Home

About Us

Contact Us

GW Articles 2007

Back to 2009 Articles

Carbon Tax and CO2 Video

While global temperatures have risen by about 1.3 degrees F over the past century, there is no consensus as to whether CO2 has been the cause, or whether the consequences of warming will be catastrophic.

This video discusses the facts about the possible consequences of global warming and asks whether carbon taxes should be established.

The video can be downloaded here: Carbon Tax and Global Warming.

The video is an introduction to the issues surrounding proposed Cap & Trade regulations requiring the U.S. to cut its emissions by up to 80%.

 it is not necessary to agree with the sections of the video dealing with global warming to see the issues raised by Cap & Trade regulations mandating an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions.

The White Paper, Carbon Folly, contains a detailed examination of each sector (Electric, Industrial, Gasoline etc.) to determine the extent CO2 emissions can be reduced using today’s technology.

The video and a power point presentation were prepared by TSAugust and the Heartland Institute. The video is based on presentations made by the president of TSAugust to various organizations.

The video condenses into a few minutes, key information that will help viewers decide for themselves whether there should be carbon taxes; either as a direct tax or as Cap & Trade regulations.

Viewers are encouraged to copy the video, so long as it used unedited.

November 11, 2007

TSAugust

CO2 Data Issues.

Questions are emerging about CO2 in the atmosphere and its linkage to global temperature changes.

CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from around 285 ppm before the industrial revolution to 387 ppm in 2007. What is of interest is that, while CO2 has increased linearly since 1960, temperatures have not.

Over the past ten years, temperature has remained constant while CO2 has continued to increase.

This raises questions about whether CO2 is the cause of warming temperatures or whether there are other forces at work.

Could aerosols be causing the delinking of CO2 with temperatures? Or could it be the Sun? Or could it be something else?

“Global average temperatures spanning 1850 -2006 show that for 110 of those years the temperature was flat (1850 - 1920, 1950 - 1978 and 1998 - 2006). For only a third of the past 160 years has the global temperature been rising yet for all of that time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been increasing?”

The apparent delinking of CO2 from global temperature changes must raise questions about the CO2 hypothesis.

Source: Comments by Dr David Whitehouse; astronomer, former BBC science correspondent, and the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley & Sons)

November 4, 2007

TSAugust

The Sun—An Alternative to CO2

If not CO2? What is it that is causing global warming?

This has been the rejoinder when skeptics question whether CO2 is causing global warming.

The answer could well be the Sun.

While many have shown that increased irradiance alone could not account for global warming, a new theory also implicates the Sun

Astronomers have been observing the effects of the sun on the earth since the late 1700’s. First there was Herschel’s linking the price of grain with sunspots; then, in 1859 there wasthe incredible impact of sunspots creating auroras that smothered the world. The aurora was visible as far south as Jamaica in the Northern Hemisphere and at least as far north as Santiago, Chile in the Southern Hemisphere. These were unusually strong and dramatic aurora’s; “people had witnessed the aurora as a silent, skywide manifestation that inspired both awe and terror."

Now, Svensmark of the Danish National  Space Center has demonstrated that the magnetic field of the sun, whose strength is affected by sunspots, is affecting the Earth’s climate. Others have also put forth similar theories.

Sevnsmark has demonstrated that cosmic rays impact low level cloud formation; the more cosmic rays, the greater the low level cloud coverage. When there are many low level clouds the sun’s rays are reflected back into space. With fewer clouds more of the sun’s heat reaches the earth.

The Sun’s magnetic field stretches beyond the Earth and deflects the cosmic rays. The stronger the magnetic field (caused by increased sun spot activity) the more cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth. This results in fewer low level clouds and higher global temperatures.

The current sun spot cycle would have seen the Earth’s temperature rising during the twentieth century.

October 28, 2007

TSAugust

China and CO2

China surpassed the United States in CO2 emissions during 2007.

By every indication China places development ahead of controlling CO2 emissions.

It is estimated that, for the first time in history, China will contribute more to world economic growth than the United States. China may have a smaller economy than the U.S. but it has overtaken the U.K. as the fourth largest economy in the world.

By 2020, China is expected to have the world’s largest economy with 1,600 million people.

China accounts for more than a third of the world’s demand for coal.

Coal is expected to continue to fuel China’s growth, with coal consumption for generating electricity increasing from 779 Million Metric Tons (MMT) in 2005 to 1651 MMT by 2020.

Hu Jintao is President of the Peoples Republic of China. It is his objective to make every person in China twice as rich by 2020. In the past five years income per capita doubled to $2,000, so his new objective is not unprecedented.

While China continues on its growth trajectory there are demands in Congress for the U.S. to cut its CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. Furthermore, the United Nations and various Non Government Organizations (NGO’s) expect developed nations to provide technical and monetary support to developing nations, including China. If this approach is adopted the U.S. taxpayer will be subsidizing China’s growth.

October 21, 2007

TSAugust

Satellite Power Plant

A new federal study suggests it may be economically feasible to capture the sun’s energy with a satellite and transmit the power to earth.

The report said; “The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m squared), collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers."

Buzz Aldrin, chairman of the spaceflight advocacy group ShareSpace Foundation, said; “This is a solution for all mankind."

