In keeping with our role as a site that tries to deal with the science of climate change rather than the politics, we have specifically refrained from commenting on various politically-motivated legal shenanigans relating to climate science. Some of them have involved us directly, but we didn’t (don’t) want to have RC become just a blog about us. However, the latest move by Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia, against Mike Mann and UVa is so ridiculous it needs to be highlighted to the widest audience possible.
For background, Rosalind Helderman at the Washington Post has covered most of the story. The last installment was that Cuccinelli’s attempt to subpoena 10 years of emails between 39 scientists and Mike Mann and ‘all documents’ residing at UVa related to four federal and one Commonwealth of Virginia grant, was thrown out by a judge because Cuccinelli did not provide any reason to suspect that fraud had occurred and that federal grants are not covered by the relevant statute. Without due cause, the AG is not allowed to investigate (and without such a restriction, there would be no end to politically motivated witch hunts).
Yesterday, Cuccinelli filed a new demand that takes this previous judgment into account. Namely, he attempts to give a reason to suspect fraud and only targets the Commonwealth grant – though still asks for 10 years of emails with an assortment of scientists. However, his reasoning should scare the bejesus of anyone who has ever published a paper on any topic that any attorney might have a political grudge against. For the two papers in question the fraud allegation is that the authors
… knew or should have known [that they] contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading. Specifically, but without limitation, some of the conclusions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data, meaning the result reported lacked statistical significance without a specific statement to that effect.
So in other words, if you publish a result that might turn out to be statistically weak or with understated error bars – even if this was in no way deliberate and regardless if you were aware of it at the time – Cuccinelli thinks that is equivalent to fraud. And any grant that you apply for that even cites this paper would therefore be a false claim under the statute. Cuccinelli is specifically not stating that deliberate scientific misconduct must have occurred, all you need to have performed is an inadequate (according to him) statistical treatment or you made an unsubstantiated claim. If you want “unsubstainted claims”, Soon and Baliunas (2003) (cited approvingly by Cuccinelli) would be a great example of course. But more generally, this would clearly open up pretty much the entire literature to ‘fraud’ investigations since one can almost always improve on the statistics. You didn’t take temporal auto-correlation into account in calculating the trend? Cuccinelli thinks that’s fraud. You didn’t fully characterise the systematic uncertainty in the “unknown unknowns”? That too. You weren’t aware of the new data that showed an older paper was incomplete? Too bad. This is not just an attack on Mike Mann, it is an attack on the whole scientific enterprise.
However, as appalling as this reasoning is, Cuccinelli’s latest request is simply bone-headed because the grant in question, entitled “Resolving the scale-wise sensitivities in the dynamical coupling between the climate and biosphere”, simply has nothing to do with the MBH98 and MBH99 papers! Even if one agreed with Cuccinelli about their quality (which we don’t), they are not referenced or mentioned even obliquely. The grant was to look at how climate variability impacted land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon, water and heat and doesn’t involve paleo-climate at all. So even if, for arguments sake, one accepted Cuccinelli’s definition of what constitutes ‘fraud’, nothing associated with this grant would qualify. We doubt there could be a clearer demonstration of the inappropriateness of Cuccinelli’s case.
Well, maybe one. In the attachment to the subpoena, Cuccinelli repeats his claim that since Mann used the word “community” in a blog post here on RC, he must therefore be using “Post Normal” jargon, and that might be “misleading/fraudulent” in the context of a grant application. Really? Scientists who use the word “community” regardless of context are therefore to be suspected of fraud? This is just embarrassing.
It might be worth pointing out that under the Virginia Bar ethics guidelines, it states that:
A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.
We can only wonder when this will start to be applied to the current AG.
I don’t disagree about DotEarth propensity to give air time to too many zealous middlers. I just think it unwise to pile on for a number of reasons. Reaction to overzealous attacks could include more palling around with some people I wish were not so good at lending plausibility to the fake middle.
Yeah, but Rick – who I’ve known for years – disagrees with your assessment of the impact of his expertise on his evaluation of your ideas.
So who to believe, the expert (Rick), who disagrees with you … or you, who claims that your own reading of Rick’s expert knowledge supports your opinion, rather than his?
The answer is simple …
Application to evaluation of anti-GW arguments left to the reader …
Well, Ray, Revkin ends by essentially parroting what might be a description of the danger of emeritus status.
So I wouldn’t be *too* hard on him in this case.
Though he deserves it in many cases …
Jim Bullis needs to explain just where the trillions of dollars to build his cross continent aquaducts to water his ‘new standing forests’ will come from, considering the increasingly urgent need for multi-billion dollar repairs of existing aging potable water infrastructure can’t be met.
