As winter takes hold in the Northern Hemisphere, we can count on many of those in denial about climate change to re-emerge after a summer of ignoring hot weather extremes to cite local cold weather as supposedly evidence against climate change. It is a Thinksee Nosebetter special, fully lacking any semblance of critical thinking - if it is "cold" somewhere, how can there be global warming?
It is worth pointing out first that "cold" is a relative and inexact term and that snow does not equal "cold". In many areas increases in heavy snowfall events are an expected consequence of global warming due to increased moisture in the air. And global warming does not mean there is no more winter or that everywhere always has sweltering heat going on. There will still be winter and cold, but in general averages will creep higher and warm extremes will become increasingly more common as cold extremes become less common.
Of course the main point I have made and will continue to make is that local and even regional cool spells over the course of weeks and even a season do not at all preclude a long-term worldwide shift toward a warmer climate. It is wrong to look at the relatively strong North Dakota economy of the past couple years and assume that the national and global economy must be fine too.
If you look around you can find plenty of individuals doing quite well in this down economy. Some, like a foreclosure specialist, may be doing well exactly because the overall economy is not doing well.
Similarly some of the current news-making cold outbreaks, particularly across Europe, may very well be due to global warming. This is the point where Thinksee Nosebetter tunes out and refuses to listen further because of a desire to believe that snow in England is not just a result of an unusual atmospheric circulation pattern but justifies denial of climate science.
It should be noted that at least for this past November in the non-tropical Northern Hemisphere besides northern Europe and part of western North America most other areas had above normal temperatures, and in many areas well above normal. What those maps of November temperature illustrate is that the hemisphere was warmer than normal overall because of the prevalence of warm anomalies. But some areas were under cooler temperature regimes basically because of a redistribution of air masses from the average configuration. The noted coldness across Europe is part of the other side of the coin of the extreme warmth in many other areas in the Northern Hemisphere.
For further more thorough explanation of the science behind the theorizing of how the warming world is helping drive cold winter weather in some areas I point to RealCimate. In short, the decreasing Arctic sea ice as a result of general warming may be driving circulation anomalies sending colder weather over some areas. Where there had been more sea ice and now there is less, more warmth is coming from the ocean into the atmosphere, and that warmth leads to rather persistent changes in the flow of air masses and weather patterns across a much larger area.
More simply, it is not as cold overall, but some of the cold has been shifted around to places that usually do not experience it.
There remains much to be learned about how and to what extent some people may experience cold spells systematically because of global warming. But certainly everyone will still at least occasionally experience cold weather due to random fluctuations in weather. Only the foolish and ignorant of climate science think those instances disprove that the climate is warming.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Arsenic and New Life
Last week there was quite the hubbub (for a science story) over the reported discovery of life in a form unlike ever seen before. Specifically it was said that microbes were found that can use arsenic in place of phosphorus in its molecular structures.
I bring up this issue here because it provides a good demonstration of why one should not get carried away with some isolated, new, hyped tidbit that supposedly overturns much established understanding. Unfortunately those inclined toward disbelieving climate science do that rather frequently. Some people will trumpet whatever they think implies that global warming is not real, not driven by human activities, not really a problem, etc.
The first problem is that uninformed hype, speculation and reading only headlines can give a very false impression. This "arsenic life" report is nothing out-of-this-world, and similarly often what some people think is or is being sold as evidence against climate change is anything but.
The bigger issue is that discoveries that purport to overturn what had been considered well-understood often do not actually pan out. In the case of the "arsenic life" it looks like the evidence is actually very weak. Continually there are unwarranted bleats of, 'Look at this - it proves global warming is no worry!' Even with the information is not being misinterpreted by non-experts, the support for such foundation-shaking claims regularly falls apart.
There is nothing wrong with scientific claims that would change our thinking nor that those usually fizzle out. That is all part of how science works. For any number of reasons subsequent work, study, and research typically shows scientists with a new idea just got it wrong. It is quite rare that the many scientists working for many years are wrong and the small number reporting a new finding a right.
Though it looks unlikely, this "arsenic life" claim may hold up with time and not be shot down. For now though the prudent approach is to hold a skeptical view of the claim. The evidence has potential serious flaws, and it would be a rather shocking discovery. Likewise, the prudent view on climate change is not to think that decades of research by thousands of individuals has not been fundamentally offbase while a few naysayers have it right. That, not blanket disbelief, marks true skepticism. Science will continue to hone our knowledge. Perhaps we will find those naysayers have it right, and somehow everyone else has long been wrong. But the overwhelming weight of the current evidence gives no real reason to assume that.
I bring up this issue here because it provides a good demonstration of why one should not get carried away with some isolated, new, hyped tidbit that supposedly overturns much established understanding. Unfortunately those inclined toward disbelieving climate science do that rather frequently. Some people will trumpet whatever they think implies that global warming is not real, not driven by human activities, not really a problem, etc.
The first problem is that uninformed hype, speculation and reading only headlines can give a very false impression. This "arsenic life" report is nothing out-of-this-world, and similarly often what some people think is or is being sold as evidence against climate change is anything but.
The bigger issue is that discoveries that purport to overturn what had been considered well-understood often do not actually pan out. In the case of the "arsenic life" it looks like the evidence is actually very weak. Continually there are unwarranted bleats of, 'Look at this - it proves global warming is no worry!' Even with the information is not being misinterpreted by non-experts, the support for such foundation-shaking claims regularly falls apart.
There is nothing wrong with scientific claims that would change our thinking nor that those usually fizzle out. That is all part of how science works. For any number of reasons subsequent work, study, and research typically shows scientists with a new idea just got it wrong. It is quite rare that the many scientists working for many years are wrong and the small number reporting a new finding a right.