The report emphasizes that a government proof of concept demonstration should be undertaken to act as a catalyst for commercialization of the concept.

This would eliminate the risks and unknowns that would prevent commercial development.

The potential benefits of such a system are huge. It would create a nearly inexhaustible supply of energy and change mankind’s dependence on fossil fuels.

The report emphasizes that by “drilling up” rather than “drilling down” the nation can achieve energy security.

TSAugust

October 14, 2007Source

Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; Report to the Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007

North West Passage

Since the early days of exploration, there has been an interest in finding the North West Passage connecting Europe with Asia by traversing the Arctic Ocean above Canada.

Now, with the Arctic ice cap decreasing, a sea lane is opening that could allow ships to go from Europe and U.S. East Coast  manufacturing centers to Asia, and back again.

Rather than going north of Canada this lane would travel above Russia and would be called the Siberian Arctic Highway. These ships could reduce the amount of CO2 being emitted by container ships moving cargo between Asia, Europe and the United States.

This was the subject of a paper by Jose Femenia, MMarE Program Director at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, Kings Point.

He compared alternative routes from Asia to Europe and the East Coast of the United States and showed that trips could be shortened by at least a day and that newer, larger containerships could avoid having to go the long way around the Cape of Good Hope when their sizes precluded using the Panama or Suez canals.

The negative aspect of this shorter and better route was the deposition of soot particles from traditional diesel, gas turbine or steam propulsion. Soot deposits could cause a “graying of the Arctic ice”. Particulate matter deposited on the ice could increase the absorption of the sun’s rays and increase the melting that was otherwise occurring.

The paper demonstrated that nuclear powered ships would eliminate this problem while also substantially decreasing the amount of CO2 emissions.

October 7, 2007

TSAugust

Source:

The Economic and Ecological Viability of Trans-Arctic Nuclear Shipping. Originally presented at the SNAME IceTech symposium held in Banff, Canada, July 2006

Cap and Trade is Unsound

A recent report by Laffer and Winegarden demonstrated that a cap & trade system for Green House Gasses (GHG) is unsound.

Conventional wisdom holds that cap & trade regulations would utilize market forces and result in greater efficiency in curtailing GHG, especially CO2.

The Laffer and Winegarden report establishes that once market dynamics are inserted into the process, the efficiency of the cap & trade system disappears. Rather than stability, significant volatility is inserted because policy makers do not know the shape of the supply and demand curves when they establish the regulations. Furthermore, the supply and demand curves shift over time.

Europe's experience with its cap & trade system validates this reasoning. (The European system has been very volatile and nearly collapsed.)

The report further establishes that a cap & trade system will impose large costs on the economy. The report refers to the Energy Information Agency’s estimate that economic growth would decline by up to 4.2% if the Kyoto restrictions were adopted.

Kyoto only required a 7% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels, while the proposed cap & trade system being debated in Congress would require up to an 80% reduction below 1990 levels.

Clearly, the proposed cap & trade regulations would have a profound effect on the economy.

TSAugust

September 30, 2007

Source:

The Economic Impact of Cap & Trade Regulations; by Arthur Laffer and Wayne Winegarden, September 2007

Learning Curve and Global Warming

Energy Star appliances help improve America’s energy efficiency and productivity.

Most people who buy an Energy Star replacement for an old, inoperative appliance will save money over the lifetime of the product.

But is there a limit on how far Energy Star ratings can help in reducing energy usage?

Energy savings for each technology or appliance follows a learning curve, and learning curves are asymptotic. Simply stated, as production doubles, costs decline by a percentage associated with each technology or product. Savings accrue rapidly early in the life cycle but become increasingly more difficult as the product or technology matures.

The only way to achieve major improvements is with a new, disruptive technology. The disruptive technology makes a large improvement and then establishes its own learning curve.

Lighting is a good example.

While it’s possible to improve the energy efficiency of the incandescent bulb (and GE claims it has done so) the Compact Fluorescent Lamp, a disruptive technology, achieved a large energy usage improvement over the incandescent bulb, and has established a learning curve for the CFL that it has been following since its introduction roughly twenty years ago. Its price has fallen from $19 to $2 over this period.

The LED is a new disruptive technology that achieves a substantial improvement over the CFL and will follow a learning curve of its own.

This is why it’s possible to say, in so far as most appliances are concerned as well as for many established products and technologies, the low hanging fruit has been picked and savings will become harder to achieve: Until new disruptive technologies emerge.

While disruptive technologies have emerged in lighting, where are the disruptive technologies for air conditioning, refrigeration, heating etc.? Without new technologies, increasingly diminishing improvements will be made with Energy Star appliances.

This is why research is so important when it concerns energy efficiency and global warming.

September 23, 2007

TSAugust

 NASA Temperature Errors! 

Warmest Year was actually 1934

James Hansen (NASA), Al Gore et al, have repeatedly declared that 9 of the past 10 years have been the warmest on record.

It now develops they were wrong.

In August, 2007 an error was discovered in the NASA data base. Corrected data shows that 4 of the top 10 warmest years in the United States were in the 1930’s while only 3 were from the past ten years.

Correcting the record is important since the media refers to news releases, such as this from NOAA, to leave the impression that global warming is getting worse.

“The 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record.”

That press release is now shown to be in error.

