Wind Farms Can’t Take the Heat

Temperatures soared in Oregon last week and, with the extreme temperatures, energy use soared as well. A recent Oregonian article pointed out a serious issue of how relying on wind energy affects electricity grid stability in the Pacific Northwest especially during times of extreme hot or cold temperatures. But the reliability of the grid and the ability of utilities to meet demand are being constrained by government policy. Oregon utilities are overinvesting in unreliable and inconsistent power sources like wind farms in order to meet renewable portfolio standards and this overreliance could lead to brownouts and blackouts in the future.

The Oregon Renewable Energy Act of 2007 forces utilities to meet 25% of their generation from new renewable sources by 2025. Utilities are spending their resources on creating more renewable energy in order to comply with this state mandate and under-investing in reliable and consistent generation sources.

Currently in Oregon, we have a generation capacity, meaning total amount of energy that could be generated at one time, of 3884 megawatts (MW) and wind energy is truly on the forefront of energy generation expansion in the state. As of this past April, an additional 2189 MW of generation capacity is slated for construction. The additional capacity is comprised of only wind and natural gas. In fact, wind energy is expected to provide 1689 MW of the 2189 MW — or approximately 77% of the new energy generation to be built.

The unfortunate reality is that wind power is not able to meet base-load demand and during the times when energy demand is high, the wind usually isn’t blowing. This last heat wave in Oregon should be a warning. As energy demand increases over time and utilities are forced to procure power from unreliable sources, Oregonians can expect more problems with getting the energy they need and desire.


Todd Wynn is the climate change and energy policy analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:55 | Posted in Measure 37 | 53 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • dian

    Maybe we should allow that to happen. Maybe they’ll wake up.

    • Rob DeHarpport

      Here is the only logical solution; Gather AL Gore, Gov. Ted and all thier fellow kool-aid drinkers, divide them up equally for each wind farm, send them to the sites and have them blow all thier hot air to power the windmills. It’s the least they can do, isn’t it?

  • Doug Byrd

    Beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences!

  • GD

    Wind energy can be more useful in Oregon if there is better planning, use of wind power would be better suited for rural areas such as the coast or higher terrains where the wind is more of a constant. Also home and commercial private use of wind power to offset the current load of the grid would be beneficial. So the bottom line is less restrictions for private use of green energy means less demand on the current power grid.

    • Rob DeHarpport

      Great in theory, but…. the extreme cost of wind and solar does not pencil out, even with huge subsidies. If we were to double or even triple current levels of wind and solar power in Oregon, it would only provide about 3% of the total power needed.

  • David Appell

    Todd, no one (of course) says that wind power has to provide all our power needs — or, for that matter, any of it. Just that carbon-producing energy sources are having a pejorative effect on the planet and so must be transitioned away from. Perhaps wind energy won’t satisfy all our peak needs. So what? There are plenty of backups — solar, nuclear, geothermal, wave. Even fossil fuels, if it comes to that. The point is to minimize the amount of carbon we’re putting in the atmosphere and oceans.

  • Anonymous

    Oh gee David thanks again for the completely uneeded clarification on wind not having to provide all of our power needs.

    How is it that you so often state the most obvious and elementary things among your litany of lies?

    No our carbon producing energy is NOT having a pejorative effect on the planet.
    You’re duped and hoplessly incappale of telling the truth.

    In reality wind, solar and other sources won’t come even close to providing enough energy to reduce fossil fuel use enough to even measure. Let alone “save the planet” from your boogey man AGW.

    BTW do you think it is Ok for public officials to make up tall tales and repeat them to our school children?
    Such as Jane Lubchenco fabricating a link between ocean dead zones and AGW and Bill Bradbury telling our school chidren ADW is causing dead zones?

    I notice you always completely ignore the posting of these fabrications.

    This is what you phony global warming advocates do.

    • David Appell

      > Such as Jane Lubchenco fabricating a link between ocean dead zones and AGW

      I’d like to know your evidence of the “fabrication” claim.

      You are claiming that Jane Lubchenco manufactured facts she knew were wrong to enable her to make such a link.

      What evidence do you have of this fabrication?
      What evidence do you have that she specifically knew these claims were wrong?
      When did she make them?
      Where?
      Where do these faulty facts appear, and how do you know they’re faulty?

      I assume you have answers, as you seem so sure her claims are nefarious. So let’s see your evidence.

      I’m a journalist. I report what people say. Lubchenco said this both in a workshop I attended, and to me personally in a 20-minute pre-dinner conversation. I don’t make things up.

      I’m waiting for your evidence.

      • jim karlock

        OK, David:
        Tell us what evidence there is that AGW caused the “dead zones”.

        Next tell what evidence there is for man’s CO2 being able to cause dangerous warming. (surely you are smart enough to pick a reasonable definition of dangerous.)

        Without evidence, you are just blindly following a leader. You know, like that well educated industrialized country did in the 1930’s that got million of people killed.

        I’m waiting for your evidence.

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          Jim, what do you mean by “dangerous?”

          It’s a big, complex world and dangerous is a very subjective term. So I am still wondering what you mean by it?

          Dangerous to whom? People? All people? Poor people? Rich people? Africans? Or Australians? Texas corn farmers? What about Russian and Canadian wheat farmers? Oregon vineyards? Polar bears? Migrating birds? Glaciers? Reservoirs? Fish? Plankton? Frog species in central American that already seem to have gone extinct from climate change?

          How dangerous? How much change in regional drought indices is “dangerous?” Or does it depend where? California va. Australia? New Mexico vs. the Sahel? Is it dangerous to a Texas corn farmer if his corn crop is only 50% of normal this year due to their drought, or does it have to be 65%? Or 50% two years in a row? Or five years in a row? If it’s dangerous to him but advantageous to commodity traders, is it still “dangerous?” What if it results in lower food prices, but less farmers? Is that dangerous, and, if so, how much dangerous?

          What is the unit of danger, anyway?

          Was it dangerous to the ~35,000 French who died in a huge heat wave a few years ago?
          Is it dangerous to coral now bleaching? How much coral degradation must take place before it is dangerous to other ocean inhabitants, or even man? 75%? 90%? Please define.

          Would a 30 cm rise in sea level be dangerous to the Netherlands? Or would it take 80 cm? What about to Venice? Or south Florida? Is it the same danger for Venice as for south Florida? Or is it only half as dangerous? If so, how are you mathematically defining dangerous?

          Thanks.

