More Money = More Floralia

This was first published in the College Voice on February 20th, 2008

Freshmen frequently don’t appreciate just how amazing Floralia is. Warm weather, just before finals, everyone outside lolling around on the library green. Musical acts and free food throughout the day. Let’s not pretend: alcohol flowing like the Thames. And then, capping it all off is the final musical act, which is usually a somewhat big name. Last year it was OK Go!, the year before that was Reel Big Fish. You get the picture.
A lot of people complain, though, that we don’t get better headlining bands for Floralia, looking at by bigger schools with bigger budgets getting amazingly popular groups. And, while we shouldn’t ignore how awesome it is to get as well-known groups as we do, it’s true that the bigger the name, the more fun for us, and the more attention Conn gets. So, getting “better” bands is good. Hands down.
The problem is money. SAC does a pretty good job for what they’re presented with, but we simply don’t have as big a budget for such things as bigger, more well-endowed schools.
Enter Tyler Dunham and his creative wonderfulness. Turns out, saving energy saves money, too. And when we use less electricity, the school has more money. Tyler worked out a program with the administration called “Concert from Conservation”, whereby a portion of the money saved by energy conservation goes into the SAC budget for Floralia. Last year it was 25% of the amount we saved compared to the average usage for the last five years. This year, the more we save, the higher percentage SAC gets. So, you want the best band for Floralia that we can get? Start saving energy.
Sometimes it’s hard to remember what you can do to use less electricity, even though you hear them all the time. But there’s a few really basic things you can do:
1.Turn off lights in unoccupied spaces – that means when you leave your room.
2.Turn off appliances and electronics when they’re not being used.
3.Be smart about temperature control – use your heater or the window, not both together.
4.Don’t leave your chargers or TV plugged in all the time, except to power strips that you turn off when you’re not using them. They use a lot of energy just by being plugged in.
5.Use Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFLs) instead of the normal incandescents. Besides using much less energy, they last a lot longer.
So there you have it. Saving energy equals more money. More money equals more and better Floralia. It’s as simple as that. Let’s do this!

The Whole World in Our Hands

This was first published in the College Voice on February 13th, 2008

It’s important to look at problems as holistically as you can. Take the problem of creating mandatory international greenhouse gas regulations. The primary bastions of resistance to mandatory carbon caps (and incidentally also the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters), China and the United States, are in stalemate, neither desiring to commit to such restrictions until the other does.
As Prof. Frasure pointed out in the Focus the Nation panel on this topic on January 31st, there are good reasons for both sides’ resistance. Millions of people in China still live in abject poverty, and their recent explosion of development, powered by large amounts of dirty coal, is expected to trickle higher living conditions down to much of the population. Calls from the West to constrict their emissions sound to Chinese leaders as if we either don’t care about or aren’t considering their need to industrialize, or even worse, don’t want them to industrialize at all.
On the side of our own country, it’s not as simple as acting on a moral imperative, nor is it as simple as passing off the initiating of change to the Market, waiting until our political leaders feel like doing something. Yes, we have a moral imperative to do everything we can to address climate change. Yes, we also have a moral imperative to make sure that our economy does not suffer as a result. The situation isn’t purely one way or the other.
There are a few important things to think about, however. First, prominent corporate consulting firms have concluded that the US can make huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at small cost to the economy1. Perhaps even more persuasive are studies indicating that the cost to the economy will only increase the longer we wait before imposing restrictions2.
Prof. Frasure argued that these things may all be true, but the reality is that Congress will not vote to support any international agreement that does not include China. He knows what he’s talking about; this is likely the case. But that’s a problem that many refer to as lack of political will, and as Al Gore is so fond of saying, that is a renewable resource.
But getting politicians to act morally can be a difficult and grueling process, so what do we do while we’re waiting for our efforts to convince them? Well, it’s important that China subscribe to any climate agreement as well, as we know. But how can we help China continue its development while at the same time steering away from dirty fuel? Developing nations frequently argue that advocating for their use of renewable energy ignores the fact that all these technologies are patented in Europe and the US! So then, if we really want a global solution to this global problem, we not only have to ramp up our domestic pressure on political leaders, but also push for some technology transfer program. Only by dispensing with tunnel vision and seeing all facets of our problems can we come to a good solution.