Though it looks unlikely, this "arsenic life" claim may hold up with time and not be shot down. For now though the prudent approach is to hold a skeptical view of the claim. The evidence has potential serious flaws, and it would be a rather shocking discovery. Likewise, the prudent view on climate change is not to think that decades of research by thousands of individuals has not been fundamentally offbase while a few naysayers have it right. That, not blanket disbelief, marks true skepticism. Science will continue to hone our knowledge. Perhaps we will find those naysayers have it right, and somehow everyone else has long been wrong. But the overwhelming weight of the current evidence gives no real reason to assume that.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Cha-ching
Unfortunately today we got to see again the figurative blinding dollar signs in the eyes of the Herald at the prospect of even more oil in the region. Climate science denier Harold Hamm says "jump", and the Herald says, "how high? how many times? anything else we can get for you?"
An oilman (actually not just any oilman, but "the billionaire oilman from Oklahoma whose company runs more rigs in North Dakota than any other") says there is more oil in the region than the U.S. Geological Survey said a couple years ago. So suddenly we need to rush to make another reassessment. Strangely though, when climate scientists continually confirm the reality of climate change and highlight the threats we face now and over the next few generations, there is no call for action from the Herald. Hmmm, I wonder if it could be because one says, "We can all be rich, I tell ya, rich!" (yay!), and the other says that we have to face the consequence of our corner-cutting actions and be willing to pay the price of maintaining a livable climate (*yawn*).
What made news here on the climate front today was North Dakota's (or at least Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem's) hope that the state would not have to spend the remaining 80% of the $500,000 set aside for suing Minnesota over their measure to include the cost of carbon pollution in its energy bills. The desire is that Minnesota move back to ignoring the cost of carbon pollution, and the belief is that perhaps the increase in Republican numbers in their state legislature will lead to that happening.
If only there was real news right now about actually dealing with climate change...
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Chamber of Commerce talks the talk, almost
For certain the Chamber of Commerce has earned the scorn directed toward it for trying to dispute climate science and reflexively opposing action to decrease greenhouse gas emissions with complaints that doing so would cripple business and destroy the economy.
Imagine then my reaction when I read a statement from the Chamber in a McClatchy Newspapers story in the Herald today.
Wow!
Except you may have noticed the ellipsis in the quote above. As much as I might like it to have been "greenhouse gas emissions", what has been removed is the word "deficit", as in the difference between budget expenditures and collections. The quote is in reaction to the deficit reduction commission chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, which in many quarters is being viewed as mostly a sop to business interests and supply-side economics supporters.
The Chamber is still not showing any genuine signs of interest in weighing long-term costs nor shared sacrifices. The Bowles-Simpson plan talks about lowering corporate tax rates, so the Chamber is interested since that may mean a relatively quick buck. There are initial costs to transitioning away from dirty energy, and the Chamber fears losing a buck. If the Chamber cared about investing in the long-term they would support efforts to build a sustainable, green energy economy. So how about it, Chamber?
Imagine then my reaction when I read a statement from the Chamber in a McClatchy Newspapers story in the Herald today.
The U.S. Chamber is encouraging the entire business community not just to calculate the cost of specific ... reduction proposals to their individual companies, but to weigh the long-term costs to our country, our economy, and future generations if we fail to act. All solutions will require shared sacrifices and we must be prepared to make them.
Wow!
Except you may have noticed the ellipsis in the quote above. As much as I might like it to have been "greenhouse gas emissions", what has been removed is the word "deficit", as in the difference between budget expenditures and collections. The quote is in reaction to the deficit reduction commission chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, which in many quarters is being viewed as mostly a sop to business interests and supply-side economics supporters.
The Chamber is still not showing any genuine signs of interest in weighing long-term costs nor shared sacrifices. The Bowles-Simpson plan talks about lowering corporate tax rates, so the Chamber is interested since that may mean a relatively quick buck. There are initial costs to transitioning away from dirty energy, and the Chamber fears losing a buck. If the Chamber cared about investing in the long-term they would support efforts to build a sustainable, green energy economy. So how about it, Chamber?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
The spectre of the rising seas in our own backyard
(I actually had this largely written before it came out, but the recent New York Times front page treatment of this science motivated me to wrap it up and deserves mention. Though it is not perfect, for a media article it is very good.)
One problem trying to explain the threat of climate change to residents of an area like the Red River Valley is that some may simplistically think something like, 'hey, a little warmer here sounds pretty good.' There are a wide range of counter-responses to that ranging from how that warming will adversely affect agriculture, how that is not considering changes to precipitation, that without action against it most assuredly it will not stop with merely 'a little warming', etc.
Some people may grasp the negative local effects but not appreciate impacts they would not see or feel in their backyards yet nonetheless would matter. Though there is familiarity with seasonal rises of rivers, one thing North Dakotans certainly do not have to worry about directly is rising sea levels. So one can worry that by the out-of-sight/out-of-mind principle folks around here may not give much consideration to rising sea level among the threats of climate change. The experience fighting river flooding here may even make people dismissive of that threat, thinking that the problem can be easily overcome by putting up some levees, dykes, and walls.
The rising of Devils Lake over the last couple decades gives a local illustration of what rising sea level will look like. That costly picture may help motivate people to try to avoid making the problem much worse that to what we are already committed. To be clear, I am only comparing the effects of the rising levels of the oceans and of Devils Lake. I am not comparing their causes nor saying that Devils Lake is rising because of global warming. But I am also not saying that climate change is not a factor - I am simply ignoring here the causes for the rise of Devils Lake.
