Coal River Mountain may be flashing the world topless without your help.Reports are coming in from residents of West Virginia’s Coal River Valley that Massey Energy has begun mountaintop removal mining operations on Coal River Mountain. Sprawling across thousands of acres of diverse and pristine hardwood forests, this mountain is home to the tallest peaks ever permitted for destruction in the state of West Virginia. The mountain also became a powerful symbol of hope for a better future in the Appalachian coalfields after a study showed those peaks and ridges have wind resources as high as “Class 7,” which is the highest rating on the scale.
Local residents have rallied around a proposal for a 328 megawatt wind farm and put up a website, coalriverwind.org, to promote their vision. The wind farm would, over the course of a few decades, provide far more jobs in the community than those created during the few years it would take Massey Energy to reduce the mountain to a flat, barren, and toxic wasteland. Just a few days ago, the AP reported that a local organization, Coal River Mountain Watch, has been working with Google Earth to design a presentation that will be shown at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, contrasting the proposed wind farm with Massey Energy’s plans for more than 6,000 acres of mountaintop removal coal mining on the mountain.
A 328 megawatt wind farm versus a 6,000 acre mountaintop removal coal mine—there could be no better symbol of the crossroads we are at in America’s energy future. Whichever way it goes, the fate of Coal River Mountain is America’s energy future. If the coal companies can mine Coal River Mountain, they can do anything they want. If they can destroy these peaks, we’ll know exactly what the effect that the billions in tax-payer giveaways to the coal industry will have if the climate bill is passed.
What’s at stake
There’s far more than just a wind farm at stake when it comes to the destruction of Coal River Mountain, however, both for residents of the Coal River Valley and for people across the country who believe that a clean energy future is within our grasp.
For local residents, this is the last intact mountain in the vicinity, home to some of the few remaining headwater streams that have not been polluted with heavy metal-laden mine waste. If Massey Energy’s plans aren’t stopped, they know exactly what’s in store—just a few weeks ago, a local Eyewitness News story about 200 families in the town of Prenter who are suing 9 coal companies for contaminating their well water with coal waste began as follows:
“Twenty-two year old Josh McCormick is dying of kidney cancer. Twenty-six year old Tanya Trale has had a tumor removed from her breast; her husband has had two tumors removed from his side and both have had their gallbladders taken out.
Rita Lambert has had her gallbladder removed; so has her husband and both parents.
Jennifer Massey has a mouthful of crowns and so does her son after their enamel was eaten away, and six of her neighbors—all unrelated—have had brain tumors, including her 29-year old brother, who died.
Bill Arden is one of those neighbors. He survived his brain tumor, but Arden’s eight-year old boxer named Sampson did not.
What do all of these people have in common? They all live within a 3-mile radius of Prenter Hollow in Boone County, West Virginia. And all have well water.”
As usual, despite overwhelming evidence that it’s the sludge they have been pumping into underground mine shafts that contaminated the groundwater, the coal companies deny any connection to the problem.
On Coal River Mountain, less than 100 yards from where the mining has begun, lies the Brushy Fork coal slurry impoundment, a massive earthen dam holding back 8.2 billion gallons of toxic coal sludge. Were that dam to fail, as several have done in the recent past, hundreds of lives could be lost in a matter of minutes and thousands would be put in jeopardy. Even short of complete dam failure, the risks to local communities are great. The ground beneath the impoundment is riddled with abandoned underground mine shafts, leaving many local residents with little doubt that some of that toxic slurry will end up in their groundwater as the foundation-shaking blasts of ammonium-nitrate explosives begin cracking rock strata and exposing aquifers to the contaminated water.
Outside the Coal River Valley and across the nation there is also a lot at stake—especially for the millions of young people who turned out en masse during last November’s election, believing they could take their country back from the powerful special interests that pulled the strings of government over the preceding eight years. Just this weekend, thousands of students are attending regional “Powershift” conferences, learning what they can do to bring about their vision of a new future and a new energy policy build around efficient use of clean and renewable energy technologies.
Those same young people who came out by the thousands chanting “Yes We Can!” last fall are soon going to learn whether that slogan applies to them, or really just to powerful corporations with a lot of money and political influence. Today, it’s coal companies like Massey Energy that are claiming the “Yes We Can!” slogan:
“Yes we can destroy your mountains, drinking water, and dreams for a better future. Yes we can threaten and intimidate you at public hearings and drown out your voice.Yes We Can!”
Just last week, the same administration that donned the mantle of “Hope” and “Change” held public hearings on the rubber-stamp permitting of mountaintop removal in which the Army Corps of Engineers allowed mobs ginned up by the coal companies to threaten, intimidate and drown out the voices of people brave enough to speak out against the destruction of their homes, communities and mountains.
