Global Warming

I’ve moved back and forth on the whole Global Warming thing for a number of years.  I remember sitting in an office cafeteria 13 years ago reading an article in the Minneapolis paper.  They were talking about how the pine forest of northern Minnesota would turn into prairie with a simple 1 or 2 degree change in the global temperature.

I bought it.

Then as the years moved on, I began to listen to wailing from the Left and, combined with their “solutions” came to the conclusion the whole thing was a “hoax”.  The Left isn’t interested in saving the planet anymore than BP is.  Rather, the Left is interested in using the phenomenon as a platform to continue policies that involve more and more taxation combined with more and more distribution.  Morals and ethics through legislation.  Never mind the fact that a 2% vig isn’t bad either.

Now, however, I’ve come to accept a couple of things:

  1. Literally, the world’s temperature is getting warmer
  2. This would be true had man never existed
  3. CO2 is a green house gas that contributes to increase heat
  4. Man is contributing to increased levels of CO2 and therefore, the earth is warmer than it otherwise might be.
  5. This man made warmth is minimal and has little to no significant impact on the affects of natural warming.

I think that if sat down, coffee in hand, most people would accept that position.  The only reason that people would completely deny the fact that we’re warming is because the Left has made it a binary proposition:

  1. You are a denier who ignores science and thinks that dinosaurs roamed the earth 700-800 years ago.
  2. You are “all-in” and think that we need to tax the economy into the stone age, you know, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

Anyway, every now and then little bits of data come floating by that support this position of mine.  For me.  In my own way.  And the Coyote does an AWESOME job of explaining those bits:

It is possible for the theory that the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2 (ie that a doubling of CO2 concentrations will lead to global temperature increases of 2.5C or higher) to be correct while still having ten years of flat to declining surface temperatures.  That is because Earth’s great surface heat reservoir is the oceans, not the atmosphere, and so the extra heat from the greenhouse effect could be going into the oceans rather than into near-surface air.

However, it is NOT possible, as least as we (and by “we” I mean everyone, skeptics and alarmists alike) understand the climate, for CO2 to be holding a lot of extra heat and it not show up either in surface temperatures or ocean heat content.  The greenhouse effect does not turn off — its effects may be masked in the chaotic weather systems, perhaps for years, but if the climate sensitivity to CO2 is really as high as the IPCC says, there has to be new heat going somewhere.

Here, the Coyote quotes a study from Jo Nova:

In short, though, we have seen no rise in measured ocean heat content since we started measuring with technology dedicated to the task.  This means, if those who believe the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2 are right, something like 50,000 quintillion joules of energy have gone missing since 2003.  This is the “missing heat”, and though climate scientists sometimes discuss it in private, they almost never do so in public.  Ocean heat is the dinosaur bone fossil that the creationists simply don’t want to acknowledge.

See, in order to maintain the hysteria, sell books and movies, the alarmists have to create models that fit their narrative.  They create a system that describes the climate in such a way as to show their story has been and will continue to be, right.

But the data doesn’t support it.


The problem with the global warming debate and our hopes of arriving at anything resembling a cohesive policy is the fact that the whole issue is being framed by the far-left ideologues.  And that frame is a binary one.  On one hand, you can either be a complete denier.  No warming of the temperature anywhere due to human causes what-so-ever.  The other end of the spectrum; complete global warming alarmist.  The world is going to be massively impacted due to the massive warming caused by human activity.  And not only will this impact to our mother earth be massive, but it will be catastrophic to the human race.

There can be no middle ground.  There is no room for a moderating voice.  Only hot or cold.

Read More

I was watching the debate tonight and heard the questioning surrounding the science of global warming.  Admittedly I’m biased, but it sounded to me like the moderators were laughing inside as they were questioning the candidates about global warming.

The questions were led with the fact that scientists overwhelmingly support the fact that mankind is contributing to the warming of the globe.  Now, given that fact, do you reject that science?

It’s the Left’s trick question.

The words aren’t what they’re asking.  What they are asking is:  “Do you deny catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming?”  But the questions are always phrased in such a way as to mask the true nature of the question.

For example, if I asked you this question, how would you respond?

If you were to piss in the ocean, would the level of the ocean by higher than it would have been had you not decided to piss in the ocean?

Who can deny the science?  When you add “water” to a body of water, can you argue that the volume of water actually decreased?  Certainly not.

The question should be:

If you were to piss in the ocean, would the level of he ocean be higher by any meaningful measure?

If THAT question were asked, the answers would make more sense.

And so it is with global warming.  Any reasonable person would argue that we DO contribute to the warming of the planet.  However, the degree to which we contribute is not of such significance that we need to take the actions that the far-left would ask us to take.

Even though hurricanes often hit those places in the country where people are concerned about “guns and Bibles” I knew that the media would be quick to jump on Irene as an indication that we are experiencing Global Warming.  The fact that t hit the North East only assured that this mem would come all the sooner.

I wasn’t disappointed:

The scale of Hurricane Irene, which could cause more extensive damage along the Eastern Seaboard than any storm in decades, is reviving an old question: are hurricanes getting worse because of human-induced climate change?

“On a longer time scale, I think — but not all of my colleagues agree — that the evidence for a connection between Atlantic hurricanes and global climate change is fairly compelling,” said Kerry Emanuel, an expert on the issue at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So says the New York Times.  Or, rather, so the New York Times says that Mr. Emanuel says.

Any more?

