We do import a lot transportation fuel and trying to work coal out of the mix has it challenges, but we a far better off than many who lack any resource to fuel there economy. It is interesting the coal is being repalced because of its CO2 GHG emissions when it appears that Gas Extraction and leakage of methane will have a larger impact on global warming than continuing to burn coal.

It is too bad that the science of global warming is politics.

China of course does have one, and eventually - if not sooner . Russia will also have one. That's why the bells will keep ringing for China, and eventually the Kremlin bosses will look down their noses at morons like Niall Ferguson, who thinks that Turkey and Indonesia are countries of the future, and not Russia and Brazil.

The science is readily available and accessible to anyone who can comprehend highschool physics and maths, though it takes some practice to recognize and weed out the politics.

If as you say the science is clean and clear then perhaps you can offer a pluasible explanation as to why the earth was much warmer than it is today with far less CO2 in the atmosphere, That is the bit conveniently left out of the famous hockey stick curve. Or perhaps offer an explanation as to why the largest coal field in the world lies beneath Antarctica which appears to be kinda cold right now and not a place where carbonaceous materials would grow.

Puzzlings facts to those with a questioning attitude.

Malcolm

However, I realize the discussion is pointless, since you're opreating from a religios viewpoint and not a scientific one.

Happy New Year to you all. Looks like we humns made it through another year relatively unscathed.

Malcolm

Also of interest are the Black & Veatch forecasts indicating that coal use for generation in the USA may drop upto 16% by 2020 and may only cature 16% market share by 2036 (down from a peak of about 57% just a few years ago)with natural gas holding 44% and non-hydro renewables hitting 13%.

Malcom, I'm fairly familiar with the NASA work related to solar irradiance and magnetic (and galactic cosmic ray) influence on climate. While these can play a role, I'm not aware of work indicating these are key drivers of present climate change. For example, solar activity has been implicated as contributing to the little ice age and cosmic rays appear to have a role in cloud formation. However, neither of these effects appear to provide an adequate explanation of present day warming. I'd appreciate links if you have them. Everything I have seen indicates that: 1) warming is certain; 2) the primary forcing agent is GHG.

Thanks for your interest in the topic of atmospheric interaction with solar radiation. I read several papers on this a couple of years ago and will post the references to them once I have located them. The key to me was that this work explained all historical changes in the worlds climate very accurately. Len has noted some catastrophic events which indeed have affected climate but only for short periods in geologic time. Enough to wipe out certain life forms but not enough to affect long term changes in climate. It is these events that are not explained by carbon dioxide concentrations and are the very ones that were left out of the now discredited hockey stick graph. As I said earlier the lack of a coherent theory that explains all changes in climate logically means that carbon dioxide is not and cannot be the only mechanism at work. What I do find annoying is the lack of willingness to consider other options. Scientists should continually question their theories and I am not convinced that this is the case. Anyone questioning global warming these days is now considered a heretic. I hear repeatedly on the news that almost any severe weather is now attributable to global warming when study after study after study shows the weather to be no more severe now than it has been in the past. Hurricanes are a case in point. Neither the frequency nor the severity (wind speed) has changed significantly in the last 50 years. The damage caused has changed but that is due to the fact that there is more human stuff to be damaged not that the weather event was more severe. I am sorry if my questioning of these theories makes me some kind or religious heretic but it would put me in the company of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein so I don't mind. Going back to natural gas you mentioned the gas fuel cells as a key development. I agree 100% that this technology could result in major changes to the electricity business. I have been looking into these devices and if prices come down to around $5,000 it would be an economic proposition for any household since only one utility (gas) would be required. They are essentially mini CHP plants and are silent. Widespread adoption would require extension of the gas distribution network but it has the distinct advantage that it could conceivably do away with the requirement for overhead power lines. That is a technology to watch for. Thanks for your comments. Malcolm

I do like your economic justification; I have been amazed since my first Intro to Economics class back in 1979 of how the US could continue to get away with trading its paper as if it is backed some commodity like wheat, oil or gold. For a long time I believed some event would set off a flood of the US currency coming home and fuel inflation, like post WW1 Germany, measured in daily whole numbers rather than percent.

However, so many nations have so much US currency now, I have come to believe US currency has passed critical mass and the stability US currency is economically more important to the nations holding it than to the US itself. I do not believe countries holding our currency can easily or quickly escape from the current situation. I would argue the currency they are holding is already worth less than the paper it is printed own but as long as no one flinches it does not really matter. The emperor can stroll naked as long as he wants because no one can afford not to brag about the beauty of his robe. Unlike the fable if someone tries point he is naked a thousand voices will proclaim the beauty of the robe until the detractors are silenced.

