Global warming
In the Hans Christian Anderson fable an entire populace is duped by the king and his clothiers until a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”
Today we need a 10 year old voice to say, “But it hasn’t warmed since I’ve been here!”
Data from NOAA’s Climate Data Center confirms that global land and sea surface temperatures are essentially unchanged since 2002.
The science of how green house gases like carbon dioxide(CO2) respond to the earth’s radiation and warm us is clear. Humans add 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year, unabated by expensive renewables. But global warming remains at rest.
And we don’t really know why.
There are ideas. The oceans are taking up some of the carbon, acidify the waters, and damage coral reefs. The solar sun spot cycle has paused with slightly lower solar output. It is time for us to pause as we study what is really happening with our climate.
Rolf Westgard
St. Paul
Comments (35)
Add commentMaybe we have been given a
This sounds like an oil industry talking point memo.
Maybe we have been given a last chance.
Was the 10 years prior to 2002 warmer than the previous 50 years?
Acidifying the ocean will mean the collapse of some major food production systems as the nursery areas are destroyed by the destruction of coral reefs and associated fish populations.
The global warming trend
Global temperatures have been on a very slow warming trend since the mid 1970s. But despite continued warming in the US, the global trend has turned flat since 2002. That is despite more and more GHGs being released since 2002. The threat from GW remans real, but we really don't know the why of world climate temperatures.
That does suggest that spending huge sums on climate mitigation that apparently doesn't work very well is a mistake. More research is a yes; but IMO spending $2 billion to cover several thousand acres of Nevada with curved mirrors, or the same amount for wind turbines in the sea off Cape Cod, is financial madness. Like using 40 million prime crop acres for gas tank moonshine.
REW
Rolf
I'm reading an article on Bill McKibben in Bloomberg Business Week and wondering what your opinion is on him and his 350.org group? It is about his attempt to stop Keystone pipeline.
Just Laughing Rolf
Atta Boy!!! You do like stirring the pot for both side's anyway's!!!
OFB
I'm south of the border and they have had a very cool winter. Maybe no one has told them about the warming. It warmed up the day after we got here so maybe it's an Americano thing. I hope I didn't screw up Mexico!!!!
Hein
The warmers wont believe you anyways. Remember the sky is falling because we have cattle on this planet!!!
It really would be funny if it snowed there though.
why?
Why, when talking about global warming, we only look at "recent" data for temps and CO2 levels rather than historical earth data?
Why when talking about coral reefs dying do we leave out the scientific data that shows coral actually growing because of mans influence? (building artificial reefs)
Why is it we talk about the shrinking polar ice caps but leave out the fact that ant antarctic ice cap is growing faster than the polar ice cap is shrinking?
Why is it that we do not call out the false information on temperature gathering?
Why is it that we do not talk about the fact that the earth is actually in an "ice box" era yet compared to the historical earth temps?
This is just a few questions I have. Soooooo, if you cant answer these with scientific sources behind the reasoning, please do not attempt because all you would be doing is providing left talking points.
Sadie and the Keystone pipeline questin
The Strib this morning has a big story on how rail cars are being used to ship Canadian oil to the US in the absence of the pipeline. The oil will come here, either in a safe economical pipeline, or by rail or truck. Think how many diesel burning trucks are needed to substitute for a pipeline.
Fortunately for Minnesota, the Rosemount refinery has the existing Alberta Clipper pipeline for its oil. It is linked to us by the refinery's pipeline from Clearbrook MN to St Paul.
McKibben is well intentioned, but IMO misguided.
Rolf
We need the negatives so that the positives work harder and acomplish our goals.
Rolf you need to stick with what you know
I think this expert who took Rolf on in his windmill tilting cause says it much better than I could. From St. Thomas University Professor John Abraham:
"In an error-ridden article written by someone who, it appeared, was a real scientist ("Call it 'luke-warming -- and invest appropriately," Feb. 12), Rolf Westgard made statements that are at odds with real scientists working in the fields of energy and climate change. A reader would be led to believe that climate isn't changing as fast as scientists predicted, that the consequences wouldn't be that bad, and that it is going to be easier to simply adapt to climate change than to stop the change.
Well, let's check the facts. For years, scientists have made predictions that we can check. Scientists predicted the Earth would warm, ice would melt, seas would rise, the ocean would become more acidic, some parts of the Earth would become drier while other parts became wetter, and intense storms would become more common. All of these things have happened and are continuing. Some are happening even faster than predicted. For instance, we have seen a 70 percent decrease in North Pole ice since 1980. We have seen the southwest United States become hotter and drier. We have seen an increase in heavy rainfalls and floods (like the Duluth flood or the floods in southern Minnesota). We have also seen storms become more intense.
