No Energy Policy and Even Less Climate Policy

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:38 AM GMT on March 15, 2014

Share this Blog
30
+

No Energy Policy and Even Less Climate Policy

This week I gave a lecture on current energy use. Of the lectures I give, those on current energy use and trends are the ones I have to change the most from year to year. I remember that as a child in 1961 my father gave me a world atlas that stated that the U.S. had the world’s greatest petroleum reserves, and that all was quite rosy for the future. That didn’t turn out so well. If I look at the past 8 years of lectures I highlight in one year hydrogen cells, the next year ethanol, the ups and downs of wind energy, the machinations over solar cells and trade with China, clean coal, dirty coal, now hydraulic fracturing and the emergence of the U.S. as a oil and natural gas giant. Three years ago one of my charts showed where the U.S. imported oil and the difficult relations we had with many of our suppliers.

A common factor from year to year is that taking a global perspective, the energy use continues to increase, and the dominate energy sources are coal, oil and natural gas. Coal use has increased significantly in the last decade, which includes U.S. coal exports. Renewable energy use has increased tremendously, but remains a small part.

I first wrote a blog about the Keystone Pipeline in December of 2011. The Keystone Pipeline has emerged as a litmus test of a federal commitment to climate change. The climate advocacy group 350.org maintains regular protests against the pipeline. In President Obama’s Speech on Climate Change (June 25, 2013), Obama stated that the pipeline had to be in our national interest and cannot significantly enhance carbon pollution.

This is a classic ethical problem of the near-term versus the long-term. The analysis by the State Department comes to the conclusion that the Keystone Pipeline will not significantly enhance carbon dioxide pollution. The basic argument is that the resource will be developed in any event. The Keystone Pipeline will bring jobs and likely restart closed refineries (U.S. as gasoline exporter). In the event that the pipeline is not built, there will be efforts to build new pipelines in Canada. Until there are pipelines, a whole range of petroleum products will be transported by train and truck. This transport is inefficient and risky.

We live in a time when there is a boom in U.S. production of oil and natural gas. We are on the verge of becoming an oil and natural gas exporting nation. Yet, the stress of a cold winter has stressed the gas distribution network, causing a spike in home heating costs. We are burning off the gas in the North Dakota oil shale fields because we have no way to get it out. We are considering the role of natural gas in future geopolitical crises such as Ukraine, which is a policy driver to lowering the cost of transport. It’s just a mess.

The climate policy importance for the Keystone Pipeline decision is largely that the pipeline facilitates the burning of fossil fuels. It eases the use as a source of oil, tar sands, which are especially dirty from a climate perspective. It is also dirty from a water quality perspective, with other environmental consequences. Fundamentally, the Keystone Pipeline helps to keep fossil fuels cheap, which is completely contrary to what is needed for climate policy. The decision calculation is addressing a whole host of existing short-term problems, versus making the stand against facilitating the continuation and, perhaps, acceleration of carbon dioxide pollution (Rood blog Burning Stuff). Another calculation is whether or not this is the opportunity point for catalyzing the development of climate policy.

The Obama Administration can claim that with regard to climate policy that they have directly targeted the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. This policy initiative can be linked back to better distribution of natural gas to displace coal as the primary fuel for electricity production. Natural gas when burned releases less carbon dioxide than coal. Whether or not natural gas on the whole reduces greenhouse gas emissions depends on the care to control leakage and waste in obtaining and transporting the gas. The Obama administration can also take credit for reducing transportation emissions through the requirements than came with the auto-industry bailout during the recession (a example of policy opportunity).

In what will be a significant debate in the climate community, Marcia McNutt, Editor in Chief of Science Magazine, has endorsed the building of the pipeline. (Science has provided open access to the editorial.) Dr. McNutt cites policy opportunity in granting the permits.

We have no energy policy. We have no climate policy. We have resisted the development of energy policy for more than 30 years. We have made fragmented investments in specific technologies, most of which proved to be poor investments. We know that investments in specific technologies are usually bad policy because there is not adequate flexibility to accommodate technological development and market forces. We use these poorly conceived fragmented technology developments to argue that any energy policy we develop is doomed to failure. That keeps us in a position that encourages cheap fossil fuels relative to other forms of energy. We have even less well formed climate policy. Therefore we continue our march increasing fossil fuel emissions. I don’t think that the Keystone Pipeline is the moment that catalyzes energy policy or climate policy no matter the decision. Therefore, I expect the short-term trumps the long-term. Then the ultimate resolution will lie in set of court cases and we will churn along in our mess. It’s a decision that I am happy I don’t have to make.

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: 895 - 845

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

895. no1der
12:51 PM GMT on April 04, 2014
Where's that station? Those look like Antarctic Plateau temperatures. Hint: PIG is on the coast...
Reference required.
Quoting 892. iceagecoming:


Hmm? Tomorrow, Saturday 29/03/2014
Time Forecast Temp. Precipitation Wind
00:00%u201306:00 Cloudy -54 0 mm Moderate breeze, 9 m/s from south-southwestModerate breeze, 9 m/s from south-southwest
Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 535
894. yoboi
1:30 AM GMT on March 28, 2014
Quoting 879. schwankmoe:


Well, maybe this is just the old guy in me talking, but who gives a rip what an undergrad's twitter feed has to say about the state of scientific discussion? Who appointed a kid who hasn't even earned a bachelor's the emissary of climate comity?



They said the same thing about Mr. Franklin & Bell.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
893. FLwolverine
1:24 AM GMT on March 28, 2014
Quoting 892. iceagecoming:

[another weather forecast]o
Which proves ........what?

You have expressed contempt for many scientists and their work, but you quoted Richard Lindzen, so apparently you don't dismiss all scientists? Why do you think Lindzen is ok - other than that he agrees with you? Why is he right and all those climate scientists wrong?


BTW - Mods, Admin, somebody - could I get a ruling on whether or not iceagecoming us a troll? I don't want to get a ban for feeding him.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
892. iceagecoming
12:49 AM GMT on March 28, 2014
Quoting 826. ColoradoBob1:


The research team also found that the Pine Island Glacier is accelerating along its entire drainage system—up to 230 kilometers (155 miles) inland from where it meets the ocean.

"This paper is important in showing that a glacier can actually 'feel' what is happening far downstream of itself," said Thomas. "It means that if you disturb the ice sheet near the coast, the glaciers will feel the push and rapidly respond hundreds of kilometers inland."