Focus the Nation

This was first published in the College Voice on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

Focus the Nation is this Thursday! In case you haven’t heard yet, it’s a national day of discussion about climate change solutions happening at approximately 1500 colleges and universities around the country. It’s really going to be a wonderful event, and all the events are free. Here’s what the schedule looks like:

Wednesday at 7:45 we’re screening the live webcast “The 2% Solution” in Bill 106. It’s called that because in order to achieve the “80% by 2050” targets for reducing carbon emissions, we need to make approximately 2% reductions each year. Anyways, the webcast’s going to be AMAZING, with a bunch of really cool climate experts (including Van Jones, who’s amazing), and then Edward Norton. There will even be text-message voting. That’s about all I know. It’s going to be really cool.

The main bulk of our events are during the day on Thursday. In each of the five standard class blocks from 9am-4pm there will be a panel discussion with faculty and some outside speakers. The topics and panelists are on the Focus the Nation facebook event, but essentially (and in order) they are: Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Food, Climate Effects on Nature, Green Building, and China & India. There are great panelists, and dedicated student moderators, as well. Come, learn some really interesting stuff, and support your classmates!

The final segment of the event is a talk co-sponsored by the Education department and the Goodwin-Niering Center, and it’s happening at 7pm Thursday night. The speaker is Dr. Greg Cajete, Director of the Native American Studies program at the University of New Mexico. He’ll be speaking on ecological education from an indigenous perspective. This event is somewhere in Blaustein, probably Ernst Common Room.

And this is just what we’ve got pinned down so far. There are a number of other initiatives that are part of the national event which we haven’t worked on for here, involving a project called Choose Your Future, where you can vote which solutions you think are best for solving the climate crisis. The results of that will be used to attempt an influence on the political discussion of environmental issues.

Finally, remember to vote in your state’s primary if you still can (that is, if you’re registered and all), or to send in your absentee ballot, whatever you’re doing. This is a crucial presidential election, and the primary’s a very big deal, in which the course of both parties’ future will be influenced one way or another. Get active! Make your voice heard! Shuffle off the apathetic coil! Our generation is really awesome, and by dropping our apathy and influencing this election we can really gain a lot of respect from our parents’ generation.

More information about Focus the Nation can be found at http://www.focusthenation.org, and this and all other environmental news from Conn is online at http://conncollgreen.wordpress.com.

Stop the flood of catalogs!

Greetings of the season! I post this in the interest of promoting a “greener” one. As a Connecticut College Building Environmental Representative and long-term member of the Environmental Modeling Committee, I’d like to share a “waste minimization” resource that I discovered through the Alix in Wonderland Blog of my subscription to National Geographic’s “Green Guide”. There is a FREE online service Web site called CATALOG CHOICE that you can use to stop the flood of unwanted catalogs that clog your mailboxes, both here and at home. Once you’ve thumbed through them all and made your holiday-gift-giving decisions, use Catalog Choice to get off those mailing lists and look forward to seeing an emptier mailbox come January. It takes up to ten weeks to cycle out of many catalog mailing lists, so do it now, and be patient. Simply go to the site and register. You then go through the alphabetized list to select the catalogs that you no longer wish to receive. Your privacy is protected. You can also assist in the effort by adding catalogs that you receive, but that are not in the database as yet.

Companies and merchants also wish to know who does not want their catalogs, as that saves them money, too. Catalog Choice is a sponsored project of the Ecology Center. It is endorsed by the National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and funded by the Overbrook Foundation, the Merck Family Fund, and the Kendeda Fund. They provide all the wonderful reasons why this is so good for the Earth on the Web site. Think of the trees that will go uncut, the barrels of oil saved, the gasoline not used, and smiles on the faces of relieved mail carriers! Happy Holidays.

Very Green SGA meeting

So I attended pretty much the entire SGA meeting tonight, and I’m glad I did. There were three environmentally-related items that were brought up. First, a statement endorsing Focus the Nation was almost unanimously passed. Second, the proposal for a sustainable food co-op potentially in the former Harkness dining hall was overwhelmingly supported but tabled until the plan is elaborated on more. Lastly, the proposal for an SGA exec board position to coordinate environmental efforts was also widely supported, but was quickly voted to be tabled as well, simply due to the fact that everyone was very tired and wanted to give it the full discussion it deserved. It’s kind of ridiculous; I just wrote this week’s Voice article, and acknowledged that things would likely change before it was published, and here they have–this is exactly the sort of thing I would have liked to write about, and also, the congressional energy bill passed the House and will be voted on in the Senate tomorrow. Exciting times at Conn and around the world.

