If you are involved in Management or Customer Service and are responsible for communicating the value of smart meters to your utility customers, you don’t want to miss this online discussion - Communicating Smart Meter Value. more...
Join social media mavens Matthew Burks and Amanda Shewmake as they provide an insider's perspective on how HR, communications and marketing professionals in energy companies can harness the power of social media to be more effective and productive. more...
The convergence of power and information technologies in the smart grid has created opportunities for finer grained and broader controls of energy flows. These opportunities can improve electric service in multiple dimensions: lower cost, greater reliability, greater customer satisfaction, and more...
Significant cost over runs. Changing business requirements. A well thought out plan is essential. Attend this free webcast discussion to hear inside hear three experts in utility operations discuss what utilities need to evaluate when they are considering upgrading or more...
The smart grid is shifting the playing field for utilities. And when the game changes, it pays to be prepared. A nimble solutions partner can help you design the solutions that keep operations on track, even as new challenges come more...
Deliver a profitable, productive and commercially successful large scale CSP business in India. Building on the success of past events in USA, Europe & MENA, CSP Today brings to New Delhi the most relevant international experience for the concentrated solar more...
Two day conference that tackles the most important challenges. A blend of European knowledge from the companies who have been installing offshore wind turbines for the last decade alongside local state governing bodies and leading project developers. Permitting, securing long more...
Autovation 2010 is a not-to-miss educational forum that will attract utility executives from around the world looking for new ways to optimize their operations through automation technologies. more...
The North American convention provides a remarkable opportunity to play a part in guiding renewable energy policy for the 21st century. Attendees will create a resolution that, along with similar resolutions already drafted on four other continents, will help set more...
Hosted by the GridWise(R) Alliance and the U.S. Department of Energy, the GridWise Global Forum will convene thought leaders from the highest levels of government, business, NGOS, and academia from around the world to discuss the ultimate enabling potential of more...
Introduction to Natural Gas Trading & Hedging - This program provides a comprehensive understanding of the structures that underlie Natural Gas trading. Beyond Essentials: Option Applications in Energy - This course provides a solid practical and conceptual (non-quantitative) understanding of more...
Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the electric industry. Position yourself for career advancement by gaining a solid understanding of how the electric business works including key physical, market, and regulatory aspects and how market participants navigate this more...
Electric Market Dynamics offers participants an in-depth understanding of North American electric markets and how they function. Enhance your career by furthering your knowledge of market structures, pricing mechanisms, services offered in markets, and how various participants use the markets more...
Gas and Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the natural gas and electric industries. Position yourself for career success by gaining a solid understanding of how each business works, including key physical, market and regulatory aspects, as well more...
We know you have something to say!
There is an immediate need for articles on
the hot topics in the Power Industry!
EnergyPulse, like no other publication,
also provides a means for our readers to
immediately interact with experts like you.
In 1922, the poet Robert Frost wrote, “Some say the world will end in fire,/ some say in ice./ From what I’ve tasted of desire/ I hold with those who favor fire,/ but if it had to perish twice,/ I think that for destruction ice/ is also great/ and would suffice .” The likelihood, the science, points to ice.
The weather has been on everyone’s mind of late. First it was Katrina, followed by Rita, and then Wilma wandering about in a fashion that defied the ability of the most sophisticated computers of the US Weather Service to predict. Typically, the perpetrators of scare campaigns were quick to announce that the number and ferocity of these and other hurricanes this passed season was due to “global warming.”
This is as false as the theory of global warming. Climatologists agree the hurricanes were due to the Atlantic Ocean Conveyer, a system that determines whether the ocean is warmer or cooler, moving large currents around. It is, like most things in Nature, a regular cycle, one that produced many storms in the 1940s and 50s, then eased off until the 70s and 80s, and has now returned.
It is well known that, of the course of billions of years, the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles. From 1850 to 1950, the Earth gained about one degree Fahrenheit in warmth. It has been warmer in the past such as during the millions of years that dinosaurs existed. The earth, however, is not showing signs of significant warming. The Ice Shelf in Greenland and Antarctic is actually getting thicker and, in 2004, the temperature in the Artic grew noticeably cooler.
This is not something to be ignored because the earth has been in an interglacial period between ice ages that lasts about 11,200 years and we are due another ice age any day now.
Just as there is nothing mankind can do to prevent a bogus global warming, there is likely nothing we can do to avoid the very real prospect of the next ice age. When it comes it will be extinction time for people, plants and animals north of the Equator. That’s the way it was the last time. Indeed, in the course of its five billion years, the earth has experienced such extinctions on a regular basis.
While the environmentalists have flooded the classrooms and media of America with endless nonsense about global warming, the fact is that the schedules, i.e. the movement of the earth around the sun, galactic timetables, and ways in which the earth and our solar system function are well known to scientists who study these things and, frankly, none if it bodes well for the human race and other critters.
At least, that is the conclusion of Robert W. Felix, the author of “Not by Fire, But by Ice: The Next Ice age Now” ($15.95, Sugarhouse Publishing, Bellevue, WA). Piling scientific fact upon fact, Felix notes that, “We’re beginning to realize that earth is a violent and dangerous place to live. We’re beginning to realize that mass extinctions have been the rule, rather than the exception for the 3.5 billion years that life has existed on earth.”
There’s environmental propaganda and then there is hard, cold science. No pun intended. Here’s what Felix writes:
“Then, about 11,500 years ago, the ice age ended. And it ended fast. As the world grew warmer, tropical animals moved back into Europe, and the barren tundra filled with trees once again…It was a global sweep of death—mass extinction—destroying not only the mammoth, but some 75% of all of America’s larger mammals. But why only the big ones? And why so fast?”
