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

Kristen mentioned yesterday about how July of 2010 was the secondwarmest on record (for global temps). It is interesting that the other recent record warm July was 1998 and also a year that El Nino formed. Now that La Nina (opposite of El Nino) has developed in the Pacific ocean, I wonder if the global temps will cool for the last few months of 2010. The last two times we had a La Nina we also had colder than normal winters and above normal snowfall. Still no sign of the new Farmers Almanac winter forecast. They have been off-the-mark over the last couple of years but it is still interesting to look at. We will blog about it as soon as the forecast is released. The next CPC computer model monthly outlooks will arrive on Friday. So if the Farmers Almanac is delayed, at least we will get a new look at the long range outlook.

The news of the warm July comes on the heels of another data problem for NOAA. Apparently, some erroneous temps have shown up on maps of the water temperature of the Great Lakes. Some temperatures displayed for Lake Michigan were hundreds of degrees warmer than the actual water temperature. You might remember that there was an article about the Great Lakes running a fever earlier this year. Now AGW skeptics are causing a stir about the erroneous temperatures and NOAA isn’t doing itself any good by not responding as openly or authoritatively as possible about the use of the temperature data. From what I can ascertain, most of the climate data archived each year is high quality, but it could be “cleaner”. In the last year, some other errors have been discovered or highlighted and some data has been lost. NOAA needs to take a little more care of the data because this it is being used to formulate future social and economic policy.

The warmer weather this year in addition to a few floods and fires around the globe has brought anthropogenic global warming (AGW) into the headlines again. As the warnings/headlines get amped up, be sure to remember that there is some good news as well. Go ahead and worry, plan, and act for a clean future, just don’t despair (see my AGW position). As has been the case throughout human history, we are constantly working on our problems and solving them. In the present, technological progress is making great headway on replacing fossil fuels as our primary energy source.

Just in the last couple of weeks we got news of new potential for nanomaterials that should help improve the efficiency of solar panels and that solar inverter sales are through the roof. If you are one who thinks nuclear power is the best way to go in the future, a large influential group of scientists has recently endorsed more nuclear power for future clean energy solutions. Even NASCAR, which some people think could be the poster child for profligate energy use, is starting to power their venues with renewable energy. Now I think they should try racing with electric vehicles – that would be something! Staying on the automotive theme, a new hydraulic hybrid technology is being employed in a test phase in Ann Arbor Michigan garbage trucks. This technology uses hydraulics instead of batteries to capture energy from (regenerative) braking. The trucks are expected to use a third less energy. Even Porsche is now dabbling in hybrid technology with their newest Spyder model. Have you been wondering about the Automotive X-Prize? The competition has been whittled down to a handful and the winner should be crowned soon. These cars will achieve 100 mpg or better. Even on the smallest levels, new technology is helping to save energy. Intel and other computer chipmakers large and small are experimenting with photonics – using light instead of electricity within the chips. Light is more efficient and produces less heat – a win-win for a cleaner future since so much of our society now revolves around computers and the Internet.

Even outside of new technology, there are a lot of simple ways that we can achieve a cleaner future without draconian taxes or regulations. Just removing the soot fossil fuel emissions (whether from power plants or fossil fuel cooking stoves in less developed nations) would have a big impact on the environmentsince soot is blamed for a significant percentage of the melting of ice and glaciers around the world. It is much cheaper to control soot than control carbon dioxide emissions. One simple solution to removing carbon dioxide that has not gotten much press is the creation of Bio-char. This is a simple way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and put it in a form that not only is stable but could be beneficial to soil and agriculture. I am glad to see a few more people promoting bio-char. People also talk about conserving energy but might not realize how much energy is being used on wasted food. At least a quarter and some peope estimate a third of the food produced in the U.S. is wasted. By focusing a little effort on more efficient food production and less waste at the dinner or restaurant table, the U.S. could knock a small percentage off yearly energy use. Cities around the world could help out a great deal as well by doing some simple things to nullify the urban heat Island effect - like planting more vegetation, painting roofs white, and creating cooler surfaces. All it takes is a little “elbow grease” and willpower by city planners and developers to make a big difference.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Environment, Pollution