A Matter of Degrees
	Energy Myths
	Editorial
	Wisconsin Favorites Winter’s Best to Battle at Badger State Games

A Matter of Degrees
Varied Views on Global Warming

   Of all the choices affecting price and availability of electricity in the decades to come, few are likely to have as much impact as those made in response to warnings about climate change.

   Start with what’s already happening in electric generation. Almost every new power plant built in the U.S. burns natural gas. It’s a relatively clean fuel, but prices have seen unprecedented highs, new pipelines may be needed to ensure supply, and there’s some concern about generation competing with home heating for finite reserves.

   Any fuel choice sets in motion a sort of environmental domino theory. New pipelines are one manifestation, but there are more and bigger dominoes. In southeast Wisconsin, people have taken to the streets to demand new generating facilities use gas instead of coal. Accommodate those demands, and soon many of the same people will turn out to oppose the gas plants, because combustion releases carbon dioxide, the alleged chief culprit in global warming.

   This rejection of all things carbonaceous bumps another row of dominoes. Wisconsin’s modest hydropower potential is already close to being fully exploited. Wind and solar energy are commendably clean, but solar won’t work if it’s nighttime or cloudy, nor will wind if the wind is too fast or too slow. That leaves one emissions-free generation source able to power a modern society, and among those most concerned about global warming, many already opposed nuclear energy when climate scientists still fretted about an impending ice age.

   Conservation, important in any sensible energy policy, has saved the day during extreme demand. But more than meeting energy needs, conservation means avoiding them. Clearly, global warming implies stern choices and so must undergo severe scrutiny.

How hot is it?

   Like it or not, the idea of warding off a 22nd century disaster by curtailing our lifestyles and risking economic contraction would be unlikely to attract many believers, absent steady assertions that our activities are the primary cause of the hottest part of the hottest century yet seen.

   Such assertions abound. Late last year, the World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations agency, and the U.S. National Climatic Data Center pronounced 2003 the third hottest year on record, drawing a December 4 Wall Street Journal story that quoted U.N. official Paul Llanso saying “these hot years just keep coming…It’s very serious.”

   The U.N. announced it again two weeks later, netting a New York Times report saying the preceding six years included the three hottest since 1861. Both stories identified 1998 as the hottest year on record.

   Neither report mentioned that it all depends on where you put the thermometer. Many reputable scientists point out that measurements taken by earth satellites are more accurate and cover the planet much more thoroughly than the surface-station readings relied on by the U.N.

   The satellite records’ disadvantage is that they cover only the past 25 years. But they do span the period said to have included the most warming, and they reflect average temperatures in the lower atmosphere where global-warming climate models predict the greatest warming will occur.
And they show minuscule temperature change.

   The measurements from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellites show global average temperatures rising less than one-fifth of one degree Celsius over the past quarter-century. Most of this rise occurred after the start of the 1998 El Nino cyclical warm-weather event. Warming was not detected outside the northern two-thirds of the northern hemisphere.

   Cynics might wonder if release of this information by the University of Alabama in Huntsville—just four days after the U.N.’s initial “hot 2003” report—might have prompted the repeat U.N. announcement. It certainly appears to have figured in another Wall Street Journal story December 17, reporting the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) finding that it’s “virtually certain” global warming is occurring and that people are causing it.

   The Journal story identified climatologist John Christy, director of the university’s Earth System Science Center and keeper of the satellite data, as a member of the panel that drafted the AGU statement, evidently for the purpose of noting he “has often sided with warming skeptics in the past.” Though practically directing the conclusion that Christy had changed his mind, the story said no more about his views and did not quote him.

   Doing so might have exposed Journal readers to statements like those Christy made less than a week earlier for a university news release.

   “Earth’s climate has changed dramatically several times during the past several thousands of years without human influence,” he said. “There is no scientific reason to believe that the climate has permanently stabilized and won’t change again.”

