Category Archives: CO2

Cut dairy emissions 25% by 2020. Fart tax anyone? A

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Cows-heading-homecowbackpacksPicture left: The cows are coming home to get milked, well nourished from a healthy grass diet
Picture right: Research cow from Argentina fitted with a methane collecting backpack. This cow is fed feedlot style.

You cannot accuse EPA to be lax;
It works very hard to propose a fart tax.
They are running on fumes:
Tax the bovine perfumes!
Throw all the bums out! Let us give them the axe.

About these ads

In preparation of Earth day 2014. Cause of climate change is still up in the air.

The cause of Climate Change is still up in the air.

Sherlock Holmes: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts”. From: “Scandal in Bohemia” by Arthur Conan Doyle.

LeninThe very first Earth Day was celebrated April 22 1970, on the 100 year anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Lenin (Владимир Ильич Ленин). True green environmentalists keep telling me it is just a coincidence. I think not.






earth-day-Einhorn-02The first Earth Day in Philadelphia 1970 featured Ira Einhorn (The Unicorn Killer) as master of Ceremonies. The big environmental scare of the day was the threat of a new Ice Age. The clarion call was: “In the year 2000 temperatures will have fallen 10 degrees”, the culprit was pollution, especially acid rain. The acid rain was so bad in the Adirondacks, Canada, Norway and Sweden that the Rainbow Trout died in droves, and even the oceans were in danger of getting too acid. Regulations were enacted to add Sulfur  scrubbers to power stations, waste water was purified, and – wouldn’t you know it, the cooling trend reversed itself and was followed by warming. Since the cooling trend was “obviously man-made” they had to find a similar reason for the sudden warming.

Never mind that around the year 1200 there was at least one farm on South West Greenland that exported, among other things, cheese. How do we know that? They have excavated the ruins of a farm, “Gården under Sanden”, buried under permafrost for five centuries.  During these five centuries the Northern Hemisphere experienced what is called “the little ice age” a time when the winters could be so cold that in 1658 the Swedish army, cavalry and artillery crossed the Belts in the southwestern Baltic over ice and sacked Copenhagen.

Picture left: Gården under sanden excavation.

Picture right: The crossing of the Great Belt 1658.

To predict future climate changes many computer models have been developed dealing with how the earth responds to changes in atmospheric conditions, especially how it responds to changes in CO2 levels.  Most were developed in the 1970 to 2000 time frame, a time of rapid temperature rise and as such they were all given a large factor for the influence of rising CO2. Since 1998 we have had a cooling trend, so the models cooperate less and less and are given more and more unreliable predictions. It is no wonder then that they all have failed to model the past. None of them have reproduced the medieval warm period or the little ice age. If they cannot agree with the past there is no reason to believe they have any ability to predict the future. The models are particularly bad when it comes to predict cloud cover and what time of day clouds appear and disappear. Below is a chart of a number of climate models and their prediction of cloud cover versus observed data. Note especially to the right where they completely fail to notice the clear skies over Antarctica.

Is there a better way to predict future temperature trends? When you go to the doctor for a physical, at some point and without warning he hits you under the knee with a hammer and watches your reaction. He is observing your impulse response. Can we observe impulse responses for the earth? One obvious case is volcanic eruptions. Sometimes the earth burps a lot of carbon dioxide or methane. But the most interesting response would be how the earth responds to a solar flare  with a sudden change in the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the earth. That would give the best indication how the sun and cosmic radiation affects cloud formation. A couple of solar flares lately have been giving us a hint how the cloud cover responds to changes in cosmic radiation, and they are consistent with the latest results from the CLOUD project conducted using the CERN particle accelerator, a confirmation of a theory forwarded by the Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark. He first presented the theory in 1997 and finally got the results verified and published in 2007, but the prevailing consensus has been slow to accept the theory that the sun as the primary driver of climate change.