The warmest years from the corrected NASA data base (from highest to lowest) were:

1934

1998

1921

2006

1931

1999

1953

1990

1938

1939

Until now the media has not reported these corrections and there has been no press release from NASA to inform the public that the past ten years were not the warmest on record.

Hansen has now tried to portray temperature differences as trivial. If they are trivial why did Hansen repeatedly tout (incorrectly) that 9 of the 10 warmest were in the past ten years?

August 19, 2007

TSAugust

Notes:

1. The error was discovered by Steve McIntyre who has posted this and other information on temperature records on his web site Climate Audit. McIntyre was most notable recently for his work with Ross McKitrick in debunking the Mann Hockey Stick. See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885#more-1885

2. The above records are for the U.S. and do not reflect worldwide data. Factually the U. S. data is the most accurate, though there is considerable debate as to whether U.S. data is completely accurate. Questions about U.S. data arise from the misplacement of surface temperature stations and in software used to try to adjust known errors. While there is legitimate concern over the accuracy of U.S. data, NASA attempts to correct for known discrepancies. This is not true in other countries where many temperature stations are located in Urban areas.

3. See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885#more-1885 for a discussion of surface temperature stations.

4. In addition, NASA refuses to provide McIntyre with its source code which would allow for an independent analysis of how raw temperature data is adjusted.

5. Worldwide temperature data is suspect since many temperature stations are located in urban areas and are subject to the urban heat island effect.

Great Lakes Water Levels & Global Warming.

The National Governors Association meeting was held in Michigan at the end of July where the Governors discussed how to combat Global Warming.

The Governors were meeting while the media was proclaiming that Global Warming was causing water levels in the Great Lakes to go down, in spite of historic records that showed water levels were near normal. These records are maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Typical of the reporting is that of John Flesher from the AP who wrote, the, “mighty Superior is losing water and getting warmer, worrying those who live near its shores, scientists and companies that rely on the lake for business."

The water level of each of the Great Lakes has been carefully monitored since about 1860. This provides one of the most long term and accurate hydrometeorological record that exist anywhere in North America.

Currently St. Claire, Erie and Ontario Lakes are at their long term average levels. Only Lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron are below their long term average levels. Lake Superior could reach an all time low for the month of August, but is still considerably above its long term lowest average level for the year.

A look at the record shows that there have been wide swings in Lake Superior’s water levels throughout the years.

Lake Superior fell 28 inches from, what was then an all time high, to an all time low in ten years (1916-1926). It fell 16 inches between 1951 and 1958. It fell 19 inches between 1980 and 1985. It again fell 16 inches between 1995 and 1999.

Each time the water levels fell, they rose again to above average levels. Lake Superior reached its all time highest level in 1985. Between 1999 and 2006 Lake Superior rose by about 6 inches.

What we are seeing in Lake Superior is a continuation of historic cycles. 

Historically here is when the lakes reached their lowest levels:

Lake Superior: 1926

Lakes Michigan-Huron: 1964

Lake St. Clair: 1934

Lake Erie: 1934

Lake Ontario: 1935

It would appear as though the media takes every opportunity to proclaim Global Warming threats, even when the facts clearly do not support their claims.

Source: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/levels.html

Note: The above dates were read from graphs and could be off by a year.

August 5, 2007

TSAugust

Sequestration Reality Check.

Part 1 of 2 parts.

Some in Congress are proposing that the U.S. cut its emissions of CO2 by 60%

39% of all U.S. CO2 emissions are caused by generating electricity: Preventing these emissions from entering the atmosphere is crucial to achieving an overall reduction in CO2 emissions of 60%

Sequestration is being touted as  the way to prevent CO2 emitted by power plants from entering the atmosphere; especially if, as most experts believe, coal continues to be the major energy source for generating electricity.

Sequestration envisions capturing CO2 at the power plant, compressing it so it becomes a liquid, and then pumping the liquid CO2 into geologic formations underground. (Sequestration in the ocean has also been proposed, however this poses additional issues.)

There are three huge problems with sequestration. They are:

1. Capturing CO2 at the power plant.

2. Piping the CO2 to an appropriate geologic formation.

3. Identifying “appropriate” geologic formations

Capturing CO2 at the power plant.

Capturing CO2 in new power plants is far easier than at existing power plants. New power plants can have the necessary processes built into their systems.

Integrated Combined Cycle (IGCC) seems to be the current choice for new power plants for carbon sequestration, though new technologies could change this perception. IGCC plants convert the coal into gasses; CO2 which is siphoned off for sequestration, with the remaining gases burned in gas turbines.

IGCC plants will , however, be  more costly than conventional pulverized coal power plants. In addition, IGCC plants are still being developed and are not ready for use.

Even if all new power plants were IGCC plants (note 1), existing power plants would have to be modified to capture CO2 for there to be any actual reduction in emissions.

Assuming existing plants can be modified, which will not always be possible due to space limitations, the issue becomes which process to use. Thus far, only field prototypes exist of the most promising processes.

These processes either prepare the CO2 in the flue gas for carbon capture, or target pre-combustion capture.

Amines are the most popular solvents for post combustion capture. Pre-combustion capture may involve other solvents or an oxy-combustion approach. Other less well developed processes are also being explored.

