Through the years when following all the research and headlines revolving around anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I have often found and shared what seemed to be some stark contradictions. Such as, AGW is going to destroy the environment and everyone is going to starve, but it has also been blamed for the obesity epidemic. Or, AGW is going to cause more El Nino conditions in the Pacific Ocean and California will suffer from massive storms vs. AGW is going to cause more La Nina conditions and California is going to suffer more drought (“Agriculture will become impossible”). Then of course we have some speculation that AGW will cause more intense and numerous hurricanes, vs speculation that there will be less hurricanes. The most notable contradiction is having more flooding rains but also more drought (this is possible, by the way, even though at first glance it doesn’t seem to make sense).

The latest contradiction comes surveys about acceptance of AGW theory. In one study, it is claimed the most people are too stupid to know that they don’t understand AGW and this leads to their skepticism of AGW. In another survey, it was found that people with higher math and science knowledge tended to be more skeptical of the proposed dangers of AGW. So dumb people and smart people are both skeptical of AGW? (to put it in non-politically correct blunt terms). I suppose that is possible. I guess I am in good company, being somewhat skeptical of AGW theory and prognostications. It appears people a whole lot smarter than me are skeptical too!

I think there might be two things going on here. One, scientists are naturally more skeptical. Broad claims of environmental destruction have been made over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again throughout the last few decades, plus there is the old axiom that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (which has been slowly developing in regards to AGW). So some skepticism is natural. Also, scientists don’t like to be told “this is how it is, this is the truth, don’t question it”, which was the distilled essence of many a science-media AGW pronouncement over the last couple decades (whether it was a fair characterization or not).

Most scientists are well trained to root out bias as well. Maybe they are seeing some possibilities of cognitive bias and group-think in the AGW profession. After all, there are now bots that constantly argue in favor of AGW theory and apps that only show how things around the world are getting worse.

There is also the fact that many scientists (most that I know anyway) are much more concerned about other more immediate existential threats to humans than AGW. Maybe their skepticism is just really a lack of immediate concern.

By the way, I don’t think anyone is too stupid to understand AGW. If you spend enough time reading about the science behind it, the global weather patterns, and climate model projections, you can get a reasonable grasp of what is going on. You can construct a reasonable opinion.

Have a fine Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Education

There was a good comment in the blog yesterday broaching a subject that often comes up during periods of dry weather – is there a geologic feature in the area that makes storms split? Delahny asked it this way:

“We live between Rudolph and Versper. We have watched storm after storm and radar image after image create a virtual bubble around us – storms to each direction but overhead. Is there some geologic feature, some meteorological reason, something which causes this phenomena?”

The short answer is no. If Rib Mountain, or Bruce Mound, or Powers Bluff caused storms to split up then thhose areas near the geologic features would be very much like a desert because there would hardly be any rain during any year. The hills around Northcentral Wisconsin are not big enough to have any significant effect on storms or storm systems. The Great Lakes, of course, DO exert some well-known effects on weather patterns around the Midwest, but even they are far enough away from most of the viewing area to not affect thunderstorms very often. The only features in the landscape that I would attribute to very slight changes in storm paths and/or rain patterns is the gradual elevation change from low sandy open areas of Adams and Juneau counties up to the higher forested areas north of Marathon county. This gradual change in elevation and land character seems to affect the weather a slight bit. I don’t have any scientific data to back this up. It is just an observation based on my years of forecasting around here.

The longer answer is that this topic usually comes up every time there is a drought. It is the nature of most droughts in Wisconsin that there is some rain that occurs periodically every month – but this rain is very hit-or-miss. If the rain was more widespread, there wouldn’t be a drought in the first place. So many locations end up missing out on the few chances of rain during a drought and it certainly seems like something is keeping the rain away, but it is mostly bad luck. Here in Marathon county and Wausau we were lucky for the early part of the Summer. I only had to water my gardens once in June. Unfortunately, the last 2 weeks have not been so great and the storms are missing my gardens. So. it looks like I will have to water this afternoon.

