As Colorado snowpack suffers, La Niña could persist into summer

According to the latest forecast from the Climate Prediction Center, issued yesterday, the La Niña conditions that have contributed to the continuing drought in Texas and other regions are likely to persist through at least the Northern Hemisphere winter. And one ensemble modeling forecast from the CPC predicts that the abnormally cool sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean characteristic of La Niña could continue at least through summer.

La Niña favors weather patterns that tend to bring drier than normal conditions across a large swath of the southern United States (as the map on the right in the graphic above shows). And that’s more bad news for Texas and New Mexico.

In central Texas, record-setting heat and drought in 2011 contributed to outbreaks of severe wildfire, and reduced flows into reservoirs that supply water to millions of city dwellers and farmers. For example, from January through November of last year, water flows into the Highland Lakes in central Texas — including reservoirs that supply the state capitol of Austin — have been less than 10 percent of average.

As for New Mexico, John Fleck of the Albuquerque Journal summarized 2011′s grim events in a retrospective article published on New Years Eve:

The new year will dawn with a calm that belies the wild weather marking 2011 in New Mexico.

From a deep freeze unprecedented in nearly four decades to a drought unprecedented in the past century to a similarly unprecedented fire season, 2011 was a year for the record books.

At its worst, 2011 left 79 percent of New Mexico in extreme drought or worse.

But it was really the long warm period, the brief extreme cold spell and the dryness that told the year’s weather story.

At the start of 2012, there is one bright spot: In a story yesterday, John reported that the snowpack in New Mexico “is looking surprisingly healthy for the first week of January in a La Niña year.”

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of the Colorado River Basin. As John pointed out in a Tweet yesterday: “New Year starting with 62% of average snowpack on the #ColoradoRiver above Lake Powell http://t.co/Hh3Jrzzp #westwater.” Here’s the graph that tells the tale:

The waterways of the basin drain nearly 246,000 square miles of territory. They also serve nearly 30 million people in seven states and Mexico, including residents of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Denver, and Albuquerque, and irrigate more than three million acres of crops and pasture.

.

Over the long term, the use of Colorado River Basin water now exceeds supply. (I wrote about that situation in a story for Climate Central last year.) What has kept farm fields wet and water taps running? The reservoirs along the Colorado – particularly Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Higher than average runoff in the basin last spring helped replenish some of the water that had been drained out of those giant hydrological savings banks by extended drought. But one year is not a trend. So if the diminished snowpack at the start of 2012 is any indication of where we’ll be come spring, expect more stories about water woes.

As the precipitation forecast map at the top of this post shows, some parts of Colorado are expected to be wetter and others drier than average, thanks to La Niña. But squint at that map and you’ll see that the Colorado River threads the white space between those green (wetter) and brown (drier) forecasts. The basin could go either way.

But the environment generally barely registered in the news media and public mind

Attention by the U.S. news media to environmental topics dropped from almost nil to all but nil in 2011, according to a new survey out today from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Among general topics, international news of one sort or another topped Pew’s list, beating out the economy generally, which was in fifth position in terms of the percent of the “news hole” it garnered in 2011. As for the environment generally, its portion of the news hole dropped to just 1 percent this past year, down from 2 percent in 2010.

The Pew survey also looked at individual news stories that dominated mainstream news in 2011. And another survey, from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, examined the particular stories Americans followed most closely. (More about the latter survey in a minute.)

In terms of specific stories, as opposed to general topic categories, see the chart above for the rankings of the top ten. I find it quite interesting that unrest in the Middle East came in second, beating out the election.

Among specific stories related in some way to the environment, the Joplin tornadoes garnered the most attention.

The catastrophe was 14th on Pew’s list of top stories of the year, with just shy of 1 percent of the year’s news hole. (For a longer list of top stories, and comparisons, check out the report’s nifty interactive feature.) As an event that came and went in a limited time period, it’s not surprising that it didn’t come remotely close to attracting as high and sustained level of attention as the top three stories. But during the week it occurred, it dominated coverage. In 17th position was Huricane Irene, followed by energy, and then the April tornadoes and floods that devastated large swaths of the Midwest and South. Each accounted for less than 1 percent of the news hole this year. No other environmentally related stories appear on Pew’s list.