Hmm? Tomorrow, Saturday 29/03/2014
Time Forecast Temp. Precipitation Wind
00:00–06:00 Cloudy -54° 0 mm Moderate breeze, 9 m/s from south-southwestModerate breeze, 9 m/s from south-southwest
06:00–12:00 Cloudy -54° 0 mm Moderate breeze, 8 m/s from southModerate breeze, 8 m/s from south
12:00–18:00 Cloudy -54° 0 mm Moderate breeze, 8 m/s from southModerate breeze, 8 m/s from south
18:00–00:00 Cloudy -54° 0 mm Moderate breeze, 6 m/s from southModerate breeze, 6 m/s from south
Sunday, 30/03/2014
Time Forecast Temp. Precipitation Wind
00:00–06:00 Cloudy -57° 0 mm Gentle breeze, 5 m/s from southGentle breeze, 5 m/s from south
06:00–12:00 Cloudy -56° 0 mm Gentle breeze, 5 m/s from south-southwestGentle breeze, 5 m/s from south-southwest
12:00–18:00 Cloudy -58° 0 mm Moderate breeze, 6 m/s from southwestModerate breeze, 6 m/s from southwest
18:00–00:00 Cloudy -57° 0 mm Moderate breeze, 7 m/s from southwestModerate breeze, 7 m/s from southwest
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1072
891. Birthmark
12:32 AM GMT on March 28, 2014
Quoting 890. iceagecoming:

No matter how you tell the lie, it is still a lie.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
890. iceagecoming
12:30 AM GMT on March 28, 2014
Quoting 889. Creideiki:


Let me use an analogy:

I'm from Chicago and am a Cubs fan. Every year, I root for the Cubs. The difference between your "team" and my "team" is that I can acknowledge when the Cubs just plain are bad at their job.

At least in that case, I have hope year after year that just maybe my team will stop being bad at their job.

By contrast, you're rooting for a team that gets routed every time they take the field, but you don't seem to realize that.


Facts:

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

Near term

Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.


Long term


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1072
889. Creideiki
11:49 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 874. iceagecoming:


I will take Varenholt, Hudson, and Gray. Over your team.


Let me use an analogy:

I'm from Chicago and am a Cubs fan. Every year, I root for the Cubs. The difference between your "team" and my "team" is that I can acknowledge when the Cubs just plain are bad at their job.

At least in that case, I have hope year after year that just maybe my team will stop being bad at their job.

By contrast, you're rooting for a team that gets routed every time they take the field, but you don't seem to realize that.
Member Since: July 10, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 166
888. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
10:25 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
887. JohnLonergan
10:15 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
From Greg Laden's Blog:

New Paper: On Forced Temperature Changes, Internal Variability and the AMO

Michael Mann, Byron Steinman, and Sonya Miller have just put out a new paper on climate change which addresses a number of key concerns. The paper is called “On Forced Temperature Changes, Internal Variability and the AMO.” Here’s the abstract:

We estimate the low-frequency internal variability of Northern Hemisphere (NH) mean temperature using observed temperature variations, which include both forced and internal variability components, and several alternative model simulations of the (natural + anthropogenic) forced component alone. We then generate an ensemble of alternative historical temperature histories based on the statistics of the estimated internal variability. Using this ensemble, we show, firstly, that recent NH mean temperatures fall within the range of expected multidecadal variability. Using the synthetic temperature histories, we also show that certain procedures used in past studies to estimate internal variability, and in particular, an internal multidecadal oscillation termed the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” or “AMO”, fail to isolate the true internal variability when it is a priori known. Such procedures yield an AMO signal with an inflated amplitude and biased phase, attributing some of the recent NH mean temperature rise to the AMO. The true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming. Claims of multidecadal “stadium wave” patterns of variation across multiple climate indices are also shown to likely be an artifact of this flawed procedure for isolating putative climate oscillations.

The key points of this paper, which I cribbed directly (with minor modifications) from Michael Mann’s Twitter stream, are:

Warming of the past decade, during which time some have claimed global warming to have experienced a “pause,” is within expected range given internal variability.

Certain common procedures fail to isolate internal variability in climate.

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) appears to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades.

“Stadium wave” patterns appear to be methodological artifacts of flawed assessment procedures.


So the pause is looking increasingly like a faux pause. The relationship between large scale decade-level variations in climate systems to long term warming is better understood. And, very interestingly, a previously proposed method of explaining the so-called “pause” was found wanting.

The “Stadium Wave” model found a signal in the data that appears to arise from the AMO and propagate across a number of climate subsystems and seemed to explain a pause in global warming, further suggesting that this pause may last until 2030 or so. When models were run by Mann et al that were explicitly designed to not include the necessary properties to develop a “stadium wave” they seemed to have this property anyway, which was further amplified by the procedure used to “detrend” (eliminate the long term effects of global climate change, leaving behind decade-level variation) were applied to the data. The “stadium wave” effect seems to have arisen initially from interaction of essentially random variables in the procedure and was then further accentuated by the detrending method. Putting it a slightly different way, the meaningful part of the long term climate signal, warming and other known factors, explains the climate signal best and the “stadium wave” is an artifact of an untried and untested method.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3352
886. Birthmark
10:00 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 881. luvtogolf:


Arrogance?? You guys have taken it to the next level and that is why there is so much bickering on here.

Yes, the bickering is the fault of the people defending science (on a science blog, no less) from lies, misrepresentation, irrelevancies, and all manner of silliness.

Logic. It's what's for supper!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
885. indianrivguy
9:53 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 858. Neapolitan:
Yes, it is! The only reason you alarmists can't see how cold it really is is because the cooling is being masked by all the current warming. But all that warming is sure to stop any minute now, a cessation caused by SC25, clouds, volcanic aerosols, the impact of a five-mile-wide asteroid, global thermonuclear war, a sudden increase in carbon uptake by plants, trillions of tiny reflective umbrellas placed into low earth orbit by an offshoot of HAARP, and an overabundance of wishful thinking. And once it stops, look out! Those mile-high ice sheets will soon crush us underfoot, and we, the disciples of Monckton and Watts and Goddard and Lawson, will receive the vindication we deserve.


How could you leave out those annoying chemtrails...they make me colder just looking at them. yer slippin' Jim. :)
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2564
884. schwankmoe
9:47 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 874. iceagecoming:


I will take Varenholt, Hudson, and Gray. Over your team.

