WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Happy Birthday, Kyoto

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 3:34 AM GMT on February 20, 2006

Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect on February 16, 2005. The world's industrialized countries that signed the Protocol are legally obligated to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 by a total of 5.2% (compared to 1990 emissions) by 2012. The U.S. and Australia did not participate, and developing countries were not asked to. About 50% of world's emissions of greenhouse gases come from Kyoto nations, so if the treaty were successful, global emissions would fall by about 2.6%.

How are the signatory nations doing so far?
Not very well, according to both critics and supporters. It seems unlikely that Kyoto's goal will be met by 2012. For example, the European Environment Agency warned in November that the European Union was likely to cut its emission by only 2.5% by 2012, not the 8% they promised under the Kyoto Protocol. It now appears that the only EU members that might meet their targeted reductions are Sweden and the UK.

Below I've tablulated recent estimates (usually from 2003 or 2004) of how the various countries are doing, percentagewise, in terms of slashing their emissions compared to the 1990 benchmark.

Greenhouse gas emission increases, by nation, since 1990

EU countries (15% of world's total emissions)
------------------------------------------------- -----------
Germany -18%
Britain -13%
Luxembourg -11%
Sweden -2%
France -2%
Belgium +1%
Netherlands +1%
Denmark +6%
Italy +12%
Austria +17%
Finland +21%
Greece +23%
Ireland +25%
Portugal +37%
Spain +41%

Other Kyoto protocol countries:
-----------------------------------------
Russia -35% (6% of world's total emissions)
Japan +19% (5% of world's total emissions)
Canada +24% (2% of world's total emissions)
Czech Republic -23%
Estonia -51%
Hungary -31%
Latvia -58%
Lithuania -66%
Poland -32%
Slovakia -28%
Slovenia -3%

Non-signatory countries
---------------------------------
U.S. +16% (25% of world's total emissions)
India +80% (5% of world's total emissions)
China +46% (15% of world's total emissions)
Australia +31% (2% of world's total emissions)

Britain, Germany, and the former Soviet bloc countries have made big reductions. However, their cuts have had litte to do with Kyoto. Germany and some Soviet bloc countries got big one-time savings by closing inefficient coal-fired plants in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Economic hard times have also contributed to the emissions reductions in some of these countries. In the UK, electric utilities in the 1990s shifted from burning coal, which has high CO2 emissions, to cleaner-burning natural gas. Now that the price of natural gas has risen relative to coal, more UK utilities are burning coal. CO2 emissions are increasing once more, and were up over 1% in 2004 compared to 2003. The UK was slated to make a 12% cut in emissions under the Kyoto pact, and the government announced last week that this was unlikely to happen.

What can countries who are failing to meet Kyoto targets do?
Under the U.N.'s "clean development mechanism," developed countries are allowed to exceed their emissions allowance by investing in emissions projects in less-developed nations, trading the emission reduction abroad for emissions output at home. It is likely that many nations will resort to this trick in the coming years in order to meet the Kyoto requirements.

What happens if a country misses its Kyoto Protocol target in 2012?
Then they have to pay back at a penalty rate (130%) in the years after 2012, when there will presumably be a new agreement for the 2013-2018 period. Negotiations to hammer out a successor agreement are set to begin in May 2006 in Bonn, Germany. It is possible that countries that are failing to meet their Kyoto Protocol targets for 2012 will choose not to sign successor agreement, to avoid the penalty. Also, any nation that signed the Kyoto Protocol is allowed to drop out after three years--on February 16, 2008. Some nations may take this route to avoid the penalty.

Is Kyoto having a significant impact?
The Kyoto Protocol's target of a 5.2% reduction in emissions is tiny compared to what is needed in order to prevent substantial warming. Critics say this proves the worthlessness of the treaty, while supporters say it is a neccesary first step. In order to achieve a maximum 2�C temperature rise, some studies project global CO2 cuts of 50% by 2050 are required. Industrialized countries would have to cut their CO2 emissions by 80%. Considering that the world's nations that are trying to reduce emissions via the Kyoto Protocol are unlikely to meet even a 5% reduction, it looks pretty likely that we'll be seeing a much warmer world by the end of the century.

Is there hope for avoiding a major warming this century?
There is a large amount of uncertainty in both the social and scientific aspects of climate change that leave some hope that we will avoid warming the Earth by 2�C this century. I've composed a list of five possible scenarios that might cause this, and ordered them from most likely to least likely:

Dr. Jeff Masters' top five list of 21st Century scenarios that might keep us from warming 2�C this century:

1) A dramatic climate change disaster or potential disaster will suddenly unfold, spurring the nations of the world to cut emissions drastically (similar to what the emergence of the Antarctic Ozone Hole did for regulating CFCs).

2) We luck out, and climate change turns out to be at the cool end of the scientific uncertainty estimates.

3) The global economy will crash due to war, natural disaster, climate change, or other causes, bringing drastically reduced emissions.

4) A revolutionary low-cost energy technology will emerge to replace fossil fuels.

5) Aliens will land and give us their non-polluting, limitless energy technology.

I'm hoping for scenario #4 or #5, but I think there is a significant chance scenario #1 will happen in the period 15 to 50 years from now. We may well be pushing the climate system too hard and in too many ways to avoid triggering a climate shift that will cause big trouble for a lot of people. I'll expand on the possibilities in future blogs this month.

Next blog (probably on Wednesday): A possible candidate for scenario #1: the bad news from Greenland reported last Friday in Science magazine.

Jeff Masters
Cloud or flying saucer
Cloud or flying saucer
Incoming Aliens
Incoming Aliens

Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments


Why not just have the oil and coal producing countries all cut their production by 5%? Seems a lot easier...

Sounds easy Cali...but would you like to ask all the developed and developing countries to cut production, or ask the businesses that actually do the producing? Even if you did ask, I'm sure you'd nothing but laughter. They aren't going to cut production just like most Americans wont give up thier cars.

If we want to "stop" global warming, we need a fundamental change in thinking; atleast here in America. Well, at least how to "stop" global warming according to human induced global warming enthusiasts.
I think the best way to lower CO2 levels is option 4. There are already alternatives like Hydrogen, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. What is missing is the technology to produce enough energy from alternatives at a cost equal or less than burning oil, coal or natural gas. We were able to place a man on the moon in under 10 years, I am sure we could tackle this challenge as well.

Of course, part (possibly a significant part) of global warming is due to increasing solar output and I don't think we can do anything about that.
Thanks Dr. Masters for the update. I think you will see in the next 5 years, the USA joining the Kyoto Treaty.

Giants in 06
#6 the world gradually warms up.

People move to Canada. Other's settle in Antarctica.
I sell my house in Florida before it's too late.
Posted By: HurricaneMyles at 4:27 AM GMT on February 20, 2006.

Sounds easy Cali...but would you like to ask all the developed and developing countries to cut production, or ask the businesses that actually do the producing?


It IS EASY, HurricaneMyles.

You would ask the countries, just like now. The companies would have to comply with the laws of those countries, just like they already do.

Oil producing countries should love the idea - it would probably double the price of oil and they would make more $$$ for pumping less oil. They would sign up in a minute.

Your gas prices at the pump would double and you would quit driving so much. Same with home heating costs - you would wear more clothing indoors and keep fewer rooms heated in large homes.

The emissions cuts would be instant and real, and would happen across the globe in every country. No waiting until year twenty-xx to get results.

I propose the possibilty which is no less reasonable that the current warming and the relatively insignificant warming that will most likely continue throughout this century, will be the result of Natural climate variability and not a direct result of human released greenhouse gas emissions.

Another possible cause that is as logical as some of the suggetions put forth thus far(with all due respect), would be that the recent global warming is directly related to all the hot air coming from those like Dr. Hansen who keep spouting this unsubstainted propaganda.

The reason I don't care to spend so much of my time debating this issue(like some such as snowboy implies I should instead of my simple monologues:)is that there is no legitimate analysis that proves that the human race is in so much trouble as these alarmists would have us think.

Like Califonia has so well articulated on many occasions, a little warming may not be such a bad thing and is more likely the direct result of natural climate variability which no one in the scientific community can ignore, is just as much the reason for the increase in global temperatures whether they chose to admit it or not.

How can one take the worse case scenarios seriously, when the computer modeling that is used to make these claims is flawed and not based on real life scenarios of reasonal rates of greenhouse gas emissions that will actually be released into the atmosphere.

Based foremost on such erroneous and widespread deciminated opinions that have no substantiated proof accompanying these extreme predictions, the general public will continue to blame every new majorly hyped snow storm like the recent one on global warming.

Moreover, the same will be true for any future big hurricane landfalls which most likely would've occurred had the industrial revolution not materialized.

This debate is so distorted by perceptions or should I say misconceptions that play on peoples fears with all the what if it were true excuses, because the evidence alone can't support the argument.

I will once again state unequivacolly that I support wholehertedly the use of and research for alternative sources of energy, but not because of any preconceived dire scenarios related to global warming.

I support their use because we are being held hostage by foriegn countries who can manipulate our policies based on our overwhelming depence on their oil.

In short, we may agree on many of the proposed solutions(certainly not the Kyoto protocal)but we will simply have to agree to disagree as to the legitimacy of the perceived problem as it is related to human causes.

This debate will be never ending because it is based solely on ones interpreation of the evidence regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

The ONLY thing that is conclusive is that the Earth has indeed warmed.

This begs the question, how can anyone state unequivacolly that the Earth would not have been just as warm without the release of our greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer to that question is a perfect example as to why it is simply based on ones interpretation of the direct cause of the warming.

I suggest that we will never know the answer to the true cause, during any of our lifetimes regardless of how many articles and blogs are written on this issue.

It is ironic how people say that they have a problem with others stating their opinions as fact so to speak, when anyones argument that global warming is directly attributed to human causes is nothing more than conjecture and speculation no matter how fervently it is presented.

In other words, I personally believe that Natural climate variability is the direct cause of the current global warming and will conceede that it most likely has been minimally affected by human causes.

I hope everyone is having a great night and taking advantage of the human induced warming coming from their thermastats.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Hey Califonia,

May I ask you as to what you personally believe is the direct cause of the recent global warming?

Just for the record everyone, I don't offer many suggestions to the perceived problem because I personally don't think one truly exists.

Therefore, it is unfair for anyone to suggest that I don't care about all the possible worse case scenarios, for if I did agree to that premise, then I naturally would desire to see solutions to that problem.

Only my personal opinion and nothing more, but I believe we have plenty of time to act in the future if there were to be truth in the other argument.

Naturally, many will disagree that we don't have any time to wait, but time will tell and if I happened to be correct, no one will remember nor really care.

That pretty much sums up my perspective on this so very divisive issue.

I guess we might as well begin discussing Abortion next (lol).

Your friend,
Tony


California,

I never said it would be hard to implement, or that some people wouldnt profit, or that it wouldnt cause people to conserve. What I did say was that it would be hard to get implemented because not many people want to take the steps needed to reduce fossil fuel use.
Hey everyone,

Just for the record, we agree on the need to reduce our dependence on the use of fossil fuels and find better sources of alternative energy.

Thanks,
Tony
Is Global Warming a natural cycle or manmade?

There is a known relationship between sunspot cycles and Solar radiation see link below). The sun has been increasing its output over the past couple of hundred years or so and likely has caused a good portion of the observed global warming (perhaps as much as 1/2 to 2/3) but human activity is likely adding to the problem.

There is little doubt that the level of CO2 has been increasing rapidly and that is the result of burning hydrocarbons. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which adds to the warming of the planet. The arguments are mostly about how much does the increasing CO2 contribute.

The issue is now about what can we do about it. Even if we cut our burning of hydrocarbons, there still will likely be global warming due to increasing solar radiation.

We can think seriously about alternatives to oil such as clean burning hydrogen and increasing nuclear energy if we want to eliminate the burning of hydrocarbons. The problem is that even at $65/bbl, oil is still cheaper than most alternative fuels. Only when the cost of alternatives fall in-line with oil will there be any real change.

Solar - Global Warming link

Increasig Solar radiation and sunspots

CO2 link
Excellent photos of lenticular clouds Dr. Masters.

The aliens are going to solve the earths problem. New food option on the galactic McDonalds menu. Exta value meal #9 Human with a side of fries and a drink.











Posted By: HurricaneMyles at 5:29 AM GMT on February 20, 2006.

What I did say was that it would be hard to get implemented because not many people want to take the steps needed to reduce fossil fuel use.


That's why you target PRODUCTION. Users would have no choice. Prices would go up and driving would go down until the two reached a balance point.

There's really no implementation required. The producing countries cut production and people have to live with it. If they don't like it, they must go to alternative energy sources.

Because Kyoto fails to address production (and other issues), Kyoto looks to me more like a "redistribution of wealth" program, not something designed to make dramatic progress.

Posted By: hurricanechaser at 5:12 AM GMT on February 20, 2006.
Hey Califonia,

May I ask you as to what you personally believe is the direct cause of the recent global warming?


Ack. I could write a BOOK to answer that question.

1. I don't have enough data to have a good opinion - there are several things that could contribute (below).

2. If anyone knows who keeps the OFFICIAL GLOBAL WARMING numbers and statistics, and exactly how those are calculated, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I don't know what the heck is being measured. Temperature? Heat Content? Atmosphere? Land? Ocean? By satellite? Hourly? Daily? I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.

3. I believe the planet may be in a warming trend, generally speaking, but I would want to see the data before committing.

If it turns out we actually are warming:

4. I believe that CO2 can limit the amount of infrared radiation radiated from the planet - and it is possible that human activities could be contributing to that.