It’s interesting to see how public attention compares to the what the news media considered most newsworthy. Every week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press assesses which specific stories (as opposed to general topics) are garnering the most attention by the public. And Pew’s annual tally shows that the interests of the news media and the public were in some respects closely aligned, due in no small measure to the agenda-setting role of journalism.

Specific natural disasters garnered a lot of public attention, as they did in the news media. The Midwest tornadoes, Southern storms, and Hurricane Irene were eight, ninth and tenth respectively on the list of the public’s top stories in 2011. Following not far behind in 15th place was the July heat wave (which contributed to the devastating fires in Texas).

These stories do have potential links to climate change. But climate change itself does not appear in Pew’s tally of specific stories the public was interested in this past year. It might be in there somewhere, way, way down low on the list. But if you can find any numbers in the report documenting it, please let me know! I sure can’t.

The climate change wars have several historical precedents — right down to the nastiness and idiocy

Both Nicolaus Copernicus and Albert Einstein became the target of ridicule after they proposed theories that were considered absurd — and worse. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

A RealClimate post on Thursday drew my attention to a fascinating article documenting how the slow acceptance of anthropogenic climate change by the public — and the vituperative treatment often afforded climate scientists — really is nothing terribly new in science.

The article, by Steven Sherwood, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, appeared back in October in Physics Today. But aside from a mention here and there by hyperventilating bloggers, I don’t believe it got much attention. That’s a shame, because the historical insights Sherwood offers can help us understand what’s going on today in the climate change wars.

An excerpt:

The ugly nature of the current climate debate, with its increasingly frequent characterization of scientists as opportunists, totalitarians, or downright criminals, is also, unfortunately, not new. Copernicus (posthumously) and his prominent followers through Isaac Newton were all accused of being heretics or atheists. Einstein was derided by his political opponents through the 1920s and 1930s as a Communist—despite his dim view of the Soviet Union—or simply as a fraud. When a group of American women tried to prevent him from entering the US because of his supposed Communism, he quipped, “Never before have I experienced from the fair sex such energetic rejection of all advances, or if I have, then certainly never from so many at once.” At one point Einstein stopped giving public lectures out of fear for his personal safety, also now a worry for some greenhouse warming proponents.

A graphic from the piece nicely illustrates timelines for acceptance of three paradigm-shifting ideas: the Copernican theory that the Sun, not the Earth is at the center of the solar system; Einstein’s theory of relativity; and the theory of greenhouse warming, which dates all the way back to 1864, when John Tyndall first proposed the idea. The patterns of resistance, organized backlash, and, in the case of the first two, eventual widespread acceptance, are remarkably similar. Click on the thumbnail at left for a larger version over at Physics Today.

Sherwood suggests that, as was the case with the other theories, anthropogenic warming will eventually become largely accepted throughout society. But will it come too late?

Lastly, for a critique of Sherwood’s piece, see this by Roger Pielke, Sr.

Grist’s still uncorrected headline about sending climate change deniers into orbit raises questions about journalistic standards in the age of proliferating niche media

In this photo from the Seattle PI, California Gov. Jerry Brown discusses climate change with IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri and Virgin Galactic’s Richard Branson.

As anyone who used to read CEJournal probably knows, I went into semi-retirement from blogging last spring. The time commitment played a role. But so were doubts I harbored about what I was contributing to move conversations forward on issues like environment and energy. But as the year draws to a close, a breach of journalistic standards by Grist has gotten me out of the rocking chair.

In their eagerness to toss red meat to their readers, Grist and Mark Hertsgaard, author of its story about the “Extreme Climate Risks and California’s Future” conference, accepted uncritically the idea that Rajendra Pachauri jokingly advocated that climate change deniers should be rocketed into space. When it was shown that Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, never said such a thing, Grist sort-of kind-of corrected its story — but not its screaming tabloid headline.