   In remarks accompanying the December 8 release of the 25-year satellite data, Christy said, “Both human life and the environment are threatened more by air and water pollution, and by habitat destruction than they are by a climate that is changing this slowly.”

Two Minutes for High-Sticking

   Belief in unprecedented contemporary warmth is relatively new. It rests mainly on work by Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Massachusetts (now U. of Virginia), purporting to show a stable climate from the year 1000 until about 1900, after which temperatures rise abruptly and keep rising. Named for its shape, Mann’s 1998 “hockey stick” graph quickly became an icon of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

   Nearly all reporting on global warming accepts the hockey stick without question. But what the hockey stick shows can be true only if lots of climate history is wrong. Prior research recognized a “medieval warm period” between A.D. 800 and 1300, followed by a “little ice age” until about 1900, from which we are still recovering.

   The medieval warm period is believed to have been as warm as the present and likely more so. Its existence is buttressed by things like the colonization of northern regions by Norsemen who grew grapes in places where they wouldn’t stand a chance today.

   The hockey stick dismisses all that, but last year Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics dismissed the hockey stick. Reviewing some 240 peer-reviewed papers, they concluded that: A) the medieval warm period was real; B) current temperatures are therefore unremarkable; so, C) the hockey stick can’t be right.

   Last fall, two Canadians struck another blow. Statistician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Ontario, published a paper in the prestigious British scientific journal Energy and Environment, analyzing the hockey stick data (which Mann furnished them,) and pronouncing it nonsense.

   The Mann data, they said, were riddled with errors, and when the errors were corrected and the data reprocessed using Mann’s own methods, the medieval warm period reappeared with a vengeance. Energy and Environment, which normally charges for its content, posted a message saying the McIntyre and McKitrick paper “has the power to radically change the debate over man-made global warming” and gave open web access to it, “So that everyone who has an interest in these matters is able to read it and assess it for themselves.”

Kyoto Photo Finish

   In 1997, a unanimous United States Senate advised the Clinton administration not to submit the Kyoto global warming treaty for ratification, citing its exemption of other major CO2-emitting countries and harm to the U.S. economy.

   In 1999, The Energy Journal published an estimate ranging the developed nations’ cost of compliance with Kyoto in 2010 from $75 billion to $346 billion in lost gross domestic product.

   In between, T.M.L. Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research published a paper in the AGU’s Geophysical Research Letters, projecting global average temperatures across the coming century and comparing full implementation of the treaty with business as usual—no attempt to cut CO2 emissions.

   Wigley projected that if nothing was done, global average temperatures would increase 1.92 degrees, Celsius, by 2094. And he calculated that with Kyoto fully in effect, temperatures would reach the identical increase, six years later.---Dave Hoopman

 

Hot Town, Summer in the City

   The rising average of temperatures recorded by surface-station thermometers is beyond dispute. In fact, if those numbers weren’t rising, it would indicate something wrong. It would mean they were failing to record the “urban heat island effect.”

   This obscure phenomenon boosts local temperatures because urban structures, concrete, and asphalt tend to absorb and concentrate naturally occurring heat, and of course some contribute heat of their own.

   The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says this can push urban temperatures 2 to 10 degrees above the surrounding countryside, and the agency acknowledges it’s entirely different from climate change.

   But it can affect perceptions of climate change.

   Especially in developed countries, many temperatue-monitoring stations were established long ago. Thermometers originally placed in open countryside are now in urban settings even though they haven’t moved an inch. And they’re reporting higher temperatures, year-round.

   Climate researchers have tried to correct for this bias. But in a paper for the journal Progress in Physical Geography late last year, Dr. Ian McKendry of the University of British Columbia noted several recent studies suggest the corrections may still be falling short.

   If that’s true, the surface temperatures providing the foundation for global warming theory would, at best, exaggerate any warming that’s taking place.

Energy Myths
Re-examining Some Practices, Benefits

   While myths usually refer to stories handed down through history to explain something, there are quite a few myths about energy and energy savings, too. In some cases, the statements may be true, but the savings may be a lot less than many people think. And in other cases, the myth may once have been true but is no longer, given better manufacturing or design.