A factor in dealing with any mess is having the things done in response be effective and minimizing their negative repercussions. With rising seas pumps are not going to be effective for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of somewhere you could pump ocean water to "get rid" of it. Pumping water away is a response that has been used at Devils Lake, but that has issues with effectiveness (to say nothing of cost-effectiveness) and resulting water quality concerns due to the discharged water. That is just an example of how a seemingly simple answer may not actually be of much good.
The seemingly simple answer for many people on rising sea level again may be levees, dykes, and walls. After all, the Dutch are doing it. There are plenty of problems with the physical practicality of attempting that. Protecting New Orleans or the Netherlands is one thing, but doing that all across the world is another thing, or rather, like the same thing times a thousand. Though efforts may be made to protect many urban areas, not everywhere could be protected and maintained. Maybe you do not care much about Maldives, Bangladesh, or coastal wetlands like southern Louisiana. Yet the combination of what we do and what we do not do will have an extremely high monetary cost, not even mentioning other social and environmental costs.
Over the past 17 years about $700 million dollars have gone toward dealing with the rise of Devils Lake, and that problem is hardly resolved. Now imagine having to spend like that across just the US where people live near the coast. Hardly seems like what a country currently paranoid about too much spending and expensive future obligations would want to deal with.
The costs of inaction are exceedingly high. If we do not simply let Devils Lake overrun whatever in order to save money, obviously we are not going to give up on wide swaths of oceanfront property. Here is a good summary of the situation facing one area in particular, Florida. Conceding ground costs real estate and other pistons of the economic engine such as tourism and recreation in Florida. Also it makes the threat of storms much more severe. At Devils Lake it is when the wind whips up that damaging water is even more sloshed around. Yet spending on walls, sand pumping, moving infrastructure, etc is not cheap. The $7 million for a new Minnewauken school is a drop in the bucket compared to protecting and moving much of, say, Miami.
It cannot be forgotten that protection against rising seas will surely not be 100% successful all of the time, especially in the face of storms which may be packing increasing punches in our warming world. One needs only look as far as New Orleans during Katrina to see an example and the price of failure.
It is also exceedingly important to remember now long of a view we need to take. Even if the lower estimates (from which there has been much retreat) of sea level rise come to pass over the next century - like a foot or two rather than three feet - that is hardly the end of the story. Because of ocean dynamics major cities in the northeast like New York City, Washington DC, and Boston will actually face even larger rises than the global average sea level increase.
And especially critically do not be confused by all the talk of sea level rise by 2100 into thinking that the rise will not be continuing long beyond that. The year 2100 is an arbitrary point widely used to facilitate comparisons in research. Hardly stopping in 2100, this episode of sea level will very likely be going faster than ever at that time. Is being lucking and having "only" 2 feet of rise by 2100 much good if it will be 5 or 6 or ??? feet by 2200 with more to come after that? Do we close our eyes and pretend that is none of our concern?
One problem trying to explain the threat of climate change to residents of an area like the Red River Valley is that some may simplistically think something like, 'hey, a little warmer here sounds pretty good.' There are a wide range of counter-responses to that ranging from how that warming will adversely affect agriculture, how that is not considering changes to precipitation, that without action against it most assuredly it will not stop with merely 'a little warming', etc.
Some people may grasp the negative local effects but not appreciate impacts they would not see or feel in their backyards yet nonetheless would matter. Though there is familiarity with seasonal rises of rivers, one thing North Dakotans certainly do not have to worry about directly is rising sea levels. So one can worry that by the out-of-sight/out-of-mind principle folks around here may not give much consideration to rising sea level among the threats of climate change. The experience fighting river flooding here may even make people dismissive of that threat, thinking that the problem can be easily overcome by putting up some levees, dykes, and walls.
The rising of Devils Lake over the last couple decades gives a local illustration of what rising sea level will look like. That costly picture may help motivate people to try to avoid making the problem much worse that to what we are already committed. To be clear, I am only comparing the effects of the rising levels of the oceans and of Devils Lake. I am not comparing their causes nor saying that Devils Lake is rising because of global warming. But I am also not saying that climate change is not a factor - I am simply ignoring here the causes for the rise of Devils Lake.
A factor in dealing with any mess is having the things done in response be effective and minimizing their negative repercussions. With rising seas pumps are not going to be effective for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of somewhere you could pump ocean water to "get rid" of it. Pumping water away is a response that has been used at Devils Lake, but that has issues with effectiveness (to say nothing of cost-effectiveness) and resulting water quality concerns due to the discharged water. That is just an example of how a seemingly simple answer may not actually be of much good.
The seemingly simple answer for many people on rising sea level again may be levees, dykes, and walls. After all, the Dutch are doing it. There are plenty of problems with the physical practicality of attempting that. Protecting New Orleans or the Netherlands is one thing, but doing that all across the world is another thing, or rather, like the same thing times a thousand. Though efforts may be made to protect many urban areas, not everywhere could be protected and maintained. Maybe you do not care much about Maldives, Bangladesh, or coastal wetlands like southern Louisiana. Yet the combination of what we do and what we do not do will have an extremely high monetary cost, not even mentioning other social and environmental costs.
Over the past 17 years about $700 million dollars have gone toward dealing with the rise of Devils Lake, and that problem is hardly resolved. Now imagine having to spend like that across just the US where people live near the coast. Hardly seems like what a country currently paranoid about too much spending and expensive future obligations would want to deal with.