Hansen



McKibben


ALgoron

etc


LOL, Hansen. what a chump, risking arrest and jail time over climate policy. sucker! he could just sit in front of his computer posting denialist stuff like a real man.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 680
883. schwankmoe
9:43 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 881. luvtogolf:


Arrogance?? You guys have taken it to the next level and that is why there is so much bickering on here.


yes, it's clearly everybody else's fault.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 680
882. FLwolverine
9:42 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 881. luvtogolf:


Arrogance?? You guys have taken it to the next level and that is why there is so much bickering on here.
Ah, the bickering was on Master's blog. Deniers usually don't stay around here long enough to bicker - they go running off to find more mis-information to post.

Edited to add: well, there are a couple of exceptions who drop in from time to time.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
881. luvtogolf
9:34 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 869. Naga5000:


I don't think Levi is a denier, I do take exception with his attitude. There is an arrogance there that rubs me the wrong way (I may be mistaken, but that is how I read it). I think he will be successful and a great scientist, but only if he gets over that.

One thing that may help is a review of his tone and writer's voice. These are very important when writing anything, but especially on the internet where inflection can only be gained in the way something is read aloud or in our heads.

I also think part of this argument started from a misunderstanding of what he was trying to say due to clarity. Most of us will pick apart arguments based on semantics here, and blog prestige will not get in the way.

:)





Arrogance?? You guys have taken it to the next level and that is why there is so much bickering on here.
Member Since: June 12, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1031
880. no1der
9:27 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Science, like any good toolbox, has a few rusty old wingnuts rattling around in the bottom drawer. Every now and then they might come in useful, but mostly they're just dead weight.
Quoting 874.


I will take Varenholt, Hudson, and Gray. Over your team.

Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 535
879. schwankmoe
9:20 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 868. Astrometeor:
@Xulonn

See, I'm just unsure of what Levi was trying to argue. It seems to me that he was trying to only argue that there was a "pause" in global surface temps over the last 15 years (which we know is a false representation of the data).

I don't think he's a denialist per se with AGW:



"Earth System Energy Budget"-Weird way to describe it, but I'll take it.

What would've really helped was if the personal bickering hadn't gone on. While I wouldn't call Levi a scientist (Pat did get that right), it still seemed kind of stickler of a point to even bring up.

Anyways, you can see that Levi got pretty upset with the discussion:

Levi Cowan ‏@TropicalTidbits 1h

Actually, scratch that. You can get beheaded even if you agree with a climate scientist. We've come so far, y'all.

Levi Cowan ‏@TropicalTidbits 1h

Wake me up when the "scientific community" is ready to discuss climate instead of beheading a person at the first sign of disagreement.

Levi's Twitter

So, yeah, best way to convince someone is to argue it in a cool-headed manner without either party getting upset. Clearly that didn't happen today.


Well, maybe this is just the old guy in me talking, but who gives a rip what an undergrad's twitter feed has to say about the state of scientific discussion? Who appointed a kid who hasn't even earned a bachelor's the emissary of climate comity?
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 680
878. FLwolverine
9:20 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
I was just looking back at the melee today, and started writing an analytical comment that would probably be removed anyway. So I will just say:

(1). Xulonn, Levi did respond to your comment, so you should check it out.

(2). [I'm even going to edit out a snarky but I think accurate observation]

(3) It has been very difficult for me - with most of my life behind me - to come to grips with the meaning and consequences of AGW. It must be orders of magnitude more difficult for a young man with his whole life and career ahead of him to realize that, in all probability, the future will be very different and in many ways much worse than he expected.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
877. Birthmark
8:55 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 876. CuriousAboutClimate:
deniers keep talking about this impending global cooling. but the damn earth just wont listen to them!

No, it's there...if you overlook the many, many shortcomings of the RSS data set you can find a very slight warming. It's not real, but why trouble about reality? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
876. CuriousAboutClimate
8:53 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
deniers keep talking about this impending global cooling. but the damn earth just wont listen to them!
Member Since: January 28, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 211
875. Birthmark
8:49 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 874. iceagecoming:


I will take Varenholt, Hudson, and Gray.

Obviously, they're arguing the politics you want to hear.

Most here prefer science.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
874. iceagecoming
8:39 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 858. Neapolitan:
Yes, it is! The only reason you alarmists can't see how cold it really is is because the cooling is being masked by all the current warming. But all that warming is sure to stop any minute now, a cessation caused by SC25, clouds, volcanic aerosols, the impact of a five-mile-wide asteroid, global thermonuclear war, a sudden increase in carbon uptake by plants, trillions of tiny reflective umbrellas placed into low earth orbit by an offshoot of HAARP, and an overabundance of wishful thinking. And once it stops, look out! Those mile-high ice sheets will soon crush us underfoot, and we, the disciples of Monckton and Watts and Goddard and Lawson, will receive the vindication we deserve.


I will take Varenholt, Hudson, and Gray. Over your team.

Hansen



McKibben


ALgoron

etc
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1072
873. JohnLonergan
8:19 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Citigroup says the ‘Age of Renewables’ has begun


In a major new analysis released this week, Citi says the big decision makers within the US power industry are focused on securing low cost power, fuel diversity and stable cash flows, and this is drawing them increasingly to the “economics” of solar and wind, and how they compare with other technologies.

Much of the mainstream media – in the US and abroad – has been swallowing the fossil fuel Kool-Aid and hailing the arrival of cheap gas, through the fracking boom, as a new energy “revolution”, as if this would be a permanent state of affairs. But as we wrote last week, solar costs continue to fall even as gas prices double.

Citi’s report echoes that conclusion. Gas prices, it notes, are rising and becoming more volatile. This has made wind and solar and other renewable energy sources more attractive because they are not sensitive to fuel price volatility.

Citi says solar is already becoming more attractive than gas-fired peaking plants, both from a cost and fuel diversity perspective. And in baseload generation, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydro are becoming more economically attractive than baseload gas.


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3352
872. Xulonn
7:57 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 868. Astrometeor:
@Xulonn
See, I'm just unsure of what Levi was trying to argue. It seems to me that he was trying to only argue that there was a "pause" in global surface temps over the last 15 years (which we know is a false representation of the data).
I don't think he's a denialist per se with AGW:
br
I have addressed Levi directly at Dr. Masters' blog, but he probably doesn't know me from Adam.

I see Levi as one of the brightest and best at Dr. Masters' blog. It's probably partly due to my grandfatherly instincts, and my grounding in a lifetime of science, that I just wish there was some way to get through to him.

However, if 2014 has a monster Arctic melt season and super El Nino (both decent possibilities according to the professional prognosticators), then some of the skeptics who have at least a bit of objectivity in their approach to the subject will probably realize that AGW/CC is real and a danger to human civilization.