So forever more, Grist’s readers and countless other climate activists, will think of Pachauri and the IPCC as being on their ‘side.’ Climate change skeptics will be confirmed in their false suspicion that the IPCC is a hopelessly biased activist organization, rather than a policy-neutral scientific assessment body. Pachauri and by extension the IPCC have yet again had some of their credibility chipped away. And thus the cause of climate change mitigation Grist and Herstgaard so passionately advocate for has been undermined.

It all started with the post last Friday, in which Hertsgaard wrote about a panel discussion at the climate conference organized by California Gov. Jerry Brown. Participating on the panel were Gov. Brown, Pachauri, and Virgin Group Chair Sir Richard Branson. According to Hertstgaard’s original account, at one point:

Pachauri joked that [Richard] Branson could give climate deniers tickets on the aviation mogul’s planned flights into outer space. “Perhaps it could be a one-way ticket,” Pachauri said, smiling, “though I’m not sure space deserves them.”

Video of the episode shows that Pachauri did joke about sending other people into space — federal bureaucrats whom Gov. Brown had said were blocking state efforts to expand use of renewable energy.

That was reflective of what Andrew Revkin feels is Pachauri’s habit of wading too far into policy waters. And it prompted him to write this at DotEarth yesterday:

I believe it’s time for Rajendra K. Pachauri to take a new approach to discussing climate change or leave the chairmanship of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change after nearly a decade in that position. There is an unavoidable and counterproductive blurriness to the line between his personal advocacy for climate action — which is his right as an individual — and his stature as the leader of the panel, which was established in 1988 as “a policy relevant but policy neutral organization.”

Revkin did a good enough job dissecting this issue, so have a look at his post for more details. I’d like to tackle the journalism issue.

Grist’s eagerness to publish a headline that would make the New York Post proud is evidence of something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately: the impact of the democratization of communication on public discourse about controversial issues like climate change. By now it’s almost cliché to point out that everyone can have the equivalent of their own printing press and television station, thanks to WordPress, Youtube and the like. At the same time, journalists working at conventional media outlets have been thrown overboard by the thousands — and none more than science and environmental journalists.

As Revkin has pointed out, science and environmental journalism constitute a shrinking slice of a rapidly expanding pie of communication. Over the long run, that expansion — that democratization of mass communication — could be an amazingly good thing. But right now, the shrinkage of conventional journalistic reporting potentially creates significant problems.

Here’s why: Whether you’re an opinion journalist or a news reporter, you must be guided by the single, overarching principle of verification. And our job as journalists, whether we’re advancing an opinion on a blog or telling a good story, is to be skeptical, open to the truth, and to go wherever our reporting leads. But that’s not necessarily true of activist bloggers who see their job as winning the argument.

Both approaches are essential in a democratic society. But I see a growing imbalance between activist argumentation and journalistic verification, with the former winning out more and more. And with the fragmentation of media into hyperpartisan niches, people can gravitate to activist messagers with whom they resonate, such as Grist, while never having to consider the often more nuanced, more complex — and sometimes more uncomfortable — factual truths.

I first got a heads up about the Grist story when Andy emailed me about it, along with a copy of his Tweet about it on Friday:

@MarkHertsgaard Waiting for Pachauri input before I say he should step down from IPCC chair over his Calif. comments: grist.org/climate-skepti…

When I clicked on the link, I came to the story, which had this headline:

New approach to climate deniers: Launch them into space!

The head of the IPCC saying climate change deniers should be launched into space? It doesn’t get any more provocative — or troubling — than that.

Revkin told me that over the ensuing weekend he had been in touch with Hertsgaard and Pachauri (as well as Felicity Barringer of The Times, who moderated the panel), to figure out what had happened. Pachauri denied making the statement attributed to him. And by late Sunday night, Grist issued a weak correction, clarifying in the text that Pachauri did not, in fact, say that climate change deniers should be blasted into space.

But as I write this, the original headline still remains. It has not been changed. And that is outrageous.

What actually happened at the conference?

The video posted on Gov. Brown’s official website shows what was said and by whom. At about 50 minutes in, Gov. Brown talks about federal housing regulators who, he said, were preventing states from implementing certain policies to encourage homeowners to install renewable energy technologies. Pachauri responds by pointing out that the “building sector is the largest sector for reduction in emissions.” Branson chimes in, saying of the regulator at Fannie Mae that “somebody needs to shake him.”

