Tag Archives: C02

Earth Burps

How do you spell relief?

Did the Earth need Alka Seltzer 18,000 years ago?  According to this article from Science Daily there might have been a need (snicker-snicker). Must have been a “plop plop fizz fizz” moment.

Scientists have found the possible source of a huge carbon dioxide ‘burp’ that happened some 18,000 years ago and which helped to end the last ice age.

Note the word “possible,” which always seems to be one of the key words in these scare-a-rama reports we get.

If there was a large carbon burp 18,00o years ago, I’d like to know where it is, because I sure don’t see one on the below graph of carbon and temperature taken from the Antarctic Ice Core. Sure there’s an increase in CO2,  but a burp? I think not. I see a gradual rise, not a sudden burp.

The results provide the first concrete evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) was more efficiently locked away in the deep ocean during the last ice age, turning the deep sea into a more ‘stagnant’ carbon repository — something scientists have long suspected but lacked data to support.

Yet, they tout “concrete evidence” as being in this alleged “proof” they’re providing.  So how did they arrive at this conclusion?

By measuring how much carbon-14 (14C) was in the bottom-dwelling forams’ shells, and comparing this with the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at the time, they were able to work out how long the CO2 had been locked in the ocean.

By linking their marine core to the Antarctic ice-cores using the temperature signal recorded in both archives, the team were also able compare their results directly with the ice-core record of past atmospheric CO2 variability.

Sorry but I still don’t see a burp in that graph of the Antarctic Ice Core sample. Here is further explanation from the article.

Throughout the past two million years (the Quaternary), the Earth has alternated between ice ages and warmer interglacials. These changes are mainly driven by alterations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (the Milankovic theory).

But changes in Earth’s orbit could only have acted as the ‘pace-maker of the ice ages’ with help from large, positive feedbacks that turned this solar ‘nudge’ into a significant global energy imbalance.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 were one of the most important of these positive feedbacks, but what drove these changes in CO2has remained uncertain.

Excuse me? “Uncertain?” I thought this was “CONCRETE?” Talk about bi-polar science. Note how they highlight the importance of CO2 and try to minimize the solar effect. Just couldn’t be some other reason, could there be? Has to be CO2.  They state “These changes are mainly driven by alterations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun” then turn around and claim CO2 was more of a cause and the orbit change was only a “pace-maker” more bi-polar science.

Let’s read some more and see what else they have to say.

Scientists think more CO2 was locked up in the deep ocean during ice ages, and that pulses or ‘burps’ of CO2 from the deep Southern Ocean helped trigger a global thaw every 100,000 years or so. The size of these pulses was roughly equivalent to the change in CO2 experienced since the start of the industrial revolution.

So they “think.”  I guess that’s “concrete” evidence, too. Note how they try and tie this in with the CO2 increase since the 1850’s. My how convenient is that?

I never would have guessed the Earth was a serial burper.  So, if we have a large burp every 100,000 years, and our last burp was 18,000 years ago, doesn’t that mean we won’t have another one for about 82,000 years? So why worry? (It’s their theory, not mine!)

Here’s some other comments on the subject, this one from this article on ABC Australia.

Geolgist Professor Mike Standiford, director of the Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne says the result is “interesting but controversial.”

Recent radiocarbon analyses from Chilean sites failed to find evidence of the missing Southern Ocean CO2, he says.

This comment makes it rather obvious that only using the limited data they did and have doesn’t seem to really be “concrete evidence” does it? So why the “alarmist” scare again?  Sounds like more desperation to prove there’s anthropogenic global warming to me.

By measuring how much carbon-14 (14C) was in the bottom-dwelling forams’ shells, and comparing this with the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at the time, they were able to work out how long the CO2 had been locked in the ocean.

Sorry but I have to question this process because there are other sources of -14 such as soil and plants for example.  So how can one tell what the source is? It could have come from elsewhere. (If you can find the “burp” they refer to, sure isn’t in the graph!)

If this theory is correct, we would expect to see large transfers of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere at the end of each ice age. This should be most obvious in the relative concentrations of radiocarbon (14C) in the ocean and atmosphere; 14C decays over time and so the longer carbon is locked up in the deep sea, the less 14C it contains.

I find this interesting, too.  The highlighted above reads to me like the claim is that it only decays in the ocean, or perhaps infers that it decays faster in the ocean.  I can’t fathom either one because it’s going to decay at the same rate regardless of where it’s located.  I’ve seen information that environmental factors will cause 0.1% or less variation on decay rates.  So, what’s the deal?

Sounds like another episode of CO2 Insanity to me. That’s the deal.