But it’s too soon for those young people to return to the feelings of disenfranchisement and cynicism that has characterized their age group for the past few decades. The Obama Administration has begun taking small steps to rein in mountaintop removal mining, and recently threatened to veto the largest mountaintop removal permit ever proposed in West Virginia. For even those baby-steps, they are facing a massive push-back from the coal industry. But it’s not nearly enough to make tweaks to the permitting process while letting mountaintop removal continue under the industry-friendly rules rigged by the Bush Administration. The administration needs to hear from us—to hear from you.
What you can do
It’s time we demand the “change” we were promised, and Coal River Mountain, the most powerful symbol of the difference between the destructive and climate change-denying policies of the past and the promise of a new future, is the line in the sand. Coal River Mountain must be saved.
The Administration has been hearing a lot from the coal industry, but have they heard from you? If not, you can start by calling the White House and making your voice heard. Here’s a link for more information: www.ilovemountains.org/coalriver/.
Next, sign up to for the e-mail list to stay informed and engaged in the campaign. It’s not a scam, your e-mail address won’t be traded or sold, so get over it and sign up—you can’t stay engaged and make a difference if you don’t stay informed. Here’s the link.
And finally, tell a friend, recruit a co-worker, or post the news to a list or a blog.
The mission is clear. The stakes couldn’t be higher. The fate of Coal River Mountain and our energy future are up to you. The time to act is now.
Originally posted at iLoveMountains.org.
U.S. warns China against ‘stillborn’ climate deal
The hidden costs and benefits of things we take for granted
Comments
View as Flat
ToddinNorway Posted 5:19 am
25 Oct 2009
1. Find out who is buying the coal and the electricity customers they serve. Run a publicity campaign in these markets to describe the damage their electric utility is causing by buying coal from this project. Build a protest movement in this "downstream" link of the chain and pressure the local utility to find alternatives to mountain-top coal, including radical improvements in energy efficiency for end users.
2. One of the alternatives to coal for the region is shale gas. It is not risk-free but it has an infinitesimal footprint compared to mountain-top coal, both in the physical sense (shale gas wells have very small installations on surface) and in the emissions sense (natural gas emits half the CO2 of coal and none of the criteria pollutants). Shale gas can be combined with wind power in the same location as well. Someone needs to encourage drillers and developers to compete with coal miners and coal power plant owners. Do not be fooled by the scare tactics on shale gas and ground water problems. The challenges with shale gas and potential ground water contamination are microscopic compared to coal mining and coal ash sludge lakes. These scare tactics are propagated by the coal industry that has everything to lose if shale gas succeeds. Personally I think the battle is already over in favor of shale gas in the region, but it would great if the coal industry would give up as soon as possible.
3. Recruit better legal advice. The film Erin Brockovich comes to mind here. In this true story of a legal battle with negligent power plant operators, runoff from the power plant polluted the ground water which was used by a number of local residents who experienced unusually high cancer rates. Great film, true story, and maybe their success can be repeated here. Target both the mine operator and the power plant operator for negligence. They may have legal permits but these do not allow for the kinds of seemingly industrial disease the locals experience.
The EPA may still have an effective plan for eliminating mountain-top removal. They certainly have a mandate from the oval office, and the coal industry has few or no friends in the DOE. If the coal industry does not pull a rabbit out of the hat on CO2 sequestration soon, they will have no chance of competing with a large selection of low-CO2 alternatives, including wind, solar, energy efficiency and yes shale gas.
Permalink
beez kpr Posted 12:34 pm
25 Oct 2009
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 2:46 pm
25 Oct 2009
The people of WV have tried to make changes but because Lincoln put such restraints on the populace at time of statehood (no way they could ever rebel or secede again)the people have no voice.
Permalink
solargroupies Posted 2:14 am
26 Oct 2009
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 4:57 am
26 Oct 2009
Ex. In my area of WV the plan is to clear cut 40 miles of ridge line to build a wind farm with 400 ft. towers. The clear cut more pristine forest to run the transmission line to NEW JERSEY. The company is getting ten years of tax breaks. Does not sound so good to me. Maybe the lesser of two evils, but is still evil.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:16 am
31 Oct 2009
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 11:14 am
31 Oct 2009
While can not remember off the top of my head the exact number of proposed turbines, I will do my best to explain.
The proposed ridge line for the wind farm is pristine woods with no roads in Greenbrier Co. WV. Every turbine requires at least 2 acres of clear area. This area must be leveled as well, with each turbine area connected to the next with road and cleared forest in between. There are no transmission lines either, to get the power to New Jersey. More clearing and bulldozing.
Meanwhile, Williamsburg (the town near by) is an historic town and surrounded by rural land. It is a tourist destination, not because it has a great hotel or spa, but because of the view shed and scenic drives with pristine ridge lines covered in hard wood forests. Clear cutting the ridge line and installing 400' tall turbines will damage the view shed that draws people to the town.
How will the open space around the installations and road be maintained? Herbicides? Where will those run off to? This area is mostly Karst Topography. Meaning that run off goes directly into underlying cave systems through sink holes with out the benefit of perking and filtering of soils. This goes directly to the local water supply.