We have many reasons to be concerned about the well-being of the earth, but rising levels of CO2 is not one of them. In fact, CO2 is our friend. Rising CO2 levels increases crop yields, makes the impact of land use changes less pronounced and the photosynthesis process more efficient, using less water and allowing us to grow crops on land once deemed unprofitable.

Picture right: The CERN Cloud apparatus in 2009.

James Hansen, a world famous climate science activist/NASA physicist writes in one of his publications, called “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications“. It contains a quote that ties nicely in with Sherlock Holmes observation:  The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). (Picture shows James Hansen arrested outside White House fence during one of his demonstrations.)

There we have it. The observed data does not fit the climate models. Change the observed data! Then use that data to validate the climate models! How convEEnient, as the SNL Churchlady used to say. Shenanigans like this have been exposed in what has been named “Climategate1.0”, followed by “Climategate2.0”  This is what happens when politicians take over science and make further funding contingent on obtaining desired results.


The coldest winter half-year in over a century!! It’s climate change all right. More CO2, please!!

The coldest winter half-year in over a century!! It’s climate change all right. More CO2, please!!

I am sitting in my office in Boalsburg, Pa. looking at the bird feeder. The birds are as busy as ever feeding. It is 15 degrees F so they need the food. Some song birds have come, the Robins are bobbing, but where is the spring? Last night the report on the satellite data came out via CFACT and it showed we had the coldest winter half-year (equinox to equinox) in over a century! Only two years ago we had the warmest winter ever. This was well publicized. Will this be equally treated?



The other figure is the maximum snow cover for the season in the Northern Hemisphere. It has been growing in the last 50 years. This year was no exception with total snow well above the trend line.



I take more stock in snow totals than temperature measurements. The freezing point of water doesn’t change. Many temperature stations are placed in airports near the runways. This is fine and good for the pilots that must rely on the micro climate of the runways to make proper take-off and landing calculations, but they do not show the true temperature away from the airport.

I maintain we are more likely to have a new little ice-age than a temperature run-away because of CO2 rise.

The Great lakes had the greatest ice cover in over 35 years:

CO2 is not “Carbon Pollution”?

The storms and other extreme weather are at new lows!!

The Antarctic ice cover hit new records two years in a row!!

Summarized in “eleven sgns we are entering a new little ice age.



CO2, the life giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.

CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.

What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?

A sinister, evil collusion?

CO2, it is clean,

Makes for growth, makes it green,

A transfer of wealth, a solution.

Let me first state I am serious about this Limerick. It is not even tongue in cheek. I am an engineer by training and look at the earth as a “living” organism that responds to changes in its environment.

First, the increase in CO2 concentration itself and how nature responds to it.

Second, the effect it has on the earth’s temperature and all its consequences, and finally

Third, the acidification of the oceans.

CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to nearly 400 ppm today, and is increasing at a rate of 2 ppm per year. We are way past the point of no return, 350 ppm which would lead to a temperature catastrophe. (1) But instead, something rather interesting is occurring. The earth is getting greener! (2) This 40 % increase in CO2 the last 250 years has led to a more than 30 % increase in agricultural production all by itself without adding fertilizer or using higher yielding seeds. (3) Thanks to this we can now feed an additional two billion people on earth without starvation. The news are so good, that the per capita food production is increasing, even as the population is increasing. (4)

Look at it this way. The value of basic agricultural products is more than 1.5 trillion dollars worldwide. 30% of that is due to increased CO2. That means that the CO2 emitted is worth 450 billion dollars, spread out over all farmers and ranchers worldwide. This wealth transfer is occurring right now, and knows no national boundary. It is a gift from the developed countries to the rest of the world. Who could be against that?

It turns out that this wealth transfer occurs without global governance. The leaders of the world will not have their say in who gets the wealth transfer, the U.N. bureaucrats will not get their cut, and politicians cannot get a campaign issue since it  occurs without their involvement.

So to recapture the initiative they renamed this life-giving gas “Carbon pollution” and managed somehow to get the Supreme Court to agree with the notion that CO2 is a pollutant.