Source:  Science Daily

Comments Off on Earth Burps

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

Lake Tanganyika Warming – "Unprecedented" BS

It’s amazing how the “warmer” press and blogs latch on to silliness. They’ll hop on anything about global warming faster than the Lone Ranger jumps on his horse “Silver.” I did a Google search on “Africa’s Lake Tanganyika, Warming Fast Life Dying” the result shows as of now there are 66,600 search results on this headline and it hasn’t even been up but about 3 days. If it sounds like doom and gloom and it’s blamed upon global warming it really gets out there fast. What it really amounts to appears to be much ado about nothing, which is business as usual with the “warmer” crowd.

This is what happens when you send people from liberal Brown University, who conveniently come up with another scare-a-rama about global warming, in what appears to be another feeble “alarmist” attempt to counter climategate and all the other “gates” since. I originally found this article from Reuters  about how Lake Tanganyika has warmed while perusing things on the net.

Africa’s lake Tanganyika has heated up sharply over the past 90 years and is now warmer than at any time for at least 1,500 years, a scientific paper said on Sunday, adding that fish and wildlife are threatened.

Of course we have to tie this in with global warming and CO2.

Lead scientist on the project Jessica Tierney told Reuters the sharp rise in temperature coincided with rises in human emissions of greenhouse gases seen in the past century, so the study added to evidence that emissions are warming the planet.

And of course we have to use the warmista’s favorite word “unprecedented.”  “Coincided” seems odd, too, like they’re saying it could be mere coincidence, but it’s got to be caused by CO2 because it goes along with the CO2 Insanity agenda.

The results were published in Nature Geoscience on Sunday. (Link)

“Lake Tanganyika has experienced unprecedented warming in the last century,” a press release accompanying the paper said. “The warming likely is affecting valuable fish stocks upon which millions of people depend.”

The paper argues that recent rises in temperature are correlated with a loss of biological productivity in the lake, suggesting higher temperatures may be killing life.

“Lake Tanganyika has become warmer, increasingly stratified and less productive over the past 90 years,” the paper says.

Unprecedented temperatures and a … decrease in productivity can be attributed to (human) … global warming.”

See, they use words like “suggesting” and even use “unprecedented” twice. Note they link it to “human” (anthropogenic) global warming, too.  That’s a mighty big conclusion in my humble opinion, not to mention mighty convenient. So how much is this “unprecedented” temperature rise?

The rise in temperature over the past 90 years was about 0.9 degrees Celsius and was accompanied by a drop in algae volumes.

Note, I’m not questioning the temperature rise, or the algae drop, but I do question what’s causing it and if it’s “unprecedented” or not. I find the next line interesting as it makes it obvious they don’t really know what’s causing it.

But the paper admits that other factors, like overfishing, may be doing more harm than any warming.

What I simply can’t fathom about some scientist is why they publish things and act like they have proof positive when the reality is they don’t have all the facts to back up what they’re stating?  I really don’t have a problem with the facts of this paper, but I do have a big problem with them claiming it’s due to AGW. Now back to the “overfishing.”

Yes, “overfishing” could be an excellent reason there’s less fish.  Perhaps not the whole reason, but certainly a large factor, especially when you see the below on the population increase in the region over the previous 90 years, which explains why overfishing would be one of my top choices on why there are less fish.

Another factor would be the resulting pollution from the dramatic increase in population of the region.  This would lend itself handily in explaining problems with the lake. The reality is that what they’re actually saying is that they don’t know what the cause is.  I have to wonder if this was even peer-reviewed?

To start laying things out and get somewhat of a handle on what was gong on in Africa 90 years ago (1920), I find the following about population.  This is certainly not exact science, but I think it provides a good idea of what the population increase in this region has been since 1920. It’s dramatic enough that it should not be necessary to be splitting hairs over what the real increase was.  A few million people plus or minus wouldn’t make much of a difference considering the magnitude.

The country “Tanganyika” (a country in 1919), comprised of what is known today as Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, had a population of 3,500,000  in 1919, per this website. If you want a better idea of the population explosion in the region around Lake Tanganyika, the original “Tanganyika” was comprised of only part of the countries surrounding Lake Tanganyika.  In addition you have to add the Congo, Malawi and Zambia. For the sake of argument, lets say those additional three countries add another 3,500,000 people and make it an estimated total in 1919 of 7,00,000 people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika.

Total populations today, per the World Bank (as of 2008) are, Congo: 6,425,635, Tanzania: 42,483,923, Malawi: 14,846,182, Zambia: 12,620,219, Burundi: 8,074,254. The total is: 84,450,213, roughly 77,450,000 more people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika in the past 90 years. Now you can see the magnitude I referred to.  While not all this population lives immediately adjacent to the lake, I’d be willing to bet the increase in population around the lake was probably at least proportionate to the population increase in the entire region.

