Climate-gate is over. There was no finding of misconduct by the National Science Foundation after a two-year investigation. Ninety-seven percent of scientists worldwide agree we have a very serious problem and there is no evidence of data tampering. Every year without meaningful change increases the cost of reversing climate change dramatically. We’ve already seen 10 separate billion dollar weather disasters in the U.S. this year. The drought in Texas is more than a $4 billion loss alone.
We put a man on the moon and won World War II. Surely we can plant trees. One-fifth of climate change is caused by the loss of forests and wetlands.
Even if you don't believe in man caused climate change as do 83 percent of Americans (Thompson Reuters September 2011), losing the trillion dollar/year foreign oil bill in favor of clean energy electric cars and power grows jobs and the economy here at home. If you throw in elimination of: smog, oil spills, high fuel costs, oil and ethanol subsidies, as well as improved national energy security, it's a no brainer.
Perhaps the most important reason to act is; who is your carbon footprint stepping on? Millions around the world are starving and dying from drought, floods, and famine brought on by owning huge homes, SUVs, ATVs, and living and eating irresponsibly. Most religions, and certainly Christians believe “what you do to the least of us, you do to the creator.”
As our earth PPM CO2 reaches closer to the point of no return of 450, now at 394, and up from thousands of years of 280, now we must act. Thousands will be at the Capitol in St Paul Saturday for Moving Planet kickoff from 2- 7 p.m. This is a world-wide day of ending fossil fuels and moving to clean energy.
Neal Lesmeister
Baxter
NEAL LESMEISTER worked as a geologist seeking and drilling for oil and gas for 18 years with Chevron. He has built near-zero-energy, tornado-proof homes for 12 years.
Comments (18)
Add commentEnergy Confusion
I'm a little confused by this letter which wants to "lose the trillion dollar/year foreign oil bill in favor of clean energy electric cars and power." We don't use oil for electric power.
The rest of it is pretty vague. Neal seems to want smaller houses, cars, and dinner plates - that's OK, but probably won't do much. Then he is for clean energy which I assume is wind and solar. Combined those two are about one BTU quad of our annual 100 quads of energy in the U.S., and they are not expected to make much of an impact for a long time.
I'd join his capitol rally, but I'm not sure what I would be rallying for.
REW
I was a little slow
to grasp the point of Neal's letter. Moving Planet is another name for 350.org, the group that is raising awareness of global warming and urging that CO2 concentrations be pushed down below 350 parts per million. This Saturday is a worldwide rally day for Moving Planet(350.org) to get the world off fossil fuels and apparently on to bicycles and wind and solar energy.
Briefly, the big problem is SCALE. A fit male laborer can produce energy at about 100 watts. Burning fossil fuels has given us megawatts, like having a hundred human servants each. Bicycles, wind, and solar are small intermittent energy sources. And building a big wind turbine produces lots of CO2 making all those tons of concrete and steel in one 400 foot tall monster.
My heart is with those Saturday rallies, but my head is asking for another Prairie Island nuclear plant which puts out more than 8 billion kwh/year with no CO2. That's about the energy output of the entire U.S. male population riding bicycles.
REW
Clean Air
I'm sorry to say this but how do people know what the climate was like, let alone the CO2 level a thousand years ago? I can see 100 years ago but 1000? THAT'S A PURE GUESS! Guess what do you include all the methane and CO2 that animals produce? Global warming is a crock. I'm sorry. There are reasons we have catalytic converters on our cars, but guess what the USA should stop being bombarded by idiots that think we need to cut down our CO2 emissions, cause we can't cut down much more. we should be looking at the countries with 1,000,000,000+ population cause they are far less stringent the the USA on that type of stuff. So you can what you just wrote to the Dispatch to the United Nation or the government leader of a country that doesn't have any law in place.
Sorry, Tbonar
Sorry, Tbonar, but unless you made a typo scientists have some pretty effective ways for determining CO2 levels 1000 years ago. Ice cores store atmospheric gas data for hundreds of thousands of of years both in amount of trapped gasses and in inference data such as spores and pollen. In some cases sedimentary rock, etc.. can provide data back into the hundreds of millions of years.
I disagree Rolf
"Neal seems to want smaller houses, cars, and dinner plates - that's OK, but probably won't do much."
We CANNOT build our way out of this problem without conservation.
Living conservatively is exactly what we need to be doing in order to minimize climate change.
Conserving energy through increased efficiency (more insulation, shade trees, earth tube cooling, better mileage, mass transit, walking, etc.) are the fastest, most cost effective ways of slowing down the train that is barreling down on our population.
That would buy us critical time while we stabilize and ultimately reduce our population. If we fail future generations will pay dearly.
It's funny to watch the
It's funny to watch the people quote the oil industry misinformation campaign talking points claim that climatologists created climate change to make money.
What do they think the goal of the oil industry misinformation campaign is designed to do for the oil industry?
By tracking the funding it's been exposed that Exxon/Mobil is funding more than 36 'think tanks' that publish climate change controversy pieces.
Leaked internal oil industry memos detailed the deliberate attempt to create controversy, re-frame the science discussion as theory, and attack the scientists. That is what the nicotine industry successfully did for decades as they delayed the inevitable increase regulation. That bought them time and rewarded them with billions in profit while Americans died.
The oil industry memos show without a doubt that is EXACTLY what their strategy is designed to do.
not to burst your bubble eyolf
"Sorry, Tbonar, but unless you made a typo scientists have some pretty effective ways for determining CO2 levels 1000 years ago."
