The Plain Truth about Climate Change in Virginia

Surry Nuclear Power Station

by Nelson Fegley

Climate change is real. Major climate fluctuations have occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, and the future will be similar. The changes are both anthropogenic (human caused) and due to natural causes. The magnitude of natural changes in temperatures and sea levels have far exceed those from anthropogenic causes. It is highly unlikely that we can significantly influence the natural causes, so whatever happens we will need to adapt to the resulting changes in temperature, sea levels, etc.  More about this later.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, due to the structure the power industry, is well positioned to deal with both the anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change. About 87% of the state’s power is generated via nuclear and natural energy sources. Nuclear energy generation involves zero carbon emissions, while natural gas is clean relative to sources like coal. The combination of nuclear and natural gas provides dependable power, not dependent on the wind blowing and sun shining. 

The capability to provide reliable generation of power is a key reason why Northern Virginia has become the world center for cloud computing and data storage centers. And businesses such as Amazon have committed an additional $35 billion for further expansion of this technology throughout Virginia. The economic fallout from these investments will help provide resources that will be needed to adapt to the changes in climate due to natural causes. An example would be funding major infrastructure projects in the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast areas. 

The current political climate involves a goal of having power generation methods that produce zero carbon emissions. Wind and solar power are being pushed, but they are unlikely to become a major source of reliable power due to their intermittent nature. Storage battery technology is under development, but unlikely to provide the needed base load capacity. The wind projects that have been funded are also facing “headwinds” due to major unforeseen costs. 

A realistic view of the future of carbonless power generation is an extended period (decades) where relatively clean natural gas is gradually phased out and eventually replaced by nuclear generation. The fact that the anthropogenic contribution to climate is small relative to the natural causes will eventually be recognized. This will result in investment of major resources and activity aimed at adapting to changes in climate. There will then be some clarity regarding the choice of a reasonable approach to the transition to use of nuclear for most of our power generation. The power-generation industry in Virginia is well positioned for a leading role in realizing this transition.

There are two major problems, however, involved in making this transition. First, whatever we accomplish is not going to make much difference if China and India are not on board. The carbon emissions from these countries far exceed those from the West. Changing this requires a long road of diplomacy, and the result is highly uncertain. The other issue is our rudimentary understanding of the science governing the natural causes of climate change. This limits our ability to predict the size of the natural contribution to climate change. We must instead rely on historical data. This data is convincing, but not well enough understood by the key political decision makers. 

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the current understanding of the natural changes, but we should be aware of several major factors that are not part of the conventional wisdom. First, this is not an existential threat. The natural changes are primarily due to changes in the amount of energy received from the sun. These types of changes are to a large extent a result of variations in the motion of the earth around the sun. We are familiar with the changes due to the spin of the earth with a 24-hour period, and with the 365-day period of the orbit of the earth about the sun. We are also familiar with the periodic El Niño and La Niña episodes. We are less familiar with changes in the shape of the earth’s orbit around the sun and changes in the tilt angle of the spin of the earth (precession). The earth has a solid inner core surrounded by a molten mass. The solid core can shift to cause erratic movement of the earth. The sun occasionally has eruptions (sun spots), which when reaching the earth’s atmosphere interact with water vapor and change the amount of the sun’s energy that can penetrate. 

A key takeaway is that these naturally caused variations in climate have been going on for many hundreds of thousands of years. The variations in temperature have often been far in excess of the 2 to 4 degrees C that we are currently concerned with in the drive to net zero emissions. An example is glacial periods, followed by relatively stable warming periods. We are now in an inter-glacial period, with relatively stable temperatures. About 15,000 years ago the northern U.S. and Europe were covered with half mile-plus thick ice sheets. And at that time the Earth had well more than 100,000 inhabitants who, even with a primitive existence, somehow managed to adapt to the changing climate. With modern technology available we certainly can also adapt. We will need to invest in adaptation to the changing conditions over the long run. The trillions of dollars we are spending on reducing carbon emissions will be much better spent helping the world to adapt to the changing conditions.

Nelson Fegley is a retired mechanical engineer who lives in Bumpass.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

75 responses to “The Plain Truth about Climate Change in Virginia”

  1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    US Left believes USA fossil fuel use is evil and should be banned ASAP for a lengthy list of eco-complaints and perceived crimes. This is how the US Left chooses to run whatever jurisdiction they can get their hand on. Until something changes, this is the way they see it. And thanks to the abortion issue, they got their hands on Virginia’s throat.