There is a chance of storms on Saturday, so I could maybe wait to water, however, I am not 100% certain the rain on Saturday will be widespread. There will be high humidity and the storms could be strong but they might also be fast moving. I figure if I water today, then any rain on Saturday will be a bonus.

Another drought related discussion that has bubbled up nationally is whether the current heat and drought is being caused by anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The latest US Drought Monitor shows about the same drought conditions across the nation as last week, although in Wisconsin we have seen some small improvement. Repeated rounds of thunderstorms have caused the areal extent of extreme drought in southern Wisconsin to shrink.

The question remains: Is the the drought being caused by AGW? I have to give credit to environmental reporting and climate scientist statements for being more true to science lately in stating that, yes, according to theory, this type of event is what one would expect in an AGW world, but what really matters is the trend throughout many years and decades. It is more likely that AGW theory is on solid ground if we see an increasing trend in heat and droughts. And, that is why there is sometimes some bitter disagreement about the instrumental record. A few of these disagreements have made headlines recently.

I blogged about Richard Muller’s recent findings a while back. He was formerly a bit more skeptical about AGW theory but now he is more confident that it is true. First, he looked at the instrumental record in order to filter out possible bad data (such as thermometers affected by the urban heat island effect – which is dramatic). He found that there was not too much difference when the potentially “bad” temperature data was filtered out. There was still solid evidence that temperatures increased noticeably during the 20th century. He recently also looked at the correlation between CO2 emissions and the temperature rise and found a very good correlation, therefore he is now very confident of AGW theory.

Then you have some citizen bloggers and scientist who are more skeptical of the temperature record and don’t trust the data being released by government sources. Here Steven Goddard shows some of the differences in temperature trends over the years and suggest there might be fraudulent manipulation going on by the scenes. Even I, a person who accepts that humans are affecting the climate and temperature trends to a certain extent, had to go hmmm? after looking at the data. James Delingpole and Anthony Watts have also recently jumped on some of these changes in the “official” temperature record.

At first glance, this of course looks very suspicious. However, I suspect there are some logical valid reasons relating to statistical filtering of the data that have caused these changes in the official record (and the graphs). Sometimes there are even honest mistakes. I can assure all the readers that any changes in statistical methods, tabulation, and modelling are usually very open and transparent. Almost all of the data you see reported in mainstream sources has been through a robust peer review process. If I (or you) had enough time, we could dig through all the published papers and find the reason why each change was made and how this led to changes in the temperature trend/graphs over the last couple of decades. The odds that there is fraud is fairly low.

Have a swell Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Drought, Science, Weather NEws

I heard someone mention the other day that the current drought and heat is just like the 1930s. I think that is taking things bit too far. We tend to have short memories and the 1930s are a long time ago as compared to the normal human lifespan. A quick look at this wikipedia page or this youtube video will remind you of how dry, hot, and devastating the 1930s were in the U.S. In Wausau, 9 of the top 20 warmest Summers we have recorded in the last 115 years or so occurred during the 1930s. Only 1935 failed to make it into the top 20. It ranks number 31 on the list of warm Summers. So it was not only hot back then, it was hot EVERY Summer for a decade. I shudder to think of the media coverage, intense anthropogenic global warming (AGW) discussions, and political machinations that would occur if the U.S. suffered a multi-year drought and heat wave like the 1930s. It is such a distressing thought, I want to block the image out of my mind and stop writing right now. Alas, we should not be surprised if such a pattern did develop because multi-year and even multi-decade droughts were much more common in North America prior to the 20th century.

Nothing growing in this field during the dust bowl years

That is not to say that there are NO comparisons to the 1930s. 1936 had the warmest July and 1933 had the warmest Summer (June-July-August) we have ever recorded here in Wausau (going back to the late 1800s). This year we are on pace to break both of those records. The mean temperature so far this July is 77.3. In 1936 the mean temperature was 76.7. It looks like we are going to be close to breaking that record. Current extended forecasts indicate a more substantial cool down could hit the area for the last few days of the month. If it does materialize, then we will probably not break the record. Otherwise, we are in the running.

