A Science-Based Approach to Dealing with Climate Change in Washington State

From The Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog

Thursday, December 19, 2019

A Science-Based Approach to Dealing with Climate Change in Washington State

Sometimes I muse about it–if I were in control of Washington State’s response to global warming, what would I do?  What would a rational, science-based approach look like, devoid of the hype and politics that is hindering progress today?
I would start by noting few principles:
1.  The implications of global warming for the Northwest is serious (more extreme rainfall, warmer temperatures, less mountain snowpack, rising sea level in place) but it won’t be existential and changes will initially be relatively small, accelerating later in the century.

2.  Scientists and politicians must communicate the truth–the best estimates of our science.   Exaggeration and hyping impacts “to get people to do the right thing” is both unethical and counterproductive.  It produces unnecessary fear or turning away from the problem.
3.  The effort MUST be bipartisan.  Nothing major is ever accomplished by one party, something particularly true of our divided state and nation.  We must not mix political goals (e.g., social engineering) with dealing with what is essentially a scientific/technical problem (increasing concentrations of one gas).

Last presidential election.  Red is Republican.  Blue Democrat.

4.  Few people are willing to sacrifice today to stop global warming tomorrow (including climate scientists with huge travel-related carbon footprints).  Thus, all steps should provide benefits in the short run or not produce large additional costs.
5.  Global warming and its impacts will be solved with science and technology.

My Plan
My approach to the problem can be divided into three parts:
1.  A research program to better understand the implications of global warming for the region.
2.  Promoting resilience and adaptation
3.  Carbon emissions reduction (also known as mitigation)
1.  Research:  Understanding the implications of global warming for the Northwest
Global warming produced by increasing levels of CO2 is already influencing our area, although they are subtle at this point.   Since additional warming is inevitable, it is important that we understand the expected changes and the associated uncertainties.  This will give us the information we need for adaptation/resilience that will reduce impacts.
There has been some research by UW and NOAA scientists regarding the projected regional effects of global warming that provides a broad outline of expected changes, but MUCH more research is needed.  For example, we need to understand the uncertainties in current global model forecasts and run high-resolution climate models to better understand the local implications of global warming.   
I have been working quite a bit on this as part of my group’s research, securing some support from Amazon to run many regional climate model simulations.  The results are fascinating with some surprises (see example below, which show drying in the lee of major mountains, but wetter everywhere else).  Much more needs to be done (and unfortunately the Amazon grant has ended).  Hopefully, we will find more support to do the analysis and continue such simulations (if you want to help, go here).

map_diff_203001_206012_annual_PREC_Z1

To summarize, task number one is to do the necessary research to gain a better idea of what will happen during the next century over the Northwest as the planet warms, and how this warming will vary with different emissions amounts.   Support of such research should be bipartisan.
2.  Adaptation and Resilience
As noted above, substantial warming of the planet and region is inevitable, with implications not only for  temperature, but precipitation, snowpack, and flooding as well.  The atmosphere hasn’t caught up with the CO2 up there right now and global emissions are still rising rapidly.  And there are the associated problems of wildfires, air quality, water supply, and agriculture.   We need to take steps to protect our people and economy.
Importantly we are not adapted and resilient to our CURRENT climate.  Flooding has caused I-5 to close, a landslide has destroyed Oso, Washington, dry summers (e.g. 2015) have contributed in wildfires and agricultural losses, and minor rain events have resulted in massive sewer outflows in King County (there are many more examples).  To a great degree, by making ourselves resilient to current weather/climate threats, we will do much to protect ourselves from the impacts of climate change (and vice versa!).