      1. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        Still not high on the list of what is important to Americans. Per this Pew poll, even the federal deficit, which I doubt many people pay attention to (they should, but how much ink does this get versus climate change) ranks higher.

        https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/06/21/inflation-health-costs-partisan-cooperation-among-the-nations-top-problems/

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd9a1d48b5d0c668491fdcbe4add4613d90372afffa5228650c4f10dfcf2570a.jpg

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Right. Don’t disagree but when you ask Americans about climate change , most believe it.

          And when you ask them about taking action – most think we should.

          We just get one-sided sometimes on some of these issues and I try to show that there is another side and it’s not as “anti” as it sometimes is claimed to be.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “US Left believes USA fossil fuel use is evil and should be banned ASAP for a lengthy list of eco-complaints and perceived crimes.”

      Hyperbole aside, the US fossil fuel industry does not have a very good track record when it comes to doing the right thing without a gun to its head. That is demonstrably true with many, many examples. Perhaps the reputation they struggle with is well deserved.

      1. Yet if you go into coal country and talk to the people that live there, they want to work in the coal mines. It is so hard for us outsiders to understand or believe that someone would want to work in a coal mine. They want to live there and that is the work that makes that area thrive. You have to spend time with these people to understand them. Yet we write about them from our homes on the coast, looking down on these proud people.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          same thing with tobacco growers, right?

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          And there are men who would sail for vacation and who would go to Hell for a past time.

        3. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          I worked for an energy company until 2007 that produced coal and natural gas (I was in finance, not operations, but knew many well). They were hardworking, professional, had a safety first mentality, and some of the best people you could ever get to know.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            A lot of people work hard, are professional and safe but that does not mean the business they are in – is good for society necessarily.

            I’m just saying there is not much of a connection.

            Some folks work hard and are committed to their job – without much regard as to it’s “benefit” to society.

            I worked with a bunch of top notch folks, smart, committed and most were good folks but what we made was stuff to kill people… weapons…

          2. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Well that’s a subtle dig.

            It has been an honor to work in the energy business for all the years I did. American made energy, providing low cost energy for utilities to distribute to businesses and consumers, coking coal for steel production, natural gas for heating, chemical production, etc. Without energy, where would we be? There would not have been an alternative energy business without coal and gas to begin with. I cannot think of a better industry, and it did indeed benefit society, far more than the problems created by some bad apples.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            no subtle dig intended. So my apologies if it got interpreted that way.

            I just think that ANY work that someone takes seriously and does “right” are “salt of the earth” types whether they’re driving taxies, treating someone with cancer, digging pipelines, etc.

            I’ve always had high regard for anyone who takes their work seriously and tries to do a “good job” of it, just never limited it to certain occupations!

          4. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Well we don’t agree often but do on this one. Thanks and appreciate the clarification.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            no subtle dig intended. So my apologies if it got interpreted that way.

            I just think that ANY work that someone takes seriously and does “right” are “salt of the earth” types whether they’re driving taxies, treating someone with cancer, digging pipelines, etc.

            I’ve always had high regard for anyone who takes their work seriously and tries to do a “good job” of it, just never limited it to certain occupations!

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            I don’t disagree at all… but older, dirtier “energy” went away as we advanced … like leaded gasoline, or lump coal burned in home furnaces… or powerplants in urban areas, etc… and today people that work at installing solar and wind turbines… all in the energy sector and no doubt many committed and hard working professonals. Hey, I worked in a Phillips 66 station for a number of years… !

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Hey, I worked in a Phillips 66 station for a number of years… !”

            If this was prior to 1989, the odds are good (like 75% chance) that that station had leaking fuel tanks that were contaminating the groundwater beneath it. Many, many millions of dollars were paid by taxpayers to clean up those messes with many million more to go. Much of the contamination was left in place because as the REM song said “ There’s the progress we have found. A way to talk around the problem” – anything but actually clean things up. For instance, environmental risk assessments. https://www.epa.gov/risk
            which on the surface sound just dandy. That is until you understand that these are government sanctioned studies meant to justify leaving enormous amounts of contamination in the ground and approving of human ingestion of those contaminants as long as the resulting cancer cases do not exceed one in 10,000. That may seem small until you understand that if the airline industry accepted those kind of numbers from crashes it would be the equivalent of a full commercial jet going down every month.

          8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Hey, I worked in a Phillips 66 station for a number of years… !”