Please don’t tell me this is not going to be a gigantic factor regarding the quantity of fish in this lake. I’m sure you can easily imagine the increased fishing and the increased pollution resulting from an additional 77.5 million or so people in the region.  I read one item noting that the water in Lake Tanganyika is no longer potable, which is another indication of problems not caused by CO2 over the past 90 years.  Problems no doubt caused by pollution from runoff of things like fertilizers, animal waste, human waste, sewage, and the dumping of chemicals that could also be causing fish decline. To go back to the “unprecedented” warming. I can’t find anything on Lake Tanganyika, but I did find this from NOAA about the surface temperatures in Lake Malawi, which is in the same region of Africa, just South of Lake Tanganyika.

Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction


               World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder


                     NOAA Paleoclimatology Program



NAME OF DATA SET: Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction

LAST UPDATE: 4/2005 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)


Lindsay A. Powers, Thomas C. Johnson, Josef P. Werne, Isla S. Castañeda,

Ellen C. Hopmans, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté and Stefan Schouten


SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Powers, L.A., et al..  2005.

Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction.

IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

Data Contribution Series # 2005-038.

NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.


Powers, L.A., T.C. Johnson, J.P. Werne, I.S. Castañeda, E.C. Hopmans,

J.S. Sinninghe Damsté, and S. Schouten.  2005.

Large temperature variability in the southern African tropics since

the Last Glacial Maximum.

Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L08706, doi:10.1029/2004GL022014.


The role of the tropics in global climate change is actively debated,

particularly in regard to  the timing and magnitude of thermal and

hydrological response. Continuous, high-resolution temperature records

through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) from tropical oceans have

provided much insight but surface temperature reconstructions do not

exist from tropical continental environments. Here we used the TEX86

paleotemperature proxy to reconstruct mean annual lake surface

temperatures through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in Lake Malawi,

East Africa (9º-14ºS). We find a ~3.5ºC overall warming since the LGM,

with temperature reversals of ~ 2ºC during the Younger Dryas (12.5 ka BP)

and at 8.2 ka BP.  Maximum Holocene temperatures of ~29ºC were found

at 5 ka BP, a period preceding severe drought in Africa. These results

suggest a substantial thermal response of southeastern tropical Africa

to deglaciation and to varying conditions during the Holocene.

GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Tropical East Africa

PERIOD OF RECORD: 24 KYrBP - present


National Science Foundation (USA) grants ATM-9709291 and ATM-0081776 (to TCJ),

and a European Association of Organic Geochemists travel scholarship to LAP.


The dataset is a paleotemperature reconstruction of mean annual surface

temperature from the north basin of Lake Malawi, East Africa using the

TEX86 paleothermometer. (TetraEther indeX of tetraethers with 86 carbon atoms).

The age model for these cores is already available for previous Lake Malawi MP98

data sets on this website.

TEX86 values are means of replicate analyses. All samples were measured at least

in duplicate, half of samples were measured at least in triplicate.  The calibration

equation used to calculate mean annual lake surface temperatures (LST) is

LST=(TEX86-0.25)/0.017 with a calibration error of +/- 2 degrees C.

Lake Malawi core M98-1P: 10º15.9'S, 34º19.1'E, water depth 403m.

Lake Malawi core M98-2P:  9º58.6'S, 34º13.8'E, water depth 363m.

Lake surface elevation 474m.


Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction

Column 1:  Age, cal kYBP

Column 2:  TEX86, means of replicate analyses

Column 3:  Mean Temperature

Column 4:  Standard Deviation

  Age      TEX86     Temp        SD

  0.25      0.69     25.88      0.86

  0.57      0.69     26.17      0.19

  1.75      0.71     26.87      0.76

  2.96      0.69     26.16      0.71

  3.32       0.7      26.6      0.21

  3.54       0.7     26.71      0.43

  4.23      0.72     27.79      0.45

  4.45      0.72     27.49      0.56

  4.77      0.73     28.52      0.46

  5.05      0.74     28.93      0.58

  5.46      0.74     28.61      0.02

  6.22      0.72      27.6      0.11

  6.72      0.72     27.58      0.22

  7.45      0.68     25.06      0.78

  7.58      0.69     25.91      0.56

  7.79      0.68     25.09      0.25

  8.02      0.69     25.81      0.02

  8.23      0.66     24.35      0.23

  8.92      0.69     26.17      0.67

 10.23      0.69     25.85      0.71

  10.9      0.68     25.52      0.49

 11.46       0.7     26.44      0.78

 11.94       0.7      26.6      0.64

  12.2      0.69     25.84      0.12

 12.51      0.68      25.3      0.14

 12.72      0.68     25.48      0.55

 12.98      0.71     27.13      0.28

 13.52      0.69     25.64      0.18

 13.74      0.72     27.49      0.08

 13.84      0.73     28.15      0.55

 14.29      0.71        27      0.06

 14.51       0.7     26.37      0.65

 14.89      0.69     25.86      0.66

 15.94      0.67     24.97      0.57

 17.58      0.65     23.48      0.77

 18.52      0.64     23.09      0.83

 19.01      0.64     23.13      0.74

 20.01      0.63     22.58      0.58

 20.78      0.63     22.52      0.43

 21.77      0.66     23.98       0.3

 22.43      0.66     24.13      0.01

 23.24      0.67     24.48      0.58

 23.88      0.66     24.19      0.03

As noted above they had a 3.5 degree Celsius warming since the last glacial maximum approximately 20-21,000 years ago. Then they had a 2 degree Celsius temperature reversal during the Younger Dryas (12,900-11,500 years ago). I find it amusing that they’re referring to  a .9 degree Celsius warming as being “unprecedented” considering that by comparison, there are larger temperature swings than noted in the study by the Brown University group. You can also see that coming off the last glacial maximum, the lake warmed, as did the rest of the Earth, then when the temperature dropped during the Younger Dryas, so did the temperature of the lake. Also, the Little Ice Age ended about 1850 and we’ve been warming again.  Is it really “unprecedented” the lake is also warming up again? It seems there is a non-CO2 caused pattern that’s merely repeating itself again.

Since they’re claiming CO2 is the cause, here are some CO2 levels for you to ponder. You can see from the below chart that around the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago CO2 was under 200 ppm. (CO2 is the round dots-middle line). Note the CO2 level stays relatively flat with a little rise until about 17,00o years ago, then starts rising at a faster pace.  Now look at 12,900 years ago (Younger Dryas).  Notice the CO2 level is now about 240 ppm yet the temperature is dropping? Then notice it continues to rise while the temperature is still dropping until 11,500 years ago? (For temperatures during the same periods refer to the second chart. Sorry I didn’t come across one with both). To me it shows there’s no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes.

You want more to consider? This study from Science Online from 2008 titled “Northern Hemisphere Controls on Tropical Southeast African Climate During the Past 60,000 Years” also leaves me wondering about the anthropogenic global warming claim and also seems to back up my thought that CO2 is not driving this.

The processes that control climate in the tropics are poorly understood. We applied compound-specific hydrogen isotopes ({delta}D) and the TEX86 (tetraether index of 86 carbon atoms) temperature proxy to sediment cores from Lake Tanganyika to independently reconstruct precipitation and temperature variations during the past 60,000 years. TTanganyika temperatures follow Northern Hemisphere insolation and indicate that warming in tropical southeast Africa during the last glacial termination began to increase ~3000 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Note they show warming FOLLOWS Northern Hemisphere insolation, and INCREASED 3,000 years BEFORE CO2 increased. More doubt about CO2 causing this regardless if the source is natural or anthropogenic.

They also note the temperature fluctuations in the lake over the past 60,000 years, again perhaps this .9 Celsius warming isn’t all that unusual or man caused.

Our TEX86 and {delta}Dleaf wax reconstructions show that temperature and hydrology in the Tanganyika basin were extremely variable throughout the past 60,000 years (Fig. 2). Holocene lake surface temperature (LST) fluctuated between ~27° and 29°C, whereas temperatures during the LGM were ~4°C cooler. The magnitude and timing of this temperature shift are similar to those of nearby Lake Malawi (14), indicating that our TEX86 record captures regional temperature change in tropical southeast Africa during deglaciation.

Again, more fluctuation than .9 degrees Celsius.  They then proceed to state the surface temperature changes in these lakes are not CO2 related!

In particular, Tanganyika LST at the end of the LGM follows rising Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, a potential trigger for deglaciation (20). Temperatures rise at 20,000 ± 380 yr B.P., just as they do in a TEX86 LST record from Lake Malawi (14) (Fig. 3). This timing is consistent with rising temperatures at ~20,000 yr B.P. in Antarctica, yet leads the deglacial CO2 rise recorded in Antarctic ice cores (21) by about 3,000 years, a difference that is outside the chronological errors of the ice core and the LST records. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are therefore not responsible for the initial transmission of warming from the high latitudes to the southeast African tropics.

“Not responsible.” I don’ t know how you can get clearer than that. More CO2 Insanity. Will it ever end?

Initial Source: Reuters

Comments Off on Lake Tanganyika Warming – "Unprecedented" BS

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science

CO2 Causes Attack of the Triffids!

Here’s an amazing video I picked up from this piece at I Hate the Media that was released by the EPA to show how plants grow with different levels of CO2 Insanity.

I am waiting for the IPCC to issue a new report that CO2 and Global Warming will soon cause all life on Earth to end because we’ll be attacked by The Triffids.  You can see Triffids in the video below.

I don’t know about you, but I’m stocking up on Roundup Weed Killer and garden sprayers immediately.

Kills Triffids Dead

Source: I Hate the Media

Comments Off on CO2 Causes Attack of the Triffids!

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Science, Stranger than Truth

You Have to Drop a Lot of Acid to Kill Coral

I’ve been reading the alarmist articles about the coral, that will soon be disappearing from an ocean near you, due to ocean-acidification caused from CO2 that’s supposedly caused by AGW.

