Al Gore has bought another mansion. This time in California, along the ocean. The price was around $9 million. Why is this news? Because it goes to the heart of the controversy that is anthropogenic global warming (AGW). And that is, privileged elite preaching to masses about their environmental sins. I wouldn’t care one bit if Al Gore wanted to buy a $25 million mansion anywhere in the world, except for the fact that he is (or perhaps was) a cheerleader for fossil fuel restriction, part of the cabal that wants (or wanted) to artificially raise gas prices to $10 per gallon. The masses were told to conserve, to sacrifice for the good of the planet, to stop building and living in McMansions. Hasn’t Al Gore heard that the arctic sea ice is at a tipping point of no return? Hasn’t he read the news about how the Larsen B ice shelf continues to shrink, or how Greenland’s ice might melt faster than thought? If the ice is melting and the ocean is rising, then one might also ask why he bought a mansion near the ocean.

The hypocrisy is obvious.

In Al Gore’s defense, I don’t think he has been out on the environmental evangelist bandwagon too much over the last couple of years, and he claims to purchase carbon offset credits for his obscene energy usage. But this still will not do for those who are skeptical of the motivations behind AGW theory and plans to “fix” it. Most of the plans involve making life harder and more expensive for the average person. The Gore’s have nothing to worry about because they are obscenely wealthy. They can pay for carbon offsets and still afford to jet-set to exotic locations around the world to talk about “climate change”. The rest of us cannot. If the Gore’s wanted to lead by example (part of my advice in “Of Climate Persuasion“) they should have downsized and promoted the fact that they downsized. It would be nice if they used public transportation but that might be difficult since Gore is a former Vice President and requires security. How about putting a couple giant wind turbines on their property. This would be especially effective at deflecting criticism if the wind turbines blocked their view of the ocean. At the least they could exclusively drive electric cars which were charged by solar panels on their property. For all I know, maybe that is in the works.

The point is that if the bureaucratic, cultural, political, and academic elite were really concerned about AGW they would be making real sacrifices. I am concerned about fossil fuel usage mainly from an air/water/soil pollution standpoint and secondarily from potential AGW (because I am certain we will invent our way out of the problem). So I make sacrifices. Just ask my wife. I am constantly talking about reducing waste and not over-consuming. I ride a bike to work. Our house is relatively small and we have discussed moving into something smaller (easier to clean, besides saving energy). I have a few LED lights in my house and the rest are CFL. I grow a lot of my own food. We don’t have central air conditioning. We live close to work. The house temperature is set at 63 during the Winter for crying out loud! And the biggest of them all – we don’t have kids. Our carbon footprint is lower than most. I try to lead by example, but I do not force others into sacrificing a comfortable life.

On the subject of ”fixing” AGW, a recent – very unimaginative – article in Newscientist poo-pooed the idea of taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, claiming that it was next to impossible by using a couple of methods that have been suggested over the last couple of years. Of course it is not impossible because we have a natural example of carbon removal that works on the giga-ton scale every year and that is plants. Growing plants for the sole purpose of removing carbon dioxide from the air (and then creating biochar and burying it) might seem like a waste, but if the entire biosphere is going to be destroyed by AGW then it would seem like an easy solution – at least to part of the problem. Just the other day I mentioned a new technique using electricity (from solar panels) to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel. Don’t forget that carbon dioxide can also be sequestered underground as well.

No solution would be a perfect silver bullet but each little effort would contribute to the whole without creating so much divisiveness. Using more natural gas would temporarily lessen carbon emissions. Creating biochar would remove a little carbon from the air. Sequestering a bit of gas from power plants would help. Many of these things are palatable to industry and the general public. Taxing and regulating the heck out of fossil fuels might work to some extent but it will be bitterly fought the entire way because the burden falls disproportionately upon the “small” people of the world, not the Gore’s.

Have a fine Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change

Regular readers know that I routinely “take to task” some of the more extreme environmentalism that appears in the media. All of the predictions of environmental Armageddon for years and even decades can make one rather cynical and annoyed. One name that has appeared in the blog fairly often is Al Gore. I have never met the man but I have criticized the way he lives and some of the policies he promotes. If we met face-to-face, he might want to punch me in the face, maybe, you never know. Maybe he would turn out to be much more reasonable in private discussion than how he is portrayed in the media.

My main beef is with the hypocrisy that surrounds Al Gore. Many people would point to his environmental activism, promotion of and investment in alternative energy, and negotiations of climate treaties as evidence of his great character. I am not so impressed. I see the huge mansion, the private jet flights to exotic locations all around the world, and the out-sized profits from investing in “green” companies, and ask if he is making a REAL sacrifice in any of it. Al Gore is very wealthy and getting wealthier. I have nothing against wealth. I am not jealous of Al Gore because he is rich. I am frustrated that he pushes for policies that will very much prevent most of the rest of us from gaining wealth. From $10 a gallon gas, to new regulations, to high electricity bills from climate treaties, Al Gore is trying to put huge impediments in the way of average people gaining wealth, whether it is intentional or not.