            If this was prior to 1989, the odds are good (like 75% chance) that that station had leaking fuel tanks that were contaminating the groundwater beneath it. Many, many millions of dollars were paid by taxpayers to clean up those messes with many million more to go. Much of the contamination was left in place because as the REM song said “ There’s the progress we have found. A way to talk around the problem” – anything but actually clean things up. For instance, environmental risk assessments. https://www.epa.gov/risk
            which on the surface sound just dandy. That is until you understand that these are government sanctioned studies meant to justify leaving enormous amounts of contamination in the ground and approving of human ingestion of those contaminants as long as the resulting cancer cases do not exceed one in 10,000. That may seem small until you understand that if the airline industry accepted those kind of numbers from crashes it would be the equivalent of a full commercial jet going down every month.

          9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Hey, I worked in a Phillips 66 station for a number of years… !”

            If this was prior to 1989, the odds are good (like 75% chance) that that station had leaking fuel tanks that were contaminating the groundwater beneath it. Many, many millions of dollars were paid by taxpayers to clean up those messes with many million more to go. Much of the contamination was left in place because as the REM song said “ There’s the progress we have found. A way to talk around the problem” – anything but actually clean things up. For instance, environmental risk assessments. https://www.epa.gov/risk
            which on the surface sound just dandy. That is until you understand that these are government sanctioned studies meant to justify leaving enormous amounts of contamination in the ground and approving of human ingestion of those contaminants as long as the resulting cancer cases do not exceed one in 10,000. That may seem small until you understand that if the airline industry accepted those kind of numbers from crashes it would be the equivalent of a full commercial jet going down every month.

          10. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            It was not bad apples, it was the way they did business largely because they knew no better – even though maybe they should have. I don’t fault them for that. The real issue is that short of a judgement, enforcement action, or major reputational damage, they still generally refuse to be responsible and clean up their messes. Just research the number of orphaned wells and abandoned coal mines that are now public liabilities to clean up. I think your jaw may drop. Even with those companies who don’t claim bankruptcy to avoid their responsibilities, the general philosophy is to stiff arm the regulator and protect the shareholder at all cost. Luckily there are a few good apples out there but they are the exception.

          11. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            It’s been over 15 years since I left the industry, but my understanding is the rules changed in the late 70’s. I know we reclaimed every single mine or mining area that was closed since I joined our company in the mid 80’s, and bonds had to be posted to open a mine or drill a gas well, and reserves set up for reclamation. Can’t speak to utilities and their coal and ash stockpiles since I know those have been issues.

        4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          And yet… acid mine drainage…

        5. bruce davidson Avatar
          bruce davidson

          Why does anyone want to work in an industry with a 20% mortality rate? They should have their heads examined. My guess is that it’s the only job available.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            If you own a piece of land as many do (handed down) , they’ll choose local employment with minimal education requirements over moving to someplace else where they earn minimally with a minimal education won’t even afford a house much less a piece of land.

            No shock at all that social security disability is widespread through many rural regions.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e11da3155ef1963fceaf188d7af64ba037b5ff51ddc2c71859f0d6d948125fb.png

          2. Given your reasoning, why would anyone want to live? There is a 100% mortality rate.

      2. Randy Huffman Avatar
        Randy Huffman

        I have to wonder what the point was in digging up an article written in 1902 about working in the coal mines. Yes it was exceedingly dangerous and dirty work then. Is it now? Of course not. Modern equipment, safety measures and better working conditions prevail.

        I bet its a heck of a lot better and safer than working in a Chinese factory making solar panels (using energy produced from coal).

        https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67550551

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        THey do but they also build Nukes, wind and solar and the narrative that it does no good for the US to do it’s part because they’re not is simply not factual.

        here’s a more recent article:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8525c6dbbf0efd5cf26f1f1afc0c55e24d76268f7b6a691929cc902e21be273b.png

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          “The US to do its part”? I don’t believe that is the standard most extremists on climate change want, many want to shut down coal and gas totally.

          I am for the all of the above standard. Regardless of the significance of the contribution of fossil fuels to climate change, fossil fuels do have a finite life and we should try and be as efficient as possible and diversify.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s not “extremist” in the poll numbers though.

            When we talk about it, it’s a much larger number who are not extremists that DO believe in Climate Change and DO want to take action AND DO agree that coal plants should go away.

            Coal was on it’s way out even before climate change because of other environmental damages, including mountain top removal, mercury and acid rain. Ironically, perhaps, gas did the coupe de grace.

            Even then coal STILL produces a significant amount of energy.. it will take decades to phase completely out even in the US.

            MOST people concerned about climate change do NOT want gas to go away immediately. THey know we need it but they want to see solar/wind and new technology reducing use – to ramp up over time.

            Extremists – yes – but what percent are they and why do we point more to them that the much larger majority?