    • David Appell

      It is also expected that, if you are going to make serious claims that malign someone’s character, you have the balls to make them with your real name and not cowardly hide behind anonymity.

  • John in Oregon

    Hey David, gotta question forya.

    Haveya noticed how more and more scientists have just about had it up to here with the BS being put out as the consensus on man-made global warming?

    Didja notice the open rebellion over at the American Chemical Society? The membership turned out with pitchforks and torches after the ACS Journal editor ran an AGW consensus is undeniable article that could have been written by David Appell.

    Rudy Baum, the editor, now claims he is startled by the negative reaction from the ACS members. Startled I tell you, who knew?

    • David Appell

      > Haveya noticed how more and more scientists have just about had it up to here
      > with the BS being put out as the consensus on man-made global warming?

      Actually I just recently attended a 4-day conference of climate scientists at OSU. Not one scientist — not one — expressed any doubt about the claim that man is influencing the climate.

      Where were all the skeptics? Or do they only write letters to the editor?

  • Richard

    David,

    Along with your cronic dishonesty you could not be more naive. Your impression of the work done on climate by the alarmists is laughable and every step of the way you fail miserable to grasp and address the most germane points experts like Wiese have raised.
    Yes he is an expert and you are a foolish layperson enageged in political hackery.

    As for your comedic claim that “climate models back predict accurately therefore they show veracity.”

    This is a grand example of your foolishness and dishonest.

    No such genuine back predicting exists. Any more than Jane Lubchenco’s claim models can predict wind patterns 100 years from now.

    For clairification, this from climatologist:

    “David Appell does not realize that his reasoning is circular. The climate codes have many arbitrary parameters which have been adjusted to fit observations of the 20th century climate. They are really no more than elaborate data fits. It is therefore no wonder that they fit the 20th century climate! But they have NO predictive power for future climate. “Back-predict” is more of the jargon of Alarmists, not of scientists.”

    Of course David, Jane, Bill Bradbury and other blatant liars want people to believe otherwise.
    Their fabrications know no limits and the left buys every single one of them without any curiosity at all.

  • David Appell

    > Wiese…
    > Yes he is an expert

    How so?

    What advanced degrees does he have in the subject?
    What original research has he contributed?
    What papers has he written?
    What conferences has he spoken at?
    What symposia has he delivered to other experts?
    What text books has he written?
    What workshops has he led?
    What papers has he reviewed?

  • David Appell

    > No such genuine back predicting exists.

    Please explain to me your interpretation of IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch8 FAQ 8.1, Fig 1.

  • Jerry

    Remember, folks, I warned all of you about this fiasco with my liberal couple from Eugene windfarm article right here on Catalyst.
    None listened.
    Perhaps now they will.

  • Anonymous

    David I did explain it with the quote from a climatoligist

    “The climate codes have many arbitrary parameters which have been adjusted to fit observations of the 20th century climate. They are really no more than elaborate data fits. It is therefore no wonder that they fit the 20th century climate! But they have NO predictive power for future climate. “Back-predict” is more of the jargon of Alarmists, not of scientists”

    You’re simply too stupid, too naive and accept the back dating. You’re too dishonest to tell the truth that you have nothing to back up the claims you cite in the AR.

    As for Lubchencho your response is classic Appell.
    Just like your denial that YOU attributed Hurricane Kartina to AGW. You even had the shameless lack of ethics to repeatedly make that denial after you were exposed with your own work.

    Yes Jane Lubchenco fabricated a link between ocean dead zones and AGW.
    And she had no basis for it beyond her very loose and lazy hypothetical speculation.

    Specificly, she supposed that wind driven upwelling which actually causes the dead zones could be caused by global warming winds.
    On that she allowed her supposing to be taken as an established link and be distributed around the AGW alarmist’s sphere.
    So much so that a realclimate regular stated with certainty the link had been established.
    And Bill Bradbury is indeed telling school children and other the link exists.

    An ethical scientist would have severed that science by rumor mongering.

    The real gotcha is that her own OSU research team cautioned that they were “unable to
    establish the extent of the link, if any, to global warming”.

    Even you should be able grasp what that means. It means no science, no report, no peer review, no link and no integrity for Lubchenco. But she got appointed to head NOAA.

    You can google it yourself and discover the falsification and the reach it traveled.

    Locally the Oregonian reported it and 2 BlueOregon threads echoed her BS and ALL of the lefties like you bought it without ANY science at all.

    So you see liar David, the liar, Jane Lubchenco, didn’t have to “manufactured facts she knew were wrong to enable her to make such a link” .
    She merely had to speculate and let it take it’s ride.

    And here you are Mr. Jounrnalist, conveniently not knowing a thing about it.
    Amazingly just like all of the other deceit you know nothing about.

    This unethical lapse by Lubchenco is not an isolated act. Hardly. The AGW movement is riddled with them perpetrated by all players in the sham.
    This is the science you want people to trust as you participate in the AGW chain of deceit.

    Over and over again you get caught and turn your circle to new deceit.

    Now what exactly did Lubchenco say in a workshop you attended, and to you personally in a 20-minute pre-dinner conversation?
    Please share.

    • David Appell

      Anonymous,

      *ALL* physical theories have unspecified parameters.

      For example, the Grand Unified Theories of the 1970s, which won a few Nobel Prizes (Weinberg, Salam, Wilczek, Gross, Politzer, ‘t Hooft, Veltman, etc), has about 16 unspecified parameters that must be input into the system, such as the value of the electromagnetic coupling (alpha), electron mass, Weinberg angle, QCD coupling constant (Lamba(Q)), Planck’s constant, six quark masses, W and Z mass, etc.

      Yet this is considered a very sound theory by scientists.

      Likewise, the quantum mechanical theory of even the Hydrogen atom requires the independent specification of several parameters: electron mass, proton mass, electromagnetic coupling constant, Planck’s constant.

      Even Maxwell’s theory of electromagnism requires an independent number for the speed of light. Newton’s theory of graviation requires that G be input as an independent parameter.

      These are all considered well established theories.

      Why is climate science any different?

      • jim karlock

        *David Appell:* Even Maxwell’s theory of electromagnism requires an independent number for the speed of light.
        *JK:* Refresh our memory, David: where is the speed of light needed to make the equations valid?

        *David Appell:* Newton’s theory of graviation requires that G be input as an independent parameter.
        *JK:* Refresh our memory, David: where is the gravitational constant needed to make the theory valid?