The costs of inaction are exceedingly high. If we do not simply let Devils Lake overrun whatever in order to save money, obviously we are not going to give up on wide swaths of oceanfront property. Here is a good summary of the situation facing one area in particular, Florida. Conceding ground costs real estate and other pistons of the economic engine such as tourism and recreation in Florida. Also it makes the threat of storms much more severe. At Devils Lake it is when the wind whips up that damaging water is even more sloshed around. Yet spending on walls, sand pumping, moving infrastructure, etc is not cheap. The $7 million for a new Minnewauken school is a drop in the bucket compared to protecting and moving much of, say, Miami.
It cannot be forgotten that protection against rising seas will surely not be 100% successful all of the time, especially in the face of storms which may be packing increasing punches in our warming world. One needs only look as far as New Orleans during Katrina to see an example and the price of failure.
It is also exceedingly important to remember now long of a view we need to take. Even if the lower estimates (from which there has been much retreat) of sea level rise come to pass over the next century - like a foot or two rather than three feet - that is hardly the end of the story. Because of ocean dynamics major cities in the northeast like New York City, Washington DC, and Boston will actually face even larger rises than the global average sea level increase.
And especially critically do not be confused by all the talk of sea level rise by 2100 into thinking that the rise will not be continuing long beyond that. The year 2100 is an arbitrary point widely used to facilitate comparisons in research. Hardly stopping in 2100, this episode of sea level will very likely be going faster than ever at that time. Is being lucking and having "only" 2 feet of rise by 2100 much good if it will be 5 or 6 or ??? feet by 2200 with more to come after that? Do we close our eyes and pretend that is none of our concern?
Friday, November 12, 2010
GOP = GO POLLUTION ?
There is nothing at all inherently political about climate science. For instance, the infrared energy absorption and emission characteristics of carbon dioxide are not affected by the political affiliation of whomever emits it. Unforunately though we seem to be entering a frightening period where one of the major political parties in this country, the Republicans, are making a litmus test out of the refusal to address the threat wrought by human activities that are altering the climate.
The Wonk Room reported during the election season on the detachment from reality of GOP candidates for the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and governorships.
The only big tent these days in the GOP is in the variety of denial and excuses to do nothing about climate change. One can claim that there is no warming, that there is warming but it is due to some unexplained natural cycle, that there is warming but it is due to some cause that scientists have already conclusively ruled out, that climate change is simply not understood, that climate science is some sort of conspiracy to push a political agenda, etc. So there are a lot of accepted ways to get there, but the end result must be to parrot the accepted rhetoric like "cap-and-tax" and "job-killing regulations" and to oppose action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A prominent example of the devolution of the Republican party into anti-science ideology when it comes to climate is Senator John McCain. Despite claims to the contrary, the science has steadily solidified and confirmed our understanding of how human activities are altering climate. Yet in the last several years McCain has gone from "unequivocally" holding that global warming is real and pushing for cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to questioning the science and dismissing serious action to maintain a livable climate.
To reiterate, climate science is not a political issue. Being a Democrat does not make one right on the issue. One need look no further than do-nothing local outgoing Representative Earl Pomeroy and West Virginia Governor and Senator-elect Joe Manchin. But the Democratic party has at least not systematically bought into and become a mouthpiece for the misinformation and contrived controversy driven by polluting industries, political thinktanks, and simply ignorant individuals and groups.
Why has the Republican party abandoned not only the environmental legacy of Theodore Roosevelt but also the more recent accomplishments on environmental issues of Richard Nixon? There is no one simple answer. But important factors from the last few decades are a growing canonization of free market ideology and demonization of government action to address societal problems. An inflection point within the last few years is likely An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary that centers on the climate science slideshow of Al Gore, a figure widely loathed by the political right.
On a general and more visceral level, there seems to be a paranoia about a 'taking away what is mine.' This permeates many other issues from taxes ("spread the wealth") to immigration (fear of illegal aliens taking jobs and benefits). When it comes to addressing climate change the protests include things like that environmentalists want to make everyone live in caves and that shifting away from fossil fuel use or putting a price on carbon pollution is only a reach into people's pocketbooks.
I plan to explore the psychology of it further in the future, but to close out for now I will restate the main point. A major political party is disregarding an entire field of science. What if various food industries challenged long-established science and refuted connection between diet and health, then politicians across the board in a major party started pushing the same misinformation? Eat, baby, eat! Gorging yourself mean more demand and thus more jobs! There may be short-term political gain in divorcing from physical reality like that, but the negative impacts will cost everyone as time goes by.
The Wonk Room reported during the election season on the detachment from reality of GOP candidates for the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and governorships.
The only big tent these days in the GOP is in the variety of denial and excuses to do nothing about climate change. One can claim that there is no warming, that there is warming but it is due to some unexplained natural cycle, that there is warming but it is due to some cause that scientists have already conclusively ruled out, that climate change is simply not understood, that climate science is some sort of conspiracy to push a political agenda, etc. So there are a lot of accepted ways to get there, but the end result must be to parrot the accepted rhetoric like "cap-and-tax" and "job-killing regulations" and to oppose action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A prominent example of the devolution of the Republican party into anti-science ideology when it comes to climate is Senator John McCain. Despite claims to the contrary, the science has steadily solidified and confirmed our understanding of how human activities are altering climate. Yet in the last several years McCain has gone from "unequivocally" holding that global warming is real and pushing for cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to questioning the science and dismissing serious action to maintain a livable climate.