There is some really big news because Ohio has indicted the criminal known as “Bobby Thompson” who gave money to Cuccinelli’s campaign. I haven’t read it all because it just came out yesterday.
Here is the story in the Washington Post:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/10/ohio_grand_jury_indicts_us_nav.html
The WP story will be based on this Florida story:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article1128290.ece
All the background is here at
U.S. Navy Veterans Association: Under the radar:
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/reports/navy-veterans-association/
This criminal tried to buy influence with an Ohio politician who had been an Attorney General and then went into a law firm with people associated with cossumer affairs law. Bobby Thompson gave that firm hundreds of thousands in “legal fees.”
It’s all very complicated. This criminal seems to have lived in a shabby duplex even though he reportedly had millions.
You should bookmark Under the Radar so you can keep up on what is happening. It’s very involved.
Snapple,
Alleged criminal, please.
There is something poignant in Jim Bullis’s proposal to (as I understand it) grow “standing forests” (which sound like they would in fact be more like vast monoculture tree plantations, not “forests”) in semi-arid regions of North America, watered by a mammoth new system of cross-continent aqueducts … given that existing standing forests are being rapidly decimated, and given that North American water supplies are already being rapidly depleted, and given that our existing water supply infrastructures are deteriorating and in need of many billions of dollars in repairs.
Having said that, I think it is self-evident that the current anthropogenic excess of CO2 is already at a dangerous level (as demonstrated by the observable, rapid and extreme warming and effects thereof), and therefore we urgently need to not only end anthropogenic GHG emissions but to draw down the anthropogenic excess of GHGs.
And I do think that stopping deforestation, plus aggressive reforestation efforts at all possible scales, plus a rapid transition to sustainable organic agriculture, all of which can potentially sequester large amounts of carbon in the biosphere, are vitally important methods for doing that.
But Jim Bullis’s idea doesn’t seem like a very realistic approach.
[Response: That is about as well stated as is possible, IMO, and reflects my position almost exactly. And with that, discussion on this off topic is over. There will be a forest-related post in the near future that people can engage in, but here let’s get back on track.–Jim]
Is this a re-emergence of the old geoengineering trope: “yes, we can fix it, but we have to build X and it will cost Y trillion dollars”, all with the intent of making people think that action isn’t possible?
As a strategy, it fails on so many levels, since rational people can see that there isn’t one solution, but many – and the first order of business must be reducing emissions, not sci-fi grand designs. The financial aspect, also, is less of a bogeyman. After the bank bailouts, we aren’t scared by large numbers any longer. If we can spend so much on defence, and keeping a stable economy, then a little to solve global warming sounds positively reasonable.
Afforestation is just one tool in our toolkit.
And, having gone back to read Jim Bullis’s posts, I see that he’s simply unaware of the practical details of what he proposes. I think I spot a trend, here.
Ray Ladbury, you might enjoy reading this debate on the “precautionary principle” as applied to global warming:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/12/do-ipccs-emission-scenarios-fail-to-comply-with-the-precautionary-principle/#more-450
She early on says that a CO2 concentration of 1370 by 2100 can not be ruled out. I imagine that Barton Paul Levenson’s vision of a simultaneous world-wide crop failure can not be ruled out.
If there is anything special about the forest concept, as expressed by Pres. Hu of China for their country, as adapted to North America by me, it is that this is an opportunity to make common cause between labor, business, environmental, water users, and electricity users. The main global warming objective could be accomplished with this, yes, ‘silver bullet’, along with maybe a couple other silver bullets.
None of this ‘every little thing helps’ stuff for me.
[Response: And that’s the absolute last word on this off topic. For the umpteenth time, discuss the post’s topic. This goes for EVERYONE.–Jim]
“CRIMINAL investigators from the IRS, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services arrived at the home at 2062 Balfour Circle on Friday morning [7-30-10) and seized boxes of documents — some already shredded — and loaded them into an unmarked van….
Kim Pennington, an IRS spokeswoman, confirmed that agents for the IRS, the VA and Florida Consumer Services obtained a warrant to search the home but said she could not comment on the investigation.
In May, following news reports of phantom officers and millions in donations that could not be accounted for, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia asked the IRS and the VA to investigate the Navy Veterans, a charity founded in Tampa in 2002 that has since reported receiving $99.6 million in tax-exempt income.”
http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/veterans/article1112113.ece
Snapple, he’s accused of a crime, but hasn’t been found guilty of one. Don’t go down the plastic-sceptical path ;)
“We were practicing the principle of presumed innocence with Bobby Thompson.”—Ken Cuccinelli
J. Bowers,
Is that what you were trying to say?
