14 January 2016, Yale Connections, Experts Fault Reliance on Satellite Data Alone. Over-reliance on satellite data to the exclusion of other data can amount to ‘confirmation bias,’ say scientists urging analysis of numerous different data sets. This month’s “This is Not Cool” video focuses on an ongoing, and again festering, climate science controversy, the value and reliability of satellite-derived global temperatures. And of that data at the exclusion of – or as a surrogate for – other data. Independent videographer Peter Sinclair sought reactions of leading climate scientists to points made in a recent hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, chaired by Texas Republican Senator and presidential nominee hopeful Ted Cruz. “According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years,” the senator said.In the hearing, Senator Cruz emphasized that “The satellite data are the best data we have,” an often-echoed point made by those generally scornful of much of the so-called consensus climate science. Climate scientists Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, Carl Mears, and Ben Santer, David Titley, and others voice what they see as limitations or shortcomings of the satellite data. They point to a history of documented errors and mistakes that have often caused satellites to underestimate climate warming.Among these errors are a failure to account for “orbital decay,” changes measuring in the diurnal cycle, and faulty calibration of satellite sensors. Most of all, they discourage over-reliance on any single set of data and instead urge consideration of numerous authoritative data sets. Remote Sensing Systems scientist Carl Mears points to inherent problems in reviewing data only from a particular point in time, especially the often-chosen 1998 starting point, which was characterized by a strong El Niño. “If you start driving at the top of a hill, you’re going to go down, at least at the beginning,” says Mears. Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M says he sees in all this an example of “confirmation bias,” with climate contrarians often looking only at data that “tells them what they want to hear.” Read More here
hmcadmin
14 January 2016, Yale Connections. Activist’s ‘Long-Haul’ Climate Campaign. A veteran reporter on climate issues provides a glimpse into a corporate responsibility activist’s efforts during the recent Paris climate conference. the Paris climate conference got under way last December, Jesse Bragg introduced himself to me on a crowded shuttle bus between the converted airplane hangers where negotiators were meeting. He’d read my ID badge and noticed that I was from Boston. He said that he worked at Corporate Accountability International’s headquarters in downtown Boston. We soon realized we live just miles apart. Each of the nearly 200 national delegations needed many staff members. The number of delegates registered from the US – including four cabinet secretaries and more than a dozen senators – filled four pages of the official roster.I’d never heard of Corporate Accountability International, nor of its mission – to make private corporations answerable to public institutions. But the encounter gave me the chance to satisfy a curiosity. With more than 30,000 visitors expected at the conference and sitting through nearly 3,000 meetings and drinking some 71,000 cups of coffee – what were they all doing? Even tiny Haiti, among the world’s poorest nations, listed 15 delegates. All told, governments had sent 19,200 representatives to Paris. Altogether, media organizations had dispatched nearly 2,800 journalists. I understood roughly why these people were there. But what about the 8,300 “observers,” including industry and nongovernmental organization representatives? Jesse was one of them, and I asked about his plans in the coming 10 days. We agreed to meet the following morning. Job description: Expose transnationals’ ‘abuses’. Read More here
14 January 2016, Climate News Network. Science opens routes to energy recycling. From turning carbon dioxide into a fuel to enabling cars to run on water, scientific researchers worldwide are unlocking the potential of new energy sources. Molecular biology has been used by scientists in the US to make a catalyst that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. It means that a truly renewable biotechnological material could be used to help cars run on water. In China, chemists have announced a nanofabric – a catalyst put together atoms at a time – that could begin the process of turning the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide back into fuel. And with what seems like perfect timing, a new technological venture in Switzerland hopes to be the first commercial plant to harvest carbon dioxide from the air. The first two propositions are still in the laboratory stage, and the third has yet to prove its viability. But the laboratory advances keep alive the hopes of the ultimate in energy recycling. In the first process, water provides the energy for a chemical reaction that propels a vehicle, and then ends up again as water from the exhaust pipe of a car. And in the second, a gas released as emissions from fossil fuel could get turned back into fuel. Read more here
14 January 2016, Energy Post, The oil pricequake will doom the global political order. Given the centrality of oil and oil revenues in the global power equation, it is inevitable that depressed oil prices will doom the current global political order, writes Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. Political turmoil is already raging across the oil heartlands of the planet – and the tremors from the oil pricequake have yet to reach their full magnitude, notes Klare. As 2015 drew to a close, many in the global energy industry were praying that the price of oil would bounce back from the abyss, restoring the petroleum-centric world of the past half-century. All evidence, however, points to a continuing depression in oil prices in 2016 – one that may, in fact, stretch into the 2020s and beyond. Given the centrality of oil (and oil revenues) in the global power equation, this is bound to translate into a profound shakeup in the political order, with petroleum-producing states from Saudi Arabia to Russia losing both prominence and geopolitical clout. To put things in perspective, it was not so long ago – in June 2014, to be exact – that Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, was selling at $115 per barrel. Energy analysts then generally assumed that the price of oil would remain well over $100 deep into the future, and might gradually rise to even more stratospheric levels. Such predictions inspired the giant energy companies to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in what were then termed “unconventional” reserves: Arctic oil, Canadian tar sands, deep offshore reserves, and dense shale formations. It seemed obvious then that whatever the problems with, and the cost of extracting, such energy reserves, sooner or later handsome profits would be made. It mattered little that the cost of exploiting such reserves might reach $50 or more a barrel. Read More here