But how does all this square with Westgard? He claimed that the past seven years have been quiet for hurricanes. You can measure hurricanes by their frequency (how many there are) or by their intensity (how powerful they are). In the Atlantic, the busiest year was 2005 (with 28 named storms). The third, fourth and fifth busiest years were 2012, 2011 and 2010. Two of the most damaging hurricane seasons were within the past decade. Also, the two largest storms on record were in the past three years. Finally, eight of the most expensive 10 storms were within the past decade.
So, what does this have to do with humans? How did humans impact a storm like Sandy? Well, scientists estimate that about 10 to 15 percent of the Sandy rainfall was human-caused. Just under a foot of the sea-level rise was human-caused, and the trajectory may have been impacted by humans. That is, Superstorm Sandy may never have hit land were it not for human-caused climate change.
Westgard then asserts that climate has taken a 10-year hiatus on warming. That would be good news, if it were true. In reality, climate has not taken a "breather." The vast majority of the heat we are adding to the Earth is ending up in the oceans. The oceans, land and atmosphere continue to warm, despite what Westgard asserts. How do I know? I study and publish in this very area. I also speak to colleagues around the world on a daily basis. No one I know would agree with Westgard.
What about his statements on biofuels? He is wrong there, too. It turns out that next-generation biofuels can be one part of the solution. They can provide clean fuel for our cars without the extensive use of water, fertilizers and land. They also would not impact the food supply. I was the author of a seminal 2009 study that surveyed biofuel production. Our results were published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
There is one issue he brings up that has real merit. Is it smarter to try to stop climate change or just adapt? That is an open issue that is hotly debated. But it helps to look back on the impacts of climate change this past year. Approximately $75 billion from Sandy. Another $70 billion from the terrible 2012 drought. Approximately $100 million in costs from the Duluth flood. These are real costs, and they are only the beginning. I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that we could spend a fraction of this money on developing clean, renewable energy that could create jobs here in Minnesota, diversify our energy supply, improve national security and solve the climate problem. These solutions just make sense.
This is why we listen to real scientists who carry out real research. According to real scientists, humans are changing the climate but we can solve the problem today. We have the technology, we only lack the will."
The Keystone pipeline will be
The Keystone pipeline will be used to transport oil to refineries in Texas so that the finished products can be shipped OUT OF THE US to world markets leaving us with the pollution and risk.
I've read that Keystone XL
Will also lead to diversion of existing oil sands oil from Midwestern refineries down to OK and Texas--with a net effect of INCREASING the price of gas for us and the others in the midwest.
I think they have backed away from the horrible route in Nebraska but still want to run XL through portions of western states prone to seismic activity. Earthquakes and pipelines don't mix well.
Lost on me is why that western extension is even needed, as if I am not mistaken there is already a path down into Oklahoma's monstrous oil hubs (used to stop in Nebraska but Obama approved a southward extension down into OK's oil country).
Then there's the relations with Canada issue. They are not happy if another big chunk of their oil will be sent to the US to be refined. Not small factor when we already rely on Canada for a significant part of our oil. And when that oil is particularly important for those of us here in MN.
This is far more complicated than it appears on the surface.
Rolf are you in any way getting paychecks from Koch industries, TransCanada, or others directly tied to this pipeline? For being a MN resident, I am surprised you are not pointing out the potential direct negative consequences to Minnesota gas prices should this go through!
Proud RINO & the panicked professor
The rebuttal starts off saying my Strib editorial is "error-ridden". But it fails to find any errors because there aren't any. They years since Katrina have been the quietest in hurricane history. Florida and Gulf insurers are raking it in with no storm payoffs.
And my data on the 10 year warming pause included NOAA's combined land and sea surface temperatures. Abraham then plugs cellulosic ethanol which is a joke. I produced a rebuttal but IMO the Strib was afraid to publish it. A lot more readers at St Thomas than just me.
The whole gist of Abraham's article was a cheap shot about him being a "real scientist". He did a good job rebutting Lord Moncton last year, the famous UK GW denier. But he fell flat in my case.
More on the Strib dispute
Abraham's last sentences: "According to REAL scientists, humans are changing the climate but we can solve the problem today. We have the technology, we only lack the will."
Actually, it is still not clear if humans are changing the climate. But if we are, we do NOT have the technology to change it. The earth has more and more people who want to live better and so use more energy. The energy we use will be the most efficient and cheapest - meaning fossil fuels and nuclear.
If he and McKibben want to save the earth, they need to find a way to have fewer people on it. Lots of luck with that.
On the other hand the earth may do just fine with more people as we respond to higher costs for energy.
Rolf
Sense and nonsense on Keystone
The Keystone project is two section. One is from Hardesty Alberta to a Nebraska terminal. The other is from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf, to relieve a jam up at Cushing. None of this crude is to be exported. It will be refined in our world class refineries, and some of the gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc will be exported at a good profit for American companies. This creates thousands of good paying jobs and lots of tax revenue for various local and federal govt agencies. It also provides export credits to balance all those imports we buy at Walmart and Target.