I’ve been reading \Physics and National Socialiism\ on google books. I especially found telling Einstein’s rebuttal to the \motley group\, \The Syndicate of German Scientists\ who attacked him and relativity theory in 1920. He wrote \to my knowledge hardly any scientists today who have made any substantial contribution to theoretical physics do not concede that the entire theory of relativity is logically and consistently structured and that it agrees with the verified experimental data now available.\ … \My Weyland who does not seem to be a specialiist at all (is he a doctor? engineer? politician? I could not find this out) presented nothing of pertinence. He broke out in coarse abuse and base accusations. The second speaker, Mr. Gehrke partly made directly inaccurate statements and partly attempted to create a false impression for uninformed laymen through a biased data selection and through distortion of the facts.\
This all sounds very familiar.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sl69XGiohsoC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6#v=onepage&q=First of all I observe&f=false
Septic Matthew, Judith Curry has demonstrated that her hold on the facts of climate change is so tenuous, that I have no desire to read what she has to say, despite the fact that her conclusion are not dissimilar from crude calculations I have made myself.
I find it is best to read the best arguments a side can put forward. I’d read the denialist arguments, but I haven’t found any yet that were not utter crap.
Sorry to keep harping on about DotEarth, but now we have Lubos Motl, string theorist, citing minority (Inhofe) Senate environment site (top comment as to votes). I’ve posted about this but lack expertise. Don’t know if it’s worth pursuing, but this tendency to regard aging physicists pronouncing outside their field as authoritative is tiring to put it mildly. I believe Motl is not aged, but string theory is so highfalutin’ and uncheckable (if entertaining and possibly true in its weird way that it is sad that success there allows someone to be a champion of denial.
Has anyone else noticed that many (in)famous deniers are unable to abandon their tobacco habits?
Susan, Ask Motl what mechanism he proposes to explain simultaneous tropospheric warming AND stratospheric cooling. Motl’s grasp of physics in less than 10 dimensions is underwhelming.
The Rabbet is good for such takedowns
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/10/church-rips-hal-lewis-thesis-down.html
“In keeping with our role as a site that tries to deal with the science of climate change rather than the politics,”
Please keep us informed of this Cuccinelli kind of stuff. We do need to know it if only to encourage us to move to some other country/planet. It seems that we are the missing link, Homo Sapiens being quite some distance in the future. I see more and more need for abnormal psychology courses for dealing with the people around me.
See: http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/15/energy-and-global-warming-news-for-october-15th-half-of-americans-flunk-climate-101-redesigning-our-cities-for-the-age-of-global-freshwater-scarcity
“half-of-americans-flunk-climate-101” or climate 0.101. And I wonder what kind of mental state they are in. Your “Cuccinelli goes fishing again” is exactly the right article to get our heads out of the clouds. We have to deal with this kind of problem. It is part of dealing with GW.
I know that anecdotal evidence is unscientific, but it works on a lot of people. Things like: “The Mississippi used to freeze over at St. Louis so you could drive a wagon and 4 horses across the river there.” Is there an archive of that kind of stuff just for GW?
Edward, sure, keeping to the topic, Cuccinelli could have had a clue if he’d bothered to use Google, for example.
If Cuccinelli had known how to use Google, here’s here’s the sort of thing he could have found just by typing your question into the Google search:
Online Climate Data Sources
Jan 20, 2000 … United States Historical Climate Network (For selected Virginia stations, period of available recording often back to 19th century)
climate.virginia.edu/online_data.htm
Or, as I pointed out earlier, he could have talked to any of the Virginia fishing operators (the ones who do real fishing with boats, not legal fishing with documents). They also have historical climate info.
Susan-
Czech politicians across the political spectrum are being “cultivated” by the Russian petrostate.
I have seen Motl’s site. He’s the Czech Marc Morano. The Czechs have been subverted by Russian gas/oil companies.
They probably can’t get a climate scientist to say those things.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus published a denialist book titled “Blue Planet in Green Shackles.” The book is an anti-global-warming manifesto that characterizes Al Gore as an “apostle of arrogance” and climate change as a “myth.”
The Russian LUKoil paid for the book to be translated. There is some proof for people.
Like Monckton, Klaus has campaigned against the European Union. The Russians want to deal with small countries, not the EU. It’s one of their main foreign policy goals: Divide et impera.
When Monckton appeared on the Kremlin-financed Russia Today satellite channel right before Copenhagen, he mocked the science of global warming and said that Russia was a democracy because they had a Duma (lower house of their Parliament) while the UK was ruled by commissars of the EU. Monckton’s political party is against the EU.
