Tag Archives: CO2

Coal Stays On in UK or Blackouts will Occur

Well, so much for all that wonderful wind and solar that’s going to save us all from non-existent anthropogenic global warming, or man-made climate change, or whatever term you prefer to use. Seems the UK can’t shut down it’s coal-fired plants or they’ll have a gigantic power shortage.  Per this article from Telegraph.co.uk

A number of old coal combustion stations were due to close in 2014, putting the UK in danger of running out of power in the second half of this decade.

Experts had warned that taking this back-up generation off the system before nuclear power plants are built would risk an “energy gap” and potential black-outs.

Of course they try and place the blame on the power company lobbyists, but the reality is no coal generated power means you’re not going to be watching TV, heating your house, playing on your PC and perhaps not even working, unless you’re a grave-digger with a shovel and pick.

But furious lobbying by UK energy companies forced the EU to back down on its directive on Tuesday, with MEPs on the body’s environmental committee voting to recommend that the power stations another four years of life.

One regulatory source said British lobbyists had put by far the most pressure on the EU to re-think its rules, warning that the UK would simply have to flout the law if no changes were made.

Ian Parrett, an energy consultant at Inenco, welcomed the decision, saying that the previous timescale “simply wasn’t realistic and threatened the UK’s energy security.

But he warned against complacency about the UK’s energy needs, with around £200bn of investment in new generation and networks needed by 2020.

“A postponement will at least provide breathing time,” he said. “But even with the delay, any new Government will face energy as one of its top priorities to avoid a looming energy gap casting a shadow over any economic recovery.”

It isn’t the easy task to convert things as some who desperately want to believe.  It takes planning and time.  You can’t put millions of people in the dark or you’re going to have some massive problems as they will justifiably be pissed-off.

It isn’t cheap either, it’s estimated the UK needs to invest $200 billion pounds by 2020 just to keep up with the demand.  There go your taxes up…up…and…away, not to mention your power bill.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on Coal Stays On in UK or Blackouts will Occur

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Financial, Politics, Renewable Energy, Science

EPA Refrigeration Retardation

The EPA is considering new regulations of the gas that makes your refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners work.  Having just  “declared” CO2 (plant food) to be a dangerous gas, I wondered what the motivation was due to the fact that the ozone hole has closed up considerably. I also wondered if anybody at the EPA had really studied the possible effects of the change? Or, if they were being “stylish” and/or relying on more “junk science?”

After nosing around here and there I found this post from NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) on their Switchboard titled “HFCs: Is this the year to curb these super greenhouse gases?” Not having heard the term “super greenhouse gases” before obviously piqued my curiosity as I was wondering what new “crisis” the AGW crowd would try and foist upon us next. Since the CO2 problem seems to be gradually dying from massive doses of “super-reality” getting rid of those nasty CFCs would be one logical step for the “alarmists” to take.  Here’s a snippet from NRDC’s site.

Phasing out CFCs and HCFCs has also delivered big climate protection benefits, because these ozone-destroying chemicals are also powerful heat-trapping greenhouse gases.  The worldwide elimination of CFCs has delivered a climate protection bonus equivalent to 11 billion tons of CO2 reductions in this year alone.  That’s also equivalent to delaying the expected growth in global CO2 emissions by 7-12 years.

I’ll skip all the whining about it as the above should give you an rather good idea of the postulating involved with this one.  (You can click on the link if you want to read all of it).  To cut to the chase, the EPAs has a plan afoot to approve petitions to re-regulate the gas your car air conditioner currently uses, HFC-134, which is what we changed to back when the ozone hole was the big problem. Their new preferred gas to save the Earth is called HFO1234yf.

EPA has also proposed to approve a new HFC, known as HFO-1234yf, for use in car air conditioners.  This compound has global warming potential (GWP) of only 4, more than 300 times less than the current mobile air conditioning refrigerant, HFC-134a, which has a GWP of 1430.  Last Friday, NRDC petitioned EPA to end the use of HFC-134a in mobile air conditioning.

You can see NRDC is at least partially driving this change, I don’t know who else at the moment. On the face of it I suppose I don’t have a problem with the new gas. There have been issues raised about HFO1234yf being flammable, but my nosing around indicates that while that may be a problem, it perhaps is no worse than sitting in a car with a full tank of gasoline. If enough people get carbonized, then I guess the government will step in with their usual too little too late approach and do something about it.

I also nosed around about the cost factor, as usual it will probably initially be more expensive, but the supply/demand situation will probably cool that off (pun intended) sooner or later.  Again, it’s probably nothing to get over excited about, other than the billions it will probably cost consumers.