Take a look at who plusses Levis defensive comments regarding his stand on AGW/CC. With a few exceptions, it's a who's who of the science-limited adamant denialists at the comments section of Dr. Masters blog. They see him as their hero for standing up to the "warmists."

OTOH, you are correct in that Levi seems to accept that there is some long-term warming, but dances around the details.

Levi, if you read this, please join us and discuss your stand on AGW/CC here at Dr. Rood's blog. I think I speak for the regulars here that if you come here in a non-defensive manner, we would be more than happy to debate the issue based on facts and science. In fact, we have at least one retired physicist who is a regular here who is quite knowledgeable, and who could speak to you in your own language. (It would likely not be the regulars here, but rather your denialist fan-club members who would follow you here and stir up the waters, tweak people, and turn the discussion into something nasty.)

I'm not looking to start a personal dispute, but rather facilitate a civil discussion about a very important topic. (If you want to wait until after graduation to get involved in this, I'll shut up until then and let you make it through your last undergrad classes and finals.)
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1462
871. barbamz
7:48 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Huh, a lot of mixed news about our German "Energiewende" (Energy Transition) lately, including a tete-a-tete between Chancellor Merkel and Canadian PM Harper today (see last news of the following selection; more about that are available in German news but the English ones are lagging behind a bit).

Solar energy now same price as conventional power in Germany, Italy, Spain - report
Published time: March 25, 2014 09:49
Edited time: March 26, 2014 12:07
Solar energy now costs the same as conventionally generated electricity in Germany, Italy and Spain, a report has revealed. The research has warned, however, that high installation costs are impeding other countries from achieving grid parity.
An analysis by consulting firm Eclareon, carried out on behalf of an international group of sustainable energy interests has revealed the extent to which solar energy has integrated into the energy market. Gone are the days when electricity produced through solar panels cost significantly more that conventionally-generated power, as Italy, Spain and Germany have reached energy parity.
However, the study’s analysts said that poor regulation in Spain could hinder further progress. Madrid recently introduced regulations that make it illegal for people to consume the electricity they produce through their own solar panels.
“In countries such as Italy and Germany, both at grid parity and with proper regulation, PV systems (photovoltaic system) for self-consumption represent a viable, cost-effective, and sustainable power generation alternative,” said David Pérez, partner at Eclareon in charge of the study. ...


German Energy Push Runs Into Problems
NYT, By MELISSA EDDYMARCH 19, 2014
BERLIN — It is Germany’s national goal: to have the bulk of its energy supplied by renewable power sources by 2050, without endangering the country’s powerful industrial sector or an export-based economy that is the envy of other Europeans.
This energy push, known as the Energiewende, or energy transformation, took on new urgency with the decision to speed up the phasing out of nuclear power after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
But the question of whether Germany can meet its 2050 goal has been hotly debated. And the issue has taken on added importance with the Russia-Ukraine crisis threatening Germany’s largest single source of natural gas. ...


Germany must scrap its green energy law, say experts
Reuters, By Madeline Chambers, BERLIN Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:12am EST
Feb 26 (Reuters) - A commission of experts appointed by the German parliament has recommended Chancellor Angela Merkel's government to abolish all subsidies for green energy, highlighting mounting opposition to plans to reform instead of scrap the system.
Economy and Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel is finalising much-disputed changes to the Renewable Energy Law (EEG) which includes reductions in subsidies for green energy before he presents it to cabinet in early April.
Shifting Europe's biggest economy to energy from the sun and wind and away from nuclear and fossil fuels is a top priority of Merkel's new right-left coalition government.
But the project, which offers some 20 billion euros in green subsidies a year and is paid for by electricity users, has been dogged by the competing interests of industry, a booming green sector and the country's 16 federal states.
The Commission for Research and Innovation (EFI) handed its report to Merkel on Wednesday.
It concluded that the system of feed-in-tariffs, under which green power producers are paid guaranteed, above-market prices to put electricity on the grid, is fundamentally flawed.
It is not a cost-efficient instrument for climate protection and is not producing a measurable effect on innovation, said the report, basing its view on patent filings. ...


Ukraine spotlights Germany’s nuclear power switch
By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, March 27, 6:32 PM
BERLIN — The crisis in Ukraine has added an extra dose of uncertainty to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s biggest domestic project: shifting the country from nuclear to renewable energy sources.
Merkel launched the drive to transition the country away from nuclear after Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster. Since then, the “Energiewende” — roughly, “energy turnaround” — has created increasing headaches.
Now, the tensions with Russia could complicate the plans further.
Germany, other European countries and the U.S. have slapped some sanctions on Moscow and threatened to impose more. The problem, however, is that Germany and several European economies depend heavily on Russian energy. Germany gets about a third of its natural gas and crude oil from Russia.
Merkel is still pushing ahead with the plan to shift away from nuclear energy. But if the situation with Russia escalates and Germany decides to try and reduce its reliance on Russian gas, there could be problems staying on track. ...


Canada could be Europe's alternative to Russian gas — but not any time soon
By: Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press, Thursday, Mar. 27, 2014 at 2:08 PM
CALGARY - With western sanctions threatening to tighten the taps on Russian energy exports, Canada could become an alternative supply source — but not any time soon.
The Conservative government has been pushing for Canada to expand its energy export reach by building new oil pipelines to coastal waters, as well as multibillion-dollar plants that would enable natural gas to be transported by tanker overseas in an ultra-chilled liquid form.
In Ottawa, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Thursday that the crisis in Ukraine is adding urgency to those efforts.
"I think, if anything, it underlines the importance of moving ahead responsibly on the export of not just our oil but natural gas," he said.
"And it's an important reminder that opportunities are not all exclusively south of the border or to the Asia-Pacific region but also to our traditional allies in Europe."
German chancellor Angela Merkel was asked about the possibility at a news conference in Berlin on Thursday, alongside Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Her enthusiasm for Canada as a potential energy provider was tempered by its current lack of export infrastructure.
Germany gets 35 per cent of its gas from Russia, she said, with the rest coming from Norway, the U.K. and elsewhere.
Baird noted that some countries, like the Baltic states, are fully reliant on Russian energy.
Exports of liquefied natural gas from Canadian shores are several years off. And, in any event, the vast majority of projects in the works would be pointed in the opposite direction — on the West Coast and aimed at growing Asian markets ravenous for energy. ...


Sorry for the long post everyone ;-)
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 55 Comments: 6028
870. goosegirl1
7:20 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 868. Astrometeor:
@Xulonn

See, I'm just unsure of what Levi was trying to argue. It seems to me that he was trying to only argue that there was a "pause" in global surface temps over the last 15 years (which we know is a false representation of the data).

