While planning an upcoming trip, I began to reminisce about air travel and how it has changed through my life. I first flew back in 1997 or 1998. At that time the price of a barrel of oil was around $20 and even dropped below that at times. Flights were cheap. In fact flights were cheap through the first few years of the new century as well. Does anyone remember the $99 round-trip deals to Las Vegas that flew out of Madison (and a couple other cities as well). It is rare to see anything like that nowadays except for special one way deals that pop-up once in a while.

Another hallmark of that time period was less-than-full planes. Most of the flights I was on were only 60% to maybe 80% full. There were a few times when I was on the small jet from Chicago or Minneapolis to CWA and there were 10 or less people on board. Does anyone remember those days when it wasn’t that difficult to shuffle around the plane and trade seats with other people in order to have a row by yourself? Nowadays the planes (small and large) are almost always full. The planes are so full that I almost always get asked if I would be willing to give up my seat if needed. The airlines will of course offer you a little compensation for giving up your seat, which is nice, but I usually don’t have that much flexibility in my schedule. It was also easier to book flights at the times you wanted back a few years ago. There were more planes in the sky and more flights per day.

The Boeing Dreamliner

Now, air travel is more expensive (the tickets are expensive and there are also steep baggage fees), there are less options, and you are guaranteed to be cramped in a full plane, (there is also more onerous security to pass through). What happened? The rising price of oil caused the airlines to deal with economic reality. As I mentioned yesterday in the Peak Oil update, it looks like the price of oil will remain much higher than historical norms (and maybe rise even higher) for the foreseeable future. If you are day-dreaming about the good old days of air travel, don’t get your hopes up. The reality is that there is not much to be done about the physics of flying. Airplanes require a certain amount of fuel to travel a certain distance. This amount has not changed a lot since the advent of commercial air travel and is not likely to change much in the future. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is the best development in the past 20 years and it will only shave maybe 20% of the fuel costs off of a typical flight. It is supposed to have more room for seating and be a little quieter than most aircraft. These are all great things, and I can’t wait to fly in one someday in the near future, but the Dreamliner will not bring us back to the days of half empty planes and round-trip tickets for less than $200. (As an aside, Southwest has done a superb job squeezing more efficiency out of their operations and continue to offer very good rates even though the price of oil has risen. I would fly Southwest all the time if they flew out of CWA).

So I am a bit sad thinking about the old days, but the positive thing about the change is that the airline industry is more efficient. We are moving more people per gallon of jet fuel than we did 10 or 15 years ago. The vast number of flights and half-empty planes really represented a wasteful operation. That seemed fine when the price of oil was ridiculously low, but the airlines (and customers) added a lot of unnecessary pollution to the atmosphere. So get used to stuffed planes and limited options. Or, if you have the entrepreneurial mindset, figure out a way to fly fast and cheap. There is a big market to conquer.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Technology, Travel

A few years ago, I highlighted the seemingly conflicting predictions that the “world-was-going-to-end” because of increasing use of fossil fuels and resultant anthropogenic global warming (AGW) vs the “world-was-going-to-end” because we were running out of fossil fuels. I contacted some people from both sides, and they both essentially said they were right but the other side was kind-of right too. You can reference this interview with Dr. Hirsch for some background. At that point, nearly three years ago, Dr. Hirsch put the time frame for negative repercussions from “Peak Oil” at 2 to 5 years. It hasn’t happened yet, and I doubt it will happen in the next 2 years. It seems we have a pretty balanced confluence of new sources of oil keeping production at necessary levels while at the same time deriving a greater percent of energy needs from renewables. The price of oil is high, and similar to the prediction of many Peak Oil theorists, I think it will remain high and go higher during the short term. I think it will remain fairly high (within a few percent of its current price) even if the world economy dips further than it already has. Hirsch and others are correct that new sources of oil (and other hydrocarbons) are harder (expensive) to produce, but they are more plentiful than most thought. Natural gas supply continue to rise as well which should help to blunt and shock from traditional oil source shortages. So it would seem the AGW theorists have won the argument for the time being. I would say they were more correct than peak oil theorists, however, I still am not

This topic came into my mind once again because of the recent night image of the earth released by NASA. Check it out here. Scroll down the page and you will find a map you can zoom in on. Curiously, there seems to be a huge new city that popped up in western North Dakota. Without actually contacting NASA or the Energy Department to find out with more certainty, I am going to confidently speculate that the “huge city” is just the thousands of oil and gas rigs that have been built up in that part of the country. (as an aside, Egypt is one of the more interesting features on the nighttime map, you can easily see that nearly the entire population of the country lives along the Nile river).