What I do have problems with goes back to what is all the science behind this decision, and what will the real net effect be when it’s all said and done? I base these questions upon the EPA’s record, which in many instances hasn’t, in my opinion, been very good. Reducing pollution and keeping the ozone hole from growing certainly sounds stylish. But what are the facts?

It’s also a nice toe-hold for the EPA to get more restrictions passed on refrigeration systems that use HFC’s, like your refrigerator, freezer, home air conditioner, commercial refrigeration systems in stores-meat storage facilities, trailers-steamship containers-rail cars used to transport perishables, airplanes, cruise ships and so on and so on. (Keep reading and you will see this assertion is correct).

Regardless, it’s going to make a lot of money for some people and companies and my guess is it will end up costing consumers (who always get the short end of the EPA stick), billions. Why?  It’s a whole lot of new refrigerant to sell, which I’m sure will improve the bottom line at companies like DuPont and others who sell it. It’s also a lot of equipment to be sold or refitted, so it will be compatible with this new gas.  Back to follow the money.

So, back to is this something that is really necessary?  Will it really to what they claim? Will it cause other problems?  Do we even know that much about it?  Read on.

I came across this article titled “Greenhouse Gas Regulations Might Aggravate Climate Change” from the University of Arizona UA News that cites this study “Carbon Dioxie Emission Implications if Hydroflourocarbons are regulated: A Refrigeration Study”, by Paul Blowers and James M. Lownsbury, in the Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering at the University of Arizona.  The article cites the potential problems associated with this type of changeover.

UA engineers find swapping one chemical for another may actually result in greater energy use, compounding the problems the new chemical was supposed to fix.

This plays into my concerns about what the EPA is doing and if they’re about to cause more problems than they’re going to solve, whether this is politically motivated, or if they’ve really taken the time and done a complete study on this?

The U.S. government wants to regulate the use of hydrofluorocarbons, which could lead to an increased use of hydrofluoroethers as a replacement. Both are greenhouse gases, and research at the University of Arizona indicates that HFEs might be worse for the environment than HFCs.

It appears they are raising issues that the EPA perhaps hasn’t thought to look into, or are perhaps ignoring.

Their research suggests that these new chemicals, originally thought to have low greenhouse gas potential when used as refrigerants, might actually lead to increased emissions. Their conclusions were published recently in a paper in Environmental Science and Technology, the leading journal for the environmental science and engineering field.

Blowers and Lownsbury agree that HFEs have low emissions potential in terms of their chemical properties when studied in isolation. They contend, however, that the true potential of an HFE can only be determined by a complete analysis of its entire life cycle, from manufacture through use to disposal.

It appears my concerns about the EPA doing the old “look before you leap” are indeed valid.  Here’s some other issues regarding this changeover that could actually worsen the effect.

  • The AC/refrigeration unit may have poor energy efficiency (aka: when you switch to this new gas it may have to run more often and burn more energy than if it was left alone).
  • The source of where the power is coming from could have an effect. (aka: If the units are less efficient, and they require more energy, and that energy is coming from a coal-fired power plant if might be putting out more greenhouse gases than it was before).

They did testing on the efficiency and here’s what they found.

Blowers added that geographic location affects greenhouse gas emissions, and said that current refrigerants such as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are better for the environment than the HFE he and Lownsbury tested wherever electricity is produced mostly from coal.

However, if renewable or nuclear power is used, the HFE causes lower greenhouse gas emissions than HFCs. Blowers said the “one-size-fits-all approach” to regulating chemicals and achieving sustainability will not work.

In other words, the switch to HFEs might be good in areas where there is nuclear power generation, but it may actually be pumping out more CO2 in places where the power comes from coal. While I’m not too concerned about CO2, this served to show the CO2 Insanity we’re getting over this conversion.

In addition to this, no one really knows what the effect of HFEs will do to the environment.  They might actually be worse, and to reiterate no one knows what the effect will be, so I have to ask then why the rush to change?  This leads me down the “political” and “money” paths.

He also said that the paucity of data available for these new chemicals means it is impossible to measure their environmental impact.

This lack of data forced Blowers and Lownsbury to use computational chemistry to obtain some of the physical data, such as heat capacity, needed to perform the analyses because no experiments had been done to provide it.

Their current research is evaluating dry cleaning systems, window air conditioners and automobile cooling systems to see if results are similar for those cases. This involves designing the process, understanding how the technologies work, and determining the physical properties of the chemicals in order to do the evaluation.

