An odd thing happened the other day. The name “Hansen” and “nuclear” appeared in the same article and it was on a fairly positive note. The “Hansen” is James Hansen, who has been one of the most vocal AGW theorists since the late 1980s. “Nuclear” comes into play because it has been estimated (by Hansen and Pushker Kharecha) that the use of nuclear power has saved 1.84 million lives because these power plants do not produce much air pollution, whereas coal-fired power plants do. Thus, it is unfortunate that nuclear power has not been pursued more in the U.S. over the last few decades. No new nuclear plants have been built. Hardly any new nuclear technology has entered the marketplace. We could have more AND safer nuclear power here in the U.S. leading to cleaner air and potentially a lot less carbon dioxide emissions if it were not for the Three Mile Island accident and subsequent efforts to eliminate nuclear power. The devastation from Chernobyl and potential future problems from Fukushima do not help either. Then there is the little thing about storing the waste….

The benefits of nuclear power are not as widely touted as the potential downsides, even to this day, but that has not stopped progress. U.S. nuclear power plants are Cold War relics but in other countries, nuclear is a still viable option and new reactors have been built. Small and safer nuclear power plants are being designed and at least four are on schedule to go online in the U.S. by the 2016/2017 timeline. The not so good news is that the new power plants, while being safer and more efficient, will still produce normal radioactive waste. Storing the waste is still a problem. Thorium nuclear plants could be better on many levels – including waste that degrades on much shorter time scales - but the only place thorium reactors are planned on being tested are in India. Something that might make traditional nuclear power plants a little more attractive is the use of molten salts instead of water for cooling. This practice/design could cut the cost of nuclear power in half.

The site of new nuclear plants under development in Georgia

Given the risks associated with nuclear power, even the smaller risks with newer designs, some countries like France and Germany are backing away from nuclear. Japan shut down all of their nuclear plants after the earthquake and tsunami but are considering firing them back up due to the difficulty of generating power from other sources. If there is a renaissance in nuclear power coming our way it will probably have to come from China, the U.S., or a different non-traditional nuclear power producing country.

I am on the fence regarding nuclear power. I know the risks are substantial, but so are the benefits. If the U.S. ended up building more traditional nuclear plants and perhaps even some thorium plants in the future, our carbon emissions would likely continue to go down, in contrast to all the predictions that they would soar. Less pollution (except for the waste) is a big plus. However, I am still a bigger fan of solar power because the risks are lower and the benefits are just as good. We have millions of rooftops just waiting to be used for this purpose.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Pollution

You might have seen some of the scenes of recent pollution in China. The air quality was so bad in Bejing a couple of weeks ago that they could not even “chart” it. The pollution was so bad that it was literally “off the charts”. They need a chart with higher numbers. What’s worse is that the smog blew across the sea of China into Japan. The pollution was still very thick and poisonous. While Japan is busy building the world’s largest offshore wind farm in order to help keep the air clean, China is exporting some nasty pollution. . You might recall that a couple years ago I highlighted the fact that at least 15% of the particulate pollution along the U.S. west coast originates in China.

It is no secret as well that China is now the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide – by a large margin. U.S. carbon emissions are at a couple decade low and continue to decline. I don’t want this to be a screed against the Chinese people who are making a living the best they can. Bravo to the many who are also actively  working to clean up the environment, live efficiently, or find solutions to the pollution. However, I have to wonder why environmentalists are not protesting China. For years, citizens of the U.S. have had to endure withering criticism about their standard of living, their reliance on fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide emissions. Where is the pressure on China?

Very recently the very outspoken and political climate researcher James Hansen was arrested for protesting the Keystone pipeline plans here in the U.S. Did he even consider protesting at the site (China) of the world’s worst pollution and carbon emissions? Maybe he stayed in the U.S. as a matter of convenience.

There is a new group called 50 over 50 which recruits baby-boomers to engage in climate-related protests. I wonder if they have planned any protests in China? If not, why not?

The UN is still pressuring the U.S. government to do more about climate change. I have a hard time finding any kind-of strongly worded statements or “pressure” being publicly applied to the Chinese government.

