This week Obama named one of his best cabinet picks yet: Dr. Steven Chu, director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, former chair of Stanford University's physics department, and Nobel Prize-winning (for research in laser cooling and trapping of atoms) physicist, was named Obama's Energy Secretary. Chu also has been an early and strong supporter of alternative fuels and renewable energy research. THIS is the kind of leadership this country needs!

It should be noted that this is the FIRST Energy Secretary who is genuinely an expert on energy.

Dr. Chu's impressive biography can be found here.

Here's a video of Steve Chu at the Davos Annual Meeting, 2007, talking about Climate Change:

Every now and then DG's sister site, Culture Kitchen, gets targeted by global warming deniers. Honestly, we are way past the time for denial on this issue, but deniers are still out there and CK is one of the sites they target. And having to counter the same denial yammering over and over again gets a bit frustrating for me.

But sometimes we also get responses from another corner: actual scientists. And I find those reponses far more gratifying. In a diary I wrote addressing the latest denial drivel is an excellent response from the American Physical Society (APS) that is worth highlighting in a diary (thanks to Tawanda Johnson for posting the APS statement in my diary on CK):

APS Reaffirms Position on Climate Change
July 22, 2008

American Physical Society Reaffirms Its Position that Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Climate Change

WASHINGTON, DC — American Physical Society (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement:

Sometimes I look with considerable interest at the global warming deniers because I think, for a brief moment, they may have found something of importance to say. So far, though, I always find that they are as dazed and confused as ever. This is the case with the recent salvo from self-proclaimed "rocket scientist" David Evans. David Evans claims expertise on global warming because of two things: his being a "rocket scientist" and his having previously done "carbon accounting" for the Australian government. Now ANYTIME someone tells you they are a "rocket scientist" it should be a red flag to you. I have never met anyone, including people who work for NASA, to identify themselves professionally as a "rocket scientist." Turns out Evans has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. In fact he has published only a singlepaper in his entire career, and that was back in 1987 and had nothing to do with global warming. THis puts him on par with me vis a vis global warming: educated, smart and probably informed.

Global warming is hitting us already. It is no coincidence that some of the biggest storms and an unexpected number of storms are hitting us now. Nor are food shortages coincidence...nor are they caused primarily by biofuels. Extreme weather, an expected part of global warming, is hitting us hard, damaging crops around the world. Crops are established based on a particular climate. That climate has changed and it will take time for agriculture to adapt and infrastructure to be put into place. Time and money.

Global warming isn't our future. It is our now.

Interested in a discussion online about carbon emissions and real, science-based solutions to global warming? This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

A Target for U.S. Emissions Reduction

Join Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel for free web seminar on the analysis for determining “A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions.” Following a presentation on the findings, will be a Q&A session.

Date: February 20, 2008
Time: 2:00 pm (EST)
Click here to RSVP. Directions on how to join will be emailed to you.

Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial average (i.e., prior to 1860) poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being. The European Union as well as climate legislation moving through the U.S. Congress both employ 2°C as a guide for policy goals.

"The last 50 years stick out like a sore thumb... The temperature's gone up and up and up. It bears the imprint of human activity."

--Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Princeton University

"It's not something we can adapt to...we can't let it go another 10 years like this."

--Dr. James Hansen, Director NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, member National Academy of Sciences

"The weight of evidence for climate change is very strong indeed, and it has gotten stronger over the years...The rate of warming is now greater than it has been for 10,000 years; that means the rate of climate change is greater than it has been for 10,000 years."

--Sir John Houghton, Professor in atmospheric physics, University of Oxford, recipient of Royal Astronomical Society Gold Medal, Honorary Member American Meteorological Society

Sometimes when I set out to review a book, certain parts of the book inspire me to write before I am even ready to review it. I made many references to parts of what I was reading in John and Teresa Heinz Kerry's book, This Moment on Earth, before I reviewed it, for example.

Right now I am finishing up the latest book on Global Warming, titled...well, Global Warming: The Last Chance for Change, by Paul Brown, a long-time correspondent for The Guardian. I will review this book soon. It is excellent, far better than my initial expectations of it. Simply put, it is the most comprehensive and thorough discussion of the issue to date. A must read even for skeptics because if they can't address what is in this book then they have no right to be skeptics. But more on that in a later diary someday soon.

Right now I want to focus on a single chapter of this book: Chapter 13 discussing Nuclear Energy.

While researching yesterday's post on global warming and the metropolitan area, I came across a map of projected inundation levels should New York be struck by a category 3 hurricane.

Mind you, category 3 is not Katrina-strength; Katrina was a category 5. Category 3 is defined as follows:

Winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-209 km/hr). Storm surge generally 9-12 ft above normal. Some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. Damage to shrubbery and trees with foliage blown off trees and large trees blown down. Mobile homes and poorly constructed signs are destroyed. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with larger structures damaged by battering from floating debris. Terrain continuously lower than 5 ft above mean sea level may be flooded inland 8 miles (13 km) or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences with several blocks of the shoreline may be required. Hurricanes Jeanne and Ivan of 2004 were Category Three hurricanes when they made landfall in Florida and in Alabama, respectively.

Here is that map, showing a projection of how far inland water could reach in the event of such a hurricane directly hitting the City. Six category 3 hurricanes hit the Northeast in the twentieth century, the most recent, hurricane Gloria, in 1985.

Today's New York Times reports that homeowners in the metropolitan area are already losing their insurance coverage due to heightened insurance company concerns following Katrina.