Importantly, work on resilience can be bipartisan.  Some example include:
a.  Invest in the infrastructure to prevent sewage overflows during heavy rain events. In addition, treat more of the water draining off our roadways  This will also help improve the health of Puget Sound, and thus the survival of salmon and orcas.

b.  Begin a massive project to repair our overgrown east-side forests.  This will including thinning, removal of slash and debris, and bringing back fire (prescribed burns).  It is estimated that 2.5-3 million acres need attention and the costs will be in the billions.   Thinning/prescribed fire is the only way to restore the ecology of our dry-side forests and to prevent some of the huge catastrophic fires evident during the last decade.  What we have been doing the past decade is pittance compared to what is necessary.  A thinning/healthy forest program could also be an economic boon for eastern Washington, and will reduce the big smoke events.    A win-win for everyone.

c.  Building more reservoir capacity to serve agriculture in eastern Washington. Global warming will increase annual precipitation in our area, but lessen snowpack that supplies water later in the summer; thus, water must be stored in winter in expanded reservoirs to deal with the problem.  Some efforts have been started in this direction with the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan.  A substantial effort to increase storage capacity is needed.

d.   A rational plan for selling/trading water rights is required, in contrast to the ineffective junior/senior rights approach of today that results in wasted water.  Furthermore, the crop mix in eastern WA must shift to agriculture that is less water intensive, and the leaky, poorly constructed water distribution infrastructure of eastern WA must be fixed.  Less hay.

e.   The state must begin moving people away from vulnerable locations susceptible to flooding and landslides, such as areas next to rivers or adjacent to potentially unstable slopes.  This will be costly, since property will need to be purchased.

Does Big Bend, Washington make sense?

f.  Development in fire-prone areas on the wildland/urban interface should be stopped, and isolated homes bought out.  Such areas should NOT have protective services that risk the lives of young firefighters.

This should not be encouraged.

g.  Crops should be developed that are more heat and drought resistantWashington State University is working on this approach actively.

3.  Mitigation:  Reduction of Emissions of CO2
     Mitigation is the most controversial aspect of the global warming problem, since CO2 knows no state or national boundary and costs can be immense for even small reductions in CO2 emissions.  Furthermore, Washington State, rich in hydrogeneration resources, is one of best states in the union for low-carbon electricity, so any improvements would be modest.   Transportation is our biggest source of carbon emissions, and our potential for solar and wind generation is limited by our cloudy northern climate and modest areas of consistent wind.  And folks rarely talk about the IMMENSE carbon footprints associated with our major industries, such as Boeing and Amazon.

Huge carbon footprint that politicians and others don’t talk about

The population of our state is clearly cool carbon taxes and fees, with two voter initiatives defeated and the legislation unable to pass cap and trade legislation.  This is not going to change.  And even if we passed such measures, the impacts on global carbon emissions would be small at best.  That is not argument against them…everyone has to do their part if it makes sense.

With all that said, there is much that we can do that does makes economic sense and would provide multiple benefits immediately.

1.  More nuclear power.  Although hydropower is king in the Northwest, there is still substantial fossil fuel use, including coal (about 13% of electricity generation).  Adding an additional nuclear power facility could fill this gap.  Many environmental activists are against nuclear power, worried about safety and waste.  But new nuclear power plant designs are inherently safe and waste can be dealt with responsibly.  Consider France, where most of their power is from nuclear.  Turning against nuclear power is one of the great mistakes of the climate activist movement.
And there is something else:  fusion power, which does not have the waste problem, is probably only a decade or so away.  Dozens of companies are working the problem (including Helion here in the Northwest).  Don’t believe that fusion will be available within 10 years?  Make it 30 years.  But once it is available the whole game changes.  We have an unlimited source of clean energy.  And with energy we can also pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.  Problem solved.


2.  Natural gas for marine applications.
Most marine traffic burns oil.  And not just any oil, but dirty bunker fuel, that is highly polluting.  You can see the smoke with your own eyes when one of the cruise ships comes into Seattle.    But there is a cost-effective option: liquified natural gas (LNG), which burns clean and produces less CO2 for the same energy.  So we need to move marine traffic to LNG, particularly for coastal applications (like Puget Sound).  Unfortunately, some climate advocacy groups like Seattle’s 350.org are against LNG and doing what they can to prevent the LNG facility in Tacoma.  They are hurting our attempts to lessen local air pollution and to reduce CO2 emissions.