        *BTW,* merely passing a back test only proves that the model has been well fitted to past data. It carries no necessary predicative power. Think of it this way:
        You are a grade school kid with a computer.
        You have a common data analysis program that writes an equation that fits the any data you feed into it.
        You feed it 120 years of stock market data.
        *Result:*
        *Prfect back fit. ZERO predictive power.*

        Thanks
        JK

        • David Appell

          > JK: Refresh our memory, David: where is the speed of light needed to make the equations valid?

          Jim, are you even familiar with Maxwell’s Equations. Do you know about the arbitrary parameters epsilon-nought and mu-nought? Do you how they combine to produce c and how Maxwell’s equations predict that light waves travel with a speed of c = (sqrt^(-1/2))(e0*mu0).

          This is elementary electromagnetism, Jim, taken by most students in the first semester of their sophomore year. Surely you remember that, don’t you?

          (Although perhaps you never went to college. Did you, Jim?)

        • David Appell

          >> David Appell: Newton’s theory of graviation requires that
          >> G be input as an independent parameter.
          > JK: Refresh our memory, David: where is the gravitational constant needed to
          > make the theory valid?

          Wow.

          Jim, you really don’t know anything about this stuff, do you?

          I mean, inputting G is required in essentially *every* calculation of classical Newtonian gravitational physics near the Earth. Everywhere.

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL WRITES:” Wiese…
    > Yes he is an expert

    How so?

    What advanced degrees does he have in the subject?
    What original research has he contributed?
    What papers has he written?
    What conferences has he spoken at?
    What symposia has he delivered to other experts?
    What text books has he written?
    What workshops has he led?
    What papers has he reviewed?”
    #8 David Appell on 2009-08-04 17:30 (Reply)

    Hi David: Perhaps you would like to answer these same questions that you posed to “Richard”.

    I chose not to persue a career as a researcher so I don’t call myself a scientist. But I am degreed in atmospheric science from Oregon State University, and have over thirty years experience in operational meteorology. That certainly entitles me to analyze and criticize any academic works and paers on the subject or offer my own opinions that I have. And mine are shared by other Ph.D’s in atmospheric science and physics, so your “union card” argument doesn’t hold water.

    YOU, on the other hand claim a Ph.D. in physics, but I don’t see you employed by or having had any career affiliation with any University, having ever taught any courses in physics, having ever submitted any papers that are current in your field or having ever been invited to host or participate in seminars either, in physics, meteorology and atmospheric science, the latter two of which you are certainly not degreed in or “qualified” to speak about. That is not unusaul for me with my chosen career path, but it is most certainly for you. Usually individuals with advanced degrees have accomplished waht you claim I have not, but you are in the same boat I am, except you claim this advanced degree.

    So who is really “qualified” here, playing by your rules?

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

  • Anonymous

    What makes Lubchenco, now head of NOAA, an expert on climate?

    Wiese has acculumulated more climate knowledge than Lubchenco.

    But David thinks her tenure in academia giver her the gravitas to lie.

  • David Appell

    Still lack the courage to sign your real name, huh Anonymous?

    > Yes Jane Lubchenco fabricated a link between ocean dead zones and AGW.

    You haven’t proved this at all.

    > Specificly, she supposed that wind driven upwelling which actually causes the
    > dead zones could be caused by global warming winds.
    > On that she allowed her supposing to be taken as an established
    > link and be distributed around the AGW alarmist’s sphere.

    She did not such thing. Have you talked to her? (Have you?)

    I have, in depth. She communicated full well that this was a working theory and not yet established science.

  • David Appell

    > What makes Lubchenco, now head of NOAA, an expert on climate?

    * Ph.D. in ecology from Harvard
    * former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the International Council for Science and the Ecological Society of America
    * Dr. Lubchenco served on the first National Academy of Sciences study on ‘Policy Implications of Global Warming’,
    * Eight of her publications are “Science Citation Classics”; she is one of the ‘most highly cited’ ecologists in the world.
    * Dr. Lubchenco is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the Royal Society. She has received numerous awards including a MacArthur (‘genius’) Fellowship, nine honorary degrees, the 2002 Heinz Award in the Environment, the 2005 AAAS Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology and the 2008 Zayed International Prize for the Environment.

    • jim karlock

      *David Appell:* Ph.D. in ecology from Harvard
      *JK:* SO, has she studied any science, except political science? Did she take more than one physics, chem, math course, or just political ecology crap?

      *David Appell:* Dr. Lubchenco served on the first National Academy of Sciences study on ‘Policy Implications of Global Warming’,
      *JK:* So she is into pseudoscience

      *David Appell:* Eight of her publications are “Science Citation Classics”; she is one of the ‘most highly cited’ ecologists in the world.
      *JK:* You are trying to claim that ecology is a science, when, in the real world, it is political, not scientific.

      *David:* She has received numerous awards including . . . the 2002 Heinz Award in the Environment,
      *JK:* Yea, probably given by failed prez candidate Kerry’s wife of the Heinz family.

      *BTW* I noticed you back peddling on what she said. Did she or did she not publish or say something relating the dead zone to AGW. If she did, that would conflict with what you said above. If she did NOT, I suggest you use your influence with that idiot Bradbury to get him to quit that particular lie.

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        > Did she or did she not publish or say something relating the dead zone
        > to AGW. If she did, that would conflict with what you said above.

        I don’t know. I haven’t formally reported on the subject, I (as I have made clear) just know what I’ve heard her say in a seminar and in a personal conversation. I’ve heard other OSU scientists suggest the same thing.

      • David Appell

        Emergence of Anoxia in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem F. Chan, J. A. Barth, J. Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W. T. Peterson, and B. A. Menge Science 15 February 2008 319: 920 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1149016]
        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5865/920.pdf
        “Recent studies indicate that the onset of shelf hypoxia can reflect basin-scale fluctuations in atmosphere-ocean processes that alter the oxygen content of upwelled water, the intensity of upwelling wind stress, and productivity-driven increases in coastal respiration (5, 6). Strongly coupled atmospheric and oceanic circulation underpins ecosystem dynamics in wind-driven upwelling shelves and ecosystem susceptibility to modulations of upwelling wind stress from climate warming (7, 8).”
        7. H. V. McGregor, M. Dima, H. W. Fischer, S. Mulitza, Science 315, 637 (2007).
        8. J. A. Barth et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 3719 (2007).

  • David Appell

    I am a journalist. I represent journalism. As a journalist I cover the best science that is out there and investigate what is wrong with the inferior science, wherever it lies.