So it would seem the AGW theorists have won the argument for the time being. I would say they were more correct than Peak Oil theorists, however, I still am not convinced that human society as a whole will continue to use increasingly more fossil fuels for decades into the future. From what I can see, the increasingly expensive fossil fuels are allowing more renewables to be deployed. Technological progress continues to allow us more GDP per unit energy. These trends should continue into the future. Also, even if we do use more fossil fuels 50 years from now, they will be used/burned in ways that impact the environment less. In addition, there are more and more companies devising ways to take carbon dioxide out of the air. As I have mentioned in the past, there is nothing stopping us from taking carbon dioxide out of the air except the lack of determination. Reversing the process will not be easy, but if carbon dioxide is going to destroy the environment (doubtful), sequestration will happen. Newscientist recently ran an article about a few of the companies that are already developing cabon negative liquid fuel (registration required). I doubt these things will scale (economically) very well, but at least it is evidence that it can be done and that we are not doomed and ”past the point of no return” as so many climate theorists claim.

Besides carbon negative fuels and sequestration, the outlook for renewables and electrification of the economy looks quite promising (in my opinion). I know there are significant technological and economic hurdles to overcome but the main problems I have seen are “institutional”. People have a hard time imagining a world without the very successful and useful internal combustion engine. The benefits of electric motors are numerous, which will help convince some people, but the bigger change that is coming is generational. Younger generations swim in a world of information. We are becoming experts at moving electrons and data, and moving these things around is much easier and more efficient than moving liquid fuel and massive objects. My feeling is that things (self-driving electric vehicles, immersive virtual reality, solar power, etc…) will fall into place more rapidly than people expect.

Don’t think renewables could power the grid within a decade or two? Think again. A University of Delaware study has shown that it could be done by 2030 at a comparable cost to what we pay for maintaing and powering our current power grid. The technology already exists. The key is to pair renewable sources with proper storage to eliminate the problem of intermediate power outpout from solar panels and wind turbines. Of course, if technological progress continues, maybe it (renewable power grid) could be done before 2030.

As you know, I am not a big fan of covering the earth with millions of wind turbines, but solar panels are a different story. There is plenty of “already used” space (rooftops) for solar panel deployment. SolarCity is one company aiming to secure that productive real estate. In a positive sign for the solar business, they are expected to offer an IPO this week. Now even though I a proponent of solar power, and I missed a good opportunity to invest in FirstSolar in the beginning, I am not so sure I would perosnally buy stock in SolarCity. They have not turned a profit thus far and they are somwhat dependent upon government subsidies. If you were thinking about installing solar panels, maybe give them a ring. I am unsure if SolarCity installs here in Wisconsin (if not now, then maybe after the IPO), but they do really bring down the cost of panel installation – and solar panel prices are currently the lowest in years. It might be a good opportunity to get off the grid.

Even though the market for solar power has been rough over the last couple of years (due to the ongoing recession), science continues to advance and panels should continue to improve. The tough market is not stopping Silevo from ramping up production of their more cost-conscious solar panels. Just last week, Sharp announced a new efficiency record for triple junction compound solar cells at 37.7%. Wow! Princeton researchers have used the properties of plasmonic cavities to triple the efficiency of typical organic solar cells (the process reduces reflections off the surface). In more speculative research, computer simulations show that integrating nano-sized semiconducting funnels into solar panels could allow them to more easily absorb light from more of the electro-magnectic spectrum. In a more here-and-now story, Google has thus far been able to fend off rather extreme environmental regulations in order to build the giant Ivanpah solar “farm” in southern California (cool pictures). I could go on. We might have some troubling things going on in the world and economy right now but there are good things happening as well. Progress continues.

Have a fine Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Peak Oil, Technology

I am amazed sometimes how a confluence of events, information, and opinion can perfectly illustrate some ideas I have been promulgating for some time now. In fact, I am a bit jealous of other writers who pull these same ideas into a more concise package, but more on that later.