5. From what I've read we have little knowledge of the amount of geothermal heating going on at the ocean floor - scientists have been surprised by new findings recently. This could lead to higher sea surface temperatures (and higher land surface temperatures). It's not being well monitored.

6. Solar output, of course, is the big factor, and it's variable.

7. They haven't figured out clouds yet. Some seem to trap heat, others seem to reflect it - they have not determined what the overall net result is.

8. Particulates - they seem to be "cooling only". Recent theories are that large eruptions can have cooling effects that last many decades.

Here's how I think I would sum it up:

If the earth is warming, I believe it is warming as part of a natural warming cycle, and it would be warming whether or not humans were participating. At the same time, I believe that human activities may be contributing somewhat.

I do not believe anything catastrophic will result from warming.

There are MANY things to worry about that will have far more consequences, particularly in our lifetimes, such as H5N1 Bird Flu or other pandemics, pollution and other issues due to overpopulation, escalation of the current war resulting from Iran's current policies, and many more...

*rolls eyes*

Here we go again. *makes exit*
If the US signed up for the Kyoto accords we would have faced the task of reducing our own CO2 output by about 20%. Without a viable alternative fuel the bottom line would be economic chaos!
19. F5
I've been wondering how long it would be before Dr. Masters responded to the latest "report" from Dr. Hansen. Sounds like it will be Wednesday. I have alread read Dr. Hansen's report, as well as several rebuttals. I'll wait till he posts his blog with a summary to post the rebuttal links.

With regards to the scenario's above, I'd sy the most likely is #2, except I wouldn't use the word "lucky". I think our temperature measurements are wrong to begin with.

Read this blog page, and then read the two links at the bottom of the blog for further information

Link

For anyone interested in reading a great blog that truly seems research oriented and not politically oriented, I urge you to bookmark Dr. Pielke's blog site from Colorado State University...Climate Science

My comments to Dr. Masters top 5 things to happen to good ole Mother Earth (plus two that I am sure the good Doctor fiqured but didn't make his top 5)

1) A dramatic climate change disaster or potential disaster will suddenly unfold, spurring the nations of the world to cut emissions drastically (similar to what the emergence of the Antarctic Ozone Hole did for regulating CFCs).

OD - They will be pillaging, looting and revolt in the streets, the world leaders will be drink Dom in the fallout shelter and REM will be playing on every radio station on earth (ie "Its the end of the world as I know it and I feel fine..").

Seriously, Doc Masters has a point. Think how many of the world's largest cities are within 30 miles of a ocean. If all ice on earth melted either at once or over time. The sum effect would be the oceans rising 220 feet (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm ). And we all know what heats up sooner or later cools down (ie a new ice age)


2) We luck out, and climate change turns out to be at the cool end of the scientific uncertainty estimates.

OD - Would be interesting roll of the cosmic dice, and its a bigger chance that one would think. If the Hurricane season of 2005 taught us nothing else, it taught us how little we know about climate and weather on this huge hunk of rock that is our home.

3) The global economy will crash due to war, natural disaster, climate change, or other causes, bringing drastically reduced emissions.

I think this is more of a chance that the 1st one. Like it or not we have always waged war over land first, a idea second. Until recent history, currently its not a global war yet but thier are two different idea sets that are hurling headlong into flashpoint (those two idea sets being:

1. Christian vs Islam
2. Have's vs Have nots).

It would not suprise me to see war from one of this idea set s in my lifetime

4) A revolutionary low-cost energy technology will emerge to replace fossil fuels.

OD - Again a interesting idea, and a legit one. Oil is a finite resource, so a finite amount of money can be made from it. They are techonlogies if they where ever produced would be a infinite incoming stream that would make Bill Gates look like the local homeless hobo that offers to wash your windows with a dirty rag.

5) Aliens will land and give us their non-polluting, limitless energy technology.

OD - In exchange we would hold a lotto to pick who would be thier dinner (LOL). Seriously I believe in life in the universe other than our own. However I believe they would not interfere with us until we where a more stable race (ie almost every human invention has been turned into a weapon or a way to kept the meatgrinder of war chuning).

The two things that I spoke of early that I thought should be thrown into the mix but didn't make Dr. Masters top 5 is:

1. The world ends - all it takes is a good size hunk of space rock and all this globabl warming becomes a mood point (so does the human race). Ditto for a man made globalkiller (ie nuclear war, virus, chemical leak etc.. etc..)

2. We leave - we good to another planet to pollute it
Cali,

Who elects most leaders in the developed countires? The people do. If they dont like something there leaders do, they'll elect different ones who will do what they want. Once again you are cofusing something diffcult to implement, which this is not, and something that is difficult to GET implemented, which this is. People aren't going to change thier ways easily, and even if you say counties can just make laws, people can get them changed quite easily, at least here in the US.
Having considered the statistics Dr.Masters quoted, I'm glad the U.S. did not sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. As I've stated before, the biggest problem with Kyoto is that China and India get a free ride. These two nations combined contribute 20% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, almost as much as the U.S. In addition, their emissions are increasing faster than any other countries listed above. I do not consider China and India to be poor countries. They have booming economies and are taking jobs away from many Americans. If their emissions continue to increase as they have in the last 10-15 years, this will far exceed any progress made in Europe,Japan and Canada in lowering emissions. I have friends who have spent time in China, and the air pollution is terrible. Unfortunately, don't expect much cooperation from the rulers in Beijing. Staying in power and making money are all that matters to them. However, U.S. corporations share responsibility for this by shifting most of their production overseas to take advantage of very cheap labor while not being willing to invest in cleaner power plants and other facilities. India might be more willing to work at reducing emissions. Now a disclaimer- I do not have anything against ordinary citizens of these countries. My wife is Vietnamese, and I have many Asian friends. My complaint is with the governments and the big corporations.

Now,looking at some other comparisons, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. have increased a bit less than in Canada and Japan. While we do need to clean up our power plants in the Midwest and not send pollution up to Canada, some of the criticism the U.S. gets from Canada (and Europe) may not be justified.

To sum up, the answer is not in signing onto a flawed treaty and giving up more of our sovereignty to the U.N.
Since we don't know how much of the warming is manmade vs. natural, we should take some reasonable steps in the U.S. including improving fuel efficiency of our vehicles and reducing use of coal to generate power. While it is very controversial, yes, nuclear power needs to be looked at again. Much of the power generated in western Europe and I believe also in Japan is nuclear, and their safety record is excellent. We can't let incidents such as Chernobyl (due to extreme negligence in the former Soviet Union) scare us away from an important alternative to fossil fuels. This is where everyone needs to put the pressure on our elected officials and corporate executives.

Finally,I believe worldwide oil production will peak in the next 10 years while demand increases greatly (especially in Asia). The price of oil will skyrocket, and alternative sources of energy will be developed. When the price of gasoline spiked last fall, sales of large SUV's plummeted. That's just a hint of what's to come.
BTW, I very much oppose "carbon taxes" or other heavy taxation to try to reduce fossil fuel use. This would be very harmful to our economy and the politicians would just squander the extra revenue, probably to finance more wars!!
Wow amazing lenticular clouds, I don't know if I've ever seen such a well defined picture of them.
Hey, check out the effects on the sun in the first photo.

HurricaneMyles - I sent you email.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

It would be irresponsible for the US government to sign a document putting US citizens under the laws and regulations of non-Americans who have not been elected by us, and who could potentially have reasons for wanting to see American taxpayers forced to pay $$$ to entities outside the country.

If we want, WE CAN ABIDE BY THE GOALS OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WITHOUT SIGNING IT !!!

If we wish to participate, that is the far more responsible way to do it.
Why not take all those billions in the administrations tax credit give aways from the oil exec's and use it to fund real alternative energy research?
Denver Mark

"These two nations combined contribute 20% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, almost as much as the U.S"

Yet the population of the US is about 296million, the combined population of India and China is 2,380 million. That's 8 times the population, and still less co2 emmissions than the US!

"I do not consider China and India to be poor countries"

Their GDP per capita is only US$3,400 for India and US$6,200 for china, and the US is only US$41,800, I would say they were poor in populations terms to the US and Europe.

I'm sure these countries are sure to believe that they should be able to have the same emissions per person as the US. If this happens then the current human produced CO2 emissions will over double for the entire world.



Link
30. Inyo
I'm not gonna bet on us changing before things get very bad.. so even though i don't believe it is likely, i hope hurricanechaser and f5 are correct and #2 comes true.

incidentally, near the end of what has been by far one of the hottest winters in memory here, we are in a cold snap with sleet and hail around LA and snow coating all the nearby mountains. it got below zero farenheit in the high country of southern california last night.

Posted By: FUBFEE at 7:07 PM GMT on February 20, 2006.

Why not take all those billions in the administrations tax credit give aways from the oil exec's and use it to fund real alternative energy research?


Why not get an investment group together and fund your own alternate energy research? Make the profit yourself. Not depend on the government to do what the private sector should be handling.

In any event, here ya go...


February 6, 2006

Department of Energy Requests $23.6 Billion for FY 2007

Increased Funding to Advance National Security, Reduce Dependence on Oil, and Boost Economic Competitiveness

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bush’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Budget for the Department of Energy (DOE) requests $23.6 billion, a $124 million increase over the FY 2006 request.

The FY 2007 budget request makes bold investments to improve America’s energy security while protecting our environment, puts policies in place that foster continued economic growth, spurs scientific innovation and discovery, and addresses the threat of nuclear proliferation. These funds directly advance the goals of the Advanced Energy Initiative, which aims to break America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy; and the American Competitiveness Initiative, which encourages innovation to strengthen our nation’s ability to compete in the global economy - both announced in President Bush’s State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.2 billion)

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget requests $1.2 billion, $2.6 million (0.2%) more than the FY 2006 appropriations. Much of this funding is an integral part of the Advanced Energy Initiative and expands key programs that focus on developing new energy choices, including: Hydrogen Fuel Technology ($114 million); Fuel Cell Technology ($82 million); Biomass ($150 million), including research into cellulosic ethanol, made from switch grass, wood chips and stalks; the Solar America Initiative ($148 million); Vehicle technology ($166 million); and Wind projects ($44 million)

Califonia - I agree with you 100%. We need to take action ourselves while keeping what's left of our sovereignty as a nation. The U.S.Constitution beats the U.N.Charter any day!

Cregnebaa - Your points on China and India's population and GDP per capita are quite valid. Both nations do still have a very large (and poor) rural population. On the other hand, they are industrializing and developing their urban areas rapidly and will produce far more greenhouse gases in the years to come, as they will expect to have a much higher standard of living like the U.S.,as you state. This shows the futility of the Kyoto Protocol, as the large increases in emissions in the developing world will greatly outstrip any reductions in the Kyoto nations and the U.S.

On Dr.Masters' scenarios, I think #3 or #4 are actually most likely. The huge increase in demand for oil, along with production peaking and beginning to decline, will cause oil prices to rise so high that alternatives will have to be developed. Hopefully, the world economy will not have to crash totally, or a major war to occur, for this to happen.

I think the U.S. does need to kick its oil habit, and the scenario I just mentioned will do it. When the price of gas hits even $4 to $5 per gallon and stays there, the big gas guzzling vehicles will disappear forever. BTW, I drive a Honda Civic, and would consider a hybrid for my next car.

Some will say tax gasoline to raise the price to $4 or $5 per gallon, but I prefer to see the market work things out, which is probably going to happen in a few short years anyway. I have no faith in politicians (of either party) to spend additional tax revenues wisely.
Some will say tax gasoline to raise the price to $4 or $5 per gallon, but I prefer to see the market work things out, which is probably going to happen in a few short years anyway.

One difference, of course, is that raising prices via taxes would direct more money into our own government, while raising prices via market forces would direct more money to oil-producing nations. Opinions as to which of these would be better will vary. :-)
Califonia - your last post says it all. $1.2 billion on energy efficiency and renewable energy? By comparison, I think we spend that much on the war in Iraq every day.
JeffB - good point. I guess we have to decide which is worse, giving it to our politicians or to Saudi Arabia,etc.
If taxes are raised, the law needs to mandate that the additional revenues are spent to increase our energy efficiency and develop new sources of energy.
Any data on Canada?

I'm Cdn and our new Prime Minister is talking about backing out of Kyoto. (sorry world, I didn't vote for him)


Posted By: pfdude at 8:55 PM GMT on February 20, 2006.

Any data on Canada?

I'm Cdn and our new Prime Minister is talking about backing out of Kyoto.


Sorry this is so long, but it gives the info - does not seem to indicate they will be "backing out", just that they don't like the idea of "redistributing wealth" by sending their $$$ to other countries.


VANCOUVER (CP) - Canada's new Conservative environment minister is taking over leadership of a key
United Nations body overseeing the Kyoto Protocol but plans to use the post to push the party's differing vision on climate change.

Rona Ambrose confirmed Friday that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has given notice to the UN that she (Rona Ambrose) will succeed her Liberal predecessor Stephane Dion in Canada's presidency of the Conference of Parties.

The group is responsible for negotiating the next phase of greenhouse-gas emission reductions under the treaty, which marked the first anniversary of its implementation on Thursday.

"It's a great opportunity, a privilege," Ambrose said after meeting B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner.

"We have some action plans that we have that you'll become familiar with in a short while around attacking climate change and clean air. It gives us an opportunity at the international stage to come forward with some of these ideas."

But despite the appointment, Ambrose did nothing to diminish the perception that the Conservatives aren't committed to the agreement.

"We are a signatory to 59 international agreements that I'm learning about all the time and a lot of them we're very active in," said Ambrose, an MP from Edmonton.

"On Kyoto, I will tell you that our government and our prime minister is very clear that there has to be a direct benefit to the Canadian environment and potentially to Canadian commercial investment in clean-air technology."