Importantly, carbon capture processes can require de-rating existing coal fired power plants by 30 to 45%. Essentially, one new power plant will have to be built to replace the electricity no longer being generated when three power plants are retrofitted for carbon capture. Some units can be rebuilt with little loss of output, but this is analogous to building a new IGCC plant.

Part 2, Continued Below

• Piping the CO2 to an appropriate geologic formation

• Identifying “appropriate” geologic formations

Sources:

The Future of Coal, Options for a Carbon Constrained World. MIT 2007.

Power Magazine, July 2007

TSAugust

July 15, 2007

Note 1: Nuclear power plants emit no CO2, but are excluded from this discussion

Sequestration Reality Check.

Part 2 of 2 parts.

Piping CO2 to appropriate geologic formations.

Transporting all the captured CO2 to an appropriate geologic formation is an immense task.

If two thirds of all CO2 emissions from coal fired power plants were captured, its volume would equal America’s consumption of 20 million barrels of oil per day.

Sequestration will require building thousands of miles of new pipelines.

Building new pipelines will not be an easy task. Some have pointed to pipelines built by oil companies for CO2 injection to stimulate oil well production to demonstrate the feasibility of building pipelines. Building a few small pipelines in the sparsely populated West is different from building pipelines in densely populated Mid-western or Eastern states.

Will people want pipelines built in their back yard or neighborhood?

Permitting, land acquisition and rights of way, including “takings” by eminent domain, are not trivial issues.

Identifying “appropriate” geologic formations.

Currently the largest sequestration operation is the Sleipner gas field where 1 million tons of CO2 are injected annually into a saline aquifer under the North Sea.

For comparison purposes, the U. S. currently produces about 1,500 million tons of CO2 each year from coal fired power plants.

While the federal and state governments are currently inventorying geologic formations, regulatory bodies will need to be established to ensure that the sequestered CO2 doesn’t escape into the atmosphere or into adjoining geologic formations where it might cause harm.

Many geologic formations, where oil and gas drilling took place, have abandoned wells whose locations are not known. Each geologic formation will have to be surveyed to identify these and other possible escape routes for CO2.

The issue of ownership has not yet been addressed.

Who owns the geologic formations into which the CO2 is to be injected?

Sorting ownership issues could take decades, or require government intervention through “takings” by eminent domain … if eminent domain is even applicable.

Another unresolved issue involves legal liability if CO2 escapes or causes harm.

Conclusion.

These are formidable issues that raise serious doubts about sequestration. Assuming these issues can be resolved, the only way to force sequestration is through a carbon tax. It has been estimated that a $30 per ton carbon tax is required to force adoption of sequestration.

It has also been estimated that sequestration will cause the price of electricity to consumers to increase by three to four times its current price.

Cutting America’s CO2 emissions by 60% would appear to be a pipe dream, and efforts to legislate such reductions could have a devastating effect on the economy.

Sources:

The Future of Coal, Options for a Carbon Constrained World. MIT 2007

Power Magazine, July 2007

July 22, 2007

TSAugust

The Sun.

Evidence is mounting that the sun plays an important, if not predominant, role in climate change.

It is not just direct solar heating that can affect climate; it is the sun’s magnetic field that varies periodically. An enlarged or stronger magnetic field extending from the sun deflects cosmic rays from entering the earth’s atmosphere. Fewer cosmic rays results in fewer low level clouds: Fewer low level clouds results in higher temperatures on earth.

About ten years ago “Henrik Svensmark  and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish Meteorology Institute in Copenhagen suggested that cosmic rays create an electric charge in particles in our atmosphere that then act as seeds for the formation of clouds at low altitudes. A spell of low solar activity would mean more cosmic rays and therefore more clouds and lower temperatures.” (From New Scientist Magazine.)

This hypothesis has gained increasing validity over the past few years.

Professor Jan Veizer published his theory about cosmic rays in the Geological Association of Canada in 2005. The article was called Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle. His paper concludes: "Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

A major milestone in developing the cosmic ray theory was an experiment conducted by the Danish National Space Center in 2006. This experiment proved that cosmic rays could create clouds, thus eliminating one of the most important remaining questions surrounding this theory.

A recent paper describing a study of sediment in Canadian Fjords showed a direct correlation between temperatures and sun spots over the past 5,000 years. (Published by R. Timothy Patterson, professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center.)

This mounting evidence suggests that actions to curtail CO2 emissions could be counter productive. Reducing CO2 emissions may not curtail global warming, but could cripple the world economy thereby making it more difficult to improve the environment and eliminate poverty.

July 1, 2007

TSAugust

Hurricane Season.

With the advent of a new Hurricane season, the media has been trumpeting how global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes.

The following table shows there have been periods of greater hurricane activity before the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. In addition, Dr. Chris Landsea, National Hurricane Center, has noted that many hurricanes went undetected before the advent of satellites.

“Of the hurricanes that reached the continental United States, there were 90 during the first half of the twentieth century and only 75 during the second half: An average of 7 major hurricanes reached the U.S. during the first half and only 6 during the second half of the century."

The insurance industry is clamoring for action to be taken to stop global warming because they have suffered large losses in recent years.