So here’s the summary:

Focus the Nation endorsement: strongly supported, voted, passed

Harkness Sustainable Foods Co-op: strongly supported, tabled

Environmental exec board position: strongly supported, tabled

Green Progress Being Born Right Now

This article was first published in the College Voice on 12/7/07. Written by Alex Krogh-Grabbe and Pat Wallace.

There are so many exciting changes in climate policy happening right now, that this may be old news before it reaches your eyes. While we might be anxious about this from a journalistic perspective, it’s thrilling to see that the changes we desperately need are actually happening.

Before getting to all the positive news, we want to address a few issues presented by Prof. Monce in his most recent letter. First, he tries to argue that we missed his assertion that “a single piece of confirmed contrary evidence” can overturn an established scientific theory. We didn’t miss his claim, but since policy is being formed on climate change right now, policymakers need to rely on the best science available. Even though Prof. Monce might disagree, the best available science about climate change points decisively to human-produced greenhouse gases as the primary cause.

Consider also that ethical-but-misguided scientists like Prof. Monce make up a small minority of “climate deniers”. Most of those who dispute the current state of climate science are in the employ of oil, coal, and auto companies, or far-right political think-tanks. We urge Prof. Monce to be as critical of his own theory as he asks us to be of ours.

But this dry dispute has diluted this column for too long. We’re moving on. News about climate change is now dominated by a happy and hopeful exclamation mark, not a murky question mark.

In the next few days (perhaps by the time you read this) the US Senate will vote on the 2007 Energy Bill, which has provisions raising fuel efficiency standards from 25 to 35 mpg, and possibly a Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires electrical utilities to get 15% of their power from clean energy by 2020. This will be a fantastic step forward for a political body that has recently been unacceptably stagnant. It’s a great step, but it’s just one step; we must hope and demand that whoever is elected president next fall will bring the US up to par with the rest of the world. We need to work toward much higher investment in clean energy, a moratorium on new coal plants, and a reduction in subsidies for dirty energy. This will inject bright green power into our economy, creating millions of new jobs and the sort of prosperity we demand.

Also going down this week are the international climate negotiations in Bali, Indonesia. Delegations from nearly every country in the world are meeting this week and next to generate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto agreement required that signatory nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Until now, only Australia and the US were the only industrialized countries to not ratify the Protocol. But just a few days ago, the brand new Australian prime minister announced that he would sign the treaty, leaving the United States as the last industrialized nation holding out against it. There are great hopes that Bali will set the stage for a meeting after the Bush administration leaves office in which a new international climate action plan can be created.

These phenomenal political initiatives show that the American people, and the people of the world, have realized that the time for environmental action is now.

Monce Letter #3

This letter originally appeared in the College Voice on 11/30/07

I’d like to respond again to Mr. Krogh-Grabbe, and now also the Renewable Energy Club (REC).

First, Mr. Krogh-Grabbe: he seems to have missed my argument in the first part of my article of November 9,16th, in which I state that all it takes is a single piece of confirmed contrary evidence to overturn a hypothesis, while it takes a very large amount of data to confirm a hypothesis. This is the way science operates. The fact that the data I presented is a “small sample” has nothing to do with its validity in refuting a hypothesis. I’ll present another example: in the late 1800′s a truly “overwhelming majority” (to use the REC’s phrase) of physicists were convincced that light traveled through a substance called the “ether”. Then along came Michelson and Morley who did an experiment to measure the ether. They failed in their attempt. In fact, Michelson remained so convinced, even after their failed experiment, that he would not give up the idea of the ether. However, that ONE single experiment overturned our notions of light, and laid the foundations for Einstein’s relativity. The experiment wasn’t really a failure, it was just nature telling us we were wrong in our thinking.