Ambrose said the government will pursue elements of the
Kyoto protocolthat fit within her mandate to focus on domestic air pollution.

The use of emissions credits under Kyoto to offset over-production of greenhouse gases is a problem for Ambrose.

"There will not be opportunities under this government, unlike the previous government, to purchase hot-air credits and allow Canadian companies to pollute on Canadian soil," she said.

"Any sort of emission trading, whether it's domestic, international, has to have a direct benefit to the Canadian environment."

Ambrose is on what she calls her "clean-air" tour, meeting her provincial counterparts and interest groups such as the Suzuki Foundation, a Vancouver-based environmental group.

The meeting was amicable, said Ann Rowan, the foundation's sustainability director, and suggests at least initially that Ambrose is someone the group can work with.

"She's a very personable person and I think interested in doing the right thing," said Rowan.

"She's got a tougher job than many of the other ministers. They're going to be focused on immediate issues and a lot of the issues she'll have to deal with and bring to the cabinet table are of a long-term nature."

After meeting Alberta counterpart Guy Boutilier in Edmonton on Thursday, Ambrose spelled out the Tories' opposition to emissions trading, saying she saw no benefit to "shipping hot-air credits overseas."

The Conservatives have not been enthusiastic about Kyoto, fighting the former Liberal government's proposed changes to the Environmental Protection Act that would have regulated greenhouse-gas emissions.

Ambrose's home province of Alberta opposed Canadian participation in Kyoto because of the potential damage it could do to the oil and gas industry.

The new government has not yet spelled out its position on Kyoto and Ambrose did not say Friday whether its policy would be made public by the time Parliament resumes in April.

The UN Framework Convention of Climate Change, which oversees implementation of Kyoto, said this week it expects Canada to respect its treaty obligations and meet its environmental targets.

Emissions trading is considered an important part of Kyoto. Countries unable to meet their targets would be allowed to buy carbon credits from countries that exceed theirs.

Canada currently falls short of its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It must meet its initial reductions target or face a penalty in the next phase beyond 2012.

Negotiations on the second phase will begin this year.

Here's an interesting article concerning the rise in sea water & rivers. How we've just kept building the levees as well as homes behind them leaving ourselves open to disaster. A few highlights....

"The probability of a catastrophic levee failure in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in the next 50 years is two in three," Mount said on the sidelines of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual conference.

He said one of the frequent earthquakes in California could destroy the levee system that has been built up since the middle of the 19th century, sending flood water over a wide area.

Mount said it could have a similar impact to the Asian tsunami in 2004.

Another 5,600 hectare (14,000 acre) zone around St. Louis in Missouri faces a similar threat from the Mississippi river, according to Adolphus Busch, head of the Great Rivers Habitat Alliances.

Eighty-five percent of the Mississippi is now held back by levees and the level of the river has risen by four metres (13 feet) since the start of the century, he said.

Greater rainfall linked to global warming will only increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, according to Anthony Arquez, an expert at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Kalifornia
Why not get an investment group together and fund your own alternate energy research? Make the profit yourself. Not depend on the government to do what the private sector should be handling.

Thats a good idea if there were money in it, the private sector would have jumped all over it. Not all have the belief that the Gov't must stay out, but heck, you may be right. It still doesn't justify the billion's in tax credits to the industry.

Skyepony,

I don't think any of the polar ice melt is running into the Mississippi, or rivers in California. And although a couple millimeters per rise in sea level can cause a couple millimeter difference in an estuary, river levels farther inland aren't affected by the sea level.

When we started building levees and trying to defeat the natural course of rivers and the regular flooding of adjacent areas, we knew it would lead to these types of problems in the future.

Now we are having to deal with the results.



Posted By: FUBFEE at 9:40 PM GMT on February 20, 2006 (and earlier).

Why not take all those billions in the administrations tax credit give aways from the oil exec's...

...It still doesn't justify the billion's in tax credits to the industry.


OK - let's look at those tax credits.

First, you may be echoing what you have heard or read from others (usually with political motive), who state that as fact, knowing that people will blindly believe it.

That's fine - let me know if that's the case - you have no reason to believe that what they said is not true, but it may not be true.

If you do specifically know what tax credits the oil exec's take on their personal tax returns, and have data showing that those credits are not cancelled out by alternative minimum tax or other procedures, and know the amounts for each executive (or at least a lot of them) on their tax returns so you can show it does go into the billions, we can discuss them and determine whether it makes sense to continue them.

Usually when you start looking into the "nuts and bolts" of credits and deductions you find that it's not as "rosy" as it seems when people talk about them.


Side note: The true owners of the oil companies are the stockholders.

Anyone who feels the companies are making outrageous profits should just buy stock and keep the profits for themselves.

If they like, they can personally redistribute the profits to poor people of their choosing. No need to rely on the government to do that when you can do it yourself.

Those interested in this topic may care to check out my take on the subject here.
I do believe there are many good reasons why we must seek clean, alternative fuel sources, while conserving, whether humans are contributing to warming or not.

However, a few questions, Dr. Masters.

When they look at climate change, how far back do reliable records go?

Do they include the years following climate cooling events such s Laki and Tambora?

Werent we just coming out of a cooler period around the time the industrial revolution really got going?

Does anybody know, definitively, what caused The Little Ice Age, beyond the speculation of increased volcanic activity and decreased sun spot activity? If we dont know for sure what causes climate cooling, how can we really be certain what causes warming trends?

Is there anybody who can honestly say they completely understand the interactions of the Earths crust, the ocean currents and atmospheric currents? For example, is it possible that last years tsunami played some role n the 05 hurricane season?

The Tsunami almost certainly did not affect hurricane season. However, the cause of the LIA is unknown.
It probably didnt. But can we say Definitely Not?

If under-ocean plate movements can affect the development of El Ninos, what else may be happening?

Remember the old story about the 5 blind men who touched different parts of an elephant, I wonder sometimes if we are a bit similar in studying the various interactions of Earth, oceans and atmosphere.
46. F5
SarahFromFLA,

Although you specifically addressed Dr. Masters, let me put my .02 here (probably should adjust downward for inflation :)...)

We have no reliable records, in the sense that the records that do exist are taken under identical circumstances across all periods.

Clearly, there are ice core samples, which show specific heating/cooling periods of the earth, we have tree rings, sediment extractions, etc., which paint a general picture of the earth's climate over millenia. Temperature records are relatively new phenomena, depending on location. I believe I read that from a certain location in England, they have temperature records from the 1600's, whereas in New York, it's more like the mid/late 1800's I believe.

Land temperature records are where the problems start to occur. Land use has changed dramatically, and it alone is a complicated study. The amount of albedo, vegetation concentration/type, man-made structures (concrete, asphalt, steel, etc.), and other aspects can affect local temperature readings. Clearly, most urban areas have changed dramatically over the past 100 years (some didn't even exist or were nothing more than small cow-towns at the beginning of any records), and now many are paved over with glass, steel, concrete, and asphalt. How do you compare a temperature reading today with one taken 10/20/50/100 years ago and account for that variability? It would be difficult, if not impossible to do. This is why some people wonder to what extent we have actually warmed up, and to what degree we will continue to warm up. Estimates vary wildly.

In addition, AGW (anthropogenic global warming), may or may not be occuring at all and instead it may be all natural climate variability. And here's the real kicker...Even if it is AGW, it may have little or nothing to do with CO2 and other GHG, and may have much more to do with land use. So, it's possible we could spend billions or trillions of dollars combating GHG and instead should be modifying land use. Going even further, it may be that if land use is as big a forcing agent as some suspect it might be, then it's entirely possible that the increase in regional temperature may be minimal at most, and there is no need to worry about CO2 at all.

The point is that most AGW proponents focus in on GHG emissions as the panacea to resolving the issue and it may have little if any impact on the situation. And as others have noted, reducing CO2 will have little effect without also reducing nitrogen emissions as wel). In fact, most GHG, including water vapor, contribute significantly more to atmospheric warming than CO2 does.

Sorry if this rambled on a bit. It's easy to go down a rat's hole when discussing climate science. There are just so many unknowns/variability factors, that should make skeptics of all of us.

Lastly, while some people point to various "models" that are purported to "prove" certain things, it should be noted that while these models are useful for "modeling" effects, they should be for just that...modeling. They should not be used for "predicting", which is what many people try to do.
I have been lurking on this blog for quite some time, and I've learned a great deal. I appreciate that you all take the time to write so well and support your opinions.

Would anyone care to comment on this article on alcohol as an alternative fuel?

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp
Joining the Kyoto Treaty makes people think it will kill the economy. However, it would just revamp the economy and would ready us for when the last drop of oil is tapped out of the ground in roughly 50 years. We would still keep our capitalistic goals, however our economy instead of being based on oil, would be based on alternative energy. It would create jobs and solve a problem we're going to have in a few years anyways.
Would anyone care to comment on this article on alcohol as an alternative fuel?

Really good article.Sounds good to me.
NumberWise - There are two reasons to dismiss the article on alcohols and alcohols as better fuels than gasoline:

1) If this were a serious, critical article of the technologies, the author would discuss gasoline, ethanol, and methanol in terms of price PER ENERGY UNIT, not price per gallon. As is, this is an opinion piece.

2) If alcohols were serious competitors to gasoline we would already be using them without the regulations and government subsidies that have created the ethanol industry.
51. F5
Trouper415

If we take the last drop of oil out of the ground, we're going to be in far more trouble than just transportation. Petroleum and/or it's byproducts are used in millions of industrial processes and are a component of untold products. It's not just an energy issue.

That said, we are not going to run out of oil in 50 years. It may become cost prohibitive (based on current technology) to extract it, but there will still be oil there. To assume that the processes that create oil worked for a period of time and then suddenly stopped is non-sequiter.

None of this means that we shouldn't be trying to find alternate energy sources, as it would certainly make the existing known supply last far longer, and also help clean the environment, but I really doubt it will one day just be gone.
F5 - Thanks for the link to the CSU climate site.

A note the models comment in your last post. Models can be predictive - however, they must be validated against the real world to have preditive value. Short-term weather forecasting models are well-validated ... 600+ times a year. But validating a climate change model requires that we compare the models' results against the real world. Since these models make predictions on the scale of decades, centuries, and millenia we will have to wait at least that long until we can call them "predictive."

Model + validation = predictivity
53. F5
Ethanol also has issues of it's own. It currently requires more energy input to produce than the energy it creates, resulting in a net loss of energy. In addition, it can aborb great amounts of water and above a certain ratio, will separate from gasoline, causing engine stalling. Finally, buring ethanol also releases volatile organic compounds which are contributors of smog.

54. F5
LittletonCo,

I really like that site. It seems devoid of the hype you often read about the issue and focuses more on the actual science.

I guess maybe I should have said that climate models should not be used as predictive tools. Too many variables and too much uncertainty regarding pieces of the framework. They make too many assumptions, and I also am leery of using statistical "adjustments" as input factors into the model runs, especially when the adjustments are the results of ensemble runs.
Anyone else having pages occasionally come up really weird here on wunderground?

One of the things that frustrates me about Kyoto is that it is often portrayed by media and propionates as a cure-all to all human interference with nature.

But while nobody can say with certainly to what degree, if any, human activity has affected climate there can be no question that human activity has made many disasters more destructive.

Tsunamis and hurricanes become more destructive when we overpopulate areas that act as natural barriers between land and ocean. If we continue to overdevelop vulnerable coastlines, tsunamis and hurricanes will continue to become ever more expensive and dangerous. If we keep building up the Florida and Gulf Coasts, every single hurricane that makes land fall will become a disaster.

Our Western wildfires spread more rapidly when fueled by nonnative, human introduced plants.

Deforestation facilitates mudslides.

Floods can become worse when we disrupt the natural flow of runoff.

No question, we humans are causing many natural disasters to become deadlier and more expensive. Kyoto will do nothing about that.
Theres something that doesnt quite sit right with me about turning food crops into ethanol so that people can keep diving their gas-guzzling SUVs.
Ideally, science will yield new energy sources that cost less than oil, obviating both the unpleasant prospect of spiraling oil prices and the unlikely significant increase in short-term oil taxes to spur conservation and transition.

I am 100% in favor of better efficiency for vehicles, homes, and businesses. Cars are getting better -- I hear the new 500hp Corvette gets 28mpg. Houses are still driven by step-in cost per square foot, so legislation or novel financing (factoring energy costs into the loan rates and limits) will be required.

Solar, wind, bio-fuels are all possible, but from what I've seen show little short-term prospects of being cheaper than oil. If they get that way, I think people will use them. Certainly it would be good to save cheap oil for airplanes and move cars to alternate sources.

Hmmm....if Kyoto can be met by decreasing emissions from developing nations, can't we just nuke 3rd-world cities to get our net rates in line with Kyoto? (just kidding)

Zaphod
I agree with Sarah~ growing for fuel is unsettling. Considering that article stated we'd need 4X the amount of corn grown now. Alot of the corn we produce now is exported as it is for food. Agriculture these days isn't as enviromently friendly as it once was. If temperatures continue to rise & a climate shift has occured, it might be difficult to produce the food we do now, not including corn for ethenal. The methenal didn't sound like it would help with emmissions issues. Though the points made as to why move away from oil were excellent.

Califonia~wrote~ I don't think any of the polar ice melt is running into the Mississippi, or rivers in California. And although a couple millimeters per rise in sea level can cause a couple millimeter difference in an estuary, river levels farther inland aren't affected by the sea level.