It hardly does justice to Felix and his book to try to encapsulate his view that a predictable reversal of the magnetic poles will act as a trigger for the next ice age and
it is not the much ballyhooed global warming that troubles Felix, but evidence that vast, unseen, underwater volcanic warming of the earth’s oceans will bring about the next ice age. As the oceans warm, evaporation increases, which leads to more precipitation and when the excess precipitation begins falling as snow, it portends a new ice age.
“There is a cycle,” says Felix, “a cycle that includes orogenesis (creation of mountains), seismic activity, sea level changes, black shale deposition, volcanism, extinctions, seafloor spreading and magnetic reversals.” (To learn more, visit www.iceagenow.com)
Science is a wonderful thing. It gathers huge quantities of facts, organizes, tests and analyzes them. It is science that has given us an understanding of gravity, our solar system, the human genome, and everything else that has influenced and advanced our lives. Felix has peered into the past and into the future to warn us all to bundle up.
Is he right? I hope not, but the science he cites, plus the climate worldwide seems to suggest he is.
For information on purchasing reprints of this article, contact Tim Tobeck ttobeck@energycentral.com. Copyright 2010 CyberTech, Inc.
I certainly hope that Mr Felix is wrong too. When the 2nd Infantry Division split up for exercises in 1954 or 1955, about half went to Alaska, while the rest of us went to Southern California. When we reassembled at Fort Lewis, it didn't take me long to find out who got the best deal. Aside from that, I'd like to know why I should check Mr Felix's book out of the local library when between 90 and 95 percent of the elite among climate scientists say that global warming is the real deal. Needless to say, they could be very very very wrong, but I'm a little worried about the easily observable fact that many of the same people who say that global warming is a scam also had/have some odd beliefs about the availability of oil. Incidentally, I wouldn't worry so much about environmentalists "flooding classrooms with endless nonsense about global warming". Compared with the half-baked nonsense that some of their colleagues in the economics faculties are selling it's really small beer.
John K. Sutherland 11.23.05
Professor Banks, I would love to see some hard and valid justification for your belief that 90 to 95% of the elite of climate scientists support the view that Global Warming is occurring.
Now, if you had said - more accurately - that 90 to 95% of the elite of climate scientists support the concept of Global Climate Change - whatever direction it might be - warmer or colder, or natural fluctuations either and both ways over time, I would be more convinced that you were correct.
John K. Sutherland.
Ferdinand E. Banks 11.23.05
Did I say 90 to 95%. What I should have said was 95%, with half of the remaining 5% cranks. As for proof, well, frankly I don't think that I'll bother to hunt for any. As Robert Solow once said, if you meet someone at a party and he tells you that he is Napoleon, you don't start arguing about cavalry tactics at Waterloo. I mean, even if he doesn't like Kyoto, President Bush and his dad seem to be 'into' global warming, as are the high-flyers who publish in 'Science' and in 'Nature', as are a very large majority of Nobel laureates - to include probably the literary and peace prizeniks. Admittedly, some of them have their eye on research and travel grants, others kudos, and still others just want to run with the crowd, but since I happen to believe that climate science is a matter of real as opposed to make-believe climate scientists, I tend to ignore the precious contributions of people like the amateur climatologist who recently published a nutty article on the editorial page of a Swedish newspaper about "hockey stick diagrams"..
Furthermore, according to 'President' Bartlet's press secretary C.J., 60 economists have signed a pronunciamento more or less swearing to the presence of global warming, and knowing what I know about that profession their offering should just about balance the often cited potboiler of Michael Crichton, in which he warns us about talking to or dancing with strange scientists. Of course, there are a few world-class skeptics. A very few. Professor Lindzen of MIT is easily the best known. The problem is that a few years ago the good Prof made it quite clear that in his candid opinion smoking and lung problems belonged in different bags, and since that time we don't hear much about him eating his lunch at the White House, and sharing his wisdom with the high and mighty.
John K. Sutherland 11.23.05
Aw shucks Ferdinand, Silly me. I should have known that those more than 17,000 scientists who signed the OISM position on climate change were all just cranks and deadbeats and knew nothing about Climate Science, and probably not a climate scientist among them:
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
However, I was always of the opinion, that a consensus of any number of supposedly reputable scientists about some controversial issue did not establish the truth about anything. Even one rogue voice might just make a monkey's uncle out of all of them.
There are in fact more than a few highly reputable and rogue voices who have long questioned the questionable science, and not just Lindzen, but many others too who, sadly, are slanged by the staunch and true believers.
The politically manipulated, and politically correct view of climate change is as full of holes as swiss cheese.
Frankly, I am disappointed at the vehemence of your protest Mr Banks and your illogical ad hominem attack on professor Lindzen's views on something other than climate science as though the two were related. All it means is that one must look a little more carefully at what people say and be a little more skeptical. I must admit I am now also considerably more skeptical of your viewpoints and you will have to work harder to convince me of their validity and relevance when you choose to slag qualified individuals for having a viewpoint different from your own.
John K. Sutherland.
Ferdinand E. Banks 11.24.05
Thanks for putting some numbers on this, John. "ONE ROGUE VOICE" is a perfect description of team Lindzen, while "ALL OF THEM" are the folks publishing in the elite scientific literature. Now, about the other 16,999 who signed the so-called OISM position. Given enough time I think that we could find a few major leaguers in that crowd, but as for the remainder, well, given my heavy work load, I guess that I'll just have to accept your portrayal - or perhaps we can compromise: percentagewise, there are more "cranks and deadbeats" in that 16,999 than there are among the guys and gals bucking for the Nobel short lists.