At that point, Pachauri makes this unfortunate joke: “Put him on an aircraft and take him to a turbulent place.” The audience laughs, Branson pats Pachauri on the arm and replies: “A one-way ticket to space. I’d be happy to oblige.” He was referring, of course, to his Virgin Galactic endeavor, which is eventually supposed to take paying customers on flights into space. And the person who should be blasted into space? A federal regulator standing in the way of renewables, not climate change deniers.

About five minutes later, the topic of sending people to space comes up again when Pachauri says, “Those who are becoming obstacles in implementing what is rational should be made the responsibility of Sir Richard to give this one-way ticket to outer space. Of course space would be unfortunate to get some of these guys.”

In its correction to Hertsgaard’s original story, Grist says “it is not absolutely clear to whom Pachauri is referring.” That’s arguable. To me, the context makes it clear who Pachauri was talking about: those federal regulators, not climate change deniers.

Especially since Grist will not fully own up to its mistake and change the headline, what may well be remembered from this affair is that the head of the IPCC said climate change deniers should be blasted into space. And to my mind, this borders on defamation. Pachauri would be well within bounds if he took Hertsgaard and Grist to court. This sure seems to me like reckless disregard for the truth.

How could it happen? All of us sometimes hear what we want to hear rather than what was actually said. During a panel discussion with a lot of quick back and forth banter, a journalist looking for a provocative story might well hear that the head of the IPCC joke that climate change deniers should be sent into orbit. What a great headline that would make. But every journalist worth his salt knows you can’t run something as potentially explosive as that without checking it out. Aside from just getting it wrong, you could wind up libeling someone.

But skepticism and verification are the fundamental default settings in journalism not just to help reporters avoid libel. They are what establishes our credibility as truth tellers, even when we are offering an opinion in a blog or on the op ed page. For activist journalists like Hertsgaard, and their editors at publications like Grist, however, the need to win the argument and advance the agenda sometimes trumps the skeptical impulse and the drive to verify.  The results sometimes are pretty ugly.

A picture is worth a thousand words — never more true than with these disturbing images.

This satellite image, courtesy of DigitalGlobe, was captured Wednesday morning. It clearly shows devastating damage to containment buildings at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station. (Click on the image for a larger version.) The containment building for Unit 1 is at the extreme right. The first explosion to strike the complex occurred there.

Next in the line of buildings is Unit 2, where an explosion on Monday was thought to have caused damage to the reactor’s suppression pool. (Part of the cooling system, the pool is a large torus-shaped structure at the base of the reactor.) Steam or smoke is seen rising from a hole punched into the side of that building. Steam is also escaping from the very heavily damaged unit #3. Radioactivity from that plume forced evacuation of workers from the plant on Wednesday morning, local time. They have since returned to the plant. And last in the line is Unit 4, also heavily damaged. A second fire broke out there on Wednesday, but it is said to be controlled now. Authorities are particularly worried about the spent fuel pool at this unit. The water in the pool must be replenished to prevent a potentially massive release of radiation.

This is the first image I’ve seen from inside the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex. It shows nightmarish damage to units 3 and 4. The picture was released by the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Source: AFP via The Australian)

Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t?

.

As I write this, a third explosion has occurred at the  stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi complex in Japan, and radiation levels are climbing to the highest levels recorded since the crisis began. Associated Press is reporting that authorities are working frantically to prevent a catastrophic release of radiation. And the story quotes a “top Japanese official” as saying that fuel rods in three reactors at the facility appear to be melting.

Meanwhile, in an interview with National Public Radio, Dale Klein, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and an associate director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas sketched out a scenario by which there could be a large release of radioactivity: If enough molten uranium and other material collected at the bottom of the reactor’s containment vessel, it could manage to burn through the thick steel.

If that should happen, nukes could be off the table for quite some time. But nuclear experts quoted by NPR say the odds of a total meltdown and breach of containment are low. So if the containment vessels really do what the name suggests — contain whatever molten mess of radioactive material accumulates inside — then we can eventually expect renewed calls for a nuclear renaissance.