However, it was the increase in coastal populations that caused the higher insurance losses. In his testimony to Congress, Professor Lomborg pointed out that “the two coastal South Florida counties, Dade and Broward, are home to more people than the number of people who lived in 1930 in all 109 counties stretching from Texas through Virginia, along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts."

June 10, 2007

TSAugust

Vatican Seminar on Global Warming.

World renowned physicist Dr.Zichichi set the tone for the recent Vatican seminar with his talk skewering the UN’s IPCC. The Vatican held the seminar "Climate Change and Development" in April.

The news service Zenit reported, “Dr. Zichichi demonstrated that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view."

Soloman of the Financial Post reported, “Dr. Zichichi has concluded that solar activities are responsible for most of the global warming that earth has experienced -- he estimates that man-made causes of global warming account for less than 10%."

Cardinal Renato Martino told Vatican radio at the beginning of the seminar, "Not all the scientific world is crying disaster. There are a good number of scientists who consistently don't view these climatic changes in a negative light, and in fact say that these phenomena recur over the course of years and eras and sometimes they can have favorable results for agriculture and development."

The seminar had about 80 speakers. Many spoke in favor of the IPCC reports on global warming. The number of speakers who voiced different views made it clear there was no consensus that global warming is a huge threat to mankind or that CO2 is its cause.

May 20, 2007

TSAugust

Note:

Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna, has published over 800 scientific papers and 10 books, some of which have opened new avenues in subnuclear physics. He has received numerous awards and honorary degrees from academic institutions around the world, and is the subject of seven books published by others about his accomplishments. He founded and directs the Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture, an organization dedicated to voluntary scientific service, the elimination of secret laboratories, and scientific freedom.

He is the president of the World Federation of Scientists, past president of the European Physical Society, past president of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics, and past president of the NATO Science Committee for Disarmament Technology.

He is also Italy's most renowned scientist, credited with the discovery of nuclear antimatter, the discovery of the "time-like" electromagnetic structure of the proton, the discovery of the effective energy in the forces which act between quarks and gluons, and the proof that, despite its complex structure, it is impossible to break the proton.

Recent Quotes.

Professor Lindzen (MIT) from Interview with National Post, 4/21/07

Note: Dr. Roger Revelle is often quoted by Al Gore as his mentor on global warming.

“Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying,

‘We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.'

And Gore's staffers   tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.”

Boston Globe, 4/15/07

“If scientists who take a non hysterical approach to global warming are going to be scrutinized for ulterior motives, shouldn't we be just as suspicious about the alarmists? There is no shortage of incentives, after all, for those who paint global warming as a deadly and growing peril.

To begin with, staggering sums of money are channeled to researchers who emphasize the human role in global warming. The greater the sense of anthropogenic crisis, the greater the flow of research grants to address it. And it isn't only government that ladles out the dollars. Last year, Virgin Atlantic Airways founder Richard Branson pledged $3 billion to fight global warming."

National Geographic News, 4/18/07

“Climate change could lead to stronger wind shear, a weather pattern that weakens hurricanes, a new study says. Some previous, widely publicized studies have linked global warming to stronger hurricanes."

April 29, 2007

Lomborg Testimony.

Bjorn Lomborg testified before Congress on global warming.

He began by saying, “Global warming is real and man-made."

He went on to say that the threat of global warming “has been wildly exaggerated."

See Lomborg’s complete testimony.

He showed that excessive attention is  paid to deaths purportedly caused by global warming while ignoring the lives lost from cold weather. He estimates that for the UK, ten times as many people would die from cold weather as will die due to global warming. In other words, global warming will save lives.

He then shows that sea level rise will not be catastrophic, and chides Al Gore for unrealistic scare tactics in this regard. He points out that since 1850 we have experienced sea level rise of around 29 centimeters. He compares this to the latest IPCC estimate of a rise in sea levels by 2100 of 34.5 centimeters (about 1 foot). In other words, not much difference in sea level rise between the recent past and the next 100 years.

Next he demonstrates that the risk of Hurricanes is no greater now than during the 1900’s. The large increase in costs is entirely due to people moving into areas exposed to hurricanes. “In the US today, the two coastal South Florida counties, Dade and Broward, are home to more people than the number of people who lived in 1930 in all 109 coastal counties stretching from Texas through Virginia, along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts."

He went on to show how far more people will be at risk from Malaria due to social factors rather than global warming.

Lomborg demonstrates that the policies being proposed in Congress will be extremely costly and have very little affect on global warming. He points out that the first generation to benefit from stabilizing CO2 in the atmosphere at current levels will be born early in the 24^th century … 300 years from now.

Global warming is only one of many issues facing mankind … and not the most urgent. He listed malnutrition, sanitation and water, and diseases such as AID’s as being of great importance where much can be accomplished now.

Lomborg believes that every government should devote .05% of its GDP to R&D so that, if necessary, large cuts can be made in CO2 emissions in the future, rather than spending large sums now with few benefits in this century.

April 15, 2007

Bjørn Lomborg, adjunct professor at Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School, for the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology on Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Supreme Court, Hot or Cold?

In view of the recent Supreme Court decision on greenhouse gasses, the following quotes from a leading magazine might put the ruling in perspective.

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production with serious political implications  for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people. … The average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation.

“To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.

“If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climate change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences.

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

“The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down."

From Newsweek, April 28, 1975

April 8, 2007

Other Planets are Warming.