    I also have a PhD in theoretical physics and have a far broader knowledge of science than any TV weatherman.

    I don’t go around calling everyone who disagrees with me a liar or moron or disingenuous. I don’t make claims that are easily shown to be wrong, like “15 micron saturation.” I don’t put up silly graphs I copied from Lorne Gunter, with comical curve-fittings that prove nothing except one’s ignorance. I don’t quote textbooks from 1959. I am not afraid to ask real questions of real scientists, or put my journalism out there in the public eye and not just radio talk shows where the audience is uneducated and blindly accepting and the host is not interested in intellectual honesty but just ratings.

  • Anonymous

    DAVID APPELL WRIRES: “Even Maxwell’s theory of electromagnism requires an independent number for the speed of light. Newton’s theory of graviation requires that G be input as an independent parameter.

    These are all considered well established theories.

    Why is climate science any different?”
    #11.1 David Appell on 2009-08-04 22:54 (Reply)

    Because Maxwell’s theories and all others you refer to here in physics on this thread were built upon and adhered to as agreed by and understood by the scientists who were involved in their inception and or use, including proper testing and esxperimentation, and the equations work when applied correctly. Climate modeling, on the other hand, is an incomplete and incorrect construction of the description of atmospheric motion and energy transfer, having supplanted alot of the founding work without a necessary refutation before PROVING any results reliable. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE here that ought to make any scientist wary.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • David Appell

      Chuck Wiese wrote:
      > Because Maxwell’s theories and all others you refer to here in physics on
      > this thread were built upon and adhered to as agreed by and understood by the
      > scientists who were involved in their inception and or use, including proper
      > testing and esxperimentation, and the equations work when applied correctly.

      Chuck, you really don’t know much about the history of physics, do you?

      Several prominent physicists disputed the theory underlying Maxwell’s equations, especially his prediction of electromagnetic waves that travel at the speed of sqrt^(-1/2)(epsilon-nought*mu*nought).

      Have you ever heard, maybe, of the ether? Have you heard of Lorentz, Poincare, Fresnel, Michaelson?

      Einstein finally put a rest to all of them.

      In other words, the climate science of the 60s-late 70s was about akin to the ether period. But even then, almost all climate scientists and all government scientists recognized the danger of the buildup of GHG gases in the atmosphere. This goes all the way back to Fourier, then Arrhenius, then Callendar.

      No serious and respectable scientists, not even today, disagree with the warming effect of CO2 and other GHGs — not Lindzen, not Michaels, not Lomberg. It’s all a question of the climate sensitivity.

      You look increasingly comical denying this fact. Perhaps you can fool ideological know-nothings like Lars Larson, but your don’t stand a chance in the legitimate scientific community.

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “I also have a PhD in theoretical physics and have a far broader knowledge of science than any TV weatherman.”

    Except you haven’t proven you do have such a degree and your posts don’t reflect such knowledge.

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “I don’t go around calling everyone who disagrees with me a liar or moron or disingenuous. I don’t make claims that are easily shown to be wrong, like “15 micron saturation.” I don’t put up silly graphs I copied from Lorne Gunter, with comical curve-fittings that prove nothing except one’s ignorance. I don’t quote textbooks from 1959. I am not afraid to ask real questions of real scientists, or put my journalism out there in the public eye and not just radio talk shows where the audience is uneducated and blindly accepting and the host is not interested in intellectual honesty but just ratings.
    #16 David Appell on 2009-08-04 23:16 (Reply)

    No, not at all. You just tell people who challenge your credentials to f–k off and never contact you, like me. You offer no proof, as usuall, that the 15 micron wavelength saturation argument is wrong. Last I heard, an absorption coefficient of 1.7 cm2/g thermalizes the 15 micron band of CO2 within 100 meters of depth at much less than current CO2 concentrations. If that doesn’t saturate the wavelength with respect to maximum possible emission energy, please show me where that’s wrong. You might get a Nobel in physics, yourself. You never told me where your friend, Ray Pierrrehumbert puts this argument “soundly to rest”. The problem with idiots like you, David, is that your’re all talk and no proof. You still can’t refute Elsasser’s work, and if you knew as much about science as you say, then when something is published, it makes no difference how long ago, it’s when it is correctly refuted, which Elsasser’s work is not, and it is still published as a working radiation model in the “gold standard” of atmospheric physics, published by Goody and Yung less than ten years ago. Is Relativity wrong just because Einstein published it in 1920? This is worse than an idiotic argument. And I ask real questions of “real scientists” all the time. Even the ones you admire. The problem is, most of those that you think are “knowledgeable” from Real Climate, like Gavin Schmidt, frequently name call, bellitle and surgically edit posts that question their “science” about Co2. I hardly call this an above board academic exchange. It’s more akin to a bullshit factory that you also regularly engage in on sites like this.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

    • jim karlock

      Chuck, you forgot to mention that David can’t even cite proof that man’s CO2 is capable of causing dangerous warming.

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        Jim, why will you never answer the question of what you mean by the (subjective) word “dangerous?”

        Dangerous to whom? People? All people? Poor people? Rich people? Africans? Or Australians? Texas corn farmers? What about Russian and Canadian wheat farmers? Oregon vineyards? Polar bears? Migrating birds? Glaciers? Reservoirs? Fish? Plankton? Frog species in central American that already seem to have gone extinct from climate change?

        How dangerous? How much change in regional drought indices is “dangerous?” Or does it depend where? California va. Australia? New Mexico vs. the Sahel? Is it dangerous to a Texas corn farmer if his corn crop is only 50% of normal this year due to their drought, or does it have to be 65%? Or 50% two years in a row? Or five years in a row? If it’s dangerous to him but advantageous to commodity traders, is it still “dangerous?” What if it results in lower food prices, but less farmers? Is that dangerous, and, if so, how much dangerous?

        What is the unit of danger, anyway?

        Was it dangerous to the ~35,000 French who died in a huge heat wave a few years ago?
        Is it dangerous to coral now bleaching? How much coral degradation must take place before it is dangerous to other ocean inhabitants, or even man? 75%? 90%? Please define.

        Would a 30 cm rise in sea level be dangerous to the Netherlands? Or would it take 80 cm? What about to Venice? Or south Florida? Is it the same danger for Venice as for south Florida? Or is it only half as dangerous? If so, how are you mathematically defining dangerous?

    • David Appell

      > No, not at all. You just tell people who challenge your credentials to f–k off and never
      > contact you, like me.