I don't think he's a denialist per se with AGW:



"Earth System Energy Budget"-Weird way to describe it, but I'll take it.

What would've really helped was if the personal bickering hadn't gone on. While I wouldn't call Levi a scientist (Pat did get that right), it still seemed kind of stickler of a point to even bring up.

Anyways, you can see that Levi got pretty upset with the discussion:

Levi Cowan ‏@TropicalTidbits 1h

Actually, scratch that. You can get beheaded even if you agree with a climate scientist. We've come so far, y'all.

Levi Cowan ‏@TropicalTidbits 1h

Wake me up when the "scientific community" is ready to discuss climate instead of beheading a person at the first sign of disagreement.

Levi's Twitter

So, yeah, best way to convince someone is to argue it in a cool-headed manner without either party getting upset. Clearly that didn't happen today.


I didn't make it personal, but I did disagree when he said that excess heat in the oceans wouldn't matter until later, when it might come back to bite future generations. He still stepped out, and then evidently blasted "the scientific community" elsewhere. So cool-headed didn't work, and neither did a reasoned response. I think, since he is young, he let emotions carry him away and then accused others of being emotional. I am certainly not upset, and I doubt he read what I had to say as I'm merely a minor player. But perhaps his emotions colored his perception?

Now I sound like a Vulcan :)))
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1231
869. Naga5000
7:19 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 868. Astrometeor:
@Xulonn

See, I'm just unsure of what Levi was trying to argue. It seems to me that he was trying to only argue that there was a "pause" in global surface temps over the last 15 years (which we know is a false representation of the data).

I don't think he's a denialist per se with AGW:



"Earth System Energy Budget"-Weird way to describe it, but I'll take it.

What would've really helped was if the personal bickering hadn't gone on. While I wouldn't call Levi a scientist (Pat did get that right), it still seemed kind of stickler of a point to even bring up.

Anyways, you can see that Levi got pretty upset with the discussion:

Levi Cowan ‏@TropicalTidbits 1h

Actually, scratch that. You can get beheaded even if you agree with a climate scientist. We've come so far, y'all.

Levi Cowan ‏@TropicalTidbits 1h

Wake me up when the "scientific community" is ready to discuss climate instead of beheading a person at the first sign of disagreement.

Levi's Twitter

So, yeah, best way to convince someone is to argue it in a cool-headed manner without either party getting upset. Clearly that didn't happen today.


I don't think Levi is a denier, I do take exception with his attitude. There is an arrogance there that rubs me the wrong way (I may be mistaken, but that is how I read it). I think he will be successful and a great scientist, but only if he gets over that.

One thing that may help is a review of his tone and writer's voice. These are very important when writing anything, but especially on the internet where inflection can only be gained in the way something is read aloud or in our heads.

I also think part of this argument started from a misunderstanding of what he was trying to say due to clarity. Most of us will pick apart arguments based on semantics here, and blog prestige will not get in the way.

:)



Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3465
868. Astrometeor
7:08 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
@Xulonn

See, I'm just unsure of what Levi was trying to argue. It seems to me that he was trying to only argue that there was a "pause" in global surface temps over the last 15 years (which we know is a false representation of the data).

I don't think he's a denialist per se with AGW:

Quoting 178. Levi32:


Exactly what was incorrect about that? The warming of the globe on the decadal timescale defined as atmospheric temperature has stalled, while the overall Earth system energy budget remains positive (the oceans keep warming). Please confront the science instead of attacking me personally. I grow weary of it.


"Earth System Energy Budget"-Weird way to describe it, but I'll take it.

What would've really helped was if the personal bickering hadn't gone on. While I wouldn't call Levi a scientist (Pat did get that right), it still seemed kind of stickler of a point to even bring up.

Anyways, you can see that Levi got pretty upset with the discussion:

Levi Cowan ‏@TropicalTidbits 1h

Actually, scratch that. You can get beheaded even if you agree with a climate scientist. We've come so far, y'all.

Levi Cowan ‏@TropicalTidbits 1h

Wake me up when the "scientific community" is ready to discuss climate instead of beheading a person at the first sign of disagreement.

Levi's Twitter

So, yeah, best way to convince someone is to argue it in a cool-headed manner without either party getting upset. Clearly that didn't happen today.
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10334
867. Xulonn
6:58 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 866. Astrometeor:
Oh. My. God. Just looked through my first ever blog post that I wrote for WU. I think you guys (and girls) will enjoy paragraph 4: First Blog Entry Ever
Amazing how far I've come since, huh?
Indeed, Astro. The reality of AGW/CC is tough to accept, especially for conservatives. Two nights ago at a nice restaurant here in Boquete, Panama, I was seated at a "relocation tour" dinner next to three older Obama-hating conservative Texans. They all believe that AGW/CC is a hoax designed to raise taxes. I didn't even try to argue with them.

It would be great if we could help get Levi past his confirmation bias, which I've commented on in Dr. Masters blog. It will be very interesting to see what happens to his denialist fan-club at the Masters blog if he does his research, and like you, recognizes the reality of AGW/CC and its implications.

I challenge you and your peers to work on him to get him to see the science without triggering his very strong defense mechanisms.

Having Levi join forces with you and the other the YOUNG AGW/CC realists on Dr. Masters blog would be a significant step.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1462
866. Astrometeor
6:39 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Oh. My. God. Just looked through my first ever blog post that I wrote for WU. I think you guys (and girls) will enjoy paragraph 4: First Blog Entry Ever
Amazing how far I've come since, huh?
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 101 Comments: 10334
865. FLwolverine
6:33 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 861. Xandra:
From EcoWatch:

How Scientists Are Moving Climate Change Conversation Forward

Michael Mann | March 27, 2014

..............And this latest report shows us that the contrarian “wait and see” is not a prudent course of action, and that we don’t have time to work out exactly how much more dangerous and destructive certain types of extreme events (heat waves, prolonged drought, and superstorms) are being made by our escalating CO2 emissions. You don’t wait to see if the fire will spread through the whole building to attempt to extinguish the flame. You don’t wait until after you get into a car accident to buy insurance. And you don’t wait until you’re critically ill to go to the doctor. So why would you wait for increasingly damaging climate changes to start reducing emissions?

Which brings us to the point: we need to get serious about dealing with this crisis or we risk increasingly damaging and potentially irreversible climate change impacts. .............