Mars, Pluto, Jupiter and Neptune’s moon Triton are all warming. This warming is occurring simultaneously with warming of the earth. (No. This isn’t an April fool’s joke.)

There has been speculation that the warming of these other bodies in the solar system could be caused by the sun. Many scientists deride this as “nonsense."

Though the warming of each of these bodies could be caused by conditions unique to each one of them, the sun is a common denominator.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, believes the sun's output is causing the ice caps on Mars to shrink. He also blames the sun for the current warming trend on Earth.

Dr. Peiser, Liverpool’s John Moores University said; “I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system. Perhaps this is just a fluke. But if the observed climatic changes are entirely determined by internal factors, you would expect some randomness between planetary cooling and warming. The fact that only warming has been detected seems odd. In any case, the fact that the environment of various solar system bodies is changing quite significantly only underscores that climate variability on the Earth and in the solar system seems to be the norm."

Dr. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany also attributes global warming to the sun. He said; "The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently — in the last 100 to 150 years."

"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." Dr. Solanki has demonstrated an almost perfect correlation between temperatures in the Northern hemisphere with solar cycles during the past 150 years.

March 25, 2007

Congressional CO2 Proposals.

There are four proposals circulating in Congress for drastically reducing CO2 emissions by the year 2050.

The proposals range in their effects on the American economy from Senator Bingaman’s proposal that essentially keeps CO2 emissions at today’s levels, to the economy killing proposal by Senator Boxer that reduces CO2 emissions from current levels by around 80%. The Sanders - Boxer proposal is essentially the same as the proposal made by the United Nations and European Union. (See note 1)

See table “U.S. CO2 Emissions 2003” for details of U.S. CO2 emissions. This table allows readers to judge for themselves the practicality of drastically reducing CO2 emissions.

There is general agreement that current CO2 emissions must be cut by 60% worldwide to maintain CO2 levels in the atmosphere at current levels. The UN proposes that developed countries cut their emissions by 80% so as to allow developing countries, including China and India, to increase their emissions.

U.S. CO2 emissions are forecast to rise to around 10 million metric tons (MMT) by 2050. Significantly, this rise can largely be attributed to population growth. (See note 2)

The four principle proposals are as follows:

Bingaman:  Essentially holds CO2 emissions at current levels. (See note 3)

McCain – Lieberman: Cuts CO2 emissions by around 60% from current levels. (See note 4)

Kerry – Snowe: Cuts CO2 emissions by around 60% from current levels.

Sanders – Boxer: Cuts CO2 emissions by around 80% from current levels.

It should be noted that the Bingaman proposal results in a 50% reduction from projected levels of CO2 in 2050, while the other proposals reduce emissions by as much as 90% from 2050 projected levels.

There is considerable debate as to whether it is practical, or even scientifically feasible, to cut emissions by these amounts.

For example, there is no proven technology that would allow an 80% (or even a 60% reduction) in CO2 from the generation of electricity. The technologies that are being discussed, e.g., coal gasification and CO2 sequestration, are very expensive and may not be feasible on a large scale or may not be feasible for existing power plants.

A just issued report from MIT says that installing sequestration at a coal fired plant would result in 20% less electricity while costing 40% more. It also says that sequestration remains suspect until it is demonstrated on a large scale.

A February 2007 report by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates that a third of the potential reductions in CO2 emissions from generating electricity would come from sequestration. (Around 15% would come from new nuclear power plants.) EPRI also says that much of the needed technology is not yet available.

Nuclear is the only technology that can generate electricity without emitting CO2, however, few new plants are scheduled to be built.

Plug-in hybrids and hydrogen propelled vehicles could substantially reduce emissions from gasoline, but neither of these technologies is commercially available today.

The generation of electricity and use of gasoline, together, account for 60% of U.S. CO2 emissions.

A major issue is whether drastically cutting CO2 emissions will destroy America's economy and throw millions out of work.

In addition, the question remains whether CO2 emissions are the principle cause of global warming.

The table “U.S. CO2 Emissions 2003” establishes a frame of reference when discussing CO2 emissions.

Sources:

Electric Power Research Institute report: Electricity Technology in a Carbon-Constrained Future.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Report: “The Future of Coal"

Energy Information Agency

U.S. Census

March 25, 2007

Note 1: Legislation will specify reductions in greenhouse gasses that include methane, nitrous oxide etc. See the report “Stabilizing CO2 at Current Levels” for a discussion of these gasses and their relationship to CO2. CO2 is the principle greenhouse gas.

Note 2: Assumes a 1.2% annual increase in CO2 emissions. The EIA used this percentage in its forecast to 2030. U.S. population is forecast to increase by 120 million to 420 million by 2050. Demand can also affect CO2 emissions. The Internet is an example of a new technology requiring a great deal of electricity.

Note 3: Senator Bingaman also proposes an alternative that includes a “safety valve” should the cost of carbon credits increase substantially. This alternative would allow CO2 emissions to increase somewhat between now and 2050.

Note 4: The primary difference between the McCain – Lieberman and the Kerry proposals is that the McCain - Lieberman proposal proceeds in increments

Models Fail in Global Warming Projections.

Professor Pilkey and his daughter Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, a geologist in the Washington State Department of Geology, have attacked the use of computer programs to model nature.

