House Directs Pentagon To IgnoreClimateChange

[Guest]

In fact, this is not the case at all.

Drought:

Source (2011)

Flood:

Source 2010

Climate Change catastrophic weather:

Source

Heat Waves:

Source NOAA

Hurricanes:

Source GSA

Best I've seen is that some one showed the possibility of a slight increase in precipitation (though not in damaging precipitation events.)

So, there is a slight possiblity (as of what we know at the moment) that the world could have more potable water in the future.

I would agree to the possibility of coastal flooding, though. However, I would aver that this eventuality has likely been simply moved up to a nearer date to our current time by CO2. That is, the ice caps have been reducing (over the long run) in size for quite some time - thousands of years. We will need to act sooner than we would have had to without the CO2.

So, if I need to "get back to science facts," please instruct me on how the research I've posted and linked to was invalid.

Harte

You lost me Harte when you referenced CO2 science. Sorry end of reasonable discussion. I really though you were better than that. My Bad.

Before you complain - let me just say that CO2 science is notorious for cherry picking from reputable scientific work and misinterpreting what real scientists have said about climate change. There are probably only a handful of the scientist work referenced there who would agree with the conclusions that are drawn from their work by the CO2 Science bloggers. As I say Harte - I gave you to much credit for integrity - my bad.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 28, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

Not funny how selective your reading choices are.

Source

Harte

The reply to that piece of "analysis" from the same blog;

Germany’s renewable energy project should be critically analyzed specifically because it is, as Will Boisvert points out, a “pioneering” effort. Germany’s status as the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe has made it the world’s fourth largest economy, a country heavily dependent on electricity. Boisvert, however, doesn’t provide a clear-eyed analysis. His article contains several factual errors and the American journalist is unaware of or ignores some elements essential of the Energiewende. Designers of the Germany energy transition understand better than Boisvert the complex problems of converting a twentieth-century energy economy into one that is sustainable, non-polluting, and affordable. But, fatally for his argument, Boisvert confuses “difficult” with “impossible.” Ultimately, his bias in favor of nuclear power leads Boisvert to exaggerate the ease of a massive global transition to nuclear power—and to trivialize the risks involved as “more mythical than real.”

Assessing the progress of Germany’s energy transition, Boisvert presents the “dismal and disquieting” fact that “the portion of German electricity generated by renewables rose from 20.3 percent in 2011 to 21.9 percent in 2012.” What I find truly disquieting is his focus on data from a single year when the Energiewende has a track record stretching back to the 1990s, before it went into overdrive in 2000 with the passage of the Renewable Energy Act (known by its German acronym, EEG). Between 2000 and 2011, electricity from renewable sources grew from 6.8 to 20.5 percent of total electrical consumption—nearly tripling the amount of power coming from sources like wind and solar. When taken as a whole, Germany’s record isn’t just impressive, it is unmatched among large industrialized nations.

Boisvert’s main arguments revolve around the need to fight anthropogenic climate change—a reasonable proposition given that this is perhaps the most critical challenge of our time. (It’s worth noting that, unlike in the United States, there is no sizeable population in Germany that questions the scientific facts of climate change or the need to take action to stop it.)

In this most critical area, Boisvert finds the Energiewende particularly lacking. The German program, he states flatly, “made no progress at all in…abating greenhouse emissions.” But, once again, his charge stems from taking a single year (2012) out of context. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the German per capita production of CO2 dropped 22.4 percent between 1990 and 2008 to 2.61 metric tons. That’s still too high, but it is progress. The United States, on the other hand, remains the worst greenhouse gas polluter in the industrialized world, just as it was in 1990. In 2008 the average American added 4.9 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere—nearly twice as much as the average German—a figure virtually unchanged in two decades.

Numbers aside, Boisvert’s command of energy fundamentals is shaky. For example, in discussing the need for dispatchable electrical generators “that can ramp up and down on command to match their power output with current electricity demand,” he cites nuclear power, which is actually the least flexible major power source. Nuclear power plants take as much as five days to reach full capacity from start-up. Second on his list of dispatchable power generators is coal, but only a few of the newest coal power plants can ramp up or down quickly.

Throughout the article, Boisvert characterizes the performance of wind and solar power as variously “terrible,” “unreliable,” and, in case you weren’t adequately alarmed, “of catastrophic unreliability.”

In fact, the amount of solar irradiance and wind energy for a given date and location are fairly predictable. Boisvert bases his claim that solar power “varies wildly” largely on the uncontested fact that the sun sets at night. But this is why engineers use the adjective “intermittent” to describe solar (and wind) power, not “unreliable.” What Boisvert ignores is that peak power use occurs in the middle of the day, precisely when solar power is at its greatest.

From this doom-and-gloom perspective, Boisvert asks, “how will a Germany run largely on wind and solar generators survive the long periods when they shut down completely in the dead of winter?” Part of the answer is that wind power actually peaks in “the dead of winter”—not in the summer as Boisvert apparently believes.