Lawsuits are a burgeoning topic in the AGW story. Lawyers/plaintiffs are suing businesses like Exxon and there are even rumblings of countries suing other countries. However, I have yet to read about any lawsuits be leveraged against the Chinese government or Chinese companies. Does anyone have any idea why? Leave a comment if you have some insight.

Greenpeace is still protesting around the world. They recently tried to block some oil drilling development in the Arctic and sat on top of the parliment building in England. I am unaware of any plans Greenpeace has to disrupt the government of the world’s biggest carbon and pollution emitting nation. What could be the reason? Someone who is reading this blog must know.

Maybe China is just tackling it on their own, like many other nations, after seeing how the Kyoto accord was a waste of time on money. Rapidly increasing pollution and carbon emissions would argue otherwise, but it is a possibility.

If you are worried about climate change and pollution, you might not be able to do much about the problems half way around the world, but there is no reason to despair. Yes, there could be some climate fluctuations and associated problems, but we (as humans) always seem to figure a way to adapt or clean things up (especially here in the U.S.) While many climatologists and activists are fatalistic, often saying that “extreme global warming is unavoidable” or that we are “already past the tipping point”, I beg to differ. Years ago people laughed at the idea that carbon dioxide (to the extent that it directly affects the climate) could be taken out of the atmosphere. It is a tough problem, no doubt, but it is not impervious to science and engineering. Not only is there new and improving technologies for burning coal with hardly any carbon emissions, but new catalysts are being developed that will more efficiently take carbon dioxide out of the air. Even in the theoretically worst case scenario where heat builds to dangerous levels, there are cheap methods that could block out sunlight and cool things down again. I don’t like the thought of blocking out sunlight because of potential negative side effects, but it is an option.

Have a pleasant Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Environment

I have been covering and studying the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) ”situation” (science, media, politics) for over a decade now, yet I am continually amazed at the twists-n-turns of the topic and the complexity of diagnosing changes in the climate.

One thing that hasn’t changed is the failure of the political process to solve anything. As I highlighted several times in the past, the Kyoto Accord was very flawed from the start. I  (and many others)suspected it would do more harm than good. There was no shared sacrifice built into it. Some countries had to cut emissions while others were given a free ride. In the end, about the only countries that successfully reduced carbon emissions were those in eastern Europe, but that is not really something to crow about. Eastern European countries would have had reduced emissions even without Kyoto because they retired all of their old inefficient Soviet-era coal power plants. No other countries hit their emission targets, except ironically, the U.S which never ratified the Kyoto Accord. Emissions in the U.S. are now at a 20 year low! China and India, who were exempt from Kyoto, naturally are now the biggest emitters. Many people could see the flaws in Kyoto and predicted exactly what would happen, so I am surprised to see some people were surprised by the failure of the Accord. In retrospect, I suppose compromises have to be made when trying to put a world-wide regulation into place so negotiators did the best they could, but unfortunately came up with a document that did more harm than good. The current climate negotiations are more direct. It is proposed that advanced nations support a fund that would go to pay poor countries for damages related to AGW.

On the media side of things, there are still signs of over-hyping. Ever since I can remember, it is always “AGW is worse than we thought” (or warmer than most climatoloiogists think). I recall reading a similar headline eight years ago. AGW theory, if substantially correct, would certainly cause problems in the environment and some things are changing in line with some predictions, but it is 2013 the world hasn’t ended. I am unsure how much all of the apocalyptic “it is worse than we thought” headlines (for 20 years) have turned people off to the topic, but I am sure there are some. What usually happens is that people DO heed warnings, adjust their behaviors, and take corrective measures, it is just not as visible or as fast as environmentalists would like.

Even though many proponents for “climate action” highlight the worst possible scenarios, there is some evidence that AGW will not be as bad as forecast. A familiar skeptic, James Delingpole, relates some recent information on why AGW might be on the very low end of estimates - that temperature rise in the next century will not be that much different than the rise last century. It has to do with some basic assumptions of how much heat the oceans have taken up in the past and will take up in the future.