            You might find this interesting:

            “Wyoming innovates to combat climate change as part of Gov. Mark Gordon’s “all-of-the-above” energy policy”

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wyoming-energy-innovation-60-minutes/#:~:text=Wyoming%20innovates%20to%20combat%20climate,%2Dthe%2Dabove%22%20energy%20policy&text=Wyoming%20Gov.%20Mark%20Gordon%20is,pushback%20from%20his%20conservative%20state.

            “The Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project is large-scale wind farm located near Rawlins, Wyoming, currently under construction. If completed as scheduled in 2026, it is expected to become the largest wind farm in the United States and one of the largest in the world.”

            this is truly “all of the above” because it’s also the biggest coal producer

            One problem we have is folks continuing to point to “extremists” as if they constitute the majority.

            They do not. The simple truth is that the majority believes there is a problem and we need to act and we need to
            reduce the extent and use of fossil fuels – gradually and when we can as we go forward.

            we do need to act, not maintain status-quo IMO.

        2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          Washington doesn’t even believe in its own rhetoric. For example, why didn’t Obama present the Paris Accord to the Senate as a treaty? If you want to bind the U.S. internationally, that’s what you do. If the president does not do this, he cannot bind the country. As we saw, Trump was able to withdraw from it.

          If we want to reduce our collective carbon footprint, we’d enforce the immigration laws and deport all those people who have come over the Border since Biden took office. These people will have much larger carbon footprints here than in Venezuela.

          Our leaders should stand up to the glitterati who fly private jets to global warming conferences, shaming them. Attend by Zoom or Teams.

          Prohibit any Wall Street trading of carbon credits, fees or taxes. No financing allowed.

          Dump all the subsidies to EVs, windmills, solar panels, etc. and put the money into research on nuclear fusion.

          End subsidized flood insurance and enact taxes on property likely to be flooded. Why should Joe or Jose Sixpack subsidize residents of Martha’s Vineyard?

          Also, make it a federal offense punishable by 5 years in the Pen to alter any climate study funded by the feds. My physics professor told us he’d give us an F if we ever adjusted data points. Now, it’s standard practice.

  2. Joe Jeeva Abbate Avatar
    Joe Jeeva Abbate

    I appreciate Mr. Fegley’s opinion piece on how he, a mechanical engineer, would prefer to ignore the threat of Global Warming without a shred of scientific proof for his opinion. This demonstrates how many prefer to continue believe in good old coal generation and the internal combustion engine running on gasoline, but have little support for their position in light of actual science. This of course ignores actual climate science, while it allows critics to blame liberals, the educated, science, universities, and actual field experts conducting research. It also ignores the facts about renewable energy implementation all over the world over the past decade, while claiming we should ignore those benefits since China is not completely on board…not a winning argument, but a well established bias.

    When Fegley states “It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the current understanding of the natural changes, but we should be aware of several major factors that are not part of the conventional wisdom. First, this is not an existential threat. The natural changes are primarily due to changes in the amount of energy received from the sun”, he clearly states an opinion contrary to actual science.

    As NASA’s overview on the matter states, “It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today’s civilization.

    NASA Global Climate Change presents the state of scientific knowledge about climate change while highlighting the role NASA plays in better understanding our home planet. This effort includes citing multiple peer-reviewed studies from research groups across the world,1 illustrating the accuracy and consensus of research results (in this case, the scientific consensus on climate change) consistent with NASA’s scientific research portfolio.

    With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

    The basic scientific fact underlying Global Warming is that increasing Greenhouses Gases are warming the planet. The comprehensive NASA reporting notes, “Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

    Life on Earth depends on energy coming from the Sun. About half the light energy reaching Earth’s atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and radiated in the form of infrared heat. About 90% of this heat is then absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-radiated, slowing heat loss to space.

    Fegley’s argument that climate warming is predominantly caused by natural causes ignores the reality of the “greenhouse effect”. But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun, as Fegley would have us believe. Key scientific points re: this are as follows:

    1) Since 1750, the average amount of energy from the Sun either remained constant or decreased slightly.
    2) If a more active Sun caused the warming, scientists would expect warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere and a warming at the surface and lower parts of the atmosphere. That’s because greenhouse gases are slowing heat loss from the lower atmosphere.
    3) Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

    For those interested in the actual science of Global Warming and the damaging impacts, you may consider the data in the NASA site which is comprehensive: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    Thank you for the discussion.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Not to mention tropical fish off Nova Scotia.

    2. Please explain why you blessed us with your opinion and zero scientific evidence. Please don’t think that posting NASA’s climate website is scientific evidence.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        what would you consider scientific evidence?