I will admit though, that we should all be a little more careful about what people say. When the gorgeous C.J. from the aggressively PC White House of President (professor of economics) Jed Bartlet (Nobel Prize in economics) says that 60 economists have signed something saying that global warming is the real deal, then what right do any of us have to slag practitioners of the dismal science.
Len Gould 11.24.05
Re: Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, I begin to question the qualification process for the "17,000 scientists who signed" when my first scan of the signers includes
Vincent Angelo, DDS Donald Applegate, DVM
Doctor of Dental Surgery? Doctor of Vetinary Medicine? (i may be wrong there)
Would point out that most if not all qualified climate scientists who support our concerns re anthro CO2 related: global warming also agree/are aware of the earth's 110,000 year (not billion year, Alan) ice age cycles and are similarly concerned that no-one is planning to deal with that EITHER. But raising atmospheric CO2 levels to double the ppmv they've ever been in recent (420,000 year) historical records is simpky a very suipid EXPERIMENT, not science, and certainly not a plan to handle the next ice age.
John: Far more interesting reading is available at http://quark.physics.uwo.ca/teamcana/2005/dustin_hughes.pdf . Dustin Hughes. Is the nuclear physics part of his plan valid?
Ferdinand E. Banks 11.24.05
I doubt whether you are wrong there, Len. Moreover, if you check that list closely enough you might run across the name in capitals of that self-appointed vigilante (of science and the scientific method), Mr Crichton.
Sorry, I cant stop laughing, so I guess that I'll have to save the rest of this comment for later.
Graham Cowan 11.24.05
I recall my annoyance when one of Crichton's tame scientists remarked, in Jurassic Park (the book) I believe it was, that science could tell us how to build a nuclear reactor, but not give us the wisdom not to do it. Instantly I surmised, as is my habit since I tend to believe no-one is ever antinuclear except for money he or she could not earn honestly, that the puppeteer was a petrolista.
So his recent AGW position was no surprise.
Fun fact: pulverizing hard mineral ores, an operation that mining types call comminution, takes ~25 kWh(e) per tonne if 80 percent of the mass is to be in sub-100-micron particles, 50 kWh(e) per tonne for 80 percent below 25 microns. That means granite that can yield two grams per tonne of pure uranium dioxide could be part of an operation where one gram goes to a CANDU plant that uses it to give the crusher, or rather the comminution machine, its necessary 50 kWh(e), and the other gram is net.
Mining techniques have advanced since the days when H. Brown and L. T. Silver thought a three-gram-per-tonne yield would be needed, and the reactor would have to be a breeder, i.e., three hundred grams per tonne would be needed if it were not. ("ATOMIC ENERGY", Encyclopaedia Britannica 1970.)
Sorry about that. Anyway, in the latest Newsletter of the International Association of Energy Economics, Mr Gerald T. Westbrook informs us that a vigorous debate on climate policy is taking place, and that according to some elderly gentlemen that he describes as "distinguished veterans", the skeptics may be winning.
That's news to me, but as Rhett Butler said, frankly I dont give a bag of beans. His veterans have about the same relation to climate science as I do to brain surgery. They are passé, out of the loop - assuming that they have ever been in.. One of them - a retired Air Force weather forecaster- has a thing about not being able to get any NOAA, NASA or Navy money because when Clinton came in, vice president Al Gore "started directing some of the environmental stuff". And, naturally, Michael Crichton makes an appearance. According to Westbrook, we should accept some input from that gentleman because he has a degree in medicine and conducted biochemical research early in his career. If that isn't a sufficiently impressive recommendation, the celebrity columnist Mr George Will is noted as having provided Crichton's potboiler with a favorable review. I can understand Will being interested in reviewing a book with the title 'State of Fear', because rumor has it that this inveterate war lover made some very odd moves to stay out of discomfort's way during the Vietnam War. One distinguished veteran delivered the weather news for a Texas TV outlet. "He comes across loud and clear", we are assured, as does another who writes gardening books. And so on and so forth.
They did get one thing right though, as did professor Sutherland. The Kyoto Protocol is a scam, and fully deserves the contempt that Mr Westbrook and his old-timers show toward it.
Steve Sturgill 11.24.05
> ... At least, that is the conclusion of Robert W. Felix, the author of “Not > by Fire, But by Ice: The Next Ice age Now” ($15.95, Sugarhouse > Publishing, Bellevue, WA). Piling scientific fact upon fact, Felix notes...
As for the thousands of signers of the old OISM petition, I think I'll assign more credibility to the eleven signers of the "Joint science academies' statement", which is that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Steve Sturgill 11.24.05
Sorry about the link color. I wish Energy Pulse would fix that, or at least provide a preview button.
I'll refer one of Graham's posts before I try to use an a tag again. In the meantime, the URLs are: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1480375,00.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine and http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.
"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."
Todd McKissick 11.25.05
DaVinci and Columbus. Both (plus numerous other examples) held opinions that diverged from the norm. I think today's society makes that norm hold together much stronger than in those days. In those cases, the individual was right and the norm was wrong. ALL OF THEM. Well, I'm not saying that GW or AGW is right, just that we need to each look at the science for ourselves and not take anyone else's word for it. EVERY scientist has motives and we'll never know all of them. Discrediting someone does not automatically disprove their opinion.
