Letter: Cannot replace fossil fuels without huge costs

Regarding Steve Ghan’s July 24 letter, “Climate arguments are outdated and incorrect” ...

Ghan says “… climate models can now simulate the 9 degree F warming from ice age to interglacial periods, but only if the measured changes in carbon dioxide and methane are used to drive the simulations.” Since CO2 was essentially constant throughout 99 percent of this warming time period, the change must be driven by something else, but not CO2.

Likewise, the rate of temperature increase 1920-1945 (CO2 increased 3 percent) is essentially indistinguishable to that from 1975-2000 (when CO2 increased 12 percent). If the models are now better as claimed, can they accurately simulate these different periods? If so, what drove these temperature increases, because CO2 did not.

It is also a false comparison to say wind and solar production may now be cheaper than coal (and therefore preferable) because their electricity is non-dispatchable and has very low availability factors.

We cannot simply replace fossil fuels without a significant change in lifestyle, standard of living and huge global cost, most of which Americans will pay. Renewables have their own negative impacts as well, killing millions of birds, bats and bees.

This story was originally published August 9, 2017 at 1:17 PM with the headline "Letter: Cannot replace fossil fuels without huge costs."