      Chuck, it’s because you seem constitutionally incapable of treating your opponents with respect and refuse to consider them anything other then “liars” and “morons” and “frauds.”

      When you enter an argument in that fashion, why in the world would you ever expect to get any respect in return??

    • David Appell

      Chuck Wiese:
      > You just tell people who challenge your credentials to f–k off and never contact you, like me

      Because, Chuck Wiese, you are invariably abusive and, though I asked you several times to be polite, you seem constitutionally incapable of disagreeing with anyone without calling them names like moron and fraud and idiot. So, yes, I do not want you to write to me again.

  • Jerry

    Remember, people, New York has not hit 90 yet this year!

  • Anonymous

    Everyone should pay attention to this demonstration.

    David is attempting to misrpresent and mislead people claiming Lubchenco
    “did no such thing. Have you talked to her? (Have you?)
    I have, in depth. She communicated full well that this was a working theory and not yet established science.”

    David, again you are a blatant liar and distorter caught AGAIN trying to cover up another AGW falsehoods perpetrated by consensus makers.

    A google search displays the reach of Lubcheno’s baseless link she “supposed” onto the world.

    The fact that unethical Jane plays CYA with naive fools like you behind the scenes is meaningless. Her fabrication is out there traveling the left wing AGW circuit and media.

    This is just a small sampling of how your unethical science works.

    Even your unethical brethren at RealClimate accept and peddle Lubchenco’s fabrication.
    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=672
    Changes in the timing of upwelling off the Oregon coast has been linked to global warming.

    Another consequence of global warming – ocean dead zones
    Jane Lubchenco, zoology professor at the University of Oregon, presented information on the … Another consequence of global warming – ocean dead zones …
    http://www.ecoearth.info/…/welcome.aspx?…ocean%20AND%20%20dead%20AND%20%20zone%20AN... – Cached – Similar

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144547.htm
    Ocean Dead-Zones May Be Linked To Global Warming
    ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2008)
    “and may well be linked to the stronger, persistent winds that are expected to occur with global warming.In a new study in the journal Science, researchers from Oregon State University,,,

    “In this part of the marine environment, we may have crossed a tipping point,” said Jane Lubchenco

    http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/08/the_oregon_dead.html
    Dr. Jane Lubchenco, an Oregon State University marine biologist, suggests climate change may be a factor because there is no other apparent explanation for the altered wind patterns.

    http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/dead-zones-and.html
    Dead Zones and Global Warming
    Thanks to some fine work by OSU researchers, we now have some more information about those oceanic dead zones that have cropped up every year off the coast. We know that they’re new, they’re likely a consequence of global warming, and that they’re likely to stay:

  • Chuck Wiese

    David Appell: I will add here that Jane Lubchenco is not qualified to head NOAA. Her degrees are not related to ANYTHING that is the day to day business of that agency, which is the monitoring of the ocean/ atmospheric system, and to run the atmospheric models that are used in general weather analysis and short range prediction, including hurricanes and tropical storms.

    Lubcheno has no working knoweledge of a meteorologist. She spent her career at Oregon State University, pumping out research ( alot of which is bogus and unprovable concerning human caused damage to eco systems, and her ridiculous claims of “overfishing” the environment and human climate change. ) Her Ph.D. is in “Ecology.” Gawd, I could only imagine the course work involved in this. The major wasn’t around when I was at OSU, and I’d bet there is alot of non scientific junk in this major that makes alot of unprovable suppositions about humans and the environment. This Ph.D. is also the one held by Mark Abbott from OSU, who is Dean of the College of Ocean and Atmospheric Science at Oregon State University. Wow! How did that happen? I’ll bet Abbott has no working knowledge of atmospheric science, either because his suppositions written, accepted and used by this ill informed Governor of ours are totally off base and wrong about how Oregon’s climate would change if CO2 was really radiating the earth to a higher temperature. Every one of them involves the John Holdren version of climate doom with stronger storm surges, more rainfall, melting snowpack, summers with lasting and repetitive heat waves, especially in the Rogue Valley, where temperatures will be over 110 degrees frequently. WHAT BULLSHIT! None of this would happen under a CO2 warming if it was really happening. So why did Abbott ever get to head COAS at Oregon State University? I would speculate that money is the reason. This major and its philosophical belief system appears willing to play the governments game fast and loose with AGW, therefore the federal money pours in for more and more bogus research that keeps trying to prove that link of humans, CO2 and climate that isn’t there. This is NOT good science, and money seems to advance who becomes a leader of the specific colleges.

    There are hundreds of very fine candidates that could have been selected to head NOAA from within the agency itself. This administration picked Lubchenco to reward her for her unprovable, incessant and ridiculous asssertions about climate, which she is not qualified to opine on, and certainly not set public policy by. But that doesn’t matter. Her position was used to aid the left in advancing it’s self contrived policy making on “climate change” to force the public into paying higher taxes ( which is also paying hommage to these academic intitutions ) which she is happy to do regardless of the truth. This administration ( Obama ) has picked two of the most controversial and nutty zeolots ( Lubchenco and Holdren )ever to help advance climate legislation which will accomplish nothing except bring more taxes and a much bigger misery index to the public. I’m sure she will get along well with Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, who is a self proclaimed socialist and communist, and has given many incorrect forecasts of how humans are doomed to self destruction and extinction from living, breathing and using the plentiful resources of the earth. Lubchenco’s selection to head NOAA was political, not scientific. Ecology does not fit into oceanography, meteorology or atmospheric science. Not by a long shot. This is a nice game the left has in keeping a tight lid on control of academia, which it uses to advance its many frivolous claims.

    So again, David, as Jim Karlock has asked you to do too many times to count, show us where CO2 can cause dangerous global warming. Where is the proof? I will add onto that and ask you to prove CO2 has or will cause any future global warming. Climate models don’t count. They have been proven wrong and are riddled with errors, admitted by many who work with them.

    Chuck Wiese

    • David Appell

      Chuck Wiese wrote:
      > Lubcheno has no working knoweledge of a meteorologist.

      That’s because, well, Chuck I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but meteorologists aren’t really that respected in the scientific community, especially when the discussion is about climate. Especially TV weathermen. You just buy a couple of climate models, put on some makeup, and then tell the sheep what your models say, right?

      Meteorologists are just applied scientists, if that, just as chemists are basically applied quantum mechanicians. You deal with 50-yr old science. Real scientists moved past you decades ago, to more interesting and cutting-edge questions.

