at the rise of one and only one greenhouse gas: CO2. How do they justify ignoring methane (CH4) and N2O and chloroflourocarbons when Hansen had included them in his forecasts? By the following bullshit (emphasis mine):
“Note that Scenarios A and B also represent upper and lower bounds for non-CO2 forcing as well, since Scenario A contains all trace gas effects and Scenario B contains none.”
THIRTY YEARS AGO, while the Midwest withered in massive drought and East Coast temperatures exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit, I testified to the Senate as a senior NASA scientist about climate change. I said that ongoing global warming was outside the range of natural variability and it could be attributed, with high confidence, to human activity — mainly from the spewing of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. “It’s time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here,” I said.
–
It’s not rocket science. As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned and emissions will be high. Fossil fuel use will decline only if the price is made to include costs of pollution and climate change to society. The simplest and most effective way to do this is by collecting a rising carbon fee from fossil fuel companies at domestic mines and ports of entry.
Economists agree: If 100 percent of this fee is distributed uniformly to the public, the economy will be spurred, GNP will rise, and millions of jobs will be created. Our energy infrastructure will be steadily modernized with clean energies and energy efficiency.
The clinching argument for a carbon fee, as opposed to ineffectual cap-and-trade schemes dreamed up by politicians, is that the fee can be imposed almost globally via border duties on products from countries that do not have a fee, based on standard fossil fuel content of the products. This will be a strong incentive for most countries to have their own fee.
Any cap approach, by contrast, leaves the impossible task of negotiating 190 caps on all the world’s nations. Governments of some countries may keep a carbon fee as a tax. However, in democracies uniform 100 percent distribution of the funds will be needed to achieve public support.
A carbon fee is crucial, but not enough. Countries such as India and China need massive amounts of energy to raise living standards. The notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries. Worse, tricking the public to accept the fantasy of 100 percent renewables means that, in reality, fossil fuels reign and climate change grows.
The roughest head-knocking has been between the energy wonks who think we should use whatever power sources necessary to eliminate emissions — nuclear, biofuels, carbon-capture — and those who think renewable energy is the only answer.
Intense heat has caused algal blooms to form in western Lake Erie much sooner than normal.
Though toxin levels are not yet known, officials are issuing their standard advice to stay away from all scums floating on the lake surface.
“Scums are always dangerous and people should avoid them,” Timothy Davis, a Bowling Green State University algae researcher, said.
There are many small blooms now instead of one large one.
They are in the early stages of formation and move around with the wind. One seen along the shoreline of South Bass Island State Park on Sunday was blown out into the open water. By Monday afternoon, the water near that island was clear, Justin Chaffin, Ohio Sea Grant and Ohio State University Stone Laboratory research director, said.
Light, sporadic outbreaks began popping up in various parts of Lake Erie’s western basin the second or third week of June, Tom Bridgeman, University of Toledo algae researcher, said.
These so-called “mini-blooms” have been large enough to be seen via satellite. As temperatures warmed, though — especially after last weekend’s scorcher — they grew faster and became denser.
Scientists said they still don’t know if the scattered, initial blooms are here for the rest of the summer, or if they will dissipate in the coming weeks before the main seasonal bloom becomes established, as they have most other years they’ve formed.
But this much is clear: The lake is about nine days ahead of schedule for producing algae, Mr. Davis said.
Lake Erie has more than 200 types of algae, most of which contribute to the food chain and aren’t dangerous. But the one that garners the most attention, microcystis, is genetically not even algae. It is a blue-green form of toxin-producing bacteria that looks like algae.
It can grow in water as cool as 68 degrees. But it grows exceptionally well when the water temperature is 75 degrees or warmer, Mr. Davis said.
Now, with the region sweltering through a long spell of daytime highs in the high 90s and even nighttime temperatures unusually high, the lake is as warm as bathwater. On Monday afternoon, the lake water temperature recorded by a Stone Lab buoy near Gibraltar Island, across from Put-in-Bay, was a whopping 79.7 degrees, down slightly from Sunday’s 80.2 degrees, Mr. Chaffin said.
He said it’s almost unheard of to have lake water exceed 80 degrees this early in the summer.