While the threat of having the mountain top removed by Massey is the greater of the evils, IMO. The solution is more permanent because one the coal is removed the ridge line is reconstructed and replanted. Where as the turbines will be there for a very long time.
Neither proposal is a valid solution in my opinion.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 11:49 am
31 Oct 2009
I did some basic calculations for one of my San Diego Daily Transcript opinion columns: "Prospecting the new way forward" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, August 20, 2009. (See http://www.sddt.com/commentary/ Daniel Coffey) The relevant portion of the text is below:
"Now, as before, the new energy riches of this land are hidden in various ways, defying simple appreciation, but available to those who are willing to organize and extract wealth through wise resource investment, organization, law, policy, and accounting. The solar and wind energy land rush is underway in earnest. The energy paradigm has changed, but the importance of location, geography, land, and resource quality remain the same.
Consider: to produce 2.43 megawatts of electrical energy for an hour (2.43 MWhr) requires processing either 16,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 1600 pounds of coal. By contrast, to produce the same results from renewable energy sources requires an adequately sized wind turbine with wind blowing 19.5 miles per hour processing 500 million pounds of air; or, the sun must shine directly on about 19.1 acres of desert land covered entirely with solar photovoltaic panels. That said, at the end of the hour, wind turbines and solar panels consume no oxygen, produce no direct pollution, no ash, and use no chemical fuel.
One of the most intriguing questions raised by the new energy paradigm is what physical method should be used to extract the most energy for the least money and return the greatest profit. This seemingly simple concept has taken on an almost mythical quality because of the range of different answers one may reach."
Note that if solar panels were used to produce the equivalent of the 328 MW wind project it would require at a minimum 6 acres per MW, or 1968 acres without roads, connections, transmission or other equipment. That does not take into account the insolation rate, or 0.15-0.20 ratio for when solar power actually produces power compared with a full 24 hour day.
What is the answer which is better than wind?
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 8:03 pm
31 Oct 2009
I understand the need to convert to more sustainable energy sources and I am not opposed to the concept. But I feel there is more efficient and better ways.
Wind turbines are more efficient and reliable on a smaller scale as with solar. We already have enough developed areas that can support this without damaging sensitive habitats and ecosystems.
Every house a business has a roof and could be fitted with solar. Cities make excellent places for wind power. The streets crowded with buildings make natural wind tunnels. Farms also are often open enough to allow for wind power on a smaller scale.
Through net metering and grid improvement, I believe enough power could be generated to do away with large power stations altogether. I have looked into net metering WV. Appalachian Power (sub of AEP) makes it horrendously expensive and restrictive. Electric generators of any kind can not exceed 25000 watts and the credit offered is tiny compared to what they charge. The utility companies are trying desperately to maintain their control of the power supply.
Another option is: every auto and truck is a power generator. That electricity is just lost. Storage batteries in every vehicle could store that power and when parked the car could be plugged into the grid, owners would then get a credit toward their bill.
Thinking big new power plants of any kind, IMO, only continues the monopoly of power companies and destroys more environment.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:16 pm
31 Oct 2009
solar. We already have enough developed areas that can support this without damaging sensitive habitats and ecosystems."
The premise that wind turbines are more efficient if they are small is actually entirely incorrect. The reason that wind turbines have become larger is because of the increased production as the square of the diameter of blade sweep. Moreover, wind aggregates energy based on increased kinetic energy in the moving air, whereas, solar panels are restricted to the incident radiation. Solar panels can only nominally improve their capacity by being in areas which are bright, but they can never be more effective than the maximum incident light level.
In effect, the wind can blow harder, but the sun cannot shine brighter.
Large scale wind turbines are, by evaluation, the best renewable energy source, short of geothermal sources.
The notion that this is to be done in lieu of removing a mountain top seems to do away with the last part of your statement, doesn't it?
The best calculations and estimates indicate that we need 10,000,000 MW of non-carbon generating capacity worldwide. We currently have 120,000. For that reason, it will take placement of wind turbines in many places where good quality wind exists. The energy density of non-chemical fuels is very low and therefore it requires lots of sources.
Permalink
MWasson Posted 8:04 am
26 Oct 2009
I'm certain your comment is well-intentioned, but it's not PAC money that allows this continue. Mining on Coal River Mountain and mountaintop removal will stop when we stop being negative and realize that we actually have the power to make it stop. Never underestimate the power of public outrage. So start letting your outrage show - and tell the White House about it!!!
Permalink
brighterplanetra Posted 3:28 pm
26 Oct 2009
Every energy source has trade-offs, but coal's costs--destroying mountain tops, contaminating waterways, endangering people's health, and contributing to climate change, are simply too great.
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 4:02 pm
26 Oct 2009
I also understand the desire for the wind farm, again a lesser of two evils but still the better option. Best of luck.