Among those who disagree is Thomas R. Knutson, a federal researcher at the government’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. The rising trend of recent decades occurred over too short a period to be sure it was not a consequence of natural variability, he said, and statistics from earlier years are not reliable enough to draw firm conclusions about any long-term trend in hurricane intensities.

“Everyone sort of agrees on this short-term trend, but then the agreement starts to break down when you go back longer-term,” Mr. Knutson said. He argues, essentially, that Dr. Emanuel’s conclusion is premature, though he adds that evidence for a human impact on hurricanes could eventually be established.

While scientists from both camps tend to think hurricanes are likely to intensify, they do not have great confidence in their ability to project the magnitude of that increase.

One climate-change projection, prepared by Mr. Knutson’s group, is that the annual number of the most intense storms will double over the course of the 21st century. But what proportion of those would actually hit land is another murky issue. Scientists say climate change could alter steering currents or other traits of the atmosphere that influence hurricane behavior.

So.  There ya have it.

We agree that global warming is real, that it increases storms and their intensity, but….BUT we disagree on where those storms may go.  Why do we disagree?  Well, because, naturally, we disagree because of global warming.

Oh how I wish I majored in English and wanted to write novels:

Gore enrolled in Harvard College in 1965, initially planning to major in English and write novels, but later deciding to major in government.  On his second day on campus, he began campaigning for the freshman student government council, and was elected its president.

Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math.   His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana.

Ahhh…the joys of Harvard education!

So, what do scientist say?  Ya know, scientist who actually study science and stuff?  Oh, AND study climate science?

Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.

So.  There ya go.  The short term trend is showing s decrease in ACE; or storm strength.  The Times reports an increase, as if it’s fact, and then Al Gore announces anyone disagreeing with that statement is a racist.

Sounds about right.

Make up a fact, report it in the Times and then let a raging Leftist report that anyone who disagrees must be racist.  Then, don’t report it.

By the way, for further evidence that tropical storm activity is just CRAZY increasing, see this chart:

Scary isn’t it?  The way that storms are increasing isn’t it?


Ahh, the Inter-loops, such a grand way to identify the hypocrisy of people.

Like here, where we are discussing the Left’s claim that the conservatives are racists. How wonderfully ironic that the inventor of said Inter-loops is caught up in the story.

Here we have a Google search of:

al gore climate talk racism

And the results:

See?  When Al Gore equates climate change skeptics to racism we get 3.3 million hits.


But when you narrow your search to just one of the main stream media outlets:

You get 3!



How wonderful to graduate with a degree in journalism.

This sums up my view of why the Left is so very critically concerned about the whole warming of the globe:

The solutions proposed by the left aim to leverage this problem to build the economic order they have failed to achieve by other means.


It would be easier to listen to the Liberal solution to this problem if it didn’t sound EXACTLY like the normal meme of taking resources from the evil rich and giving it to the victimized poor.

Now, go read the whole article.

It appears that demand for rooftop solar panels is, ahem, heating up.  Even in Minnesota, hardly a, ahem, hotbed of solar innovation, the industry is seeing significant activity.

High demand for rooftop solar electric panels, especially for commercial buildings, has exhausted Xcel Energy’s Solar Rewards subsidy program for the year, shutting out other customers, solar industry officials said Monday.

“People are really excited about solar,” said Rebecca Lundberg, CEO of Powerfully Green.

Sounds great.  Right?

Maybe not.

Read More

I’m a little late on this post, but, on the other hand, there hasn’t been a lot to write about concerning this topic.  True to form, the Atlantic hurricane season has begun slow.  For the few years that I’ve been following this, it’s par for the course.  Start slow and then really gear down as the season moves into “adulthood”.

So, where are we?

The predictions for 2011 are:

  • Tropical Storms: 18
  • Hurricanes: 6-10
  • Major Storms: 3-6

And we are at:

  • Tropical Storms: 4
    • Arlene: June
    • Bret: July
    • Cindy: July
    • Don: July
  • Hurricanes: 0
  • Major Storms: 0

In short, for the whole of July, we are just 3 more tropical storms further along than we were in June.

And through July of 2010?

  • Tropical Storms: 2
  • Hurricanes: 1
  • Major Storms: 0

So far, 2011 is a little more active than 2010, but only if you count named storms and not hurricanes.

So, I can remember sitting in the corporate cafeteria in Minneapolis in 1998.  I remember eating my pizza and reading the Star Tribune.

I was fascinated by an article that was discussing the warming of the temperatures and the impact it would have on Minnesota.  It would turn the northern pine forests into grasslands.  Even a shift in a few degrees would be enough to change the way the landscape looked and behaved.  It would take years, but the impact would be unmistakeable.

I also remember discussing this with friends and family.  Some would disagree that we were getting warmer [though I felt things were changing even as a kid; we were getting much less snow as I grew older], others felt that while we were warming, the degree of warming would not cause the changes being discussed.  Others yet felt that yes, we were warming, but the pattern was predictable.  Nature changes.

Now fast forward to the current Global Warming debate.  I have always been interested in the topic and did my own reading.  Over time I’ve landed on the “Denier” side of the dabate.  And I’ve always felt a little uncomfortable there.

Until I bumped into Coyote.  Double Ivy, small business owner and Libertarian.

Read More

I’m sure I saw it somewhere – I certainly can’t claim to have coined this phrase on my own.

But I’ll define it:

Climate Rapture – A belief held by AGW alarmists that the amount of climate change caused by mankind will bring about the end of the world.  Full and complete annihilation of Mother Earth is the only acceptable conclusion to the current trajectory of mankind.