      I am sorry to have to burst your bubble.

    • David Appell

      Chuck Wiese, yes, we know that you think the only relevant discipline in this world is meteorology.

      Believe it or not, Jane Lubchenco won’t be expected to go down into NOAA’s basement and actually write and run the computer programs.

      Being head of NOAA is more a management job, though one that requires a great deal of scientific knowledge, as well as a broad range of scientific knowledge. She needs to know a lot of things, a lot of people, and be able to assimiliate all that and bring the right people and groups together.

      She is not expected to predict Tuesday’s weather in Bozeman, MT.

      Here are just some indications of her level of expertise and abilities:
      * MacArthur Fellowship
      * Pew Fellowship,
      * eight honorary degrees (including one from Princeton University)
      * 8th Heinz Award in the Environment (2002)
      * Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography
      * President of AAAS, 1997-1998

      Not only that, but she is thoughtful and affable and many people respect her.

      Of course, we know you think she (like everyone else you disagree with) is a moron and idiot and fraud and liar and abuses small animals. She’s conned her way up the ladder and snickers behind her back at the mere notion anyone would ever give her grant money so she can go get a suntan on the beach. If only she could buy a computer model and stand in front of a camera for 2 minutes and tell us what it says!

      Your shtick is getting really tiresome.

  • David Appell

    > BTW, merely passing a back test only proves that the model has been well fitted to past data. It
    > carries no necessary predicative power. Think of it this way:
    > You are a grade school kid with a computer.
    > You have a common data analysis program that writes an equation that fits the any data you feed
    > into it.
    > You feed it 120 years of stock market data.
    > Result:
    > Prfect back fit. ZERO predictive power.

    First of all, hundreds of millions of people, perhaps even you, rely on the supposition that future stock prices will continue to increase at about the rate of past stock prices: ~8-9%/yr. Everyone with an IRA or 401K has invested believing this to be true.

    Second of all, the stock market and the climate are far different things. Only the latter is purely susceptible to physical laws independent of psychology. So your analogy is completely without merit.

    Have you noticed how weathermen rely on model models?

  • Nathan

    Wow, this is a pretty heated and nasty discussion.

    To David Appell’s original point, post #4 “The point is to minimize the amount of carbon we’re putting in the atmosphere and oceans.” As a lay person I don’t see the catastrophic harm of reducing carbon emissions while I certainly, and perhaps naively, can conceptualize a catastrophic, or at least significant, affect of continuing our accelerated rate of carbon emissions.

    Furthermore, I fail to grasp the cautionary tone of Mr. Wynn’s article. Oregon’s new construction plans which will provide an additional 2189 MW to the existing capacity of 3884 MW would render a energy capacity of 6073 MW after construction. As stated, wind power would constitute 1689 MW of the new generation and would thus constitute 28% of overall capacity. This plan theoretically results in the compliance with the Oregon Renewable Energy act of 2007 and would then afford utilities the right to invest 75% of all new construction projects in “reliable and consistent generation sources.”

    It seems to me that, while not perfect, the Oregon Renewable Energy Act of 2007 calls for utilities to make an initial albeit exorbitant investment in non-carbon emitting energy production but does not cripple innovation in an accelerated manner.

    Again, I do not claim any expertise on the subject. However, my experience leads me to question those who employ inflammatory attacks on individuals with whom they disagree.

    Love the discussion though, thought provoking article Mr. Wynn.

  • David Appell

    Re: Oregon’s dead zone and climate change (for those who can’t Google):

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/12/tech/main635521.shtml
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=30477
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1017661/dead_zone_returns_to_oregon_coast/index.html
    31 July 2007: “The return of oxygen-depleted water off the Oregon coast is a sign of a warming climate, which could have ill effect on populations of sea creatures, scientists said Monday.”

    Ocean Dead-Zones May Be Linked To Global Warming
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144547.htm

    Emergence of Anoxia in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem
    F. Chan, J. A. Barth, J. Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W. T. Peterson, and B. A. Menge
    Science 15 February 2008 319: 920 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1149016]
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5865/920.pdf
    “Recent studies indicate that the
    onset of shelf hypoxia can reflect basin-scale
    fluctuations in atmosphere-ocean processes that
    alter the oxygen content of upwelled water,
    the intensity of upwelling wind stress, and
    productivity-driven increases in coastal respiration
    (5, 6). Strongly coupled atmospheric and
    oceanic circulation underpins ecosystem dynamics
    in wind-driven upwelling shelves and ecosystem
    susceptibility to modulations of upwelling
    wind stress from climate warming (7, 8).”
    7. H. V. McGregor, M. Dima, H. W. Fischer, S. Mulitza,
    Science 315, 637 (2007).
    8. J. A. Barth et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 3719
    (2007).

  • Chuck Wiese

    David Appell: What a lot of us are getting sick of is your perpetual lying about events that have no provable link to global warming or climate change. Hurricane Katrina is a good example. You ablsolutely have lied about this hurricane, David, and falsely linked it to climate change. Your blog posts are irrefutable about this.

    And speaking of lying, how much pancake make-up does it take for Jane Lubchenco to put on as the head of NOAA to get her facts straight and quit lying about ocean dead zones, falsely linking them to climate change? She has repeatedly asserted that ocean dead zones are the result of climate change and this unproven, false assertion was spread over the internet worldwide by her climate minions that promote a lot of her nonsense. There is no provable link to ocean dead zones and human activity. Period. This phenomena is part of the 30 year PDO cycle that was discovered recently. It is nothing that is new or hasn’t been occuring in the oceans for millions of years, and frequently occurs with the LaNinia. Jane Lubchenco is not qualified to head NOAA. Her degrees and awards are irrelevant to running NOAA. Many could have been picked in her place to do the job, but the Obama administration doesn’t want a qualified person in the seat. This administrations pick of science advisor John Holdren with Lubchenco are proof enough to many that this administration is playing politics with scientific agencies and is going to use them to advance radical environmental agenda’s like Cap and Trade.

    Speaking of education, I’ll put my atmospheric science degree any day up against what you claim ( but have never proven ) is a Ph.D. in physics. I’ve debated you, David, and you’re weak. The audience you debated me in front of even thought so. If you have such a degree the knowledge from it eludes you in your discussion of any relevant topics in atmospheric science. You are incompetent to discuss it. That is my professional opinion as a meteorologist. Your claimed Ph.D. in physics is a very unusual
    one, David, because you have never been associated with any major university since your graduation. Most Ph.D.’s work in such institutions but not you.