Permalink
MWasson Posted 6:59 pm
02 Nov 2009
While this post is long off the front of Grist, I'm dying to hear how that meeting on Tuesday in Greenbrier went - and it would provide good fodder for an upcoming blog post. If you get half a chance, I'd love to hear an update
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 8:51 pm
02 Nov 2009
Although the meeting was long. And there were a couple comments against the Commission writing such a letter. The reasoned it was in the best interest of the county to go ahead and write it, stating that they were supporting jobs in WV and the county.
Unfortunately, it passed quietly in the local press without mention. It was over shadowed by two of the commissioners demoting the planning administrator to the assessors office, leaving the planning office without anyone qualified to even answer questions much less issue permits, or deal with flood plain regulations, etc. It most likely was a political move to defeat the pending comprehensive plan which would set up stricter environment controls for the county, including banning mountain top removal.
What a wonderful state we live in. BTW, I was not trying to be negative in my earlier post. But my eyes have been opened in the last year in my own private battle trying to stop a shoestring annexation and a certain gated community being built directly over Organ Cave (which is already routing all of its storm run off into the cave system). My community is very much frustrated with the political and judicial system.
I do wish you all the best of luck in your on going fight and you have my wife's and my support. And the support of many here.
R
Permalink
MWasson Posted 9:18 pm
02 Nov 2009
My very best to you and your family. And have faith - West Virginia's worth it!
Permalink
latecommer Posted 2:40 pm
27 Oct 2009
Obviously I am against this action of mountain top removal as a conservationist, but we do our cause no good by throwing the climate monster into this.
You are aware I hope, that despite all the money and research of the last 20 years, no global signature of man's effect on climate has been seperated from natural climate changes. Until then we do a great disservice and bring down disfavor on things we really can do.
It is important to stop this kind of destructive activity and we need to present a strong scientific message, and we can do it with proven science without focusing on climate. If we focus on climate, our opponents will attack our POV at that weak point.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 9:53 am
31 Oct 2009
By the way, coal is a great source of SO2 when burned in a coal-fired plant. Who knew that coal plants could be environmental?
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 2:59 pm
03 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 3:34 pm
03 Nov 2009
Dan
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 4:23 pm
03 Nov 2009
Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 4:34 pm
03 Nov 2009
While I am not a scientist, or climatologist: I am student of history. Ancient history and maritime history have always been of interest to me. Thus, I have to ask...
Has anyone taken into consideration log books of whalers. Captains took regular temperature and weather information, including water temperature. Many of these logs describe ice and glacier formations. In the early 1800's just after 1817 there was recorded a dramatic melting of the ice cap. Where the year before ships could not get within a mile of Greenland, now they could sail right up to the coast. Remains of Norman settlements were recorded as well. The idea was born at that time of the Northwest Passage, a norther direct route by sea to the Orient.
A Norwegian, Roald Amundsen actually made this trek, mapping the norther reaches of Canada. I will provide quote from wiki for simplicity sake.
"In 1903, Amundsen led the first expedition to successfully traverse Canada's Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (something explorers had been attempting since the days of Christopher Columbus, John Cabot, Jacques Cartier, and Henry Hudson), with six others in a 47 ton steel seal hunting vessel, Gjøa. Amundsen had the ship outfitted with a small gasoline engine.[5] They travelled via Baffin Bay, Lancaster and Peel Sounds, and James Ross, Simpson and Rae Straits and spent two winters near King William Island in what is today Gjoa Haven, Nunavut, Canada.[4][5]
During this time Amundsen learned from the local Netsilik people about Arctic survival skills that would later prove useful. For example, he learned to use sled dogs and to wear animal skins in lieu of heavy, woolen parkas. After a third winter trapped in the ice, Amundsen was able to navigate a passage into the Beaufort Sea after which he cleared into the Bering Strait, thus having successfully navigated the Northwest Passage.[3] Continuing to the south of Victoria Island, the ship cleared the Canadian Arctic Archipelago on August 17, 1905, but had to stop for the winter before going on to Nome on the Alaska Territory's Pacific coast. Five hundred miles (800 km) away, Eagle City, Alaska, had a telegraph station; Amundsen travelled there (and back) overland to wire a success message (collect) on December 5, 1905. Nome was reached in 1906. Due to water as shallow as 3 ft (0.91 m), a larger ship could never have used the route.
It was at this time that Amundsen received news that Norway had formally become independent of Sweden and had a new king. Amundsen sent the new King Haakon VII news that it "was a great achievement for Norway." He hoped to do more he said and signed it "Your loyal subject, Roald Amundsen."