   Most of the myths discussed here are based on the work of researcher Evan Mills at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

   Myth #1) Switching appliances and lights on and off uses more energy than leaving them on and decreases the lifetime of the appliance or lighting.

   It is true that there is small surge in power created when appliances are turned on, but it is not significant compared to the power wasted by leaving the appliance on. It used to be true that turning appliances and lighting on and off reduced the lifetime of an appliance, but changes in design have resolved this problem.

   Myth #2) When an appliance is turned off, it’s really off.

   According to the Lawrence Berkeley lab, most appliances continue to use consumer power when they’re switched off and, in some cases, as much power as when they’re on. Consuming power when appliances are turned off—referred to as phantom load—accounts for about 5 percent of U.S. residential electricity consumption. So the only way to eliminate this draw on the power supply is by unplugging appliances or putting the appliances in a power strip that can be turned off.

   Myth #3) Computer screen savers save money.

   The screen saver on your personal computer does not save money, even if it’s just a blank screen. You need to use the computer monitor’s energy saver feature, which will let your monitor “sleep” when not in use. In order to use the energy saving options on your PC, right click on the desktop, go to Properties, Screen Saver, Energy Saver Setting and set your monitor to turn off after ten minutes. To wake it back up, just move the mouse or touch a key.

   Myth #4) Refrigerators use the same amount of energy whether they are full or empty.

   When a refrigerator is full, it will use less energy. Opening the refrigerator door causes the cooled air to spill out and the fridge must cycle back on to re-cool the air. When the refrigerator is full, the energy stored in the cold items will help keep the refrigerator air cold while an empty fridge will have more air to cool.

   Myth #5) It is important to clean your refrigerator coils.

   Often touted as an energy savings tool, efforts to measure this effect have showed that there is no energy savings to be had from cleaning the coils of your fridge.

   Myth #6) Buying a new energy-efficient air conditioner, furnace, insulation, and windows will automatically save me lots of money on my energy bill.

   While this is true, all these things must be sized and installed properly to realize the potential savings, which can be significant. According to the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory, studies have shown that if the typical air conditioner and duct system are not correctly installed, they waste one third or more of the energy used by the air conditioner.

   Myth #7) Thermostats should not be turned down at night because it takes more energy than it saves to reheat a home or building in the morning.

   According to the Utah Office of Energy Services, thermostats should be turned down in the winter in unoccupied buildings or when you go to sleep. This can cut energy costs by 10 percent a month and will realize more savings than if the thermostat is not turned down. Installing a programmable thermostat is a great way to reduce energy bills because it always remembers to turn the thermostat back if you forget.

   Myth #8) Daylight savings time.

   While lots of myths circulate about the purpose of daylight-savings time—from an invention of farmers to a conspiracy created by Big Business to increase sales—according to the Department of Transportation there are three reasons for daylight-savings time. The first is that it saves energy because it shifts the hours we are awake to correspond to sunlight, so then we’re less likely to have the lights on during waking hours. Second, it saves lives by shifting the time when people are likely to be on the road to daylight hours; there are less traffic accidents when it’s light out. And lastly, it cuts down on crime because crime tends to happen after dark; when waking hours correspond to sunlight, people are less likely to become victims of a crime.

   Myth #9) When stored in the refrigerator, batteries last longer.

    The reason given for this advice is that chemical reactions usually speed up with increasing temperatures. However, the effect of storing batteries in the refrigerator is negligible. At least two battery manufacturers, Rayovac and Kodak, tell consumers not to store batteries in the fridge because they don’t perform well when they’re cold.

   Myth #10) Halogen lighting is super efficient.

