Yesterday I detailed how economic considerations usually trump environmentalism (and AGW concerns) because of the near-term immediate impact of “economics”. When people are more worried about the next paycheck, they are less concerned with how much the climate might warm up 90 years from now, or how much the ocean might rise 1,000 years from now.

Despite the current economic recession, there are still many people concerned about what might happen to the environment and climate, as am I. Given the sometimes hyperbolic pronouncements of how nearly everything in the biosphere is going to die due to AGW, I am surprised more people don’t at least follow more of the headlines (whether a person is skeptical or not). Even as I am concerned about future pollution, I am not fatalistic. I know that fossil fuel usage is unlikely to continue the same upward trend into the future as it did in the past. I know that technological progress continues and this should help us be more efficient in the future as well as clean up some “messes”. I also know that life has a tremendous ability to adapt.

In the case of adaptability, many people are quite fatalistic about the fate of the oceans as the water warms up, even in the bottom water around Antarctica. Warmer and more acidic oceans are expected to be more hostile to life, including corals. Thankfully, at least in the near term, it appears that corals are not going to all die off. Recently scientists have found corals that can thrive in warmer than normal water and some that can adapt to higher acidity. Still, there might be some limit to which adaptation fails and some sort-of mass extinction occurs in the oceans, as seemed to have happened in the distant past.

If ocean acidification does become a major problem, it will potentially be a harder problem to crack/fix than just plain old warming of a couple of degrees. If heat would get to be too much of a problem, it could be fixed fairly easily with some sort-of sunshade technology. A recent study suggested that sunshade geoengineering would not affect crops too much. But cooling by blocking the sun would not help reduce the acidity of the ocean. Also, as far as future energy sources go, biofuels would once again be the worst choice because they still result in carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere (as well as bunch of other reasons - I have covered before). In addition we also need to keep a close eye on all of the synthetic biology that is being developed in the pursuit of biofuels. Solar, nuclear, geothermal, and wind would probably be our best bets to not only reduce pollution but to reduce the acidification of the oceans. Otherwise, we might end up doing some grand antacid experiments in the future.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Oceans, Pollution

I encountered a couple disturbing AGW stories the other day that I would like to share with you. The first one is professor Michael Mann (gloating?) that he has beat back legal attempts to examine at his “private” emails. The second one revolves around the creation of a twitter chatbot (a computer program) to argue in favor of the most accepted AGW theories.

The first story is probably the most troublesome. Professor Mann was embroiled in AGW controversy a few years ago for producing the famous “hockey stick graph” analysis of global temperature trends and then refusing to release all of the methods he used to come to his conclusions. This is very strange and nearly unprecedented in academia. If someone told you they studied the moon and came to the conclusion that is was made of cheese, you would definitely want to know how they came to that conclusion. Transparency is one of the bedrocks of scientific investigation. Mann landed in hot water, not for what proved to be a good analysis of temperature trends but for refusing to show how he arrived at his conclusions.

Fast-forward to 2009 and we find Professor Mann’s name popping up again in the leaked Climategate emails. As many know, several leading climate researchers were actively involved in resisting freedom of information requests, disparaging other climate theories, and what seemed to be suppression of alternative journals and papers. The Climate Research Unit in the UK and Professor Mann were cleared by mostly internal investigations, which left many skeptics crying foul – assuming that mainstream climate researchers were protecting their own AND protecting the billions of dollars that flow into climate research.

As mentioned in the beginning of the post, there are calls for Professor Mann to release his university emails, to which he has so far successfully resisted. One would think he would have learned a lesson from the first go-round. Resisting the release of information only fuels more skepticism and lands a person in more hot water. Let us set aside the fact that his “private” university emails are paid for with our tax money and on that basis alone should be made available to the public. The fact that he refused to share methods in the past and was revealed to participate in some level of conspiring (however small, inconsequential, and over-blown the climategate emails might be) means that the average person is going to assume one thing in the ongoing email battle: Mann is guilty! Guilty of something or hiding the “smoking gun”. The refusal to reveal publicly-paid for University emails transcripts can only harm climate science in the short run.

If I had to guess, I would say the emails contain similar comments to what was found in the Climagate emails. Thinking that their emails were secure, Mann and a few coleagues “talked like people talk” when they are in private, discussing their problems, their enemies, their true feelings. I doubt there is any other major evidence of fraud, manipulation of data, or supression of alternate theories over and above what was found through the Climategate release. It would most likely be a personal embarassment for the researchers involved – which would be emotionally painful. My advice: release the emails now and get it overwith. Prolonging the fight will only prolong the agony and fuel the skeptics. Mann can prove he is a better person (than his critics) and a honorable scientist by letting the world see – warts and all.

