2012 Climate Events: The start of the term

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:55 AM GMT on January 04, 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

2012 Climate Events: The start of the term

Last week I gave my summary of what I thought were the most important climate change discoveries or news of 2011. Of course, my choices were a bit arcane, but that’s me. I did not talk about the remarkable extreme weather and climate events of the last year – really last 2 years. Others have the knowledge and do that better than I, and, staying close to home, I will refer you to Jeff Master’s Blogs and Chris Burt's Blogs.

There were a couple of temperature facts that struck me: 1) The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. There have been 321 consecutive months with the temperature above the 20th century average (link from NOAA), and 2) This graph from the World Meteorological Organization’s Provisional Statement of the Climate (link to statement):



Figure 1: From WMO Provisional Statement. Temperature difference (anomaly) calculated for 1961-1990 average. La Niña years are marked. La Niña years should be cooler that average based on natural variability. 2010 was the warmest La Niña year on record, and the 10th warmest year on record.

This graph shows a systematic trend of the years which should be cool, the La Niña years, getting warmer. This combination of a warming trend in the years which should be cool years and more than 25 years of global monthly means being above the long-term average are simple and compelling measurements of the warming earth. Plus remember during this time of persistent warm months, we had that period of the Sun being inactive, and hence, also being a cooling influence (an old blog to remind you of that).

This information coupled with measurements of increasing carbon dioxide emissions noted in the last entry, well I will not be teaching that we can avoid dangerous warming in the next century.

So what are the other things that have struck me as interesting going into the Winter 2012 semester at Michigan?

1) At the top of the list is a judicial ruling that the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard is, in fact, unconstitutional. It violates the interstate commerce clause that governs commerce between states. Frequently, environmental law evolves through commerce law and the assurance of open markets between the states. Ironically, at the center of the ruling is ethanol.

2) Next on the list is that in 2011 the leading U.S. export was gasoline and other refined petroleum products (from Wall Street Journal). This is a consequence of the recession, high gasoline prices, and more fuel efficient vehicles. This is significant enough that refineries in Philadelphia are likely to be closed. There are all sorts of interesting facets of this news – energy, economics, technology, and climate change.

3) Reindeer: The warming in the Arctic has been much higher than the average global warming. Here is the 2011 Arctic Report Card. This report documents large changes in the atmosphere, sea ice and ocean, and snow extent, glacier mass and permafrost. There are efforts to rescue reindeer. There is a threat because the warming temperatures means there are more ice storms, rather than the snow associated with colder temperatures. This encases their food. This combination of changes, persistent over many years, again, is indicative of cumulative changes and systematic warming.

4) That United Parcel Service has been able to reduce significantly their transportation carbon emissions, while increasing deliveries. This includes efforts on vehicle efficiency as well as attention to routing and traffic engineering. (Brown goes Green) This proves that we can make a difference on more than an individual scale, and that government investments at the margin are important for developing environmental policy. The government money mitigates risk.

5) And just to confuse us all: Manatees in Florida are threatened by cold temperatures. The deaths in 2011 were high with cold weather listed as the greatest threat. What does that say about weather, climate, climate variability and climate change? If I get the question, I will start here.

r


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 164 - 114

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

BullShoalsAR took the participle of the f-word out. But not before I flagged its original comment.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting petewxwatcher:
Check out BullShoalsAR's foul comment (#76) on Bangorwalker's blog.

Yes, why he's still hanging around--or allowed to--is anyone's guess. He's just a nuisance at this point, and everyone's pretty much aware of his sickness, so from the blog point of view it's no big deal. I'm just worried about his mental well-being; he seems to be in distress. Perhaps time to invoke the Baker Act?

Speaking of abnormal and destructive behavior, did everyone see Dr. Masters' excellent blog entry on 2011's numerous examples of extreme weather today? Things are unraveling rather quickly, it appears...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Check out BullShoalsAR's foul comment (#76) on Bangorwalker's blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BullShoalsAR:
Neapolitan, why are all your comments getting deleted in Master's blog this morning? Are you starting again with the extreme left-wing socialist political b***s***?