How can that be? They argued that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is true. It is second only to water vapor. It is responsible for about 9 degree Celsius rise in global temperature, and if CO2 increases, so does the greenhouse effect and the temperature increases. This in turn leads to more water vapor in the air, and water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, so there is a risk of reaching a “tipping point” when we could experience a thermal runaway of the planet. All of this is true, so U.N. and many governments around the world have sponsored studies to model  climate change, over a hundred models have been constructed, and they all come up with rather gloomy forecasts. The research is so intense that over 3 billion dollars of government monies are spent yearly on climate change research.

All models show a similar pattern, a fairly steep and more or less linear rise in temperature as CO2 increases. There is only one major thing wrong with them. They do not agree with what is happening to the global temperature. We have now had 200 months without any global warming, in fact, the trend is down. (5)

What is wrong with the models? They all assume a passive earth, where there is no negative feedback to the changing environment. It turns out, the earth has a “governor”, and it can be expressed in one word, albedo, which means “whiteness” or how much of the incoming sunlight that gets reflected back into space.

The major albedo changers are the amount of ice around the poles and clouds, but even land use changes such as forests cut down and replaced by agriculture and urbanization.

When there is snow or ice on the ground, more sunlight gets reflected and it gets colder still. Urban heat islands are warmer than the surroundings, airports are warmer than its surroundings. Interestingly, that is where we are placing our new weather stations. (This is great for pilots that have to evaluate take-off and landing conditions, but is less than ideal for climate research. But then again, climate research has moved from the realm of physical science to political science, where different rules do apply.)

The most important albedo changers of the earth are clouds. Without them no land based life would be possible since clouds serve both as rainmakers and temperature stabilizers. If there were no clouds the equilibrium temperature at the equator would be around 140 degrees F.

Over the oceans, in the so called “doldrums” where there are no trade winds, the mornings start with a warm-up, and when the conditions are right a shower or thunderstorm occurs. The ambient temperature is usually between 84 and 88 degrees when this happens. As CO2 concentrations increase thunderstorms occur a few minutes earlier and last a little bit longer, but they are no more severe and as a result the average temperature stays the same. (5)

In desert areas of the world this temperature regulator doesn’t work well, so deserts will receive the full force of temperature increase which is 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit per doubling of CO2 levels.

In the temperate region the temperature increase will be somewhere in between. Dry days will be warmer, cloudy and rainy days will have the same temperature as before, since the regulator starts to function.

The polar region is a special case. None of the models have done a good job at modeling the clouds at the poles, especially the South Pole. (6) They will warm up more than 2 degrees F, how much is a question. In the South average temperatures will rise from – 70 degrees F in the interior all the way to maybe – 63 degrees F, and come closer to freezing in the summer at the northern edges. There may be added snowfall that will expand the ice sheet. The Antarctic ice sheet has set new records since record keeping began, and is at the moment bottoming out at 30% more ice than the 30 year average. (7)

The North Pole region is even more complicated since it is partially land, partially ocean. The oceanic ice cap has been shrinking  at a fairly constant rate the last 30 years, but last year it broke the trend and grew back to break the trend line. The winter snow cap has remained at about the same level year to year with a slightly positive trend line, this year being no exception.  So, why is the snow cover growing slightly, but ice cover shrinking? The common explanation has been global warming, but the ice cover kept shrinking even as the temperature increase leveled off. There are two possible explanations: Warming oceans and changes in pollution. The North Atlantic Oscillation has been mostly positive (warmer) since 1970 and has only recently turned negative, so that is certainly part of the cause of the shrinking of the icecap, but another candidate is even more likely: Carbon Pollution. With that I do not mean CO2, but good old soot, spewing out from the smokestacks of  power plants in China. 45% of all coal burned is burned in China, often low grade lignite with no scrubbers. The air in Beijing is toxic to humans more days than not. Some of that soot finds its way to the arctic and settles on the ice, changing its albedo, and the sun has a chance to melt the ice more efficiently. This occurs mostly in the months of August and September when the Sun is at a low angle anyway, so the changing of the albedo has very little effect on temperature. The net result of all this is that the temperature in the North Pole region will rise about 3 degrees Fahrenheit for a doubling of the CO2. This will have a very minor effect on the Greenland ice cap since they are nearly always way below freezing anyway (-28 degree C average). The largest effect will happen in August and September in the years when all new snow has melted and the soot from years past is exposed. This happened two years ago with a sudden drop in albedo for the Greenland ice. It will also lead to an increase in the precipitation in the form of snow, so the net result is the glaciers may start growing again if the amount of soot can be reduced.