CO2 Science reports on an experiment about just how much CO2 will it take to create enough acidification to actually kill coral.

What was done
The authors employed controlled infusions of pure CO2 to create mean pH values of 8.03 ± 0.03, 7.64 ± 0.12 and 7.31 ± 0.11 (corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400-475, 905-1660 and 2115-3585 ppm, respectively) in filtered seawater that flowed continuously through three sets of multiple tanks into which they had introduced the gametes of two Acropora coral species (A. digitifera and A. tenuis) they had collected during a natural spawning event, after which (seven days later) they determined their percent survival. Then, after ten more days, they documented the size of the developing polyps; and after 14 days they documented the percentage of polyps that had acquired zooxanthellae that the researchers had collected from the giant clam T. crocea and released into the several treatment tanks.

Wow – sounds like real science!  Not consensus,  magazine articles, or wild-assed guesses.  Here’s what happened.

What was learned
Suwa et al. report that “A. digitifera larval survival rate did not differ significantly among pH treatments,” and the graphs of their data indicate that survivorship in A. tenuis was actually about 18.5% greater in the lowest pH (highest CO2) treatment than in the ambient seawater treatment. At the end of the subsequent ten-day study, however, polypsize was reduced in the lowest pH treatment, but by only about 14%, which is not too bad for an atmospheric CO2concentration in the range of 2115-3585 ppm. And in the A. tenuis coral, this reduction in individual size was more than compensated by the even greater percentage increase in survivorship. In addition, after only four days of being exposed to the zooxanthellae derived from giant clams, all polyps in all treatments had acquired a full complement of the symbiotic zooxanthella.

What it means
In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that “the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change,” or “in other words,” as they continue, “coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units,” which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate — and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) — to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm.

That’s a lot of CO2!  So quit screaming CO2 is killing the coral  It’s not!

Source: CO2 Science

Comments Off on You Have to Drop a Lot of Acid to Kill Coral

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Science

Get Yer Free Dimbulbs, Only £45 Each!!!

6978fluorescent_light_bulbMore CO2 inspired insanity from the UK, they must really love The Goracle over there is all I can say.  Per this article in Telegraph.co.uk we have what I’d go so far as to term super insanity.

More than 200 million free energy-saving light bulbs have been sent to households over the last two years by energy suppliers. The mass mail-out was caused by gas and electricity suppliers trying to hit Government targets to reduce carbon emissions.

Yes that’s right 200 million of them!  Just look at how CO2 Insanity can cost you money!

However, Which?, the consumer watchdog has calculated that each household has ended paying £45 each through higher energy bills to fund the scheme, even though many consumers objected to being sent the bulbs. Many complained about having to go to the Post Office to collect what they thought was a parcel, only to find it was a bulb that did not even fit any of their lamps.

Nice planning, sending out bulbs that don’t fit.  Must fall into the category of dimbulbs.  It appears it’s more important to hit the target of carbon reduction than to actually have any common sense, much less use it.

Companies had various options of how they hit their targets to reduce carbon emissions, but if they failed to hit their targets they could be fined 10 per cent of their turnover. The companies were, crucially, allowed to pass on the costs of the scheme to customers.

Hmmm…so what gets passed on to consumers anyway?

Ofgem, the industry regulator, calculated that £84 out of the average dual fuel bill of about £1,200 goes on environmental levies, of which £45 goes directly towards funding CERT.

Not only is what you’ve read thus far totally asinine, it gets even better.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change admitted last year that the scheme was flawed and resulted in significant wastage, with no proof that the light bulbs were being used in people’s homes.

Yes you read right, no proof they were even being used!!!  Talk about stupidity!!!!!

One thing the article doesn’t note is the total cost of this stupidity.  Take £45 x 200 million and you get a grand total stupidity cost of only £9 Billion pissed down the drain.  For those in the USA that’s the equivalent of $13.4 Billion USD.

Other things to think about are:

  • How much of a carbon footprint was made getting the raw materials for all these light bulbs?
  • How much of a carbon footprint was made manufacturing all these light bulbs?
  • How much of a carbon footprint was made shipping all these light bulbs?
  • How much pollution was created by all the ones that got thrown out because they didn’t fit anything?

See why I call it CO2 Insanity?  It is amazing the gigantic waste of time, money and materials that goes on in the name of saving the Earth.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on Get Yer Free Dimbulbs, Only £45 Each!!!

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Financial

Wind Power is a Lot CO2 Insanity

Wind TurbineMore CO2 insanity.  I thought being “green” was about being efficient. In this case it’s striking to see that something people beleive is good and green is so inefficient. Are people being suckered into believing in wind power?

After spending millions on wind farms you may not only get a bad return on your investment, you might not generate much power either. Yep, according to this article in Telegraph.uk.co they have some major problems.