Already, some in government are saying that the events in Japan should not put a long-term crimp in plans to expand nuclear energy. And Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel B. Poneman is saying the Obama administration is still committed to nukes. In an interview with NPR, he said, “We view nuclear energy as a very important component to the overall portfolio we’re trying to build for a clean energy future.”

Let’s hope and pray that the containment vessels at Fukushima do their job. Assuming that they do, and nuclear power is not so thoroughly discredited as to remove it from consideration, just how much of a contribution could it make — and SHOULD it make — toward reducing our carbon emissions? Nuclear proponents are sure to offer a very rosy assessment, while opponents will argue that it should be taken off the table.

To start to get your arms around these issues, it helps to get an accurate sense of the scale of the decarbonization challenge. These facts, from my colleague here at the University of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Jr., illustrate it well:

• To reduce carbon emissions by the approximately 80% required to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere at a target of 450 parts per million by 2050, the developed world would have to bring its “carbon intensity” (carbon emissions per unit of GDP) down to the level of Somalia and Haiti today.
• Hitting that target would require “in round numbers, construction of one nuclear power plant per day (worth of carbon free energy) between now and 2050 — and that does not include the energy needed to provide energy to1.5 billion people who currently lack energy access.”
• Here in the United States, hitting Obama’s target of a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 would require about 189 nuclear power plants worth of carbon-free energy.

(Roger addresses these and other issues in his recent book, “The Climate Fix.” So if you’re interested in what it will take to decarbonize the economy, check it out.)

It seems obvious to me that given the scale of the challenge in front of us, nuclear power is no panacea — and given the events in Japan, it is a perilous choice. On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining how we’re going to meet emissions reductions targets without it.

What a dilemma.

And the story in Grist with that headline is what yellow journalism looks like

Explosions at industrial facilities like the one pictured above in Ichihara, Japan; a destroyed village inundated by water; cars and boats swept by a rampaging wave into buildings and bridges — all of this, the editors of Grist would have you believe, “is what climate change looks like.”

That headline is for a story by Christopher Mims. The theory he sketches out is that shifts in the Earth’s crust triggered by melting ice sheets and glaciers “could already be causing more earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic activity.”

This may well be scientifically plausible. But using the threat of earthquakes and tsunamis as a way to bludgeon people into believing that they’d better do something about climate change strikes me as terribly wrong-headed. There are plenty of sensible reasons for tackling climate change. This is not one of them. And making this particular connection simply invites disbelief, disdain — and worse.

Moreover, the magnitude 8.9 temblor that struck Japan was a subduction zone earthquake. It was caused by the inexorable movement of the Pacific tectonic plate as it thrusts underneath Japan at the Japan Trench. (Check out Joel Achenbach’s explanation at the Washington Post.) The Pacific plate is moving at a rate of about four inches per year, but in some places it gets stuck. When it comes unglued, a massive earthquake like the one Japan suffered through is the result.

Could melting ice cause crustal shifts that would help a plate get unglued at a subduction zone? Who knows? Grist’s story doesn’t come even remotely close to providing the evidence to back up such an astonishing claim. As a result, this is terrible, irresponsible journalism.

In fact, I would even go as far as to say that it is yellow journalism.

I’ve emailed Roger Bilham, one of the world’s most renown earthquake experts, to ask him for his perspective on this. I’ll update this post with what he says.

UDPATE: No sooner had I hit the return key to post this piece than Roger Bilham responded. In an email message, I had asked him this question: “Is there any possible way that a subduction zone earthquake like the one in Japan could be connected to such crustal shifts?” (Caused by melting ice.)

Roger is no doubt very busy right now, so he sent me just a two word response, from his iPhone: “Not possible.”

Perhaps there are other scientists who disagree. I don’t know because I haven’t done the reporting. But the point is that Christopher Mims has not done the reporting either.