Yes i was mistaken to say anything of rising sea levels, I was thinking of how land on the outside of a levee is erroded away, sometimes thoughts escape wrong:). Just wanted to point out to those that live in the areas mentioned what some respected researcher's thought of their impending disaster chances. 2 out of 3 in 50 years is high for an area that populated. Also I never mentioned, nor did the article, anything concerning polar ice melts. The article talked of earthquakes (ca) & hurricanes for the areas around the Mississippi river, with the later compounded by fresh water run off due to increased rain from global warming. Mississippi River has risen by 13 ft, not millimeters, in the last century. A recent push to save St Louis, Missouri by building more levees, helped with the rise.

Oh & the models... terribly unreliable. I would like to hear of a consenses of models in this area of climate research that was crying wolf. The Ozone one when verified was most conservative. Master's just did a blog on the resent results of the global warming verification ~ warming faster than expected, atleast for the short term. & now the upcoming report on the melting earth. That's happening much sooner than expected. Their finding new breaking points, were a threshold is crossed & it releases a new mechenism that speeds the process.
Always interesting to tune into this US-centered weather blog - I don't think you all realize how influenced most of you are by your media and government, and how out of tune you are with the rest of the civilized world on the issue of global warming.

It's funny in a pathetic kind of way, because the US has as much if not more to lose as any nation if the global warming predictions (of our best climate researchers using their best models) come to pass.

Have to say, I get a real hoot out of HurricaneChaser, who I believe is working on a meteorology (ie. weather forecasting) degree, panning the global climatology models. Sure the climatology models we're using to analyze and make predictions on global warming aren't perfect - but they're the best we have.

The models we use to make predictions on incoming hurricanes are also not perfect - I don't hear HurricaneChaser or any of the other nay-sayers advocating ignoring them. Why the double standard?
California and others looking for straight information on global warming -- you should check out the FAQs at RealClimate.org. RealClimate is a blog run by working climate scientists of various specialties. They are very even-handed, and give a very clear overview of what we know, how we know it, and what is still uncertain. While the FAQs do not require any technical background, many postings on the site can get pretty hard to follow for a layman. Even then, though , you can always figure out basically what they mean and how to understand it.

Another really interesting, very readable resource is a history of climate modelling done by the American Institute of Physics.
Snowboy - excellent comment(s).
I am currently a meteorology graduate student, and I do strongly believe in anthropogenic global warming, as do the vast majority of legitimate scientists worldwide. please do not let hurricanechaser speak for america (or crazy ol' president bush for that matter). There are many of us who do take this issue very seriously.
Hey snowboy,

I need to bring clarity to your comments referencing me as well as explaining my own personal reason for my lack of faith in the modeling data of the alarmists(don't mean it to be a derogatory term).

First, you said the following:

>"Have to say, I get a real hoot out of HurricaneChaser, who I believe is working on a meteorology (ie. weather forecasting) degree, panning the global climatology models. Sure the climatology models we're using to analyze and make predictions on global warming aren't perfect - but they're the best we have."


My response:

I honestly dislike discussing this issue because it is accompanied with so much unnecessary politicalization. Just look at the other comments below talking about the current administrations supposed allegiance to the oil companies at the expense of everyone else so to speak.

This kind of sentiment breeds the type of emotional responses that this issue seems to incite. I know I for one regret the fact that I let it get to me in the past.

Snowboy, was it really necessary for you to personalize our disagreement of this issue with some preconceived loyalty that I should apparently have for (proven in many cases)skewed and manipulated data being widely disseminated as "the best available data we have" for instance.

Please allow me to clarify my meteorological background so that there will be no misunderstandings about that.

First, I got a forecasting certification which is the equivalent (at the NWS level)to a two year degree in the field and allowed me to intern at the NWS a few years ago. Moreover, I continued to pursue my BS in Atmospheric Sciences at NC State and am currently ONLY one semester short on the credits needed to graduate with my degree.

Honestly, I have been back to school for awhile now and feel as though I will get my Christian Counseling degree(means two more years of schooling in the process, but very important to me)as well as attaining my Atmospheric Science degree since I'm so close and would be foolish to do otherwise.

My education along with my forecasting certification from Penn State University, opened the door for not only an internship at the NWS here, but more importantly a part time forecasting position at my local television station. It is important to note, that I have taken some time off beginning in December for family reasons(more time at home). I most likely won't go back since I my heart is most interested in pursuing a career in Christian counseling.

Regardless, I consider my education and subsequent opportunities to be a real blessing because I had some friends at both the NWS and the local TV station that helped me get so many experiences that I will forever cherish while working in the field.

Therefore, I have first hand experience with the modeling and understand their invaluable assistance, but also their limitations when used as a predictive tool for climate forecasts well out in time.

Honestly, I don't understand why I must explain some confounded assertion that I should somehow have more loyalty to climate modeling(when I disagree with its results) simply because I've worked in the field, since it is that very reason that I have my own personal opinion based on my own personal experience to draw upon for those beliefs regarding climate models and their performance.

To reiterate, please accept the aforementioned for what it is...my own personal opinion based upon my own personal experiences. How is that any different than Dr. William Gray disagreeing with those like Dr. Hansen having far more education and experience in the field than I do for sure who I suppose should have more difficulty reconciling your assertion..

For me, I call it objectivity without any emotional element like political loyalties to impact my observations(I'm not saying this is the case with you, just for the record).

I'm not saying that I'm definitely right in my perspective but the same has to be true of the other side as well.


"The models we use to make predictions on incoming hurricanes are also not perfect - I don't hear HurricaneChaser or any of the other nay-sayers advocating ignoring them. Why the double standard?"


I will try to make this response much shorter (lol). I have not once said that climate models should be ignored and far from it. However, I believe if you got back to my first appearance in this blog until now, that I have been adamant about the complexities in forecasting and how inexact a science it truly is.

This is once again based on first hand experience and my own personal opinion, nothing more and nothing less and I make no apologies for it. This is why one might wonder why it seems I am talking about the unpredictability of hurricane forecasting in spite of these invaluable models. To reiterate, I have always stated that the models are a tool(and an invaluable one at that)for forecasting and shouldn't be the sole emphasis for making the forecast. The models are only as good as the informative put into them.

This is the reason that there is so much heated discussion on the validity of much of the climate data because of the extreme data such as unreasonable levels of greenhouse gas emissions, etc. that skews the results that the models interpret.

Moreover, I believe the fact that we can agree on the difficulties that the models have trying to accurately forecast hurricanes as you already alluded to, taking into consideration the errors in track forecasts and certainly their shortcomings in intensity forecasts for a five day period, is cause to keep the computer modeling data in its proper perspective.

Think about it, we have far more understanding and research that has gone towards hurricane prediction than the relatively new attempts to accurately forecast climate change (which by most definition is a period of at least 30 years). As F5 mentioned, there are so many variables such as relocation of airports, deforestation, heat inducing man made elements such as asphalt that aren't accounted for in comparing temperatures from the past with those today and gives the presumption that the world is much warmer than it probably is.

All of this affects the reliability of the modeling data, not too mention that we have hard enough time forecasting a month in advance. Now, take all those few factors into account and ponder why I would be reluctant to believe the politically motivated(in many cases)intentionally flawed data put therein(as was the case with the modeling accepted as truth that the CSU team took serious issue with)and the many variables that go unaccounted for in comparing recorded data(as mentioned above)over a very short period of time(less than 200 years).

How can anyone suggest that I should simply accept the alarmist position as most likely(for the sake of argument)when there is conflicting modeling data giving different expectations. More importantly, I can't help but consider the natural inaccuracies of our best short term modeling forecasts, when determining my own personal opinion of the reliability of climate predictions for the next 75=80 years.

To me, I find it much harder to accept such dire scenarios of some modeling at face value when there's no way to ignore all of the aforementioned. Naturally, ones own opinion is their right and I believe is genuinely based upon their actual beliefs. However, human induced global warming cannot and should not be considered as scientific fact, for the facts themselves are most likely distorted to begin with(no accountability in reconciling the many factors that have most likely caused inevitable distortions in temperature readings from past to present).

Now, add to that the political overtones, all the lobbyist money poured into it to hype the propaganda machines by various interest groups, the subjectivity of those doing the studies and the reliability of the data that are put into the models, and the rush to judgement already underway fueled through the main stream media that is also hyping the alarmist view while ignoring the other studies that contradict it.

It is all of the aforementioned in concert with my first hand understanding of modeling reliability in making long term forecasts, that should give you a much better understanding as to why I personally don't accept the extreme scenarios that are being rushed to the forefront of the news media and helps create the mentality we have such a huge problem when the jury is still very much in serious deliberations.

Furthermore, one must also keep in mind that the more extreme the predictions, the more publicity one will get as well. Therefore, I ask you to simply agree to disagree without questioning why I could have such supposed difficulty reconciling my background in the field with my personal beliefs in regard to this one issue.

Once again, I believe that the world has indeed seen an overall increase in the global temperatures which I believe is directly related to Natural climate variability(which is complex as well)with a minimal effect relative to human activity, not just GHG emissions but deforestation as well.

I think that we can agree that the computer models are an invaluable asset and one that has made forecasting much more reliable.

However, one can't ignore the fact that the conclusions they come to are only as reliable as the data put therein. Ever wonder why the models are all over the place with their five days forecasts for hurricane prediction accompanied many times with major shifts with every new model run? I believe the answer is obvious and highlights just a part of the problem in blindly accepting some of the results.

We can also agree that we need to switch to alternative energy sources for a variety of good reasons, regardless of ones view on human induced global warming.

I'm sorry, I was incorrect on my expectation of this being a short reply. But then again, that is far more predictable and modeling is not needed for such a forecast.:)

Please forgive me that this post isn't as well written as I would otherwise like it to be. I am still very sick battling walking pneumonia that hasn't gotten any better despite being on the strongest antibiotic possible. However, I felt the need to reply.

Most importantly, I hope that you can accept all of the aforementioned as simply my personal opinion and realize that anyone's opinion of this issue requires more faith than anything else. In other words, in my personal opinion, there is no evidence presented thus far that can't be rebutted by natural climate variability and all the other variables I reference above. In short, all opinions are based foremost on ones faith on this issue.

I sincerely hope you have a great day and I respect your opinions even during those times we may simply disagree.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Hey Phelp,

Your comments are a perfect example of the unnecessary and mean spirited personal attacks that people like myself get because we simply share a different opinion on this issue.

You said:

"Snowboy - excellent comment(s).
I am currently a meteorology graduate student, and I do strongly believe in anthropogenic global warming, as do the vast majority of legitimate scientists worldwide. please do not let hurricanechaser speak for america (or crazy ol' president bush for that matter). There are many of us who do take this issue very seriously."


Just because you are a graduate student doesn't qualify you as more of a legitimate scientist than I am. In reality, it appears you don't have the real life day to day experience in the field covering years for which I don't feel makes me anymore correct on this issue than another with ZERO background in the field.

It is obvious by your comments that your supposedly scientific educated view is impaced by your political loyalalities with the referenced to "crazy 'ol George Bush)in the same sentence as referencing myself.

You said you are currently a graduate student and yet you are implying that I am not a legitimate scientist and you are?

Where do I make inappropriate judgements and personal attacks on you?

I find it ironic however that you would conceive that your graduates degree(which I don't have)makes you more knowledgable than myself who has worked professionally as a legitimate and paid forecaster for years(which you can't say).

Who do you think is going to be considered more legitimate(since you made that inappropriate assertion)scientist and whose resume would be considered more legitimate to the NWS(where I've actually interned, not volunteered), for a REAL forecasting position(which I had for years up until this past December when I chose to pursue other opportunities)for example?

I even was a volunteer back in 1994 at the NHC and gained alot of first hand experience from that which is also on my resume.

So, anytime you want to submit your "legitimate" scientific resume with mine for a REAL forecasting position, simply let me know, so we can find out what the meteroligical profession would consider a more appealing resume.

I simpy ask that you please refrain from further unmerited, inaccurate, and unnecessary personal attacks on me or anyone else who may have a different opinion on this topic.

Please note that my differing opinion doesn't mean I take the issue less seriously than you, if so, I wouldn't comment on it and subject myself to mean spirited attacks from those like yourself.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Phelp,

Just my personal opinion, but I don't consider my experience and education in meteorology to make me an expert so to speak on climate change. There are many with meteorological experience that dwarfs mine that feel as I do.

This blog contains those like Weatherguy03 who has a degree from Rutgers as well as professional experience as well who although we disagree on this subject, can respect the individual as well as the own unique experiences we have in the field, or at least I hope, Bob.:)

I think that Bob would agree with me that our professional backgrounds in the meteorological field doesn't mean that our forecasts are guaranteed to be more accurate to others making their own predictions who have not been as fortunate to be given the opportunities to work in the field or simply chose a more important career to them.

That being said, I am going back to school to finish my last semester so I can get my BS in meteorology at NC State and then will hopefully get the opportunity to pursue my degree in Christian Counseling which is by far more important to me personally. I might still occasionally work part time at the local TV station just to keep in practice so to speak.

Just wait for hurricane season and watch us educated meteorologists get beat in our forecasts by those with no formal education in the field. It is simply the inexact nature of the business that makes it so exciting to me because of the unpredictability of it.

I have always said and will always put this very important disclaimer to any forecasts I personally make that they are "my best educated GUESS".

A lot of climate prediction is based more on faith than fact. Being the legitimate scientist you are, you probably are already keenly aware of it.:)

Just for the record, I think we should all keep the personal jabs out of this blog and feel free to act immaturely if you choose by posting further demeaning comments about me in my own blog.:)

I know I have acted inappropriately in the past in this blog and sincerely apologized for it. Will you?

Thanks,
Tony


Stormchaser,

Hmmm...I somehow have a biased view because I disagree that Global warming is being DIRECTLY(key word here)affected by human activities such as GHG emissions.