The ruling United Russia party is led by Putin. President Medvedev is the former CEO of Gazprom. This is not a democracy.
They just wack their enemies now. Investigative reporters who questions get killed.
I have a post about the subversion of the Czech Republic that links to an excellent article by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/09/russian-oil-companies-subverting.html
Scientists who study global warming are not just dealing with Western fossil-fuel companies. They are dealing with Russia/Gazprom. This means they are targeting our most valuable scientists who should be protected. The Russians use our legal system to advance their interests. There is a book about this called “The KGB Lawsuits.”
Read Wikipedia on “active measures.”
Gazprom is part of the Russian government and a lot of former KGB work for them.
Yesterday a big Gazprom official was found in his car shot in the head.
He was on his way to the train station to pick up a relative when he suddenly took a notion to blow his brains out, according to RIA Novosti.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/10/gazprom-official-sergei-klyuka-found.html
Check out pages 15-16 in Cuccinelli’s brief (W. Russell again) against the EPA. It’s hysterical.
http://www.oag.state.va.us/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Joint%20Motion%20to%20Remand%20VA%20filed%20with%20clerk%204_15_10.pdf
Cuccinelli is citing the Russian economist Andrei Illarionov’s Russian Institute for Economic Analysis–the IEA. W. Russell is basically telling the EPA to take advice from the Kremlin:
“On December 15, 2009—the very day that EPA announced the Endangerment Finding—the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (“IEA”) reported that CRU probably tampered with Russian climate data and that the Russian meteorological station data do not support human-caused global warming……” yada yada yada…
The IEA probably acted on the “very day” that the EPA announced the Endangerment Finding because the IEA is really part of the Russian government’s propaganda apparatus and they are smack in the middle of an important operation to protect their gas industry from renewables. It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous and stupid.
Illarionov is an adviser to the Libertarian Cato Institute and a “former adviser” to Putin and to Chernomyrdin, the former head of the Soviet Gas Ministry–now Gazprom. Supposedly, Illarionov had a “falling out” with Putin. Illarionov talks trash about the KGB and praises capitalism, but this may just be eyewash to give himself credibility. Most people who have a “falling out” with Putin don’t make such graceful landings.
Cuccinelli’s brief cites Illarionov in RIA Novosti, which is the official government news service (footnote 12).
You look at RIA Novosti to find out the Kremlin line, not the truth.
Sometimes the line changes. This summer, while NASA was helping the Russians pinpoint their fires, English RIA Novosti cited Medvedev saying there is global warming. This may have been because the total moron Dr. Areshev accused US scientists of causing global warming with secret climate weapons while NASA was helping them. Areshev was just a little off-message and embarrassed the Kremlin.
After that, Medvedev said there was global warming and RIA Novosti quoted NASA for a few weeks. The new line very cool, but the Kremlin may just have been sucking up to NASA during the fires.
The Russians are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Re 359 (Septic Matthew) and 366 (Ray Ladbury) –
To what extent are current estimates of extractable fossil fuel reserves compatible with a rise of CO2 to 1370 ppm by 2100? As an example of some rough calculations, estimated recoverable coal reserves are about 900 gigatons, which if composed entirely of combustible carbon and burned completely to CO2 would add about 3300 gigatons to the atmosphere. Historically since the Industrial Revolution, we have probably added more than 1000 gigatons of CO2 to arrive at the current increase of about 38% over pre-Industrial values. Oil reserves are substantially lower than coal reserves.
If these estimates are far too low, I would think 1370 might be plausible, but isn’t it more likely we would exhaust commercially profitable reserves before approaching that figure? This is not to say that even much lower CO2 levels are acceptable – they’re not – but projecting future CO2 levels can’t ignore limitations on the availability of combustible fossil fuels in arriving at estimates.
Cuccinelli,
You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
Fred Moolten, My own back of the envelope calculations suggest that coal could get us into the 700-800 ppmv range. Tar sands,oil shale, etc. could put us well over 1000 ppmv. I’d say 1370 is not beyond the pale.
One of the more amusing things I read amongst Cuccinelli’s criminal involvement (that snapple linked to) was where he said he would give away the $50K that he received from a fraudulent aid to veteran’s organization which was instead donating large amounts of money to right-wing political organizations. The fraudulent organization gave Cuccinelli $50K which making them Cuccinelli’s second largest campaign donor. Cuccinelli said that he would give the $50K to charity if evidence of a crime came to light. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Consider the charges he’s filed against Mann. What constitutes “evidence” in the mind of a Cuccinelli??? I think I know. Whatever is convenient.