Since we know that climate change poses a real threat to us, what are we going to do about it? Do we want to be a leader in the transition to a clean energy economy, much as it was a leader in fossil fuel energy revolution of the 1800s? Or do we want to take the “wait and see” approach, knowing that doing so not only risks our climate, but also our country’s economic position in the race to a future powered by clean energy? It really is that stark a decision that we face. Let’s make the right choice.
Thank you for posting this, Xandra. There were so many parts I wanted to highlight!

The AAAS site What We Know is worth looking at. It would be interesting and useful if the skeptics and deniers who frequent this blog (including those who say "GW is happening but it want be as bad as you all say") would go through that site in good faith and then tell us what parts they still have trouble accepting and why. It could be a good learning experience for all of us.

Any takers?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2383
864. Kethern
5:36 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 842. iceagecoming:
SSE scraps £20bn offshore wind farm plan and questions viability of sector
Energy giant withdraws from a series of planned wind farms, saying that limited subsidies and high costs are major hurdles for offshore wind farms.

By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor9:00PM GMT 26 Mar 2014

Link




From the same article:

But energy secretary Ed Davey told the Telegraph: “If SSE are moaning, ‘our project won’t go ahead because of the levy control framework and costs’, do I care? No. Are we going to hit our offshore wind targets? Yes. Are we the best place to invest in the world? Yes.”

He said that Government had “more offshore wind projects than we will be able to support” and would not provide a “blank cheque” to the industry. “If SSE are not competitive, their projects don’t go ahead. The ones that are able to build at a lower rate will go ahead.”
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
863. Patrap
5:18 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
A 15-second NASA time-lapse video shows the steady and rapid warming of the planet since the middle of the twentieth century, with regions in the Arctic and Siberia warming as much as two to four degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7. 2 degrees Fahrenheit) above a long-term average:


This visualization shows how global temperatures have risen from 1950 through the end of 2013.

The animation begins in 1950, but the intensity of the yellow, orange and red colors shows how much temperatures have increased compared to baseline temperature data collected from 1880 to the present.

NASA said that nine of the planet’s 10 warmest years have occurred since 2000, and worldwide surface temperatures continued to rise in 2013, according to satellite and meteorological data.

Since 1880, when atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) were 285 parts per million (ppm), the average global temperature has risen 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit; atmospheric CO2 concentrations crossed a milestone of 400 ppm last year.

“Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change,” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt said.

Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 128667
862. Pipejazz
4:37 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Link The World Health Organization estimates that more than 7 million people died in 2012 due to air pollution, making it the number-one environmental risk on the planet.

Another nail in our collective coffins.
Member Since: September 2, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 178
861. Xandra
4:16 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
From EcoWatch:

How Scientists Are Moving Climate Change Conversation Forward

Michael Mann | March 27, 2014

Last January, I wrote an op-ed for the New York Times—If You See Something, Say Something—about my feelings of duty as a climate scientist to engage with the public. I hoped it would help other scientists feel more comfortable speaking out to the public about the dangers of a world warmed by human emissions.

Little did I know that exactly two months later, the largest scientific organization in the world and publisher of the leading academic journal Science would launch an initiative aimed at doing just that—move the conversation forward by telling Americans “What We Know.” It boils down to three main points—97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is here and now, that this means we risk abrupt and irreversible changes to the climate, and the sooner we act, the lower the costs and risks we face.

The focus of this initiative of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is to help Americans understand climate change, but also to inform us of some of the less probable but more painful risks we face by our continued inaction. By consulting with economists, the report was able to address the fact that the sooner we take action, the lower the cost and the less risk we face.

That last point is one that warrants a little unpacking. While climate contrarians have suggested for the past few decades that we take a “wait and see” approach, legitimate scientists work hard to tease out the influence of climate change on the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events.

This detective work of pinning down exact contributions of humans is known as attribution, as in “exactly how much climate change can we attribute to humans?” Originally this question was very important, as its answer determined if mankind was responsible for warming. Thanks to decades of research, we know that humans are to blame with the same certainty that smoking and cancer are linked. Attribution studies continue though, as some scientists seek to pin down attribution of specific extreme weather events. The thinking, I suppose, is that only if we can say a particular event was 100 percent caused by climate change, can we meaningfully talk about the impact that climate change is having on extreme events. I am unconvinced, however, that this is an especially useful way of looking at how climate change is impacting weather extremes. It is a bit like trying to prove that a particular home run hit by a baseball player on steroids was due to the steroids. It’s asking the wrong question.

And this latest report shows us that the contrarian “wait and see” is not a prudent course of action, and that we don’t have time to work out exactly how much more dangerous and destructive certain types of extreme events (heat waves, prolonged drought, and superstorms) are being made by our escalating CO2 emissions. You don’t wait to see if the fire will spread through the whole building to attempt to extinguish the flame. You don’t wait until after you get into a car accident to buy insurance. And you don’t wait until you’re critically ill to go to the doctor. So why would you wait for increasingly damaging climate changes to start reducing emissions?

Which brings us to the point: we need to get serious about dealing with this crisis or we risk increasingly damaging and potentially irreversible climate change impacts. The excessive equivocation all too characteristic of scientific discourse (the phenomenon that Naomi Oreskes refers to as “erring on the side of least drama”), is often inappropriately leveraged as a justification for inaction by those opposed to reducing fossil fuel usage. Nuanced language is standard and necessary in academia, but just doesn’t translate when talking to the public. As I state in the epilogue of my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars:

Despite the battle scars I’ve suffered from having served on the front lines in the climate wars—and they are numerous—I remain convinced that there is nothing more noble than striving to communicate, in terms that are simultaneously accurate and accessible, the societal implications of our scientific knowledge.

So because my “see something say something” advice seems to have been heeded, let me try on a new meme: If you know it, show it. As scientists, we need to stop dancing around the point and use plain English in describing what we do know. Rather than confusing the public with obscure and often misleading science-speak, we must explain, in plain terms, the nature of what we do know: That we face great peril if we do nothing to avert the climate change crisis.

Any sober assessment of the problem demonstrates that the costs of inaction will greatly outweigh the cost of action, and the sooner we start, the easier it will be to transition to a clean energy economy. Precisely what policy measures we should pursue to encourage that transition is a worthy matter of debate. But we cannot, and should not, continue to pretend that inaction is a viable strategy.