3.  Improved agricultural practices to restore carbon to our soils
There is tremendous potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere by restoring organic matter to our depleted soils. UW Professor David Montgomery has written several excellent books describing the potential of carbon addition to soils through improved agricultural practices, and a local company, Nori is working on such agricultural carbon removal using a market-based approach. A substantial amount of CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere this way, while improving our soils. Another win-win.

4.  Expand rail and mass transit much more quickly
Let me be blunt–the rate of expansion of rail transportation in the Northwest is pathetically slow and ineffective.   The very limited Sound Transit system won’t be finished until around 2040.  Crazy slow.  Sounder trains to Tacoma and Everett are infrequent and unreliable, with even modest rain causing slides that close down rail traffic.  Light rail from Seattle to the airport is horrendously slow, with too many stops.  Our region needs to get serious about rail, with frequent service up and down the Sound, with more east-west routes.  We also need rail service into the mountains (imagine going skiing by rail as in Europe?)  What takes a decade in China takes 50 years in the Northwest… assuming it even gets done.
An obvious and powerful approach has been neglected–running commuter boats up and down the Sound and across Lake Washington.  Ironically, such service used to be available–the old mosquito fleet.  Now that our roads are locking up, marine transportation is needed more than ever.  Seattle can be the Venice of the U.S (without the flooding).

1909

5.  Reduce traffic
The increasing traffic in our region has a huge carbon footprint, and there are immediate steps that could reduce it.  In Seattle and elsewhere, some municipalities have deliberately throttled traffic by reducing the number of lanes.  A huge mistake that has contributed to fuel-burning traffic jams.  Traffic light timing needs to optimized on more streets to foster better flow.  And then there are the increased number of accidents due to distracted drivers playing with their phones, food, and other distractions.  More effective steps are needed to deal with such distracted driving, which already illegal in most localities.  Better law enforcement, requirement that smartphone texting and other interactions will not work in moving vehicles.  We need creative solutions. Less traffic, lives saved, less carbon emission.   Cars are not going to disappear from our roads–they will simply go electric.


6.   Most important of all, science and technology development
Washington State is only a small part of the global warming problem through our direct emissions, with our indirect emissions (e.g., Boeing jets, Amazon worldwide transportation infrastructure) probably being larger.  If we are REALLY going to make a big contribution to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, there is only one way to do so–to develop the technologies the will result in less emissions, from battery technology, to fusion, to better agriculture, to improved renewables, and more.  Developing the technology of sequestration (pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere will also be important.  In fact, I suspect the solution to the global warming problem will end up fusion power coupled with sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere, injecting it deep into the earth.

A local company, Carbon Engineering, is working on industrial size carbon capture facilities.

This blog is getting long, and there is many more things that could be done regarding mitigation.  There is much we can do, with some approaches having nearly immediate benefits (less traffic, more rail, less pollution).
The optimistic bottom line.  There are so many local politicians, media outlets, and activist groups that are painting a depressing, fearful picture of our future regarding global warming.  They are simply wrong.  There is so much that can be done to prepare and mitigate global warming, and the impacts will me more gradual than some are suggesting.  This is a scientific/technological problem that can be solved in a rational way, together.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

131 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Barbara
December 20, 2019 9:02 am

“next century over the Northwest as the planet warms”

That ASSumes a lot; the earth warms, and then cools, and then warms, and then cools, and then . . . ., ad nauseum. Why not leave the so-called “climate” alone and let it do its thing, as it’s going to do anyway, no matter how many SUVs the “deplorables” drive (apparently it’s OK for the Leftist elites [but I repeat myself] to drive them, and jet all over the world, while bitching about the rest of us driving and flying, etc.). Any changes these clowns manage to make will undoubtedly screw up the weather and/or the climate and screw us over, big-time. 🙁

PMuller
December 20, 2019 9:12 am

“Science-Based Approach to Dealing with Climate Change” what a phrase!