In a similar manner, some of the catastrophic drought predictions might not be as bad as originally thought due to a flaw in how drought has been monitored and calculated throughout the last few decades. Many of you might be familiar with the Palmer Drought Severity Index. I have referenced it a few times as a fairly good measure to look at past dry and wet years in Wisconsin. The problem is that the PDSI is not as good as it could be. There are better ways of measuring precipitation and evaporation and determining how much drought is occurring around the world. Using the more precise formula/calculation, it has been found that world-wide drought hasn’t increased much in the last few decades and it might not in the future either.

This also relates somewhat to the recent drop in in sea levels around the world. I know that you have heard about how the sea level will go inexorably higher, swamping coastlines and islands, but in 2010 and early 2011 the average sea level around the globe actually fell by a significant amount – only to rise once again toward the long term trend in 2012. One of the reasons for the reverasal in sea level rise was increased precipitation over land. Warmer oceans led to more moisture in the air which generally leads to more precipitation. This might counteract some of the drought predictions for coming decades.

A receding glacier in Alaska

In regards to ice around the world, you could understandably become confused by the expansion of sea ice around Antarctica and the reduction of sea ice around the arctic. It seems every other headline says there is catastrophic melting vs. it is not melting as much as thought (especially in Greenland). The headlines from last Summer that “all of Greenland has melted” might have been one of the real head scratchers. Believe it or not, this has happened before when warm winds have blown over the island. It wasn’t all of the ice that melted, it was just the surface snow/ice that had melted. Think of it like a frozen lake here in Wisconsin during the Winter. During much of the winter the lakes have a thick sheet of ice with a some snow on top. When some warmer weather hits (like last week’s January thaw) the snow on top of the ice melts and the surface becomes wet. That is what happened last Summer in Greenland. Only the top layer of snow melted, which is still significant because that does not happen over the entire island very often. As far as ice goes around the rest of the world, some glaciers are melting while others are expanding (another article here).

One of the more significant developments recently is that more climatologists are now on board with the ‘AGW has ground to a halt theme’ – citing the fact that natural forcing still plays a role and that ocean circulations have probably put the brakes on AGW at least in a small way at least for the last decade or so. In “my AGW position” blog post from a couple years ago, I mentioned that the climate changes we have seen recently are a combination of natural cycles and human influence, so I am pleased to hear of some agreement on this thought recently. Lately, I would say that there is enough evidence to say that the human influence has grown, but natural climate cycles will still throw a wrench in even the best programmed climate models in future years. Even though most climatologist would say changes in the sun’s energy output are too minor to make a difference, I still have a suspicion that the extremely low sun cycle we are in could have some cooling influence over the next few years.

None other than James Hansen has also stated that there could be a significant cooling trend over the next decade or two. Not because AGW has stopped, but because it might be affecting the planet quicker than expected. So how could faster warming cause cooling? Doesn’t seem to make much sense. He says that recent modeling shows that if the ice melts faster than expected, then that could cause some cooling to occur in the oceans which could then cause a temporary cooling trend for the planet as a whole. So the forecast that it is only going to get hotter in the U.S. (and elsewhere) might be off by a bit. I hope so, not only do I NOT like too much heat and humidity (like last Summer) but more of a cooling trend (either by a low sun cycle, ocean currents changing, or increased ice melting) would give us time to develop cleaner energy technology and more control over the weather and climate. A decade or two is A LOT of time in today’s fast changing world.

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Arctic climate, Climate Change, Oceans

In yesterday’s blog post I delved into the topic of less ice in the arctic and how it has changed through the centuries including during the Little Ice Age and other periods. Recent research has suggested that plants developing on land might have caused the very old ice ages hundreds of millions of years ago and that increased volcanism could have trigger the Little Ice Age, although many people suspect the Maunder Minimum of solar activity was the key factor in maintaining the Little Ice Age.

With the prospect of another solar minimum right around corner you know there are sure to be some fireworks in AGW discussions. Most scientists expect that solar activity will be lower than normal for the next few decades. This has led to speculation that our recent warmer climate might turn colder again. Most mainstream scientists think that “greenhouse gases” will overwhelm any effect from the sun. The Daily Mail (not the most scientific of sources) published this article recently taking a look at both sides of the issue.