The first detailed study of onshore wind farms has found that 20 of the sites produce less than 20 per cent of their maximum output with some producing less than 10 per cent.

Blyth Harbour in Northumberland is thought to be the least efficient wind farm producing just 7.9 per cent of its maximum capacity while Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at 8.7 per cent of its capacity.

Cost efficient it’s not.  7.9 percent isn’t what I’d consider very good especially when you consider the major eyesore, noise and the fact they’re not too friendly to birds.

While some are better and some pretty good, per the study they cite, the majority are not efficient at all.

The best wind farms operate at about 50 per cent of their predicted maximum capacity while the majority produce around 25 per cent to 30 per cent.

Now there is a good reason for some of this which is as follows.

Experts warned that subsidies for green energy are encouraging wind farms to be built in unsuitable areas.   Prof Michael Jefferson, of the London Metropolitan Business School, said developers ‘grossly exaggerate’ the energy producing potential of their sites.   He said: “The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was available.”

Let’s not just put these things up anywhere. If they’re going to do this, I hope someone wakes up and starts studying where to put them where they will be most efficient instead of creating a wasteland of basically useless bird killing eysores just so they can by stylishly green.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on Wind Power is a Lot CO2 Insanity

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science

You are now in The CO2 Twilight Zone

Rod SerlingThis all makes me feel like I’m in an episode of The Twilight Zone with Rod Serling’s narrative at the beginning going something like this…

Welcome to a world where reality has been dumped upside down like a garbage can being emptied.  A world where hot causes cold, hot causes hot and hot causes everything from tornados to droughts to blizzards.  A world where cooling doesn’t matter because it’s caused by warming.  A world where Congress listens to “scientific facts” from Peruvian farmers and Al Gore but ignores reality.  You are now in The Twilight Zone.

This has to be the biggest science fiction I think I’ve read yet in the AGW debate.   Think this professor may be suffering cognitive dissonance to come up with this one? Read on.

The article from CNS News is titled  “Cognitive Brain Patterns Prevent Conservatives from Accepting Threat of Global Warming.” Now that’s a mouth full.  Guess where this guy is from?  Berkeley, CA of course! Where else would foster such thoughts other than The Twilight Zone?

According to the good professor…

Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that “cognitive” brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.

George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book “The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics,” says his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one’s bodily experience and how one functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says.

We not only have weird science being applied to prove AGW, we now have it describing those who find The Goracle and his Inconvenient truth to be well…….inconvenient to say the least. Let’s go to Websters Online and see the definition of Cognitive…

Main Entry: cog·ni·tive

Pronunciation: \ˈkäg-nə-tiv\

Function: adjective

Date: 1586

1 : of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)
2 : based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge

Sounds like we’re actually thinking about things, which evidently is pissing him off, so denier thinking is now bad.  Blame it on denier “brain patterns.”   Here’s his explanation about what our brain patterns supposedly do according to him…

“And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science.  So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.

Isn’t that what science is all about?  If the science is good no one’s going to debunk it, if it’s bad, then it gets debunked.   Even Einstein was happy to have people go after his theories.  He was about the science being correct, not who was right or who was wrong.

On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

I guess “open-minded” means you believe whatever the liberals tell you and don’t ask questions.  Use your liberal cognitive brain process to drink the Fool-Aid and just go along with the brainwash.  You’ll feel much better in the morning and The Goracle will love you.

In a Feb. 23 report on National Public Radio, reporter Christopher Joyce began his story by stating that recent polls show that fewer Americans believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite “a raft” of contradictory reports.

Excuse me, contradictory reports? Well, give us some actual real facts that make sense, aren’t based on skewed data, have been peer-reviewed by real scientists (not just the ones who happen to agree with you), and the public might just might not dismiss it as a bunch of garbage designed to make The Goracle and his buddies rich and rape the taxpayers out of more money on the pretense of saving the world.  Regarding “raft” it’s like this, I find the increased frequency  of “problems” since climategate to be rather indicative of warmers going into overdrive to make sure we all believe in AGW.  The old technique of  “tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.”

“This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

OK can you say spin? The “facts” about AGW get busted on a regular basis, but because we question what’s going on, it’s our “beliefs.”  But the warmers, who swallow the AGW propaganda on a daily basis without questioning a thing, are being scientific. Does this guy really think everyone is this dumb?

So let’s see what Pat Michaels has to say about this…

But Pat Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the argument that opponents of human-caused global warming are physically or psychologically different reveals “desperation” on the part of those who want people to not only embrace the idea of human destruction of the environment but put that idea into laws regulating human activity.