        1. Actual studies done by real scientists and published in peer reviewed journals. Most of what is on the NASA site has not been through peer review.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            They have some references on their site. Not acceptable? I dunno. Can you name some credentialed scientists whose work is peer reviewed ? I agree that just one guy’s “ideas” is
            not enough. Consensus?

          2. The IPCC is not a scientific body, but a bunch of politicians and government administrators. GALE is a good website to get started. https://www.gale.com/open-access/global-warming.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            thanks… never heard of it so will spend some time …

            they seem to LIKE the IPCC:

            ” Overwhelming scientific evidence supports the reality of both global warming and climate change. In 2021 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) revealing how human activity has induced rapid climate change. AR6 covers how specific regions experienced the effects of climate change, projecting how these changes will likely play out in the future and identifying what interventions could limit increased global temperatures. AR6 estimates a rise in the global surface temperature by 1.07°C (1.93°F) from the latter half the nineteenth century through the first two decades of the twenty-first century, primarily as a result of increasing greenhouse gas and particulate emissions that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere.

            The IPCC emphasizes the key role of humans in the causes of global warming and climate change. The scientific model uses decades of research and peer-reviewed studies to provide evidence that global warming and climate change are being caused and accelerated by the release of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere during human agricultural and industrial processes and the continued extraction, production, and consumption of fossil fuels. They note that climate change and global warming have already led to increased numbers of and more severe storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires, which will only continue if humans continue to utilize fossil fuels and other processes that contribute to the greenhouse effect.”

          4. Joe Jeeva Abbate Avatar
            Joe Jeeva Abbate

            Is research supported by Cal Tech scientific enough for you?

            Cal Tech notes, “Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. In the past 650,000 years, there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era—and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that alter the amount of energy our planet receives from the sun. But the warming we’ve seen over the past few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

            Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last ice age.”

            Observable evidence of rapid climate change includes:

            Global temperature rise
            Warming ocean
            Shrinking ice sheets
            Retreating glaciers
            Decreased snow cover
            Sea level rise
            Declining arctic sea ice
            Extreme weather events
            Ocean acidification

            (https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/sustainability/evidence-climate-change#:~:text=Carbon%20dioxide%20from%20human%20activity,Warming%20ocean)

          5. Joe Jeeva Abbate Avatar
            Joe Jeeva Abbate

            The Royal Society of the United Kingdom is a Fellowship of many of the world’s most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence.

            The Royal Society has concluded that Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities alter Earth’s energy balance and thus its climate. Humans also affect climate by changing the nature of the land surfaces (for example by clearing forests for farming) and through the emission of pollutants that affect the amount and type of particles in the atmosphere.

            “Scientists have determined that, when all human and natural factors are considered, Earth’s climate balance has been altered towards warming, with the biggest contributor being increases in CO2.”

            “The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution began. In the case of carbon dioxide, the average concentration measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has risen from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1959 (the first full year of data available) to more than 411 ppm in 2019 [Figure B2]. The same rates of increase have since been recorded at numerous other stations worldwide. Since preindustrial times, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by over 40%, methane has increased by more than 150%, and nitrous oxide has increased by roughly 20%. More than half of the increase in CO2 has occurred since 1970. Increases in all three gases contribute to warming of Earth, with the increase in CO2 playing the largest role.”

          6. I am sorry for questioning all these experts. It is just that reading these studies makes me question the abilities of the authors. Never do they question the models they are using and never do they discuss the assumptions that these models rely upon. I build models for a living. There is an old quote from a famous mathematician that goes something like this, “All models are bad, some are useful.” Right now I am building manpower models that helps the Army forecast their manpower requirements. I make assumptions that help these models work and share them with the customer. Something these authors don’t do. I then caveat my model based upon those assumptions and then give my recommendations with cautions and even more caveats. There are people’s jobs on the line or your tax dollars to be spent on hiring more people. I don’t want to recommend cutting positions unless I let the customer know that my level of confidence in the model is only in the 60-70% range. The models I build are only good for a short period of time. I would never use them for forecasting beyond 2-3 years. Too many things change and their effects on the assumptions or on the variables is immeasurable. Models need to be constantly updated and revised to remain relevant. My problem with a lot of the work being pushed by IPCC, NASA, Cal Tech, The Royal Academy, etc, is the use of old outdated models and their selling of them as the truth, when their original builders of those models recommend against their use without caveats or updates. Also, we need to follow the money and see who is funding these studies and the IPCC. I have a friend that is a scientist for NASA and he knows of a peer in NASA that wrote a paper on climate change and he was not allowed to publish it, because it was not in alignment with current NASA policy. All of this to say, politics has invaded the halls of science and we have to read everything with a grain of salt or suffer the consequences.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            there’s a reason why science has peer-reviews.