The conclusion is: The temperature regulator of the earth is working quite well, and the increase in temperature at the poles is welcome as it lessens the temperature gradient between the tropics and the polar regions, which in turn reduces the severity of storms, since they are mostly generated by temperature differences and the different density of warm, humid and dry, cold air. (8) The Polar Bears will do quite well, their numbers have more than doubled in the last 50 years.

What about ocean acidification? As CO2 increases, a lot of it will be absorbed in the oceans, thereby making the oceans more acid. This is true, but CO2 is a very mild acid and has a minor acidic influence. Of much more importance is acid rain. At one time in the 70’s some lakes in Norway had a Ph. of about 4.5, enough to kill most trout fishes. In Sweden it was said they fertilized their rivers and lakes four times as much as tilled soil, leading to significant acidification of both the Baltic and the North Sea. The Baltic Sea is still in danger of total oxygen depletion. By comparison to these dangers CO2 in the ocean is only a very minor disturbance. Clean the rivers and lakes first!

Oh, and one more thing. The sea level rise is a natural phenomenon of tectonic plate movements, the Atlantic Ridge is rising and the Eastern Seaboard is sinking.  These movements will continue to occur regardless of the climate.

John Kerry said in Indonesia the other day: “The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.  And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.

The opposite is true, increased levels of CO2 is a major vehicle of wealth distribution.

The increase in temperature is manageable and even desirable in most regions of the world, desert areas and areas prone to flooding being the exception.

In conclusion:

CO2 is a clean gas, necessary for life, and an increase in the amount of CO2 is highly desirable.

The very minor increase in temperature is on balance beneficial, since it leads to a less violent climate, with fewer storms, hurricanes and tornadoes.

The increase in CO2 makes us able to feed another 2 billion people on earth, not to mention additional wildlife.

Ocean acidification is a problem, not so much from CO2, but from sulfuric acid, nitrates and other pollutants.

The increase in precipitation is beneficial, except in areas already prone to flooding. It is especially welcome in arid areas.

On the other hand the great conservationist SARAH PALIN once said: “We’ve got to remind Americans that the effort has got to be even greater today toward conservation because these finite resources that we’re dealing with obviously – once oil is gone it’s gone, once gas is gone, it’s gone. And I think our nation has really become kind of spoiled in that arena.”[Fox News, Hannity's America, 10/12/08]

Coal, oil, peat, wood  and natural gas are our best raw material to sustain life as we know it, and are far to valuable to waste on electricity production, so let us switch electricity production to thorium based nuclear energy (8). Coal can be converted to jet fuel and gasoline, air planes have no alternative fuels.

I welcome constructive comments. Tell me where I am going wrong. I have done my very best to look at what is really happening to the earth and from there draw conclusions, rather than rely on climate models.


(1). This is a message from Their aim was to reduce carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.

(2). The earth is getting greener!





(5). Reality versus climate models.CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1(6) Projected cloud cover for various climate models versus reality.Cloudmodels






A religious message from And a Limerick

An inconvenient spoof?