The initial article that brought the opposing themes of environmental sustainability and economic growth into to focus for me was this one: California is exploring the idea of taxing driving. They are studying whether or not they could use GPS units to track your movements and then tax you by the mile. If you are like me, you probably recoiled in horror at the idea, not only from a government intrusion standpoint but from a tax aversion standpoint. Is there nothing that is off limits from government taxation?

It won’t work. It sounds plausible. It sounds similar to a toll road - writ large. At least people who use the roads would be paying for them, right? If California bureaucrats are hoping to garner increasing revenue to plug holes in ailing infrastructure or in the state budget, they will be sorely disappointed.

Vast American Freeways

A tax on driving will only ensure that people will drive less. It is unlikely the tax would generate long term surpluses and the roads they would like to fix with the money will not have as many drivers. Perhaps the ultimate goal is to force people onto public transportation. Maybe they will not repair the roads and replace the mega freeways with high speed rail? I don’t think the California leaders are that smart or visionary. They just want the money. If they were really committed to other modes of transportation, they would just tear up I-5 as they built tracks for the proposed high speed rail line from LA to Sacramento and eventually to San Francisco – telling everyone to just deal with it. Just think how much quicker and cheaper the high speed rail could be built on land that has already been confiscated by the government (for the freeway, I-5)! Instead, in typical wasteful government fashion, they are going to spend billions on the high speed rail (maybe – if the state doesn’t go bankrupt first), and billions more maintaining the freeway system. Even more productive and beautiful land will succumb to expansion and “growth”.

It is similar to the situation around much of the nation, and we have a recent example right here in Northcentral Wisconsin. The highway 10 project from Marshfield to Stevens Point was completed just this week. I understand how this will make life a lot easier for people commuting between the 2 cities. I understand how it will make traffic better. I understand that many people reading this blog will love the new connection (just like when highway 29 was completed). But I don’t like it. If you disagree, that is what the comment section is for.

I used to think more along the lines of bigger is better, a new road means progress, commerce expands, but through the years I have come around to a different view.

America - Full of Empty Strip Malls

Cities used to be distinctive. Roads used to be scenic. The population was small enough to not cause problems. Now things are different. Cities have sprawled out of control. Whereas most of a city’s activity used to occur near or in the center, it is now dispersed. Parking lots, gas stations, freeways, subdivisions, strip malls, and box stores, subsume the landscape miles away from the city, where cows and deer used to roam. More roads have only brought more traffic and accelerates unsustainable sprawl (as I detailed in The Contrete Life,  ponzi infrastructure, and Road Construction Always Increases). Sprawling networks of roads and support of automobile infrastructure is also why we are turning food (corn) into fuel and burning it.

Now we have a new highway 10, but really we have 2 highway 10s. Now double the amount of productive farmland has become victim to “progress”. The new highway 10 takes up even more land than the old highway 10. The cost of maintaining the new highway 10 will be more than maintaining the old highway 10. Another road means more future orange barrel delays. It would be interesting to know if a passenger rail service could have been built to serve the two cities (Marshfield and Stevens Point) for a cost of 250 million or less (the cost of the new highway). The tracks (or at least the lines) already exist between the two cities. Could new track for faster passenger trains have been laid for the same cost? It is already to the point in this country that we cannot maintain our infrastructure. Why do we keep adding more roads?

We are wedded to the car. That is why. It is often said that Americans love their cars. I don’t. When such a large nation and economy is moving in one direction, building and designing its entire society around the automobile, it is hard to change course. Many of you reading this probably cannot “get your head around” how we could ever change things and how we could ever drop the automobile like a bad habit. Well, the good news is that younger generations and developing nations are doing it for us.

One of criticisms I have of Peak Oil and AGW predictions, is that they are quite wedded to the idea that younger generations and developing nations are going to follow the same path as past generations in the U.S. and build ugly parking lots, strip malls, and vast freeways. China and India are trying but failing. Younger generations all over the world are not wedded to the car. The Internet infrastructure is what matters more. They can connect with friends, family, and work without driving. Instead of driving to the store, they order online and take advantage of the economies of scale surrounding shipping and manufacturing. They like the city center more than past generations. They understand the financial and emotional trap that can develop around the ownership of several cars and a McMansion out in the burbs. I could go on, but I will leave you with an article that does a much better job of stitching together many of the themes I have populated these pages with piece-meal through the years. It is entitled the Demise of the Car. It is a longer read, but well worth your time.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Peak Oil, Pollution

In the weather blogging business, global disasters are a prime subject. It wasn’t always that way. Most weather “disasters” were local events, such as a tornado, hurricane, or flood. Disaster went big-time with the advent of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Now local weather disasters are typically heralded as a sign of a portending apocalyptic world-wide climate disaster.