"In 1918, Amundsen began an expedition with a new ship Maud, which was to last until 1925. Maud sailed West to East through the Northeast Passage, now called the Northern Route (1918-1920). Amundsen planned to freeze the Maud into the polar ice cap and drift towards the North Pole (as Nansen had done with the Fram), but in this he was not successful. However, the scientific results of the expedition, mainly the work of Harald Sverdrup, were of considerable value. Many of these carefully-collected scientific data had been lost during the ill-fated journey of Peter Tessem and Paul Knutsen, two crew members sent on a mission by Amundsen, but they were later retrieved by Russian scientist Nikolay Urvantsev as they lay abandoned on the Kara Sea shores.[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen#Northwest_Passage
Has the valuable information provided in ships logs been taken into account by the current group of scientists? Because it would appear that the Arctic thawing is not an unusual occurrence.
Also, has anyone consulted the vast amount of data from tree cross sections that are kept, I think in Britain, dating back to Roman times? These are excellent records of climate ups and downs.
Merely relying on 25 years worth of satellite photos, in regards to the rise and fall of the Arctic Ice sheets, seems to me to be rather unscientific and lacking credibility in the larger scope of things.
Again, I am just a layman and asking questions in the attempt to better understand data that is being presented.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 1:32 pm
02 Nov 2009
The French depend on it for the majority of their power, and have solved most of the potential problems including dispossal of waste. Fast Breeder Plants are leaving much less and safer waste products and reduced half life problems by orders of magnitude.
If a person has as their pupose a cleaner and more healthy environment, it doesn't seem to me too bitter a pill to take to help eliminate the destruction of mountains and forests.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 3:15 pm
03 Nov 2009
Permalink
latecommer Posted 1:46 pm
02 Nov 2009
I think it is a very big mistake to inject any additional chemical into the atmosphere until the various forcings of the global climate are sorted out.
There are a lot of bad ideas on both sides of the debate.
I have spent several years working on obtaining a wide based understanding of climate starting from by paleo-geology view point, and I have come to the conclusions that there has been no validation of the the CO2 hypothesis to this point.
That leaves the standard model of climate (the one that was in place before the late 80's) that was built over several hundred years and many thousands of scientists. There are endless observations and reports that show evidence for all the many components that make up climate science realtive to the "standard model".
Astro physics to zooology contribute to the standard model. I saw a site the other day that listed over 30 specific fields of science that contribute to our understanding.
I also believe that paleo-climate data has virtually eliminated the prospects of CO2 being a temperature forcer, since in no research has it been observed that CO2 preceeded temperature chaange, rather the reverse and at all time scales.
I remain convinced that, except of course for regional areas, man does not have the ability to change the climate. Beyond land misuse and rainforest preditation, nature takes little notice of us.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 3:01 pm
02 Nov 2009
First, I must ask what specific technical training you have or subject matter you studied in college or graduate school which you used during your research of the climate - CO2 question?
I think it is important to bear in mind that the physics of warming due to absorption of radiant energy and conversion in to sensible heat (increased molecular motion) is beyond dispute and is used as a foundation for many quantitative chemical analytic methods.
Also, it is well known that CO2 and other trace gases which are far more powerful green house gases, are able to absorb radiant solar energy and thereby warm the atmosphere. Of that there is absolutely not dispute amoung any persons with a modest background in spectroscopy and chemistry.
Beyond that there is ample physical confirmation that additional energy is being absorbed into the environment, as for example, the melting of polar and other ice. Many people are unconcerned over the melting of ice and what it means. Those who understand that the energy absorbed in the physical change between solid ice at 0 degrees Celcius transforming into liquid water at 0 degrees Celcius requires 80 calories per gram of ice. They realize that a huge amount of additional energy is required melting ice, and that when the ice is substantially gone, then the buffer will be smaller. Note that that same 80 calories of energy, if applied to that same gram of liquid water instead of a gram of ice would raise the water's temperature to 80 degrees Celcius, or over 170 degrees F.
That change in physical state between ice and water is absorbing a lot of energy which would otherwise be in the atmosphere warming it. It is a surrogate measure of how much extra energy is remaining in the closed atmosphere of Earth.
More important, because weather is caused by equatorial warm air being drawn to the cold poles, thereby evening out the temperature worldwide, it should be noted that when warmer air goes further north, colder northern air is displaced further south. This can give the impression that things are getting cooler in certain locations, and significantly so, if one does not bear in mind the root cause of a warmer, more energetic atmosphere overall.
I think it is entirely fair to say that the many talented, intelligent and highly educated people who have examined this phenomenon are not going off willy nilly when they warn that things - and big things - need to be done to reduce Green House Gases in the atmosphere. Note also that CO2 is just one of many, and probably the most minor absorber, when compared to CFC's, SF6, CH4, and a host of other "trace gases."
As for the view that man does not have the ability to affect climate, you should consider what the Superfreakonomics authors - a group supported by many conservatives - say: namely, that sulfur oxides CAN be used to cool the Earth if dispersed in the atmosphere. If humans can't effect climate change, then how is it that this group thinks they can use modest additions of airborne chemicals to change the climate?
Lastly, if the atmosphere of Earth was composed of the correct absorbing molecules, its temperature would almost instantaneously rise to well over 600 degrees based on the energy from the sun. It is only because our atmosphere is primarily transparent that this does not now occur. The sun delivers an enormous amount of energy each day.