I think people are getting tired with it. I really do...

I almost felt sorry for you yesterday, going through all that time and trouble to sign in under your multiple handles and hitting the minus button enough times that my comment disappeared, only to have admin restore it moments later (after it had already been quoted by someone else). Even for an unemployed and obsessed person, that must have stung. ;-)

BTW: one or two comments doesn't equal "all". Just so you know...
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


That is a good question. I read all of his posts and they were not political in nature. ......... Since his posts no longer appear, how did you know it was his posts that were being deleted?

Please see above for the answer. Then take pity on him... ;-)

(Seriously, Cat5, I am worried about you. Please seek professional help before you hurt yourself or someone else.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting BullShoalsAR:
Neapolitan, why are all your comments getting deleted in Master's blog this morning? Are you starting again with the extreme left-wing socialist political bullshit?

I think people are getting tired with it. I really do...


That is a good question. I read all of his posts and they were not political in nature. ......... Since his posts no longer appear, how did you know it was his posts that were being deleted?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting iceagecoming:


Sorry Dude, You will never see me at the communist pump and nipple of Joe Kennedy.

Link

That would be your terrain.

As well as a crew membership on the Rainbow Warrior.
Good luck with DAT! as Pat would say?


Huh? wierder and wierder. You should consider running for pres on the GOP ticket.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting overwash12:
Not happy with the democrat? I think Huntsman would make a good President!


I have a lot of mixed emotions about Obama. I watched the election in Carrboro NC at the railway bar. It was a pretty special night, I admit, and I was hoping for a lot, even as a conservative.

He has done well in some situations and botched others. I wouldn't mind seeing him again as president, at least ahead of the hee haw group that seems to be the GOP candidates (less Huntsman now). For the life of me I can't stand to see those clowns represent conservatives. I mean, doesn't the GOP have an pride anymore?

Huntsman seemed ok... but given that all the others seemed so monty pythonish I was scared that there was something I didn't know about him. Still don't know if I'll vote but if I do, it will be him at the moment. Or Obama against all the others, but yeah it is difficult to vote Dem.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
None of those McGrath readings were record lows.

Dec 31 record low is -59 (1999)
Jan 1 record low is -56 (2000)
Jan 2 record low is -55 (1969)
Jan 3 record low is -60 (1975)
Jan 4 record low is -60 (1975)
Jan 5 record low is -58 (1997)

Source
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
AGW at work?




The low temperature on 5 January 2012 at McGrath of -45 F followed a five day period from 31 Dec 2011 – 4 Jan 2012 with low temperatures at or below -50 F. During this period the temperature averaged -38 degrees F below normal with a mean temperature of -45 F! Minimum temperatures were -51, -53, -50, -53, and -55 F over those 5 days.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
Quoting Neapolitan:

Where did you get that insipid "At best, 4% of the 1.4 degrees"? Please, stop listening to Rush Limbaugh; he'll rot your brain...

Anyway, this may not look like "a big difference" to listeners of Rush, but, yeah, it's a big deal:

Uh-oh

Now, unless you can explain to us--and the entire scientific community--how CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, you're going to have a difficult time hanging onto your "skepticism".

You need to stay away from MADDOW AND ANDERSON COOPER.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
Quoting greentortuloni:


What a bunch of waffle.

Most 'greenies' are not burn down the McMansion types, most are people who care and work as part of society. I know this from experience which I can list somewhere else if you have time to read many many case studies. These people care deeply about society, their fellow humans, their families and mostly, perhaps, their children.

They want a world of renewable clean energy. These people are not in a plot against anyone. They have no radical agenda. They are concerned about how man is destroying the world and want to save it.