For the warmest Summer record, at this point we are certainly in good shape to break that one, but we still have about a month and a half to go, which means a lot could happen. In 1933 the mean Summer temperature was 71.3. So far this year we are at 72.8. What is interesting to note is that our temperatures this year have not been as extreme as the 1930s, with multiple days at 100 or above (at least not in Wausau) but it has been persistently warm. Every day so far this July we have experienced high temperatures in the 80s or 90s. I forget what the 70s feel like.

Which brings me back to our “short-term memories”. Just remember that the last time we had a high of 98 in Wausau was 2006. After 2006, high temperatures in the 90s were very sparse. In 2009 we didn’t even get close to 90 in July (85 was the warmest). It wasn’t until last year (2011) when multiple 90 degree days become more prominent again. I also remember back to last year when on first weekend of May, there was still a large ice flow on the bank of the trout stream I was fishing. That is only 14 months ago when we were emerging from an abnormally long & snowy Winter.

For more on how the heat this year compares to past years in the U.S. as a whole check out this graphic.

Of course, it is common sense that the drought is linked to the heat wave, but it is one of those things that science sometimes needs to confirm, and it was confirmed in this recent study.

And going back further in the past, there is more evidence to indicate that the time of the Roman civilization and the Medieval Warm period were warmer than we are experiencing now. This does not mean that AGW is not happening, or at least a part of what is going on now, but it does help put the longer term climate in perspective and help us frame possible challenges going forward.

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Drought, Heat, Records, Summer

A couple days ago I brought up the media coverage of the most recent heat wave, and the lack of hysterics regarding AGW, which is a good thing. Even as more evidence for the theory builds, it is probably counterproductive to verbally panic, as seemed to be the case a few years back when apocalyptic AGW headlines seemed to make the news all the time. Too much “crying wolf” and more people will tune out than tune in.

In absence of overwhelming blaring AGW headlines I was actually heartened to read this recent article about “Imminent Irreversible Planetary Collapse”. Sounds bad, I know. I have discussed the irreversible & planetary collapse themes in past blog entries (including this one). Because I am substantially “techno-optimist”, I am optimistic that increasing technological progress will help us lessen negative impacts on nature in the near future, well before any “planetary collapse”. It also believe that future technology would be able to substantially reverse damage done to the environment, even on a global scale. For those who doubt this, just look at what we have done to the globe thus far – how we have transformed so much of it. With even more powerful technology at our disposal in the near future, how can one doubt our ability to transform the earth even more and on a shorter time scale (hopefully in a positive way).

So why would I be “heartened” to read about the ultimate demise of nature as we know it? Because the authors of the paper mentioned one thing which I have been harping on for a while now – population. One of the simplest and fastest ways to lessen our impact on nature is to stop having kids. I know it would not be easy, and I would never force anyone to not have progeny, but we should at least be talking about it more.

The authors of the paper mention that “we do not have the social structures” in place right now to deal with the climate problem. I disagree. The problem has just been attacked from the wrong angle. Instead of complex treaties, taxes, carbon caps, and wealth transfers, which have dubious chances of success, we could just promote sensible lifestyle choices. Instead of trying to take substantial amounts of private property rights away from everyone in the world (the basic element of climate treaties) for more than 15 years now, if there had been a sustained campaign to convince people to have less kids, or put off raising a family for a while, maybe we would be making better progress by now.

I think quite a few people could be convinced to have less kids or even no kids, but the real problem is something else that I have explained several times (including here: Housing Starts are Negative). It is that our economic system is based on growth. When you strip away all the fancy economic jargon and mathematical formulas, the “growth” of the economy is based on population growth. Even more troubling is that so many government programs including various nationalized medical care systems and the Social Security system here in the U.S. are absolutely dependent on population growth to stay solvent. There are powerful vested political interests that would “freak out” at the suggestion of a shrinking population.