So they don’t even know how all this may end up.  It might be more or less efficient and it might create or not create more problems. So it’s another shot in the dark as far as the EPA is concerned. Another case of the government doing a live experiment using you as the Guinea Pig and using your hard-earned tax dollars.  If it turns out to be a big boondoggle, then you know as well as I do that no heads will roll, no corporations will be fined or asked to refund the money, people who have wasted billions of dollars on this new gas will not get a penny back.  Moreover, if this turns out bad, it will probably benefit the scientists because they will be out getting more grant money to solve this new problem and the big corporations will come out with the new improved product and sales will go up along with their stock.

There is also an issue regarding how much energy is being used to make this new gas vs. the energy used to make the old gas.

Blowers also noted that the amount of energy required to manufacture a chemical needs to be considered when trying to establish its effect on climate. “What if making the HFE used up 100 times more energy than making up the HFC? Or what if it’s the opposite?”

So basically what we have here is the EPA going off on an exploration.  They must think they’re on Star Trek or something, “boldly going where no man has gone before.”  Except Captain Kirk won’t be around to make it better if they screw up. It gets better per this.

In the 1970s scientists linked chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, to a hole in the ozone layer. Thanks to the CFCs contained in coolants, aerosols, solvents and pesticides, we were being exposed to harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

These findings led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1989 to phase out the use of ozone-damaging chemicals such as CFCs. Among the chemicals that replaced CFCs were hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs.

Then scientists became concerned about the part that HCFCs, which are greenhouse gases, were playing in climate change. So the parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to phase out HCFCs.

In many cases, HCFCs have been replaced by hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which also are greenhouse gases. In 2009, the EPA ruled that HFCs are health hazards and contribute to climate change.

Currently, HFCs are not regulated, and a big increase in HFC emissions is expected. If HFCs do become regulated, the main contenders for their replacement are hydrofluoroethers, or HFEs.

The environmental effects of HFEs are unknown.

You can see how the process works.  It is almost like the EPA was the basis for the movie “Groundhog Day” in which things keep repeating over, and over and over, or that they have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder). We start out with CFCs bad, we need HCFCs, then we spend who knows how many 100’s of millions or billions converting over, then someone discovers that HCFCs are bad, so then we have to spend untold amounts of money changing over to HFCs and now we find out they’re bad and we should now change over to HFEs, which they have no clue about and perhaps they’ll find out they’re bad and in a few years we’ll be switching to something else and blow some more billions.

I can’t comprehend why the EPA doesn’t slow down some and actually let the scientists do their work BEFORE they start changing things and again find out that the latest fad creates more problems than were thought it would solve.

Here’s their bulletin about it. My comments in blue in parentheses( ).

WASHINGTON – Canada and Mexico have joined the United States in proposing to expand the scope of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to fight climate change. The proposal would phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are a significant and rapidly growing contributor to climate change. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led the analysis in the proposal, which demonstrates environmental benefits equal to removing greenhouse gas emissions from 59 million passenger cars each year through 2020, and 420 million cars each year through 2050. Reducing HFCs would help slow climate change and curb potential public health impacts.

During the phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act, manufacturers of equipment such as car air conditioners and kitchen refrigerators substituted HFCs. (See, last time they freaked out we had everyone dumping CFCs for HFCs – cost?) The trilateral proposal would phase down HFCs, which are up to 14,000 times more damaging to the Earth’s climate system than carbon dioxide. (14,000 times? Drama queens.  Most places I’ve found seem to average about 300-350 times, the highest I’ve found so far is 3,000 times, so where do we get 14,000 times? Scare tactics? Drama?) Even though efforts over the past decade have reduced emissions, global atmospheric concentrations of HFCs continue to increase. (Think about it, it’s “reduced emissions,” but it’s increasing emissions.  Where do they get that one from? Reminds me of the global warming (hot) caused the massive freeze in the UK (cold) this year) Without this proposal, HFC use in developing countries is anticipated to grow substantially, driven both by increased demand for refrigeration and air-conditioning and because HFCs were developed as alternatives to ozone depleting substances. (Think about this one, too.  We’re doing this in the US, Canada and Mexico, so how’s this going to cause HFCs to cease being used in developing countries?  Think about all the black market things that get sold by people like North Korea, Iran, Russia and others like weapons, weapons grade uranium, the equipment to make weapons grade uranium, etc.  So do you really believe 3rd world developing countries won’t be able to buy products that use HFC-134 and the like?

Signed in 1987, the Montreal Protocol is a treaty with 196 countries to help restore the ozone layer by ending the production of ozone-depleting substances and now potentially phasing down HFCs. (“Potentially?” Evidently no one else is going along with it so far).