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a once respectable professional geoscience organization, has taken this phrase to even lower levels of meaning with the most recent post in their weekly EOS Buzz Newsletter. See “Scientists and Activists Examine Need for Climate Action” by Randy Showstack (AGU science writer from the very climate change un-biased Columbia School of Journalism) https://eos.org/articles/scientists-and-activists-examine-need-for-climate-action?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz122019

Consider this excerpt from the article:

For Varshini Prakash, the climate crisis “is obviously very depressing” and “terrifying with the timeline that we’re working on” to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

However, Prakash isn’t letting that stop her as she works to organize and mobilize youth and others to stop climate change. She is the cofounder of the Sunrise Movement, an organization that advocates for climate action and supports the Green New Deal initiative.

She spoke at a 9 December session at AGU’s Fall Meeting 2019 in San Francisco, Calif., on aligning U.S. energy policy with a 1.5°C climate limit above preindustrial levels. The session included climate scientists and activists.

This is the public face of the American Geoadvocacy Union today…..so so so sad.

Philo
Reply to  PMuller
December 20, 2019 2:08 pm

Notable is the fact that the major source on climate research, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is not a scientific organization, but a politcal one. The Panel was established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). The Convention was established by the United Nations Environment Program(UNEP) and the World Meteorololgical Organization(UN) which grew out of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm from 5 to 16 June 1972,

The typically voluminous work of these UN efforts, in the usual high flown UN bureaucratese, started a new UN Bureau to direct mutiple programs on environment, population, international development, and along the way through the IPCC, to establish parameters for UN control of the world environment.

From the IPCC website/history:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

In assuming it’s results before starting, “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”, the IPCC by definition does not do any scientifc work on understanding the climate and how it changes. It’s only purview is “risk of human-induced climate change”.

So it is no wonder that the activities of the UN, the IPCC, and the WMO there has evolved quite a lot of controversy surrounding the earth’s climate and how it changes. The biased(by design) performance of the IPCC has generated much contrary opinion and research. Many scientists have obviously come to different conclusions than the IPCC and are rightfully skeptical of its reports, methods, and results. Many other people strongly disagree with its conclusions, the biased manner in making them, and the political policies implemented by the UN process.

The last IPCC report admitted, in many many words and obfuscations, that the climate model predictions do not match the observed temperatures over the same time period. The models run significantly “hotter”, thus proving their current uselessness for scientific understanding.

climanrecon
December 20, 2019 9:17 am

*Adaptation to Climate Change is just a rebranding of increasing resilience to extreme weather.
*Reducing CO2 emissions is just common sense economics, reducing waste and reliance on imports.
*Nuclear and hydro power make sense simply through diversity of fuels, giving greater security of supply.

Climate Change is an irrelevant distraction, with the hysteria leading to poor outcomes, and many distressed citizens.

michael hart
December 20, 2019 9:23 am

Sometimes I muse about it–if I were in control of Washington State’s response to global warming, what would I do?

I would do absolutely nothing. All the whining, whingeing supplicants who came before me would be sent away with a flea in their ear.

Honestly, when there are so many real problems in the world, it really does make me want to weep when I see such waste of human time, thought, effort, and expense that is spent in search of the climate Jabberwock.

Garland Lowe
December 20, 2019 9:34 am

Sounds like you want gov’t to micromanage every facet of our lives. I don’t think you will get bi-partisan support, at least I hope not. How do you know additional warming is inevitable. So called climate scientist can even agree on past temperatures, but you know future temps are going up.

Gerald Machnee
December 20, 2019 9:36 am

As soon as I read about increasing warming I glanced over the rest.
My plan is two fold:
1. Do not worry about CO2.
2. Prepare for WEATHER events. Build better buildings in the right places.

J Mac
December 20, 2019 9:47 am

Cliff Mass’ career and livelihood has been associated with finding, sustaining, and defending ‘Man Made Climate Change’, while supporting and marketing the trillion dollar Climate Change industry. All of it is predicated on the unproven and unprovable hypothesis that ‘man made CO2’ is causing ‘global warming’. He accepts the unproven hypothesis as fact and lists his personal Climate Change Catechism in the article posted above. It is a many trillion dollar diktat for a nonsolution to a nonproblem. While he may not be as shrill as many of the climate change alarmists, he is just as dogmatic in his defense of it.

