USA Today
April, 28, 2015

Man-made global warming is responsible for about 75% of all hot-temperature extremes worldwide in the past 100 years, according to a study published Monday in the British journal Nature Climate Change.

It is also responsible for about 18% of heavy rainfall, the study said.

Even worse, climate change will cause higher percentages of extreme weather in future decades. For example, by the middle of this century, if temperatures continue to increase, about 95% of all heat waves — and about 40% of precipitation extremes — will be due to human influence.

Man-made climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil, which release greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, warming the globe to levels that cannot be explained by natural variability.

The study’s scientists used 25 climate computer models to test their theories. Lead author Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich, a Swiss university, said the models “agree remarkably well on the change in heavy rainfall and hot extremes at the global scale.”

“The idea that almost half of heavy rainfall events would not have occurred were it not for climate change is a sobering thought for policymakers seeking to mitigate and adapt to climate change,” wrote Peter Stott of the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre in a commentary that accompanied the study.

This research looked only at extreme heat and precipitation. “We do not look at droughts like the one in California or tropical cyclones (hurricanes),” Fischer said. “In fact, we argue that not all kinds of weather necessarily become more extreme.”

Experts not affiliated with the study said the research was sound, if unsurprising. Past research from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that heat waves and heavy precipitation can be attributed in some part to global warming, said Roger Pielke, a University of Colorado professor of environmental studies.

“This paper is perfectly consistent with that review,” Pielke added. He also acknowledged there has been no solid link between climate change and increased levels or intensity of floods, tornadoes, droughts or hurricanes.

“These new results should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the science of climate change and variability,” said research meteorologist Martin Hoerling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., gave it a mixed review.

“The paper is interesting and has some results that may be reasonably OK,” he said. “However, the paper is based almost entirely on models with little or no validation or relations to the real world. None of the models do precipitation realistically, and some are quite bad.” Read more …

Roger Pielke, Jr. quoted in Wired article on science and politics.

Wired
April 23, 2015

At a federal level, scientific research dollars tend to flow with the political tides. For example, when Congress is dominated by Democrats, money pours into climate change research, and just as quickly sloshes over to fossil fuel research when the Republicans ¹ take over. But the influence of politics on science extends beyond the motion of money. Bills funding scientific research can include sneaky rules that undermine science as an institution.

Which is exactly what happened April 22 in the House of Representatives’ Committee for Science, Space, and Technology, which spent the day proposing (Democrats) and shooting down (Republicans) amendments to a bill that will play a major role in determining which science gets done over the next year or more (because, money). Not because it’s been passed—the bill still needs to survive voting by the complete 435 member House, then the Senate, and then President Obama before it becomes law—but because it’s an important curtain-raiser for some twisted strategies for dealing with science.

The bill in question is the America COMPETES Act (or, if you’re a fan of tortured acronyms: the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act), which doles out research dollars to several science-based federal agencies. Originally penned in 2007 in an effort to revitalize America’s international standing in STEM fields, the act continues to direct a huge amount of money to the research branches of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

This reauthorization, penned by the new committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), shifts money to the expected places, away from the social sciences and non-fossil fuel-related geosciences, and into things like engineering, nuclear energy, computer science, and fossil fuel development. If you’d like a play by play of how much money went where, check out this analysis by ScienceInsider. But if you’re interested in the way science will be viewed, treated, and controlled by the committee’s newly elected majority, stick around as we explore two items that could undermine scientists’ ability to govern their own research goals. Read more …

Roger Pielke, Jr. in the news on science and politics.

Inside Higher Ed
April 23, 2015

Roger Pielke Jr. doesn’t see today’s political debates over science funding as that different from those of previous generations, such as in the 1970s, when Congress forced the Research Applied to National Needs program on the NSF. Pielke is a professor of environmental science at the University of Colorado at Boulder and directs the university’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.

As a social scientist, he understands the frustration of having the fields’ relevance repeatedly questioned by politicians. But he also thinks that scientists should expect scrutiny from politicians.

That’s just the nature of having science being germane to the issues of the day, he said. When research becomes high profile, it often becomes politicized, and as long as federal money is going to that research, politicians are going to have questions.

Yet for all the politicized battles, at the end of the day, overall research funding consistently does well in terms of discretionary spending. Pielke doubts that will change, no matter what party controls Congress.

“Everyone loves science,” he said. “Republicans and Democrats just love it in different ways and for different reasons over time.”

The bill heads to the full House now, though it still has a long way to go before becoming law. The proposed spending limits diverge from those in President Obama’s budget proposal, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation hasn’t introduced a version of COMPETES Act reauthorization yet. The committee’s chairman, John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, issued a joint statement with Representative Smith Wednesday that said the two would work together to determine how limited federal money can have the greatest effect on research. Read more …

by Michael Bastasch

The Libertarian Republic
April 20, 2015

President Barack Obama issued a stark warning over the weekend about the world’s future if global warming continues.

But his alarmism glosses over an inconvenient truth: storms and wildfires aren’t getting worse due to global warming.

“Stronger storms. Deeper droughts. Longer wildfire seasons,” Obama said in a video address ahead of Earth Day. “The world’s top climate scientists are warning us that a changing climate already affects the air our kids breathe.”

Obama’s comments, however, come on reports that the number of tropical cyclones is at a 45-year low, the U.S. hasn’t had a major hurricane make landfall in the last decade and the number of reported wildfires are well below the 10-year average.

Cyclones Not Living Up To The Hype

Hurricane expert Dr. Ryan Maue reported last week that the 5-year running sum for tropical cyclones globally hit a 45-year low. Maue wrote that in “the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s” and “the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.”

Eco Watch
April 17, 2015

Some of the smallest visitors to the Alcantara Magic Garden-Connect4Climate pavilion for the Global Citizen 2015 Earth Day had big ideas about climate. The Alcantara Magic Garden-Connect4Climate pavilion is powered by the first solar panel field in the National Mall in Washington, DC constructed by Building Energy.

“What if you stop eating cheese? Will that help the planet?,” asked one girl from Annunciation Catholic School, one of the many school groups from the Washington, DC area that visited the pavilion today.

“The decisions you make about the food you eat have an impact the planet,” said Max Boykoff, professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Connect4Climate advisor. “What kinds of foods contribute to the warming of the planet?,” he challenged. “Meat!” Correct.

The ideas kept coming—and we posted them to our #TakeOn board.

Recycling was a tough issue for one of the schoolgirls. “I try to get my family to recycle, but they don’t listen to me,” says Betel, 10. They use the first trashcan they see. But I’m working on them.”

Other kids declared they would create less trash in general—and pledged not to litter. They pledged to ride their bikes more rather than ask their parents for rides in the car. They also said they’d walk.

“Use solar panels, instead of gas,” said Malyk, 13, from Sacred Heart Bilingual Academy. Malyk was thrilled to learn that the whole pavilion he was standing in was powered entirely by solar panels. “Wow! Really?,” he said as he went to inspect the panel farm. Read more …