To reiterate, climate science is not a political issue. Being a Democrat does not make one right on the issue. One need look no further than do-nothing local outgoing Representative Earl Pomeroy and West Virginia Governor and Senator-elect Joe Manchin. But the Democratic party has at least not systematically bought into and become a mouthpiece for the misinformation and contrived controversy driven by polluting industries, political thinktanks, and simply ignorant individuals and groups.
Why has the Republican party abandoned not only the environmental legacy of Theodore Roosevelt but also the more recent accomplishments on environmental issues of Richard Nixon? There is no one simple answer. But important factors from the last few decades are a growing canonization of free market ideology and demonization of government action to address societal problems. An inflection point within the last few years is likely An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary that centers on the climate science slideshow of Al Gore, a figure widely loathed by the political right.
On a general and more visceral level, there seems to be a paranoia about a 'taking away what is mine.' This permeates many other issues from taxes ("spread the wealth") to immigration (fear of illegal aliens taking jobs and benefits). When it comes to addressing climate change the protests include things like that environmentalists want to make everyone live in caves and that shifting away from fossil fuel use or putting a price on carbon pollution is only a reach into people's pocketbooks.
I plan to explore the psychology of it further in the future, but to close out for now I will restate the main point. A major political party is disregarding an entire field of science. What if various food industries challenged long-established science and refuted connection between diet and health, then politicians across the board in a major party started pushing the same misinformation? Eat, baby, eat! Gorging yourself mean more demand and thus more jobs! There may be short-term political gain in divorcing from physical reality like that, but the negative impacts will cost everyone as time goes by.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
A Modest Proposal - The Not-Quite-Fossil Fuel Industry
Earlier I noted how digging carbon out of the ground to sell to be burned is beloved in this region. Well, maybe we are not doing enough of it. I have an idea to produce more energy, create more jobs, and generate more wealth. We will call it the Not-Quite-Fossil Fuel industry.
The most powerful thing in the universe is, of course, the human spirit. I want to start to harvest that power to provide for our energy needs. Of course, human life is sacred so living persons are off limits (at least for now, as we can figure out later who deserves to die to supply our energy needs). But dead bodies are like an untapped gold mine. Even though they are dead, surely there is something that can still be extracted. So, of course, we should dig up the bodies and start turning them into energy rather than letting that resource sit in the ground untapped.
Some people may criticize this and question whether dead bodies can provide energy. We cannot listen to those haters of the free market. There just needs to be serious effort to make it work. Do not listen to anyone who puts down America by saying we cannot figure out how to do it.
In fact, that there are still details to work out to bring this to fruition just means more jobs. There needs to be research and a lot of high-tech work, and that means high-paying jobs. Then once the operations get up and running, of course there will be a whole lot more jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs!
This is a domestic energy source that would make us less dependent on foreign oil and thus improve national security. Quite obviously, if we do not pursue this plan then the terrorists win.
There is something that could stop this plan besides bleeding hearts who throw up road blocks to take us off track from the added jobs and prosperity as well as increased energy security. That would be high taxes and regulation. If taxes are too high this opportunity will never materialize. This new industry itself cannot be taxed at all because that would be a job-destroying energy tax. With right now no tax on using dead bodies to generate energy, putting any on there would be a tax increase, and that should be illegal with this bad economy.
Likewise we cannot allow for any job-killing regulations on this industry. There are rules that "traditional" energy sources are flogged by, like coal burning having to have limited sulfur emissions to try to avoid acid rain and oil and gas exploration having to not ruin water supplies. I am going to assume those will not be issues with turning dead bodies into energy, so the free pass on pollution like the "traditional" energy sources get to dump unlimited greenhouse gases into the atmosphere should extend to anything for this new not-quite-fossil fuel industry.
Whatever waste that might get produced must be allowed to be discarded wherever whenever. Anyone ingrate who complains can come and clean up anything they do not like. If the smell is too bad, move somewhere else - it is still a free country, at least for now.
Government better keep its hands off the not-quite-fossil-fuel industry by not taxing or regulating it, but government does need to provide handouts. After all, we never know when some fascist socialists may start taxing or regulating, and with that uncertainty about the future the industry is not going to move forward and create jobs. Thus the least government could do is provide funding and subsidies to get the ball rolling and the dead bodies burning. (By the way - burning the dead bodies may not be the ultimate best method, but it is a good place to start.) Money could be given for building facilities and the digging up and moving of dead bodies. If they really wanted to do good, government would provide any and all seed money for the industry since the faster the jobs can be started the better.
I fully expect widespread support for this plan from nearly everyone around these parts - politicians, business, media, grassroots... And why would I not? The beloved and constantly touted energy industry would gain another pillar. Jobs, jobs, jobs! Even agriculture could get a boost since more dirt would be left unoccupied and, if reached soon enough, essentially newly tilled.
It would be exceedingly hypocritical for those groups to not fully support this. They squeal about jobs in order to support "traditional" fossil fuels and on the shakiest of ground claim unsettled science to ignore negative side effects them. So they cannot possibly dismiss the new jobs the not-quite-fossil fuel industry would produce or assert that science says it cannot provide a significant new energy source.
The most powerful thing in the universe is, of course, the human spirit. I want to start to harvest that power to provide for our energy needs. Of course, human life is sacred so living persons are off limits (at least for now, as we can figure out later who deserves to die to supply our energy needs). But dead bodies are like an untapped gold mine. Even though they are dead, surely there is something that can still be extracted. So, of course, we should dig up the bodies and start turning them into energy rather than letting that resource sit in the ground untapped.
Some people may criticize this and question whether dead bodies can provide energy. We cannot listen to those haters of the free market. There just needs to be serious effort to make it work. Do not listen to anyone who puts down America by saying we cannot figure out how to do it.