Decent, politically neutral and patriotic people with significant technical training consider this problem to be real and pressing. I agree with them. The real question is what to do about it, a source of much debate.
By the way, doubting will not cool the room or prevent a dispassionate sun from shining down, either to our benefit or our destruction. So we should do some prudent things while we can.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 4:07 pm
02 Nov 2009
Thanks for your response.
I have been in communication with many very well respected climatologists for about 4 years. Through their writing and their communication, I have learned from Dr . Jack Barret UK. Radiative physicist that there are limits on the warming caused by greenhouse gases due to their logarithmic absorbtion rate. More CO2 in the atmosphere will further over subscribe the finite radiation from the Earth to the atmophere.
I understand from Dr. William Kinninmonth; Aust. Climatologist that the adibatic process is misused by the climate models.
I have learned from Henrick Svensmark that the GCM's do not correctly figure clouds into their models and that a 2% change in clouds will change the Earth's albedo to a point of changing temperature. This change can and will reduce the solar radiation and thus cool the atmosphere.
I have learned from Dr. Alxel Morner that sea level rise is unchanged over the last few decades.
I have learend from Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr. Richard Courtney, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Sasllie Baliunas, Dr willie Soon, and many more.
I have studied over 350 peer reviewed papers covering more than 20 subjects and 3 decades of research.
I have read the papers of the above and many others and have communicated with nearly all of them many times on questions I have.
My training in geology focused on paleo studies and of course paleo climate was involved. I know of no research that has ever in the past or the present shown that CO2 predeeds temperature change.
I am convinced that CO2 enhancements in the atmosphere are a result not a cause of warming, and since we have had a warming trend since the last glaciation, it is no suprise that both are rising. (although I believe that real global temperature is now at the very least in stasis).
I am convinced that solar activity is much more powerful than the IPCC believes, and that it is the true driver of climate, inadaquatly modeled in GCMs.
I believe that in today's quiet Sun (the quietest in all the time it has been measured) is evidence that we, far from facing a warming, will be entering a cooling of the Maunder, or even the Dalton type.
I also have been searching for years for even one observationally based proof of man's footprint on global climate.
Every report I have read can be ascribed to natural causes...because it has all happened many times in the past.
I have not found one piece of evidence yet. Do you have one?
Every presented validation to the hypothesis of AGW that I have seen, is much more likely explained by the Standard Model of Climate... the one that has been in place for more than a hundred years.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 6:14 am
03 Nov 2009
Permalink
MWasson Posted 7:32 pm
02 Nov 2009
If CO2 increases are a result of global warming and not a cause, what exactly are the greenhouse gases with a "logarithmic absorption rate" that you refer to?
If clouds "can and will reduce solar radiation", what would cause the increase in clouds?
Research isn't really research if you only look at one side of an issue. If you haven't "found one piece of evidence yet" then you clearly haven't looked for it - the IPCC reports are a great place to start. You can say the entire pile of evidence is somehow wrong, but it would be awful hard to look at dozens of pages of evidence and then say you haven't seen "one piece of evidence."
I'm not going to debate evidence (or lack thereof) with someone who hasn't looked for it, but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts -- it's obviously an important issue to be debating right now.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 10:58 am
03 Nov 2009
I think you have understimated me. I have, and have read all four of the IPCC reports, and have discussed them extensivly with several of the lead writers and reviewers. Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr Richard Courtney, Dr. William Kinninmonth, Dr. Bob Carter, Dr. Bob Foster, and others have been my guides through the processes that created these reports. I have looked at the evidence and found it lacking as have all those above and many others I correspond with.
Have your read the reports? If not I suggest you read one with the summery for policy makers alongside. You will see very quickly that the papers presented are not correctly reported in the Summery.... The fourth report was not even complete when the Summery was issued (there was an important meeting after all) and then the research was altered to conform with the political summery (not written by scientists).
Dr. Gray was a author and reviewer on all four reoprts and quit based on the re-write to conform. Alexander, Carter, and others quit because their research was misrepresented.
No there was no proof of AGW in any of the reports. I am speaking of observational eveidence not theory.
There was, and is, however fraud in these reoprts. The hockey stick was an obvious attempt by Mann to doctor up a graph for dramatic appeal, and dispite its total repudation it is still being used by some to "prove" temperature levels.
If you are current in the debate you do not need to ask me about clouds and their causation. You mearly need to read Henrik Svensmark's hypothesis that is being tested at CERN this winter/spring. Supporting research is strong in this idea.
Or the facts that Dr. Gary Young, and Dr. Jack Barrett have brought out about the over subscription of CO2, the finite number of greenhouse producing photons and the fact of logarithmic effects of added CO2.