I personally don't care if GW is true or not, because the only thing we can do about it is something that we have enough other reasons to do. We need to get off fossil fuels for about 5 very solid reasons, each of which are constantly critiqued, but together, they make a strong case. Why argue which one is more important? It's pointless. If we get off the fossil fuel bandwagon, all five go away to whatever extent they contribute. My humble opinion thinks the main reason is to move a major industry's worth of productive people into an industry of creating products and services that help society. Now if we can just get a few other non-producing industries to become productive....
eric decarre 11.29.05
Todd McKissick: Could you developp : "the main reason is to move a major industry's worth of productive people into an industry of creating products and services that help society. Now if we can just get a few other non-producing industries to become productive...." , I am really interested in ...
What are GW and AGW acronyms ?
Len Gould 11.29.05
Global Warming (eg. in general), Anthropomorphic Global Warming (caused by human activities).
Stanton Hadley 11.29.05
As Mark Twain said: "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
Graham Cowan 11.29.05
I believe the A in AGW stands for Anthropogenic (human-caused), not Anthropomorphic (human-shaped).
The objective of Mr. Caruba’s article appears to attempt to throw “cold” water on global warming (pun intended). He then proceeds to refute global warming and climate change by offering up someone else’s theory that the earth is ripe for an ice age. This is a favourite debating tactic a la “I’m not hearing you – La La La": totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is a technique often used by those that can’t be bothered to present the facts.
He also uses the “attack the messenger” tactic – by using labels like “bogus” and “propaganda” to question the motives of his opponents.
He also attempts to portray scientific observations out of context to support his argument. “This is as false as the theory of global warming. Climatologists agree the hurricanes were due to the Atlantic Ocean Conveyer, a system that determines whether the ocean is warmer or cooler, moving large currents around.” First, Mr. Caruba, which Cimatologists? Care to quote one or two? And secondly, you might want to read up on something called “Thermodynamics”. It might provide you with some insight into the basis of what drives our climate (and global warming). It will also clue you in that heat from the sun is what drives the ocean currents. It is this heat from the sun that determines whether or not the ocean is warmer or cooler.
I could go on, but I’ve got to get back to work. In conclusion, Mr. Caruba, who is a “spin doctor” whose clients include the New Jersey Pest Management Association, shouldn’t be writing articles on something he can’t be bothered to even research properly.
Jack Boyle Blue Sky Energy Corp.
Jim Beyer 11.29.05
OK, so this guy says we are not in for global warming, but instead an Ice Age. OK, fine.
It seems that either avenue (I believe GW, in case that matters) is aggravated by the same problem: THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.
We could more easily cope with shrinking coastlines (or a frozen North America) if we weren't pushing the limits so hard by our numbers. Why doesn't Caruba at least acknowledge that? Because if this Ice Age happens, won't the circumstances be more dire for his children and grandchildren if civilization collapses under its huge weight because of such an event?
But instead of being the least bit concerned about that, Caruba argues "it's not global warming, it's an ice age". The real issue is not what the pertubance might be, but that we are so vulnerable to one when and if it occurs. (Just look how fast things went chaotic in New Orleans after just a few days of absentee law enforcement.) The current European population, for example, is unlikely to weather even a little ice age like the one they had in 1550-1850. I'm sure Mr. Caruba's granchildren will be comforted by his pronouncements when they fight for the resources to live against 12 billion other souls.
To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, he's not even just wrong, he misses the whole point.
Ric O'Connell 11.29.05
Why does EnergyPulse let this idiot write articles?
Steve - you missed this little gem in the SourceWatch article you gave a link to. It's about our author:
Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.'
Todd McKissick 11.29.05
Eric Decarre: I assume that you are looking for a more complete explaination of what I was referring to in "the main reason is to move a major industry's worth of productive people into an industry of creating products and services that help society. Now if we can just get a few other non-producing industries to become productive...." Well, I truly believe that the biggest problem with the last century or so is that after discovering we can use energy in all it's wonderful forms, we now have two results from that.
First is that it now economically drives many other industries. You'd think it was gold or something. Why should the price of tea in China depend so heavily on how much it costs to power the various machines used in the process (end to end)? Take a peek at the market prices of most stocks when oil peaked at $70 and held close to that. Water, Internet access, telephone services and probably even Coffee are probably just as important in the grand scheme of things (the productivity thing), but it's cost doesn't filter so heavily into every other product. (no pun intended) I think it's basically a monopoly with legislative influence enough to justify raping the public, making themselves self important.
We have an enormous industry's worth of people who's whole purpose in life is to supply and profit from it. Energy is available to everyone in many forms. I don't think it would take that much to capture enough sun on a given roof to power that building. We have three options as I see it. We can find a cheaper central generating solution, we can make all dwellings zero net energy users or we can use some combination of the two. Let's work on getting the energy we need in a cheaper form (less $, less polution, less GHG, less labor) for both the central and distributed tracts and let the market decide what percentage of the two we end up with.
The problem right now is that we're not doing that, we're still concentrating on how much control the old dinosaur industry is going to maintain when the dust settles. I've tried a couple times (but only gave up frustrated) to add up the external costs of this discussion even just in the US. We have thousands of organizations centered around it. We have many minds spending untold effort to characterize and measure it. We have legislation being argued on how to meter it or mandate it. On top of that, we have the new industry popping up to prolong the switch by conserving. All of this is taking away from the progress of fixing it. My off the wall guess would be that the US spends a total of 3-5 Billion in working on the problem and supports worrying about it to the tune of 30-50 Billion. It's sad, really.