Desperation? Regulation?  Now we’re getting somewhere. This is exactly what happened under Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc.  Don’t believe the state’s propaganda and you’ll be declared crazy and sent off to a mental institution for reprogramming (aka brainwashing). I’m sure the warmers would love to take us all away and do this so we come back as good little Nazis….I mean warmers, and boy are they drooling at the thought of regulating everyone to live and do as they say.  To me the professor’s comments do indeed sound desperate as they appear to have no basis in reality in my mind.  Perhaps relality in Berkeley is different than the rest of the world?

“Imminent disaster serves the proponents of regulation on this issue,” Michaels told CNSNews.com. That includes efforts by Democrats in Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which would limit carbon emissions and tax corporations who fail to meet government-set pollution standards.

Yes, let’s not waste a good crisis. If we don’t have one, let’s create one and then we can get the general population to go along with the program to save their asses from impending doom.  The more they spend the more they get saved.  Exactly what the warmers and the greentards are doing.  Moreover, it seems everything that happens is now caused by anthropogenic global warming, including earthquakes, herpes, athlete’s food, pregnancy,  and I’m waiting for some astute warmer to blame Obamacre on it.  You can see what I mean from the next quote…

Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming and, in fact, the term “climate change” should be changed to “climate crisis” to more accurately describe the phenomenon.

Yes I’m sure The Goracles new book will be titled “Climate Crisis – Why You Deniers Need Thorazine and Straight-Jackets so You’ll Shut Up.”  99.999% final?  Has the professor added climatologist to his resume?

I REALLY love the next quotes…

Lakoff writes, “In the ideal strict father family, the world is seen as a dangerous place and the father functions as protector from ‘others’ and the parent who teaches children absolute right from wrong by punishing them physically (painful spanking or worse) when they do wrong. The father is the ultimate authority, children are to obey, and immoral practices are seen as disgusting.

“Ideal liberal families are based on nurturance, which breaks down into empathy, responsibility (for oneself and others) and excellence — doing well as one can to make oneself and one’s family and community better.”

Really?  This is now spinning at 50,000 RPM. He has it backwards in my opinon.

If you look at the first paragraph it sounds more like he’s describing The Goracle.  We’re supposed to do as he says, be good little children and blindly believe in global warming because he says so.  We’re to obey!  We should not take up the immoral practice of creating carbon without making him rich by buying carbon credits!  If we don’t do that we are disgusting! Our punishment will be the Earth will dry up like a prune and burst into flames!  Sounds more like typical liberalism to me.  Do as I say not as I do! (Reference to The Goracle’s inordinate power consumption and flying all over the place leaving a cloud of CO2 while saving the Earth.

His description of the liberal families is absurd.  I see plenty of  conservatives who nurture their children, teach them responsibility, empathy and excellence, too.  His statement makes as much sense as saying things such as “all blondes are dumb”, or “all brunettes are smart.”  Just isn’t based in reality at all.

Dr. Michaels closes with…

Michaels said that the idea that people who don’t buy into global warming should be discounted because they are somehow incapable of seeing the facts doesn’t fit with the American ideal of individual liberty.

“I don’t think that would sit well with the people who wrote the Constitution of this country,” Michaels said.

I can’t top that statement.

Since this is all about the “cognitive”  I wonder if the professor suffers from Cognitive Dissonance?”  I have to wonder if this isn’t the cause and the effect is his asinine theory?

I found the definition of cognitive dissonance on Wikipedia.  Here is one quote that I think explains some things about the professor’s ideas and explains my curiosity about whether he suffers from cognitive dissonance or not.

The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon Festinger and others in the book When Prophecy Fails.[3] The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that prediction failed, the movement did not disintegrate, but grew instead, as members vied to prove their orthodoxy by recruiting converts.

Now to me this sounds like all the “doomsdays” we’ve had in the past. Things like…

  • Nuclear War will wipe the planet out.
  • Global Cooling in the 70’s
  • The Hale-Bopp comet cult.
  • End of the world with the new millenia in 2000 (should have been 2001 as there is no year “0” but, was still hysteria).

and things we have now…

  • Anthropogenic Global Warming
  • The end of the world in 2012 due to Mayan Calendar ending/Nostradamus predicitons
  • Water purity and availablility.
  • Methane leaking into the Arctic.
  • Cow farts.

When Prophecy Fails also notes the increased shrillness from this study group…

An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger‘s 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of belief persistence in members of a UFO doomsday cult, and documented the increased proselytization they exhibited after the leader’s “end of the world” prophecy failed to come true. The prediction of the Earth’s destruction, supposedly sent by aliens to the leader of the group, became a disconfirmed expectancy that caused dissonance between the cognitions, “the world is going to end” and “the world did not end.” Although some members abandoned the group when the prophecy failed, most of the members lessened their dissonance by accepting a new belief, that the planet was spared because of the faith of the group.[7]

Does this not sound like the increased proselytization after Climatgate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate and all the other times AGW has been busted lately?  I don’t know about you but I definitely noticed increased shrillness, frequency, and a myriad of new things claimed to be caused by AGW.  Go back to “the raft of contradictory reports” mentioned earlier where he even admits the increase in frequency.  (Definition of raft: a large number or amount).  We have similarly seen some scientists who were on the AGW side change to the non-AGW side.  I wonder if we will soon see many of them take the position that AGW is over and  see them take credit for saving the world from AGW based upon all their efforts?