I have read both sides...I have perhaps an over view of the subject not held by many scientists far deeper into climate research than I, since as you probably know most scientists seem to be narrow focused on their specific field. I am casting a wide net and trying to cover all the fields of science that have important information on climate. (over 20 different fields so far)
I have read Aarnhouse, Eddy, Landscheidt and Lindzen. I have studied the work of Rhodes Fairbridge, Freeman Dyson, Gavin Schmidt and Willie Soon.
I have even asked Big Oil for some money...havn't heard back yet. lol
Now about that empirical evidence.... Do you have any?
Doug
Permalink
latecommer Posted 10:59 am
03 Nov 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 11:38 am
03 Nov 2009
You present a dizzying flurry of reports and technical analysis, but my question was what technical subject you studied in school. You mention that you are "casting a wide net and trying to cover all the fields of science."
What is your view of the application of the Navier-Stokes equation to climate change calculations, and what are the appropriate constitutive equations you would suggest, if any?
What is your view of the "Medieval Warm Period?" And its relation to the current warming trend? Is it warming or cooler that the current warming?
By the way, the text of the Executive Summary of the 1st chapter of the 4th IPCC report says:
Awareness and a partial understanding of most of the
interactive processes in the Earth system that govern climate
and climate change predate the IPCC, often by many decades. A
deeper understanding and quantifi cation of these processes and
their incorporation in climate models have progressed rapidly
since the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990.
As climate science and the Earth’s climate have continued
to evolve over recent decades, increasing evidence of
anthropogenic influences on climate change has been found.
Correspondingly, the IPCC has made increasingly more
defi nitive statements about human impacts on climate.
Debate has stimulated a wide variety of climate change
research. The results of this research have refi ned but not
signifi cantly redirected the main scientifi c conclusions from the
sequence of IPCC assessments."
In what ways do you disagree with this statement?
Best regards,
Dan
Permalink
latecommer Posted 10:54 am
05 Nov 2009
Sorry for the delay, I have been away.
You ask me several questions, and tell me I am presenting too wide a front, so I will be specific.
As to Navier - Stokes: I understand it's use in forcasting weather, and that it is a useful tool that has advanced forcasting tech. by a few days.
However it is my belief that the N -S equations alone arte of no value for prediction.
To base a prediction of climate on the N - S Equations takes a leap of faith I am not willing to take. I understand that it is claimed that you do not have to be able to reproduce every fascet of the weather systems because climate is "average" weather. If the models reproduce the correct scales of motion then they will respond to the external forcing to give a unique solution depending on the forcing characteristics. thus, the control is a model that is integrated for many years and reproduces the esential qualities of the global climate - the control. when a characteristic forcing is introduced (such as additional CO2 and its percieved interaction with the radiation) then any difference from the control is attributed to the forcing. But how does one know that all of the processes are faithfully reproduced in the model and that the attributed response is not form of the butterfly effect?
The N-S equations are an integral part of the model but do not add anything to the varacity of climate models. the latter is dependent on the representation of the energy exchange processes, water vapor, cloud specifications, friction and a host of other vital aspects of the physics that are interacting to give the final solution.
Clouds:
I believe the hypothesis of Henrick Svensmark (to be tested at CERN) is at the very least as valid a possible explaination for our recent climate fluxuations as greenhouse gas effects.
Through basic Chemistry and Physics, it easy to show that CO2 needs powerful positive feedbacks to effect the temperature in the atmosphere as presently constructed. Those feedbacks proposed seem unlikley to produce the effect predicted, and indeed observed in the last 10 years.
Read the "Chilling Stars" for a complete view of this hypothesis.
Back to work
Permalink
latecommer Posted 12:12 pm
05 Nov 2009
My emphasis was paleo-geology which of course included large doses of paleo-climatology.
I have taken courses in atmospheric physics, solar physics, and climatology from UC Stanislaus. The rest of my education is auto-didactic by participatiing in research for other scientists, personal study, the questioning of authorities and their guidence.
What is your background?
The medieval warm period:
Evidence is that globally it was at least as warm as today. Most papers I have seen suggest a bit warmer and evidence, at least regionally, show that Greenland must have been warmer at the time of Viking settlements.
I understand that the AMO is at least as important to Greenland Climate as the PDO is to Pacific SST's.
I have read reports from Austrailia, South Africa, North America and Asia, showing evidence for the global aspects of the MWP.
It is my opinion that todays CO2 readings are a result of the MWP and the approx 800 year lag behind temperature. The Ocean regulates the release of Co2 and is a much bigger source than man. Man's footprint is obscured by nature, and that is why I can not take seriously any impact that can be so easily overcome by natural forces as we see in the last 10 years.
But why stop with the MWP...lets go back to the Roman warm period ~ 2000 bp. Warming was at least as high and probably higher than during the MWP and today.
If you investigate the natural cycles that have been found over the decades, and refined up to today our climate falls quite nicely into observable past climates, and nothing going on today is new to a paleo-climatologiat. We have had much higher CO2 levels during glacials and interglacials and lower reading during both as well. More CO2 in our atmopshere, IMO, would be far more beneficial than harmful.