Using too many fossil fuels is pegged as the core reason for the AGW disaster and thus another disaster often comes into focus on this page – Peak Oil. Energy shortages used to be local phenomena. If modes of energy became exhausted, local populations would switch to something else or find ways to make it through. Now that the economy has gone world-wide, “energy disasters” are projected to go world-wide.

Remember this popular peak oil graphic?

Peak Oil is one of those disaster theories. The premise is (or was) that the earth is running out of oil and that we will all be living like our ancestors did in the stone age, very soon. Anyway, that is the theme you would have found in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Peak Oil did not happen in the late 1990s, as it was originally forecast. Many other predictions were made year after year, and those have not come to pass either (see my interview with Dr. Hirsch). Now at least one person supportive of Peak Oil theory says ‘ when Peak Oil occurs is beside the point‘. I would say it does matter and it is a “point” to be made, because policy prescriptions would be much different if the forecasts were accurate. Almost 15 years of failed Peak Oil disaster predictions matter. Personally, I wouldn’t mind if fossil fuels were a little harder to get as it would speed the adoption of cleaner alternatives. But then again, I have enough income to pay for modern conveniences made possible by fossil fuels. Other do not, which makes life more difficult when oil prices rise.

In any case, diagnosing the flaws/changes of Peak Oil theory and foreseeing the consequences of more expensive fossil fuels is fairly easy. What about other disaster predictions? I have often mentioned that one of the reasons why some people do not put much stock in AGW theory is because they have heard so many environmental disaster predictions through the years that they become hardened to they warnings – the crying wolf effect.

Whatever happened to acid rain?

Remember the acid rain scare? The ozone hole? Neither of these ended up to be as big of a problem as was forecast by doom-and-gloomers. These problems were supposed to almost destroy the world. I don’t exaggerate, I lived through these problems and predictions. Over at Wired, Matt Ridley details how these environmental problems were overblown. It is also a great article about Peak Oil, various apocalyptic disease predictions, and AGW. All of this does not mean we should mock all talk about Armageddon. As wrong and as baseless as Paul Ehrlich’s predictions turned out to be , he still made people think more about issues such as overpopulation.

Have a fine Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Natural Disasters, Peak Oil

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

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

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

Have a good Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

Last week I used most of my blog entries to recap the top events of 2011 and present the year-end statistics. Almost lost in the conversation were the month-end statistics for December. Fear not faithful blog readers. I did not forget about December which ended up being the most above normal month of the year (with respect to temperature). In fact, it was December that put us a shade above normal for the year. If December temperatures would have ended up around normal then we would have been a shade below normal for the year. So the biggest news coming out of December was the warmth and because of the warmth, much of the area did not have a White Christmas. In Wausau it was just barely a White Christmas. Even though it was quite warm, we did not break any daily high temperature records. No other daily records were set either. We usually have a couple of below zero temps during December, but not this year (in Wausau). The oddest trend in the numbers was a three day stretch (12th-14th) where each day the low temperature was 33. Otherwise, the most common high temperature of the month was 36, which we hit on 4 different occasions. Here are the final stats:

Average High: 31.6  (normal: 26.5)

Average Low: 18.3  (normal 11.4)

Total Precipitation: 1.52 inches  (normal 1.36″)

Total Snowfall: 8.6 inches  (normal 13.9″)

Highest Temperature: 45 on the 26th

Lowest Temperature: 1 on the 10th.

 ________________________________________

I am going to start out the new year of blogging by continuing some of the science and weather themes that I have developed and followed for several years now.