EPA evaluates substitute chemicals and technologies for ozone-depleting substances (I’d like to know what they actually evaluate). Additionally, as part of the actions outlined today, EPA will propose four refrigerants as possible substitutes in U.S. household and commercial refrigerators and freezers.(See? Here’s your household and commercial refrigeration equipment, it’s not just the cars!) These hydrocarbon-based coolants would replace existing refrigerants that harm the stratospheric ozone layer and the climate system. The proposal lists isobutane, propane, (So let’s blow ourselves up while we’re at it! I wonder how many fires will be caused and how many buildings will burn, how many people will die in fires, not to mention the pollution from all the smoke?) HCR-188C, and HCR-188C1 as potentially acceptable substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals CFC-12 and HCFC-22.

The public is encouraged to provide comments to docket number EPA-HQ-2009-0286 at:http://www.regulations.gov/

More information on the trilateral proposal:http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/mpagreement.html

I guess if you look at the people in command  (liberals), the people pushing them (greens) and the money to be  made from the change (big business), then that should about explain this half-assed process taking place inside the EPA building. Just think of the billions to be made.  Makes me wonder if any ex-EPA personnel will end up on the board of directors at some large corporation after their term is up?

In the meantime, real science suffers as do the taxpayer’s wallets due to the continuing boondoggles at the EPA. I guess the taxpayers have a lot of money for them to play “scientist” with.

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Politics, Science

Drop In US CO2

Well, I never thought I’d be using an article from the New York Times DOT EARTH, just goes to show why you never say “never.”  As you can see from the above graph, we have had a large reduction in CO2 in the United States.  It’s not because we’ve been good, it’s the economy, but perhaps there are other factors because it’s more of a drop than expected.

The Department of Energy yesterday reported a sharp drop last year in emissions of carbon dioxide, and a steeper decline than what was anticipated through the impacts of the recession alone. The graph above shows one particularly notable disconnect — a drop in emissions far steeper than the drop in gross domestic product. The report uses well-designed graphics to break down the trend sector by sector and  every page is worth exploring.

Interesting, the CO2 is dropping faster than my savings account.

Another notable finding is the influence of a big switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, as gas prices fell nearly 50 percent while coal prices rose 6.8 percent relative to 2008. For anyone who cares about the climate, the bottom line there — because natural gas emits nearly half the carbon dioxide as coal for the same amount of produced heat — is finding a way to manage risks from harvesting vast deposits of gas without rejecting that resource altogether.

OK, I have no problem at all with natural gas, in fact I wish someone would wake up and stop some of this BS about carbon credits and carbon taxes and start using it more.  We have an abundance, it’s simple, it’s cheap, it works.  Nothing wrong with it at all.

The findings have cheered environmentalists and climate campaigners, who see signs that the country could hit proposed targets for emissions in 2020 without too much cost or disruption. It’s conceivable, some seasoned experts on energy and the economy say, but way too soon to celebrate. One reason simply is that the underlying data tracked by the government are notoriously “foggy,” according to Lee Schipper, a specialist in energy use with appointments at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley.

See, we have positive things going on here that have a denier like me almost cheering, at least as far as the pollution goes.  Please note, I don’t believe CO2 has much to do with global warming, but on the other hand, I’m certainly not one for polluting, nor do I like being beholden to the some of the clowns we buy oil from.  So, why not cheer someone using a simple, cost-effective solution vs. all the convoluted BS that gets paraded around.

Lee just has to be the one to complain. I initially thought here goes another libtard from Berkeley, but, if you comprehend what he’s saying, his complaints are valid.  What he complains about is what has led us down the road to the problems we’ve been experiencing about climategate, the aftermath , the carbon credits, CO2 agreements, etc. This guy makes sense to me.  Sense that “warmers” or “deniers” should be able to agree upon. Read what he has to say.

If there is one lesson, it is that in times of rapid growth or recession, different parts of the economy change at different rates, and that differential alone can cause significant changes in the ratio of energy to G.D.P. Since a big recession might hit coal-burning utilities’ customers more than other utility customers (to name one example) or hit coal-using industries like cement and steel more than others, one has to look carefully not only at CO2 emissions changes but at underlying economic activity or personal activity changes and how those are tied to emissions in a disaggregated way.

Some countries can do this roughly 18 months to two years after the end of each year. We can’t. We don’t even maintain regular energy accounts by major manufacturing branches. We last surveyed household vehicle fuel use in 1985, and our trucking inventory and use survey died in 2002. We stopped trying to estimate household appliance electricity use in the late 1990s….