Since we know that climate change poses a real threat to us, what are we going to do about it? Do we want to be a leader in the transition to a clean energy economy, much as it was a leader in fossil fuel energy revolution of the 1800s? Or do we want to take the “wait and see” approach, knowing that doing so not only risks our climate, but also our country’s economic position in the race to a future powered by clean energy? It really is that stark a decision that we face. Let’s make the right choice.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
860. JohnLonergan
3:36 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 858. Neapolitan:
Yes, it is! The only reason you alarmists can't see how cold it really is is because the cooling is being masked by all the current warming. But all that warming is sure to stop any minute now, a cessation caused by SC25, clouds, volcanic aerosols, the impact of a five-mile-wide asteroid, global thermonuclear war, a sudden increase in carbon uptake by plants, trillions of tiny reflective umbrellas placed into low earth orbit by an offshoot of HAARP, and an overabundance of wishful thinking. And once it stops, look out! Those mile-high ice sheets will soon crush us underfoot, and we, the disciples of Monckton and Watts and Goddard and Lawson, will receive the vindication we deserve.




That's the best thing I've read since Dr. Inferno retired.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3352
859. schwankmoe
3:33 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 858. Neapolitan:
Yes, it is! The only reason you alarmists can't see how cold it really is is because the cooling is being masked by all the current warming. But all that warming is sure to stop any minute now, a cessation caused by SC25, clouds, volcanic aerosols, the impact of a five-mile-wide asteroid, global thermonuclear war, a sudden increase in carbon uptake by plants, trillions of tiny reflective umbrellas placed into low earth orbit by an offshoot of HAARP, and an overabundance of wishful thinking. And once it stops, look out! Those mile-high ice sheets will soon crush us underfoot, and we, the disciples of Monckton and Watts and Goddard and Lawson, will receive the vindication we deserve.


you alarmists will be the first ones up against the glacier when the ice age finally comes.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 680
858. Neapolitan
3:24 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 855. schwankmoe:


my god, the ice age really is coming!
Yes, it is! The only reason you alarmists can't see how cold it really is is because the cooling is being masked by all the current warming. But all that warming is sure to stop any minute now, a cessation caused by SC25, clouds, volcanic aerosols, the impact of a five-mile-wide asteroid, global thermonuclear war, a sudden increase in carbon uptake by plants, trillions of tiny reflective umbrellas placed into low earth orbit by an offshoot of HAARP, and an overabundance of wishful thinking. And once it stops, look out! Those mile-high ice sheets will soon crush us underfoot, and we, the disciples of Monckton and Watts and Goddard and Lawson, will receive the vindication we deserve.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
857. AlwaysThinkin
3:00 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 839. yoboi:
Here is a follow up on the story I posted a couple of days ago. I went an attended this meeting. I have a lot of respect for this guy.






Retired Lt. Gen. Russel L. Honore said he will demand a public meeting with Sasol and the state Department of Environmental Quality on behalf of Mossville residents.

“A public meeting is a good idea,” Honore told the American Press after a 45-minute presentation to a group of residents and environmental activists Tuesday morning at L’Auberge. “I’ll be contacting DEQ in the next couple of weeks. I’ll demand it.”

Throughout his presentation, Honore stressed the importance of having 21st-century air and water monitoring technology installed at Sasol’s plant. The monitoring, he said, would be done by DEQ and EPA officials so that Sasol executives would be unable to “self-report” their plant’s emissions to state and federal authorities.

Honore said he and a group of environmental activists known as the Green Army plan to submit a bill to the state Legislature that would declare Westlake “a hot zone,” a military designation he uses that would bring areawide health monitoring to the city.

More than once Honore described Sasol as “a foreign company” from South Africa. He said the company’s executives are “big-time oligarchs” who live “in their mansions around the world.”

“You think they’re going to come to Lake Charles?” Honore said. “I want to talk to that CEO, and I want to know what his address is in Mossville. This takes us in Louisiana back 200 years. At least in the days of slavery the damn plantation owner lived on the damn plantation.”

Honore said that while Sasol’s expansion will create thousands of jobs residents need to consider how they can be held “in a safe place.” He cited China as an example of a country that put job creation above everything.

“There are groups over in China telling (the people) to stay inside,” said. “They’ve almost destroyed their drinking water. The idea is if the terrorists came and told you they would give you jobs, would you let them set up camp, if it’s all about jobs? It comes back to that old lesson we all learned in high school: Do the ends justify the means that justify the ends?”

Honore said government officials, particularly the EPA and DEQ, are not protecting the people.

“We give up our freedom when we allow our government because of donations from these companies to our politicians to create laws that allow them to self-regulate,” he said. “We don’t need to be stuck on stupid in Louisiana. We need to hold these people accountable.”

Michael Thomas, Sasol’s vice president of U.S. operations, said that if a public meeting is held, Sasol will participate.

“We’ve already had two very-well attended open houses where people came to learn about our projects,” he added. “We had one-on-one conversations. We had another public meeting with out wetlands permit where, again, there was two-way diologue and questions were asked and answered. Frankly, it’s starts to get where we’ve had several opportunities to have these types of interactions. If another one is required, we will certainly participate.”

Link


General Honore deserves a lot of respect for the fact that he's working hard to protect the people of his homestate when his career would allow him to move somewhere else and make big piles of cash simply shilling for defense contractors. Glad to hear he's fighting the good fight!
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
856. schwankmoe
2:59 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 849. yoboi:



Thanks for posting that. If you take a closer look global water for the most part is at average and below average......Maybe weather/climate just happens in cycles......


maybe AIDS 'just happens' and HIV has nothing to do with it.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 680
855. schwankmoe
2:56 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 841. iceagecoming:


Speaking of birds, haven't seen any Canadian Geese, no open water in the lakes and ponds, Hmmm?

Deniers of empirical evidence.





Maple season off to slow start due to cold
Posted: Mar 03, 2014 9:09 AM EST
Updated: Mar 10, 2014 9:11 AM EDT


ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Maple producers across New York are planning open houses the last two weekends in March, but so far the season is off to a slow start because of frigid weather.

The best weather for sap is daytime temperatures in the low 40s and nighttime lows in the 20s. This winter has been so cold that many producers say they haven't been able to get any sap yet.

Dawn Boyes of Justus Asthalter Maple Syrup in the Sullivan County town of Parksville tells the Times Herald-Record that everything's frozen up. Usually, she said, they would have been boiling syrup quite a few times by now.

Matt Costa of Grahamsville in Sullivan County says he's also several weeks behind on when he'd normally start making syrup.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/24868800/maple- season-off-to-slow-start-due-to-cold

Link


Wonder why I can't find any liberal news stories on this topic, hmmm, wouldn't want to expose any conflict with AGW, now would we?