Another person that might be even more hypocritical is Doug Tompkins. I apologize to all the Doug Tompkins fans out there. He was the founder of The North Face and Espirit clothing companies. He got super rich using the fossil fuel economy. With his wealth he bought a huge chunk of Chile and moved there to have his own environmental paradise. Nothing is wrong with that. In fact, I would love to do the same thing. Unfortunately, Mr. Tompkins is now a reformed wealth/product creator. He rejects the use of fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, and other modern economic policies. He actively funds many environmental organizations that are trying to shut down most new development or infrastructure in developing countries.

 Heck, I even agree with him on many of these points and I argue often against the further sprawl of mega cities here in the U.S . and abroad. I argue and persuade but I do not try to get in the way of other people’s rise out of poverty. Some of the infrastructure going up around the world is critical to helping the poor raise their standard of living. Paradoxically, technological progress and the use of fossil fuels has brought us to the precipice of a green/clean revolution. I wish Tompkins and Al Gore would fund more high-tech industries, or at the very least promote population control (not state-sponsored violent control, just argue in favor of having less kids). They should be teaching and helping people become wealthy because it is well known that wealthier societies freely choose to live in a cleaner environment. Poor societies are so focused on where the next meal is coming from that the environment is an after thought.

 Instead of promoting wealth, Tompkins, Gore, and other wealthy environmentalists seem, at times, hell bent on regressing. As if the only solution was (for everyone else but them) to stop using fossil fuels cold turkey and start living in caves and trees. That is what it seems like. I get the fact that Tompkins has rejected all of his past “transgressions” (getting wealthy and living the high life), that he lives more simply now, and that he is pitching a more eco-friendly type of living, I just can’t get behind policies that obviously get in the way of more people gaining wealth, security, and prosperity.

At least Tompkins has used some of his vast wealth to aquire property in different places of the world and set these places aside as nature preserves. I applaud that method of protecting the environment. Private property rights are extremely important for any functioning society and can be used to preserve nature as well. In that regard, if some of these wealthy environmentalists wanted to impress me, they would be purchasing solar panels (or other green energy technologies) and giving them away to places that need dependable electricity. That way more people might become wealthy while they became poor. That would be real traditional charity and sacrifice.

____________________

Drought Monitor Update. Nothing exciting to note here in Wisconsin during the past week. About a quarter of the state is experiencing abnormally dry conditions. Some of the rain and snow this weekend might help out in that regard since the heaviest should fall in the northwestern corner of the state. Some bits of good news continue in the south. Both Texas and Oklahoma have seen small improvements in the extreme drought they have been experiencing all year and it looks like they will have another good shot at some significant rain next week.

Speaking of the chance of precipitation this weekend, how about an all important update on the hunting forecast. The projected path of the storm expected to hit the area this weekend has shifted a few miles further south. It also looks like it might slow down by a few hours. Both of these trends are generally good for hunting. It still looks like most of our area and most of the state will be dry Saturday morning.

Picture From Don Albers, Medford

The rain and snow will not begin until the afternoon and in a few spots in east and south of Marathon county, it might sty relatively dry until almost sunset. It is in the northwoods that we will see the higher chance of rain, sleet, and snow during the afternoon. The highest probability of accumulating snow will be north and northwest of Marathon county Saturday afternoon and evening. As of now I am projecting a slushy inch or so of sleet and snow around Tomahawk, Kennan, Gilman, Medford, and Wabeno. Around highway 8 and further north snow accumulations could range from 2 to 4 inches, accumulating mostly during the late afternoon and evening. In Wausau and much of central Wisconsin, it looks like rain amount could be a tenth of an inch or two. As it stands now, the better day for hunting might turn out to be Saturday because the precipitation will hold off until later in the day and temps will be relatively mild. Morning low temps will be in the upper 20s to around 30 and the high temps will be in the upper 30s to low 40s. The wind should be out of the south or southeast at 5-10 mph during the morning and then become more variable in direction as the low pressure system moves into the area during the afternoon.

The storm will move quickly out of the area late Saturday night leaving us with blustery and cold conditions Sunday morning. The wind should die down Sunday afternoon but high temps will only be in the low to mid 30s.