You however are different. Your entire article was based on arguments against subsidies. Personally I think that in the long run renewable energy can easily compete with exhastible polluting energy. However, forget the long run for the moment. The short run is that like most big oil sycophants, you leave off the true costs of polluting energy. Like most tea party/new conservatives, your ideas only work when you can use the environment to soak up your inefficiencies. In short, you don't care about the same humans that you hypocritically assert greenies don't care about because there is an environmental subsidy that polluting technologies charge everyone.

The environmental subsidy is partly charged financially: higher health care costs, higher infrastructure costs, payments to anti-American countries like Venezuela, Iran, etc.. When the environmantal cost includes the essentially infinite costs of global warming, there is no comparison: you are using an environmental credit card from mother nature to fund big oil and guess what? The fees are rising and mother nature doesn't let you declare bankruptcy, she plays like a bookie: she breaks your leg and then doubles the amount due.

And finally, look at those figures again. Forget about how much fun it is and how much American pride it costs to pay Venezuela every time you fill up your tank, forget about that. Look simply at the costs of paying a foreign country endlessly versus paying for a renewable resource. It is the difference between paying the interest and paying off the principle. Keep renting your energy from big oil, I'd rather be independent and free.


Sorry Dude, You will never see me at the communist pump and nipple of Joe Kennedy.

Link

That would be your terrain.

As well as a crew membership on the Rainbow Warrior.
Good luck with DAT! as Pat would say?
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 25 Comments: 1083
Intermission brought to you by Neatortookie-Baker :)

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting JupiterKen:


The wiki link was for "rookie" not for you. How about you provide scientific evidence that "trees do not manufacture CO2. They do on occasion give off excess CO2 taken in that they're unable to sequester". Make sure it's peer-reviewed or you won't believe it.


Call Dr. High Willoughby yet? Until then shut your pie hole!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20427
Quoting Neapolitan:

I can see you're becoming very emotional again, so I'll just say this for a third (and final) time: trees do not manufacture CO2. They do on occasion give off excess CO2 taken in that they're unable to sequester. And when they die, they return all their sequestered carbon to the environment. But they do not create it. If you know better, please provide scientific evidence, and not just expletives or links to a wiki.answers page.


The wiki link was for "rookie" not for you. How about you provide scientific evidence that "trees do not manufacture CO2. They do on occasion give off excess CO2 taken in that they're unable to sequester". Make sure it's peer-reviewed or you won't believe it.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting JupiterKen:


Over my head how? You fabricated a response ""giving off" CO2 only in the way that a man with pockets crammed with cash "gives off" coins and bills; there's simply no room to hold more" which is total BS and you say over my head? You guys really need to stop with the made-up "science". Trees do give off CO2, right Nea?

I can see you're becoming very emotional again, so I'll just say this for a third (and final) time: trees do not manufacture CO2. They do on occasion give off excess CO2 taken in that they're unable to sequester. And when they die, they return all their sequestered carbon to the environment. But they do not create it. If you know better, please provide scientific evidence, and not just expletives or links to a wiki.answers page.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting Neapolitan:

Well, that went right over your head, didn't it? Too much science for you? Listen, do yourself a favor and stop getting your "knowledge" from wiki.answers. ;-)


Over my head how? You fabricated a response ""giving off" CO2 only in the way that a man with pockets crammed with cash "gives off" coins and bills; there's simply no room to hold more" which is total BS and you say over my head? You guys really need to stop with the made-up "science". Trees do give off CO2, right Nea?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting JupiterKen:


You are wrong. I learned trees breathe in O2 and out CO2 when not in daylight in high school general science class before you were born. Disingenuous? Tremendous lack of knowledge? You shouldn't talk about youself that way.

Well, that went right over your head, didn't it? Too much science for you? Listen, do yourself a favor and stop getting your "knowledge" from wiki.answers. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Link So,they do breathe out c02, We must kill all plants as they are causing CGW(cellulose global warming)!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting Neapolitan:
Certain trees at certain times in their life cycles take in more CO2 than they can sequester; as such, they do tend to release some of it during the night when photosynthesis stops. So they're "giving off" CO2 only in the way that a man with pockets crammed with cash "gives off" coins and bills; there's simply no room to hold more. Trees are certainly not creators of CO2, nor are they net emitters; they're basically carbon storehouses, and they return that carbon to the environment when they die.

