I mean with the way anhydrous ethanol made from corn and then added to gasoline causes such a drain on our economy with how it strains the grain market increasing the cost of food and causing great losses of mileage in our vehicles, far more then the government admits, which this all causes the dollar to weaken driving the cost of crude oil up while having a domino effect on the economy where the price of everything is climbing as employers are paying less or laying off employees, even going out of business, this is causing the people who have the hardest time paying their mortgages to go bankrupt and causing the whole financial system to crash in on itself. So it seems at least you could get some good science out of this after all the American people have invested in it.
I’ve charted many times how weather pattern come in weekly patterns here in Washington DC. Weather patterns clearly follow a workweek/weekend schedule except when offset by holidays or the disruption of ethanol supplies. After those brief interruptions, climate patterns always return to the same weekly schedule once our driving habits are back to normal. National weather patterns also move in the same fashion as the jet stream passes through the Midwest where most of the ethanol refineries in the nation are. This causes drought in some areas but more often extreme flooding and violently destructive storms. The way I follow this unnatural phenomenon is actually scientifically valid although this does me little good in making arguments that something needs to be done because I am not an accredited government scientist like you are.
What I’m saying is that if you put together a project that shows conclusively that a particular product or industry is directly affecting regional changes in climate, then there would be no mistaking the reporting on your findings. In fact I believe the next level of challenges for you to support your claims that short lived gases directly effect weather patterns would be to gather evidence outside a computer model. There might still be questions about exactly how this happens but the question of whether it does or not would be answered now rather than waiting until 2100 to find out if your computer knew what it was talking about. Approaching the problem from this direction would also likely lead to aiding greatly in clearing up any confusion about the earth’s atmosphere and the effect human beings have on it that your science still has.
I’m not only an amateur climatologist but also a reporter for a news service that has access to Google’s headline news search engine. So really I’m asking you a question about your science in the form of a suggestion about how to better proceed with your experiments so I can publish your response. I know going against ethanol in any way nowadays would be very provoking even though the Bush administration is adopting a new posture on climate as it reacts with short term gases. But perhaps you could be so bold as to confirm that if your theories are correct, it should be able to be shown by tracking how heavy amounts of VOC’s and Nox coming from industry and human activity affect regional weather patterns.
Could you answer me that – Do you believe your science could be monitored this way - or have you already done it? In reviewing you work, I believe at some level you gained confidence in the direction you’re heading by witnessing the effect of short lived gases first hand before setting out to prove how it happens. It’s just too simple to ignore. I’ve been watching it with no funding for many years sometimes by just witnessing how weather patterns change from week to week going up and down like a bouncing ball where each day of the week is distinct but the same as that day of the previous week. So I figure you must have a more complex way to observe the same phenomenon which helps you justify the millions of dollars you spend on your computer models, because you already know what the outcome of your work will be.
The problem is you’re not directing our attention to what’s going on as it happens but rather showing us what computers think will happen in the future. I admit your work is vital, absolutely without a doubt it is worthwhile in every respect. But it is not the first line of defense against climate change. And your first concerns shouldn’t be about protecting or prosecuting the perpetrators of climate change either. It’s like what the Food and Drug Administration is doing with Bisphenol A. They’re waiting for conclusive evidence that would result in the loss of lawsuits in federal courtrooms to reign the plastic food container industry rather than using obvious evidence already demonstrated by credible research to protect the American people from being poisoned.
There are alternatives to bisphenol A just like there are ways to use and refine ethanol that don’t produce high volumes of VOC’s. And there are others ways to present your science. Models are not the only way to show how anthropologic gases effect weather patterns, in fact they yield only hypothetical results when looking toward the future because we don’t know what the gaseous makeup of the atmosphere will look like many years from now nor what our understanding of climate change at the space in time will be.
Computer models are not even the most effective way to view potential climate change. They however can be used very effectively for showing how we can control climate to our benefit once we establish what causes climate change. I mean that is what you bring to the climate change debate that’s new isn’t it - that we aren’t stuck with one long term equation for a global warming but rather that weather patterns can be altered on short a term basis? So if you can prove how ethanol directly effects weather patterns, you can then use a computer model to aid in a design for how anthropogenic gases can be used to bring positive climate results in controlled experiments?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