As I have suggested before, I think we need to develop some better metrics of “growth”. Building even more roads, more suburbs, more strip malls, and more parking lots is not “good” growth. Building more things just for the sake of “economic growth” is bad policy. We have to come to grips with the fact that we cannot have ever increasing economic expansion based on population growth. Not with our current technology and not while we only have one planet to live on. Until we develop cleaner energy technologies and easier ways to conserve, we should stop paving over the planet and at least think ab0ut having less kids. It is the simplest route.

Have a swell Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Ecology

The record-breaking heat wave across the Midwest continues and what makes it even worse is that many areas that are experiencing the heat are also experiencing drought. The lateast U.S. Drought Monitor show at least three-quarters of the country under abnormally dry conditions or worse. Through all my years of following the Drought Monitor, right now is probably the greatest areal extent of drought conditions that I have seen. There have been more extreme droughts in different sections of the country at times, but this is probably the most widespread.

Here in Wisconsin I saw first hand what the drought looks like. I traveled down to the Dells area over the last couple of days and it looked more like California than Wisconsin. This is the time of year when everything should still be green. Unfortunately all the lawns and wild grass areas were brown. There was hardly a blade of green grass to be found in a few spots. The crops that were not being irrigated were taking a beating. The corn was curling up. The soybeans were turning brown. Another week or two of dry weather and a lot of the un-irrigated crops in that area will be a complete loss for the season. Officially Juneau, Adams, Waushara, and Marquette counties are only indicated as abnormally dry, whereas around Dane county and further south there is a moderate drought, but basically south of Wood and Portage counties it is not great for growing things. I feel bad for all the people experiencing the dry weather. I know how difficult it is to start growing something and then have mother nature bail out. We were lucky here in Marathon county to have a nice rain earlier this week. I hope rain becomes more widespread soon, but it is not looking to good.

Will the drought continue? Unfortunately for the southern half of the state, things do not look all that great. The highest chance of rainfall will be tomorrow (Saturday) as a cold front moves through. Otherwise the rain chances look pretty slim through most of next week. The one good thing is that the cold front moving through the area tonight and tomorrow will cool temps down closer to normal for this time of year. High temps will be in the low 80s from Saturday through Wednesday. We just have to make it through today when the heat index will be above 100 again in the southern half of the area.

If you follow our StormTrack9 facebook page you know that we linked to a story about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) with the question being whether or not this current heat wave is a sign of AGW. This is a good question to ask, and it probably is. Various climate forecasters have called for more extreme weather and more warmth in coming years and decades. One heat wave, drought, or flood, does not make the case, but several in a row with increasing frequency does make the case. We had a record-breaking heat wave last Summer and we have another one this year. This would be evidence that leans in favor of AGW scenarios and theory. For a historical perspective, the current heat does not compare to the 1930s but it is getting a little closer.

In a way, I am glad not too many people or media outlets are carrying the AGW story. Just a few years ago when the AGW discussion was “hot”, it seemed every headline about the weather was about “global warming” destroying the planet. Nearly every single extreme weather event was being blamed on AGW. A strong hurricane? AGW. A drought? AGW. Bee colony collapse disorder? AGW. More asthma? AGW The obesity epidemic? AGW (seriously). It was getting out of hand so much, I had to keep a big list here in the blog of all the things being blamed on AGW. Thankfully, some responsible climatologist must have gotten a hold of weather & science journalists and told them to stop, because single extreme weather events and various maladies of the human condition are not being pegged as frequently to AGW.

However, you should pay attention. If heat waves become more numerous, it is more evidence behind AGW theory. As I have been writing for the last few years, even if you don’t accept AGW theory to any great extent, you should still try to reduce using fossil fuels because they are “dirty” and continue to cause pollution around the world. When it comes too heat waves, geothermal energy is a great low-tech way to go and it is not too expensive if you can do it yourself. The thing about using regular air conditioning is the -while it works great – it adds to the problem of AGW. If the theory is substantially correct, then using the AC (running on electricity form standard fossil fuel power plants) will only cause more heat in the future.