They also know that historically right now CO2 levels are far lower than the average for the history of the earth.
Ask rolf, he knows. But then again, he will give the argument that in the past, the Earth knew it needed more CO2 to stay warmer.
Still waiting on the answer how the Earth knew that, lol.
Look at the graph half way down this link. Appears we are at a lower CO2 level that the average to me:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Then look at the graph for the last roughly 450,000 years on this link. Use a ruler, if everything happens in nature in patterns, guess what, we are due for this upswing in carbon levels during this time period. With that said, we are soon due for a sharp decline or erratic levels as well.
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
Everything on Earth, including the Earth cycles. Say what you want about global warming. We can not control what the earth decides to do. Has man made unnatural changes to the Earth? We have most definitely altered the Earth in some ways, but we are a mammal living on Earth so are they unnatural changes?
PS, 2 of the last 3 years I have not been able to fly into my Canadian lodge in the early season because there was still ice on the lake. In the 25 years the camp has been open, this has only happened 3 times, twice in the last 3 years.
CO2.
Reason why i call their numbers for CO2 from 1000 years ago bull crap is because the fact that scientist themselves can't even get right carbon dating. if they use the same procedures for CO2 that they did for carbon dating there would be 1000 different answers. But the fact of the matter is don't be pointing fingers at the USA for a carbon footprint...Should be pointed in the direction of Europe, China, Russia, India, etc..
More fake quotes
Nonsense from idisagree: "Ask rolf, he knows. But then again, he will give the argument that in the past, the Earth knew it needed more CO2 to stay warmer.
Still waiting on the answer how the Earth knew that, lol."
FAct: Over geologic time the sun's luminosity is gradually increasing. This somewhat balances the fact there is less global warming CO2 today. It just happens. idisagreewdems seems to think that there is a little green man in the center of the earth doing thinking for the earth.
Animals think; the earth and idisagree don't think.
Rolf
Icy luxury fishing lodge
idisagree wants you to notice his deluxe life style - "2 of the last 3 years I have not been able to fly into my Canadian lodge in the early season"
He thinks a couple of years of ice mean a climate trend. For a real climate trend go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center(NSIDC) and see the long term trend of ice coverage in the Arctic. That huge ice pack is steadily declining decade to decade.
idisagree doesn't see the Arctic as he flies south from his Canadian lodge to his private island in the Caribbean.
REW
rolf
Just a question. You said we don't use oil for electric power but don't we use it to turn the turbines?
CO2
tbonar: Our newly minted climate scientist is correct in pointing out that we have good ways of estimating past CO2 atmospheric content. He goes a little astray in assuming past cycles are perpetual. There were past CO2 cycles. but there are changes which affect the future.
In the past volcanic eruptions played a major role in CO2 content. Today and in the future volcanic eruptions are trivial factors in the earth's carbon emissions. Also we now have nearly 7 billion humans who are burning all that buried sunshine in the form of stored carbon. That greatly multiplies our impact on the earth's biosphere and makes us a factor for the first time in what happens to the earth and its atmosphere.
REW
pdnet and electric power turbines question
Coal, gas, and nuclear fuel about 90% of our electric power turbines. Hydro, burned biomass, wind(2+%), and solar(tiny) are about 9%. OIl is 1% of our electric power. It's used in places like Hawaii where everything else is expensive.
Main limit with oil for electric power is its cost.
Rolf
Thank you rolf
I had assumed it was much higher. Appreciate the response.
Post picture
The picture with my comment posts is of my winter quarter nuclear class in the Training Center control room at the Prairie Island nuclear plant. If you click on it, I'm the bald guy behind the lady in the yellow blouse.
Teaching the class prevented me from visiting my Caribbean island this past winter.
R
It's interesting to note that
It's interesting to note that the TV networks spent considerable amount of time on "Climategate" but have devoted ZERO time to the leaked oil industry memos detailing their intent to confuse the public on climate change.
It makes me wonder if some of the networks are afraid they'll get sued or maybe Murdoch is involved in the attempt.
Thank you, Rolf...I think...
Thank you, Rolf...I think...for calling me a "newly minted climate scientist".
Good thing I can take a joke, because I'm not educated in the climate. I depend on others for that. My only expertise is in snarky comments designed to tweak angry conservatives' noses.
I love my job, LOL!
But when 90 plus per cent of climate professionals and scientists agree on something, it probably pays to listen to them while we put the tin-foil hat brigade on hold for a while.
I have no idea what, if anything can be done to ameliorate climate change, but I do believe it is changing and I do believe we have the duty to ourselves and our neighbors to carefully consider what that means and how to prepare ourselves for it.
Maybe freak snowstorms in Atlanta will be common in the future...you think maybe having snow removal equipment near at hand would be smart?
If hurricanes and extreme amounts of rain threaten power grids along the eastern seaboard, maybe investing in underground grids to key services is a good idea.
Extremes in weather also may make Canada and Russia's marginal agricultural regions more productive; do we just consider that a windfall for a few, or encourage investment and infrastructure to maximize potentail for wholesale movement of population centers to the new areas of ecomomic growth?
In my opinion, talk about global warming isn't just about reversing escalating CO2 levels, but its about surviving calamity. I sometimes wonder if conservatives understand this as well, but are hoping to use calamity to establish hedgemony and a return to feudalism.
Newly minted
That was a reference to i disagree with dems in response to his repeated cheap shot about me and a thinking earth.
And even more than 90% of the scientific community agrees on the danger of global warming.
Rolf