You could also read these other definitions in Wikipedia and judge for yourself if they might apply to the professor and warmers alike…

Cognitive Bias:  A cognitive bias is the human tendency to draw incorrect conclusions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence.

True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.

Sounds like AGW believers and the professor to me.

Comments Off on You are now in The CO2 Twilight Zone

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science

Beef! It's what's for dinner!

beeffordinner_f2You no longer have to switch to a diet of tofu and seaweed to save the environment from that nasty old CO2 and methane.  The Daily Mail Online reports in this article that…

Calls to save the planet by eating less meat are based on an exaggerated UN report linking livestock to global warming, according to an analysis of the study.

Sounds like the UN got it wrong again…..hmmmm….big surprise…

Dr Mitloehner says meat and milk production generates less greenhouse gas than most environmentalists claim – and highlights the source of confusion as a report from the UN.

The good Doctor points this out…

Dr Mitloehner, of the University of California, says the misleading claims emanate from a 2006 UN report which said livestock was ‘responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions’. ‘This is a higher share than transport,’ it added.

The figure was picked up and recycled by ‘eat less meat’ campaigners all over the world. But according to Dr Mitloehner the claim is inaccurate and ‘unscientific’ because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures, resulting in what he describes as an ‘apples-and- oranges analogy that truly confused the issue’.

Yes the cows do fart….but it ain’t THAT bad (unless you happen to be behind one when it cuts loose!)

He says there is no doubt that livestock are major producers of methane – a potent greenhouse gas.  But he argues that the focus of tackling climate change should be on ‘smarter farming’, not less farming.

The UN should claim a “mulligan” on their report and start anew.  Hmmmm should I go to In and Out?  Or, Burger King?

Source:  The Daily Mail Online

Comments Off on Beef! It's what's for dinner!

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science

WWF = World Wildlife Farce?

Merlin$60 Billion is a pretty big farce!  According to Christopher Booker’s recent column in Telegraph.co.uk that’s what they stand to make in a giant carbon credit scheme…talk about insanity!

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental concerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

Sounds good, protecting a large area of the Amazon, but here’s the scheme…

The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle – so remote that it is not under any threat – should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.

What a great way to make money from nothing.  Merlin the Magician would certainly be impressed as this is much more profitable than turning lead into gold.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on WWF = World Wildlife Farce?

Filed under Editor, Financial

Lucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!!!

ricky_ricardoAccording to this article from the Waterbury Replublican American the EPA has some explaining to do…

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has introduced a bipartisan bill, and is guaranteed a vote, that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from moving forward on new rules aimed at regulating greenhouse-gas emissions by overturning its finding that global warming poses a clear and present danger to public health and welfare.

Last week, the governors of 18 states and two territories joined 98 industry groups in sending letters in support of the senator’s resolution.

While Skilling’s fraud has been proved in court, the EPA’s fraud is only now being exposed, and based on opinion polls, the EPA is being found guilty in the court of public opinion. The fraud behind the EPA’s regulations is threefold: the science, the economics and the results.

We already know about the science.  The article goes further into it but you have climategate, glaciergate, hurricane gate, Amazongate, Africagate, Chinagate, Pachaurigate, et al.

Regarding costs not increasing…according to the article, so much for that theory…

The EPA claims that its regulations won’t increase costs or otherwise harm the economy. This is laughable. The regulations can’t work if the costs of fossil fuels don’t increase and force the public to shift to less reliable, more expensive alternative fuels.

An independent analysis from Harvard University found that to reach President Obama’s CO2 target, gasoline prices would have to more than double to $7 a gallon.

When the Treasury Department looked at Congress’ preferred alternative to EPA regulations, “cap-and-trade,” it found the average household would spend an extra $1,761 per year. And that is the less-expensive alternative to the EPA’s top-down regulations.

Some of the results wil be…

Worst of all, the economic downturn brought on by the EPA’s regulations would do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions because fast-growing economic competitors such as China and India, not hampered by U.S. energy restrictions, will continue to generate huge growth in their emissions.

Indeed, China alone emits more CO2 than the United States and Canada combined. And research by physicist Richard A. Muller at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory shows every 10 percent reduction in emissions in the United States is negated by one year’s growth in China’s emissions.

I sincerely hope all the lawsuits work and get the EPA to sit down and shut up,  They’re basing  decisions on bad science, which is being used for a political agenda, which is to carbon tax the snot out of everyone.

Source: Waterbury Republican American

Comments Off on Lucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!!!

Filed under Editor, Politics