Not that anyone has, but to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous, or would show a tremendous lack of knowledge.


You are wrong. I learned trees breathe in O2 and out CO2 when not in daylight in high school general science class before you were born. Disingenuous? Tremendous lack of knowledge? You shouldn't talk about youself that way.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Certain trees at certain times in their life cycles take in more CO2 than they can sequester; as such, they do tend to release some of it during the night when photosynthesis stops. So they're "giving off" CO2 only in the way that a man with pockets crammed with cash "gives off" coins and bills; there's simply no room to hold more. Trees are certainly not creators of CO2, nor are they net emitters; they're basically carbon storehouses, and they return that carbon to the environment when they die.

Not that anyone has, but to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous, or would show a tremendous lack of knowledge.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Quoting JupiterKen:


It does not explain it.

Link explains it.

"Deciduous trees give off O2 (Oxygen) while in the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis can only occur during daylight periods,when the tree is not dormant. During the trees dormancy and at night, trees breath in O2 and breath out CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)."

And... it says your info "is quite ignorant" (really, it says that). I don't think you're ignorant








This does not change the fact that trees are net carbon sinks now does it.

Yes, I am ignorant. As are we all. There is no single person that knows all there is to know on any single subject. To say that you are otherwise is to proclaim yourself as a "know it all". We all know the old saying concerning this. Those that think they know it all really pisses off those of us that do. ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


True. Trees do not use all of the CO2 they take in. Trees are net carbon sinks. So, in this sense, they are not a source of CO2.

This explains it fairly well:

"Trees are mostly cellulose, or (C6H10O5), That's 5 carbon atoms, 10 hydrogen atoms, and 5 oxygen atoms. Since the hydrogen comes from water, and the oxygen comes from water or air, and the carbon comes from CO2 in the air, in order for a tree to increase mass (grow) it HAS TO take in more carbon than it releases. It has to take in more CO2 than it releases. As for CO2 to oxygen, since the oxygen comes either from water or CO2, the tree will have to release either hydrogen or oxygen. Since the H and O components of cellulose are made from water, and the carbon from CO2, it releases oxygen.

To say "[trees] are nearly as likely to give off CO2 than O2," contradicts the law of the conservation of matter."


It does not explain it.

Link explains it.

"Deciduous trees give off O2 (Oxygen) while in the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis can only occur during daylight periods,when the tree is not dormant. During the trees dormancy and at night, trees breath in O2 and breath out CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)."

And... it says your info "is quite ignorant" (really, it says that). I don't think you're ignorant






Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
I have never claimed to be a scientist, JupiterKen. I have always stated that I am not a scientist. Are you a scientist?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758