Unaware of the complementary properties of wind and solar (wind energy is also highest at night when solar energy is at its nadir), Boisvert states that Germany is being forced to build what he calls a “second grid.” “To escape long blackouts many times a year,” Boisvert writes, “Germany is planning to back up every gigawatt of wind and solar average capacity with another gigawatt of gas or coal.”

I asked Claudia Kemfert, one of Germany’s top energy economists, what she makes of this claim. “That is not true,” Kemfert responded in an e-mail. Kemfert, the head of the department of energy, transportation, and the environment at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin, and an external expert to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explained, “It is one of the myths conventional power companies argue to overestimate costs and to undermine the acceptance of the Energiewende.”

Identifying the problem as intermittency—not unreliability—is key to making the Energiewende work, and experts like Kemfert don’t sugarcoat the formidable challenges ahead. She stresses the need to invest more in technologies like decentralized combined heat and power plants (which harness “waste heat” from electrical generation) and smart grids that manage power more quickly and flexibly. Kemfert’s emphasis on decentralized power generation is a critical part of the Energiewende, one that Boisvert disregards.

Two decades ago, Germany depended on a relatively small number of large central power plants (fossil fuel and nuclear), the same kind of system that powers the United States. The EEG provided the legal framework and economic incentives for individuals and small groups to become micro-utilities, selling power from roof-top solar panels or wind turbines to the grid at a premium rate. The program was designed by a coalition government formed by the Social Democratic Party and the Green Party, with twin goals that reflect party priorities: breaking the monopoly stranglehold of four large utilities while promoting the growth of electricity generated by low-carbon sources. Millions of average citizens have benefited from the changes, including, in particular, one of the most conservative populations in German society: farmers. Travel across the German countryside and you’ll see barns and houses covered with solar panels, particularly in the sunnier southern states. In the cloudier and windier north, farmers have banded together to invest in wind turbines. Today, farmers own 11 percent of all existing renewable energy (RE) capacity in Germany. Private individuals (including farmers) own 51 percent of RE capacity. The so-called Big Four utilities remain wedded to the old centralized system and account for just 6.5 percent of RE capacity.

When it comes to cost, Boisvert, like most Americans, seems to consider all money spent on energy to be equal. Germans see the situation quite differently. A euro spent on electricity generated by traditional fuels such as nuclear and coal benefits a utility. But a euro spent on power generated by solar or wind enriches individuals and communities. This principle, known as democratizing energy, is a cornerstone of the Energiewende.

Based on the errors and omissions throughout his analysis, Boisvert concludes that Germans have only two options: continue pursuing an energy economy based on renewable power, an expensive proposition that is doomed to fail and thus guarantee a fossil fuel–burning spree that will destroy the planet; or begin a massive shift to nuclear power.

In writing this response, I’ve tried to show why Boisvert’s presentation of the first option is wrong, in hopes that I wouldn’t have to bore myself and others by entering the decades old debate on the merits of his second option. (It’s also because I am not anti-nuclear. If a new generation of nuclear technology can be built in the way that advocates claim, I’m all for it. But the plans are still theoretical.)

I do want to address Boisvert’s characterization of Germany’s decision to end nuclear power, however. Simply put: Germans didn’t abandon nuclear power in an emotional reaction to Fukushima. The Japanese nuclear accident of 2011 was a turning point for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but most Germans came by their aversion to nuclear power through firsthand experience. The worst nuclear accident in history occurred in late April 1986, when a reactor in Chernobyl, then part of Soviet Ukraine, exploded and burned out of control for ten days, showering parts of Germany with radioactive fallout. Millions of Germans were ordered to stay inside for days. Large swaths of contaminated fields were destroyed. A UN-sponsored group estimates that the disaster caused 4,000 cancer deaths (the Union of Concerned Scientists puts the figure at 25,000). In some parts of Germany, even now, a quarter century later, people are warned against eating wild mushrooms in contaminated areas. German concerns over nuclear power aren’t irrational or baseless and efforts to paint them as such are simply wrong.

If you don't want to be seen as been selective - please don't be selective in who you quote.

Br Cornelius

[Harte]

You lost me Harte when you referenced CO2 science. Sorry end of reasonable discussion. I really though you were better than that. My Bad.

You are too lost to find the cited references (and confirm them) like I did for the last couple of quotes?

Before you complain - let me just say that CO2 science is notorious for cherry picking from reputable scientific work and misinterpreting what real scientists have said about climate change. There are probably only a handful of the scientist work referenced there who would agree with the conclusions that are drawn from their work by the CO2 Science bloggers. As I say Harte - I gave you to much credit for integrity - my bad.

This is what I meant in an earlier post.

You've clearly stated that increases in severe weather have already begun and have already affected - what was it? - "millions"? You've yet to bother to attempt to show that this is the case, whereas, as I noted, neither the UN nor any other climate change authority can make any legitimate claim that storm frequency is increasing.

When I show you this fact, you tut tut and hem haw about suspect sources without giving any of your own.

How about, if you can't evidence your case, at least proposing some viable solutions? I showed you you can't take Germany's example.

For the worst polluters, you can't use any European country as an example.