In fact, that there are still details to work out to bring this to fruition just means more jobs. There needs to be research and a lot of high-tech work, and that means high-paying jobs. Then once the operations get up and running, of course there will be a whole lot more jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs!
This is a domestic energy source that would make us less dependent on foreign oil and thus improve national security. Quite obviously, if we do not pursue this plan then the terrorists win.
There is something that could stop this plan besides bleeding hearts who throw up road blocks to take us off track from the added jobs and prosperity as well as increased energy security. That would be high taxes and regulation. If taxes are too high this opportunity will never materialize. This new industry itself cannot be taxed at all because that would be a job-destroying energy tax. With right now no tax on using dead bodies to generate energy, putting any on there would be a tax increase, and that should be illegal with this bad economy.
Likewise we cannot allow for any job-killing regulations on this industry. There are rules that "traditional" energy sources are flogged by, like coal burning having to have limited sulfur emissions to try to avoid acid rain and oil and gas exploration having to not ruin water supplies. I am going to assume those will not be issues with turning dead bodies into energy, so the free pass on pollution like the "traditional" energy sources get to dump unlimited greenhouse gases into the atmosphere should extend to anything for this new not-quite-fossil fuel industry.
Whatever waste that might get produced must be allowed to be discarded wherever whenever. Anyone ingrate who complains can come and clean up anything they do not like. If the smell is too bad, move somewhere else - it is still a free country, at least for now.
Government better keep its hands off the not-quite-fossil-fuel industry by not taxing or regulating it, but government does need to provide handouts. After all, we never know when some fascist socialists may start taxing or regulating, and with that uncertainty about the future the industry is not going to move forward and create jobs. Thus the least government could do is provide funding and subsidies to get the ball rolling and the dead bodies burning. (By the way - burning the dead bodies may not be the ultimate best method, but it is a good place to start.) Money could be given for building facilities and the digging up and moving of dead bodies. If they really wanted to do good, government would provide any and all seed money for the industry since the faster the jobs can be started the better.
I fully expect widespread support for this plan from nearly everyone around these parts - politicians, business, media, grassroots... And why would I not? The beloved and constantly touted energy industry would gain another pillar. Jobs, jobs, jobs! Even agriculture could get a boost since more dirt would be left unoccupied and, if reached soon enough, essentially newly tilled.
It would be exceedingly hypocritical for those groups to not fully support this. They squeal about jobs in order to support "traditional" fossil fuels and on the shakiest of ground claim unsettled science to ignore negative side effects them. So they cannot possibly dismiss the new jobs the not-quite-fossil fuel industry would produce or assert that science says it cannot provide a significant new energy source.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Forum Communcations loves it some climate change denial
With the approaching election we get in the Herald the ever-so-exciting endorsements coming from on higher by parent company Forum Communications. Granted the Berg vs Pomeroy race does not provide much for those hoping to minimize climate change. And for Senate I have a sneaking suspicion John Hoeven and "North Dakota common sense" will get the call. Or maybe he already has. Forgive me for not paying much attention.
But the slap on the back for Kevin Cramer today was notable. Yet it was not so much for the picking of Cramer - in fact Crabtree was relatively praised and highlighted for not opposing fossil fuels - it was the illustration of carrying the water for the energy industry. The endorsement of Cramer highlights some instances where industry was supposedly challenged, but the examples demonstrate being penny wise and pound foolish. Will it really be so super down the line that a pipeline route changed when we are trying to deal with a massively altered climate?
Last week Cramer dismissed decoupling, which means encouraging decreasing energy use from the providers prospective rather than having profit simply go higher as energy use increases. Cramer called that idea "intellectually dishonest" because North Dakota is cold so we have to use lots of energy. Huh? So if someone lives far from their job they cannot save on fuel because the commute is long? Ever heard of energy efficiency? Maybe you trade in the Hummer or V8 for a vehicle a more fuel-efficient to save on that long commute. What is intellectually dishonest is ignoring energy efficiency. But then this is not new for Cramer.
Apparently if you like digging carbon out of the ground to sell to be burned, you must be good people around these parts. Maybe I can jump on that bandwagon!
To be continued...
But the slap on the back for Kevin Cramer today was notable. Yet it was not so much for the picking of Cramer - in fact Crabtree was relatively praised and highlighted for not opposing fossil fuels - it was the illustration of carrying the water for the energy industry. The endorsement of Cramer highlights some instances where industry was supposedly challenged, but the examples demonstrate being penny wise and pound foolish. Will it really be so super down the line that a pipeline route changed when we are trying to deal with a massively altered climate?
Last week Cramer dismissed decoupling, which means encouraging decreasing energy use from the providers prospective rather than having profit simply go higher as energy use increases. Cramer called that idea "intellectually dishonest" because North Dakota is cold so we have to use lots of energy. Huh? So if someone lives far from their job they cannot save on fuel because the commute is long? Ever heard of energy efficiency? Maybe you trade in the Hummer or V8 for a vehicle a more fuel-efficient to save on that long commute. What is intellectually dishonest is ignoring energy efficiency. But then this is not new for Cramer.
Apparently if you like digging carbon out of the ground to sell to be burned, you must be good people around these parts. Maybe I can jump on that bandwagon!
To be continued...
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
A little bit goes a long way
Nearly every attempt to undermine the well-established climate science that clearly demonstrate how human activities are altering climate is based on a speck of logic either completely misapplied or drowned in errors (if not both). Perhaps the most common is in saying climate has changed naturally in the past and from that asserting that humans cannot be responsible for current changes. That is bad reasoning, just like saying arson is not possible because fires have long occurred for natural reasons.