I strongly disagree that my opinion is biased but the opposite because it has absolutely no relation to my political preferences.

I can't stand when people make such incorrect statements that I don't believe in Global warming which I consistently say I do.

The disagreement is that I believe it is the DIRECT result of Natural climate variability with a minimal effect coming from GHG emissions and other human activities such as deforestation.

I ask that you Please choose your words more carefully in order to not mischaracterize ones opinion in the future.

Thanks,
Tony


70. Inyo
i disagree strongly with almost anything hurricanechaser ever posts on here but i have to agree with one point - field experience, in my opinion, is vital in any science field and much more important than graduate degrees, etc. However, some graduate students do a lot of field work (at least in biology where i am) so you can't assume he has none.

I havent gone to grad school (yet anyway) and i'm pretty confident i am a better botanist/plant ecologist than most PHD's in this field that i've met, at least when it comes to more practical things.

also, i too don't understand why some of you are so disgusted with using climate models to infer future conditions when you use weather models to do this every day. Sure, weather models are not really effective past a week at most but these are intended to predict the exact locations of low pressure areas, jet streams, etc, while the long range climate models are meant only to detect very general temperature/precipitation trends. I don't see the problem in using them as a tool to predict climate.

The heat island is definitely a real effect and without a doubt affects climate at least on a small scale - temperature as well as precipitation. However, on an earth-wide scale, keep in mind that it is also true that large quantities of once arid land are now irrigated, which has a very different effect on climate than concrete does.

I would put the chance of the Tsunami affecting the hurricane season as somewhere around the chance of Katrina being create by a government conspiracy or by alien spaceships from the planet Kzortnik. I am amazed that so many people, even people well versed in science, believe this stuff, but i hear it often.

and the threat in the California Delta region is very real, but climate change is not really a big player in the immediate problem, and it will exist regardless of whether or not warming occurs. The main cause of this problem is the destruction of wetlands, just like in Louisiana. A secondary problem is logging, deforestation, overgrazing, and weed proliferation, which have lead to a large amount of sediment entering the rivers flowing into the delta. Since the rivers are confined by levees throughout the delta and can't deposit their sediment loads where they used to, the sediment builds up in the channels and clogs them.

I spent a while working on restoration projects in the area... it is not a good scene. if the levees bust, the entire California Aqueduct system could be ruined, causing severe problems for southern California and all of the farming in the San Joaquin Valley.
Hey Stormchaser,

One must realize that just because they may share the opinion of the majority, does not mean that their opinion is more relevant or any more accurate than those who hold a minority opinion.

That's why it's called an opinion and not Truth.

This applies to life and not simply this topic.:)

Right now, human induced global warming is not a fact but the opinion of the more vocal majority which still doesn't make it true.

Once again, I will reiterate that I believe we are in a global warming phase(i.e.Global warming). However, I strongly believe personally that it is directly related to Natural causes than man made like GHG emissions.

Please note that I didn't say that human activities are not having any effect. WE disagree on how much and which is the biggest contributor to this warming (Natural vs. Man made).

In short, this is simply my personal opinion on the subject which is just as likely to be accurate as your contradicting one. In other words, the jury is still out and will be for some time to come no matter how many news reports come out in favor of the gloom and doom scenarios that get far more attention.

Thanks,
Tony

Hey Inyo,

Thank you for your agreement on Phelps inappropriate suggestions and please note that I didn't suggest he wasn't a legitimate scientist as he put it in reference to me.

You and I disagree because I don't hold allegiance to the liberal view(not saying that is a bad thing) just as being a conservative as I chose to affiliate myself on most but DEFINATELY not all political issues.

This is a political issue to most liberals while it is NOT a political issue to me.

My political views are reflective of my personal interpreatation of the BIBLE which makes me oposed to most liberally held views on such issues as gay marriage and abortion where conservatives and liberals strongly disagree.

So, it is understandable that you and I will most likely disagree with most(almost anything may be too strong a term because you don't know all my views on other issues)political issues as a result.

However, this is not a political issue but a scientific and logical one for me and I could be wrong just as I could be right, but it no less validates ones opinion over another.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Inyo,

Do you disagree with me that we should find alternative sources of energy and get away from our dependence on oil.

If so, we agree on that as well as to the believe in global warming. Likewise, we agree that human activities have most likely affected the warming.

Does that sound like someone who has any political ties to oil companies. I am not a fan of the oil companies as I am not a fan pf extremist environmental groups either.:)

Where we disagree adamantly is on the direct cause of global warming, how severe it may become, and how much of an effect we really have on climate change by our actions.

All of that in which we disagree is inconclusive no matter which side of the issue one is on. This is why I don't understand the personal animosity that this issue generates when there is sincere and legitimate reasons for that disagreement.

Thanks,
Tony
Hey Inyo,

I just realized I made an assumption based upon the thought that you said you are liberal in your political views. However, I am not absolutely sure if that was you or if that it is truly your preference.

If not, I sincerely apologize for making that incorrect assumption.

If I do remember correctly, I simply brought up our natural political philosophies in accounting for why we most likely would disagree on most things as you suggested in your post.

I also want to be clear that my reference to the Bible concerning my views on both gay marriage and abortion on based solely on my INTERPRETATION of the Bible and should be understood as such, no more and no less.

On these issues and anything politically related, I believe it is appropriate to agree to simply disagree as is everyone's right without making it personal as is too often the case in politics.

In short, I can stil respect the person and their opinions even when I disagree with their assertions and I hope the same can be true of those understanding my positions as well.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey stormchaser,

I know and I need to be asleep big time but I'm so sick that I can't.

Please understand I am not shooting down global warming.

I have even acknowledge that human activities have most likely had some effect.

We just disagree on how much effect and whether this warming will be as severe as many dooms day proponents suggest.

Moreover, we respectfully disagree about the DIRECT cause of the warming.

So, I am not saying that I don't believe in global warming as it should be correctly defined(but isn't).

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Stormchaser,

On a different subject, Do you also intercept hurricanes?
F5,

I have heard from many Geologists that we will run dry on oil around 2065, about 50-60 years...Pending that Alaska does have the amount of crude that we guess it does. Just looking at the oil price rises in the last 5 years which have been darned near close to a dollar and almost 2, and one can imagine what prices will be like in the short future. Changing over current infrastructure may be a bit cost heavy, however with a little more work and effort put in, (which humans hate) they could relativly easily be transformed to use another type of energy in just 5 or so years. It seems as if the Administration is now headed that direction, and with the progress they have made, I have more hope in this situation.

As for the political congruency with this global warming issue, I think the government ties in just as much as the climatologists making the speculations. The oil that this world uses, the warming of the planet, and the price and growing demand for oil all tie in very closely. However, some people tend to think they are spread far apart. So when someone makes a statement saying, 'private sectors should be the ones focusing on alternative types of energy, not the Government.' It doesnt make sense as the government running this country has as much to do with oil as the American people and private sectors demanding it. Its a global issue we're dealing with here and I feel the government SHOULD be putting more budget aside for this issue, because the longer we hold off on the problem, the harder it will be to compensate for the time lose.

Giants in 06
Hey Inyo,

I just reread your post and noticed I needed to post a clarification in regards to my own opinions about climate models.

I have stated that they are an invaluable asset as a tool but one cannot ignore their limitations being most impacted by the data put into them.

The ole saying certainly applies here. "garbage in, garbage out" or something like that.

We are far from a good understanding of how our climae works, so it stands to reason that we are naturally going to have difficulty forecasting its changes.

I am not opposed to their use, but the results should be understood that they carry a large degree of error for the aforementioned reasons noted in my first post discussing this topic.

Honestly, I find myself frustrated by all the claims being presented as fact, rather than ones personal opinion(not referring to you).

Regardless, I respect your opinions on this and all subjects, and there is no doubt that you are a very articulate voice for the other possibility.

Thanks,
Tony


Ok everyone,

I guess I am the only one still here and I really need to try and sleep.

Please understand that I personally respect all views that are genuinely heartfelt opinions and we should all keep our differences in their proper perspective.

I personally hold ZERO animosity towards anyone who has a completely different opinion on this issue or any other.

It is our opinions and we all have a right to agree to disagree, respectively, which is my sincere hope.:)

I hope everyone who reads this post later has a great night and day ahead.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Chaser, mailed a couple questions to you.
87. F5
Trouper415,

I have a friends who are geologists who have worked the oil industry for years. They aren't really concerned about running out of oil. The world's known reserves are about 922 billion barrels. Assuming a steady consumption rate, that would be about 27 years worth of oil. Assuming a 5% growth per year, about 15 years. However, the US Geological Survey estimates that unknown reservers are around 3 trillion barrels. The question is whether all of that oil will be able to be tapped, and at what cost.

So, I'm not really worried about running out anytime soon. However, for reasons we've all discussed, we should be researching and adopting alternative energy sources, for cleaner air/water, and for the US, to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
Chaser could we please stick to the weather or the climate or to topics on which Dr. Masters posts in his blog? Your articulation of your faith and beliefs (some of which could be considered quite offensive) simply has no business here. Please use your own blog if you must post this stuff.
89. F5
Skyepony,

The latest trend is not to produce ethanol from corn but from bio-mass, meaning plant stalks, etc. The only reason ethanol from corn hasn't taken off is because it takes $4.00 in subsidies from the government for every $1.00 of ethanol produced. The only people getting rich from ethanol from corn are Archer Daniels Midland.

Corn would be significantly cheaper if we didn't have farm price supports to keep the price artificially high. We could easily feed the world too, if we didn't have restrictions on how much crop could be grown. Is there a market for that much agriculture? Hard to say. Obviously, the poorest nations don't have have the money necessary to purchase/transport the foodstuff to everywhere it's needed, or they are too busy spending money on weapons and fighting wars. Seems like not a day goes by that you don't simultaneously hear about starvation and fighting in Africa. And until the political situations get resolved there, it's likely the problem will never be resolved.
What Cat 5 egos. . .
F5 wrote:

Ethanol also has issues of it's own. It currently requires more energy input to produce than the energy it creates, resulting in a net loss of energy.

As it turns out, this isn't true. Studies reaching this conclusion were based on obsolete methods of production and inaccurate accounting of coproducts. I go into a little more detail on this in my reply to Snowfire's excellent global-warming discussion.
92. F5
Phelp,

I would say you aren't representing yourself very well. That is exactly the type of arrogant attitude that prevents reasonable discussion on the topic. And as a "Graduate student" in a scientific field, you should understand the need for continued questioning of scientific research. The day that questioning stops is the day science stops being science and starts becoming religion.

Finally, the "vast majority" of "legitimate" scientists do not believe in AGW as a proven fact. The vast majority have not taken a position one way or the other. A dogmatic minority have misrepresented the views of the majority. Of course, I suppose that depends on "your" meaning of the word "legitimate". I'm sure there are a large number of people who would take exception to your claim.
I would agree that comments about "crazy ol' President Bush" don't advance any meteorological debate. I might even agree that Phelp's remarks could be interpreted as arrogant. On the other hand, he also isn't spending thousands of words dictating to us about the very most personal topic, our spiritual beliefs.
94. F5
jeffB,

Link

This study puports exactly what I stated. Once again, the problem lies in the politicizing of the research. On one hand, you have the USDA and a variety of midwestern states/universities proclaiming this and other studies are wrong, and you have this study and others proclaiming the pro-ethanol studies are wrong.

The authors of the above mentioned study have a long history of being anti-ethanol and pro photovoltaic, wind, and hydrogen fuel based alternatives. It's not a question where the USDA and pro-ethanol supporters are. It's a matter of revenue for them. I'm not claiming to know which one is correct. However, it's easy to be skeptical about any research produced by the USDA which directly benefits the people they are responsible for. Not to mention that ADM, which controls a vast quantity of the ethanol production in the US, is a huge lobbyist to the US Congress and makes a fortune off agriculture subsidies.
95. F5
jeffB,

I didn't take hurricanechaser's comments as dictating. He simply stated where he is coming from. Some Christians feel compelled to share their story with the world, some feel they do better by example, that is, letting their actions speak for themselves, and some you would never know by either that they claim to be Christian. That said, he didn't call anyone else out and say they need to be a Christian and do what he's doing. He just stated what he's doing. I hardly see how that can be considered dicttating. Proselytizing, perhaps. Dicatating...No.

You can argue the the appropriateness of his comments in a weather blog, but at the same time, no one is compelling you to read his posts either. It's easy enough to simply click the mouse on the scroll bar and skip right no past. In a basically unmoderated forum, you are simply going to get a variety of comments, some on topic, some not. That's just the nature of the internet.
97. F5
Or maybe just waxing poetic.
Good morning everyone,
It's good to be back on the blog. We had a rough night in our neighborhood - a fire broke out two houses up the street from us and then spread to our next door neighbor's home. Both homes were destroyed in a matter of minutes. We are very thankful to God and our firefighters that our home was spared with no damage other than our fence being busted down because they had to fight the fire from our back yard.
Whether it's a hurricane,tornado,flood,mudslide,earthquake,tsunami or fire,any of us can be hit by a disaster. What's most important is to be there to help our neighbor when they are in need. We may need their help sometime. I greatly admire the people on this blog from Florida and the Gulf Coast who did so much for their communities after the hurricanes.