Their book "Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future," was based on the performance of mathematical models in coastal geology. Dr Pilkey, emeritus professor at Duke, conducted  a seminar where he and the seminar participants concluded that too many erroneous assumptions and a reluctance to compare computer models with what actually happens in nature rendered models essentially useless.

They cite climate change as an example where computer models can not be relied on by themselves to project what will happen 50 to 100 years from now.

Another excellent analysis of computer models was done by Jerome Schmitt, president of NanoEngineering Corporation, who has worked in the process equipment and instrument engineering industries for nearly 25 years.

He uses his experience with computer models to describe how, in the semiconductor industry, models could not be relied upon to predict outcomes; even though the manufacturing process  was a very tightly controlled environment.

He says, “Although based on scientific ‘first principles’, complex numerical models inevitably require simplifications, judgment calls, and correction factors.  These subjective measures may be entirely acceptable so long as the model matches the available data -- acceptable because the model is not intended to be internally consistent with all the laws of physics and chemistry, but rather to serve as an expedient means to anticipate behavior of the system in the future. However, problems can arise when R&D funding mechanisms inevitably ‘reward’ exaggerated and alarming claims for the accuracy and implications of these models."

He describes how engineers and scientists always compare computer model projections with actual test results. In the semi conductor industry, models often did not predict actual results.

He says, “The fact that these artificial ‘climates’ are closed systems far simpler than the global climate, have the advantage of the experimental method, and are subject to precise controls, and yet are frequently wrong, should lend some humility to those who make grand predictions about the future of the earth's atmosphere."

For climate models he describes a long list of variables, nearly all of which require assumptions and approximations, where errors can accumulate rapidly.

A partial list of variables include; Solar flux; Gravity, Pressure; Temperature; Density; Humidity; Earth's rotation; Surface temperature; Currents in the Ocean (e.g., Gulf Stream); Greenhouse gases; CO2 dissolved in the oceans; Polar ice caps; Infrared radiation; Cosmic rays (ionizing radiation); Earth's magnetic field; Evaporation; Precipitation; Cloud formation; Reflection from clouds; Reflection from snow; Volcanoes; Soot formation; Trace compounds.

The array of variables is too large for even the largest super computers to handle, so simplifications are required. Simplifications are in fact judgment calls.

Climate models can not be tested as are the models used for semiconductor processes. They should at least be compared with what has actually happened in the past.

Yet here we have the problem of people jimmying the evidence. The best example of this was the Mann hockey stick that eliminated the medieval ice age. “Such distortion of the historical data undercuts the credibility of the models themselves."

Reading Professor Pilkey’s and his daughter Linda Pilkey-Jarvis’ book and the complete article by Mr. Schmitt will make it abundantly clear how dangerous it is to rely on computer models to project global warming over the next 50 to 100 years.

Note: Mr Schmitt’s article can be found at www.americanthinker.com

Sources: Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory, by Jerome J. Schmitt, president of NanoEngineering Corporation.

New York Times Review by Cornelia Dean February 20, 2007

March 11, 2007

Red States Hit by Carbon Curbs.

Red states will be hardest hit if carbon curbs are placed on coal fired power plants.

Consumers in states that get more than 50% of their electricity from coal fired power plants will face the prospect of higher prices for electricity.

States that get more than 50% of their electricity from coal fired plants are: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, Mary land, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The generation of electricity is the sector that produces the largest percentage of U.S. CO2 emissions. Proposals currently in congress will cap CO2 emissions, and if passed, will have a severe impact on utilities with coal fired plants. The options facing these utilities include; finding ways to sequester CO2 in the ground (an approach that has only been done experimentally); invest, where possible, to modernize their power plants; buy credits or pay penalties. The initial caps would be progressively lowered; creating an ever tightening noose around coal fired power plants.

All these costs will be passed along to consumers--including those in the blue state mentioned above.

Texas, a red state not included in the above list, will face similar problems if the current buyout of TXU proceeds. TXU had planned to build 11 coal fired plants to meet rising electricity demand in Texas. Since Texas has inadequate transmission links with other states any lack of new generating capacity will result in demand outstripping supply with a resulting increase in rates paid by consumers and the possibility of blackouts. The buyers of TXU have indicated they plan to cancel the construction of all but three of the new power plants.

In another development, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates it will require $35 billion over the next 15 years to achieve a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. In one way or another (higher electric rates or more taxes) consumers will pay the bill.

Sources: EPRI and EIA

March 4, 2007

UN Dogma.

It is now UN dogma that developed countries, such as the US and Europe, be required to drastically cut their CO2 emissions while developing countries, such as China and India, be allowed to grow without restricting their CO2 emissions.

“Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), urged developed nations to ‘take the next big step’ against climate change by negotiating tight new standards that may exempt their poorer neighbors."

He said it was "a matter of fairness" for developing countries to be given some slack on emissions limits, since the West built its modern industry by burning fossil fuels that are now choking the atmosphere.

China’s surging growth hasnow raised it to where it is the world’s number two emitter of CO2. India is now in fourth place.

At Davos Switzerland, leaders from Non Government Organizations (NGO’s) said rich Western countries had to accept responsibility for confronting global warming since most of the CO2 now in the atmosphere came from the West’s cars and factories.