What I find interesting is that the ALLEGED Florida criminal Bobby Thompson (who vanished without a trace after the St. Petersburg Times started sniffing around and is the subject of a multi-state manhunt) may have been trying to get state laws changed so he would not have to register his charity since it was a veterans’ charity. This would be under consumer affairs. Cuccinelli tried to get consumer affairs put under his office.
In Ohio, Thompson’s lawyer was a former Ohio Attorney General who had people in her law firm associated with consumer affairs. Thompson gave that lady hundreds of thousands in “legal fees.”
Sometimes “professional services” are really bribes, but it is hard to know.
The authorities have captured a woman who worked with Thompson and she is charged with money laundering:
“The indictments made public Friday accuse Thompson and Tampa associate Blanca Contreras of “engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity,” money laundering and the theft of more than $1 million from Ohio residents through the Navy Veterans charity.”
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article1128290.ece
The money laundering wasn’t described. A neighbor claimed on TV that the FBI was involved, but I have not read that. I read the IRS was involved and the Veterans’ Affairs. The authorities seized papers and computers, and they are not going to tell their investigative leads.
It may lead to politicians who took money in exchange for favors.
Here is a bit about the FBI’s public corruption site.
“Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life…The FBI is singularly situated to combat this corruption, with the skills and capabilities to run complex undercover operations and surveillance.”—FBI Public Corruption site
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/10/fbis-top-priority-among-criminal.html
Strangely, Thompson seems to have lived in a shabby duplex, but reportedly stole millions from people who thought they were giving to veterans. Supposedly this was done via telemarketing.
He didn’t give much to veterans, and he didn’t give fantastic amounts to politicians. So where is the money?
He gave Cuccinelli 5,000 and then 50,000. I wonder why he did that. Maybe he had some agreement to put consumer affairs under the Attorney General’s office.
Thompson had a lot of P.O. boxes in different states—not real offices–and in Washington D. C. I wonder who emptied these? Maybe the mail was all forwarded.
Keep checking here for new stories.
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2010/reports/navy-veterans-association/
372, Fred Moolton: If these estimates are far too low, I would think 1370 might be plausible, but isn’t it more likely we would exhaust commercially profitable reserves before approaching that figure?
Dr Curry said that 1370 could not be ruled out, not that it was a reasonable expectation. From a “risk manaagement” standpoint, it is worthwhile to have something like a “likely upper bound” or “maximum loss”. The commenters to the blog present some calculations and data, similar to Ray Ladbury’s above, and other links.
370 Hank Roberts: Yes. That’s what I mean. If we can show Mr. Cuccinelli a photograph of the Chesapeake Bay frozen over, it would at least be difficult for him. Thanks.
Who do you think is next on their list? You perhaps?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/07/4126070-context-lies-and-videotapes-the-real-acorn-story
Edward Greisch:
Not a list, but an interesting factoid:
(found here, comments closed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18mon1.html
Pip, London, 10/18, 11:06 am
I’m writing this from an area of London protected from flooding by the Thames Barrier.
In the 1980s there were four closures of the Thames Barrier, 35 closures in the 1990s, and 75 closures in the first decade of this century.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
—
I didn’t have the nerve to advance the pawn of the cogent information about Czech-Russian connections but am glad to know where to find it.
Likewise the campaign shenanigans.
I mentioned above that Lord Monckton said on the Kremlin’s Russia Today satellite channel that Russia was a democracy because it had a Duma (lower house of their Parliament) while the UK was ruled by commisars of the EU.
Here is a passage from RFE/RL that shows how ridiculous Monckton’s ignorant observation is:
http://www.rferl.org/content/Opposition_Legislators_Say_Russias_Parliament_Is_No_Parliament/2193979.html
BEGIN QUOTE:
Last May, Russia’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, became better known for a new practice caught on video and broadcast on Russian television news: staffers of the majority United Russia party running from desk to desk in an almost empty chamber, pushing voting buttons. [Video is hysterical!]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzGt_E5SIoA
The bill — which forbade drivers from consuming any alcohol — passed overwhelmingly by 449 out of 450 votes despite the fact that only 88 deputies, fewer than a quarter of legislators, were present.
The Duma has since adopted new regulations requiring deputies to attend sessions. But many deputies believe that will make no difference to a legislature so dominated by the Kremlin. The current speaker, Boris Gryzlov, once became a laughingstock for chiding another deputy by saying parliament was “not a place for discussion.”
Communist Victor Ilyukhin, a member of the only opposition party in parliament, says the Duma no longer functions as an independent branch of power. “Legislation is not made in the Duma, but by the Kremlin and the government,” he says. “All decisions about whether or not to pass bills are made there.
END QUOTE
Monckton’s observations about climate change are probably just as ridiculous.