            It’s not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with one guy’s opinion.

            I’ve done models also… and they have to be done right but I can tell you that no ballistic missiles would be able to hit their targets without any accuracy without the use of models.

            Ditto for a wide variety of other fields from climate to weapon systems to a lot in-between.

            I TRUST science and consensus in general whether it’s about cancer or genetics orc climate.

          8. Larry, that is very reasoned and I agree. I TRUST science as well. I also TRUST God, but my faith makes me constantly question. That allows my faith and TRUST to grow. I am so tired of those that think that if you question the results or outcomes that you disagree or believe they are wrong. It is the quest for knowledge that we have lost.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            I DON’T think scientific consensus is the truth from on high necessarily. Consensus science
            has not been always right.

            But I think about research and models this way:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1d127ce2ce20ac123d850d562d11b1b6fa2d98c8df1fc2c4262a49fa14d23296.png

            Not a single one is 100% correct, and one can look at the “data” and show that they had wrong stuff in them but they’re not wrong either.. necessarily and when most models are in somewhat agreement, one needs to heed it.

            We evacuate entire regions and cities based on models, that are often only “right” for a smaller area.

            So.. because we KNOW the models are inaccurate, we’d not take any steps at all neither for hurricanes or climate?

            We know, for a fact, that they are all 100% wrong – and essentially a hoax?

            Somewhere , there is a reasonable approach but I agree not from the extremes …

          10. Joe Jeeva Abbate Avatar
            Joe Jeeva Abbate

            You only need to read the actual scientific peer reviewed reports to see the validity of the conclusions. The science does not mean that humans can manage their energy use and consumption without a realistic transition to renewable energy. But if you see inappropriate scientific models by IPCC, NASA, MIT. Cal Tech, or the Royal Academy, please note the errors right here…show us the incorrect data or analyses making the models wrong.

            Check with the Pentagon…the Dept. of Defense states that “the planet’s changing climate has a significant effect on Defense Department missions, plans and installations. DOD is elevating climate change as a National Security Priority, integrating climate considerations into policies, strategies and partner engagements.”

            Why does the Pentagon care about climate change? The nation’s military staff hasn’t suddenly turned into a bunch of tree-huggers. But strategists are increasingly alarmed about the security implications of climate change.

            The strategy notes “an increased risk of armed conflict in places where established social orders and populations are disrupted. The risk will rise even more where climate effects compound social instability, reduce access to basic necessities, undermine fragile governments and economies, damage vital infrastructure, and lower agricultural production.”

          11. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Larry. ask I have suggested to you previously, try reading Steven Koonin’s Unsettled.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar

            BIll – I don’t read individuals unless they have generated research that is peer-reviewed and other scientists agree with them.

            I especially don’t read individuals who do not generate peer-reviewed research and/or are in disagreement with the scientific consensus.

            Capishe?

          13. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Larry, you’re on automatic pilot. Koonin has published peer reviewed papers and is a well known and well respected scientists. Knee jerk reactions are for of well you know who.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar

            can you cite his peer-reviewed papers on the climate?

          15. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Larry, you are being lazy. Do your own research. I’m not your staff!

          16. LarrytheG Avatar

            No more or less “lazy” than I would be in relying on consensus science for cancer or genetics or vaccines , etc… or your own doctor (as opposed to someone postulating what they believe) at some point, you have to decide who you will believe… I believe consensus science not individual authors who disagree with consensus science.

          17. LarrytheG Avatar

            “lazy” is NOT caring if research is peer-reviewed or not and considering yourself
            as the “authority” because you can “read” even if you don’t really have the scientific
            background. “Lazy” is believing individual authors whose “research” is not only not
            peer-reviewed but differs with consensus science.

          18. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Do you even understand what peer review really is? If so, explain it.

          19. LarrytheG Avatar

            Science is an ongoing or cumulative process that builds upon prior results or findings.

            Consensus develops as results are continuously confirmed with evidence, and alternative ideas are proven to be inaccurate.

            An idea, called a hypothesis, becomes well established when it is accepted by a majority of scientists who are respected in that field.

            Scientific consensus—that is, accepting established results—forms around what scientists judge as the most probable hypothesis.

            The ideas on which there is consensus form the starting point for additional research.