I want to clarify some of my comments from yesterday. While I am critical of governments and corporations for their policies regarding greenhouse gas emissions,pollution,etc. I care very much about the poor in every country, be it China,India,Africa,Central America or right here in the U.S.A. One reason I am upset with the situation in China especially is that our corporations make huge profits and the communist government becomes even more powerful, while many Chinese workers are paid very low wages. If our corporations want to take advantage of cheap labor, they should be willing to help clean up power plants and their facilities in China or other countries to reduce pollution and GHG emissions. What can we do? If you own stock in one of our large corporations,consider going to their annual stockholders meeting to express your views. Vote in favor of directors who will be more responsible about the environment and against those who aren't. And of course, we always need to hold our elected officials accountable. Finally, we can support organizations which provide assistance to poor nations, especially if they help with reducing deforestation and other destructive practices. I need to do a search on the topic myself. Skyepony, you seem quite knowledgeable on the political end of things - do you have any suggestions? Or anyone else?



Hey Dr. Masters - perhaps it would be best to not allow comments on some of these controversial blog entries.
Must be those .tunnels???????

we need to develop...nuclear; solar; and hydrogen power.... and the hell with the big oil companies.
hurricanechaser,
Thank you for your post on your Christian faith. You are a courageous servant of God to be willing to endure the criticism you receive. I too am a Christian.

To everyone else,
As a Christian, I believe our problems in this world are due to mankind's sin (especially pride,selfishness and greed). This includes environmental problems. I pray that you do consider what chaser said, because the day will come when each of us will have to stand before God and give account for our lives. I seek to love God with all my heart,soul and mind, and to love my neighbor as myself.

Also,in general, all of us are just human and sometimes say things we wish we hadn't. When I do, I'm always willing to apologize or be corrected by someone else on this blog.

Sincerely, Mark

Now,back on topic. I think almost all of us agree that the Earth is warming rapidly, even though we are all over the spectrum as to how much of it is natural vs. being due to GHG emissions. But even if global warming is all natural and our attempts to reduce GHG emissions wouldn't make any difference,it makes sense for so many other reasons to begin weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. We reduce the risk of a terrible economic shock or a major war being fought over oil, as well as reducing pollution. I hope President Bush is finally getting serious about developing alternative energy sources. It's good politics,too. If we have a huge oil price shock and a deep recession, that would result in a landslide for the Democrats.
104. jeffB
F5, thanks for the link! It appears to predate the paper from Science that I mention in the other blog. If I get a chance, I'll go back and see whether the study in your link is one of the ones that the Science paper refuted.
105. Inyo
i think your interpretations of the bible's view of homosexuality are just wrong and indicate that you are simply being fed what certain parties (groups, not political parties) want you to hear rather than actually reading the book and drawing your own conclusions. There are as many arguments for mixing fabric types and breeding cattle with each other being a sin as there are for homosexuality being a sin. Remember, a generation ago, people were judged the same way by the color of their skin, or their country of origin, and people found ways of reading the Bible to imply that these people were inferior too. some of hte right wingers are just choosing a group of people to oppress beacuse they need someone to hate and you should see it as such. Also, you should not be trying to 'legislate morality', even Jesus said that. the idea of 'everyone becoming gay' is a joke. and the whole 'std spread' thing is also a fraud.. stds are spread faster when people have a large number of sexual partners and don't use protective devices. these traits arent inherently 'gay'.

okay, i dont want to spend a lot of time on here talking to it but when hurricanechaser is posting his ridiculous hate propaganda on here i feel the need to respond.

can we please get back to greenhouse warming? hurricanechaser, when i see this stuff coming out of your 'fingers', i start to doubt your intelligence, which i otherwise believed was high, and this if anything is an argument FOR antropomorphic warming.
There has GOT to be some university out there that uses the discussions on this blog as part of some human relations course.
107. dcw
I'll bet there is...it's certainly an amazing study in group dynamics.

By the way Tony, I fixed the longitude on Fantasy Cane Adrian, so you can go make a forecast now.
108. Inyo
actually, this is pretty typical of most blogs/message boards i've been on. and i do apologize for 'feeding the troll' and responding to these gay marriage posts... it's kind of a 'knee jerk' reaction and i should just try to ignore them.
109. F5
DenverMark,

I don't think we all agree the earth is warming "rapidly". I think we all agree it is warming. The extent is in question, both current and future.

As for the POTUS getting serious about alternative energy, there are two issues. First, the POTUS can set an agenda and could direct an amount of money into research, but every dollar spent there is one less dollar spent somewhere else, or you have to raise taxes. I think we have more pressing concerns, like disease, famine, hunger, housing, that should be priorities. Of course, this assumes that you think it is the role of government to be caretaker. You can argue that disease is a matter of national health/security and thus in its purview. The social issues regarding housing, hunger, famine, etc., should be outside the scope of what the US government is allowed to do, unless it directly relates to national security. I know, I'm exposing my conservative/libertarian side here. Taking care of people is what people should be doing, not governments. Governments create big, ineffectual bureaucracies, that end up doing more harm than good in many circumstances, especially when they become self-sustaining instead of short-term assistance.

Diatribe aside, with the pot only so big, every dollar spent on alterntive energy sources is one less dollar for things that are more important, given the current state of things. On a related note, anytime a national politician does something for "election" purposes, you can be assured that it is unlikely to be good for the nation as a hole.

The second issue I have is that it's easy to say "The government" should do research and resolve the issue. But that ignores both economics and reality. If anything is to ween us of our dependence on foreign energy sources, it will be economics. The price of oil will simply have to rise to a level at which alternative energy sources become more attractive as investments to companies. There's little if any impetus for a company to invest money in those kinds of technologies without some driving factor, such as high energy prices. For now, the prices have not reached a level that has really affected them a great deal. They simply pass that cost on to the consumer and the consumer pays it. However, when the cost passes a certain point, the consumer is less willing to part with their money, less product is sold, and companies begin to look for alternatives. Whoever said necessity is the mother of all invention was spot on. In addition, unless a company sees a big payoff for their investment, they still will be unwilling to put out a lot of money. If government research leads to solutions, no one will own the academics will own the patents and all who license the rights will simply be producing a commodity at that point.

Hydrogen fuel-cells are a good example. Companies are investing in R&D, and they are making progress. Yet there are considerable challenges to overcome. There is no national infrastructure, mileage rates are not great, it still takes using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen for fuel cells, and they still emit CO2, albeit about 63% less than gasoline powered vehicles. So while companies are investing in new technologies, they are only going to go so far until many of these issues are resolved. And as far as climate goes, even if the US was able to convert over entirely to hydrogen and reduce emissions by a huge amount, developing nations such as China and India will continue to increase the amount of CO2 and other GHG in the atmosphere at a rate that eventually will surpass any reduction achieved by the US and other countries.

None of this is to say that we should not be researching and investing in alternatives, only that there's no "Man to the Moon" directive that will resolve this issue.
110. TPaul
I second ForecasterColby's comment below,

"Hey Dr. Masters - perhaps it would be best to not allow comments on some of these controversial blog entries"

I think things here have gotten totally out of hand and wonder if it is possible to take up a petition to ban some members when they go on and on at nausea for the sake of I don't know what. I hate having to scroll multiple pages to get through one post that is totally irravelent to the topic at hand. I am one that believes when an individual creates a blog on a specific topic that that individual has the right to limit it to that topic. Whether people want to believe it or not, blogs are not covered by the First Amendment unless they are payed for by the Government.
111. TPaul
DenverMark, I also can't agree with your notion that the earth is warming rapidly. Yes, I think it is warming and based on everything I have seen my best guess would be we would see a 3 degree rise this century of which 1 to 1.5 degrees could be attributed to human activitity of the previous 150 years.
tpaul wrote::


"I think things here have gotten totally out of hand and wonder if it is possible to take up a petition to ban some members when they go on and on at nausea for the sake of I don't know what. I hate having to scroll multiple pages to get through one post that is totally irravelent to the topic at hand. I am one that believes when an individual creates a blog on a specific topic that that individual has the right to limit it to that topic. Whether people want to believe it or not, blogs are not covered by the First Amendment unless they are payed for by the Government."

for example, your post above which has no relevance to the subject? hypocritical isn't it? very interesting.

my tunnels will make everyone stick to the subject.
This is all well and good, but if we don't solve the global population problem, global warming will be a light hearted subject...

more people = more resources = more pollution

Remember Barry Commoner's 4 laws of Ecology...
1) Everything is interconnected
2) Matter is neither created nor destroyed
3) Natural systems know best
4) There is no such thing as a free lunch...

F5 and TPaul - That was a poor choice of words on my part. The rate of warming appears to be greater in the past 20 years or so, but that is based on the observed data which can be questioned based on location and exposure of instruments, urban heat islands, etc. I actually lean more toward the conservative side and was a complete skeptic about global warming until about 10 years ago. Also, I would agree that it is best for the market to work things out which will happen when the price of oil rises high enough. I was trying to give the President a little benefit of the doubt, but don't have much faith in government to solve the energy situation or the other serious problems mentioned. That much said, I appreciate the diversity of opinion on this blog and do value what everyone has to say whether I agree or not :-)
My personal opinion on alternative energy is to use more nuclear power generation. The risk/benefit ratio is more than acceptable and we have had years of experience to learn how to do it right.
A govt article summary, from Dec 6th~ U.S. Official Addresses First Plenary Climate Change Meeting. It states the President & govt's take on Kyoto & their plans for reducing emmisions, change of energy source & allies in energy.

Just their side~ perhaps I'll have time to comment later...
117. TPaul
stansimms72, Not sure what your game is, and not sure what you have to do with CBs tunnels, but certainly I was not referring to his tunnels in my post. I don't think that he has put enough thought into his idea but certainly it is a topic of relavance in regards to the weather.
118. Inyo
I don't agree that corporations will provide us with all the scientific research we need on this topic. It's hard for most of these corporations to think long-term, and really, i think this is why the government should step in and fund research. Yeah, no one likes a government that is too big but to me a huge corporation in control of things is even worse. And, yes i realize that both corporations and the government are entities that everyone can participate in, etc. However, the government is supposed to represent all of us while corporations only represent a few wealthy stockowners.
120. F5
Inyo,

Neither government nor corporations are in charge of things. The people are in charge. Corporations only exist because they produce goods and services that people/corporations are willing to accept in exchange for other goods or services. One of the government's functions is to prevent the situation from getting one-sided vis-a-vis monopolies. However, how many government funded research discoveries have there been compared to private equity research discoveries. Heck, government funding is a relatively recent phenomenon, apart from military research. How did we ever discover/invent anything prior to government funded research.

That said, I am not advocating a total shutdown of government funded research, where appropriate. But it needs to be a lot more strict that it has been in the past.

Remember, altruism in a capitalistic society just doesn't exist. By that, I mean that people/organizations are motivated to make discoveries by potential profit, or by another name, greed. They do it because they feel they can entice people to give up money in exchange for the goods their research has produced.

Now, if government is funding the research, it is likely that any patents will be available to use by anyone willing to pay the licensing fees, which makes the output a commodity to be produced by the lowest cost mfr and reduces the profit motive, thus making companies less likely to engage in producing that product, especially if they feel their money can be better invested somewhere else making a greater return.

Of course, nothing is absolute in the world except death and taxes, take all this with a grain of salt.
One thing that has always bothered me about the global warming debate is the lack of long term data that is reliable--for example, when we talk about a record hurricane season in 2005, we need to make it clear that this is for as long as accurate records were kept in the Atlantic basin; to be honest, maybe back 120 or so years. In geological terms, this is a split second--even accurate temperature readings cannot be relied upon 100% beyond 100 years. This is not enough data to conclusively prove that this or that is a cause of global warming--this is not good science. The geologic record records many periods of hot and cold climate, clearly with causes other than human intervention. Is human intervention a factor in the current warming trend? I'm sure there is a connection, but how much of connection is anyone's guess at the moment--there is not enough data and too much contradictory evidence to support this hypothesis one way or the other. As we have seen, anyone can doctor the data to support almost any position at this point.
Does that mean we should do nothing? By no means--we should do what we can to lessen impact on the earth: no easy task with 6 billion of us roaming around. However, part of the problem may be solved for us--as has been mentioned, the oil supply will not last forever. According to a USGS study, among others, we are fast approaching the point where our demand for oil exceeds the existing supply; many of these "production cuts" in many oil-producing nations may just be a cover for a dwindling reserve. The question is, what is the alternative? Considering how much we depend upon oil--not just for transportation, but for plastics, medicines, and so forth--a major change in our life styles and opinions will be in order. For example, what substitute do we have for air travel with not avgas available? Will we be flying dirigibles powered with natural gas-powered internal combustion engines? Nuclear energy is a clean option for electrical, but it is currently politically incorrect--and the disposal of radioactive waste is a valid concern.
I would love to do my bit by using mass transit--I did for a while when gas in Southern California maxxed out near $3 per gallon--but then LACoMTA cut the line that I used, forcing me back into my car. Alternatives? None now, but something has to be done soon.

PS Again, here is an interesting essay on climate and sun spots from 1992 that throws another variable into the climate mix.
Ay carumba! It amazes me to watch the topics stray when there is not enough definitive proof on a given topic to prove out. It almost seems with lack of something substantial or tangible, the conversations always drift. Granted everyone is entitled to an opinion, and to defend where there is a feeling of being attacked, but certainly there must be come compromise between thought and expression?
Chaser, you have become the equivalent of a troll with your frequent objectionable and unsolicited monologues on your "faith". Please keep this stuff off the blog. There is so much of this cluttering up the blog that it's hard for any reasonable weather or climate-related discussion to get going.
Geoman,

That was an excellent and clearly objective post on Global warming and that's pretty much how I see it myself, which some can't seem to comprehend and incorrectly assume I neither believe there is a warming trend in some cases and misunderstand that I believe there is simply no conclusive data suggesting that this warming has been the direct result of GHG emmisions.

Furthermore, I've consistently stated that I personally believe Natural clmate variabilty is most likely the DIRECT cause with some minimal effect caused by human activities.