I am not swayed… in the least.

AGW is not Science
December 20, 2019 9:52 am

The only approach to dealing with “climate change,” anywhere, is called “adaptation.” That is, you simply adapt to the changes to the climate. And since the wealthiest societies are the most capable of doing so, what you absolutely, positively do NOT do is cripple your economy by making energy scarce, unreliable, and expensive – which is the bone-headed prescription of every Eco-Nazi “climate” activist.

Sorry, Cliff, but you’re still chasing non-solutions to a non-existent “problem.”

AlexS
December 20, 2019 9:56 am

Now we have an anti-science post based on repeated CO2 media hearsay.

I advice the author to read historical texts about weather for a start.

farmerbraun
Reply to  AlexS
December 20, 2019 12:21 pm

On a positive note , this sort of thinking does offer a way out for the alarmists.
Cornered rats are dangerous.
(I’m avoiding drawing parallels with politics in the U.S.A. LOL)

Alex
Reply to  farmerbraun
December 20, 2019 1:59 pm

Nevertheless note what the author wants to control of our lives.

December 20, 2019 10:07 am

“Begin a massive project to repair our overgrown east-side forests. This will including thinning, removal of slash and debris, and bringing back fire (prescribed burns). It is estimated that 2.5-3 million acres need attention and the costs will be in the billions. Thinning/prescribed fire is the only way to restore the ecology of our dry-side forests and to prevent some of the huge catastrophic fires evident during the last decade. What we have been doing the past decade is pittance compared to what is necessary. A thinning/healthy forest program could also be an economic boon for eastern Washington, and will reduce the big smoke events.”

But the cost will be far less if the wood/brush from this work can go to biomass burners for heat and power. Otherwise, what will you do with all this material? Some of the forest thinning may be able to go to timber markets- but not all of it.

farmerbraun
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 20, 2019 12:23 pm

Why would you not burn it so that the CO2 can be recycled back into other vegetation?

Steve Z
December 20, 2019 10:14 am

This article is a mixed bag of sensible adaptations to a changing climate and foolish attempts to “mitigate” a non-problem.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to build more commuter trains in densely-populated areas. Trains usually consume much less fuel (both directly and indirectly) per passenger-mile than cars, so that any fuel saved can prolong the time that fossil fuels will be available, even if CO2 emissions are not really a problem. The trick is to do an honest economic analysis to determine the routes which can recuperate the construction costs in a reasonable number of years at a fare price that commuters are willing to pay (less than the cost of driving their cars the same distance). This has to be done without political bias or rose-colored glasses, such as deliberately underestimating the costs of acquiring land or avoiding obstacles, or deliberately over-estimating the demand (such as what was done in California).

In the Puget Sound area, where several large cities surround a large body of water, consideration should also be given to ferries, which could save time by taking a “water shortcut” even if they travel more slowly than cars, buses, or trains.

Washington State has many mountains and a very wet climate west of the Cascades, so that hydroelectric power is competitive with other power generation technologies, and has the advantage of not causing any pollution, so it should be favored in that region. However, what works in Washington State may not be applicable in other areas with less mountains and/or lower rainfall.

If Washington State has periods of “excessive flooding” but also droughts east of the Cascades, this requires an emphasis on water management, so that some of the flood waters, and snow melt from the Cascades, can be directed to reservoirs east of the Cascades for irrigation. This is nothing new, as people living in dry climates have been transporting water from where it is abundant to where it is needed since the aqueducts of Julius Caesar’s time. The early settlers of the Salt Lake Valley in the 1840’s found a wide, dry valley bounded on the east and west by snow-capped mountains, and a fresh-water lake to the south (Utah Lake). They built many irrigation canals running north from Utah Lake at various levels of elevation in the valley, which slowed down the spring runoff from the mountains and used it to irrigate farms during the hot, dry summers, and many of these canals are still in use today.