To me it appears that the US remains in the cat bird seat. Inflation that would crush the Social Security fund would be offset in the real value of the US debt. The big US losers would be those with wealth in dollars liking the aging avoiding risk of the stock market; however, nationwide if wages keep up even their losses would likely be made up by real the reduction in the debt of the younger generations.

Anyway got off on a tangent, just my thoughts on it, Professor Bank can point out the flaws in my simplistic reasoning.

McDONALD, Ohio (AP) — Officials said Saturday they believe the latest earthquake activity in northeast Ohio is related to the injection of wastewater into the ground near a fault line, creating enough pressure to cause seismic activity.

The brine wastewater comes from drilling operations that use the so-called fracking process to extract gas from underground shale. But Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Jim Zehringer said during a news teleconference that fracking is not causing the quakes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A boom in gas production using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has led to a patchwork of local drilling standards. Now, several states are revising or formulating rules, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is studying the effects of fracking on drinking water and weighing nationwide regulations.

One reason we do this that we were invited to participate in the 2011 natural gas irp.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmgco/nmgco.htm

Altenergy ... and possible fraud .. facinates us.

New Mexico wind generation of electricity field trip.

http://www.prosefights.org/fplwind/fplwind.htm

The current Iran situation we have been involved in for 20 years.

http://www.prosefights.org/whitmancrocker/whitmancrocker.htm#rumsfeld

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/energy-giants-undeterred-by-quakes-seek-shale-stakes-in-runway-to-growth-.html

Further, even if by some miracle one could establish the level of future global warming associated with increased CO2, there is virtually no way to ascertain whether good outweighs the bad. Example: consider the last ice age. The planet is now warmer, and we are better off because it is warmer.

High-priced "carbon free" renewable energy, as promulgated by global warming hysteria, does nothing to actually reduce CO2 and only serves to needlessly drain our wallets. Worse yet, the real threat to our livelihoods is completely ignored.

Mankind needs reasonably priced energy to thrive. The opportunities mentioned in the article directly address this critical need. An element of these opportunities (e.g. producing and using energy more efficiently) is vastly more effective at reducing CO2 emissions than the current "politically correct" array of renewable energy technologies.

For a handful of recent posts on the internet see the following. I have about 200 more posted mover the last 3 years.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-belief/ The best paper I have seen on GCMs and the SRES. Excerpt But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.”

http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/ the climategate e=mails analyzed – in detail

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/ Excellent analysis demonstrating no CO2 induced warming.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pacific_decadal.pdf and http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/What%20Surface%20Temperature%20V2_R%20Clark_9%2020%2010.pd fMore evidence of natural causes of warming and inadequacies of climate models.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/ Another reformed believer

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/on-the-ipccs-undue-confidence-in-coupled-ocean-atmosphere-climate-models-a-summary-of-recent-posts/#more-53769 IPCC models thoroughly debunked, with references that letv warmers repeat the work for themselves.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/ so much for dendrochronology. And then see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/03/paging-mike-mann-your-dendrochronologist-will-see-you-now/#more-54107 in the Climategate papers, release 2.

If any of your links to scepticism are by legitimate climatologists in peer reviewed publications, please point that out.

Despite failing to provide ourselves electric service worldwide we have not succeeded in reducing CO2 emissions. We have not succeeded in keeping them from increasing. We have not even succeeded at bending the growth curve. And nobody seems to face the fact that burning more natural gas makes it worse.

Sustainability is still being talked about as a goal. We had sustainability. It was the norm (except for the last 1000 years) but never were more than 300 million people sustained.

We have too many people. We did it to ourselves, and I think we would do it all over again even knowing what is known today. Some of us knew it 50 years ago and were considered nuts then and reprehensible now for not having done anything about it.

We are all immersed in and peeing in the same pool. Reduction of C02 emissions for altruistic reasons by a country does economic damage to that country and makes that country by some measure less competitive. Its citizens make the sacrifice. Good deeds must be punished

"The author thanks Prof. Carl Wunsch, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Prof. Paul Switzer, Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Prof. Ross McKitrick, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Prof. Christopher Essex, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Prof. Sebastian Doniach, Departments of Physics and Applied Physics, Stanford University, Dr. Gerald L. Browning, Research Scientist (Emeritus), Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), Colorado State University, and Ms. Christine Adams, Redwood City, CA, for reviewing a prior version of this manuscript. The patience and consideration of Prof. McKitrick in performing all the Phillips-Perron tests in SI Section 4 is also very gratefully acknowledged. Any errors and all conclusions herein remain the sole responsibility of the author."