Historical Sunspot Trends

Just in case the notion that the sun has a noticeable effect on the climate permeated to culture too much, some climatologists and media outlets were quick to point out that even if the sun’s output did decrease, it would only drop the earth’s temperature by a couple tenths of a degree in the next few decades. Alternatively, AGW projections estimate the earth could warm by 2 to 4 degrees. Gizmodo says we are NOT in for another little ice age, only a less extreme heat wave (if solar output goes down). James Hansen made sure to point out that recently, the earth has been absorbing more energy than it is emitting back into space, so it is likely that the climate will continue to warm.

Even though we could end up with increasing global temperatures, that does not mean that we would be without harsh winter’s. Past research has suggested and recent research has bolstered the premise that Europe could end up with more harsh winters because of less ice in the arctic.

Ice on the Black Sea

Less ice in the arctic changes the wind patterns and allows for more moisture in the air, thus the possibility of more snow and cold in parts of Europe. That would seem to be the case this year as many areas of central and eastern Europe are currently in the grip of an extreme cold wave. Many new monthly record lows have been set in Bulgaria and the Black sea is partially frozen. Just to give you an idea of how significant this cold wave is, the Black Sea has only completely frozen over 3 different times in modern recorded history.

Digesting the news and theories over the last couple of days, I could definitely see how a new little, or major, ice age could form. If increased volcanism occurred at the same time of a solar minimum while the world’s oceans are warmer than normal, this could lead to a lot more snow on land. The key point here is that the earths oceans have been warming up and they will not divest that warmth very easily (water has a high thermal stability). If the atmosphere cools down rapidly due to (volcanism and/or low solar activity) while the oceans stay warm, it could lead to greater temperature contrasts across the globe and more moisture in the air, both of which could drive stronger storms and more harsh wintry weather. While this is a possibility, odds are that we will continue to see some warming in the near future.

__________________________________________

Just one quick follow-up on a story I have been reporting on for a few years now: the Russians are very close to breaking into Vostok lake in Antarctica. This is a lake that is buried under at least 2 miles of ice and has not seen sunlight in over 100,000 years. Some scientists think that weird life forms might exist under the ice and are concerned that the Russian drilling experiment might contaminate the lake with pollutants of bacteria from the surface. Read more here.

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Arctic climate, Climate Change, Oceans, Records, Weather History

Throught the last couple of decades there have been an enormous number of statements about how anthropogenic global warming (AGW) will bring about the “end of the world”, or the end of most life on earth, or at the least environmental Armageddon. I used to follow all of the “bad things” that were going to happen because of AGW, but it became to unwieldly and difficult to keep track of it all and once climate prognosticators started predicting the loss of nearly all life on earth – what would be the point of continuing the list? Besides, there seems to be a more comprehensive list here.

One of the more extreme predictions is that we will suffer a “run-away greenhouse effect” and end up like Venus, a toxic furnance of a planet.

Venus: Hot & Toxic

This topic came up again in TechnologyReview, where James Hansen claims a runaway greenhouse effect is certain if we burn up all the fossil fuel on earth. Other physicists are not so certain, but leave the door open. Not me. I usually couch my predictions in the terms of likely or unlikley, very little chance or extremely probable. I hardly ever speak with 100% or 0% certainty on anything. With the “run-away greenhouse effect” I am very close to 100% certain it will not happen. 99.99% would probably capture the certitude.

There are many reasons why a run-away greenhouse effect is very unlikely. First of all, the use of fossil fuels is dynamic and self-limiting. There is less cheap fossil fuel available today and the price has gone up. The price will continue to rise in coming years. It is not getting any easier or cheaper to retrieve fossil fuels. We won’t end up burning all the oil in the world if the price rises to $200, $300, or $500 dollars a barrell. Economies will crash. Fossil fuel usage will decline in kind.

Secondly, the negative effects of AGW (if they happen) is self-limiting on the usage of fossil fuels. If food webs collapse and billions of people die before 2100 (which has been predicted), then how likely is it that human society will continue using and buring fossil fuels at an increasing rate? Near zero chance, wouldn’t you say. If some of the predicted effects of AGW would start to appear and more people begin to suffer then society as a whole would take more agressive measures to counteract AGW. I am not only talking about reducing fossil fuel usage, but actually taking carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gasses” out of the air. It is possible with today’s technology (check the end of this blog entry) and it will become more practical in the future – if this mitigation effort is needed. Economically, socially, and technologically speaking, a runaway greenhouse effect would have to begin TODAY and wreak its devastation within years, not decades, in order for it to be plausible. Self-limiting factors would otherwise come into play on longer time scales.

