Archive for the ‘Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)’ Category

The Great Global Warming Fizzle article posted at the Wall Street Journal on November 29, 2011

We agree that “Global Warming” has many of the aspects of “religion”.  As the author, Bret Stephens, says

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen. As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

Faith in Green Energy is not proving to be very profitable.
This article describes the company A123 System, a poster child for “successful” clean tech.  The company manufactures lithium ion batteries and energy storage systems. You might want to check the stock price for this company (NasdaqGS: AONE) – not a great story!  For more information read the article posted at Forbes on November 29, 2011 – Watching The Wheels Come Off The Green Machine

The body count continues to rise as the Green Jobs Revolution sputters its way to the end of a disastrous 2011.

This article, Inconvenient Truths about “Renewable” Energy posted May 21, 2011 at the Wall Street Journal questions the premise that “renewable” energy sources will replace fossil fuels. For many reasons highlighted in the article, betting on “renewable” energy is a bad idea.
Better to have some common sense instead of catchy phrases like “green/clean” and “carbon footprint”.

When will Common Sense be restored in America?
We provide a link here to Lori Borgman’s article The Death of Common Sense

We like John’s analysis of windpower at windpowerfacts.info
Wind Power Facts: Tooklit of Information, by John Droz, Jr an physicist and environmental activist:

A critical fact to understand is that just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source!
In other words, electrical energy alternatives/renewables should not be given a free pass on common sense scrutiny, and the use of scientific methodology, in objectively evaluating their merits.

Whether an alternative/renewable is acceptable is a highly technical matter that should be decided on the basis of a comprehensive, independent, objective and transparent evaluation of three key conditions:
a) its technical performance,
b) the economics of the power produced, and
c) its FULL environmental impact.

All independent evidence to date indicates that industrial wind power fails on all three of these critical counts.

Some recent articles about windfarms focus on the threat to wildlife.

Posted June 6, 2011 at LosAngeles Times website
Wind power turbines in Altamont Pass threaten protected birds
Scores of golden eagles have been killed after striking the thousands of wind turbines in the Bay Area, raising questions about California’s move toward alternative power.

Posted August 19, 2011 at Reason.com, Get Ready for the Green Civil War

as the enviro agenda gets implemented, the enviro wars are going to become more—not less—intense, except that instead of fighting the rest of us, they’ll be fighting each other.

Posted October 14, 2011 at The Global Warming Policy Foundation, UK News site. Matt Ridley: Making Wind Farms Obsolete
“Here’s an article I wrote for this week’s Spectator about UK energy policy. Wind must give way to gas before it ruins us all, and our landscapes.” “To persist with a policy of pursuing subsidized renewable energy in the midst of a terrible recession, at a time when vast reserves of cheap low-carbon gas have suddenly become available is so perverse it borders on the insane. Nothing but bureaucratic inertia and vested interest can explain it.”

Posted November 25, 2011 at Engineering News online
Wind power truly in the realm of mysticism

Let me state categorically that, as a physicist, I am in favour of wind power that is genuinely economically viable. The problem is that large-scale wind power fed into a national grid is just not viable – either economically or practically – from an engineering stand point.

Posted December 10, 2011 at The Wall Street Journal
Wildlife Slows Wind Power: New U.S. Rules to Protect Bats and Birds Create Uncertainty in Growing Industry

Over the last few month we found these articles which you may find interesting.

posted August 2, 2011 at International Business Times
Polar Bear Population Higher than in 20th Century: Is Something Fishy about Extinction Fears?

Posted August 11, 2011 at Humanevents.com
Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe

Date of article unknown, posted at ILoveCarbonDioxide.com
Of Arctic Ice and Polar Bears
By Thomas Fuller, SF Environmental Policy Examine
Fuller says population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline

posted November 11, 2011 at Nunatsiaq Online
Inuit need input into national polar bear management plan
Canada working with Inuits regarding a national management plan for polar bears.