    Speaking of meteorologists, your statement that meteorology is not respected and considered important in the arena of climate science is another idiotic statement that comes from people like you who have their facts backward and don’t understand the issue. Atmospheric science has everything to do with climate science. The modeling could not have been constructed without it, which includes borrowing from radiation physics to calculate radiative transfer of IR through the atmosphere. The difference between me and a modeler is an advanced degree in either mathematics or atmospheric science, but a Ph.D. in atmospheric science could certainly call himself a meteorologist and is.

    The only thing I have seen come from you in posting on blog after blog are misleading, inaccurate and politically twisted posts that have a subliminal message for every reader to believe in human caused climate change. But your posts are void of much of what is understood about climate today, and some of your statements you have made are lies, especiallly when you deny having stated that hurricane Katrina is linked to human climate change. There is absolutely no proof of this, David, but you stated it was so.

    These sorts of statements do not come from respectable scientists, they come from political hacks. That is what I consider to be a more accurate descriptive of what your qualifications are to comment about climate science. You don’t even have your facts straight about who I am. I haven’t done “TV weather” in 22 years. And the fact that I did has nothing to do with my education in atmospheric science. Although it is rare, there are people with advanced degrees in atmospheric science ( Walt Lyons Ph.D. in atmospheric science who worked in TV weather for years at WMAQ in Chicago and WCCO-TV in Minneapolis who I had the pleasure of working with ) who do television weather. This is another inefective put down by you that demonstrates your shallow understanding and ignorance of any of these disciplines.

    And you call yourself a “science writer?”

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPEL WRITES: “Meteorologists are just applied scientists, if that, just as chemists are basically applied quantum mechanicians. You deal with 50-yr old science. Real scientists moved past you decades ago, to more interesting and cutting-edge questions. ”

    David Appell: This is another idiotic and ignorant statement of yours. There is no “cutting edge” science that has been offered up in climate study. The infrared absorption bands concerning CO2 were discovered in the Planck/Einstein era and modeled first by William Elsasser from Harvard University in 1942. The only difference between then and now was that Elsasser did not believe the sidebands are important to the earth/atmospheric system because of their low absorption coefficients. Today’s climate GCM’s are an abusive mathematical construct of the system which produce and contain unrealistic solutions in time to the radiative transfer equations and other physical processes that use and transfer energy and therby warm the earth rapidly from small CO2 increases. If I were Elsasser and alive today, I would be laughing at what climate modeling has done and the sheer hubris and arrogance that surrounds the palace that it is housed in. Physics as you should know, has no time expiration date to any derived laws. Climate science has not disproven ANY of Elsasser’s work. It merely supplanted it with abusive construct that cannot do what is claimed. I’ll stand by Elsaser’;s work any day compared to the junk science of climate modeling.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL: All of the links you provide above DO NOT offer up any proof that dead zones are linked to human activity. All of the statements made that surround that issue are nothing but maybes and blind guesses. These statements are part of the “qualifiers” that must be attached to any goverenment funded research that deals with climate. This is the “shtick” that is getting old. Wasting taxpayer money on this crap which ends up proving nothing. Then people like you post it and either claim or assert like Lubchenco does that it is good enough research to conclude the desired “finding” that humans are responsible for climate change/global warming or anything else you want to call it.

    Skeptics are still waiting for that proof that CO2 causes dangerous or even small warming of the earth atmospheric system at the concentrations that are conceivably possible and projected. Where is it, Appell? Further, where are the measurements of the radiative forcings projected in climate models? This always draws a blank stare from proponents of human caused climate change because they cannot and have not provided any.

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist

  • Anonymous

    David,

    There is something wrong with you. Really you are a piece of work and it’s not good work.

    Your many ridiculous assertions and twisted perspectives are the stuff of a misguided and dishonest fanatic.
    Your lame attempt to remove the inseparable connection between meteorology and climatology is just too much BS. Worse than your Katrina/AGW farce.

    And for you to claim that meteorologist who has followed and studied the broader Climate arena for decades is somehow stuck in a 50 year old rut is the ultimate hypocrisy.
    For it is you who has failed miserably to keep up as you trumpet the old and discounted.

    Lubchenco too has failed to keep up. Choosing instead to jump into the vanguard of fabrication and science by supposing.

    Funny but Lubchenco is more like a TV weather person who never got a Meteorology degree than the educated meteorologist who have.
    But you’re only too willing to give her a break.

    Sure non-meteorologist/weathermen may not be highly regarded in the scientific community or by meteorologists either.

    Here you are misrepresenting them as if they are the same.
    Just another lie by David.

    Obviously you are of low character and without adequate knowledge of climate yourself. Misinformation is your specialty.

    Like you Katrina was caused by global warming stunt.

    Is Lubchenco a “Real scientist”? What’s her demonstrated expertise? Pitching the global warming agenda.

    I’ve never heard or read Chuck Wiese suggest or imply that the only relevant discipline in this world is meteorology.

    Here you are again making things up.

    No Jane Lubchenco won’t be expected to go down into NOAA’s basement and actually write and run the computer programs.

    She’s too busy fabricating to the press that “climate models are robust enough to predict wind patterns 100 years from now”
    And that will “help municipalities locate wind farms”.

    Can you grasp how utterly stupid that is?

    That’s made up and distributed to the sheep. Just like her concocted ocean dead zone link to AGW.
    You apparently buy that whopper. And you follow science?

    Being head of NOAA has become a political job. Like many other agencies management is done by professional managers and staff while the head and PR departments peddle their agenda.
    Where did you get the idea Lubchenco has “a great deal of scientific knowledge, as well as a broad range of scientific knowledge”?
    From the litany of empty honorary degrees and prizes for societal interests?

    Her experience and knowledge are in fact mediocre and without the accomplishments of those who do.

    You’ve created, with help from academia, a complete fantasy of what Jane is and what she’ll be able to do.
    The only thing she’ll be assimilating is a far left wing agenda while using taxpayer dollars and a parade of lies you’re too stupid to recognize.
    people and groups together.

    The fact that she is thoughtful, affable and many people respect her is no substitute for scientific accomplishment or honesty.
    She has neither.

    David, you are also one weird dude.

    Who get’s stuck with their own BS (Katrina) and later pretends, multiple times, the exchanges never happen?

    You throw in nonsense, “abuses small animals, conned, snickers, suntan on the beach” like a fool who can’t communicate.
    Talk about a “shtick that’s getting really tiresome”

    Yes David google. Comprehension not so much.