I call this the blind leading the blind. Like “ Cash for Clunkers Is a Lemon,” as I wrote in the Washington Post, we seem to like to make policies (or pronouncements) whose outcomes cannot be measured for years. I remember when high-level clowns in the Bush administration were pointing to the decline in carbon emissions in the mid-2000’s, but of course not taking credit (or blame) for the higher oil and gas prices that most agreed lay behind those declines.

It’s hard to imagine how the U.S. will enact any sensible policies in this foggy atmosphere.

Do you get what he’s saying?  He’s saying our government is run by a bunch of clueless retards who make half-baked decisions not based on good information but based upon bullshit, or who donated to their campaign, or what vacation he got from a lobbyist, etc. They decide we’ll do this, that, or the other, because it sounds good, not because it IS good,because someone’s going to make a lot of money, not because it’s good for the USA. I for one would be happy if some people in Washington, DC and Sacramento would actually start basing decisions on real science and real effect, instead of what sounds “stylish” or what the libtard vote wants, or what their lobbyists want, without giving a damn if it’s cost-effective and/or if it even gets any results.

My only complaint with his statement is “foggy” is too polite.  What I do agree with is lets start getting real facts, real data, real science and lets start basing these very important decisions that affect all of us on some reality.

Source:  New York Times DOT EARTH

Comments Off on Drop In US CO2

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Financial, Science

Carbon Calculator

From the Guardian.co.uk we get a “National Carbon Calculator” so your average “Joe” can play around and see what the effects of changing things such as rail travel, low-carbon diets, electricity consumption and others will have on CO2 levels.

If they really are serious, they should have factored in money.  Like if they change their rail to all-electric, how many billions will it cost the taxpayers? They should also add in a part that shows how much your taxes will go up, and how fast it will bankrupt Britain, which from what I’ve reading may not be too far away.

Have fun playing The Goracle!”

More CO2 Insanity.

Source:  Guardian.co.uk

Comments Off on Carbon Calculator

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science, Stranger than Truth

Global Desperation – Plants Cause Global Warming?

Leaf with DewLeaf with Dew

Now we really are having some CO2 Insanity.  It’s getting desperate out there folks!  With things like the Hockey-Stick, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate, Amazongate, Africagate and all the other “gates” associated with anthropogenic global warming, including global warming causes sex, or sex causes global warming, we now are hitting another new low in desperation!  Now plants cause global warming! Per this from the Carnegie Institute…

“Plants have a very complex and diverse influence on the climate system,” says study co-author Ken Caldeiraof Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology. “Plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but they also have other effects, such as changing the amount of evaporation from the land surface. It’s impossible to make good climate predictions without taking all of these factors into account.”

Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree’s cooling power.

The warming effects of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas have been known for a long time, says Caldeira. But he and fellow Carnegie scientist Long Cao were concerned that it is not as widely recognized that carbon dioxide also warms our planet by its direct effects on plants. Previous work by Carnegie’s Chris Field and Joe Berry had indicated that the effects were important. “There is no longer any doubt that carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants and that this decreased cooling adds to global warming,” says Cao. “This effect would cause significant warming even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas.”

OK, so where do these people get these ideas from?  There’s plenty of places out there who claim they’ll offset your carbon footprint by planting trees.  Last time I heard, trees were plants.  So if plants cause global warming, then why are we planting trees?  Shouldn’t we be clear-cutting and spraying Roundup on everything we can?  That will surely stop global warming in its tracks!  This might explain some of it.

In their model, the researchers doubled the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and recorded the magnitude and geographic pattern of warming from different factors. They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. “If we think of a doubling of carbon dioxide as causing about four degrees of warming, in many places three of those degrees are coming from the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and one is coming from the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.”

Ahh another goofy computer model that has no basis in reality and probably would even be too much for an episode of the Twilight Zone. Well, ummmm, what about water vapor?  How much does that contribute to global warming?  Per this from Junk Science.com

In simple terms the bulk of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect — perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264)

Uh oh……the genepool at Carnegie Institute must have forgotten about good old water vapor.  If water vapor contributes 90 to 95% of the greenhouse effect, then don’t you think if the plants are letting less water vapor out that it would have the opposite effect and cause global cooling?  Nah, that just couldn’t be, because it doesn’t fit with the “Inconvenient Truth” of anthropogenic global warming.

Source:  Carnegie Institution for Science

Comments Off on Global Desperation – Plants Cause Global Warming?

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

Another CO2 Oops!


Here we go again.  Another scientific screw-up.

I’ve been reading complaints about how farming is bad for the environment, because when they till the soil it releases all that nasty old CO2, that is supposedly causing all that nasty global warming. Well per the Orange County Record in this article, this isn’t as bad as they thought it was.