Widely published is the view that developed countries (i.e., U.S , EU, Canada etc.) be forced to cut their CO2 emissions by 80% so that developing countries, including China and India, can increase their emissions of CO2. Such a formula would cut worldwide emissions by 60%. A 60% worldwide reduction is the amount needed to stabilize CO2 at current levels in the atmosphere.

February 11, 2007

Alice in Wonderland Science.

The IPCC report Summary for Policy Makers was published in Paris amidst considerable fanfare.

In some respects the summary was quite moderate and was less worrisome than the findings in the last report published in 2001. Sea levels will rise less than heretofore predicted and the infamous hockey stick that eliminated the little ice age has been relegated to the trash heap.

The summary’s most important claim is that there is little doubt global warming is caused by mankind.

Several reputable scientists quickly repudiated this claim. One pointed  to work done by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and his forthcoming book Chilling Stars that concludes the sun has been the main cause of cyclical global warming. It describes how the theory was given credence by laboratory experiments in Denmark.

The most disturbing aspect of the IPCC Summary report is that it was written by politicians and that publication of the scientific section has been delayed until May. This delay is to allow the IPCC to ensure that the scientific section of the report agrees with the summary. One person said this was an Alice in Wonderland approach to science.

Senator Inhofe said, "This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain. The media has failed to report that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers was not approved by scientists but by UN political delegates and bureaucrats."

The IPCC concedes it alters the underlying scientific conclusions. Page 4 of "Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work" states: "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

February 11, 2007

Still No Consensus.

An organization made up of environmental professionals should, one would think, demonstrate the existence of a consensus on global warming. Yet, a recent survey by the National Registry of Environmental Professionals of its members showed there was no consensus among its members on whether global warming was caused by mankind.

As would be expected, “82 percent of professionals report they think global warming is a real, measurable, climatic trend currently in effect."

Yet 34%, one third of those surveyed, do not believe “global warming … is a serious problem facing the planet."

And 41%, approaching one half of those surveyed, did not agree that “current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."

And 61% of those surveyed DO NOT believe that “carbon emissions as a whole to be the most important human activity to regulate as part of effective public policy response to global warming."

These are remarkable findings and demonstrate clearly there is no consensus regarding the cause of global warming or what can be done to arrest it.

Source: National Registry of Environmental Professionals survey http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm

February 4, 2007

Polar Bears on Thin Ice?

Why would the government suggest that Polar Bears be listed as a threatened species when their numbers are increasing? The answer is simple. 

If the EPA lists Polar Bears as an endangered or threatened species, then its habitat will have to be protected. This will allow left wing and environmental organizations to insist that CO2 emissions be controlled because CO2 is (according to them) causing the global warming that is (supposedly) destroying the ice that makes up the Polar Bear’s habitat.

The EPA will examine the plightof the Polar Bears this coming year.

Here are facts they should look at.

• The Polar Bear population is increasing in all areas except one. Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist said, “They are not going extinct or even appear to be affected at present.” And, “It is noteworthy that the neighboring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.”

• “A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations may now be near historic highs.”

• The Canadian Government is considering proposals to increase the quota on the harvesting of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay, the very area where there may have been a decline of around 200 Polar Bears due to hunting.

• The Polar Bear is not currently threatened. Even The World Wildlife Fund admits this on its web site

January 28, 2007

Your Carbon Allowance.

A high ranking government official in the UK has proposed that every person be given a personal carbon allowance. If an individual exceeds the allowance he/she must buy credits from people who have not used all of their carbon allowance.

"All UK citizens from the Queen down would be allocated an identical annual carbon allowance, stored as points on an electronic card similar to Air Miles or supermarket loyalty cards."

Each year the total allowance would be reduced until the UK has reduced its carbon emissions by 60%.

This is not a proposal from an eco-nut. This proposal could become the law in the UK if Environment Secretary, David Miliband has his way.

If people ride  their bikes to work or add extra insulation to their homes they may be able to sell some of their unused CO2 credits.

For those who drive their cars or eat in restaurants or do some other anti-social act, they will have to buy credits.

The system will be like frequent flier miles only in reverse. Purchase an anti-social “no-no” and your account will be debited.

Here are some activities that can be regulated by this system.

• Air travel. In essence, vacations will be taxed as will family visits or attending far away graduation ceremonies.

• Electricity. Turning on air conditioning or doing the wash will use a person’s CO2 credits. People can skip using the computer to avoid being taxed. Baking a birthday cake may be out of the question.

• Eating out. A restaurant meal could be charged to a person’s CO2 account.

• Entertainment. Television uses electricity. Movie theaters use air conditioning. These activities could be out of the question for people who have exceeded their CO2 allowance.

There is no mention as to what will happen if credits become unavailable, which would happen if everyone used their allowance. Maybe a person’s lights will be turned off? Or perhaps people won’t be allowed to buy gasoline?

If credits are in short supply, the cost of buying credits will sky-rocket under this proposal.

Environment Secretary, David Miliband plans to launch a pilot program, possibly in 2007, with the goal of having a comprehensive plan in place within five years.

Source: Winnipeg Free Press, 19 December 2006 and Guardian Unlimited July 19, 2006.

January 21, 2007

Copyright © 2002 - 2009 TSAugust