Thinksee Nosebetter though is all about erroneously believing climate science is an easily toppled house of cards. As noted before, another one of his favorites is that CO2 makes up such a tiny amount of the atmosphere. Again, there are fundamental flaws in that thinking. But some try to build on that by saying that water vapor is a greenhouse gas that is much more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, so if any greenhouse gas is causing warming it must be water vapor and not CO2. The short answer to that claim is that, unlike CO2 which functions as both a forcing and a feedback in climate change, water vapor only works as a feedback.
Expanding on that a bit, it means water vapor content of the atmosphere depends on the state of the climate. This is because water vapor is readily condensable from our atmosphere - e.g., it gets cold enough, and the water vapor condenses into liquid water that precipitates out of the atmosphere. If you could magically alter the water vapor content of the atmosphere, it would basically return to where it was content-wise before the change in days. If you could magically alter the CO2 content (like we are doing now, except instanteously), such a snap-back would not occur.
Recent research has further refined the quantification of the different components of the greenhouse effect such as CO2 and water vapor. The analogy used is that CO2 is the thermostat for global temperature - a small piece of the building that controls a larger piece all working to drive the climate inside. Water vapor and liquid water clouds could not maintain the climate we know by themselves. They require the smaller but essential effect of the non-condensable greenhouse gases led by CO2 to be able to do what they do.
Though not perfect, the CO2-thermostat analogy is very good. A similar analogy would be with CO2 and the accelerator pedal of an automobile. The level of the pedal determines how much gas the engine gets and thus how fast the vehicle goes. Small components of systems can drive large effects. A few generals can determine the actions of many thousands of soldiers. Hundreds of legislators can set rules for millions of citizens. And distressingly a few misleaders can warp the understanding of climate science for a great many.
Thinksee Nosebetter though is all about erroneously believing climate science is an easily toppled house of cards. As noted before, another one of his favorites is that CO2 makes up such a tiny amount of the atmosphere. Again, there are fundamental flaws in that thinking. But some try to build on that by saying that water vapor is a greenhouse gas that is much more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, so if any greenhouse gas is causing warming it must be water vapor and not CO2. The short answer to that claim is that, unlike CO2 which functions as both a forcing and a feedback in climate change, water vapor only works as a feedback.
Expanding on that a bit, it means water vapor content of the atmosphere depends on the state of the climate. This is because water vapor is readily condensable from our atmosphere - e.g., it gets cold enough, and the water vapor condenses into liquid water that precipitates out of the atmosphere. If you could magically alter the water vapor content of the atmosphere, it would basically return to where it was content-wise before the change in days. If you could magically alter the CO2 content (like we are doing now, except instanteously), such a snap-back would not occur.
Recent research has further refined the quantification of the different components of the greenhouse effect such as CO2 and water vapor. The analogy used is that CO2 is the thermostat for global temperature - a small piece of the building that controls a larger piece all working to drive the climate inside. Water vapor and liquid water clouds could not maintain the climate we know by themselves. They require the smaller but essential effect of the non-condensable greenhouse gases led by CO2 to be able to do what they do.
Though not perfect, the CO2-thermostat analogy is very good. A similar analogy would be with CO2 and the accelerator pedal of an automobile. The level of the pedal determines how much gas the engine gets and thus how fast the vehicle goes. Small components of systems can drive large effects. A few generals can determine the actions of many thousands of soldiers. Hundreds of legislators can set rules for millions of citizens. And distressingly a few misleaders can warp the understanding of climate science for a great many.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Chamber of Commerce or Chamber of Pollution?
Though this is several days old now I did not want to let it pass. Cheerleading for pollution is nothing new for the Chamber of Commerce in North Dakota, but a couple of ND city Chamber executive directors, Steffanie Boeckel and Kristi Klein, demonstrated in a recent letter in the Herald that they are not averse to spewing garbage too.
The cards played are the usual - coal is super-great for the North Dakota economy, and cap-and-trade would crush the economy.
But they also go one step further, explicitly taking a stance than is generally only implied. Repeating what I have said before, cap-and-trade is a flexible market approach to addressing carbon emissions by setting a necessary limit and letting the market figure out the cheapest and most efficient way to achieve the ends. If you are the Chamber and oppose that, what are you going to favor? Certainly not command-and-control regulations laid down by the government. Basically you are going to favor no solution. And if you take off the table any solution, your only out is to deny there is a problem. And that is where the Boeckel and Klein go here.
Boeckel and Klein display their odious ignorance of (assuming not outright lies about) climate science. In little more than a dozen words they manage to pack a massive amount of misinformation. In talking about anthropogenic climate change they allude to "leaked e-mails last year (actually hacked/stolen is much more likely) that cast serious doubt (actually they do no such thing) on the scientists who have made these claims" (actually the few dozen people directly reference by the hacked materials are only a drop in the bucket of the virtual unanimity among actual climate scientists that human activities are altering the climate). As much as I despise it when climate change is simply ignored, seeing lies and misinformation repeated to try to deny it is even worse.
Another especially disgusting little throw-in at the end of the letter said, "It’s important that North Dakota has both reliable as well as renewable electricity sources." I am not surprised the Chamber sucks up to the fossil fuel industry as much as possible, but the smack to renewable energy by calling it unreliable is surprising. Why is renewable energy important if it is unreliable? Oh yeah - there is a chance to make a buck on it, but the addiction to fossil fuels makes them the only fully Chamber-approved. They criticize PSC candidate Brad Crabtree for "undying allegiance to cap and trade", but that pales in comparsion to the Chamber's worship of fossil fuel.