What we have here is a return to the old Baal worship, much condemned in the Bible. Elijah’s epic challenge at the mount of Carmel comes to mind. The Asherah poles (or groves) everywhere on prominent places in the middle East gives an illustration how widespread it was among the Canaanite’s and adopted by the Israelites.
A short excerpt from a sermon by pastor John Mabray of Rivermont Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, Va. explains it like this:
Ritualistic Baal worship looked like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of “mother earth.”
The natural consequences of such behavior – pregnancy and childbirth – and the associated financial burdens of “unplanned parenthood” were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or – with child sacrifice available on demand – could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to “terminate” the unwanted child.
So this is what modern progressives are reduced to. It is an old religion in new clothes, and it has incorporated the environmental movement. Since it is a religion Government has no business regulating it, including “Cap and trade”
The Limerick:
On this little movie I’ll hold my applause,
exploding of children just for “a good cause”,
for it lowers the bar,
have we now sunk this far?
It’s freedom of speech, the establishment clause.

The wonderful planet Earth, complete with thermostat. Or is it out of control without human intervention?

The wonderful planet Earth, complete with thermostat. Or is it out of control without human intervention?

Climate Change is again making the news. During the February 13 broadcast of CBS This Morning, host Charlie Rose and his guest turned to the topic of this year’s harsh winter, calling the extreme cold an example of global warming.

Guest Michio Kaku, a physics professor from New York City College–not a climatologist, but a michio_kaku_ATSMIXphysicist– specializing in paranormal phenomena like ‘telepathytelekinesis and mind reading’ claimed that the “wacky weather” could get “even wackier” and it’s all because of global warming. “What we’re seeing is that the jet stream and the polar vortex are becoming unstable. Instability of historic proportions. We think it’s because of the gradual heating up of the North Pole. The North Pole is melting,” professor Kaku said.

“That excess heat generated by all this warm water is destabilizing this gigantic bucket of cold air… So that’s the irony, that heating could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions,” the prof. explained.

This was all because of global warming, Rose insisted….

CBS Host Norah O’Donnell also took the occasion of the discussion to claim that 2014 will be the hottest summer ever.

Yesterday, Feb. 13. John Paul Holdren, the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science John_Holdren_official_portrait_smalland technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology spoke to reporters  about President Obama’s one billion (with a “b) dollar Climate Resilience Plan and made the following statement: Without any doubt, the severe drought plaguing California and a number of other states across the country is tied to climate change.

Among his other ramblings he came up with this priceless gem:

Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.

This is Holdren’s Law of Climate Causation, all you need to know about droughts and such … weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.

These are the people advising Obama on science. So, in his State of the Union message Obama made the following statement regarding the environment:

“Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet.  Over theslide_335202_3370024_free past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth.  But we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods.  That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.  The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way.  But the debate is settled.  Climate change is a fact.  And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”

Of all the claims and statements Obama made during his hour long speech, this was the paragraph slide_335202_3370002_freenose
that received the largest difference in an audience tested poll between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats reacted more than 70% favorable, Republicans not so much, the approval was less than 10%.

Why is that? What is it in our respective world views that make such a difference?

Let us take a look at how most Democrats view the world and climate and contrast that with how most Republicans see it:

(Full disclosure: I am a Christian and take the God given call to be stewards of this earth very seriously, and I too want to leave this world a better place than I entered it.)

Democrats believe:

Climate Change is real. The scientific debate is over. Anyone disagreeing with this is still part of the flat earth society. (Obama, Al Gore, John Kerry, et. al. ) Kerry also calls Climate Change  our most terrifying weapon of mass destruction (Indonesia, Feb. 17, 2014)

 CO2 is a pollutant, and this pollution has been given a new name, “Carbon Pollution” The “environmentalists” have successfully convinced the U.S. Supreme Court that it is, and can thus be regulated. (D1)

The earth is heating up rapidly due to increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we do nothing the earth will be between 3 and 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the year 2100. (D2).

The earth is overpopulated with over 7 billion people. A sustainable level would be somewhere between 700 million and 2.5 billion, and UN’s Agenda 21 will lead the way to reduce the world’s population. To this effect birth control, abortion on demand, euthanasia, and education on the evils of “excessive” procreation must be enforced. Alternate lifestyles such as LGBT must be given social preference. The conventional family unit is the greatest hindrance to achieving these goals. (D3)

Increased CO2 levels may cause the earth to reach a tipping point with the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melting off, causing catastrophic sea level rise (300 feet or so) (D4)

Storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts floods and all kinds of extreme weather is increasing. 