            Sometimes this research expands and solidifies the points of consensus and other times, as was the case with Albert Einstein’s work, new work overturns the fundamental idea upon which the scientific community had reached consensus.

            Building uniform scientific consensus takes time— years, decades and even centuries.

            How scientists report their findings is critical to the process of building consensus. The gold standard for scientists is “peer-reviewed journals.”

            To be published in a peer-reviewed journal, a piece of scientific work is reviewed by other knowledgeable scientists who are neither personal associates nor collaborators with the scientist submitting the work.

            The reviewers critique the work—that is, analyze and evaluate the methods, reasoning and results—and make a recommendation that the work be accepted for publication, returned to the author for revision, or rejected outright. Most journals enlist the voluntary help of other scientists in the field to judge the merit of the science being submitted for publication. The journals themselves choose the reviewers, and typically, reviewers are anonymous. If you are an active scientist who publishes, then part of the expectation is that you will spend some of your time as a peer reviewer. The reviewers add their own credibility to the work and increase the respectability of the journal. The peer-review process works to minimize the effects of human bias and error in the scientific process.

            So my question to you BIll is this. Do the folks you read and recommend others to read, follow this process and their work becomes accepted as part of the consensus?

            Or are these folks more or less pursuing their own beliefs and really don’t want to collaborate with others?

          20. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Like I figured, you really do not know what real peer review is. It is well known that peer review has serious limits which are reduced when the reviewers are blinded and there is replication. Those two conditions are rarely applied to journal articles because they are time consuming.
            Here are two articles to enlighten you-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557026/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

          21. LarrytheG Avatar

            Not that I don’t but GOOGLE Is your friend BIll.. well maybe not YOUR friend but GOOGLE has
            a wide variety of articles including wiki with respect to what consensus is. It’s sure more than
            one guy bleating about his beliefs as he disagrees with most other scientists on an issue.

          22. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            As usual your response is off point.

          23. LarrytheG Avatar

            not sure your links “work”.

            They look like they are:

            Welcome to NCBI
            The National Center for Biotechnology Information advances science and health by providing access to biomedical and genomic information.

            is that who you meant?

            let me share with you the Wiki:

            ” Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.[1][2]”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus#:~:text=Scientific%20consensus%20is%20the%20generally,study%20at%20any%20particular%20time.

            When you hear me support scientific consensus – this is what I mean.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f9b1edf8d97ed39c3793ca0b7c7f682d93927a471d2661fcada239821ca90dcb.png

            WHAT TO AVOID: Citing individual researchers without noting how their views on a given topic compare with those of other scholars in the field.

            HOW TO GET IT RIGHT: Look to peer-reviewed research and scientific organizations for help gauging whether and how much agreement exists among scientists on a topic.

            WHAT TO AVOID: Assuming a certain percentage of scientists in a given field need to agree in order to reach scientific consensus on a policy issue or question.

            https://journalistsresource.org/media/scientific-consensus-news-tips/

          24. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Try these–https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

          25. LarrytheG Avatar

            not working for me…

            I can get parts that I think point at this:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30d397ca91464fa1081e07de83b1df89d86559cdfcb24d54e415a651ec39f2fb.png

            I can get to the ncbi site if you tell me what to search for.

          26. LarrytheG Avatar

            how about you do that?

          27. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            This study concluded that 99 percent of the articles dealing with climate change in peer reviewed journals concluded that most of the recent rise in global temperatures was created by humans. In the footnotes, the study lists some of the articles reviewed. Have at it. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

          28. Matt Adams Avatar

            That’s a disengenous citation. What you cited is a word game, 99% of all AGW aren’t conclude it’s caused by humans, that does not include the articles which don’t arrive at that conclusion.

            Do better.

          29. Joe Jeeva Abbate Avatar
            Joe Jeeva Abbate

            As Dick Hall-Sizemore has noted, RKW, you must actually read the information on the NASA site to see all the peer reviewed reports and analyses that confirm the human impact on Global Warming.

      2. Joe Jeeva Abbate Avatar
        Joe Jeeva Abbate

        Just wanted to confirm your anti-scientific bias. Thank you for confirming that. You seem allergic to any data or science that does not correspond to your ignorance of the proven facts. If you have some actual science that confirms your opinion, feel free to post some actual scientific data.

        1. How have I confirmed anything other than I have a life beyond the keyboard? Please explain your reasoning behind your statement that I am allergic to any data or science that does not correspond to your ignorance of the proven facts. Are you saying that I am an ignorant boob because I don’t agree with what you believe is fact? I posted this once. https://www.gale.com/open-access/global-warming The site actually allows discussion of contrary opinions and facts where places like Cal Tech and NASA do not. I am done with this. I have a life.