I'll let you take a stab at finding other industries that siphon enormous amounts of money off a simple process that we humans depend on by just being the self appointed mandated middleman.
Thanks to Len for clarifying the word I meant, but also thanks to Graham for clarifying the word I really wanted to mean. LOL
Alan Caruba 11.29.05
May I suggest that, instead of SourceWatch, a Green front group that exists to demonize anyone who is a critic of the endless scare campaigns of the environmental movement, that you simply visit www.caruba.com where I provide a complete set of "credentials" that includes membership in the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of Science Writers. Everything I write is, to the best of my ability, carefully documented. Do I think the environmental movement has an agenda and no sense of ethical behavior? Oh, yes!
Graham Cowan 11.29.05
PKB. Lots of Green stuff stinks; when capitalized, the word often seems to mean "nonthreatening to fossil fuel rentiers, especially those whose traditional entitlement is through taxation".
But scientists who find evidence of man-caused global warming, in for example the form of climate modelling forecasts that come true after they are made, typically aren't part of any Green monolith. Guilt-by-association is doubly wrong when used against them because there is no association.
Indeed, as public servants they have a conflict of interest that if resolved the wrong way would see them denying global warming because their paycheques are fattened with oil and gas tax revenues.
Here's something worth contemplating, in the 1970s, there were books written by "environmentalists" predicting a "cooling" or "ice age" and, when that failed to scare up enough donations, a decade later we found ourselves being told that the earth was toast thanks to a "global warming." Around this time, too, a fellow named Ehrlich was predicting the earth could not possibly sustain enough human life due to over population and, yes, we are all doomed, et cetera, et cetera.
I know some of you are desperate to discredit me anyway you can, but the notion that the oceans are cooled or warmed solely by the sun seems absurd, given the fact that we know there are plenty of active volcanoes in the ocean. Surely they contribute a teeny bit of warming, eh? (Consider the effect on weather worldwide when one goes off and puts a lot of "stuff" in the atmosphere?) The book by Robert Felix may not be any more definitive than the libraries of books and research studies based on computer models of the weather, but at least the man has made a good effort to gather information on a potential ice age and put it out there in a fashion that is, frankly, hard to ignore...particularly since it is well documented that Europe experienced a mini ice age in, I believe, the 1300s or 1400s. Then, of course, the Black Plague managed to finish off a third of those who survived that climate "event."
What I love most about computer models is how hard it is for the best of them to predict where a hurricane or blizzard is heading. Wilma's recent visit to Florida comes to mind and a blizzard in the Washington, DC area a year or so ago that really surprised the heck out of everyone. Naturally, the Greens put out a news release claiming that the BLIZZARD was the result of Global Warming.
After a while, it's hard not to be skeptical.
Graham Cowan 11.29.05
Why do they let the esteemed gentleman write articles, you ask, Mr. O'Connell? Approximately 24 comments, and this will be the 25th, versus 14 in the next most active discussion. Yes, it's hard for him to be skeptical, impossible in fact, and yes, it is most unlikely the Greens made any such claim. Don't worry; you cannot inform him, and hardly anyone can be disinformed by him.
Fun fact: hydrogen cannot give a car, in one package, the energy of a real car, hundreds of kWh at the driveshaft, and the safety and freedom from emissions of an electric. But other things can ...
So anyone who dares to present a more logical apriori approach to the global effects of anthropogenic atmospheric gas contributions, e.g. THERE IS NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF MAN'S CO2 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE, is an industry hack, or a fraud, or a (fill in the blank)? That more than anything points to a cultishness implicit in anthropogenic climate change proponents.
The logical apriori approach to analyze what could conceivably happen with man's CO2 contributions would be to to use historical and anthropological data regarding past climate events and see if there is any such precident.
There isn't.
Climate has varied greatly for eons, before it was even possible for man to become so prevalent on Planet Earth as today's global population count exhibits.
Sans man, is there any prehistoric evidence that directly links atmospheric gas accumulations and climate in a causal fashion?
There isn't.
There is correlation of gas accumulations and climate differentiation occuring roughly at the same time, but no causal effects one way or the other can be proven. So we go back to the logical apriori approach.
What is the most logical cause of climate variation on Earth and the other planets? Solar activity. Nothing else even comes close. Recent data that shows surface warming of Mars and even Pluto have several explanations beyond direct solar causation, but there is no evidence of atmospheric gas accumulations on those planets being a causel effect, because quite simply those planets are for all relative intents devoid of atmosphere's. If the logical explanation is solar activity causing surface temperature changes on Mars and Pluto, why wouldn't the same hold true for Earth, other than a bunch of so-called scientists' incomes depend on continuing the global warming (or the abrupt climate change) bandwagon.
Again, the most logical analysis of what effect(s) a denser atmosphere has on a planet's climate should go the route of increased mitigation effects, not dramatic climate change causation. If anything, an increase in atmospheric gases would moderate the effects of increased solar activity rather than exacerbating increased solar activity. We all know about the "lake effect" that mitigates local weather for waterside cities, preventing extreme heating in summer and extreme cold in winter. Yet many of you who do acknowledge the lake effect totally discount the notion that the same can occur atmospherically.
Remember, the sun is a primary heat source, while surface heat is secondary and only reactive. An increase in atmosopheric gases will have a greater effect on incoming energy rather than outgoing energy, in that there is more "out there" to mitigate than there is "in here". Sorry to sound like I'm teaching to grade school kids, but the fact that so many of you who should know better continue to ride the bandwagon of non-sensical idiocy forces such condescention.