Human beings really can’t do much about the climate or weather, but we can adapt ourselves to the climate we receive, and gather water from places and times when it is abundant, so it is available when it would otherwise be scarce.

brianjohn
December 20, 2019 10:14 am

The following excerpt from a National Geographic article shows that the Oso, Wa landslide had no links to climate change. It had everything to do with government arrogance and developing land that will surely cause major problems at some future point.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/7/140722-oso-washington-mudslide-science-logging/

“The slide plowed through part of the town of Oso, in the Cascade Mountain foothills northwest of Seattle, shortly after 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, March 22. It killed 43 people and demolished sections of State Highway 530.

The new report raises questions about how local governments take into account risks of this sort, and how the newest, best science finds its way to the local level. The hillside that collapsed had been the scene of multiple smaller slides since the first housing development was built there in the 1960s. Government agencies repeatedly attempted to buttress the hillside, though engineers warned it might do little good.

At the time of the slide, scientists were shocked at its speed and the distance it traveled—more than half a mile (over a kilometer). Yet recent images of the valley taken using LIDAR, a laser-based technology that can “see” through vegetation to the rock below, revealed multiple ancient landslides, including one more massive than the Oso slide. The GEER team also found the landslide’s magnitude wasn’t unusual for slides of this type.

“I don’t think it was fully comprehended how far out that landslide could have run. So I don’t think that even local officials understood the gravity of that,” Wartman says.”

Doc Chuck
December 20, 2019 10:24 am

Dr. Mass, Thank you for your effort in applying rationality to your outline of problems and solutions. This sure beats the herd behaviors championed by the politically manipulative. But in addition to the cautions already addressed in the comments here, narrow confidence in the fruits of a rote applied science can fall well short of the higher wisdom for life decisions that hasn’t been much of our schooling.

For instance consider entertaining the epiphany that may affect your premises should you discover that the global average of high and low temperatures (currently sweater weather for the ‘average’ global resident at barely over 58 F. degrees and little changed over the past century of reasonably widespread thermometry anywhere outside of the semi-arctic northern hemisphere — a very well-kept secret) will inevitably mask what the variations of the (unaltered) constituent actual top and bottom measured temperature data have been doing over multi-decadal time spans. And as you have been most drawn to be concerned about the high end (unlike half a century ago), you’ll be stunned to find that high temperatures (aside from short term weather, both globally and regionally across our American continent) have been remarkably stable for over a century (any warming trend of the ‘average’ attributable to considerably greater beneficial upward variations in the nightly lows).

You might then more readily see that for distinctly partisan power-wielding reasons of their own, many politicians and even some scientists are not interested in the perspective you may gain from their sharing these truths and those mentioned by others with you (like the U.S. and Europe are already decreasing their CO2 emissions, for whatever that’s worth, when several underdeveloped nations are greatly increasing theirs). And the divergence of soaring computer modeled global temperature forecasts beyond the recent measured record should signal their true competence for prediction that underlies so many other lies.
Best wishes for your enlightened new year.

December 20, 2019 10:27 am

If you want to cut down on air industry CO2 emissions, which is of the same order as the emissions from agricultural machinery worldwide, all you would have to do is cancel all “travel miles” programs. It would cut emissions from air travel in half. Strangely is never mentioned by anyone, but everyone has lots of ideas to restrict agricultural practices…..

John Endicott
December 20, 2019 10:33 am

The implications of global warming for the Northwest is serious

Assertion without evidence. The very first principle to solving any problem is
1) prove that the problem exists and is indeed a problem.

blind assertions, such as yours, fails that very first principle. Not surprising since CAGW alarmist “science” (which you’ve clearly bought into hook line and sinker) has continually failed that very first principle.

Paul Penrose
December 20, 2019 10:58 am

Here’s my take: mankind’s impact on the climate is currently unknown and unknowable within the bounds of what we can accurately measure, which means it must be relatively small. Climate also changes slowly compared to human lifespans, therefore the best strategy to deal with these changes is to do what we have always done: adapt as necessary. Mitigation assumes that we A) can make big enough changes to affect the climate in a measurable way, and B) can accurately predict the outcome of those changes. Neither is true in a practical sense at the moment, so no mitigation strategies are appropriate. Worrying and fretting about the future is self defeating and should always be avoided. Feel free march and protest all you want (it’s your time to waste), but it won’t have effect on the climate.