Before publishing this story, a responsible journalist would have solicited a variety of scientific perspectives on the subject and provided a balanced view of expert scientific opinion. (Actually, given Bilham’s response, I would have simply spiked it.) And responsible editors would not have exploited the misery of others with such a sensational headline and pictures — and all on the basis of such flimsy reporting.

The media were irrelevant and largely blameless in Climategate. The whole incident was a case study in the absence of effective leadership in both the science and environmental communities.

Next, Michael Tobis sprang into action:

Like it or not, honest scientists are constrained to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The truth is plenty scary enough. Not only that, but most of the uncertainties just add to the ominousness of the present landscape.

(Constrained? Never mind…)

With artful misdirection, Keith Kloor asked:

So Randy, for the benefit of the activists and bloggers who want to communicate a clear and consise climate change message with just enough wiggle room to remain true to the various uncertainties of climate change, how about some examples of how it’s done?

(I know the chronology is confused here, but witches are comfortable in a universe of fragmented time)

Never missing an opportunity to rise to a challenge, Randy came back with:

I don’t think you quite get my comment about scientists being “mumblers.”  That’s what they are, in essence, when it comes to broad communication.  They are the guy at the party over in the corner mumbling the truth as the loudmouthed fools in the middle blabber on and on about topics they know nothing about but have read of on blogs.

The self-styled Bunny then used the F-word in a post:

It’s not that scientists are or are not lousy communicators (say that and Eli will lock you in a room with Richard Alley for example), but that journalists are lousy communicators. It’s their fucking (emphasis added) job and they are screwing it up to a fare-thee-well. It ain’t just climate either. What journalists produce often makes the average cut and paste student paper blush with modesty.

What ensued was mostly a terrific discussion about the culpability (or lack thereof) of scientists and journalists in the failure of the public to fully appreciate the risks of climate change and therefore demand a carbon tax, including this incisive comment:

I think there are a lot of faulty assumptions that underlie this whole debate.  Communication isn’t simply transmitting information – the information must be received, processed and filtered through the mindset and cognitive biases of each individual.  The common assumption in this debate seems to be that improving the message automatically results in better “communication.”  Further, some suggest that if only the appropriate “facts” were transmitted then people would be convinced to support their particular policy preferences.  The fact that people don’t support those policies is used as evidence that the message is inadequate, resulting in another round of blame the messenger.

The problem, of course, is that the sender of information is only half of the equation. Further, in my opinion the sending side is less important than the receiving side when it comes to effective communication and I think the cognitive science literature supports that opinion. Journalists and scientists can always improve their messaging and narratives, but they should be cognizant that there are real limitations to what the “message” can do.  The assumption that people will be convinced if they are only shown the “facts” is naive.  Anyone who has tried to convince their best friend that the person they are in love with is a philandering scoundrel understands this.

The commenter (he’s named Andy; check out his blog!) goes on to quote a Brink Lindsey commentary on partisanship:

It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

(As someone who has been reporting and writing on climate change for more than 30 years, I find this perspective particularly compelling.)

And what about that coven? John Fleck blew our cover with this response to the Bunny:

So this then is satire? You were pointing out what you view as the flaws in the Kloor/Olson argument by doing the same thing yourself? And you’ll stop the “all the journalists are lousy communicators” schtick as soon as Keith and Randy stop the “all the scientists are lousy communicators” schtick? Clever rabbit, thanks for clarifying, I’ll bring the issue up at our next weekly coven.

Damn it John. Now angry bunnies and dour scientists are going to crash our blissful sylvan gatherings.

.
Melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland is accelerating, according to a new study to be published this month in Geophysical Research Letters. According to the research, this acceleration is three times faster than what is being observed for mountain glaciers and ice caps.

From the study:

The magnitude of the acceleration suggests that ice sheets will be the dominant contributors to sea level rise in forthcoming decades, and will likely exceed the IPCC projections for the contribution of ice sheets to sea level rise in the 21st century.

According to the new research, if melting of ice sheets continues at the current rate for the next 40 years, sea level rise from that source alone would equal 15 centimeters, or 5.9 inches by the year 2050. With ice loss from glaciers, ice caps and thermal expansion of the oceans also factored in, sea level could come up by a total of 32 centimeters, or 12.6 inches, by mid-century, according to the new research.