If you believe in evolution, you can easily see that man, as well as most of the modern animals evolved at a time that was both warmer and wetter than today
and by definition during an optimal climate.
I am very upset as a scientist with the cavalier way science is being used by politicians to acheive their goals. Not only is "consensus" not a scientific pricnciple, neither is any call to end the debate. You know that the debate never ends.
As to the IPCC, I have and have studied all four of their reports and find no, zero, nada, proof of the hypothesis of AGW. Everything claimed is theory, unproven by empirical evidence. Understanding the climate is a work in progress, and no where near ready for prime time.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 12:27 pm
05 Nov 2009
By the way, you said "UC Stanislaus," did you mean Cal. State Stanislaus?
Dan
Permalink
latecommer Posted 1:29 pm
05 Nov 2009
I should have checked the profile, sorry, but I kind of thought you were in engineering. Using models like you guys do I am sure you know much more about them than I, but can you settle a question I have been discusssing with a friend.
Do you find that models with positive feedback nearly always end up in run-away solutions?
I assume you agree that the climate is a 'chaotic' system and thus very difficult to model. It is my understanding that the perameterization of climate models are set to agree with past climate and then run for future climate. The lack of lineal responses would make this a very difficult process, or at least it seems so to me.
Best
Doug
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 2:27 pm
05 Nov 2009
The real question is: can the environment get into a run-away situation where we lose the ability to reduce driver inputs like green-house gases enough so that it doesn't achieve a temperature excursion which is large enough to cause additional dramatic jumps in temperature or energy absorption leading to further temperature rises - run-away.
It's fair to say that model expressions with a driven exponential function which is dependent on an input can feed back in an iterative process. Damped and driven harmonics are classic examples, as are exothermic chemical reactions which accelerate with increased temperature- either kinetically or thermodynamically. Classic examples are hydro-cracking in refineries which are or become inadequately cooled - and then they begin to take off exothermically, generating even higher heats, until they detonate explosively and become News at 11. You see these every once in awhile.
By the way, run-away starts slow and then, like gravity, accelerates based on the driving equations. Hence, one may not see the early phases as it begins to take off, and by the time its apparent there's nothing you can do about it except run.
But I digress. The real problem is what happens if, for example, a GHG like methane (GWP =21) devolves from methane hydrates in warmed permafrost or deep sea beds and begins to accelerate atmospheric warming. That is a situation which might then cause increased heating, further releases of methane, and so forth, until things get out of control - if the mass is sufficient to reach a relevant atmospheric concentration. Hence the inquiry into permafrost hydrates, etc.
Note that the absorption expression is a natural log exponent of the mole concentration of the chemical component at issue - e.g., CO2, methane, SF6, you name it. Thus, when the molar concentration increases, the absorption increases a lot. Everyone likes to talk about the radiative balance, which is helpful, but absorption followed by convective heat transfer - e.g. sensible heat from radiation - is the big issue.
Another issue is what happens when the Arctic ice melts and we lose an enormous heat sink due to the associate "heat of fusion" of ice versus the heat capacity of water. When that happens we get into a regime which might cause a much more rapid heating of the atmosphere due to absorption of radiation, conversion to sensible heat via GHGs, and a loss of effective energy sink due to ice. I have pointed out many times that the simple reason ice matters so much - and its disappearance is so important - is because it takes 80 calories to transform 1 gram of ice at 0 C into 1 gram of water at 0 C, but that same 80 calories applied to 1 gram of liquid water raises its temperature to 80 C, about 170 F.
Then you get positive feedback as described above, with not good outcomes. It's important to note that the Arctic sea ice aging studies which show that now the vast majority of the Arctic ice is one year or less old, means we are at the edge of some very tricky business.
While there are damping functions in natural systems, both because they are large and operate under a wide variety of different functions which can shunt energy based on higher exponent phenomenon (e.g. radiation is the difference in T to the 4th power; convective heat transfer is diff in T squared, etc.), the real challenge is to avoid the edge of run-away situations.
By definition, you may not know precisely where the edge or if a damping phenomenon will kick in, and if your wrong - big trouble in Little Chinatown!
One of the really troubling parts about the cloud argument, at least in my mind, is that it assumes a steady state increased cloud cover, a situation, which by definition means that the input environmental energy levels are higher (more heat, more clouds). While this seem like protection, it is actually only a transition to a higher energy content status, which means that the increased ice melt and other related physical changes due to increased energy in the atmosphere continue. In effect, increased cloud cover does not return the status to a cooler - lower energy state - it merely is one of the consequences of that additional heat. That status necessarily means that the atmosphere is also in contact with the rest of the environment - hence I don't see it as particularly useful overall.
Let's face, the sun radiates all the energy needed to raise the atmospheric temperature to 600 or so degrees F. That's where a little additional concentration translates into big outcomes.
Permalink