Now let me provide some references to critiques of the physics of climatology, done by qualified physicists, some with specific expertise in gas/climate physics, and peer reviewed. You won't want to read them either, for fear that they will challenge your cherished belief.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/hans-jelbring-the-greenhouse-effect-as-a-function-of-atmospheric-mass/ Another argument (peer review published in 2003) for the irrelevance of CO2, supported by this argument from a century earlier and never refuted http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/ and apparently independently developed in this conference poster http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-and-zeller/ . This argument is stirring a lot of controversy with exchanges from both sides about erroneous physics. Further support appears here http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.1508v2.pdf . Another paper here http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233 (see link to the whole paper) supports the above arguments and puts paid to both the “physics” and consensus arguments for AGW.

cheers, Murray

The Movement Runs Out of Gas Americans’ interest in taking action against global warming is waning, but environmental groups insist that public opinion plays no role in explaining Congress’s failure to enact comprehensive climate change legislation. Instead, green groups attribute the failure to achieve their goals to the money and power of their opponents. According to their reckoning, environmental groups are stymied by what amounts to a conspiracy of the oil industry, global warming deniers, and the Koch brothers’ vast right-wing network. In the summer of 2011, Dr. Matthew Nisbet of American University released a pioneering 80-page report, which undermines this argument. Nisbet’s report, “Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate,” rejects the argument that the environmental movement has been outspent by right-wing donors like the Koch brothers. It says the data is inconclusive on how much supporters and opponents of a cap-and-trade bill are spending to affect the outcome. For instance, Nisbet compared the budgets of the conservative movement (think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations) to national environmental organizations. He found that in 2009, major conservative outlets took in a total of $907 million in revenue, and spent $787 million. By comparison, green groups took in $1.7 billion that year and spent $1.4 billion. Another $394 million went specifically to climate-change related programs. Nisbet also looked at lobbying. In the aggregate, conservatives spent a bit more: $272 million vs. $229 million. But in election spending, they far outspent environmentalists in 2010. For instance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $33 million, the Karl Rove-advised American Crossroads spent $22 million and its affiliated Crossroads GPS spent $17 million in political contributions. By contrast, the League of Conservation Voters spent $5.5 million, Defenders of Wildlife spent $1 million and the Sierra Club only $700,000. However, state ballot initiatives tell a different story. California’s Proposition 23 is a case in point. The 2010 initiative, heavily funded by Texas-based oil companies, would have halted California regulations on greenhouse gas emissions until there was a decline in the state’s rate of unemployment. Supporters of the measure raised about $10.6 million. But opponents raised $25 million, with significiant sums from environmental groups. The National Wildlife Foundation reported spending $3 million, the National Resources Defense Council $1.67 million, and the League of Conservation Voters $1.1 million. Nisbet also looked at foundation funding for climate change projects. What he found confirmed a 2007 study, “Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming,” which noted that philanthropists are strategic funders of environmental causes and seek to achieve specific policy goals. It’s clear that overall, the environmental movement does not have a money problem.

Note the conclusion. Then you might check the IPCC budget and grants. Their resources dwarf the anti-AGW crowd. I'll bet you don't check, because you don't want to know. Another chericshed belief would be in jeopardy.

Look Murray, I used to go along with the tactic of flooding a discussion with endless references to quasi-scientific papers published mostly in questionabe journals, but I've grown weary of the chase for verifiable facts. Let your "expert non-climatologists" convince the IPCC, then we can talk.

We've crossed swords in years past on the subject of AGW. I see you haven't changed your positions. You'll be unsurprised to hear that neither have I. But even though we disagree, I've never doubted your sincerity. So once again, for auld lang syne, "have at you, sir".

You say "the models don't deal with atmospheric convection, which transports about 10 times as much heat to the top of the atmosphere as radiation." The fact that you make that statement indicates, ipso facto, that you have been taken in by well-crafted junk.

It's absolutely correct that convection transports about 10 times as much heat to the "top of the atmosphere" (you meant top of the troposphere) as thermal radiation. It's absolutely wrong that the general circulation models (GCMs) used by CC researchers don't account for that. The researchers would be idiots to build their GCMs without taking account of atmospheric convection.

When one encounters a thesis that requires one to believe that an entire class of researchers are complete idiots about their area of expertise, it's a pretty good bet that it's the thesis that is a crock. Just a rule of thumb, but one I've found to be pretty reliable.

What your skeptic sources are likely challenging is the way that the GCMs account for convection. It's statistical, in the same way that modeling of turbulent flows is always, and by necessity, statistical. The models don't attempt to model the behavior of individual convection cells, but you can be sure that they include well-validated models for the effects of those cells.

Your sources can accurately say that the GCMs don't operate at the level of granularity that would be needed to simulate the formation and evolution of individual convection cells. It isn't computationally feasible to do that, even with today's supercomputers. Also not necessary, since the statistical treatment of convective transport work quite well for what the GCMs are modeling. However, your propagandists don't mention that. They just note that GCMs don't model individual convection cells, and allow the naive reader to conclude "they don't account for convection".