358 Didactylos
You said, “And, having gone back to read Jim Bullis’s posts, I see that he’s simply unaware of the practical details of what he proposes. I think I spot a trend, here.”
I would be pleased to hear about practical details that you find insurmountable, or apparently so.
But first, please explain what the trend is that you spot.
351 Susan Anderson
I do not understand your comment, except it seems from your last phrase, ” – some people I wish were not so good at lending plausibility to the fake middle,” you take offense at efforts to find common purpose.
Cuccinelli succeeds if he stimulates reactions that turn us into two warring factions, where the possibility of constructive action evaporates.
354 flxible
The concern with water is certainly no more than a local issue in North America.
A look at water resources in Canada show that there is enough fresh water to fully meet continental needs. Of course, this is a geopolitical issue, and of course, negotiations to share this water must be handled with due respect for National sovereignty, mutually.
But for massive agricultural use, including forestation on a scale that would capture CO2 from all power generation, Canada and the USA both should be willing to revisit this issue.
357 Secular Animist
You supplied the description, “monoculture tree plantations,” which is entirely without basis in anything I have mentioned.
The elements of the project describe are, trees, water, and cropland, with the cropland being an extra feature for the purpose of making the project sustainable as soon as possible. Forest management must grow and maintain trees in standing forests. There would be a political component that I would call a National Forest Authority. This authority would fit in the current economic situation by offering large scale employment.
To call a standing forest a ‘tree plantation’ seems to be an effort to put a label on a concept that adds a negative connotation, whereby one might rally opposition.
I would have no preconceived notion about what kind of trees would be used for the various climate conditions involved.
I agree that is poignant, even more than poignant, that deforestation is continuing. One might contemplate acquisition of existing forests and holding them in a permanent public domain. Where this is economically possible, that would be constructive. This sort of thing has gone for much of history. And efforts to preserve standing forests have mostly been stymied. Forests once existed in Israel, Greece, and much of Eastern North America that are now completely gone.
But I do suggest a approach that could be a way around the stymied status quo.
Jim Bullis, you keep sucking on your pipe dream while showing us none of the substance you’re smoking.
Canada does not have “enough fresh water to fully meet continental needs”, in fact it may not have enough to meet it’s own needs very far into the future, especially if we’re to fully exploit Albertas tar sands in order to power American fantasies. See also: here and here. I happen to live on the west coast of Canada, an area commonly known as the “wet coast”, and I can tell you that this glacier fed valley is rapidly running into water supply problems due to population growth, waste, and the climate change you plan to fix by spending trillions on transporting glacial water that is rapidly diminishing everywhere in the north.
As for “standing forests”, come on up and have a look at planted, managed “forests”, or as Secular Animist rightly labels them “monoculture tree plantations”, which if you knew anything about silviculture you would understand. Where do you suggest we’ll get the millions of seedlings to plant your forest? Particularly a diverse array of varieties adapted to desert conditions. Not to mention the “sustainability” of that “extra feature cropland”, which I think is just about what has destroyed the hydrology of southern California already. Enough of your UNpreconceived notions, supply some links to support any of your fantasies.
Jim B., you wrote “A look at water resources in Canada show that there is enough fresh water to fully meet continental needs.”
Dubious in the first instance (since you can’t export the water in really massive quantities without utterly remaking the landscape and ecology), and politically problematic in the second (to say the least.)
But mainly, this is where I get the idea that you’re proposing a “restructuring of the hydrology of North America”–because if you’re redirecting significant proportions of Canadian water to supply US (and Mexican?) needs, then you are significantly changing watershed structure pretty much by definition.
386 flxible
You assert that Canada does not have water —etc. , and from your perspective as you describe it, that is understandable. Moving east though, there are some different situations. I do not see much relevance of the tar sands as far as taking up water, though this activity is a great producer of CO2 which seems like something Canada would like to see compensated for by some practical means.
But skipping on to the region around Hudson’s Bay, it looks like there is a vast amount of water that mostly flows into Hudson’s Bay, and I would certainly be interested in hearing why keeping a flow into that Bay has to be the way all this water is used. Surely I am not needed to guide you to Google Earth or Maps, where this vast swamp can be readily seen. And judging by the very sparse identifying settlements, etc, it looks like the human interests could be properly taken into consideration.
But curiously, you are anticipating climate change which is the very thing I am suggesting we put an end to, but you hold that up as a reason why we can not put an end to it. One needs not smoke much to see this is flawed thinking.
Seedlings come from seeds that are planted in nurseries.