Have a fine Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Drought, Heat, Pollution

Here in the weather blog, when I am not discussing the latest weather theory, news, or forecast, I am usually talking about the future – specifically technological progress. I think it is an under appreciated topic and concern for our future prosperity and happiness. I am always glad to share news of breakthroughs and new engineering marvels, but I also feel a need to periodically remind everyone that there is great peril that comes with technological progress. Almost every new technology could be weaponized in some manner. We also run the risk of being dependent and eventually controlled (against our will) by our technology. Check out this past blog post for a unique look at the situation.

If you are concerned, be heartened, as am I, that some people are now focusing more effort on making sure that humanity survives our increasingly powerful technology. I have mentioned the LifeBoat Foundation in the past (of which I am on the advisory board). Now there is a new effort coming from Cambridge Univeristy entitled “The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk”. I am not sure why they didn’t just join forces with the LifeBoat Foundation, but I am hopeful they can effectively foresee the trouble ahead nonetheless.

Typical Cement Plant

Speaking of technology, AGW is one of those threats (which I don’t think is an existential threat) that can be solved through technology. The latest news is of a company Skyonic which claims to have an economically feasible method of taking CO2 out of industrial exhaust gases (like cement factories and power plants). They recently raised $9 million in private financing to test out their method on a cement plant in Texas. The process takes the flue gas and makes sodium bi-carbonate as well as a few other marketable industrial chemicals. Another possibility of using-up carbon and keeping it from getting into the atmosphere is the creation of bio-char, which I have discussed before.

It would be better would be if cement factories could operate without creating any emissions at all, and that is what some scientists from the University of Virginia are proposing with a new solar powered cement making process.

If AGW is going to be a big problem, then it would be better yet if we didn’t need so much cement to support our sprawling unsustainable infrastructure.

Even better would be a continued transition away from the polluted industrial age and fossil fuels. Coal, oil, and gas are still necessary and economical, but solar power (and a few other alternatives) and an electrified economy have many benefits. Here’s to technology!

Have a nice weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Technology

The latest environmental (AGW) summit just wrapped up in Rio De Janeiro, 20 years after the initial ”historic” Rio summit of 1992. Here is a summary of the event written by someone who was there at the first summit and was attending the most recent. After reading it, I am much more positive about the future of the environment. Here is a little sample from the article:

I was in Rio for the first Earth Summit. Most of the world’s leaders came too. They negotiated treaties on climate change, biodiversity and desertification. The story was headline news for two weeks. Reporting for this magazine, I felt part of history.

This time the final mealy-mouthed “declaration” was stitched up by civil servants the day before the modest crew of often second-tier politicians arrived. There was not even a place on the agenda for ministers to discuss the declaration, so they didn’t. They spent three days reading prepared speeches and went home. By lunchtime on the final day, the place was emptying. There was nothing to stay for.

An assembly of 45,000 participants to discuss saving the world would seem like environmental profligacy at the best of times. When the outcome is so minimal, the absurdity is amplified. What on Earth did we think we were all doing here?

The problem here is that environmentalists brought the government and bureaucrats into the fold. 20 years ago there was hope and optimism. Now it is all being crushed by bureaucracy. That is what bureaucrats do well - make nearly pointless speeches at expensive, highly unsustainable, and resource wasting conferences. They rarely solve anything and most of the time make it worse. I wish I could have told all the dreamy-eyed and hopeful environmentalists back in 1992 to avoid government involvement. 20 years later, there is a huge environmental bureacracy wasting resources, wasting time, and wasting productive lives.

The most successful “environmental” organizations I have seen during my life are conservation organizations. It is unbelievable how many areas of the world have been preserved and restored through the work of clubs like Trout Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, the Audobon Society, and many others. If the Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, and Green Peace had used the billions of dollars they have received through the years to buy and manage natural areas of the world, they would have had much better success. Instead they have used mostly regulation, aggressive legal action, and government bureaucracy to advance their agenda, which makes me wonder if protection of the environment is the REAL agenda.