One big story that I have followed for almost a decade is the Peak Oil theory. I even interviewed Dr. Hirsch about the subject in case you wanted to review. Another year has passed and there is still no huge crash in fossil fuel supplies. It is hard to argue with Peak Oil theory because it is based on pretty solid science of geology and knowledge of extraction technology. Still, we are now more than a decade passed the time when the Hubbert originally predicted a crash in oil production. It hasn’t happened yet, despite the dire predictions happening year after year. I don’t see a huge crash coming this year either. I suspect there will be some supply shocks due to some oil fields getting more dry and socio-economic forces conspiring against the free flow of oil from different parts of the world. The price will probably stay high even though we are still in the great recession. I just don’t see a huge crash because more cheap natural gas keeps coming online and more alternative energy production continues to be installed. Even flying wind turbines are now on the table! These aren’t going to be a huge part of our energy supply by any means, but a sign that new innovative things continue to be developed.

 Also, The “fossil” theory of fossil fuel formation might not be the only game in town. More and more people are investigating the abiogenisis theory and carbon cycle of the earth.  This might point to a more ample future supply of oil and gas.

Whether you believe there is going to be a huge crash in oil supplies or not, one of my blog themes that I think will continue into the new year is how urban sprawl is unsustainable. I hate to use such a cliche term such as “sustainability” but the American urban landscape is not in the greatest of shape and the effort to continue building expensive new far flung infrastructure is unlikely to end well. We just don’t have the money or resources to keep paving over more land in order to build more strip malls and sub-divisions. I highlighted the ponzi-scheme nature of urban sprawl a while back and just recently a ran across a story about how the nation’s sewage systems are also falling apart. More and more sewage overflow is ending up in lakes, rivers, and eventually on beaches. The problem - local governments do not have the money to upgrade old sewer systems. The sewage systems are so big and sprawling that the upgrades would completely swamp most budgets. So it seems the U.S. might start looking and smelling more like a third world country in the near future.

One possible method for countering the unsustainable drive to build upon and pave over the natural landscape that I brought up last year and will touch upon periodically in 2012 is using different metrics to measure economic “growth”. One metric that might make sense is happiness. Who cares if a new strip mall or box store is built, if you are not happy. As long as happiness is increasing, that should be a sign of positive “growth” for the country. The trouble is, how would one measure happiness? Some scientists are using twitter and unfortunately they seem to have found that happiness went down in 2011.

Have a happier new year! Focus on the things that matter.

Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy, Monthly Recap, Peak Oil, Pollution

A big environmental story broke today that intertwines tightly with many of the themes I have been covering here in the blog over the last few months. The news is that world wide carbon dioxide emissions grew rapidly last year. Some headlines called it a “monster” growth in emissions. Other played the “worst fears confirmed” and “worse than we could ever imagine” theme. It isn’t worse than I imagine. As you know, I am optimistic about the future of alternative energy. I expect fossil fuel usage to climb for the next decade or two, before falling dramatically by the middle of this century and continuing to fall by 2100. A few months ago, I used a little web applet to help me plot out the scenario and its effects on global temperature. So it might look bad right now, but progress toward a cleaner future continues.

Delving inside the numbers we find more interesting facts. Carbon emmissions continue to go down in the U.S. Hooray for us! Emmissions are going down in the EU as well. A couple of the reasons for the decline in the U.S. is the ongoing great recession and more usage of natural gas. In the eyes of a mainstream AGW theorist, the use of natural gas is not all that great, but it is much better than using oil and coal (you wouldn’t know it by the tone of the article, sigh). Not only does natural gas usage emit less carbon dioxide, it is stupendously cleaner burning so almost all other metrics of pollution would go down as well! Not only that, the U.S. has enough natural gas to last for decades, if not centuries!! AND it is dirt cheap!!! It is beyond comprehension why national leaders in D.C. are not promoting natural gas as a bridge fuel to a cleaner future. Instead we continue to get billions in ethanol subsidies and more failed investments in alternative energy companies. I like the thought of investing in new start-ups, but that should be left to the private sector. I am tired of my tax money going up in smoke.

China continues to be the biggest polluter on the planet and India’s emissions are growing dramatically as well. This brings up an interesting question about the Kyoto treaty, that many people realized from the start. The critique was: if the Kyoto treaty did not include developing countries, then it would be useless. It turns out, it was nearly useless (or toothless). As predicted, China and other developing countries are now the world’s biggest (or rapidly getting there) polluters.