Gee, I haven't even gotten my check from Big Oil yet!
Ferdinand E. Banks 11.30.05
I certainly hope that you arn't saying that you know more about climate warming than I do, sir. The reason I entertain this hope is that if you are saying it, you are absolutely correct. The fact of the matter is that I hardly know anything about that subject, although admittedly I'm trying to keep this sad truth concealed from the pretentious know-nothings that I have to deal with in the great Swedish academic world. However as I pointed out in my article 'Economic theory and a Faith Based approach to Global Warming' (Energy and Environment, Number 5, 2004), I like the idea of lining up with REAL SCIENTISTS as opposed to PHONY SCIENTISTS - with the pros and players as compared to the amateurs. At the same time I recognize that some of the skeptics are highly competent and heartbreakingly honest, but you could have said the same thing about a few of those gents who called Einstein a charlatan.
Of course, if you want to talk about oil...
Len Gould 11.30.05
" **** **** "
?? "what effect(s) a denser atmosphere "?? first i've heard that atmospheric density is of any consideration at all. Reference?
?? "Recent data that shows surface warming of Mars and even Pluto have several explanations beyond direct solar causation, but there is no evidence of atmospheric gas accumulations on those planets being a causel effect ?? try Venus. eg. this from http://www.space.com/reference/venus/climate.html (just the very first reference returned by Google. [QUOTE] The climate of Venus presents a conundrum: Though it is twice as far from the sun as Mercury and therefore the sun's heat is only one quarter as intense, Venus is nevertheless significantly hotter than Mercury. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system, its surface hot enough to melt some metals.
The reason for the searing heat of Venus is something we also see on Earth: The greenhouse effect. [/QUOTE]
At least it's clear why even "big oil" won't pay, though I pity the poor grade schoolers.
Alan Caruba 11.30.05
Granted the following is a mere snapshot of climatic events, but they still represent weather conditions that should not be ignored. While weather is measured in decades and centuries, I still find the current ones illuminating:
Here's a brief rundown of what's going on, courtesy of iceagenow.com: * Early snow brings chaos to Europe - 27 Nov 05 - With more than an inch of snow falling per hour and winds up to 100 mph sweeping in off the North Sea, traffic officials reported the worst gridlock in the country's history.
In the Netherlands, high winds and sudden freezing temperatures caused havoc on the national rail and road networks. Hundreds of stranded Dutch commuters spent Friday night in temporary Red Cross shelters.
Problems due to the sudden cold weather were also reported in Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Italy and Greece. Deaths were reported in Belgium and the Czech Republic.
In Germany, 250,000 people lost electricity due to downed power lines.
Flight delays were reported in Amsterdam and Brussels. In Duesseldorf, Germany, eight inches of snow forced the international airport to close for four hours. Paris's main airport, Charles de Gaulle, cancelled dozens flights because of the snow, and the Eiffel Tower closed after morning snowfall made it too slippery to climb. Railway traffic was also disrupted. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_re_eu/europe_snow
* UK bracing for Arctic chill - 24 Nov 05 - Over the next 24 hours, a blast of cold Arctic air will sweep southwards across the country. By dawn tomorrow, there could be up to 25cm (10 inches) of snow over higher parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and 20cm (8 inches) across the moors of southwest England. http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/24112005news.shtml
* Cold blast for UK be end of week - 23 Nov 05 - Very cold northerly wind blasts straight from the Arctic should hit the UK later this week. All parts of the UK could see some snow. At this stage, Scotland , Northern Ireland , south-western England and Wales look like getting the worst of the weather. Blizzard conditions may exist for a time over higher ground. http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/23112005news.shtml
* Fuel Prices Soar in UK - 3 Nov 05 - Gas and electricity prices soared 70 per cent last week as traders worried that the UK's utility network will be unable to cope with the winter's first real cold snap and the closure of a gas terminal. * Devastating' winter ahead for United Kingdom -1 Nov 05 – There is a 67 percent chance that this winter will be among the coldest on record, say forecasters, including the Meteorological Office. This prediction is based on sea temperatures in the Atlantic .
In the U.S the first big snowstorm of the season, part of a treacherous system that sent tornadoes ripping through Arkansas and Kansas, shut down hundreds of miles of major highways across the Plains states Monday.
According to the National Weather Service six-foot drifts were common in eastern Colorado, western Kansas and Nebraska while winds up to 60 mph piled drifts 3 feet high in Pierre, S.D. Snow fell as far south as the Texas Panhandle.
"You can't even see," said Bill Kanitig of the Sherman County, Kan., sheriff's office told the AP. "The highway is snowpacked, and it's slick and everybody's sliding off."
The South Dakota Highway Patrol reports they closed a 175-mile stretch of I-90 on Monday from Kadoka to Mitchell. In central Nebraska, a 60-mile stretch of I-80 was closed Monday from North Platte east to Lexington. Numerous other highways were closed across the Plains. The Minnesota State Patrol urged people not to travel in the northwestern part of the state, and schools in large parts of western Minnesota were closed.
The National Weather Service posted blizzard warnings and winter storm warnings for parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota.
Wind, snow and ice snapped power lines and blacked out thousands of customers in eastern South Dakota. "A couple of the lines around Huron had icing to the diameter (of a) softball," Tom Glanzer, a spokesman for NorthWestern Energy told the AP.
High wind or tornadoes destroyed at least eight homes in Arkansas. Officials planned to assess other reports of damage Monday. About 7,500 homes were without power in Arkansas late Sunday, Entergy spokesman James Thompson said.
Grass fires driven by the storm system's wind blackened thousands of acres in parts of six Texas counties and in Oklahoma. Several homes were destroyed in the two states and hundreds of families had to evacuate in Oklahoma, authorities said.
In the Colorado mountains, the storm brought 26 inches of new snow to the Steamboat Springs ski resort over the weekend. Two cross-country skiers were found in good condition Sunday after being missing overnight about 25 miles north of Steamboat Springs.
The AP reported that tornadoes and thunderstorms ripped th
Jim Beyer 11.30.05
The "xxxx xxxx" person is misinformed about how the atmosphere reacts to various kinds of radiation.
Incoming radiation (i.e., sunlight) is mostly in wavelengths smaller than 1 micrometer. Carbon Dioxide gas is largely transparent to radiation of that frequency, so it passes through. The radiation passes through, hits the earth, heating some object. This heat is then re-radiated, but these wavelengths (infrared) are much longer, much greater than 1 micrometer. Carbon dixoide gas, as well as some others, is opaque to these wavelengths. So they capture the heat and hold it. Over time. this all leads to raising the ave. temp. of the Earth compared to what it had been (all other things equal) with less CO2 in the atmosphere.
A couple more things: Global warming does not equal "less snow". I'm not sure what it will lead to. It seems likely to lead to climate change. So the oil folks should be more scared of this stuff than I am, given how they seem to hate "change" of any kind! :)
To be fair, water molecules also capture heat as CO2 does, and there is a lot of that in the atmosphere too; much more than CO2. Why CO2 levels play a role that is not obscured by the water is something I don't quite understand. Maybe someone else can clarify this point.
I think what Todd M. said earlier sums it up best. There are a half dozen other reasons why we should get off of fossil fuels, so if global warming is not 100% evidential to everyone, then it perhaps it should be considered a factors in these other reasons. [My #1 is that if oil is so economical, then why aren't Exxon and BP paying for the Iraq war?]
I don't think there is any point trying to convince Alan or xxxx xxxx of any of this. Let them think the academics are some unified front of ultra-liberals. (Hardly, they herd about as well as housecats.....). The point is, they have no plan at all. We just stay on oil, the world gets crappier and crappier. Finally, civilization "breaks", and these guys are nowhere to be found. I'm sorry, that's not good enough. I guess I'm a bit too "conservative" to be comfortable with that strategy.
Todd McKissick 11.30.05
Mr. Caruba, I really find it hard to follow your train of thought. I'm striving to give you the benefit of the doubt in this discussion since I agree with a fair amount of items you refer to. What I cannot see is how you can make any substantial case when you first attempt to discredit current scientists' opinions by comparing them to the guys claiming ice age 3 decades ago. Then you shoot for more credibility by offering your PR and authoring credentials, which I doubt helped your case in this group. (You see, PR aka-spin, is a naughty word to people who only value the forthright truth.) After that, you counter with specific items of extreme winter as if that is supposed to be in any way correlated with an iminent ice age.
Did you know that increased warming by the sun promotes more evaporation which results in more extreme weather in both winter and summer? I doubt you did because I just made it up. It may be true or not, I have no idea, but it made ya think. All I would have had to do was add a ton of credentials and I could get credit for something that quite a few people would think was original and science based fact. Backing up ideas with science carries much more weight than backing up with credentials. I really don't see a lot of science behind your latest list of weather events since they are quite mild for a number of those regions.
Having lived in a few of those places, how about a list of 'events' that I've personally experienced... They were all 'the greatest event in history' at the time. The 1970 "world's greatest" earthquake (at the time) / snow in L.A. that winter / a 10 flood year around 1977 in Nebraska (1-2 was the norm) / 3" of pure ice in Neb. in '80 / 1987 - 4 feet of 5" diameter hail in 45 minutes in Omaha / 3 simultaneous tornadoes inside Denver city limits around Apr. '88 (I saw all three at the same time!) / The 500 year flood of the Missouri in '93 in Iowa / the 100 yr flood in PA in '97 / 39" of snow in 6 hours in Denver in '90 / a freak 2 1/2" flake snowstorm dumping 5" in 10 minutes the following year / 18 days straight of the temp never crossing above zero in Denver in '91 and repeated in '94 in SD / then one more time in Denver we had 110 deg plus for 14 days. Oh, don't forget the local 'worst drought in their history' in 3 different states each 5 yrs. apart. These 'events' are VERY normal. I'm sure you could pick a period of time and quote the sky was falling at any time we've recorded. Heck, my father and grandfather both have rougly the same quality of list.
These don't prove anything (even though they're fun to quote). Nothing does but accurate statistics with accepted consequences of some trend in the data. I think it would be better to find data to quote that actually supports your viewpoint from some scientific standpoint. Heck, maybe you'll convince me.
Oh and if you look at the Earth as the nearly closed system it is, there is one energy input (the sunlight entering) and one energy out (heat radiated out). All other energy comes from a different form right here. Take from one and add to another, but two factors should always be kept in mind. They ALL degenerate into heat eventually and the Earth is so complex with checks and balances that we can never accurately model it. I'm pretty sure that every cause has some effect, but each of those affect something else that eventually negates the original cause. Take CO2 > promoting plant/coral growth > using up more CO2. That's just a single example out of I'm sure millions.
Question: Why don't you use your public opportunities to promote renewables or even pick a specific technology and invest in it? If you can't find one worthy, give me a shout. I wouldn't discriminate against any investors.
Alan Caruba 11.30.05
Well, guys, it's been fun. I enjoy watching serious people get their shorts in a twist over weather issues.
Consider this: My commentary is based on a book by SOMEONE ELSE. I am merely the interlocutor, a reporter saying, this is what Robert Felix says. I am also a commentator saying, "He may well be right vis-a-vis the role oceanic volcanic activity plays or will play in a potential new ice age." And, yes, I have some criticism to offer of the usual "environmental" conjuring that passes for science.
So, naturally, I love the way my profession as a public relations counselor gets interpreted to mean "spin meister." Having previously been a journalist and kept those credentials in good order, too, I can tell you only the TRUTH works in PR, journalism, and life.
Ultimately, what interests me is how energy industry professionals approach the "theory" of global warming and the potential of a new ice age. So far, it would appear that several have nothing but contempt for the so-called "fossil fuels" and think they are ruining life on earth. What is interesting about this is that by almost every indice one can find oil, natural gas, and coal appear to exist in abundance. Most energy groups agree we're good to 2030 on oil alone and, of course, we have "run out of oil" about five times in the past only to discover new reserves. My guess is we will not run out of it for a very long time, if ever.
And, yes, I will continue to write about energy topics because they are so integral to America's continued success and the global expansion of wealth worldwide. Let's get the oil pumping again in Iraq. Let's watch Iran discover how direct foreign investment disappears when you threaten other nations in your region. Let's watch as new discoveries and pipelines transform the bad "isms" into the good ones that improve and enhance the lives of everyone everywhere.
Happy holidays! Alan Caruba www.anxietycenter.com
Len Gould 11.30.05
"we're good to 2030 on oil " is about the most shortsighted reason for cheer i've ever heard. Is that it? That's already above the planning horizon for regulated generating utilities.
What really gets me is intentional humbuggery like this article, no basis in fact whatever (as just admitted by the author) being foisted on us with the sole hope of muddying up the public diuscussion and therby delaying the eventually inevitably solutions steps.
Ferdinand E. Banks 12.1.05
I knew that we would get to oil sooner or later, because that's where discussions like this inevitably lead. Well, I don't believe either that we will ever run out of oil, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we're "good to 2030". With a little luck we might be "good" for another decade, or perhaps a few more years. The last time oil discoveries matched production was about 1980, and according to what they tell me, at the present time they only find one new barrel of oil for every three or four consumed. But more important, I doubt whether Alan's beliefs on this subject match those of the great and good in the executive suites at the oil majors.
Of course the big issue here isn't climate or oil or beliefs, but rationality. I certainly hope that despite their many shortcomings, our political masters are rational enough not to buy a "good to 2030" song and dance.
Alan Caruba 12.1.05
Doesn't anyone here read energy forecasts? According to "World Energy Outlook 2005", published by the International Energy Agency, "The WEO-2005 expects global energy markets to remain robust through 2030."
For those who think either myself or R.W. Felix is dealing in flimflamery, we at least deal in documented opinion as opposed to seat of the pants conjecture.
Graham Cowan 12.1.05
"several ... have nothing but contempt for the so-called "fossil fuels" and think they are ruining life on earth. What is interesting about this is that by almost every indice one can find oil, natural gas, and coal appear to exist in abundance".
Doesn't everyone see what a dirty change of subject that was? As best I recall, no-one up until then had said anything about fossil fuels running out, and given the enormous abundance of very cheap uranium, such a prospect can be nothing but good news for anyone concerned about the effects of increasing levels of fossil fuel ash in our air.
He knocks over a strawman, and you fall all over yourselves trying to stand it up again. He makes it look so easy.
Capturing sunlight in the Earth's middle latitudes and converting it to chemical fuel to be used up here is also a good prospect for leaving oil and oil tax takers, including CO2 apologists, high and dry, as I argue here.
Both the IEA and the U.S. Department of Energy predict an oil production of about 120 million barrels a day in 2030. I don't believe this. I don't believe it is because those splendid organizations picture OPEC producing half of that, which is not going to happen for several reasons. One reason is that they don't want to, and another is that even if they wanted to they can't - unless of course they prefer less money to more. If you have any doubts about this, drop into Big Oil and get the bosses or underbosses to give you the word. They know, even if they arn't anxious to say.
Len Gould 12.1.05
Maybe Alan has an inside track with Chavez.
env business 1.24.06
Few here have offered what they have personally observed, so I will. I have had occasion to view the same face of a glacier in Alaska twice, in 1987 and again in 2004. (Mendenhall Glacier, a popular tourist spot.)
In 1987, I watched as a helicopter took a couple and their clergyman out to the glacier where they were married. If they had chosen to land on the same spot in 2004, THEY'D HAVE ALL DROWNED. Some THREE TO FOUR CUBIC MILES OF ICE have been lost from that face of the Mendenhall, in only 17 YEARS.
We went through the Inside Passage (Vancouver toward Anchorage) the same way, each trip. Half of the areas on the mountainsides in 1987 were white. Today, they are all GREEN.
Now to other people's observations. I read in the local paper that 2005 tied 1998 for the warmest year on record. Also, that the warmest years on record have been 2005, 1998, 2002, 2001, 2003 and 2004, with some in the 1930's and one in the 1960's also on the list. From my rudimentary knowledge of statistics, I'd have to guess that having all of these years bunched together is about as likely as having all of the molecules of oxygen in your office located in one filing cabinet -- UNLESS SOMETHING UNUSUAL WAS HAPPENING.
It's time to put politics aside, and start thinking, instead. We may not be able to stop this global warming trend, but we'd better find a way for humans to deal with it.