Have a pleasant Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Ecology, Environment

How about a look at the weekend forecast first – since it is the biggest “holiday” of the year for many Wisconsinites. It is of course the opening weekend of the gun deer season and everyone is wondering how the weather will be. I couldn’t really pin-point any trends last week because it was too far out to look and the jet stream pattern has been changeable changeable and unstable. It is no different this week but we are now closer to opening day so I will put a preliminary forecast in writing. It looks like a low pressure system will be moving through the Midwest this weekend and it could bring rain to Northcentral Wisconsin. Right now I am forecasting a 50% chance of light rain or drizzle on Saturday, especially during the afternoon and evening. As of this point, it looks like temps should be warm enough (above freezing) to avoid much freezing rain, sleet, or snow. If it does rain, amounts will probably not be too heavy, around a tenth of an inch or two, but it doesn’t take much to really ruin a day out in the woods.

The storm should pass through Northcentral Wisconsin Saturday night, leaving us with colder conditions on Sunday. Right now it looks like there could be some light snow showers in the air Sunday morning, but the main concern will be a gusty west-northwest wind and high temps only in the mid to upper 30s.

If the track of this storm shifts 50 miles or so farther south, we could end up with more of a mix of moderate rain or snow. I will keep you updated here in the blog all week.

_____________________________

And now or a topic I have been blogging about for a few years now – AGW lawsuits. A couple of recent Newscientist articles have brought the topic back to the forefront – saying that lawsuits might be the best option for implementing climate change. I am unsure if this is true, but I know a whole lot of lawyers will become more obscenely wealthy if AGW lawsuits are the “thing” of the future.

Here is one of the recent articles, suggesting that lawsuits might be better than governmental negotiations.

Al Gore's Mansion

If you want to read my detailed (somewhat funny) past take on the issue, go here. Setting climate theory aside, the legal aspects of AGW lawsuits are illogical. Who gets to sue? Who has to pay? Since China is the biggest polluter in the world right now, I suppose environmentalists lawyers are lining up to sue them, right? I think not. Island nations want to sue big oil companies for rising sea levels (which actually went down last year). Do I also get to sue the island nations back for promoting environmentally disastrous tourism to their “paradise”. I think my first lawsuit will be against Al Gore. I sit in a small house with my thermostat set at 63 all Winter, while he jet-sets all over the world, lives in a mansion (or at least did live in a mansion before his divorce), and uses obscene amounts of fossil fuels.

Have a good Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, forecast

I didn’t have time for the monthly recap yesterday so here it is today. November was another above normal month, which makes it 9 out of 11 months so far this year with above normal temperatures. It was not spectacularly warm, just about a degree and a half above normal. Precipitation was very close to normal but most of that fell as rain. In Wausau there was only 1.7 inches of snow whereas the normal snow is a little over 7 inches. The bad news for snow-lovers is that no major storms are projected in our area for the next few days. We will have to live with an inch here and an inch there, until perhaps the middle of the month.

As far as records go during the month of November, things were pretty calm. We tied a record high on the 10th hitting 61 degrees and we set a new record for daily precipitation on the 13th with 0.84 inches of rain. For all the numerologists out there, nothing too exciting to report during the month of November. The highs and lows were fairly random. Only slightly interesting is that we had a high of 40 degrees three days in a row to round out the month on the 28th, 29th, and 30th. We had a high of 40 a total of 4 times during the month. Here are the final stats for Wausau:

2010 Average High: 41.8  (normal: 40.1)

2010 Average Low: 25.7  (normal: 24.6)

2010 Precipitation: 2.0″  (normal: 2.2″)

2010 Snowfall: 1.7″  (normal: 7.1″)

Highest Temperature: 63 on the 8th

Lowest Temperature: 10 on the 25th and 28th

Now on to the story I teased yesterday. It has to do with ethanol production. Back in the late 1990s and most of the 2000s I reported on and evaluated all of the energy alternatives fairly equally. As of late it looks like some are looking better and others worse. Ethanol (and biofuels in general) is one alternative energy that I am down on lately. I think the time for pushing this as a growth area for the future is over. It could still find good use as an emergency back-up if there are oil disruptions, but I don’t think it has much chance of becoming a primary or even secondary fuel for society. Government (taxpayer) support is the main reason why (grain)ethanol plants continue to operate. “Growing” our own fuel here in the U.S. year-after-year is a positive aspect of grain ethanol production but it just doesn’t pan out in the grand scheme of food production, energy efficiency, pollution, and carbon emissions. To me, grain ethanol (and biofuels in general) just doesn’t seem to be something we should be building our future on. The internal combustion engine and liquid hydrocarbons have served us well for over a hundred years but when I think of the future, I think of something different, something new.