On a more fundamental note, no one is for sure how Venus ended up the way it did. There is not enough information ab0ut the planet to know whether it was once “cool” like the earth, or if it suffered a runaway greenhouse effect. It is pure theory and speculation. Comparisons of Earth and Venus are rather tenuous.

In the TechnologyReview article linked above, it is stated that we cannot be too sure about a runaway greenhouse effect because “atmospheric physics is so complex that climate scientists only have a rudimentary understanding of how it works.” It kind-of makes one wonder how the “science is settled” in AGW predictions and why the “debate is over”.

In the end, the runaway greenhouse effect is an interesting mental excercise for theoretical physicists and climate scientists and we can probably gain some insight by thinking about it a little, but the odds of it happening are so low that we should be focusing a lot more brainpower on inventing a cleaner future.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Space

A couple weeks ago I penned an article entitled “Of AGW Persuasion” where I lent some advice for advancing the debate over anthropogenic global warming, or what has at times been called “global warming”, “climate disruption”, and “climate change”. The popular name of this theorized future disaster has changed through the years.

I was curious as to the changing terminology as it started to develop after it was clear that the global land surface temperature record had seemed to level off after 1998. As the years went by and the global temperature remained below the modern record set during 1998, it began to look like “global warming” had paused. Now almost no major media outlets or journals use the term “global warming”, preferring instead to use “climate change”. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to use “climate change” and it might be a better all-encompassing title, but the change was curious.

I was reminded of this after reading a rebuttal to the “global warming has stopped” theme that is promoted by people who hold alternative views of the theory (AGW). Many people have noticed that temperatures have flat-lined or even gone down slightly (on average) since 1998….or have they? In the rebuttal it is stated that both 2009 and 2010 were warmer than 1998 and are records in the modern day. Alternatively, just a few short months ago, GISS claimed 2005 and 2010 were the warmest on record. Complicating the matter is the fact that you can easily find graphs from reputable sources that DO show 1998 to be warmer (than 2005 at least).  Here is one for example showing 2005 to be well below the temperature of 1998.

Latest GISS tabulation

I receive the annual “state of the climate” issue from the AMS and can confirm that in the short time period from 1998 through 2008, using the data tabulation and aggregation methods of the time, there was a statistically valid leveling off of surface land temperatures or even a small decline. To ignore it, or claim it isn’t in the record, is deceptive. As I mentioned in “Of Climate Persuasion“, the facts can speak for themselves and if mother nature throws a wrench into your theory (for a short period at least), it isn’t the end of the world and should be acknowledged.

So what is the problem here? Are top climatologists manipulating the data? Are there errors in the tabulation? In most cases, the devil is in the details. Different universities and researchers use different methods and different data sets to calculate the average global temperature. Using only surface thermometers, you will get a different result than if you used surface and ocean temperatures. The result will differ again if you include satellite measurements of the atmosphere. The numbers will differ again depending on how many data points/locations are used. The number of different methods of tabulation is immense. The hope is that the methods will converge on the best one (or few), based on the science, and openness to public scrutiny. This seems to be happening.

Until that point, when different research units make claims as the which year was the warmest in the modern record they should clearly state which data and statistical methods were used. Even better would be to add a note as to why their conclusion is different from others. This goes for scientific journals (which is usually the case) and for major media outlets who disseminate a lot of this information. After the ‘climate-gate” emails, it should be obvious that more attention needs to be paid to this issue.

_________________________________________

- In other climate related news, a recent research effort came to the conclusion that many animal species will not be able to adapt to the pace of climate change expected in the near future. This was based on data gathered from adaptation during the last few hundred thousand years (including the ice ages). I would tend to think that if animals were able to adapt through the ice ages, that they would be able to do it again, after all, Wisconsin was under a mile sheet thick of ice at one point and now there is no permanent ice to be found. The argument is that current rate of change is much faster than in the past (even through the ice ages). This makes me wonder if animals only adapted as fast as they needed to before and after the past ice ages. If the climate had changed faster, I wonder if the animals (and plants) would have also shown a record of faster adaptation.