Again the ‘trillions’ word comes from you. However, I do not wish to underestimate the cost of building aquaducts; but what I do see is a viable mechanism for paying back the investment, whatever it might be. And by comparison with the California Aquaduct story, this seems like a reasonable first cut way to think about it.
I don’t know where you got the idea that Southern California ever had a hydrology to speak of. But Southern California cropland has been enormously productive based on water from a variety of sources; and those from which the sources originate are no end of annoyed about it. But it does not destroy hydrologies to take water destined for the open ocean and use it productively, indeed, to create the very hydrologies of which we speak.
This is not something that one person does. Even a preliminary study requires expertise from many. So all I am hoping for now is for some people to say, ‘Hm, if it worked it would be a seriously practical approach to capturing CO2, naturally, and of the order of magnitude needed, so maybe it is something we should look at seriously.”
Thanks for the challenges.
US annual coal generated electricity is ~2e9 MWh[1]. Each MWh produces about 1 metric ton of CO2[2], or 5.5e8 tons of carbon total. Southern pine forests sequester about 1 ton of CO2 per acre[3], or 2.5 tons per hectare per year. The total area of the Mojave, Sonoran, Great Basin, and Chihuahuan deserts is ~1.4e8 hectares[4]; if forested this could sequester about 3.5e8 tons of carbon per year – close, but no cigar. Some fraction of the total area is too steep, or too rocky, or too salty, or too infertile to support trees, regardless of the water available.
Supporting the growth of trees requires 30-60 inches of rain, or ~75 cm of irrigation per year[5]. Over 1.4e8 hectares, this is about 1e15 liters. US per capita consumption of water is ~600 liters per day, or 6.8e13 liters per annum total for the US population of 308 million people.
Sucking up just the carbon from electricity generation from coal by irrigating deserts would require 1.6 times the available land and 15 times our current water consumption.
[1] http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
[2] http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html
[3] http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html
[4] http://www.desertusa.com/du_mojave.html (Sonoran, Great Basin, and Chihuahuan from links on this page)
[5] http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/deciduous_forest.htm
387 Kevin McKinney
What we call things, ‘by definition’ does not an impediment make.
Again I point to vast amounts of fresh water supporting virtually nothing on it drainage path to the ocean, these being in the large belt through land Southerly of Hudson’s Bay. But I am not set on any single source. The MacKenzie River going Northerly to the ocean is also a possibility.
Once more, the most recent California Aquaduct did little to remake the landscape or the ecology of California, or even the Sacramento River Delta, where the main impact occurs. This is not to say there has not been a lot of squawking about some endangered species, smelt I think. Here is where priorities of environmentalists have to be questioned, since there are impacts far greater that seem to get insufficient consideration under the law, as it is now being interpreted. I need to know more about this, but as it seems at this point in time, this is a miscarriage of environmental interests.
It seems that much of the reaction is that we would be stepping on Canada’s toes in this, but I would put this as something we would do jointly with Canada to serve our common interests. After all, they have been more diligent about facing climate problems than we have been. Trees in the USA will do a lot for Canada as well as for us in the USA.
But again, the climate worry is often portrayed as something that will impact watershed structure. Why not think about careful use of such watershed structure to protect it better in the long run?
386 flxible
As to the ‘links’ request, I have none beyond the obvious ones.
All the comments and links floating about seem to point to things that have been done already.
When something that is completely unprecedented comes up, we are sort of stuck having to actually think about it, without recourse to previous experience.
Thus we are required to flounder around on a search as contrasted to doing research.
Jim, I won’t be responding to this concept any longer. Your fantasy is utterly unrealistic, and you are plainly not facing up to the challenges it would pose honestly (to yourself.)
Sorry, but I’m moving on.
Jim Bullis wrote: But skipping on to the region around Hudson’s Bay, it looks like there is a vast amount of water that mostly flows into Hudson’s Bay, and I would certainly be interested in hearing why keeping a flow into that Bay has to be the way all this water is used. Surely I am not needed to guide you to Google Earth or Maps, where this vast swamp can be readily seen. And judging by the very sparse identifying settlements, etc, it looks like the human interests could be properly taken into consideration.
Google Earth tells you nothing about the topography. You might want to look into the elevation of the Hudson Bay coastal plain compared to the height of land between it and the Great Lakes water shed several hundred kilometers to the south, which consists of pre-Cambrian shield. You might also look into the massive costs and disruption of natural ecosystems and aboriginal peoples lives resulting from the alterations to the Hudson Bay water shed undertaken by Hydro Quebec on a scale that would be miniscule compared to your grandiose pipe dream. You might also want to consider what altering the hydrology of the Hudson Bay coastal plain would do to the existing boreal forest and peat bogs that cover it, an ecosystem that already absorbs a significant portion of anthropogenic CO2.