Other people have been coming around to this conclusion as well – some that you might not expect. Al Gore has recently stated that it was a mistake to pursue industrial scale grain ethanol back in the late 1990s (another article from the other side of the political spectrum). Say what you will about Al Gore, his politics and shenanigans, but at least he admitted what he thinks is a mistake. You don’t find many people willing to publicly admit mistakes – especially politicians.

Quick update on the Saturday snowstorm: It still looks like there could be an inch or two of accumulation in the south part of the area, south of Marathon county. Around La Crosse the total could reach 4 to 6 inches.

Have a fun Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, forecast, Monthly Recap

Yesterday I dug through some old IPCC papers and discussed some of the potential shortfalls of the the global climate models (GCMs). The primary one being forecasts of fossil fuel usage over the next 90 years. I was forced to revisit this topic because I recently interviewed Dr. Hirsch – a prominent energy analyst – and he expects a dramatic drop in oil production 2 to 5 years from now which is exactly opposite of what the IPCC expects. This is but one of the ongoing intricate debates revolving around the complexity that is modern climate science. Debates are usually the way science progresses. Someone advances a theory, others test it out, others disagree, the theory is refined and further testing is done. Unfortunately, this is not the way anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory has advanced…at times.

I am unsure when the issue (AGW) was wrestled away from scientists or when some leaders in the field became politicized, but it seemed to happen through the 1990s and then accelerated during the 2000s. There was a point when debating the models, inputs, data curation, the “science” became taboo. What was it that Al Gore said “the debate is over”. As was revealed by the leaked climate emails late last year, there was even a concerted effort by top IPCC officials to shut out alternative papers and journals. So it came as a surprise to me when I read that leading climate scientists were complaining about changing perceptions and unfair treatment:

“People who are opposed to solving the carbon-climate problem have lost the scientific debate,” said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology. “Therefore, they have had to move from discussion of the facts to character assassination, innuendo, and the politics of the personal attack.”

Caldeira told LiveScience today that he views the tactics as “disgusting.” But he sees a silver lining in them: “These are the death throes of a wounded opposition,” he said.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. For blogging about the deficiencies of non-linear modeling, contrarian energy scenarios, the effect of natural climate cycles, and the likely failure of cap-n-trade legislation to produce results, I have been “verbally” assaulted a couple times by reader comments. I have been kind-of threatened (remotely/indirectly) with the removal of my AMS seal. Anyone who raises any question about AGW theory is usually immediately labeled as a “flat-earther”, and “idiot”, or a “tool of big oil”. It has even gone as far as David Roberts suggesting ”war crimes trials for these bastards—some sort of climate Nuremburg”.

If Ken Caldeira thinks that personal attacks mean one has lost the argument and are ”death throes of a wounded opposition”, then leading AGW theorists lost the argument a long time ago. The threats of censure and the ongoing efforts of public humiliation of “skeptics” have been a mainstay for over a decade.

No doubt there are skeptics whose arguments are erroneous and do not stand up to scrutiny. They might be protecting their livelihood or business, but this is something that happens in almost every field, particularly for science that cuts across political and social boundaries. It is a natural tendency for people to resist change. Are leading environmentalists and the IPCC so culturally ignorant that they didn’t expect some blowback? Judging by the effort to conceal mistakes, publicly ridicule opposition, and shut-down debate, it seems they aren’t. If the IPCC wants to cool the rhetoric then they should be even more open and engage in more dialogue with “skeptics”. Stonewalling will only lead to more trouble.

I take care in using the terms “leading environmentalists (eg. Al Gore) and climate sceintists (IPCC)” because the vast majority of those doing the research are not engaged in “disgusting” personal attacks (to use Caldeira’s terminology). The vast majority are not involved in data mismanagement. The science of radiative transfer, emission, absorption, etc. is sound and there is no doubt that human-produced gases (and other actions) alter the weather and climate. However, the degree to which this happens (and will happen in the future) as well as the best actions to mitigate the potential downsides are most certainly up for debate and personal attacks should be unwelcome.

How about something lighter (perhaps) to close out the blog for today – an iconic image of the space shuttle Endeavor. There might be some other similar space shuttle pics in the NASA archives that rival this one but this is the best I have seen. However, I can’t say this is a completely positive image experience for me because it could turn out to be symbolic for the end of an era. The remaining scheduled shuttle flights are few and the program will be shut down soon. Some say the shuttle program was a boondoggle from the beginning while others sing its praises for keeping human space exploration alive. Given the recent budgetary changes at NASA, it looks like there will not be a replacement for the current manned space-flight efforts from NASA. While I am nostalgic about the space program, I must admit that I expect much greater things from private/commercial space exploration. If NASA is done with manned spaceflight then they should be sure to cooperate with and allow private ventures to flourish, otherwise we will be stuck on this planet for a long time to come.

Have a nice Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Space