The REC accuses me of scaring them because of I offer no alternative to stopping solar variation. Of course I do not; there isn’t a solution. We live with the star we have. There is absolutely nothing we can do at present to alter in any way our star’s output. However, I don’t think all is lost. Looking at the historical data I presented I would have assumed that when presented with the fact that the Middle Ages were much warmer than today and no major ecological disaster occurred, that would be a comforting revelation. I look forward to perhaps some wine from Great Britain again. In fact, looking at the data for 10-100,000 year time frames shows the current variation to be well within past trends; there is nothing today outside of the variability the planet has shown in the past. The REC also is irresponsible when it invokes the scare image of imminent coastal flooding of New England and Florida, which I assume refers to the rising ocean levels. A very recent paper reappraises sea-level rise rates and adjusts the data using GPS techniques, thus giving an even more accurate estimate than that given in the recent IPCC report. The IPCC reports 1.8 mm/year, while the new report gives a value of 1.3 mm/yr (Woppelman et al, Global Planetary Change, vol 57, 396 (2007). I assume New London qualifies as coastal region and has an average elecation of maybe at most 2 meters. So using both the IPCC and the new values we find that New London will be under water in either 1100 years or 1500 years. That’s a long time from now. It also assumes the climate won’t change again, which the historical data tells us is most unlikely.

Where in my article did I ever exhibit a “do-nothing attitude”? If the REC is going to use personal insults as an intellectual argument, they could at least back up such statements. In the very last paragraph of the article I state quite clearly that I would like to see the entire US transportation system to be petroleum free. How is that “doing nothing?” I also never stated anywhere that I thought reducing CO2 emissions is a worthless effort. The REC might want to look back into the Environmental Modeling Committee minutes of a couple of years ago and see who was the prime supporter of installing a large number of solar panels for campus energy generation before they accuse me of trying to “stop their greening efforts.” Further, would the REC support the construction of nuclear power plants for electric generation? They have absolutely no CO2 emission. If not, I cannot take their rather emotional and political fight for CO2 reduction too seriously from a scientific standpoint.

- Michael Monce, Professor of Physics

Response to the Climate Debate

This article first appeared in the College Voice on 11/16/07.

 

In his most recent letter, Professor Monce further argues against the conventional wisdom of climate science. He points out that scientific truth is determined by repeated empirical testing, not by consensus. He accuses the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of not sufficiently examining contrary evidence, and further pushes the opinion that solar variation (not human-produced greenhouse gas) is the primary driving force of global warming. According to Prof. Monce, there are reputable studies supporting this claim.

It seems like a lot of what Prof. Monce is concerned about is that climate scientists have rushed to a conclusion about the causes of climate change. However, the leading authority on climate sceince, the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, was very meticulous in its analysis of information. It includes the input of “more than 1200 authors, [and] 2500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries” (according to the Union of Concerned Scientists). Furthermore, the full report references more than 19,000 scientific studies. Of course, the consideration of dissenting experimental results is very important for the integrity of the scientific process, but when the conclusive, repeated majority of data support a hypothesis, it must be accepted as the most likely reality. In this situation, the reality is that CO2 emissions play the primary role in causing global climate change.

Prof. Monce successfully shows in the four studies he presents that no conclusions can be drawn by looking at such a small sample size, because he admits that three different conclusions are reached in these studies. However, the 2007 IPCC report is a large enough sample size to reach a consensus. The full report spends a number of dense pages painstakingly going over the evidence about solar variation’s role in climate change. More than 750 individual studies are cited in the section that considers solar irradiance. In fact, three of the eight scientists Prof. Monce cites are directly referenced in this section. The most recent IPCC report actually changed its conclusions regarding solar irradiance due to new experimental evidence. Because of this new evidence, the effect of solar variation on global warming was modified in the new report to be less than half of the previously published value. When looked at without bias, it is impossible to criticize the IPCC of not taking a wide enough sample of climatological studies. For more information, adventurous readers are encouraged to take a look at “Section 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing” of the full IPCC report.

In conclusion, while Prof. Monce makes a good point about the centrality of repeated experimental results in science, his small survey of studies presents a false image of the state of current climate science. The IPCC considers almost 20,000 studies, and it concludes that “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20^th century is very likely [greater than 90% certainty in official IPCC language] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas emissions”. This supports the statistic from An Inconvenient Truth which states that of the over 9000 peer-reviewed journal articles about climate science, none of those surveyed found results disagreeing with the anthropogenic nature of climate change. Prof. Monce tallies up the stances of his four sources, coming to the conclusion that there is no strong consensus about the cause of climate change. In comparison to the high volume of data collected by the IPCC and that presented in An Inconvenient Truth, this negligibly small sample size presents a ridiculous portrayal of an overall scientific agreement.

As a side note, we would also like to briefly object to the patronizing tone Prof. Monce takes in his letters. True, he is a tenured professor, with multiple advanced degrees. However, this is a forum where students and faculty are equals; we all have access to the same tools of rationality and research. It is inappropriate to treat fellow intellectuals as if we were students in his class, leaving us “exercises” and saying things such as “I am a faculty member” and “Since he didn’t bother to do the homework…” This is condescending and offensive. If the facts are being debated, they should presented objectively. We look forward to a continued, mature debate.