In short, your cavalier assumptions are based on near-total ignorance.
Gord save us from such ignorant visionaries.
Glad to see you finally understand your behaviour.
Can we return to the climate research needed to help understand how humanity can sustainably fit in to reality?
389 Brian Dodge
So we need to capture “5.5e8 tons of carbon total” to handle all CO2 from the coal fired electric power. And “if forested — this could sequester about 3.5e8 tons of carbon–“. That is close enough to get a bunch of cigars. As to the water requirement for growing trees, you base irrigation requirements on rainfall requirements, which are probably different by a factor of 10 to 100. But it still is a lot of water.
But Lake Superior alone has all we need; (wow, I bet that shakes up the environmentalist passions) but seriously, compare the impact of global warming on indigeneous peoples, eco systems, boreal forests, and so on, and maybe a spark will ignite some real thinking. And I really do not intend to drain Lake Superior with this plan, though it is not off limits for use in an overall continental water system though.
Thanks for some rational thinking and numbers as well, even though it seems like there is an underlying intent to reject the concept. I wonder how the numbers would come out if there was a desire to make the concept work.
394 flxible
I am glad to hear you are oriented to reality. Tell me about reality of ‘carbon’ capture that is expected by the EPA to cost ‘up to $95 per ton of CO2’, not carbon.
392 Kevin McKinney
Facing up to challenges is yet to come. I hope you are around sometime down the line when it is possible to get into more details.
Jim Eager wrote: “Gord save us from such ignorant visionaries.”
And as I understand it, Jim Bullis’s “vision” of building a mammoth system of aqueducts to redistribute water from the Great Lakes all over North America in order to plant vast tree plantations, is intended to “handle all CO2 from the coal fired electric power”.
In other words, the purpose of this scheme is to enable us to keep burning coal to produce most of our electricity, instead of rapidly phasing out coal — which we could do at far lower cost, and far more quickly, by rapidly scaling up the deployment of existing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Not to mention that coal has other hideous environmental problems, from the devastation of mountaintop removal coal mining to mercury emissions.
If anything, his scheme simply illustrates the fantastical measures that some people are apparently willing to embrace in order to continue business-as-usual consumption of fossil fuels.
Go figure.
398 SecularAnimist,
That is about right, though it is your words that say ‘vast tree plantations’ where my words are ‘vast standing forests’.
The dispute is whether ‘rapidly scaling up deployment of existing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies’ would compete with forests. That is the question, though I would throw on the need to also power a future of electric vehicle on coal, or whatever we might manage, at a cost that also be even more CO2.
The EPA and DOE seem convinced that the only viable answer has to include ‘carbon’ capture and sequestration (CCS) of the usual sort, involving caverns underground, and this is at an acknowledged cost of ‘up to $95 per ton of CO2’. Of course, they are of the ‘no silver bullet’ camp, so it would not be fair to exclude your ‘efficiency and renewable energy technologies’.
My argument rests on the key feature of standing forests, which is that they will eventually become sustainable and even offer payback of initial investment. And I include profit from agricultural products that would be an ancillary activity based on the water system that would enable the standing forests.
As far as capturing all CO2 from coal fired power plants, it looks like we are in the ballpark. I point out, however, the CO2 capture process depends on continued forest growth, and storage requires permanence of wood mass, and these things require forest management of considerable sophistication.
398 SecularAnimist
Nobody in the world should work in underground mines in my book. However, much of the coal used in power plants today comes from the open pit coal mines of the Powder River Basin, where massive machines greatly reduce labor costs and dangers. Thess operation are capable of being expanding from the Gillette field to more of Wyoming and into Montana, and even Canada, I think.
Mountain tops seem not to be much involved there, and the coal is said to be ‘low sulfur’.
As to mercury, I have not specific knowledge of this particular coal regarding that element. I did live for many years at the foot of mountains that were heavily laden with mercury oxide, so much so that this was once the largest mercury mine in the world. (New Almaden) Though the stream bordering on my backyard carried both natural ore and (probably) tailings of the mine, no health authorities were concerned. This does not prove there is no problem, but it makes me suspect there is a little extra hype on this subject. The knowledgeable people have long been saying that mercury only becomes a problem in organic products of mercury through the process of photosynthesis, and the warnings always relate to the food chain whereby such organic compounds get to people.
Yes, I absolutely appreciate our developed world advantages, which means that I am reluctant to completely abandon the ‘business as usual’ that brought us to this point. I also make a connection to our economic problems, where concerns about regulations such as the EPA is discussing, have to have a chilling effect on the kinds of industrial expansion that we desperately need.