I say that any country in which you can ride on a bicycle from one border to the other in less than a week is not analogous to the real picture here.

If you suggest wind and solar, please provide us with the power outputs per unit for the windmills and the solar panels you're suggesting, so that we may divide that into the required power of, say, India, and then note exactly how many units must be used.

If your dire predictions are correct, it is too late even now to begin constructing nuclear power plants, the only real hope for the situation.

Most suggestions I've seen would end up starving about as many people as doing nothing would.

I wonder. You quote the entire article, I quoted a snippet and linked to the rest. I read your post. Did you read past the first line at my link? The line with the link to the response view you posted?

Harte

Edited May 29, 2014 by Harte

[Harte]

December 25, 2013

Germany’s wind and solar power production came to an almost complete standstill in early December. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still. One million photovoltaic systems stopped work nearly completely. For a whole week coal, nuclear and gas power plants had to generate an estimated 95 percent of Germany’s electricity supply.

What? Another bad source?

Read the story yourself - the original - in German.

From Die Welt, Dec 24

Toronto Sun Jan. 6, 2014

Greenpeace may have been founded in Canada and its global headquarters are now in Holland, but the jewel in its crown is Germany.

It’s their biggest source of fundraising.

And politically, it’s been one of the most successful jurisdictions in terms of getting Green politicians into actual positions of power, including in the cabinet of ruling governments.

And the consequence of Greenpeace’s dominance of Germany is … the construction of the first new coal-fired power plant there since 2005.

In fact, over the next two years Germany will build 10 new power plants for hard coal.

And then there’s the boom in lignite — soft, brown coal with a larger pollution footprint.

Europe is in a coal frenzy, building power plants and opening up new mines, practically every month.

We should be more like Germany. We might get a little political cover and still maintain the same energy trajectory.

Harte

[Guest]

For harte, I urge you to read this statement in full to realize that at best you have been indulging in cherry picking in your assessment that there have been no trends in extreme weather events over the last century. This is the assessment of drought trends by John P Holden, Presidential science adviser, in response to evidence given by Roger Pielke Jr to the house;

http://www.whitehous..._on_drought.pdf

I can provide similar evidence for Northern Europe. These are both areas where the data is strongest and the evidence is compelling. There are clear and strong extreme weather trends in response to Climate Change.

I won't be responding to this again since you are clearly totally bought into the Republican denial propaganda machine and there is clearly no reaching you with the evidence. Some efforts are a waste of time.

I once thought you had a fair and rigorous mind - but I now doubt that since you seem highly politically motivated in most of your opinions - which is unfortunate since you have used the abilities you do seem to have, to misrepresent the best evidence to support your political views.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 7, 2014 by Guest

[Harte]

For harte, I urge you to read this statement in full to realize that at best you have been indulging in cherry picking in your assessment that there have been no trends in extreme weather events over the last century. This is the assessment of drought trends by John P Holden, Presidential science adviser, in response to evidence given by Roger Pielke Jr to the house;

http://www.whitehous..._on_drought.pdf

I can provide similar evidence for Northern Europe. These are both areas where the data is strongest and the evidence is compelling. There are clear and strong extreme weather trends in response to Climate Change.

Your source almost in its entirety concerns itself with attempts to explain why data collected does not match predicitons made by computer climate modeling.

Also, it is somewhat contradictory:

Drought is by nature a regional phenomenon. In a world that is warming on the average, there will be more evaporation and therefore more precipitation; that is, a warming world will also get wetter, on the average.

Compare to:

I conclude that the observed global aridity changes up to 2010 are consistent with model predictions, which suggest severe and widespread droughts in the next 30-90 years over many land areas resulting from either decreased precipitation and/or increased evaporation.

Taking a longer view:

A gridded network of tree-ring reconstructions of Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) for the last 300 years has been used to create a set of maps of the spatial pattern of PDSI for each year, back to AD 1700. This set of maps enables an assessment of the droughts of the 20th century compared to droughts for the past 300 years. An inspection of the maps shows that droughts similar to the 1950s, in terms of duration and spatial extent, occurred once or twice a century for the past three centuries (for example, during the 1860s, 1820s, 1730s). However, there has not been another drought as extensive and prolonged as the 1930s drought in the past 300 years.

Longer records show strong evidence for a drought that appears to have been more severe in some areas of central North America than anything we have experienced in the 20th century, including the 1930s drought. Tree-ring records from around North America document episodes of severe drought during the last half of the 16th century. Drought is reconstructed as far east as Jamestown, Virginia, where tree rings reflect several extended periods of drought that coincided with the disappearance of the Roanoke Colonists, and difficult times for the Jamestown colony. These droughts were extremely severe and lasted for three to six years, a long time for such severe drought conditions to persist in this region of North America.

NOAA

I won't be responding to this again since you are clearly totally bought into the Republican denial propaganda machine and there is clearly no reaching you with the evidence. Some efforts are a waste of time.

This statement says all that is needed about your closed-minded attitude on the subject. Try sticking your fingers in your ears and saying something loudly. I suggest "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" over and over so you don't have to put up with legitimate statements concerning your personal belief system.

Harte