Letter from the Renewable Energy Club

This letter to the editor appeared in the 11/16/07 edition of the College Voice.

The debate being played out between Professor Monce and Alex Krogh-Grabbe regarding global warming is quite unsettling. We have had an especially hard time digesting the assertions made by Professor Monce, not because his viewpoint is in the minority, or that it completely contradicts the cause we fight for, or even the chance that he might be right. Professor Monce’s letters scare us because they are void of any alternative solution to global warming. How can we as a human race even attempt to stop solar variation?

What the last couple articles between Professor Monce and Alex have shown is that no scientist is ever 100% certain on anything. But from a political standpoint, we cannot simply ignore a ticking time bomb, especially when only one explanation provides a solution.

But let’s take a step back and assume for a moment that Professor Monce’s assertions are right, and increased CO₂ levels are not the main cause of the earth’s warming. If this is the case, would our efforts at lowering CO₂ emissions be in vain? The answer is no. At the very least, we as a community will have worked towards countering environmental and economic injustices. Our efforts will have gone towards helping low-income families living near power plants, redistributing the wealth influx generated by oil and motor companies, and producing a cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing world. The reduction of CO₂ emissions will still benefit the country, regardless of whether CO₂ is warming the planet.

If we as a college community take Professor Monce’s opinion as truth and stop our ‘greening’ efforts, we are left vulnerable. What if he is wrong? Of course, the exact repercussions of global warming are not known completely, but can anyone really ignore the images where most of Florida, Boston, the World Trade Center Memorial, and coastal regions of New England are all under water? This is a future we will not accept. We fear that Professor Monce’s do-nothing attitude may have led some people to believe that there is no humanitarian need in shutting off their lights or boycotting the sales of SUVs.

It’s pointless to argue over the root cause of global warming. Instead, we should be focused on doing whatever we can to prevent the irreversible changes to our economy, food supply, population distribution, and standard of living. So until Professor Monce provides some human solution to solar variation, we think we should be acting on the best solution provided to us: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The best way for us to do this is through efficiency and a strong investment in clean energy. We hope that Professor Monce recognizes the importance of combating CO₂ emissions, even if he disagrees with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community about the cause global warming.

-The Renewable Energy Club

Response to “A Response to Climate Waffling”

This letter first appeared in the The College Voice on 11/9/07 and 11/16/07.

I would like to thank Mr. Krogh-Grabbe for his very thoughtful response (Oct. 19, Voice) to my letter. He raises some interesting issues to which I would like to respond.

First a few comments about the nature of science. I am glad he understands that no idea in science is ever fully proven. However, I believe he places too much emphasis on the idea of “consensus” and also authority as the indicator of scientific “truth” as opposed to what I think is the real nature of science: that of overwhelming experimental data supporting a theory. Nature doesn’t really care what the consensus of scientists is at any moment; that consensus has been shown to be completely wrong many times in the history of science. Instead, it is up the scientist to evaluate every piece of data and see if it fits or doesn’t fit with the current hypothesis. If it doesn’t fit then the hypothesis must be re-examined. A simple example: the overwhelming data is that objects near the earth’s surface accelerate at 9.81 m/sec^2. You, or any else, can do the experiment and the result always seems to be the same. However, if there was one person who came up with the value of 7 m/sec^2, and it was repeatable, then the scientific community would have to reevaluate their notions of why we predict 9.8 m/sec^2 as the correct number. In the case of human-induced climate change, there is much more than one piece of evidence pointing towards explanations other than human influence. Those who support the idea of human influence as the primary cause of the current warming must respond, in a scientific argument, to that contrary data. Mr. Krogh-Grabbe is not quite correct to say I don’t trust the IPCC, I just think they have not properly evaluated the conflicting data which does not support their conclusions.

Let’s get down to specifics. We both agree that there is a warming trend. We also both agree that CO₂ levels are rising and that a portion of that rise is due to fossil fuel burning. We both agree that the greenhouse effect exists, just look at Venus! However, Venus has a 95% CO₂ atmosphere while the Earth’s CO₂ percentage is 0.03% (3 parts in 10,000). The primary disagreement between us is that I contend that the solar influence is most likely a larger source of climate change than human produced CO₂ emissions. Like other members of the College community I can order any non-subscription journal articles from the library and they usually arrive on my computer in a day or so. That is how I have copies of those articles that I cited. However, I will now show some of that data and how it casts some doubt on the basic hypothesis of human-induced global warming.