There is a caveat:

The researchers say there are significant uncertainties inherent in their projections. Of course, that could well mean greater sea level rise than they project in their paper. In fact, with new research over the years, scientists have repeatedly had to revise their estimates of sea level rise upward.

The last assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a case in point. Published in 2007, it said we could get up to 59 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100. But that prediction did not include growing understanding of ice dynamics in Greenland. As a result, researchers have since estimated that sea level rise could exceed 1 meter by the end of the century. (For more information about this, see my post, “Mass Loss from Greenland Ice Sheet Accelerates,” from back in October.)

Even 1 meter of sea level rise would pose a major challenge. To offer one example, with a storm surge from a hurricane, New York City could actually be looking at 1.5 meters of water sloshing ashore. And that could flood a good portion of the city.

In the graphic at left, from the new research to be published in GRL, the the amount of ice lost from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets combined is plotted for the years 1992 through 2009. The graph is based on two independent measurement techniques, and the downward trend is clear.

So is the agreement between the two techniques. The first involved monitoring of ice sheets by synthetic aperture radar to determine ice loss, as well as climate modeling to determine additions to the ice sheets. The second used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) satellites. These spacecraft actually detect tiny changes in Earth’s gravity caused by alterations in the distribution of mass on our planet — including the movement of ice.

“These are two totally independent techniques, so it is a major achievement that the results agree so well,” co-author Isabella Velicogna of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory  is quoted as saying in an American Geophysical Union press release, issued today.

Global warming debate in Congress almost seems like a sex addiction

Here we go again . . .

The price for benchmark West Texas crude crested just shy of $107 a barrel in electronic trading today, the highest in more than two years.

By the close of trading, the price had pulled back somewhat. But analysts suggest we could easily be heading to $120 or more — and it could stay there for awhile.

The immediate trigger, of course, is instability in the Middle East. But oil prices were already trending upward, and even before the uprisings, the U.S. Energy Information Administration was forecasting an average price of $93 per barrel this year, and $98 next.

The long-term problem is one of simple supply and demand. As The Economist notes:

With the world economy growing strongly, oil demand is far outpacing increases in readily available supply. So any jitters from the Middle East will accelerate and exaggerate a price rise that was already on the way.

The situation is now stoking fears that the world economy could be oil-shocked back into recession, and perhaps inflation too. The Economist points out that we’ve been here before:

The price of oil has had an unnerving ability to blow up the world economy, and the Middle East has often provided the spark . . . With protests cascading across Arabia, is the world in for another oil shock? There are good reasons to worry.

So with this in mind, you’d think the U.S. Congress could put aside its childish games and have an adult conversation about energy. They could, for example, debate ways of spurring innovation in energy technology, and also the use of tax policies to incentivize efficiency and a switch to renewable energy sources. (Back in a February 22 column, Thomas Friedman made a proposal that was at least worth debating.)

Oh, never mind. Tomorrow, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), will hold a hearing titled “Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations.”

They just can’t resist, can they? This reflexive revision to the “global warming: yes or no?” debate almost seems akin to a sex addiction.

I guess the editors of The Economist didn’t get the press release from Energy and Power Subcommittee when they wrote this:

At its worst, the danger is circular, with dearer oil and political uncertainty feeding each other. Even if that is avoided, the short-term prospects for the world economy are shakier than many realise. But there could be a silver lining: the rest of the world could at long last deal with its vulnerability to oil and the Middle East. The to-do list is well-known, from investing in the infrastructure for electric vehicles to pricing carbon. The 1970s oil shocks transformed the world economy. Perhaps a 2011 oil shock will do the same—at less cost.

Well, maybe the rest of the world — not including the United States.

UPDATE 3/8: The House hearings have concluded. For those interested in a blow-by-blow, check out this transcript of the live blogging done by NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and ScienceInsider’s Eli Kintisch. I was not able to follow the hearings live. But I’ve looked over the transcript and I have to say that Roger Pielke Jr’s prediction turned out to be correct. He said it would “inevitably be a show hearing using climate scientists as props.”