This story also hits on the progress theme I have been highlighting lately. Many governments around the world, such as in the U.S. and the E.U., have policies in place to “make the economy grow”. Most of the policies are intended to make people by more stuff, take on more debt, spend more money, build more houses, build more roads…etc. If the goal is to not pollute so much then perhaps we should be focusing on of the metrics of “growth”, as I oultined in more detail in this past blog post. Spending billions of dollars on NEW infrastructure guarantees that there will be more pollution in the future. On a bright note, I saw a report on TV the other day that home builders are getting more requests for multi-generational houses. In light of the “American Dream” scenario promoted during the last few decades, this might be seen as negative, but I think it is a good thing. Traditional farm families from a century or two ago, used to live in multi-generational homes. Families took care of each other. It is not a bad thing, as long as everyone is contributing. College dropouts, vegging in their parents basements playing video games for years on end, doesn’t sound so great, but it is probably better (for the environment especially) than if they took out a home loan they couldn’t afford and were living alone. Owning a home is not for everyone. There are many other “dreams” you can achieve and have a fulfilling life, without owning a home for most of your life. I don’t like the constant pressure coming from the federal government to spend-spend-spend, build-build-build.

Lastly, based on the latest carbon emissions story, can we now stick a fork in the Peak Oil theory, anyway the “major-crash-back-to-the-stone-age” part. Natural gas and oil sands development, while not panaceas compared to past “easy oil”, are certainly keeping the world afloat and look to continue doing so into the next few years.

__________________________________________________

Before checking out for this Friday, an update on the US Drought Monitor. Conditions are about the same right here in Wisconsin. Some abnormally dry conditions continue in the northeastern corner of the state and have increased slightly in the west. No real problems. The worst drought in the country remains in Texas, but at least they have seen some slight improvement over the last month or so. Even better news is that they will have some more relief late this weekend and early next week. The northeastern part of Texas around Dallas-Fort Worth, could end up with a couple inches of rain. It will not be a drought buster, but it is better than nothing.

Lastly, don’t forget to partake in the archaic illogical ritual of turning the clocks back one hour Saturday night.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Peak Oil, Pollution

I was thrilled to see Dave post some great information in the comments section yesterday. It is just the data I was looking for over the last few years. Many thanks to Dave for enlightening the world a bit more! Here is the link to the paper Dave highlighted: http://www.springerlink.com/content/j6577353716vqn5h/

It is a paper which discusses how the fossil fuel scenarios used in climate models seem(ed) overly optimistic. Back in the day (1990s), it was assumed that fossil fuel usage would continue upward, or “business as usual” through the end of the century (2100). What surprises me is that this paper was published in 2000, yet at the IPCC working group on emissions scenarios meeting in Washington DC in 2005 (5 years later), the decision was made that “no new emission scenarios would be prepared”, but new criticism of SRES scenarios would be assessed. You can read this in the preface of the working group, page 3 (PDF). It is great that some new ideas are getting into the emission scenarios. I checked scenarios earlier this year and they did seem to reflect more alternative energy coming online by 2030. 

It seems as though world oil production has hit a plateau and that other fossil fuels are getting close to their maximum production as well. One would think that rising prices would start to limit future use of fossil fuels while alternative energies become more competitive. I wouldn’t mind if the economies of the world switched to clean alternatives tomorrow, but realistically it will take time. What I estimate is that “peak fossil fuel” will gain more attention over the next couple of years and economical clean alternatives will become readily available near the end of this decade (2020). During the 2020 to 2030 time frame, I predict it will become quite obvious that fossil fuel will be on the way out and “business as usual” through 2100 is not a realistic projection for climate projections. The societal transformations needed to move away from fossil fuel are dramatic and challenging, otherwise just based on technological trends I would think this could happen a few years earlier (more around 2020 instead of 2030).

Switching to clean alternatives around 2020 would be a pleasant surprise but according to some climate prognosticators and commentators, this would not be enough to “save the world”. As I have written about previously, some scientists have already written-off human existence on this planet, claiming that there is already enough greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to destroy (through global warming) most of the biosphere before 2100. If AGW theory is substantially correct, most researchers think we will be able to manage and adapt to a few degrees of warming in coming decades, however, managing the global climate and all the economic issues is proving to be a massive headache.