    How is it that you can’t even read the stuff you post

    There is no link established at all.
    That’s the point.
    Supposing there may be a link is just like you supposing Katrina was a warning sign of AGW.

    The FACT is Jane lubchenco’s own OSU researchers “cautioned that they were unable to establish the extend of link, if any to global warming”

    These google finds demonstrate the reach Lubchenco got from her fabricating supposed science.

    She had nothing but the notion that the upwelling that is thought to cause dead zones could be AGW winds.
    For someone who lectures others about which science is credible you sure lose your mind when it’s convenient.

    No, Ocean Dead-Zones are NOT Linked To Global Warming.

    What’s more Lubchenco knew the real cause before she drifted into the science of the AGE movement.
    This proves Lubchenco fabricated the link between ocean dead zones and AGW.

    The year earlier she was clear on the real cause.

    http://lucile.science.oregonstate.edu/lubchenco/Pages/PressRoom/NewsStories.cfm?id=152

    Then politics and career moves took over while science and integrity took a back seat.
    Even though her research found NO link she let the theory fly without ANY basis at all.
    Now she is fully engaged in political activism and the AGW movement. And getting paid well in her new lofty position

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/16/noaa-administrator-lubchenco-gamechanger-global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-united-states/comment-page-1/
    David Appell is a science journalist and he buys every AGW fantasy that surfaces. Then he defends the fabricators.

    Now that Jane Lubchenco has left OSU they may be doing some better work on climate issues.

    OSU

    New Ice Age could be coming
    http://energy.probeinternational.org/new-ice-age-could-be-coming

    Earth could soon be entering a new Ice Age, according to scientists at Oregon State University and other institutions, in a study to be released this week by Science magazine.
    “Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that’s now pretty certain,” said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU. “There were also changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean circulation, but those happened later and amplified a process that had already begun.”

    OSU

    Ocean current switch due to warming could be slower than feared

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsWQZj8wMAtHElZeloaOzmJvBspA

    But Jane says it’s raining more

    http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2169

    NOAA’s New Chief On Restoring
    Science To U.S. Climate Policy
    [OSU] Marine biologist Jane Lubchenco now heads — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Lubchenco discusses the central role her agenc y is playing in understanding the twin threats of global warming and ocean acidification.
    Lubchenco: And I sense that we are moving towards increasing recognition of the reality of climate change, and the fact that it is affecting the things that people care about.

    I sense she is as dumb as David.

    For the record David can you confirm that you are for amnesty, cap and trade/carbon taxes and universal health care? And that you think 911 was a consriracy?

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “Chuck, you really don’t know much about the history of physics, do you?”

    * Nice diversion tactic, David, but you’re the one with a claimed physics background, and it is you that doesn’t seem to know physics history. See below.*

    DAVID APPELL WRITES:”Several prominent physicists disputed the theory underlying Maxwell’s equations, especially his prediction of electromagnetic waves that travel at the speed of sqrt^(-1/2)(epsilon-nought*mu*nought). ”

    * And what does this have to do with anything we have discussed? *

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “Have you ever heard, maybe, of the ether? Have you heard of Lorentz, Poincare, Fresnel, Michaelson?”

    * Yes, David, but you apparently don’t know their succeeding accomplishments.*

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “Einstein finally put a rest to all of them.”

    * No! He most certainly did not! Michaelson was the first guy to come along and estimate the first real value of the speed of light, C, with the interferometer technology he used. The Fresnel equations of diffraction are still valid in modern optical physics today. The only limitation placed upon them is they cannot be used to explain the propagation of electromagnetic waves because of the introduction of quantum mechanics by Einstein. Lorentz was a brilliant physicist who built upon Einstein’s physics, David, not disproved them. Have you ever heard of the Lorentz contractions of time or their relation to Doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation? God lord, man! Have you no compassion for your former pofessors of physics at State University of New York??*

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “In other words, the climate science of the 60s-late 70s was about akin to the ether period. But even then, almost all climate scientists and all government scientists recognized the danger of the buildup of GHG gases in the atmosphere. This goes all the way back to Fourier, then Arrhenius, then Callendar.”

    * David! WTF! This is poppycock! Fourier, Arrhenius and Callendar were ALL before the 60’s and 70’S!
    They were concerned about CO2 as a greenhouse gas UNTIL Alfred Schack and Elsasser came along in the 40’s and 50’s and first discovered the specific absorptive properties of CO2 and determined their effects are NEGLIGIBLE in the atmosphere compared to water vapor and clouds. *

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “No serious and respectable scientists, not even today, disagree with the warming effect of CO2 and other GHGs — not Lindzen, not Michaels, not Lomberg. It’s all a question of the climate sensitivity.”

    * Baloney! Poppycock! There are many who question CO2’s ability to cause any further greenhouse contribution to the earth/atmosphere system over what has already been contributed by the saturated 15 micron band. The problem with you is that you can’t pull your head of where the sun doesn’t shine and recognize the weakness of a claim that is built upon limitations that don’t exist in the real atmosphere. The theoretical considerations behind sideband absorption require alot of special conditions and it’s no wonder because of them that you can’t measure what is claimed to be present by isolated calculations run exclusively from the real dynamic atmosphere.*

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “You look increasingly comical denying this fact. Perhaps you can fool ideological know-nothings like Lars Larson, but your don’t stand a chance in the legitimate scientific community. ”

    * And you look increasingly like a political hack idiot that doesn’t even know the correct history of physics and the greenhouse theory development, all while claiming a Ph.D. in physics. The ideological know nothing is an accurate descriptive of yourself. The more you write, the more you keep putting your foot in your mouth and increasingly look like a fool.*

    * Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist*

  • Chuck Wiese

    DAVID APPELL WRITES: “Several prominent physicists disputed the theory underlying Maxwell’s equations, especially his prediction of electromagnetic waves that travel at the speed of sqrt^(-1/2)(epsilon-nought*mu*nought).

    Einstein finally put a rest to all of them.”

    * David: The speed of an electromagnetic wave given by Maxwell was verified with electric capacitors. There is no dispute about this that ever led to a refutation, and this equation was derived and published in physics texts through 1971. There is no literature in these derivations or notes that Einstein disproved or refuted Maxwell on this. An EM wave speed is 1/(UoEo)1/2^.

    If that is not correct, then where is the accompanying citation that you could show me or point to?

    Chuck Wiese
    Meteorologist*

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)