How much either way, no one truly knows, because our understanding of climate change is still very much in its infancy, which is why I don't blinding accept the dooms day scenarios as fact much less likely.

Consequently, this debate will continue for decades to come in my personal opinion.

Thanks for an excellent post.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Snowboy,

Why is it that you cannot be respectful and rather choose to be so rude with the personal attacks accompanied wit unnecessary name calling.

Your posts are no more beneficial than any others and I would appreciate you letting the issue drop which I had until your unnecessary post.

Posted By: snowboy at 12:37 AM GMT on February 22, 2006.

Chaser, you have become the equivalent of a troll with your frequent objectionable and unsolicited monologues on your "faith". Please keep this stuff off the blog. There is so much of this cluttering up the blog that it's hard for any reasonable weather or climate-related discussion to get going.

I asked that no one bring up the questions and I will not discuss it, but if questioned about my FAITH as has always been the case, I will respond whether you like it or not.:)

My posts aren't monologues but well intenioned and not mean spirited unlike yours and many others.

Thanks,
Tony


OK here is a climate-related post. The BBC and the United Kingdom meteorology office are inviting people to participate in a climate study. It is distributed computing, much like the Seti@home project. When your computer is on but idle, data is sent to your computer to analyze and the results are sent back. It is hoped that by getting hundreds of thousands or millions of personal computers to participate in this analysis will result in a more detailed and accurate climate model. Here is the link: Link

This page explains more about it: Link
Snowboy,

Just for the record, they can't be unsolicited if I am asked about them first.

Thanks,
Tony
Chaser the rudeness as I see rests with the one who unsolicited pushes his faith on others who are not interested, and who in fact may be offended by some of the mean-spirited nonsense about "sin" which is being posted.
and here is something funny about climate change Link
People should move non-weather topics to their own blogs.
St.simons,

I agree, but I am not the one bringing up other topics first, but will reply to questions off topic especially when its about my Faith.

Thanks,
Tony
137. TPaul
hurricanechaser, this is a funny game you are playing. I read every post in here and you were the first person to bring up the the issue of Gay Marriage, That is FACT. So for you to say you were responding to someone else is in correct. And now when people start to pick up on this you go and say
"I am done discussing these issues if you are done directing comments to me or about me.
". Which is of course is a dead setup, and which you have done several times before. And in a day or two you will be back in here pulling the same stunts and taking up more space with your posts then everyone elses posts combined, which half the time are copy and pastes of one of your previous posts with maybe some minor modifications, but I think I read one of your post that was nearly an exact duplicate of another. And what is funny is that I don't think I have seen this user "stansimms72" before, certainly not in this whole long set of posts but suddenly they up and decide to call me a hippocriet because of a simple comment I make. I am just getting tired of having to weed through your all your non relavent posts to carry on a simple discussion with everyone else on the relavent topics that Dr. Master's puts forth. Now I am sure you will take this as a personal attack, because you seem to think that anybody saying anything to you that doesn't support you is a personal attack, but as one Christian to another my oppinion of you is the same as your oppinion of your homosexual friends, I can love you as a person, but I find actions unacceptable.

Now I will appologize to everyone else on here because obviously I have given hurricanechaser the execuse to go on for another couple of hundred post because he can now use the execuse that he feels he has been wronged by me, yadayada....
Researchers Find Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in Oceans~
A new study has found a compelling agreement between observed changes in ocean temperatures since 1960 and the changes simulated by two climate models under rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. In all of the worlds ocean basins, the warming predicted by the models for the upper 700 meters (2,300 feet) of the ocean corresponded to actual measurements obtained at sea, with confidence exceeding 95 percent.

The immediate conclusion is that human influences are largely responsible for the warming signal, the authors write. The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed, and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming, said lead author Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Barnett and his colleagues used one of the models to explore whether the climates own natural variability could account for the warming oceans, or whether the warming could be explained by other natural factors such as solar variability and volcanic eruptions. In neither case could the model replicate the warming that has been observed in the real world. The changes were simply too strong to be explained by natural causes.

The authors argue that since these two climate models have been shown to simulate past changes accurately, their predictions for future changes, at least out to the next 20-30 years, are apt to be reasonably good. The study was published in the June 2, 2005 online version of the journal Science.
Skypeony do you have a link for that?
I mistyped the link I posted earlier, Link
Again, I tell you all - get over to my site and track some fantasy hurricanes, since clearly you're suffering from severe withdrawl.

By the way:



O_O
sorry about that link, here's another out of EPA's news & events~

Energy Imbalance Said to Confirm Greenhouse Gases Contribution to Warming
Precise measurements of temperature within the ocean confirm that the Earth is absorbing more energy from sunlight than it emits back to space, providing perhaps the strongest evidence to date that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases and other pollutants are the primary cause of the current global warming trend. The findings are reported in the April 28, 2005 issue of the journal Science.

The magnitude of the imbalance agrees with what we calculated using known climate forcing agents, which are dominated by increasing human-made greenhouse gases, said lead author James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The average energy imbalance amounts to 0.85 + 0.15 Watts per square meter, largely reflecting the amount of heat soaked up and stored by the worlds oceans. The imbalance implies that the global temperature takes decades to fully respond to changes in greenhouse gases, because the oceans thermal inertia acts as a brake on warming. It also implies that the Earth would warm by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the course of the current century even if greenhouse gas concentrations were held constant at todays levels, because the oceans will continue to absorb energy, increase in temperature, and warm the atmosphere until the energy coming in from the sun and the energy emitted out to space are in balance. In addition, the new findings imply that sea level rise and the disintegration of ice sheets are likely to increase.

The authors note that the increasing heat storage in the ocean cannot be explained by natural fluctuations. Under natural conditions, the ocean would release its heat more slowly only if its surface cools (if, for example, cool water from the ocean depths rose to the surface). But the oceans surface has been warming, suggesting that the warming climate is the more viable explanation for the phenomenon.


By the way, for those who think we should sign Kyoto: you may want to note that we're doing better than 3/4 of the signitory nations.


I have spoke of this pic many times in my blog. Before & after pics. The last are the scariest. Just thought everyone should see this!!!!
Fshhead, great glacier recission poster! And thanks for the link Skyepony :)
I like Fshheads aircraft pics *Jonny Quest theme in my head*
David and everyone else,

I sincerely apologize for that VERY INAPPROPRIATE post challenging those who have made personal attacks on me.

That was the reason why I acted that way but it doesn't excuse the fact it was wrong and I was wrong to act that way.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Tony,
Hope u feeling a "little" better!!!!
"just a thought", u really should not get so worked up over some of the comments here. We are obviously alot of different people here. Whenever we got into the religion & politics I NEVER got offended by anything u said. Sometimes some comments u just got to laugh off y'know?
Like I said before ALL religions point to a creator,everyone should just focus on that!!!!
Like I also said before I believe all religions kinda correct & all religions kinda wrong.... Don't get ME started on my beliefs LOL It will REALLY go against your style of beliefs.
I can even show you "proof" on my beliefs......
Big can of worms to open though LOL
Fshhead I would find that interesting if you put it on your blog--been reading your climate blog comments (and deciding to ignore hurricanechaser for now)
Hey Jeff,

I am not challenging others beliefs but defending my own...please see my posts and responses.

I respect everyones opinion whether we agre or not as long as there are no personal attacks..
YOu set a very good example by us agreeing to disagree without any unnecessary animousity.:)

Your friend,
Tony


Does Buddhism have a creator in it? I can't remember
Hey st. simons,


Can you please forgive my inappropriate challenge to you and please understand my beliefs are not meant to be personal or discrimatory towards you.

Thanks,
Tony


Fshhead I would find that interesting if you put it on your blog--been reading your climate blog comments (and deciding to ignore hurricanechaser for now)


Hmmmm not sure if I want to do that cause then it takes my global warming blog off the blog page. This is by FAR more important I think than my view of religion, but would not hesitate to share my views elsewhere... Here or maybe Chaser's famous Christian blog
Sure lets just drop it and keep to weather/climate topics
Hey Tony did u see the glacier pic I posted earlier here????
Hey Jeff,

I am still very sick and am on my last antibiotic pill.

I haven't gotten more than 3 hours sleep a night for the entire week I've been so sick.

I guess I'm just a little more emotional than I might be otherwise. Still no excuse for challenging those like I did.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey st. simons,

That says so much about you personally I for one greatly respect you for it.:)

Thanks,
Tony
Yea my girl has had walkin pneumonia twice. Really takes alot out of you. She was quite weak for a while.
still not sure what the difference between walking & regular is thoughLOL... both pneumonia
Hey Jeff,

I just did, thanks for pointing it out for me.:)

We don't agree on the belief that the Earth is indeed warming as you know.:)

I gotta get my little girl to bed.:)

I will be back later,

I hope you and st. simons have a good night in case I miss you two while I'm gone.

Your friend,
Tony


Honestly Jeff, I am not too sure either except I hear both can be life threatening if untreated.

I'm thankful your daughter got over hers and is better and thanks so very much for asking about how I'm feeling.:)

Your friend,
Tony
LOL ahhh girlfriend not daughter
Hey Jeff,

BIG TYPO!

We DO agree on the belief that the Earth is indeed warming as you know.:)

Your friend,
Tony
Well, I'm back from Estrella War and unfortunately nature did not find 5,000 tents a tempting target.... I'm beginning to think we won't get rain until June......
Fshhead - enjoyed the poster of receding glaciers. When it comes to global warming, the melting of glaciers is better evidence of it than our temperature data which is open to questions about accuracy. I think one of the glaciers on that poster is the Athabasca Glacier in the Canadian Rockies. I've been there three times; in 1965 as a little kid, in 1988, and finally in 2003. The last time I had fun pointing out to my wife where the glacier was on my previous visits. It really is significant. For anyone who hasn't been to that area (Jasper National Park), it is one of the best exhibits of glacier recession anywhere, with signs indicating the maximum advance of the glacier in the mid-1800s and its recession ever since.


Here is another interesting pic of the receding glaciers!!
: hurricanechaser you have a vary good night did you have your little boy yet?
204. jeffB
Perhaps we should all agree that if hurricanechaser stops preaching in a weather blog, we won't go to his church and start shouting about climate change in the middle of a service. :-)

Chaser, here's a suggestion that I think might let you make your points without offending everybody else: make your posts in your own blog, as you have in the past. When someone says something here that you feel you have to respond to, just make a post that says

Please find my reply on my blog.

...substituting, of course, a link to your actual reply.

That way, all of us who would like to let the subject drop can just skip to the next post, and those who want to continue the discussion with you can do it in your blog -- or, for that matter, in their own.

Does this sound like a reasonable approach?
Californa, I mis-spoke about the oil exec's, my statement which I addressed in the 2nd post was relating to the billion's in tax credits to the oil industry not the individual executive CEO type or owners. It's just hard to believe them when while watching CSPAN Congress dragged them in to a hearing and then refused to sware them in.
First, you may be echoing what you have heard or read from others (usually with political motive), who state that as fact, knowing that people will blindly believe it. I don't, in fact I pride my self on reading and thinking for myself, not what others like Fox News, CNN, Joe Libermann, Jack Abermoff, Karl Rove or Ted Kennedy tell me what to think.
I have just joined after lurking since last September and I have noticed that there are strong disagreements over global warming, which should not result in fights (many have their own opinions and shouldn't try to tell others what is right). Perhaps some day solid factual evidence that positively shows that global warming is/is not caused by human activity will be found. I would rather see more talk about other weather.
Colby,
You are so right we all need a storm to track and you have the Perfect one to do so...



Now for my post will be Weather related and I hope that will be all, although it took me a long time to read all of it but I did... :0)

Telford
Skyepony -thanks for the link. Good reading.
How does fantasy hurricane forecasting work?
BTW, I often look at other parts of the world for tropical cyclone activity and I think that we will see a storm develop in the South Indian Ocean in a few days, according to the GFS, UKMET and NOGAPS (currently Invest 90S on the Navy site).
Interestingly a huge chunk of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions (and in particular the increases shown by Dr. Masters) are due to the oil sands projects in Western Canada, which are rapidly becoming a major source of oil for the US.
snowboy, you may want to look at www.geohive.com On the lower right, you can see statistics for oil, gas, and coal consumption by country.
219. phelp
correction: than=then
Hey Jeff,

Thanks and I appreciate the posts.:)

Your friend,
Tony
224. Inyo
guys, getting back to weather/climate...

someone posted last week that they thought La Nina was weakening and everyone else, myself included, had our doubts.


but this GIF below seems to lend credence to that. it may just be a temporary anomaly but water temperatures in the far eastern Pacific have taken an upward trend in the ENSO region

225. TPaul
hurricanechaser, if you are burned out on the Global warming debate why don't you go to your blog so the rest of us can actually have a debate about it.

Hey Michael,

I couldn't agree more, I'm way past burned out on the Global warming debate myself.:)

Thanks,
Tony
Thanks Jeff,

Finally someone who can understand why I have so many posts on here.

I am having to correct not just one persons incorrect comments about what I personally think anmd why I am doing it but having to respond to like 10 people.

It is easy to see I want it to stop because I am not enjoy this ongoing nonsense either for obvious reasons. However, I will not be intimadated by anyone, so if you want this t go on and on, so be it.

Thanks,
Tony


Hey Jeff,

Thanks for correcting me but I have now done that twice..first challenging them to make these rude and incorrect comments about me to my face and a second time right there.