Forest Carbon Accounting: Overview & Principles
Executive Summary


Forests play an important role in the global carbon balance. As both carbon sources and sinks, they
have the potential to form an important component in efforts to combat global climate change.
Accounting for the carbon within forest ecosystems and changes in carbon stocks resulting from
human activities is a necessary first step towards the better representation of forests in climate
change policy at regional, national and global scales.
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), as part of the UNDP-UNEP CDM Capacity
Development Project for Eastern & Southern Africa, is seeking to promote carbon projects in subSaharan Africa, in the important bio-carbon sector and others. This report reinforces UNDP’s capacity
building efforts by presenting the main principles, practices and challenges of carbon accounting in
the forestry sector.
Forest carbon accounting can be divided into three forms. Stock accounting assesses the magnitude
of carbon stored in forest ecosystems at a single point in time. Emissions accounting assesses the net
greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere resulting from forests. Emission reductions accounting
assesses the decrease in emissions from project or policy activities, often so that they can be traded.
Forest carbon accounting identifies the carbon-density of areas, providing information for lowcarbon-impact land use planning. It prepares territories for accounting and reporting of emissions
from the forestry sector. It allows comparison of the climate change impact of the forestry sector
relative to other sectors, as well as allowing comparison between territories. Finally, it enables trade
of project emission reductions on carbon markets and for emission reductions to be included in policy
targets.
Good practice in forest carbon accounting must be adhered to. In particular, transparency in methods
and accuracy and precision in accounting are required for public and political acceptance of resultant
estimates. A basic knowledge of the principles underlying forest carbon accounting is also beneficial.
Understanding biomass dynamics and flows between carbon pools in forest ecosystems enables more
effective accounting.
The practice of forest carbon accounting requires clear identification of the accounting boundary in
both space and time. Stratifying the forest into areas with similar carbon characteristics further
improves the accuracy of carbon accounting. Data for accounting can be gathered from a variety of
sources, including existing secondary data, remotely sensed data and primary data through field
surveys. The amount of data from each source depends on the quality of the source as well as the
trade-offs that must be made between accounting accuracy and costs of resources and time.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting JupiterKen:
Trees actually do give off CO2 at night. All you "scientists" should know that.


True. Trees do not use all of the CO2 they take in. Trees are net carbon sinks. So, in this sense, they are not a source of CO2.

This explains it fairly well:

"Trees are mostly cellulose, or (C6H10O5), That's 5 carbon atoms, 10 hydrogen atoms, and 5 oxygen atoms. Since the hydrogen comes from water, and the oxygen comes from water or air, and the carbon comes from CO2 in the air, in order for a tree to increase mass (grow) it HAS TO take in more carbon than it releases. It has to take in more CO2 than it releases. As for CO2 to oxygen, since the oxygen comes either from water or CO2, the tree will have to release either hydrogen or oxygen. Since the H and O components of cellulose are made from water, and the carbon from CO2, it releases oxygen.

To say "[trees] are nearly as likely to give off CO2 than O2," contradicts the law of the conservation of matter."
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Dramatic Links Found Between Climate Change Elk, Plants and Birds
Jan 10, 2012


Climate change in the form of reduced snowfall in mountains is causing powerful and cascading shifts in mountainous plant and bird communities through the increased ability of elk to stay at high elevations over winter and consume plants, according to a groundbreaking study in Nature Climate Change.

The U.S. Geological Survey and University of Montana study not only showed that the abundance of deciduous trees and their associated songbirds in mountainous Arizona have declined over the last 22 years as snowpack has declined, but it also experimentally demonstrated that declining snowfall indirectly affects plants and birds by enabling more winter browsing by elk. Increased winter browsing by elk results in trickle-down ecological effects such as lowering the quality of habitat for songbirds.

The authors, USGS Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit scientist Thomas Martin and University of Montana scientist John Maron, mimicked the effects of more snow on limiting the ability of elk to browse on plants by excluding the animals from large, fenced areas. They compared bird and plant communities in these exclusion areas with nearby similar areas where elk had access, and found that, over the six years of the study, multi-decadal declines in plant and songbird populations were reversed in the areas where elk were prohibited from browsing.

"This study illustrates that profound impacts of climate change on ecosystems arise over a time span of but two decades through unexplored feedbacks," explained USGS director Marcia McNutt. "The significance lies in the fact that humans and our economy are at the end of the same chain of cascading consequences."

The study demonstrates a classic ecological cascade, added Martin. For example, he said, from an elk’s perspective, less snow means an increased ability to freely browse on woody plants in winter in areas where they would not be inclined to forage in previous times due to high snowpack. Increased overwinter browsing led to a decline in deciduous trees, which reduced the number of birds that chose the habitat and increased predation on nests of those birds that did choose the habitat.

"This study demonstrates that the indirect effects of climate on plant communities may be just as important as the effects of climate-change-induced mismatches between migrating birds and food abundance because plants, including trees, provide the habitat birds need to survive," Martin said.