Posted November 12, 2011 on Roger Helmer Mep Blog
Polar Bears: Reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated

Politicians and activists have done a great job of spending taxpayers money on global warming (now relabeled “climate change”), so … what do we have to show for all this activity?

In an article by Forbes on August 23, 2011 titled “The Alarming Cost of Climate Change Hysteria” we learned:

• Annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010.
• US Government has spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies (1989 – 2009) plus $79 billion for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy”.
• Escalating climate-premised EPA regulations are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the US economy more than $1.75 trillion per year.
• We even spend money “helping developing countries address man-made global warming problems.”

No wonder we have a “spending problem” in Washington.

When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities

David Hume quotes (Scottish Philosopher, Historian, Economist and Essayist. 1711-1776)

We just found a new blog that posts climate news from Germany in English. It is helpful to get a international perspective.

We liked the article titled “Global Coal Consumption Jumps almost 50% – Yet Global Temps Drop!”  Pierre gives this summary:

But now that we know burning coal has hardly a noticeable impact on temperature and climate (zero-correlation), it’s high time to double our efforts in producing more coal so that the world’s demand can be satisfied so that bitter poverty may be alleviated once and for all.

In another article, Pierre comments that AGW is now fatally embedded in all German institutions.  America should take notice, we are traveling the same path.

It’s going to take Germany a long time to wake up from it’s global warming science folly, if at all. The prospects are poor. All of Germany’s major institutions like the public media, government, political parties, science bodies (such as the PIK, German Weather Service, Max Planck Institute), schools, etc., all have negligently and wrecklessly embedded the global warming dogma deep and firmly into their structures and psyche, thus making it the main pillar on which the architecture of Germany’s future society will rest. Now that pillar is cracking and crumbling. Suddenly Germany’s grand plans for a Green Empire are facing the scrap heap.

Fred Singer, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, spoke at CSU (Colorado State University) in Ft. Collins on July 18th.  Unfortunately the room was not set up to allow Fred to present his visual aids, so Fred made his presentation without his many interesting charts. I was fortunate enough to also attend Fred’s presentation at NIST Boulder Laboratories in Boulder the following day, so was able to see the charts he referred to at the CSU presentation.

Fred’s presentation was based mainly on his report published in 2008 titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (See Reference section below for link)

Fred highlighted the following major questions at the NIST presentation:

1. Is warming due to natural causes or anthropogenic (ie, due to human causes)? He described why this is both a Science issue and a Policy Issue.

2. Why is there a disparity between models? Using the data from 2007 IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report  there is a clear discrepancy between the Model results and “fingerprints” (observed patterns of warming).

3. What causes Climate Variability?   In addition to greenhouse gasses, other factors like internal oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system,  influence of clouds and solar activity need to be considered.

Fred also commented on evidence of abuses of the peer review process at IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the Michael Mann Hockey Stick Chart as examples that clearly calls for an assessment by the scientific community to evaluate their behavior.  We suggest you view the presentations at the recent International Conference on Climate Change hosted by Heartland Institute. The theme of the conference was “Restoring the Scientific Method”. (See Reference section below for link)

At both presentations Fred commented on the global warming trend… yes, we are in a warming trend, however the current cycle is not unusual (for example: it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period).

Chart from Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website.

Also, this chart of global satellite-based temperatures shows a warming trend from 1910 thru 1940, then a cooling trend, increase beginning in 1975 with a “spike” in 1997… if CO2 was is a major contributor to warming then one would expect a steady increase in temperature over the last 100 years.  Chart from page 5, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” paper by Fred Singer dated 2008

 

One more interesting chart, Global averaged satellite-based Temperature Chart for 1979 thru current year.
From Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website

_                                                                                                                     _
_                                                                                                                     _
We agree with Fred’s conclusion stated in his 2008 report,

Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled.  This, in turn, means proposed efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions are premature and misguided.  Any attempt to influence global temperatures by reducing such emissions would be both futile and expensive.

Reference:

“Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”, report by S. Fred Singer, dated 2008

Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (MIPCC), “Climate Change Reconsidered”, released June 2009.

Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website ( www.drroyspencer.com)

Sixth International Conference on Climate Change hosted by Heartland Institute in Washington, D.C. on June 30 to July 1, 2011. The scientists who spoke at this conference are committed to restoring the scientific method.  The conference theme was “Restoring the Scientific Method”.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/

Article in Colorodoan about Fred Singer’s presentation at CSU on July 18th, dated July 19, 2011.

How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff – great book to inform you how numbers can be used to fool you rather than inform.

For excellent information about climate change issues, we suggest you view coverage of the Heartland Institute’s 6th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-6) – a worldwide gathering of global warming “realists” – held in Washington, DC June 30 to July 1, 2011.

The scientists who spoke at this conference are committed to restoring the scientific method.  The conference theme was “Restoring the Scientific Method” Click here, to view videos of the presentations.

It is our understanding that you can buy a Volt for $41,000 and the Volt is eligible for a $7500 Income Tax Credit. The Volt is now in some dealer showrooms, a retired airline pilot takes delivery of first Volt on Dec 15, 2010.

Here are two articles about the Volt:

1) Chevy Volt Pricing Sparks Debate – Opinion columnist Matt Henry rips the new Volt and the high price tag of eco-conscious cars – posted July 29, 2010 – KCFreePress (Kansas City)

In order to compensate for the high cost and the desire to have a more ‘green’ economy, the Federal government implemented a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles, reducing the overall price of the Volt to $33,500. That’s right, much like the abomination that was the “Cash for Clunkers” program, our federal government is spending other people’s tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of cars by people who might otherwise choose to buy something else. By doing so they hope that the price tag will be more acceptable to potential buyers.

2) Washington Post article dated October 30, 2010 “Obama’s Electric-car Cult” – Is the Volt really “green”?

What little gasoline savings the vehicles achieve could be had through cheaper alternative means. And electrics don’t reliably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since, as often as not, the electricity to charge their batteries will come from coal-fired plants.

“What’s driving Obama’s subsidies of Chevy’s Volt?” – article at Washington Post dated Nov 15, 2010 by George Will

In April, in a television commercial and a Wall Street Journal column headlined “The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full,” GM’s then-CEO Ed Whitacre said “we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule.” Rubbish.

GM, which has received almost $50 billion in government subventions, repaid a $6.7 billion loan using other federal funds, a TARP-funded escrow account. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) called this a “TARP money shuffle.” A commentator compared it to “paying off your Visa credit card with your MasterCard.”

Meretricious accounting and deceptive marketing are inevitable when government and its misnamed “private sector” accomplices foist state capitalism on an appalled country.

On November 17, 2010 General Motors IPO sells common stock at $33.  After a run up to about $36, GM Common is trading at about $33 today.

So what is the NEW GM, after restructuring, bailouts, subsidies, regulations, promotion of a “green” vehicle … as we keep looking for information on this unfolding story, here is more troubling news.
In an article at Ward’s AutoWorld dated Dec 1, 2010, it turns out that GM does not have to pay any federal taxes in its next $45 billion in income.

Would you call this Crony Capitalism! Here’s a quote for John Stossel

There are two ways to get rich.  You can actually create wealth with better management or a better idea, or you can use political connections.  Sadly, big Government encourages the latter.

On Sept 22, 2010, S.3813 the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010 was introduced in the U.S. Senate. Since Congress has not been able to pass cap and trade, the “green/clean” special interests are looking for alternate ways to push their agenda. This bill would cause higher electricity prices and have a negative impact on the United States economy.

This bill introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) would create a federal renewable electricity standard (RES) of 3% in 2012 and increases to 15% by 2021. Among the co-sponsors are both Colorado Senators, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Chicago Climate Exchange is scaling back operations.  The market for their only product, carbon emissions, basically worthless. Currently selling for 10 cents per tonne.

In May and June of 2008 the market was soaring.  What a difference today!
Here are two articles for more information:
From Watts Up with That? “Chicago Climate Exchange drops 50%, new record low” and 21Century Wire “The Great Collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange”