2013 Atlantic hurricane season wrap-up: least active in 30 years

2013 Atlantic hurricane season wrap-up: least active in 30 years:

Oops, the experts really missed this forecast. Most likely they are wrong about global warming, too. This failure reveals the inherent weakness of climate and weather modeling.

'via Blog this'

Global Warming Without Fear by Bjørn Lomborg - Project Syndicate

Lomborg makes more sense about climate change than most commentators

Global Warming Without Fear by Bjørn Lomborg - Project Syndicate:

"As a result, the likely outcome of the report’s (IPCC report due 9/26/13) release will be more of the same: a welter of scary scenarios, followed by politicians promising huge carbon cuts and expensive policies that have virtually no impact on climate change. 

Maybe we should try to alter this scenario. We should accept that there is global warming. But we should also accept that current policies are costly and have little upside. The European Union will pay $250 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for 87 years. For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05ºC.

The current green-energy technologies still cost far too much and produce far too little to replace existing energy sources. To insist on buying these expensive non-solutions is to put the cart before the horse. What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy’s cost and boost its scale. When solar and other green technologies can take over cheaply, we will have addressed global warming – without the angst."

'via Blog this'

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

Bravo for these scientists' and engineers' willingness to speak out about climate change and for the WSJ to publish their statement.


The climate is always changing, sometimes slowly and sometimes more rapidly. When advocates for rant about 'doing something' to control climate change, my first question is "What is the average temperature of the earth that you would like to reach?" With that answer in hand (or maybe not), my follow-on question is, "How much will it cost and how long will it take." "Finally, who will pay?"

"...A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet..."

Bastardi’s Wager - National Review Online

Worth a read..the views of a climate change realist, IMHO.

Have others put their 10-year temperature forecast on the line for scrutiny? Fixating on one aspect, CO2, of an enormously complex system, the world's climate, seems, well, a bit unscientific.
And, of course, there are the politics and government funding of the debate that influence the position of various scientists. They are, after all, merely human and subject to all the pushes and shoves that assault the rest of us.

Climate change debate crowded with ignorance Thomas Kostigen's Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch

Climate change debate crowded with ignorance Thomas Kostigen's Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch

I couldn't have said it better. The nonsense that passes for argument about climate change deserves to be drowned out. The fact is the climate is changing, always has, always will. Those who believe mankind can change the future climate have a responsibility to describe what condition they would change it to...in all parts of the earth.

"...The skeptics say the snow disproves global warming. The believers say the snow proves extreme climate events associated with global warming. Both sides are being stupid about the cause and effects of climate change.

Climate is not the weather on any particular day, or week, or month. Climate is the accumulation of weather patterns over the course of years.

I know that we live in a world of Twitter feeds, blog reports, and real-time cable news, but immediacy has no place in climate talks. Hence, knee-jerk reactions to storms, disasters, and temperature readings -- whether you believe in climate change or not -- shouldn't be deemed credible evidence of much of anything..."

Economist Magazine Cites IPCC for Glaciers Error

Kudos to The Economist for exposing a glaring misstatement in the pronouncements of the IPCC.

"...The idea that the Himalaya could lose its glaciers by 2035—glaciers which feed rivers across South and East Asia—is a dramatic and apocalyptic one. After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said such an outcome was very likely in the assessment of the state of climate science that it made in 2007, onlookers (including this newspaper) repeated the claim with alarm. In fact, there is no reason to believe it to be true. This is good news (within limits) for Indian farmers—and bad news for the IPCC..."

MIT Forum on "Climategate"

If you have some time to delve into a discussion of "Climategate" by some very bright people at MIT, here's an opportunity to hear/see enlightened views.

Whatever you believe about climate change and mankind's contribution to it, this video is worth watching. If you can't watch all of it, I recommend the interval between minutes 16:00 and 29:21.

Richard Lindzen is a 'skeptic' on the issue of anthropogenic climate change, but he makes a case that is hard to refute on how the 'science' has been distorted, deliberately or otherwise, by advocates.

Senator Sanders Response to My Cap & Trade Question

I asked our junior Vermont Senator a simple question (one which the Congressional Budget Office may have had the answer because part of their job is to evaluate the costs of various legislation): What is the estimated cost to implement S. 2414, Waxman-Markey's American Clean Energy and Security Act?

I did not ask about the impact that this bill would have on America's economy driven by the increase in the cost of energy or inquire about climate change or jobs. He did not answer the question nor explain why he would not or could not.

Instead, as I have found often, our politicians cannot or choose not to answer direct questions. They prefer to shmooze their constituents with their view of the wonderful benefits they believe will come from legislation they support and highlight their role in creating it.

I'm tired of worthless, self-serving communications from politicians to their constituents

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Mr. Usher:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with S. 2414, Waxman-Markey's American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). I consider climate change to be one of the most important issues facing our world and I appreciate the opportunity to respond on this very critical issue.

As you may know, the Senate has released the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act - a comprehensive climate bill. Though this bill is similar to ACES Act, there are some significant differences that address some of your economic concerns. I personally have worked to ensure that this legislation address the United States' goal to decrease its' contribution to climate change while promoting green economy growth. This Act provides long-term funding for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants to help Vermonters use less energy and save on their electric bills.

To create jobs, the Senate climate bill also provides funding specifically for the Green Jobs Act, which I co-authored. In order to keep these jobs within the United States, I successfully
pushed to decrease the number of international offsets to ensure that emission reduction and sustainable energy projects are completed in the U.S. instead of overseas. Please know that I am committed to an "energy revolution" that invests in a clean energy future. This revolution
will score a triple win: green jobs and manufacturing, saving money for consumers, and a better economy and environment. Expansion of the green jobs sector has the capacity to rejuvenate the ailing manufacturing sector in this country, creating millions of long-term jobs that will occur at every level of education and for every skill set. Indeed, studies have shown that solar and wind power creates more jobs per megawatt of installed energy capacity than their fossil fuel counterparts. As chair of the Green Jobs Subcommittee in the Senate, I am helping to lead the way towards the creation of a whole new generation of well paying jobs in the large areas of sustainable energy and energy efficiency. To read more about the development of green jobs, please visit http://sanders.senate.gov//legislation/issue/?id=1DBAA3BB-1788-4E83-8984-14A72B3A5B02.

Regarding your concerns with oil prices, this bill includes carbon market assurance principles calling for strong aggregate position limits and margin requirements that prevents Wall Street from excess speculation on oil prices. Not related to climate legislation, I address high oil prices and the petroleum industry's excessive profits. I testified at a hearing of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and told Chairman Gary Gensler that "the bottom line is that we have got to make sure that Americans are no longer ripped off at the gas pump by some of the same Wall Street gamblers responsible for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." To read more of my statement at this hearing, please visit http://sanders.senate.gov/files/cftc-ststement.pdf.

I have also introduced legislation that would require the CFTC to exercise emergency powers
to limit speculation. This bill would direct the CFTC to stop sudden or unreasonable fluctuations
or unwarranted changes in prices. It would subject bank holding companies engaged in energy futures trading to strict limits, and require hedge funds trading in energy markets to register with the CFTC and make them subject to strict speculation limits.

Please know that as the Environment and Public Works Committee - on which I sit - addresses the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, I will keep your concerns in mind. To read more about my approach to climate change, please visit http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=16e8f2cd-4920-4d46-b2ff-e775c6504ff5.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Feel free to contact me again in the future about this or any other subject of interest to you, or for up-to-date information on what my office is working on please visit http://www.sanders.senate.gov.

While there, I invite you to sign up for my e-newsletter, the Bernie Buzz, at http://sanders.senate.gov/buzz/.

Please be aware that due to security screening procedures, postal mail to my office experiences
delays that will lengthen the time it takes me to get back to you. The fastest way to contact my
office is by calling 1-800-339-9834.

Sincerely,

BERNARD SANDERS

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

United States Senator

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

Oops! The modelers seem to have gotten it wrong.

Cap & Trade Economic Impacts

Charts below are from the WSJ, 09/20/09 electronic edition accompanying two opposing opinions about whether the worldwide cap and trade proposal can achieve the goal (80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050) without damaging the economy.

Cap and Trade is a theory that will not achieve the goals espoused by its proponents for the simple reason that China, India and other developing countries simply will not buy in. They have already said so. Without participation by these countries, C&T simply will not work. How can it be simpler than that? Even the originator of the C&T theory has backed of its efficacy for the purposes of global greenhouse gas reduction.

For the U.S. to go it alone, or even with many other developed countries without the undeveloped countries would be foolish. To send them money to alleviate the economic pain to participate would be doubly foolish.

Of course, this all assumes that climate change is driven by man-made greenhouse gasses, an unproven belief.

Pascal's Wager and Climate Change - O'Reilly Radar

Pascal's Wager and Climate Change - O'Reilly Radar

The climate change debate rolls on.

Tim O'Reilly makes a case worth reading that action taken to live and work more efficiently with respect to energy sources and uses and the resulting improvement of the environment are worthwhile benefits. Naturally, there are serious and significant countervailing views expressed in the comments to O'Reilly's position about the extent of climate change and whether it's manmade or not. As I have written here previously, I subscribe to Bjorn Lomborg's view of what we should be doing.

The climate IS changing...it always has/does...but whether man's influence is a factor is unsettled (the science is NOT settled because it's built on models that cannot be tested, thus it's not true science as we understand the term) . The important fact that is not mentioned by O'Reilly is there is absolutely NO evidence that climate change CAN BE reversed. And if it is possible, there's no answer to the question of what that state should be.

Mankind's civilized presence on the planet is so short that we are incapable of defining the ''best" climate. We give ourselves far too much credit!

U.S. Senate Minority Report on Global Warming

This post only to create a link to the Senate report released 12/1/08

Comments later.

The Energy Challenge - Energy Goals a Moving Target for States - Series - NYTimes.com

Here's a sensible piece from NY Times about the gap between what politicians and advocates say and do and the situation 'on the ground.'  The hard realities of building electric infrastructure should now be coming clear even to the die-hard wishful thinkers, but some are so imbedded in their ideologies that they are undeterred.

'Renewable' and 'alternative' electric energy are only a miniscule and expensive-to-build part of the mix . It's not that we shouldn't build more renewable sources into the mix, but our goals need to be tempered with a good dose of common sense. Texas and New Mexico seem to get it, but most states don't.

The Democrat candidate for governor of Vermont had proposed an unrealistic wind/alternative energy plan. I parodied it here because Vermont has this love/hate relationship with its environment and the production of needed energy. Moreover, many are beguiled by the idea sponsored by politicians currying votes that we can 'save the planet' by getting 'all' our energy needs differently and quickly.

Many Vermonters would close Entergy's Vermont Yankee nuclear plant tomorrow if they could, but they present no realistic new alternative energy sources to replace the inexpensive 35% of our baseload needs, nor the substantial financial contribution that Vermont Yankee makes to several funds to benefit Vermont's environment, economic development and low income folks to help them pay for energy use.

Al Gore is mostly clueless about energy realities and seems to have been captured as a pawn of the greenies. No matter, most realistic thinkers dismiss his rants.

Note: George Sterzinger, quoted below, was a former head of Vermont's Department of Public Service who has apparently been basking in the light of reality.

"...Yet the experience of states that have adopted similar goals suggests that passing that requirement could be a lot easier than achieving it. The record so far is decidedly mixed: some states appear to be on track to meet energy targets, but others have fallen behind on the aggressive goals they set several years ago.

The state goals have contributed to rapid growth of wind turbines and solar power stations in some areas, notably the West, but that growth has come on a minuscule base. Nationwide, the hard numbers provide a sobering counterpoint to the green-energy enthusiasm sweeping Washington.

Al Gore is running advertisements claiming the nation could switch entirely to renewable power within a decade. But most experts do not see how. Even with the fast growth of recent years, less than 3 percent of the nation’s electricity is coming from renewable sources, excepting dams.

“I think we are really overselling how quick, how easy and how complete the transition can be,” said George Sterzinger, executive director of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a Washington advocacy group."

...In New England, the trend is to build more plants that run on natural gas and oil, not wind, said Gordon van Welie, chief executive of the entity that operates New England’s power grid.

...Experts said that without far more attention to the practical barriers, including the lack of lines to carry power, those new goals will be as difficult to meet as the old ones.

...A national standard, if the government decided to impose one, would put an even greater premium on new power lines, because more electricity would need to be moved from parts of the country with abundant wind and sunshine to the great cities where power is consumed.

The Energy Challenge - Energy Goals a Moving Target for States - Series - NYTimes.com

The Political Charade that is Cap & Trade

The WSJ editorial on the Warner - Lieberman carbon emissions control bill is 'must' reading for any thinking American. To think that we would even consider throttling back our economy for a meaningless gesture reveals how politicians think. Their power has subsumed their common sense...

Global warming cannot be controlled by man. We are far better off spending resources ameliorating any short term effects rather that deluding ourselves into thinking Americans are 'in control' of the climate.

The Kyoto Protocol was a farce. This is worse. I expect better from Joe Lieberman.

Studies deem biofuels a greenhouse threat | CNET News.com

We seem to have something less than consensus as to whether biofuels are good for the planet. I have always maintained that ethanol from corn (kernels) was and is a boondoggle that has very serious and negative side effects that may not be counter balanced by the reduction in the growth of petroleum usage. It's putting big bucks in farmers' pockets right now, but we're paying for it in food prices.

Here's the NY Times take on the studies.

Negative baggage of corn-based ethanol includes: higher food prices; higher land prices; higher prices for non-corn agricultural products as land is taken for growing corn; collapse in the price of ethanol because production increases are not matched by demand and distribution capacity.

""When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. "Previously there's been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis."

These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions--for refining and transport, for example."

Studies deem biofuels a greenhouse threat | CNET News.com

A Taxpayer's Advice to Vermont Legislators

A slightly different version of this was published in The Colchester Sun on January 10, 2008.

Your comments, Senator Ginny Lyons, and Representatives John Zenie, Kristy Spengler, Jim Condon and Gaye Symington published in The Colchester Sun of January 3, 2008 portend the outcome of the second half of the Legislative biennium: Find more taxpayer dollars to spend on______ (fill in the blank).

The issues you mentioned include paying for, or "doing something about" health care, climate change remediation, energy efficiency and affordability, education and its funding, quality of Vermont life, economic development, affordable housing, workforce development, maintenance of highways and bridges, the circumferential highway, and developing a more robust public transportation system, among others. No one suggests spending fewer taxpayer dollars. Why not?

A reading of your columns would benefit from soft violins in the background to accompany the flowing rhetoric. However, snare drums and a few thumps on the bass drum would help. Missing from most comments is the harsh reality you face this session... where will the money come from to pay for all the services and improvements you hope to deliver?

How you plan to deal with these issues, as I read your comments, are by working together, providing leadership, homegrown ingenuity, promoting exercise and good eating habits, trend-setting, team work, supporting local businesses and farmers and diversified ideas. As valuable as these behavioral qualities may be in arriving at legislation, the harsh reality is most Vermont taxpayers want to pay less, not more, to live here.

Please heed our advice.Your best contribution and an example to struggling Vermonters would be a reduction in taxes, certainly not an increase. Please seriously consider reducing the size of our tax-supported programs that have taken on a life of their own. You have enabled government to grow too rapidly in the recent past, faster than any other New England state.

While probably too late this session, Governor Douglas, if truly serious about his affordability agenda, should submit a budget to you that is 3-5% less than spent last year. Expansive legislative thinking requiring more taxpayer dollars or redistribution of income to improve our already high quality of life should be off the table. Alas, because it's an election year, this cutback strategy is very likely not on your minds.

But if your Legislative leaders and the Governor can agree on a spending cap in advance of debating program details, you could reorient your thinking to less government, not more. I know the pressures on you will be enormous from all the special interest groups to increase spending. I sympathize with you in this regard, but the best approach to all of them is "we can't afford it."

Please, lawmakers, don't waste time fiddling with the world's climate this session. Arguing about global warming is a waste of your time and my tax dollars. Your debates can do nothing to change the dynamics of the earth. The only benefit might be for you to curry votes with certain constituencies.

Instead, support policies that promote a reliable energy supply. If you must have an expanded all-fuels conservation program, please fund it from the savings that are generated. That's much more equitable than redistributing income by levying surcharges on everyone's fuels to pay for energy conservation that benefits individuals.

Please don't fool around debating our carbon footprint. If you think that's important, more efficient use of energy and fuels will take care of that as a by-product. Don't scurry about trying to educate everyone about carbon credits and pollution trading schemes. There are as many drawbacks as benefits in that morass. And please, oh please, any mention of a carbon tax should fall into a black hole.

As an example of working together, how about a joint statement early in the session from the Legislative leadership about your shared priorities to set the tone?

Two final reminders... please spend less and go home early.

Alaska Governor Believes Polar Bears not Threatened Species

Rational thinking from Alaska's governor to counter the 'save the polar bear' hysteria generated by climate change extremists.

"As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis."

The bears aren't disappearing or threatened in and around Alaska at this time.

Vermont Tiger: Saying You'll Reduce CO2 Doesn't Make It So

A good bit of information is contained in the linked post about the Kyoto protocol and the failure of the signatories to meet the CO2 emission standards. The U.S. not signing on in 1998 under Clinton and that position continuing under Bush is a good thing. As I see it, the only outcome from Kyoto was a raising of awareness about climate change.

I become more convinced that the economics of CO2 emission reductions advocated by some who would 'save the planet' just plain don't work when compared to other uses of those resources in the next century.

Bali Climate Talks - Global Warming - New York Times

How should I reconcile these two statements? They are both true, but the spin by the NY Times gives me indigestion. If the Times is reporting news and doing so with credibility, the statement that includes George W. Bush should also include William J. Clinton.

"The overall agreement, if completed by 2009, would also ensure continuity for parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which took effect in 2005 and is the only existing addendum to the original climate treaty. The Kyoto pact limits emissions by three dozen industrialized countries but has been rejected by the United States under President George W. Bush."

From Wikipedia:

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),^[66][67] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.^[68] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification. (my emphasis added)

The Keeling Curve

Click on the link to see the Keeling Curve, a measure of atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii since 1958.