The study, Climate impacts on bird and plant communities from altered animal-plant interactions, was published online on Jan. 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change .
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting BullShoalsAR:

I think Obama has done remarkable well. I'd like to see him again. I really would.
Whatever the Bilderburg group wants him to,that's what he do!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Trees actually do give off CO2 at night. All you "scientists" should know that.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting BullShoalsAR:

Then don't vote.
Prolly won't matter much,if I don't!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I am not happy with any of them.

This is the best the Republican party has to offer? Seriously?!?!? I honestly do not like the "talent" either party has to offer. We truly are in deep trouble.
Same old song and dance,they all say whatever they need to get elected,then get amnesia after the ticker-tape settles!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting overwash12:
Not happy with the democrat? I think Huntsman would make a good President!


I am not happy with any of them.

This is the best the Republican party has to offer? Seriously?!?!? I honestly do not like the "talent" either party has to offer. We truly are in deep trouble.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting greentortuloni:
Anyone have any thoughts on Huntsman?

He seems possible. At least he doesn't seem insane off the bat like the bottom of the barrel stuff that most of the other 'conservative' candidates are.

I know he's for the pipeline project... but that doesn't really bother me since pipelines are easy to blow up : )

But i haven't really followed the candidates yet. Anyone have an opinion?
Not happy with the democrat? I think Huntsman would make a good President!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting greentortuloni:
Anyone have any thoughts on Huntsman?

He seems possible. At least he doesn't seem insane off the bat like the bottom of the barrel stuff that most of the other 'conservative' candidates are.

I know he's for the pipeline project... but that doesn't really bother me since pipelines are easy to blow up : )

But i haven't really followed the candidates yet. Anyone have an opinion?

Huntsman is the least nutty of the bunch, for sure; he's the closest thing to an adult the klown kar has seen. But even he's not immune to pandering to the anti-science crowd when he thinks it'll help; he's softened his stance on GW multiple times when directly questioned by "skeptics", which exhibits a lack of backbone where science is concerned. Still, if forced at gunpoint to pull the lever for one of the krazy krew, it would have to be him.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13626
Anyone have any thoughts on Huntsman?

He seems possible. At least he doesn't seem insane off the bat like the bottom of the barrel stuff that most of the other 'conservative' candidates are.

I know he's for the pipeline project... but that doesn't really bother me since pipelines are easy to blow up : )

But i haven't really followed the candidates yet. Anyone have an opinion?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
-deleted by poster-
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting iceagecoming:
Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for “harmony with nature”—there is no discussionues at the G-20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address climate change.” Let’s go him one better. Why not terminate energy subsidies altogether? Isn’t it time to realize that when we allow government to pick energy industry winners we all lose?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/03/01/ too-green-to-fail-energy-policies-flunk-achievemen t-tests/

Whatever you think my friend!


What a bunch of waffle.

Most 'greenies' are not burn down the McMansion types, most are people who care and work as part of society. I know this from experience which I can list somewhere else if you have time to read many many case studies. These people care deeply about society, their fellow humans, their families and mostly, perhaps, their children.

They want a world of renewable clean energy. These people are not in a plot against anyone. They have no radical agenda. They are concerned about how man is destroying the world and want to save it.

You however are different. Your entire article was based on arguments against subsidies. Personally I think that in the long run renewable energy can easily compete with exhastible polluting energy. However, forget the long run for the moment. The short run is that like most big oil sycophants, you leave off the true costs of polluting energy. Like most tea party/new conservatives, your ideas only work when you can use the environment to soak up your inefficiencies. In short, you don't care about the same humans that you hypocritically assert greenies don't care about because there is an environmental subsidy that polluting technologies charge everyone.

The environmental subsidy is partly charged financially: higher health care costs, higher infrastructure costs, payments to anti-American countries like Venezuela, Iran, etc.. When the environmantal cost includes the essentially infinite costs of global warming, there is no comparison: you are using an environmental credit card from mother nature to fund big oil and guess what? The fees are rising and mother nature doesn't let you declare bankruptcy, she plays like a bookie: she breaks your leg and then doubles the amount due.