The UN has been pushing for carbon emission reductions since the mid 1990s and these were codified in the Kyoto accord. Emission targets were not met and the UN is trying again, but is thus far falling short. The problem is that during the original climate negotiations of the mid to late 1990s, the offer was made to exempt “emerging economies” from emissions targets. These countries now have an expectation of leniency. As we see now, China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide(and most pollutants) and India is not far behind (especially in regards to soot and particulate pollution – the “brown haze”). China’s emissions even grew through the recent recession while the rest of the world’s emissions generally decreased. I wonder if the rest of the world will start trying to sue China over present and future AGW problems. Good luck with that. Open democracies of the world have enough trouble regulating their own actions. Canada has recently been accused of manipulating reports about their oil sands projects. For an interesting take on the whole subject of AGW lawsuits, take a look at this past blog entry.

Forecast update:

It still looks like the weather will go downhill late Wednesday afternoon into Wednesday night. If you have flexible travel plans, you might want to leave a little early on Wednesday. Before 3 pm would be best. If you are flying, it still looks like the major airport most likely to experience long delays or cancellations will be Minneapolis. Here in north central Wisconsin we will likely see a messy mixture of precipitation develop late Wednesday afternoon. The highest chance for 2 or 3 inches of snow will be in the northwoods, mainly north of highway 64. More of a sleet/snow/freezing rain mixture will fall around central Wisconsin. We will likely have snow first in Wausau – for an hour or two – then it will likely turn to sleet and freezing rain in the evening. Around an inch of snow and slush is possible in Wausau which means there is a chance that we could finally have a winner in the First Snowfall Contest sponsored by the R-stores. Some people are going to win some big gift certificates and car wash coupons from the R-stores. Most of the icy precipitation should be done by daybreak on Thanksgiving day then we will have some colder temps develop once again with a few snow showers or flurries possible on Thanksgiving afternoon.

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, forecast, Pollution, Travel, Winter Weather

Over the weekend, I was a bit conflicted. I had forecast the correct conditions (at least 5 days in advance), but the conditions were not all that great for the opening weekend of the hunting season. It was a bit cold on Saturday (as forecast), and we had some freezing drizzle and rain on Sunday (as forecast) which caused a little less hunting activity. A lot of hunters I know got a little damp and cashed it in early to go watch the Packer game. The hunting group I was with ended up harvesting 3 deer – which is about what we hope for during the opening weekend. What did you think about the weekend weather? 1. Wasn’t very nice. 2. Not so bad because I was prepared (thanks to StormTrak9 – wink).

Now it looks like some messy weather will follow us into the work week. Much of the area will experience rain and drizzle today but temps will be cold enough to the north and west for some sleet and freezing rain to mix in with the precipitation. A FREEZING RAIN ADVISORY is in effect for Taylor county through 6pm today and a WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY is in effect for Price, Iron, and Ashland counties through this evening. Not too much snow is expected, perhaps an inch or two in the WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY area. What could be of more importance is another storm that could bring a wintry mix of precipitation late Wednesday into Thursday morning. If you are traveling during this time frame be sure to allow some extra time as the roads could get a bit slippery. As far as flying goes, the airport most likely to experience delays on Wednesday and Thursday will be Minneapolis. After the messy precipitation is over on Thanksgiving morning, it looks like gusty cold winds will move in and make it feel more like winter in the afternoon. Black Friday will also be quite cold with high temperatures only hitting the low 20s. The good news is that the weather should be dry from Thursday afternoon all the way through Sunday of the upcoming weekend. Therefore, traveling home from long weekend family get-togethers should be much better than traveling to “Grandma’s Place”.

In other news, I often follow the interrelated stories of advancing technology, AGW, and Peak Oil because all three will have a major impact on how we percieve and act in the present day and how we will evolve into the future. It is unfortunate that most discussion of these three topics are done in isolation, because this can lead to illogical predictions. One might ask how we can destroy the planet with carbon emmissions while at the same time oil is running out. One might ask how AGW will destroy the planet when the technology of clean energy continues to advance rapidly. One of these questions popped into my head again today while reading this article about Peak Coal. Not only is there concern over Peak Oil and Peak Phosphorus, but Peak Coal as well. One thing about the article, at least I see people starting to acknowledge that if we have Peak (name your fossil fuel) in the next decade or two, this will have an affect on climate forecasts. In the past it was assumed (in climate models) that we would have “business as usual” fossil fuel usage through the end of this century. Increasingly, this does not look to be the case, and I hope the climate modellers at the IPCC will incorporate at least some more realistic scenarios in the future.