Walnut Tree

- Walnut trees are claimed to be one of the plants not able to adapt to theorized future changes, because they cannot handle extended periods of dry weather. It is a good thing then that a lot of our food comes from managed cropland with irrigation systems. The central valley of California is certainly too hot and dry for most of the year to grow a wide variety of food, but thanks to human ingenuity, it is the most productive agricultural region of the world.

- Trees in the eastern U.S. are not adapting at all, according to a recent study. Maybe it is because the climate hasn’t changed enough yet. There have been a few cooler than normal years in the eastern U.S. interspersed with the warmer years.

- As should be expected, some species are moving due to temperature changes.

- James Hansen made the news again claiming there will be a climate related disaster if the world warms up 2 degrees by 2100.

- I mentioned in the blog a few years ago that it was politically smart for Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a climate bill to reduce California’s carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. First of all, he would not be in office anymore. Second of all, Peak Oil and technological progress should combine to make this goal easier than people expect. Now the state is starting to lay out plans as to how to achieve that goal.

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change

The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) discussion is so varied and constant that there are endless opportunities to blog about it and today that is where I will begin after reading an article about how climate scientists have to deal with public criticism and personal attacks. This is a subject I recently covered thoroughly in “Of Climate Persuasion“. Many top climatologists have no doubt received loud criticism and personal insults. There have even been a handful of death threats.

I do not have any objective number handy, but suffice it to say the threats and insults flow both ways. Go to most climate websites, message boards, or forums that allow free discussion and you will find plenty of disparaging remarks about anyone who raises questions about current AGW theory. Almost everyone who has any bit of skepticism is branded a “flat-earther”, “tool of big oil”, and/or an idiot. I have even seen ageism creep into the remarks. When Freeman Dyson spoke out with some small criticism about the physics behind some of the climate models, he was branded as one of those typical “old” skeptics. The implication was that older scientists were dunces.

Don’t forget also that the top climatologist at the Weather Channel hatched (or alluded to) a proposal to strip meteorologist of their Seal of Approval from the AMS if they did not fully accept the findings of mainstream climate researchers.

Leading IPCC climate contributors and researchers might face objectively more criticism than skeptics, I cannot tell for sure, but the criticism flows both ways. Even I have been called a “tool of big oil”.

It is not as if there are legitimate points of disagreement, even among university and government researchers paid to do most of the climate research. It seems that disagreement is considered legitimate if it is kept within the context that AGW is “settled science”.

Some interesting counter-intuitive recent results: There is a possibility that deforestation in northern areas might cool the planet a bit, instead of warm it up. Permafrost contains a lot of potential carbon that could be released into the atmosphere as it thaws but it might not have as big an effect if thicker vegetation grows in its place (a form of sequestration). One new climate model shows that future warming might be at the low end of the current IPCC range – based on an analysis of how the atmosphere and earth reacted at the end of a past ice age. Even if the earth warms a couple degrees in coming decades, there will still be periods of colder than normal weather and even record cold weather. It just won’t happen as often. If cooler weather develops and/or the weather becomes more variable and unpredictable, it could still be caused by AGW, according to one recent study.

__________________________________

Phobos-Grunt Mars Probe

Just a little update now on the Russian Mars probe Phobos-Grunt. It is still stuck in orbit around earth. Space agencies have been able to communicate with the craft but it will never go to Mars as the window of opportunity has passed. I am unsure what will come of the probe now. It would be interesting if it was functional enough to conduct any other science experiments before returning to earth and burning up in the atmosphere. At least one scientist thinks it could go to an asteroid if it has all technological capability intact.

______________________________

Finally, the weekend snow storm. The latest computer model output continues to indicate that the highest chance of 4 to 6 inches of snow Saturday afternoon and Saturday night will be around Marathon county and areas to the north and west of Marathon county. To the south and east the snow will be mixing with sleet and rain at times and thus the accumulation might be more like a slushy 2 or 3 inches. The snow will likely linger into the early morning hours on Sunday before ending. This snow will likely be the snow that sticks around for the Winter season (barring any major January thaw), because temps will be turning much colder next week. Highs will only be in the 20s from Monday through Wednesday and then struggle to reach 20 on Thursday and Friday.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Space

The climategate emails are making headlines once again. A new trove of emails (which so far seem too be authentic) have been released to the public. You can see some of the highlights here on the WUWT blog and read another opinion here at the Washington Post.

If the emails are accurate and original, they show similar patterns of behavior as the last release of emails discovered. Top climate scientists were trying to suppress alternative opinions about AGW, fighting freedom of information requests, and possibly manipulating data-sets and statistical methods to “make” the temperature trend fit to the mainstream theory of AGW. The difference with these emails is that they a bit more revealing. There is not much new to learn, just that the statements are more damning. From a brief review of the emails, I would say that it will be a little tougher for James Hanson, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones to deny that they are more than scientifically invested in AGW research. Michael Mann specifically talks about “the cause”.

Taking up the cause of saving the world, is all well and good, and scientists should not be barred from speaking out about issues or working to make the world a better place. In the case of the climategate emails, it appears some top researchers were being deceptive. It appears they were working to advance a cause (good or bad depending on your politics) without wanting anyone to know about it (because it would taint the perception of their scientific integrity). Professor Mann has been particularly secretive when it comes to his (publicly funded) research and emails.

I could go on-and-on about this but I have written in depth about it in the past and it would be easier for you to go back an check these entries out.

Openness and AGW : A discussion of how some climatologists landed in hot water and a discussion about the notion of privacy in the modern world.

Of Climate Persuasion : Details possible methods to “repair” the discussion about AGW.

Also reference My AGW Position, which hasn’t changed a lot in the last couple of years except for accepting a bit more of a role for human effects on the climate. Here in Wisconsin the weather has been warmer, on average, the last couple of decades and the evidence for a more dominant role of humans is a bit more solid than in the past, despite the seemingly nefarious actions of a few top climatologists.

Some other climate-related stories that passed through the media landscape recently:

The different apsects of climate skepticism. Who is skeptical and why.

Richard Mueller’s turn-about on AGW.

Four Himalayan Nations reach an agreement about combating potential future climate problems (noticeably absent: China, the world’s worst polluter). I am glad to see a small group of nations such as this hash out some agreements on responding to potential future threats due to the weather. I think it is much better than the one size fits all bureaucratic heavy-handed nightmares coming out of the U.N.

One Island in the Chagos Chain

Scientists (oceanographers) quibble over the rate at which the sea level is rising (even after it went down quite a bit last year). The sticking point is about money and property (like usual). Indigenous people were kicked off the Chagos Islands 40 years ago in order to make a base for the American military. They now want to return but the UK says why should it be given back if it will be under water in a few years time. If they are allowed to return, no doubt there will be talk of AGW lawsuits again.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Oceans

I was just remarking yesterday about how scientists with opposing views on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have been involved in public disputes and even lawsuits, and low-n-behold today comes an article about why more of the general public is not as concerned about AGW as some climate scientists think they should be. I will try to help out a little here.

1. “Crying wolf” wears off after a while. I have been following the AGW story since the early 1990s. After two decades of hearing how we are on the precipice of environmental Armageddon, how the oceans are going to rise and drown most major coastal cities, how almost all life in the biosphere is going to die, how the earth is going to be torn apart, how most humans are going to die, how the earth is going to turn super hot like Venus, the message just doesn’t have as much impact with most people. What makes matters worse is when one of the main spokesperson’s for the environmental Apocalypse is someone who failed so spectacularly at predicting it so many times in the past. The warming temperatures, while real, have been so gradual that most people wonder what the fuss is about, especially after 20 years of hearing that we are all going to die very soon. If mainstream AGW theorists want to help the situation, they should tone down the extreme talk (or at least counsel the media to tone it down) and focus more on the effects that people will notice as time goes on (if the predictions are substantially correct).

2. Be the better person. This is a successful tactic that a few of the more outspoken AGW theorists have forgotten. Instead of responding with vitriol and fighting “flaming rhetoric with flaming rhetoric”, remain dignified and respond with the facts as they are known and the track record of the science and predictions.