ANI reports at Science News that soil microbes are producing less atmospheric carbon dioxide than scientists expected, according to research at our own UCI.

The findings, which included study by Colorado State and Yale universities, are published in the journal Nature Geoscience and conclude that: “Microbes play a central role in ecological processes, and their responses change our understanding of natural communities in fundamental ways.”

As Science News at taragana.com blog says, “Conventional scientific wisdom holds that even a few degrees of human-caused climate warming will shift fungi and bacteria that consume soil-based carbon into overdrive, and that their growth will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

OOPS!!!!!

The problem is research found otherwise. Darn that pesky research science, getting in the way of “settled science.” Again. Bottom line: instead of speeding up, the microbes were not well adapted and their growth slowed, so did enzyme production.

One researcher remarked: “The issue we have in predicting whether soil carbon loss will accelerate climate warming is that the microbial processes causing this loss are poorly understood.”

Ya think? But what the heck. Let’s go ahead and destroy the world’s economic system on the hunch that politically inspired global warming “scientists” have settled the matter.

They’re not only “politically inspired” many of them are grant money inspired, not to mention AGW seems to be the new dogma of the 21st Century.  I also find it funny you can’t seem to get any grant money if you want it to prove there is no global warming.  But, the real, dedicated scientist seem to be proving every day that warmer science is bunk whether they get paid or not.

Who you going to believe? The dedicated who get no pay? Or, the grant money babies that have turned global whining into a new cottage industry?

Source:  The Orange County Register

Comments Off on Another CO2 Oops!

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

Biofuel is good, except when it’s bad!

So we’ve been hearing about how wonderful bio-fuel is.  Per this article from Telegraph.co.uk this is not always true.  Based on the title “Biofuels cause four times more carbon emissions” it sounds to me like this is falling into the same category as AGW and we need to step back some and start looking before we’re leaping.

The European Union, including the UK, has set a goal of obtaining 10 per cent of its road fuels from renewable sources by 2020.

But a new report commissioned in Brussels found some biofuels can lead to four times more carbon dioxide polluting the atmosphere than equivalent fossil fuels.

Four more times CO2.  Well, I can’t say that really matters, but based on everyone’s mis-directed belief that CO2 is causing global warming I find it rather interesting that everyone’s been jumping on the biofuel bandwagon and now there are problems with it.  Seems we didn’t look before we leapt.

A more realistic problem is the cause and effect that biofuels can have on food prices and shortages.

Biofuels have already been criticised for causing food shortages in countries where land for rice or wheat has been displaced by fields of soy beans or sugarcane for fuel.

Let’s not forget good old corn and milo, that are used in many mid-west ethanol plants (I’ve actually been on a private tour of one and my brother-in-law is a Kansas farmer, so I know from whence I speak).  Both are used for cattle feed, so guess what happens when they start using it for ethanol? The feed prices go up, then your beef prices go up. So does the price of soybeans and corn.

Sounds like some people are getting on the bandwagon about this problem. Even if you don’t believe the CO2 issue is a problem the other issues are.

The worse example is soy beans in America. Because the land that used to grow soy beans for animal feed is now being used for biofuels, it means that more soy beans must be grown in the rainforests of Brazil to make up for the loss in the domestic market.

Soybeans grown in America therefore have an indirect carbon footprint of 340kg of CO2 per gigajoule, compared to just 85kg for conventional diesel or gasoline

My brother-in-law also grows soybeans.  I do wonder if they take into account the effects of things such as “no-till” farming?  A technique he uses that helps keep the dirt from blowing away ala Oklahoma in the 1930’s and also has the effect of reducing CO2 because you’re not disturbing the dirt as much?  I also wonder if this data takes into account emissions from bio-fuel plants?  Regardless, it’s obvious that it causes less CO2 when we use petroleum products. Sometimes being green isn’t always the hot setup.

There are also other issues with biofuels as per this.

By contrast, imports of bioethanol from Latin American sugar cane and palm oil from southeast Asia have relatively low indirect emissions at 82kg and 73kg per gigajoule respectively. But these biofuels have high direct emissions because although no land for food is being displaced, rainforest it being cut down to grow the crops in the first place.

OK, so we’re cutting down rainforest to grow crops.  There is a whole big issue over what’s going on with palm oil and the problems it’s causing with deforestation world-wide. Here’s an article titled “The Problem with Palm Oil” you can read.  While I’m not too worried about Polar Bears, I am concerned about what is going on with Orangutan habitat being mowed down.

The European Commission insisted that biofuels is a complex issue and further studies need to be done.

But Kenneth Richter, Friends of the Earth campaigner, said the report proves that biofuels are not the answer to tackling climate change.