The Chamber apparently views the physical world as nothing more than something to be exploited in any way possible to make immediate profit. I just hope that view is, or at least very soon becomes, less common than the idea that we need to preserve the only place we and everyone who may come after us have to live. It hardly seems fair that we should have to devastate our home just because Boeckel, Klein, and their ilk think they can have a slightly cheaper energy bill or make an extra buck that way.
The cards played are the usual - coal is super-great for the North Dakota economy, and cap-and-trade would crush the economy.
But they also go one step further, explicitly taking a stance than is generally only implied. Repeating what I have said before, cap-and-trade is a flexible market approach to addressing carbon emissions by setting a necessary limit and letting the market figure out the cheapest and most efficient way to achieve the ends. If you are the Chamber and oppose that, what are you going to favor? Certainly not command-and-control regulations laid down by the government. Basically you are going to favor no solution. And if you take off the table any solution, your only out is to deny there is a problem. And that is where the Boeckel and Klein go here.
Boeckel and Klein display their odious ignorance of (assuming not outright lies about) climate science. In little more than a dozen words they manage to pack a massive amount of misinformation. In talking about anthropogenic climate change they allude to "leaked e-mails last year (actually hacked/stolen is much more likely) that cast serious doubt (actually they do no such thing) on the scientists who have made these claims" (actually the few dozen people directly reference by the hacked materials are only a drop in the bucket of the virtual unanimity among actual climate scientists that human activities are altering the climate). As much as I despise it when climate change is simply ignored, seeing lies and misinformation repeated to try to deny it is even worse.
Another especially disgusting little throw-in at the end of the letter said, "It’s important that North Dakota has both reliable as well as renewable electricity sources." I am not surprised the Chamber sucks up to the fossil fuel industry as much as possible, but the smack to renewable energy by calling it unreliable is surprising. Why is renewable energy important if it is unreliable? Oh yeah - there is a chance to make a buck on it, but the addiction to fossil fuels makes them the only fully Chamber-approved. They criticize PSC candidate Brad Crabtree for "undying allegiance to cap and trade", but that pales in comparsion to the Chamber's worship of fossil fuel.
The Chamber apparently views the physical world as nothing more than something to be exploited in any way possible to make immediate profit. I just hope that view is, or at least very soon becomes, less common than the idea that we need to preserve the only place we and everyone who may come after us have to live. It hardly seems fair that we should have to devastate our home just because Boeckel, Klein, and their ilk think they can have a slightly cheaper energy bill or make an extra buck that way.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Disproving global warming as easy as disproving seasons
Those so-called scientists are proven wrong again. Turns out the theory of seasons and going from summer to winter is false. Look at the temperatures from this region for the first 11 days of this October versus for the preceding month of September. Supposedly we should be getting colder. What do the data say?
Grand Forks, ND
Average September high temperature = 63.7F
Average October 1-11 high temperature = 71.1F
Bismarck, ND
Average September high temperature = 67.9F
Average October 1-11 high temperature = 74.8
Pierre, SD
Average September high temperature = 73.2F
Average October 1-11 high temperature = 76.5F
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
Average September high temperature = 68.9F
Average October 1-11 high temperature = 72.7F
Clearly October has been warmer than September, so "winter" must be over.
Just in case someone has not caught on, the above in this post is completely ironic. Well, the data are correct, but the conclusions are ridiculous. Unfortunately, the same reasoning (if you want to call it that) producing those foolish conclusions leads some people to try to claim that global warming stopped sometime recently.
There is a well-understood and verified physical mechanism by which the seasons occur on timescales from weeks to months. Yet there are also well-understood mechanisms (basically weather) by which there are variations on timescales from days to weeks so there is not a consistent rise in temperatures in the midwestern US from January to July and fall in temperature from July to January.
Likewise there is a well-understood and verified physical mechanism by which there is currently an upward trend in global temperatures on timescales of decades. Yet there are also well-understood mechanisms (including El Nino & La Nina) by which there are variations on timescales of years so there is not a consistent rise in global temperatures with every year warmer than the previous.
Anyone trying to sell that warming has stopped is either statistically and scientifically naive-to-ignorant or is willfully misleading you. Or maybe both.
Grand Forks, ND
Average September high temperature = 63.7F
Average October 1-11 high temperature = 71.1F
Bismarck, ND
Average September high temperature = 67.9F
Average October 1-11 high temperature = 74.8
Pierre, SD
Average September high temperature = 73.2F
Average October 1-11 high temperature = 76.5F
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
Average September high temperature = 68.9F
Average October 1-11 high temperature = 72.7F
Clearly October has been warmer than September, so "winter" must be over.
Just in case someone has not caught on, the above in this post is completely ironic. Well, the data are correct, but the conclusions are ridiculous. Unfortunately, the same reasoning (if you want to call it that) producing those foolish conclusions leads some people to try to claim that global warming stopped sometime recently.
There is a well-understood and verified physical mechanism by which the seasons occur on timescales from weeks to months. Yet there are also well-understood mechanisms (basically weather) by which there are variations on timescales from days to weeks so there is not a consistent rise in temperatures in the midwestern US from January to July and fall in temperature from July to January.
Likewise there is a well-understood and verified physical mechanism by which there is currently an upward trend in global temperatures on timescales of decades. Yet there are also well-understood mechanisms (including El Nino & La Nina) by which there are variations on timescales of years so there is not a consistent rise in global temperatures with every year warmer than the previous.
Anyone trying to sell that warming has stopped is either statistically and scientifically naive-to-ignorant or is willfully misleading you. Or maybe both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)