The key thing to understand here is that the vast majority of people, under their own volition, are willing to sacrifice (donate a little money, adapt their living style, etc…) for a better environment. They do not want to be told (like parent telling a child) to live a certain way. As we have seen in the AGW debate, they don’t want to be forced, by the threat of violent law enforcement, to live a certain way.

I had a friend who had a job a few years ago which required him to go out and talk to farmers who lived near streams and convince them to change their methods in order to protect the water in the stream. Western Wisconsin, at the time, was full of somewhat grumpy and stubborn old farmers. It was a tough job. Many of them did not want to put in any effort to protect the streams (even if it didn’t cost them anything), but some did. Through the years more farmers ended up adopting methods that protected streams. Some of it occurred through regulations and some was voluntary, but the idea of protecting the land and streams grew. It is a slow process, but once a critical mass is reached, then the environmental “offenders” become the minority and become isolated. There is no better method of getting people to “come-around” than through peer pressure. If you are the only farmer left in the neighborhood that allows pollution to run freely in to the stream, you end up being a pariah.

If we used gentle peer pressure – writ large – we would be further along than trying to use the blunt force of government diktats (as seems to be the preferred method of the Rio conferees).

Back to the summary of the Rio summit. There was another positive note. The author cried out for environmentalists to embrace technological progress as a means to help solve environmental problems. It is a shame that someone has to actually ask the large environmental NGOs of the world to embrace technology. Besides investing in large privately managed conservation efforts, they should be investing more in technology to help people live cleaner without having to sacrifice their standard of living. It is an absolute no-brainer. Instead of wasting resources and vastly increasing their carbon footprint by organizing world meetings with second-tier bureaucrats, they could be helping to implement clean-technology.

Have a swell Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change

Seeing the recent hurricane activity, including the hard-to-pin-down Debby currently in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, reminds me of this past study indicating that costly hurricane damage could increase along the eastern seaboard and Gulf coast of the U.S. While the authors speculate that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) could exacerbate things, the real culprit is the fact that more people are living and building expensive structures near the coast. People in southeast Asia are also gaining wealth and building more along the coast, so yes, around the world hurricane damages will rise, but it might not be due to an increase in hurricane number or strength.

Having expensive “real estate” along coastal regions is a problem of course, but the problem is exacerbated in the U.S. by the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP), whereby taxpayers are on the hook for coastal mansions and condos. If a coastal area is destroyed by a hurricane year-after-year by a hurricane, taxpayers will foot the bill to re-build everything….year-after-year. This might not seem like too much of a problem except that the dollar amount of losses continues to climb because of the reasons stated earlier. How many times do you want to foot the bill to rebuild New Orleans? Hundreds of billions of public (and private) dollars flowed into New Orleans to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina. The city is below sea level and continues to sink. The oceans level is high and is expected to rise a bit more over coming decades. Prior to Katrina, New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. Nothing has changed. It is still a disaster waiting to happen. At some point, you would think someone in the government would write into law that New Orleans will only be rebuilt in its current location one more time, but according to the NFIP, New Orleans will be rebuilt every time.

Now, people along the coast who are reading this will claim that building a house in New Orleans – below sea level – is on par with someone building a house in earthquake-prone California or the tornado-prone Midwest. Disasters happen all the time, right? It is different for most disasters because they are paid for by private insurance. After the Merrill tornado, homeowners were not bailed out by taxpayers, but by private insurance they paid (full price) for. In Grand Forks North Dakota, after the flood in the late 1990s, they rebuilt the downtown away from the flood plain to prevent future disaster.

Have a pleasant Monday! Meteologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Hurricanes

As the price of oil continues its recent decline, I am reminded once again to broach the topic of Peak Oil. It is something I have followed throughout the years because it is intimately linked with the topic of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). If we are going to run out of oil real fast, then the prediction of catastrophic AGW is probably a bit off.

I am not here to say that Peak Oil theory is complete bunk but it has not had a good track record as of late. Oil production seems to have plateaued a bit and will probably decline slowly in coming years, but the oft predicted ‘crash back to the stone age’ has not materialized. Human ingenuity and dynamic markets continue to ensure a steady supply of energy. As oil becomes more expensive, people use less or find alternatives. Here is a recent article I came across that explains the situation pretty well.