“Most of the crops used for biofuels at the moment produce more emissions than fossil fuels therefore biofuel targets in Europe make no sense and are doing opposite of what they are supposed to be doing,” he said.

See, this is actually a case where what sounds good on the face of it, really isn’t. Even Friends of the Earth thinks this is bad.  While I normally don’t pay much attention to what they say, in this case it really is a good indication of what a large issue this is and what major problems it can cause.  The “greens” are even against a lot of it.

I always have felt that a lot of the green movement is more about being stylish than being green.  You see things like the Toyota Prius that I don’ t feel is such a great deal when you consider the carbon footprint of making one and the battery disposal issues when they finally die (not to mention the cost of replacement).  I see people touting pure electric vehicles, but they really aren’t zero emissions vehicles like people like to think, because every time you plug one in the power is probably coming from a coal power plant beyond the horizon.  Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.  Just because it sounds green, doesn’t mean it really is either.

I hope this will prompt some people to really dig into the cause and effect of what they’re doing and really start researching things before they go off thinking they’re saving the Earth when they’re actually causing more problems.  This includes the CO2 Insanity we’ve been seeing.  The science isn’t “settled” on that either because much of the “science” is fraudulent.

How about some real science for a change?

Source:  Telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on Biofuel is good, except when it’s bad!

Filed under Biofuel, Co2 Insanity, Renewable Energy, Science

Clean Air Causes Global Warming

In today’s WFT CO2 Insanity we have an article in the Los Angeles Times titled “Why cleaner air could speed global warming”, a premise I find amazingly ludicrous. An oxymoron.

You’re likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there’s a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That’s right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

OK first CO2 is bad, it’s going to cause global warming. Second, we had years  back everyone worrying about aerosols creating a large ozone gap in Antarctica that was going kill everyone. Now that the IPCC, CRU, NASA, GISS, et al are getting their inconvenient data busted daily, someone suddenly invents a new “crisis” for the “alarmist” to latch on to.

In another amazing oxymoron we get this information.

But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution — caused primarily by burning coal — climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they’ve been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

See? It just gets better.  Sounds like the author is saying coal is good?  Hasn’t the “warmer” crowd had their panties in a bunch over coal power plants?

In a recent paper in the journal Climate Dynamics, modelers forecast what would happen if nations instituted all existing pollution controls on industrial sources and vehicles by 2030. They found the current rate of warming — roughly 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade — doubled worldwide, and nearly tripled in North America.

OK, so we need India and China to keep pumping that pollution out, we need more coal plants in the US, let’s all drive diesels, and cap and trade is dead.  Makes me want to go out and remove all the pollution control devices from my cars.

The author then goes on to advocate we may have to do some geoengineering.

We might need geo-engineering to stave off the worst effects of the warming. But most climate scientists think we’re not there yet. And so the most important thing we can do now is to train our sights on both the unexpectedly helpful sulfates and the unexpectedly pernicious carbon. We can’t continue to only focus on traditional pollutants without reducing greenhouse emissions. We simply have to find a way to clean our air of both.

Oh I forgot he’s the author of a book.

Eli Kintisch is the author of the just-published “Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope — or Worst Nightmare — for Averting Climate Catastrophe.”

My how convenient.  He just published a book on geoengineering, then we mysteriously get this article on how clean air is causing global warming. Think this guy might be trying to increase book sales?  The LA Times is probably a strategic place for this article as all the loonies in LA like James Cameron will no doubt be reading this over their morning coffee and issue a call to arms by 12 Noon.

The Goracle needs to hop on this bandwagon, I can forsee a new book or two from him soon. Title suggestions would be:

  • An Inconvenient Clear Sky
  • Clean Air Kills
  • Geoengineering for Dummies
  • Coal is Cool

Goes back to my theory that no matter what it is, some “alarmist” will say it either causes global warming or is caused by global warming.  Like the claim I wrote about yesterday titled “No Planes Causes Warming.”

It all goes back to follow the money.  Eli is trying to sell books.  No doubt papers are being written by scientists all over the world to get grant money to research how clean air will kill us.

Based on this article I’m doing something different for Earth Day this week.  I’m going to eat beans, turn on all the lights and appliances in my house, and let my cars run all day.  If you’re really serious about saving Mother Earth, please pollute on Earth Day or we’ll soon be burning up. Anyone want to buy a diesel and save the Earth?

Source: Los Angeles Times

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, pollution, Science

No Planes Causes Warming?

From this article in the Daily Mail Online we get some new CO2 Insanity.