December 20, 2019 11:53 am

So we need to move marine traffic to LNG, particularly for coastal applications (like Puget Sound).

Diesel oil remains stable in tanks for years; LNG boils off unless actively refrigerated. LNG tankers use the boil-off to run the engines and as soon as they arrive in port start offloading their tanks. Regular cargo ships would end up venting or flaring the boil-off while in port.

HAS
December 20, 2019 12:03 pm

What is missing from this analysis is a proper assessment of the uncertainties, and based on that a risk based approach to managing our response to potential future clients.

Just one example of the uncertainties ignored comes from projecting regional climates. There is no attempt to describe this which is a pity given the author’s experience in validating weather model projections. The point of this is that I’ve yet to see any projection of regional climate impacts (or the type mentioned), sea level rise aside, that can be separated from the noise.

Under these circumstances our efforts should turn to actions to address possible adverse futures that can be shown to have low cost, or better still benefits, regardless. In Washington this would appear to be EVs infrastructure, nuclear and forest management. For the rest careful monitoring of leading indicators that things might go pear shape, and work to reduce the uncertainties makes sense.

But mindless repetition of research and government regulation (eg in face of unlikely sea level rise) that ignores the uncertainties should be resisted as poor quality high cost activities.

KT66
December 20, 2019 12:51 pm

What should we do about climate change? Absolutely Nothing. Zip, Nada, Zero. Nothing we can do about c02 emissions, especially locally, matters to the climate. The only thing co2 mitigation will do is transfer wealth from the poor and middle class to the already wealthy, reduce people’s freedom, and further empower governments.

Sheri
December 20, 2019 1:30 pm

I quit reading when the computer modeling became reality. Sad.

Suggestion: Call California psychics. Cheaper and probably just as accurate. Save lots of time and money and be far more honest.

Walter Sobchak
December 20, 2019 1:58 pm

I really have no objection to most of this plan. most of adheres to Bjorn Lomborg’s no regrets principal. Most of these projects, such as forest management and better reservoirs are simply prudent and will benefit us no matter what the future climate is. If this were the green new deal, I would have no problem with woeking towards it.

JON SALMI
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
December 20, 2019 4:15 pm

I agree Walter, that much of what Dr. Mass says about prudent projects makes sense. However, I would emphasize fusion power (even though that is a ways off in the future). After all, mankind will need it if we all wake up one day and see the next Ice Age just around the corner.

Our thoughts and actions regarding future climate must remain resilient. How to pound resilience into the heads of politicians remains a head scratcher.

Reply to  JON SALMI
December 21, 2019 6:18 pm

“However, I would emphasize fusion power (even though that is always off in the future).”

I fixed your sentence for you.

Jeff Alberts
December 20, 2019 1:58 pm

I reject the premise that a forest can only be “healthy” when tended to by humans. It may be “safer” but health is relative and subjective.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 21, 2019 9:11 pm

“I reject the premise that a forest can only be “healthy” when tended to by humans. It may be “safer” but health is relative and subjective.”

If early thinning of the beetle-infested lodgepole forests had been permitted, they would not all have reached low-resistence-to-beetles senescence at the same time (40 years), and so the beetles would not have be able to easily migrate from tree to tree. A thinner forest, and/or one intermixed with younger trees, and/or one intermixed with different species, would have had far fewer beetle problems.

Warren
December 20, 2019 2:18 pm

Dr Mass can pontificate and proffer remedies but he knows there are difficult questions to be answered on the greenhouse effect. A discussion of heat radiation physics would be a good start.
Just skip that part eh . . . that’s what all the Dr masses do.
In any event, there’s only one solution to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
Start with yourself and stop emitting then let others make up their own mind.

December 20, 2019 2:47 pm

An example of an oxymoron:

A Science-Based Approach to Dealing with Climate Change in Washington State

Mark.R
December 20, 2019 3:04 pm

How much warmer is a CO2 molecule compared to a non-CO2 molecule?.