3. Don’t use robots to do your debating. See here as well.

4. Keep repeating the “facts”. Keep building the knowledge base. In the article I linked above, John Sterman says “telling people facts doesn’t change their beliefs”. I know that it doesn’t seem that way many times, but the “facts” do win out, especially over time. The facts eventually win the argument almost every time. Trying to convince people with something other than facts (psychological tricks/methods) usually just makes them more skeptical. As an aside, make sure to hammer home the difference between fact and theory, between fact and prediction. Make sure no one is saying “it is a FACT that the earth will be 4 degrees warmer by 2100″. It isn’t. Even an average Joe knows that.

5. Acknowledge the miscues. This is part of being a scientist (or citizen) with character, and it is very difficult. It a temperature prediction or sea level rise does not come to pass, don’t twist the date or past words to make it seem like you are 100% correct all the time and absolutely infallible. Acknowledge the degree to which the prediction was off and suggest some reasons. Feel free to highlight all the correct predictions, just don’t deny that errors do occur.

6. Acknowledge that average people ARE weighing the pros and cons. Telling people they are idiots for not sacrificing their present comfortable lives to stop something that might happen 100 years from now is not a good strategy. Many people have heard the warnings and have seen the IPCC reports and are willing to make some changes, but they aren’t going to give up every modern convenience. Most people would rather work toward innovative solutions than shut everything down and go live in a tree or cave. Unfortunately, most proposals call for strictly regulating  and punishing people for the use of fossil fuels. Let us instead put our thinking caps on and find a better way forward.

7. Lead by example. Would it hurt for AGW theorists to take the lead in sacrificing a little to show they are concerned for the future? Maybe get off the grid by going solar at their home. Maybe install a geothermal heating system. Maybe hold the next conference by Skype instead of flying to some exotic location half way around the world. For those that are already making sacrifices (think – NOT Al Gore), make it known how your are reducing your impact. Nobody is going to accept big sacrifices on their life styles if they see Al Gore getting rich and consuming obscene amounts of resources.

By now, many media folk and climatologists are probably pulling their hair out and screaming at the computer that they do all of these things and it doesn’t help. Unfortunately, the people who make the most headlines and drive the perception are the ones with the most extreme positions, actions, and statements (Mann, Hansen, Ehrlich, Lovelock, etc…). Perhaps number 8 on the list could be some PR counseling.

It isn’t a mystery to me why AGW theory and predictions are not well received or believed by a segment of the public. The approach has been too aggressive and condescending for two decades. I see a few signs of changes lately and hopefully the public discourse will continue to improve.

Have a pleasant Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Environment, Weather NEws

The climate change (anthropogenic global warming – AGW) lawsuit theme made headlines again the other day. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, has assisted 5 teenagers in filing a lawsuit against the government of the United States. Before delving more in depth, a question. Why didn’t they sue the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide? China. Here in the U.S. carbon emissions have been going down for years. Maybe some encouragement to “keep up the good work” would work better than a lawsuit.

As I have discussed previously, I don’t see much value and/or logic in suing people, governments, and companies over AGW (outside the media attention perhaps). Here is a past blog post that goes into more depth. The gist of it is that suing the government is like suing yourself. Plus, how do we determine the legitimate litigants and defendants. I wonder if the kids who proffered the lawsuit use cell phones, computers, and electricity. If so, then shouldn’t they be the defendants? After all, they are destroying the planet (according to AGW theory). Should I be able to sue all the people who have kids? By not having kids, my carbon footprint is much smaller. Since we all benefit from fossil fuels, aren’t we all to blame. Even the most remote Amazonian tribe probably uses fire.

Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of things we use and rely upon in modern society is derived from fossil fuel. It is just a fact of life. Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will take some time because we don’t have a viable alternative right now. If the lawsuits prevailed and EVERY regulation that has been dreamt up was instituted tomorrow, society would grind to a halt. Every modern convenience (including food) would instantly reach prices unattainable for the vast majority of people. We would be in a depression-like existence for many years.

My advice is that we should work together to bring clean energy technologies to the market faster and assist more people in conservation techniques. Lawsuits might garner headlines but they are also divisive and create enemies.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change