Shows how imperfect I am naturally.:)

Your friend,
Tony


oh man my pic did not come out earlier
repost:




Like I said before the pic pretty much sums it up!!!!
238. TPaul
hurricanechaser, make you a deal if you want to talk religion I am willing to go to your blog and discuss it there, though you would probably find that we would agree more then you think, it is just not what I came to this blog to discuss. But if you are willing to talk only weather here, that is cool by me. Also, I will not counter your last remark and will go no further with this if this ends here, even willing to say lets get back to talking about hurricanes and leave global warming off the table.

We have barely 3 months till the start of hurricane season so we probably should start looking at the precursors to what kind of season everyone thinks we will have.
I'm calling it a night. May we all have a peaceful day tomorrow.
Inyo, right after the pictures in the last post the ENSO advisory was quoted by F5. One line in particular stuck out at me:

Also, a weak layer of above normal temperatures is now present at the surface along the South American Coast, a feature typical of a mature La Nina.


It appears that that warm water is a sign that La Nina is no longer "developing" but is instead in full force.
Hey TPAUL,

We finally agree and I had walked out of my little girls room after checking on her and thinking what a terrible example I am being by getting into personal attacks so to speak myself when I was complaining about them myself.

So, I greatly appreciate you making that last post and even if you don't think my apologies are sincere, I still owe you one and was wrong in saying what I said to you as Jeff pointed out on my last post.

Honestly, I don't see a problem discussing global warming and I initially felt is was too political in the same frame of mind that most think discussions of Faith aren't appropriate here.

Now, I can better appreciate the conversation and I have certainly made my opinion known regarding my take on global warming so I won't spend much time reiterating the same sentiments.

In short, thanks for being so respectful and I respect you more than you know by how you responded with your last post.:)

Thanks,
Tony


Posted By: Inyo at 4:16 AM GMT on February 22, 2006.
guys, getting back to weather/climate...

someone posted last week that they thought La Nina was weakening and everyone else, myself included, had our doubts.


but this GIF below seems to lend credence to that. it may just be a temporary anomaly but water temperatures in the far eastern Pacific have taken an upward trend in the ENSO region


Man, I really like the looks of that. Hopefully the La-nina will weaken for hurricane season.
Hey Chaser, PLEASE stop using boldmans first name LOL'
I keep thinking u talking to me.
Sweden is the country that will pull this off~ Sweden's energy policy. I read the other day where their political people had announced ~ they hoped to be off oil by 2020.~

"We want to be both mentally and technically prepared" for a world without oil, said Martin Larsson, a senior administrative officer in the Ministry of Sustainable Development.

Persson has said the target will be reached by boosting research on alternative fuels, giving financial incentives for people switching to "green alternatives," and increasing the annual electricity production from renewable sources by 15 terawatt hours by 2016 -- that figure equals nearly one-third of all the electricity used by Swedish industries in 2004. Some tax breaks have already been introduced, while Persson has formed a special commission tasked with finding other ways to create a society independent of oil. The commission will present its first proposals this summer.

"Many countries are setting renewable energy targets. The difference with Sweden is that the targets are achievable rather than aspirational," McGlade said. "This is because government departments across sectors in Sweden have built renewable energy into their long-term policies."


Pony that second link really good article. I like the sound of it.
Sweden is working on the economy of the future. Any guesses who will be stuck with the economy of the past?
Here's a link to an article that talks about europe's plans for the next 15 years. They are just recovering from Russia shutting Ukraine off natural gas during January when it was bitter cold, over a price dispute, resulting in 1000's freezing to death.
sure thing chaser no hard feelings i was just pointing out what you said thats great that you accepted that it was wrong and all i do say personal attacks are not the kind of thing to be doing.

So what is the last month in which we didn't have a TD or a named storm of some kind in the Atlantic Basin somewhere...?

253. Inyo

Also, a weak layer of above normal temperatures is now present at the surface along the South American Coast, a feature typical of a mature La Nina.


hmm, i did not remember seeing that before.. very interesting. it did look like the layer was shallow although the depth/temperature reading was a week old so it was hard to say. Obviously we have only been watching la nina in depth for a few decades at most, so we don't really know how things like this work.

I hope the US stays a superpower for a while, since i have a lot of friends here, and since poverty is bad for my mountains. However, i feel like we have reached our peak and won't be nearly as much a force in the future. Only time will tell.. i do believe that from a purely economic standpoint, even if global warming is no facter, getting out of our reliance on oil and the middle east will help us a lot. Also, keeping the edge technologically which typically has been achieved largely by government funded research :)

Please,can we stop arguing and get back to weather/climate?
Good morning,everyone - One topic I'm going to look into more is to try to get an honest,unbiased idea of how much warming we've had,at least in North America. The Western Regional Climate Center is an excellent data source, and so is Environment Canada. I've already printed up a lot of data and am trying to put together a sample of airport stations with reliable data (i.e. instruments located well away from urban development/heat island influences, same observation time over the years,etc.), then average them up by region. I'd like to do comparisons such as the 1950s or 1960s vs. the last 10 years. Also, to compare even the '80s with the 1995-2004 data. I may start with Arctic stations,since that is where the most concern is, and there aren't problems with land use and urban heat islands except for a few locations such as Fairbanks,AK.

What's important to me is to be objective about the whole global warming issue. One thing that interests me is a statistic I saw somewhere on here that it took until 1975 to increase CO2 in the atmosphere from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to 330 ppm, and now in the last 30 years we've gone from 330 ppm to 380 ppm. In other words, we've added as much CO2 in the last 30 years as we did in the previous 150 years or so. This does seem to correlate well with an increase the rate of warming in recent decades. Also,we can't ignore the increased rate of glacier melting. True,glaciers have generally been receding since the Little Ice Age ended in the mid to late 1800s, but the pace has picked up in the last few decades.

This is just my opinion. Maybe Dr.Masters' scenario #2 will occur (we can hope). My guess is we will be looking at the 2 degree C increase. On the other hand, I have a real problem with doomsday scenarios of increases of 10C and 220 foot rises in sea level. I'm off to work, but look forward to everyone's comments.
Great idea from the dutch, don't know where you'll park the SUV though?

Link
Link
Is there a link to how a person can decrease the amount of CO2 they produce?
thanks
tim
To whoever asked - the fantasy forecasting works like this:

Every few hours to a day, I'll post a new 'advisory'. You make your forecasts or ask questions about the enviornment as needed, and the person who does the best forecasting for each storm is added to a winners list. Take a look at my site if you're interested, I think it's the fifth forum down.
Hurricanechaser:

Try being New Testament: Turn the other cheek! This pathological need to keep defending yourself is so tired.
269. TPaul
bobburg,

At the moment the last of that argument is between Stormchaser and Hurricanechaser and hopefully it will get settled and all conversations will come back to the weather.

So, this may sound funny coming from me, but your comment was not helpful and ultimately Hurricanechaser has every right to respond directly to it. And being that your brought up the New Testament you have just opened it up again.

My hope is that Dr. Masters will post a new entry so that the topic is reset because I always try to live by the rule that you don't carry over from one thread to the next.
271. TPaul
Hurricanechaser,

You may not think much of me, or my oppinion which is understandable, but I think you handled bobburg's comment very gracefully and directly and certainly I don't think his comment was called for as it served no purpose I could see other then to inflame the discussion again.
272. F5
Inyo,

Tell that to Microsoft, Intel, AMD, IBM, AT&T, Bell Labs, and all the other leading technology companies in the United States. The US is where people want to be. It's true the government does fund a lot of universit research, but more of that is in the earth sciences and biological sciences, than in the technology area. Not that there isn't a lot of funding in technology as well, but most technology innovations are coming from private industry, not from government funded research.
I know this is probably late in coming, but I'm instituting the same policy here that we had in Hurricane season. Please, limit discussion to the topic at hand or at least remotely relevant topics. It you want to talk about other topics, you all have your own blog in which you can do so. Please help by flagging all off topic discussion as spam.
Yes during Hurricane season it worked. If you all dont find the topic relevant, hit the spam button and it will be taken care of my the Admin. Believe me this works! Thanks again Wunder!
Hey Jeff, Bob, and David,

Three of my favorite people on here.:)

How are you all doing?

Your friend,
Tony
The NHC has released its report on Hurricane Vince. (www.nhc.noaa.gov/2005atlan.shtml?)
hurricanechaser i am doing vary good today
Thanks for the info on the Vince report gippgig!
284. dcw
Chaser, you need to stop now. All further posts on the subject will be spamflagged by me, at least.
a cold front is draped from a 1004 mb low with gale
force winds and enters the area along 32n62w 30n71w then becomes
a warm front


dcw get lost
Well, not being very nice to me today, KRWZ. As before, dcw=me.

By the way, I thought this was a great spin on the whole global warming issue - conclusive proof that global warming comes from lower pirate populations:

ForecasterColby ooops i am so sorry i did not no that was you so i am so sorry i take that back sorry
KRWZ, I don't think that the low the NHC mentions will become tropical, although it is predicted by the GFS to become a strong 960 mb extratropical storm.

Link
I'm going to do my bit and get a parrot and an eye patch Colby.
"The rain in Spain was mainly less than 2 inches"

Hee, hee, hee

Who says the NHC has no sense of humor?
*laughs* there are a lot more than 17 pirates in the Indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca :) But it is still a funny post :-)
ForecasterColby,

Your chart is wrong you forgot some pirates:

* Software pirates
* Music pirates
* Movie pirates

* Big Fat Cat corps that loot your wallet to finance thier "sweat shops" in other lands

* Legal Monoploies like phone, cable, trash that jack you for more money for anything they feel like cause they know thier is no one else for you to switch too

And the biggest pirate of all

****THE GOVERMENT***

(ROFLMAO)
BTW this is Mike, not Richard, who does 98% of the posting here. Interesting that the two of us share one handle, while Colby/DCW has two.

ForecasterColby ooops i am so sorry i did not no that was you so i am so sorry i take that back sorry


you there if you see this or get my e mail yet me no
BTW, for anybody who is interested, Cyclone Kate has formed near Queensland, Australia and has winds of 45 kt and pressure of 991 mb.

Link
F5 ~ I have to disagree with you that the govt doesn't give us alot of new technology. I have & do know alot of people that work at Kennedy Space Center, some for NASA. The things they create every day helping privite industry or just to do all this space stuff is amazing & all the technoligy is just handed to the companies to market. I could write the longest blog ever of everyday things that are in my house where the technoligy origanally came from NASA. Even the brand name EQyss horse shampoo here, developed to decontaminate astronauts.

I found an article on the study of the ice worms, the enzymes are wild ~

There's been increased interest in ice worms and other animals whose glacial habitat could disappear within the next 50 years due to global warming.

Organs harvested for transplant deteriorate as the cells' energy stores are depleted, he said. Examining the ice worms' metabolism may lead to drugs or chemical solutions that could keep organs alive longer.

There were alot of other new technologys mentioned that could come out of this study funded by NASA...
Dr. Master's blog on Greenland melting is up.
299. Inyo
The US is where people want to be. It's true the government does fund a lot of universit research, but more of that is in the earth sciences and biological sciences, than in the technology area.

well, admittedly i am a biologist so this is where i draw most of my data. There aren't many companies doing research on ecology because it's hard to make a profit on it in the short term. however, as you know, it is very important in the long term (ask the people of new orleans)
Hey everyone,

It is obvious that you(dcw), Stormchaser(who I wrote a most heartfelt response to him which should've settled everything), and snowboy, and others who didn't see it are left with the incorrect impression because my most sincere and respectful and most importantly agreeable response to Bobburg was intentionally deleted so no one can see the truth.

Does anyone care about the truth?

Since you obviously never got the chance to see it, heres the comments from a blogger summarizes their opinion of my response.:)

(I intentionally will not disclose the indentity but its stil in the previous blog if you doubt its validity)


Hurricanechaser,

You may not think much of me, or my oppinion which is understandable, but I think you handled bobburg's comment very gracefully and directly and certainly I don't think his comment was called for as it served no purpose I could see other then to inflame the discussion again.


To Everyone on here, who will never know the truth because it was deleted as will this one be.

Worst of all noone will ever know I was not ever going to continue these responses ever again in this blog but this unfairness and coverup of the TRUTH deserves to be acknowledge.

Did you not notice how I honestly and sincerely acted like the Christian I should've been all along and made a committment to keep my Faith out of the blogs and was very respectful to Bobburgs comment even agreeing with him about turning the other cheek.

Heres the response I got....And notice how that most heartfelt post has been deleted and leaves me looking horrible in the blog history of the previous blg.

I can't tell you how unfair and disappointed I am about that.

I was hoping you could understand this.:)

From Bobburg on my mail.

"You're a Christian; you brought the world crusades, the inquisition, and Northern Ireland. And all the crap in between. You love fighting with everyone. You're also obviously fighting with yourself and your genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. But hey, no worries: As Mark Twain wrote, "All heaven redjoiced, happy you were going there. And so was hell.""


Thankfully, God knows the truth even if some of you don't care for it to be known and had it removed because you desire me to continue made to look bad.


Thanks,
Tony


WOW! All my most heartfelt and genuine comments especially the one sharing the Gospel of Jesus respectfully and talking about how I am no better than anyone else has also been deleted intentionally!
Why are people so convinced that carbon dioxide is the reason for global warming? I still believe that the natural process is the main cause of global warming, and will continue to believe that until somebody and/or something proves me otherwise.
Why are people so convinced that carbon dioxide is the reason for global warming? I still believe that the natural process is the main cause of global warming, and will continue to believe that until somebody and/or something proves me otherwise.

What natural process are you talking about?
Until sombody proves me otherwise I will trust the people that get paid to study such matters.
I'm not discussing what the cause of global warming matters anyway because.
1. The earth is warming very quickly,
2. That's not good,
3. It would be good to decrease the amount of warming.
4. One way to do that would be to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.