   While halogen lighting is more energy efficient than standard incandescent light bulbs, fluorescent lighting is still nearly three times as efficient as halogen lights. In particular, halogen torchiere lamps are quite inefficient because they consume 300–600 watts of electricity but direct the light they shine onto the ceiling. Moreover, halogen torchiere lighting poses a fire hazard due to the extremely hot temperatures produced by their high-wattage bulbs. Several companies have begun making energy-efficient torchieres with compact fluorescent bulbs. They are much safer and use less electricity than their halogen counterparts.

Source: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; EcoIQ magazine; MSN.com; American Council for An Energy Efficient Economy

Editorial
by Perry Baird

Putting A Face On Global Warming

  Working up cover art this month ended up mirroring themes of the article that needed illustrating.

  Our main feature story (starting on page 10) focuses on the broad and controversial topic of global warming. Article author Dave Hoopman cites a number of studies that question some commonly held and widely reported assertions on climate change.

  He notes that some assumptions about warming trends are now being challenged by scientists who increasingly rely on satellite technology to deliver what they say are more accurate readings than those obtained from earth-based recording devices. As a result of this data and the way the numbers are being interpreted, some researchers are wondering whether there is actually a significant warming trend occurring at all. This would, in turn, call into question whether carbon dioxide emissions from human sources (cars, industry, power plants) are impacting climate change the way some scientists and authoritative panels have claimed.

Man-made?

  And if warming is actually occurring, other experts dispute that the main cause is human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. Some point to global warming as a normal, predictable swing in earth’s climate as it continues to recover from a 600-year cold spell—something that would happen with or without human influence.

   As a nod to the mixed and conflicting messages that exist on global warming, when Dave proposed cover artwork featuring a face on a globe with a thermometer in its mouth, he cautioned that the temperature reading on the thermometer should not appear to be too high or too low.

   I sent the suggestion to Gerry Wallace, our art director who works from his home in a warmer climate and largely relies on the Internet to transfer files for publication use. His first attempt at “Earthman” was admirable, but we didn’t think the expression on the face conveyed the proper amount of bewilderment about what actually was happening to its climate. “Too neutral,” we thought; the earth needs a more quizzical countenance.

Earthy Expression

   “We need him to look more perplexed” was one verbal suggestion we thought to supply Gerry. We also sent him words such as “skeptical,” “uncertain,” and “concerned” to cover the reactions that are occurring on both sides of the global-warning debate. Alas, we had a hard time translating such verbiage into facial-feature recommendations for our artist colleague.

   As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and we resorted to using some modern technology of our own to clarify things. Dave snapped a quick digital photo of me—with pen in mouth to simulate a thermometer—after coaching me on the appropriate eyebrow lift and mouth downturn. We offloaded it to the computer, whisked it to Gerry as an e-mail attachment, and within seconds he had it in front of him to work from.

   We knew the result—when it popped up on my computer screen a short while later—was just what we were looking for.

   Visible in Earthman’s expression, we think, is apprehension about not only what humans knows for certain about global climate change, but what courses of action are dictated by that knowledge.

Winter’s Best to Battle at Badger State Games

   The chilly months in Wisconsin can be tough, but the state’s many athletes have an even tougher way to meet—and beat—Old Man Winter at his own game. They simply heat up the competition at the Badger State Winter Games. If you’re an athlete in any of the winter sports offered, go for it! But if not, why not become an avid supporter? The winter games this year will be held February 6–8 (with a few beginning the previous weekend) in a variety of venues in Wausau and other communities, and spectators are encouraged. In fact, you might be able to catch the action in several of the sports, since they are slated at various times.

   The Badger State Games—both summer and winter—are held under the auspices of the Wisconsin Sports Development Corporation. According to the WSDC, the winter games, started in 1989, now draw more than 6,000 competitors annually. The winter contests pit Wisconsin athletes of all ages and abilities against others in their classes in fourteen sports; three (bowling, freestyle skiing, and indoor archery) are new for 2004.

   The sports for this year’s Badger State Games, along with their dates and sites, are as follows:

For more about the Badger State Games in general or any of its separate events, including information for registering for an event, call 608/226-4780 or visit www.sportsinwisconsin.com.—Linda Hilton