I suppose all of us would cringe at the thought of releasing our work emails (as is asked of Mann) to the public at large. Private emails would probably be even more cringe-worthy. Even I probably have some embarrassing emails somewhere in our work archive – but not many. Do you know why? As I watched the transformation from the industrial revolution into the information revolution, I realised that everything - every piece of data, conversation, and video - was being recorded in some manner that could be retrieved in the future. I just accepted the fact that privacy was mostly an illusion. This led me to conduct myself with much more openness and truthfulness. Before I write or say anything, I remind myself that someone in the future will hear, view, or read my output. Some would say that I was always a well-behaved person growing up, but even I experienced the emotions, tribulations, and battles of being a young human. I have made plenty of stupid remarks, little white lies, and off-color comments (no doubt many are recorded – if not in digital form, then in the memories of my family, friends and acquaintances), but most of this is from prior to the age of 30, and prior to widespread use of the Internet. In the most recent decade, I have assumed everything, and I mean everything, about my life has been recorded. Because of this, I would have very little reservation releasing my email record (whether private or work), although my work emails are technically “owned” by Quincy Newspapers so they would have to give permission. I suggest more people should start living more openly and avoid situations which Professor Mann finds himself in.

The other story about the automated chatbot to argue in favor of mainstream AGW theories on Twitter is disturbing in a different way, not because it is illegal or immoral, but because it paints a bad perception. Based on the Mann controversies and the Climategate emails there are quite a few people who are convinced that AGW science is rigged. Even if there was no substantial interference in the publication of alternate theories and no deletion of important data, that is the way it looks from the outside. It appearsas if a few leading climatologists were are engaging in nefarious activities and they were “cleared” by their own “inside” people. Now they are creating automated chatbots to argue for them, pointing to the research that they peer-reviewed, to the exclusion of research that they colluded to reject. Seems like a way to solidify their position through automation, not further open research. Again, I am not saying this is the reason for the chatbot, or that there are nefarious unethical things going on behind the scenes. I just perceive how it looks on the outside. As far as I am aware, most climate research is solid and conducted with integrity.

Which brings me back to a point I raised in a past blog post, about the method some AGW theorists and many environmentalists have employed to combat skepticism over the theory (for reference: my AGW position). People “on the outside” which does include me, because I am not a climatologist (I just have a basic understanding of the general science), have been treated quite poorly. My main criticisms of AGW science and related political statements are not “wacky theories”. I have detailed how the “business as usual” fossil fuel scenario through the next century is a weak spot in climate projections. I have also pilloried the multitude of “end-of-the-world” headlines that have crossed the media landscape over the last couple of decades – pointing out that hysteria very often leads to bigger problems. For this, I have been attacked as an “idiot” and a “tool of big oil”. (Full disclosure: I don’t work for or have any contact with any oil industry “people” on a regular basis). In the past and to a lesser extent in the present, this is what happened to most everyone “on the outside” that raised questions about AGW theory. AGW theorists wonder why there is such resistance to all things “global warming”. Set aside philosophical-type arguments about political and economic systems. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who works in the oil industry. You very truly and literally make the world go round. For over 100 years, you fueled the progress of the world. Every “good” thing we have in society, from advanced medicine, to computers, to cell phones, was made possible through the use of fossil fuels. Your work is physically difficult and dangerous. You make a good wage and support your family extracting the energy the world needs to operate. All of a sudden in 1989 along comes some egg-head professors saying you are to blame for the destruction of the world – literally. Through the 1990s and into the new century you are publicly attacked and belittled. Many people threaten to shut down your way of life  and (you perceive) to send you to the poorhouse. The attacks seem relentless. Whether you are the executive or the platform worker, what is you natural reaction? Fight back. Not everyone involved in developing AGW theory has been engaged public attacks against skeptics and energy industry workers. A lot of it has been carried on by media, environmental organizations, and anonymous posters in Internet forums. Yet, we could’ve have gotten off to a much better start. Those who first discovered the potential for human activities (especially using fossil fuels) to warm the planet could have created a trusting partnership with the energy industry to slowly transform our energy production away from the dirty fuels and into clean renewables. They didn’t. The battle continues and Professor Mann will soon have to reveal his university emails.