And finally, look at those figures again. Forget about how much fun it is and how much American pride it costs to pay Venezuela every time you fill up your tank, forget about that. Look simply at the costs of paying a foreign country endlessly versus paying for a renewable resource. It is the difference between paying the interest and paying off the principle. Keep renting your energy from big oil, I'd rather be independent and free.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting Ossqss:
280-394 parts per 1,000,000 makes a big difference eh?

At best, 4% of the 1.4 degrees over 160 years? Oh, but wait, the temp stopped rising recently for over a decade too with all that CO2 being added ?

Mann made for certain? LOL

That is why there is still a "T" in AGWT?

Burrrr................



Com'on Oss, you've been around the blog long enough to know this has been aswered many times, now you're just cheating to pretend you don't already know the answer.

A swimming pool painted black is much warmer.
A roof painted silver is much colder.
Soot on snow melts the snow.

LSD in the brain, the right perfume on a woman, etc., the world is full of tiny things that make a huge difference.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Scientists warn us
Deniers close their eyes to
evidence, so sad.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
What happens with the photosynthesis cycle at night?

CO2 as greenhouse gas? Depends on whom you ask. There are differing positions.

Does man produce CO2? Yes. What is your fixation with CO2?

You base all of your answers on theories have have been proven to be incorrect. The current atmospheric models can't predict past weather much less future.

Climate data can't even be agreed upon by scientists. How can we trust results where the data is suspect?


Photosynthesis shuts down at night since it requires sunlight. How much a tree absorbs CO2 depends upon the species and age of the tree. As a general rule, younger trees of the same species are better carbon sinks than the more mature trees of the same species.

CO2 is greenhouse gas and I do not care who you ask. Chemistry 101 will tell you this. Anyone that tells you differently does not know the basic science.

My "fixation" on CO2 is that anthropogenic CO2 is the main driving force behind the current climate change we are experiencing. What is your lack of interest concerning this? What is your "fixation"?

I base my answers on the science. Which theories do you speak of that have been disproved?

Weather is much harder to predict than is the climate. Atmospheric models show probabilities that are expressed in percentages. Models do not show absolutes.

Any science will have have some disagreement by those that study that field of science. All science must be tested and there should always be true skeptics that question the theories. This is how science works. There are Laws of Physics that also come into play. One of the Laws of Physics shows that CO2 behaves as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. The Greenhouse Effect and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

You may find this an interesting and educational read - The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

When you can bring forth the evidence that will discount The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and the physical observations we have seen then I am eager to listen. I am like you. I want the AGWT to be completely exaggerated, if not outright false. Show me the evidence that will do this so that I can breathe a deep sigh of relief.

Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
What happens with the photosynthesis cycle at night?

CO2 as greenhouse gas? Depends on whom you ask. There are differing positions.

Does man produce CO2? Yes. What is your fixation with CO2?

You base all of your answers on theories have have been proven to be incorrect. The current atmospheric models can't predict past weather much less future.

Climate data can't even be agreed upon by scientists. How can we trust results where the data is suspect?

How is this "forcing" that you are so bent on holding out as the basis for your theories measured? More of your accurate climate models?

Do you really expect us to believe weather forecasters when they can't predict the weather on a daily basis? I live in the Front Range mountains of Colorado. I've lived here for two years now, and I've been keeping a record of winter weather predictions. Every weather site, including the NWS has and accuracy rate of about 25%. Just two days ago, the NWS predicted a snowfall probability of 90%. None of the area forecast to receive the snowfall received one flake. I would call that an inaccuracy rate of 100%. The long term climate models are similar in their inaccuracy. NOAA uses invented data to support their models. Just exactly why are you so brainwashed into believing this bogus AGW argument? Do you consider yourself a liberal? That might explain the lack of logic.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303

Viewing: 164 - 114

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.