REW
The years since Katrina Rolf?
Setting aside any honest look at data here, you do understand the difference between climate and weather, right?
I have seen you make numerous statements that make me wonder about that.
Just as one heat wave or one cold snap is not proof either before or against GW, neither is using just a few years of weather data to support a long term climate trend!
The local story of true climate change is even stronger than a worldwide or even continental look. Those of use who have lived here and spend time outdoors know it's not the same. Things like frequency of rain during the coldest part of winter, ice out dates on our lakes, growing seasons getting longer by weeks, and more are LONG term trends that are hard to refute.
Last point
There is zero evidence that recent storms have anything to do with global warming. My article in the Strib and Dispatch pointed out earlier storms before all the CO2 were worse than the current ones.
For some facts from a real scientist, read "Powering the Future" from Stanford's Nobel physicist, Robert Laughlin.
One of his conclusions is:
"The only kind of waste not poisonous to the environment is carbon dioxide."
Rolf, are you denying that Keystone is not already in place
From Hardesty to Cushing Oklahoma--and along that route, from Nebraska to Illinois? That is my understanding. I started paying more attention when I heard Obama approved the extension into Oklahoma a few years back.
Here's a map that reflects my understanding of what is IN place now, not in dispute--in orange--and one take on the new proposed route in dashed yellow (not sure if the path across Neb. is accurate there anymore).
http://www.texomacore.org/files/Photos/Issue_Pages/map.jpg
Proud RINO
The Lower 48 has the warmest rise of any place although Alaska is colder. The US is less than 2% of the earth's surface so that a local trend here is essentially meaningless for world data. One of the things you realize if you understand weather and climate.
I don't know if global warming will resume, and neither does anyone else.
Rolf
RINO question
Yes. The Keystone XL project would provide a new line from Hardesty to Steele City Nebraska, running west of the existing Enbridge line. From Steele City, Illinois refineries are supplied.
Volumes of crude from the oil sands are rising and new capacity is needed, currently being handled mostly by rail.
Thanks Rolf--but what about Phillip Verleger and others?
Who make that claim that approving keystone XL completely will lead to an INCREASE in gas costs throughout the midwest?
Verleger is an oil industry economist who is also a professor at Calgary University. He's made the claim--based in part on court testimony from TransCanada themselves--that they plan to export more of the oil than you claim, that the midwest would see a rise (albeit slight) rise in gas prices, and the rest of the country would not see a gas price decrease.
And as far as the need for Keystone XL to alleviate the "jam up" of oil in Cushing, I've read that is overstated too, since work is underway to alleviate that with or without Keystone XL.
The washington times did a nice job of looking at multiple expert opinions--industry, regulator, and outside expert--on whether Keystone XL would decrease oil prices anywhere in the US. The concensus--even those who thought it would said it would save mere pennies--and many were reluctant to even commit to that.
Isn't it fun
when two ultra-liberals get in an arguement, it's like watching two 6 year olds on the playground!!
Gold Star
for LLR! :-)
RINO
If the Washington Times is your reference, you are in trouble.
rolf, please answer the original question.
Rolf, it would help if you would answer the original question. Do you receive any funding or benefits from Koch Bros or other oil/energy interests? If you have nothing to divulge, please say so. Naturally, you would understand our concerns if you were profiting in any way from using your expertise to persuade us with some degree of prejudice.
shad
He has said a 100 times he has stock in oil Co's. Now be nice & let us enjoy this before Hyde comes back!!!
Disclosures
I have nothing to do with the Koch Brothers, except to take my classes to tour their refinery.
I personally own stocks in various parts of the oil industry and also public utility stocks like Xcel and Exelon, both of which user nuclear plants. These are big companies, and nothing I say or do could influence their stock price. If I could I might try it.
I also give talks and occasionally appear at the MN legislature on behalf of MN Utility Investors, an organization consisting of people around the state who invest in utility shares. I mostly push nuclear energy.
Rolf
Oh dear
Even I remember what Rolf has said about the stocks he owns and the speaking engagements. Can we please just
keep this post for future reference when someone wants proof.
We don't have oil stocks but, do have Allete which owns MN Power. I think we should all come clean about our oil and energy stocks if Rolf has to.
Just joking.
Sadie, you're assuming that
Sadie, you're assuming that everyone keeps as close a watch of these blogs as you do. Some of us have lives separate from the Brainerd Dispatch and don't keep up on every blogger every day of the year.
And yes, let's all come clean concerning ulterior motives.
Shad
I said that I was just joking.
An attempt at teasing.
I could have been clearer, sorry.
Now you are assuming that I keep a close watch.
That's ok, I don't, I just remember Rolf's because people
have ask before.