Highgate, VT set a record low temperature of 5 for Mar 27
Washington, NC set a record low temperature of 24 for Mar 27






Coldest Winter in USA in 102 Years
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 7:36

0
(Before It's News)
This is what the death of the global warming hoax looks like:

The graphic indicates that October through March saw the coldest weather in the USA in over a century, based on temperatures obtained from all 1,221 stations of the Historical Climate Network. These stations are maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — that is, by the very federal government that wants us to give up our freedom and our standard of living so as to prevent it from being too hot out.
There are people so devoted to left-wing ideology that they will be able to convince themselves that cold weather is now caused by warm weather, which in turn is caused by insufficient taxation and regulation. But not enough to keep the hoax alive.
Via Real Science, on a tip from Bodhisattva.



my god, the ice age really is coming!
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 680
854. no1der
2:54 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Look! it's an old-school denialist!!
Would someone please call the Museum while I get the net?
Quoting 841. 


Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 535
853. CuriousAboutClimate
2:50 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
btw yoboi, according to NOAA, global ocean temperatures from December to February are 0.45 C above the 20th century average. In other words not average "for the most part" and absolutely, unequivocally not "below average". do you have no shame for the lies you spew?
Member Since: January 28, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 211
852. CuriousAboutClimate
2:42 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 849. yoboi:



Thanks for posting that. If you take a closer look global water for the most part is at average and below average......Maybe weather/climate just happens in cycles......


that is very much NOT true, yoboi

Link
Member Since: January 28, 2014 Posts: 0 Comments: 211
851. Physicistretired
2:20 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Thanks, Daisyworld!

Years Of Living Dangerously preview here:



----

Edit: and Neo!

Member Since: December 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 230
850. Neapolitan
2:19 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 847. Daisyworld:


To embed YouTube videos: Go to the YouTube site where the video is, click on "Share" next to the Like/Dislike buttons, click "Embed" below that (other selection is "Email"). There's a text box that shows up below that with HTML code in it and three radio buttons. Choose the "Use Old Embed Code" selection, and I usually de-select "Show suggested videos". You can also choose the size of the video from the top down menu. Once you've selected all your parameters, cut/past the code in the text box into your comment.
There are times where the option to "Use old embed code" isn't available; for those cases, I developed a little utility (http://iwantsomeproof.com/youtubeoldembedcoderize r.asp) to convert the format for you. Just paste the new embed code into the top box, click the red button, copy/cut the code from the bottom box, and paste that in its entirety into a WU comment.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555
849. yoboi
2:19 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 844. Neapolitan:
Oh, the poor dears seem to have forgotten what the 'G' in 'GW' stands for, and now they're making fools of themselves yet again.

Pity.

Speaking of, here's a snapshot of yesterday's global temperature anomalies:


cpc

Notice the blue/purple bruise over eastern North America. Notice how small that 'bruise' is in relation to both the Northern Hemisphere and the planet as a whole. Notice nearly every bit of the world outside of eastern North America is average (white) or warm (yellow/green). And it's been pretty much the same story all winter. Yet the ignorati insist on mewling on about how it's "cold" and how The Evil Government wants "...us to give up our freedom and our standard of living so as to prevent it from being too hot out."

At this point, one has to wonder whether it's strictly ideological, or if there's something more disturbingly psychological at work...



Thanks for posting that. If you take a closer look global water for the most part is at average and below average......Maybe weather/climate just happens in cycles......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
848. yonzabam
2:05 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
testing



Edit: can't believe it worked. There's usually some glitch or other. I thought the C&P would have to be pasted into the 'link' or 'image' boxes, so took me several tries to do it.

I'll probably get a ban, now, for being off topic.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2929
847. Daisyworld
1:53 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 846. Physicistretired:
Heads up: Showtime's new series, Years of Living Dangerously (James Cameron on human-caused climate change) premiers on April 13th.

Preview here.

On a side note, can someone show me how to embed a video? Thanks.


Good video find as well.

To embed YouTube videos: Go to the YouTube site where the video is, click on "Share" next to the Like/Dislike buttons, click "Embed" below that (other selection is "Email"). There's a text box that shows up below that with HTML code in it and three radio buttons. Choose the "Use Old Embed Code" selection, and I usually de-select "Show suggested videos". You can also choose the size of the video from the top down menu. Once you've selected all your parameters, cut/past the code in the text box into your comment.

Like so:
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 857
846. Physicistretired
1:45 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Heads up: Showtime's new series, Years of Living Dangerously (James Cameron on human-caused climate change) premiers on April 13th.

Preview here.

On a side note, can someone show me how to embed a video? Thanks.
Member Since: December 21, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 230
845. Neapolitan
1:26 PM GMT on March 27, 2014
Quoting 840. JohnLonergan:
More on the denialist reaction to Lawrence Torcello's article from Ingeniuos Persuits:

And then there's hypocrisy




I have been rather slow to catch up on this but since it seems to be going exponential, perhaps it is time for me to weigh in. So, get ready, Willard, here's next week's quote of the week (modesty set aside for the moment). If you've got your intelligent hat on, you might be able to find it.

A bit of background. Lawrence Torcello, the sort of person that Willard is likely to be envious of, wrote an article at The Conversation with the title "Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?" Since just about every climate change denier won't have read beyond the title, they won't know that the answer is "perhaps, maybe, not sure". Torcello is far too brainy to be so dogmatic. ...

...I began thinking about this post when I read Monckton's drivel. I firmed my decision when I read AndThenThere'sPhysics post entitled Climateball(TM). It is further evidence of the hollow nature of climate change deniers. Anders has tried to be as fair and as polite to all sides as possible. I don't know the blogger but I have detected a growing weariness that, no matter how polite, how fair, how honest and how patient, arguing with a denier is the equivalent of nailing a jelly to a wall. You end up with a mess, a stain on the wall to remind you, lots of holes and nothing achieved. The reason is simple. Deniers don't want to know the truth. They are not interested in the truth. They just want you to know that not only are they ignorant, but loudly and persistently ignorant. After all, they, like me, could just read the truth. It is out there.
Read More ...
Excellent. I really like that close, repeated here:

"[N]o matter how polite, how fair, how honest and how patient, arguing with a denier is the equivalent of nailing a jelly to a wall. You end up with a mess, a stain on the wall to remind you, lots of holes and nothing achieved. The reason is simple. Deniers don't want to know the truth. They are not interested in the truth. They just want you to know that not only are they ignorant, but loudly and persistently ignorant. After all, they, like me, could just read the truth. It is out there."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13555

Viewing: 895 - 845

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog 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.