We both seem to agree that the climate has been warming for at least the past 5-600 years since “The Little Ice Age”; well before SUV’s. Mr. Krogh-Grabbe’s main contention seems to be that the temperature rise during the past 2-3 decades is an accelerated temperature rise and that its primary cause is human produced CO₂. Take a look at the following graph (Fig. 1, from NASA) which puts into a longer term perspective the current temperature rise. Note how our current situation isn’t even close to the Medieval Warm Period.

 

Now, the IPCC’s position that this rise is due to human produced CO₂. However, there is another other proposed mechanism of solar variation. Let’s look at several papers dealing with this hypothesis that are published in the mainstream scientific journals. In Figure 2 we see the temperature and solar variation (solid line) data from Moberg et al. Again note on the left edge the end of the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age just before 1600AD, and the general warming since that time. The correlation Moberg et al show is quite striking and convincing as to the solar influence.

 

However, in a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Lockwood and Frohlich take much of the same data that Moberg uses and reanalyze the data and end up with the graph Mr. Krogh-Grabbe references in his article and is displayed on the link he gave to the Max Planck Institute. This graph shows no recent correlation between solar and temperature. Now, in yet another data set, this time by Scafetta and West shown in Figure 3, we see that the solar contribution past about 1970, does not correlate as well as the Moberg data does with temperature. However, Scafetta and West do attribute at least 50% of the current warming to solar influence.

And finally, we have the data of Svensmark and Friis-Christiansen which is in response to the Lockwood analysis. What is interesting about the Svensmark paper which shows a near perfect correlation of temperature with solar is that they have removed from the temperature data of the last 4 decades the influences of the El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and various volcanic events; all notorious acute disruptors of the climate.

Let’s tally the “consensus”: one for human induced warming, one for 50% human influence, and two against. As a professional scientist I find this situation fascinating in that there really is no overwhelming avalanche of data and analysis for either case. That means to me, that we have a lot more to learn about what is happening with the whole climate change business. Also, both Lockwood and Scafetta readily admit that the evidence for the solar influence being the prime mover of climate in the past is very strong. What is interesting about this position is that it requires that the sun suddenly is no longer the prime mover of climate starting around 1970. Given the historical data shown I find that a difficult assumption to make.

One final piece of data that seems timely: the paper by Soon (Figure 4) shows a strong correlation again between the sun and the Arctic temperature. Given this data it is not too surprising that the Arctic passage opened up this past summer.

 

I’ve already discussed Mr. Krogh-Grabbe’s reference to the Max Planck Institute, but I also need to respond to his other reference at the World Radiation Center. At first glance their graphical data does seem to show a flat trend in solar variation. However, he seems to have missed a critical sentence in their data description: “It is important to note that the model is an independent source of information for comparisons and as long as it is not used for over solar cycle time scales it provides a reliable time series for time scales of less than a year.” (emphasis mine). The model data shown is for comparison on a daily-monthly basis to the well-known 11 year solar cycle; it is not valid for decadal solar series.

Finally, Mr. Krogh-Grabbe praises, in a back-handed way, my pointing out that even hybrids come with environmental cost. I left as an exercise for the student (I am a faculty member) the energy cost of the nickel production in a hybrid. Since he didn’t bother to do the “homework” let me give the answer: the 33 lbs. of nickel in a typical hybrid, according to what I’ve calculated, invokes about a 100 gallons of gasoline energy penalty. This is obviously easily made up in about 5 tank fills with the hybrid given its relatively high mileage over the SUV. It doesn’t take into account the chemical runoff in the mining, refining, etc. of the nickel. Mr. Krogh-Grabbe might be surprised to learn that I actually think hybrids should become more widespread (SUV hybrids?) and hopefully cheaper so more people could buy them. I wonder if the Prius is a bit overpriced? Nah, that would mean Toyota might be interested in making a large profit. In fact, I would like to see the entire U.S. ground transportation system be totally petroleum-free. The problem is that that there doesn’t seem to be viable alternative (i.e. new energy source) that can handle the job. My reason for wanting this has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, but I think it’s interesting that we both would like to see the same end result.

Michael Monce, Professor, Physics