“I have accepted the resignation of Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,” President Trumpannounced in a tweet. “Within the Agency Scott has done an outstanding job, and I will always be thankful to him for this. The Senate confirmed Deputy at EPA, Andrew Wheeler, will on Monday assume duties as the acting Administrator of the EPA. I have no doubt that Andy will continue on with our great and lasting EPA agenda. We have made tremendous progress and the future of the EPA is very bright!”
Mr. President, it has been an honor to serve you in the Cabinet as Administrator of the EPA. Truly, your confidence in me has blessed me personally and enabled me to advance your agenda beyond what anyone anticipated at the beginning of your Administration. Your courage, steadfastness and resolute commitment to get results for the American people, both with regard to improved environmental outcomes as well as historical regulatory reform, is in fact occurring at an unprecedented pace and I thank you for the opportunity to serve you and the American people in helping achieve those ends.
That is why is hard for me to advise you I am stepping down as Administrator of the EPA effective as of July 6. It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role first because I count it a blessing to be serving you in any capacity, but also, because of the transformative work that is occurring. However, the unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us.
My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people. Thank you again Mr. President for the honor of serving you and I wish you Godspeed in all that you put your hand to.
Kristin Mink, a teacher and the mother of a 2-year-old, was eating lunch at a teashop in Washington, D.C., on Monday when her husband noticed a familiar face a few tables away. Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, was dining with a companion.
“Instantly, I knew I had to say something,” Mink told HuffPost in a phone interview. “He’s someone I think about all the time. He’s directly impacting the future of the world.”
So she picked up her child, walked over to introduce herself and asked the man to resign.
“This is my son. He loves animals. He loves clean air. He loves clean water,” Mink told Pruitt in a video she later posted to her Facebook account. “Meanwhile, you’re slashing strong fuel standards for cars and trucks for the benefit of big corporations.”
She continued: “We deserve to have somebody at the EPA who actually does protect our environment, somebody who believes in climate change and takes it seriously for the benefit of all of us, including our children. I would urge you to resign before your scandals push you out.”
This will be a multi-part post, because the subtect is so huge.
We are already in a transformative moment for cities, depending on what choices are made for transportation in coming years. Sustainability depends on making cities work as safe, pleasant, and prosperous homes for humanity – and one of the potential barriers is transportation.
For Shannon Binns, fighting climate change means not talking about climate change.
Binns is executive director of Sustain Charlotte, a nonprofit that advocates for smart growth in booming Charlotte, North Carolina. Since founding the organization in 2010, he’s led initiatives ranging from an annual sustainability awards program to a popular competition promoting alternatives to solo driving.
–
Although sprawl doesn’t generally top the list of cities’ climate mitigation priorities, it has massive implications for greenhouse gas emissions.
“When people think about climate action, they think about ending coal,” Binns said. “There’s nothing wrong with that, but that’s only half the battle. A tremendous opportunity is designing our cities in a way that people can move around them efficiently.”
–
Boasting a strong economy and relatively low cost of living, metropolitan Charlotte added nearly 50,000 people between 2016 and 2017. This rapid growth is expected to continue. While some of the newcomers are moving into new condos downtown, many opt for suburban developments that push the city’s boundaries outward. In 2009, researchers at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte predicted that Mecklenburg County, which is dominated by Charlotte, will be fully built-out by 2030.
For Binns, these boom years represent a critical turning point. Charlotte will either go the way of larger Sunbelt cities, fully embracing auto-dependent sprawl – Atlanta serves as a cautionary tale for many – or opt for denser development and a healthier transportation mix.
To push for the latter, Sustain Charlotte focuses on both top-down action and bottom-up change. There’s a vital feedback loop between government policy and public opinion, the theory runs: If average citizens consider public transportation, biking, and walking to be inconvenient or socially unacceptable ways to move around the city, for example, they’re unlikely to support government efforts to reduce automobile domination.
As a result, Binns and his team spend much of their time developing public events and messaging aimed at convincing locals that dense, well-connected communities can be more practical – and more enjoyable – than sprawl.
Here’s one way to understand the story of biking in Sevilla, Spain: It went from having about as much biking as Oklahoma City to having about as much biking as Portland, Oregon.