Have a good Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, forecast, Peak Oil, Technology, Travel, Winter Weather

Does anyone have any theories on the “missile” launch in southern California yesterday? After briefly reviewing the video and hearing a few explanations from others, I am 40/60 on whether it was a missile/rocket or anairplane. I can certainly understand the optical illusion argument of how a jet contrail could look like a missile launch (and this has happened before) but this is one good illusion if it is a contrail. Seeing is believing and it looks enough like a missile/rocket launch for me to give it a 40% chance. Since the government and independent sources have not come to a definitive answer yet, I doubt we will ever have anything near 100% confirmation either way.

The rest of today’s blog post is going to be follow-up material on several subjects I have been discussing over the past few years. Every once in a while, I just have to throw in a pile of continuing stories.

1. Bee Colony Collapse Disorder (BCCD). I came across this story a few years ago when the BCCD was blamed on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), just like most every negative event or change in contemporary times. Since then, more people have studied it and have nearly ruled out AGW, pesticides, and a few other things. The latest theory is that a combination of a viral and fungal infection in the bees causes the mass die-off.

2. When discussing AGW, I often bring up the point that it is very difficult to factor progress and innovation into future predictions because technology is changing so fast. Thus climate predictions often assume an unlikely ”business as usual” scenario for fossil fuel usage over the next century. Finally, more people such as Dutch technologists Rutger van Santen and Djan Khoe are promoting the idea of how we can use technology to address the most pressing problems here on earth. Their new book 2030: Technology that will change the world addresses the climate as well as many other social problems. I was happy to see someone else thinking about technological progress recently and I hope it makes it into the discussion increasingly in the future.

3. Since I brought up electric vehicles yesterday I might as well mention that there was a new record for distance driving on one charge set in Germany a little while back. The Audi car with an electric engine drove from Munich to Berlin, a total of 373 miles, on one charge. That is quite impressive. When I think about purchasing an electric car, I think about some of the longer drives I might make, home to the Chippewa Valley, or to Madison for a Badger game, and these are all well under 200 miles one way. If electric cars can routinely achieve 300 miles per charge, I think they will be much more likely to be adopted in the U.S where driving distances are generally a bit longer. Staying on the EV subject, Mitsubishi has announced an American version of the i-MiEV that will go on sale next year. It won’t be in my price range but with government rebate incentives, the price should be under $30,000.

4. Peak Oil: Here we are nearing 2011 and there is still no sign of Peak Oil disrupting the world economy. In fact, there appears to be a current glut of fossil fuels with increasingly ingenious ways to extract and use them. This has not stopped talk about Peak Oil. This recent study used a new metric to assess whether Peak Oil is a disaster waiting to befall modern society – the stock markets. Looking at long term market investment and sentiment, the study determined that investors do not think alternative fuels will arrive before traditional fossil fuels will run out. Markets are usually a superior way of forecasting future trends but I think this study has too far of a time horizon to be useful.

5. Cloaking. If you haven’t heard, scientists in a few different labs around the world have create real honest-to-goodness cloaking devices, similar to what Gene Roddenberry imagined for Star Trek. So far the devices can only cloak objects in single wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation (such as microwaves) but they are getting better at it and should someday be able to cloak in visible wavelengths. The latest development is a cloaking material that is flexible.

6. Queue up Gordon Lightfoot. Today is the anniversary (1975) of the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald. Some blog references here and here.

For those of you waiting to see if we will have a winner in the First Snowfall Contest, it still looks like a possibility of an inch or 2 of snow on Saturday the 13th which 5 people predicted. The latest computer models indicate slightly warmer air with this storm and thus there might be a bit more rain than snow and we might have to wait a bit longer to find out the winners.

For all the hunters, earlier this week I took a stab at the opening weekend (gun deer) forecast. At that point it looked like quite chilly conditions with gusty winds and perhaps some light snow or flurries. The current forecast has backed off a bit on the cold air but it still looks like there could be some precipitation on or around the 20th.

Winter Weather Awareness Tip: Always bring your cell phone when you have to drive through a winter storm.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, First Snowfall 2010, forecast, Peak Oil, Science, Technology, Winter Weather