  3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The combination of nuclear and natural gas provides dependable power, not dependent on the wind blowing and sun shining.”

    Whether one is in denial when it comes to anthropogenic climate change or not, given the recent failures of the natural gas-based generation equipment in Texas and North Carolina, it is very short sighted to not increase the renewal resources in our energy mix. As the author noted, they are indeed intermittent but are predictably and reliably intermittent. I do agree that increasing the nuclear generation in our mix is a worthy goal. One should examine the pipeline for manufacturing this very specialized and complicated equipment before betting the house on it though.

    1. Nelson Fegley Avatar
      Nelson Fegley

      Great discussion guys!

      I have lost confidence in the IPCC a long time ago – mostly politics. I support reasonable efforts to reduce anthropogenic causes, but if you look at geological history over 10’s of thousands of years you have to conclude that the natural causes, with no humans involved, are dominate. The trillions we spend trying to reduce temperatures by a fraction of one degree are better spent on adaptation. The World Bank estimates that 216 million people worldwide will have to be relocated. Most are in developing countries and can’t afford to move.

      Nelson Fegley

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    This a very good article, primarily because it distinguishes between human causation and natural variability and the fact that there are many attributes of the climate system that still are not well understood.
    The issue facing us is not whether or not we take mitigating actions but the extent to which we can affect the warming curve and the cost of actions. Current policies are based on the belief that we face the worst case scenario and hence waste scarce resources.
    The work of Jesse Ausabel, Rockefeller University, demonstrates that we have been decarbonizing for over 100 years and will continue to do so.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” Wind and solar power are being pushed, but they are unlikely to become a major source of reliable power due to their intermittent nature.”

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that every single solar/wind source had an existing backup one or one. In other words, just as many backup units as there are solar?

    And let’s further say that the wind/solar generates cheaper power than the backup sources.

    And you did use the backup sources when there was insufficient wind/solar but it would cost more to do so, so you only used the
    backup sources when you had to.

    Think about what the backup sources could be. Gas, storage maybe even coal.

    So out of that mix, you use the lowest cost sources when you can.

    What’s the downside?

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    Plain Truth, right between the eyes :

    ” DUBAI — Nearly 200 countries struck a breakthrough climate agreement Wednesday, calling for a transition away from fossil fuels in an unprecedented deal that targets the greatest contributors to the planet’s warming. The deal came swiftly — with no discussion or objection — in a packed room in Dubai following two weeks of negotiations and rising contention. It is the first time a global climate deal has specifically called to curb the use of fossil fuels.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/12/12/cop28-climate-summit-negotiatons-dubai/

    Now before anyone wants to RAG on WaPo, I have conveniently added the headline from WSJ… which may now be also called a rag by the doubters I guess…..

    “DUBAI—More than 190 governments at the United Nations climate conference approved an agreement Wednesday calling for the world to transition away from fossil fuels, sending an unprecedented signal to the global economy that governments are intent on cutting back on coal, oil and natural gas in the fight against global warming.

    The deal, the result of all-night talks, calls for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner.” It says the shift to clean energy for the global economy should accelerate this decade with the aim of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Scientists say that is crucial to fulfilling the Paris accord, the landmark climate agreement that calls for governments to attempt to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures. ”

    https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/cop28-leaders-call-for-transitioning-away-from-fossil-fuels-in-final-push-at-climate-talks-48f4b1c3?mod=hp_lead_pos1

    Now the real point about this is not what those countries will or will not do or agree to do or argue about… but rather that this is not the words often depicted as that of the “extreme left”, or “leftists”, “corrupt” scientists, or any of the various other pejoratives that the skeptics and deniers oft use.

    ” approved an agreement Wednesday calling for the world to transition away from fossil fuels”

    key phrase: “transition away”.

    NOT “Ban on some date certain” like 2030 as often claimed .

    At some point, one might think, that given the fact that most countries on earth accept the “science” despite all the “authors” who have “proven” with their words that it’s false – the reality IS that the consensus science IS believed by not only most people but most country’s leadership.

    So, now the naysayers can add these countries to the list of “extremists”!

    😉

  7. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    US Left just chooses to believe, that U.S. use of fossil fuels is highly unethical and will kill us all. It may be a bad assumption, but it is what U.S. liberals choose to believe and teach anyone who will listen to them. We have to live with that, somehow. There may come a future point when the promised Armageddon does not materialize, but for now we stuck with the dogma, especially in the Blue states.

Leave a Reply