One of the alternative fuels that has come on the market in full force recently is natural gas and I have promoted it as a bridge fuel as we move away from oil and coal toward cleaner alternatives. Nat gas has a lot going for it but it might be in some short term trouble according to some analysts. Apparently, the productive life of a fracked gas well is a lot shorter than oil wells. A lot of drilling operations could go broke in this extended period of very low prices. This in turn could push the price of nat gas up a few dollars. I had a nagging suspicion over the last couple of years that the fracking operations were not as profitable as indicated in the beginning. I see the frack-sand mining here in Wisconsin and wonder how it can be profitable to mine the sand, ship it to North Dakota or Pennsylvania, and inject it into the ground, all to retrieve the nat gas. I hear they have to use and ship a lot of water as well. Even if the price of nat gas rises a few dollars, or even back up to $10, there are many reasons it is still a good bridge fuel. Here is a recent article about the profitability of natural gas wells.

Have a good Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

Just a couple weeks ago I was extolling the virtues of natural gas as a bridge fuel to the future. Sure, from the perspective of AGW, it is not the perfect long term solution, but it is better than coal or oil and it is much cheaper (right now). I was heartened to read the other day that natural gas electric power generation in the U.S. has surged so much in recent years that it is getting close to even with coal. Coal currently generates 36.7% of our electricity while natural gas generates 29.4%. A revelation of the data is that the oft-cited statement that the U.S generates 50% of its electricity from coal is no longer true – not by a long shot. We are not a coal-electric country anymore. The electric cars on the road cannot accurately described as coal cars. Now I hope that we will also move away from fossil-fuel cars altogether, but that is a bigger challenge because electric cars are still quite expensive. The good news is that the technology works! Exibit A is the Tesla Model S sedan that achieves over 300 miles per charge – and it looks gorgeous. Add in future autonomous vehicles and road travel will not only be cleaner and more efficient but safer as well (cool video of the google car). Not everyone is all “jazzed” about more electronics coming too vehicles. Along with autonomous cars perhaps coming to roads near you, the U.S. government will require that all vehicles come installed with a black box starting in the year 2015. I agree it is kind-of creepy, that the government will be able to monitor your driving habits and where you are at all times in your vehicle. I know that the point is not to monitor people, but some authoritarian governments have been known to abuse spying powers throughout history, it is just a fact. So maybe the fact that more and more younger people are not driving and buying cars is a good thing. They can save a ton of money by not owning a car. Most urban centers have plenty of means for getting around town. Not moving out into the suburbs and buying a car means that you will not have to spend so much of your life stuck in traffic jams. Hopefully this trend will continue and there will be less pollution and smog from automobiles in the future. I get the fact that freedom and cars have seemingly gone hand-in-hand throughout much of American history, but things change, and I think this change (younger generations not buying carts) is one for the better. Here are a couple of more articles about the possible decline of the United States of Suburbia, often labeled by yours truly as sprawling environmental disasters. Article 1. Article 2.

But I digress. Back to the natural gas story, the main reason why power companies are switching to natural gas is because the price is quite low and the U.S. has a HUGE supply that could easily last decades (maybe peak oil is not such a big threat - something I have argued for years). People prefer low prices. An interesting survey recently found that a majority of Americans wouldn’t mind paying up to 13% more for electricity, if they knew it came from alternative sources. I doubt it. The reality is in the market. People want cheaper prices for the most part. That is why power companies are using nat gas more right now. If people were so willing to pay 13% more, power companies would have already made more of a move toward wind and solar.

___________________________________________

Now an update on the snowmelt contest. I walked up Rib Mountain to get a picture of the snow yesterday. There is still a sizable pile of snow but it is noticeably shrinking. The pictures probably do not do the melting justice. That being said, we are most likely a few days away from the winning date. Good luck to everyone who predicted dates in mid to late May.

Snow Picture from May 13thSnow Picture from May 13th