 

 

First, remember the “warmers” have been screaming about CO2 causing global warming for how long?  The moaning and whining about emissions from cars, boats, trains, and PLANES.

Now all of a sudden no planes causes warming? Read on.

 

 

Seems no matter what happens, where it happens, or when it happens it causes global warming, or is caused by global warming.

 

Makes you want to scream.

 

Temperatures in Europe could rise as a result of planes being grounded across the continent, according to research.

 

 

A study conducted after commercial flights were grounded for three days following the September 11 terror attacks found the average daily temperature range in the U.S. rose markedly – exceeding the three-day periods before and after by 1.8c.

 

 

Scientists claimed this showed that clouds formed by the water vapour in the exhaust from jet planes have a small but significant effect on daily temperatures.

Ugh, so CO2 bad, water vapor good? Here’s what they claim is proof.

 

They matched the weather over those three days with similar weather in September over that period, and found that the difference in daily high and nightly low temperatures in the absence of planes’ contrails was more than 1c greater.

So 3 days is long enough to prove this?  It couldn’t have been coincidence the weather changed could it?  What data did they match?  Did they cherry-pick something from the past that prove their point? Another case of making the data fit your desired result?

 

Meteorologists also warned however that volcanic ash could also decrease the temperature, by blowing immense amounts of material into the sky.

 

Bureau of Meteorology Aerosol Research Manager Jim Haywood said it was likely that Britons would see increased temperatures as a result of planes being grounded.

 

 

But he said that could be cancelled out by the volcanic ash, which in effect can act as contrails by reducing the temperature.

 

Based upon all this I’d have to question how they’ll be able to prove anything whatsoever. We claim warming from no jets flying, yet this warming could be cancelled by ash.  So if one negates the other, then perhaps nothing will happen?

 

 

I’ll put out a sequel when they publicize their study.  That should be interesting.

Source: The Daily Mail Online

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, pollution, Science

Global Warming and the Volcano

I was wondering how long this one was going to take and it didn’t take long for some Loony-Tune to blame the volcanic eruption in Iceland on that evil global warming.

A Scientific American/Reuters article has this to say about that!

A thaw of Iceland’s ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday.

OK, I’m listening…and wondering, and starting to laugh out loud…

They said there was no sign that the current eruption from below the Eyjafjallajokull glacier that has paralysed flights over northern Europe was linked to global warming. The glacier is too small and light to affect local geology.

WTF? Talk about contradictory statements!  Then we go right back to alleged cause and effect…

“Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades,” said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a volcanologist at the University of Iceland.

“Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems,” he told Reuters. The end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago coincided with a surge in volcanic activity in Iceland, apparently because huge ice caps thinned and the land rose.

Hmmm…..I’d have to wonder if the volcanic activity didn’t melt the ice? Think they may have it bass-ackwards?  Then they go right back again to…

“We believe the reduction of ice has not been important in triggering this latest eruption,” he said of Eyjafjallajokull. “The eruption is happening under a relatively small ice cap.”

Then we again go back to..

Carolina Pagli, a geophysicist at the University of Leeds in England, said there were risks that climate change could also trigger volcanic eruptions or earthquakes in places such as Mount Erebus in Antarctica, the Aleutian islands of Alaska or Patagonia in South America.

Now global warming is going to cause earthquakes?  Did the University of Leeds hire Danny Glover??????  Next we get to see what they’re thinking…

That report said that about 10 percent of Iceland’s biggest ice cap, Vatnajokull, has melted since 1890 and the land nearby was rising about 25 millimetres (0.98 inch) a year, bringing shifts in geological stresses.

Hmmm…..not very much per year is it? Note the “since 1890” as it comes back into play down the road…

He said that melting ice seemed the main way in which climate change, blamed mainly on use of fossil fuels, could have knock-on effects on geology. The U.N. climate panel says that global warming will cause more floods, droughts and rising seas.

OK,…I’m calling BS on this one.  The last time this volcano erupted was 1821 to 1823.  This is before the “warmers” claim anthropogenic global warming started.  Before 1890 start of the melt. So what caused it? It certainly wasn’t man-made global warming was it? Add in the fact that the Little Ice Age didn’t end until about 1859, past the last eruption in 1823.  So obviously the last time this blew there was plenty of glacial ice as it didn’t even begin to melt until 27 years or so later.  Think it couldn’t have just been a pressure build of magma? Funny I don’t remember seeing any glaciers on Krakatoa yet it blew its stack, big time.

I really want to know what they’re smoking in Iceland.  Must be very good stuff! Must also cause schizophrenia.

Source: Scientific American

Comments Off on Global Warming and the Volcano

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Science