Have a nice weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Science

Update on today’s weather: A FREEZING RAIN ADVISORY has been issued for Lincoln, Langlade, Oneida, Vilas, Forest, and Flornece counties effective until 6pm. A FREEZING RAIN ADVISORY advisory has also been issued for Iron and Ashland counties effective until midnight and for Price county effective until 2pm this afternoon. The rain will not be very heavy (up to a tenth) but it does not take much to create slippery conditions, so be careful on the roadways.

I want to start out by saying thanks to those that left comments last week. Always nice to see participation. In reference to Leah’s comment I should see if I can clarify things a bit. The point of the California Drought topic was to illustrate changing perceptions over the last decade. El Nino and La Nina are opposite ocean temperature phenomena. El Nino is warmer than normal surface water temps in the equatorial Pacific and La Nina is colder than normal surface water in the equatorialPacific. These water temperature changes also affect our weather in the United States. El Nino typically means stormy weather and above normal precipitation for California. La Nina usually brings drier than normal weather to California. Back in 1998 when a strong El Nino occurred and there was a lot of flooding in California, headlines about AGW causing more and stronger El Nino’s were everywhere – California was doomed because it would be whacked by numerous winter storms, more frequently than in the past. Fast forward to 2009 and now AGW is not causing more El Nino driven storms. Nope. AGW is causing devastating drought in California. We have had 2 La Nina episodes in the last 2 years and this has led to below normal precipitation – and a shift in AGW pronouncements – that is unless you follow the “increasing variability” theory of AGW. This is in the “big list” I maintain and states that the weather will become more variable due to AGW – which basically means any change in weather patterns from cold to warm, wet to dry, windy to calm is because of AGW.

The other comment from Josh and was a nice video from a teacher looking at AGW from a risk assessment point of view. The teacher claims that AGW is the worst thing humanity has ever faced and that there is a high probability of “devastation” and that no other problem in the world deserves attention until we solve AGW. Looking at AGW from a risk assessment point of view is a good thing to do, however, I think the teacher sweeps aside the risk of a collapsing economy too easily. If the goal is to preserve human life and prevent suffering then the economy matters. If the goal is to save “nature” and not worry too much about humans, the by all means we should stop all fossil fuel use today. Perhaps some people would also like to join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. That would help “nature” quite a bit.

So how much does energy and the economy matter? I don’t think the teacher in the video gives it enough thought. Everything we have is based on our fossil fuel economy. Everything. From the shoes on our feet to the food that we eat. Every good thing you and I have is, or was, built with fossil fuels. Not only that, the fuel supply and infrastructure needed to deliver it is getting more susceptible to disruption by the day. Artficially creating major barriers to producing energy based on fossil fuels in the name of battling AGW could send the world into many times worse chaos than the recent economic downturn. (Aside: if AGW is truly the worst problem humanity has ever faced then the soon-to-be-passed economic stimulus bill is the most stupid thing we could be doing right now – better off suffering through unemployment and lower living standards – with less fossil fuel use - than facing environmental devastation, right?). What I see is building momentum for rather extreme regulation on fossil fuel use, with these regulations causing very near term disruption in energy production – what we depend on for our current lifestyle. Once a coal plant is shut down (new ones are already being banned by the EPA) or an oil field is placed off-limits, it is essentially gone for a long time, if not forever. A new coal electricity plant cannot be built overnight (Weston 4 took several years!).  If we are concerned about people and about potential suffering then we will do what we have always done, move forward with human ingenuity. There is a reason why Malthus and Ehrlich were completely wrong with their apocalyptic predictions - they failed to factor in human ingenuity. We are currently building a better cleaner future. We also currently need fossil fuels to invent a greener future. We just can’t shut it off today or tomorrow. As an example, our computers (and the internet) use a tremendous amount of energy but they are helping us design better solar panels and all sorts of other green goodies. We are doing a pretty good job transitioning but it will take a few more years.

I don’t think the teacher in the video realizes how important fossil fuels are to human survival at this point in time. If he understood how much, and was so sure that AGW is going to bring terrible environmental devastation, then he would not have made the video. A much more environmentally friendly method would be walking door to door and spreading the message. After all, just last month we learned that doing 2 google searches uses as much energy as boiling a kettle of tea. Now can you imagine how much energy was used to make the video (and to do all the fancy fire tricks)? Not only that, the 10 minute video has been viewed by over 600,000 people. If 2 google searches=boiling 1 kettle of tea, then streaming one 10 minute video has got to be a lot more. This teacher has contirbuted more to AGW than most of us will in our lifetime – the equivalent of boiling millions upon millions of kettles of tea!

Again, it was a good video about risk assessment. I applaud the effort. I just think he dismisses the consequences of eliminating or restricting fossil fuels too easily – as if it does not matter at all.

Have a fine Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Winter Weather

If I had a dollar for every headline over the last 20 years that claimed the environment was doomed because of (anthropogenic) global warming, I would be quite rich by now. Considering the non-stop bombardment, you would think obvious signs of a climate and environment meltdown would already be present. The predictions have come and gone without much of it coming true. The global temperatures have not risen as much as forecast. The seas have not risen as much as forecast. Mass starvation and destruction have not occurred. There have been disruptions in some ecosystems but are these something way out of the ordinary – something the planet has not witnessed during past climate swings? There is ample evidence that the arctic was very close to ice free as recent as a couple thousand years ago – yet we still have polar bears. They seemed to have somehow survived. Where is this going? What is the main point here? Are we to believe all of the dire consequences that have been predicted? If we do, then quick and decisive action is needed. To hell with the economy and human life in general – the entire planet is about to be destroyed! (if you read the blog often you know this is not an exaggeration, one headline in 2007 actually claimed the earth was literally being torn apart by global warming).

The apocalypse is a common theme, appearing in sacred texts like the bible and in contemporary literature such as “The Population Bomb”. People have always been predicting the end of the world. Thankfully, with the advent of writing we have a record of many of these predictions. One of the most famous was Thomas Malthus who first predicted widespread famine and death because human population growth was outstripping its ability to produce food. It didn’t happen. In “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich (written in 1968) famously predicted that by the early 1980s, the U.S. population would be less than 25 million and most of those left would be starving. Here is an exact quote:

Well, the population went on to over 7 billion and most of those are fed with starvation occurring mostly due to political reasons. In the U.S. it is more likely that people will be obese than starvation thin. On the subject of global warming there could be an entire book written on extreme rhetoric and predictions. I would do it myself if I had the time. Just this week we have “Human Emissions Could Bring Irreversible Climate Chaos!“, The Oceans Will Be Dead For 100,000 Years!, and “the number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less.” The final pronouncement came from a recent Newscientist interview with James Lovelock. If anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is going to cause over 6 billion people to die it is going to be a very bad time to be alive. To put it less eloquently – things are going to get real crappy real soon. Six billion people do not disappear without turmoil, wars, savagery and extreme suffering. Again, if this prediction is true, then we should stop at nothing to end all fossil fuel use tomorrow, check that, today. Every second, every minute, every hour that passes without action is sowing our imminent demise. If this prediction follows that of Malthus and Ehrlich and is not even remotely close to being true, then perhaps a more measured approach would serve humanity much better. Unfortunately I see signs that many people are being swayed by the extreme rhetoric, especially people in positions of power.

As you know, I am a huge supporter of alternative energy, but I am also cogniscant of how much our society relies on fossil fuels. Previously I detailed a list of of current restrictions and potential problems concering our energy production:

1. The EPA has blocked any new coal plants from being built in the U.S.
2. Off shore drilling (and other areas) is still essentially off-limits.
3. No new nuclear power plants have been built in the last 3 decades.
4. No new oil refineries have been built in the last 3 decades.
5. OPEC is cutting oil production
6. U.S. infrastructure (pipelines, roads, transmission lines) is in a state of disrepair.
7. Peak oil is still a possibility.
8. Oil sand development in Canada is facing environmental concerns.
9. New carbon taxes and treaties are likely in 2009.
10. A recent speculative bubble in alternative energy could burst.
11. Terrorist attacks could yet cause major supply disruptions.

Now we learn that government officials are considering an AGW tax on cows and other farm animals. In a somewhat related issue California farmers will be growing dramatically fewer vegetables this year because of dry weather and an effort to protect the delta smelt, a threatened fish species. Both of these actions, in the name of preventing part of the “environmental Armageddon” that is predicted to happen very soon, will have a negative affect on the food supply. Commodities will become scarce and expensive. The new administration is contemplating new regulations and international treaties as well – measures that will increase the price of fossil fuels. I am getting a bit worried that going full steam ahead in the race to reduce the “environmentally evil” carbon emissions we will put most of human society in a precarious position, on the edge of (or plunging quickly into) food and energy shortages.

I am no neophyte. Even though I rally for the cause of freedom, I know bureaucrats will be bureaucrats and that new regulations, taxes, laws, and prohibitions are inevitable. I am just imploring the current political class to take their foot off the regulatory gas and make sure alternative energy sources are in place before removing fossil fuels from the equation. If we are not careful, the predictions of food shortages and mass starvation could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

(P.S. I’ll be back next Monday, will be on vacation for the next two days)

Posted under AGW