The coming temperature rise will render large areas of the globe uninhabitable.

97% of active Climate Scientists agree global warming/climate change is caused by human activities. (D7)

Increased CO2 levels causes ocean acidification threatening coral reefs and all marine life. (D8)

We must develop alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal, but not nuclear. And indeed we have. Under Obama Solar has gone from 0.02% to 0.2% at a cost of more than three times conventional source development, Wind power has increased and is now approaching 5% , but depends heavily on subsidies. Geothermal is small and we have not completed a new nuclear plant since the Three Mile Island debacle.(D9)

We must invest heavily in alternate fuels like ethanol and biofuel. Not only that, its use should be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. (D10)

Do not approve the Keystone XL pipeline! It will enable Canada to exploit the tar sands economically. The tar sands are one of the dirtiest crude oils ever discovered. It is an environmental hazard to transport it anywhere. (D11)

Don’t frack!  It poisons the underground water supply. But if you do, do it only for natural gas, not oil, and don’t touch Federal land! (D12)

Keep your hands off ANWR! Areas set aside for wildlife refuges must remain undeveloped forever! (D13)

Energy independence is a pipe dream, but it should be pursued anyway by regulating energy use, discontinue incandescent light bulbs, make smaller, lighter cars, making a smart grid that can tell you when to use air conditioning or the clothes dryer, etc. (D14)

Recycle, Recycle, Recycle! (D15)

Regulate, Regulate, Federal Regulate! (D16)

Republicans believe:

Climate change is real, has been and always will be. The question is: Is it getting warmer or colder, and is that good or bad? The so called consensus is anything but.

CO2 is not a pollutant; it is no more a pollutant than Oxygen and both are necessary for life. Carbon pollution is real and is called soot and comes from smokestacks in China, which by now burn 45% of the world’s coal. (R1)

The temperature of the earth is cyclical. There have been ice ages and warm periods in the past. It was warmer in the Roman and Medieval warm period than it is now. It was colder in the little ice age, then warmer till 1950, then cooling, then warming in the 80’s and 90’s. In the last 18 years global temperatures have been more or less constant and we are now entering a 40+ year cooling period. Though CO2 causes warming its effect is minor and mostly beneficial. There have been ice ages in the past where the concentration of CO2 was ten times higher than it is now. (R2)

The best way to stabilize the world’s population is by encouraging energy production, which is closely tied to quality of living. With stable and secure futures people naturally limit the size of their families. A well informed but free family unit is best suited to achieve this. (R3)

Increased CO2 levels lead to a greener environment. We can now feed 2 billion more people without starvation thanks to the increase in CO2 levels. Photosynthesis works more efficiently and uses less water in the process, so it becomes less sensitive to seasonal droughts, reduces erosion and helps stabilize the climate through evapotranspiration where there was only dry land before. The earth is getting greener. (R4)

With increased CO2 levels, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts are becoming less severe. The jury is still out on floods, they may increase. Extreme weather will decrease. (R5)

The tropics has found its temperature. The temperature was more or less the same as it is now during the ice age or medieval warming period. All temperature rise will occur in the temperate regions. The poles will warm the most making temperature differences less pronounced leading to less storms and violent weather. If the Greenland Ice temperature goes from -28 degrees to minus 24 degrees, who cares? It is still freezing. The Antarctic ice cap has been setting new yearly maxima the last two years, so there is no warming for now. There may be an increase in desert regions where there is very low humidity, but those regions are already unfit for inhabitation. (R6)

The 97% consensus among active Climate experts is an old myth. The survey is from a 2000 or so M.Sc. thesis where 10256 questionnaires was sent out and 3146 responded. There was the following qualification “Of all your peer reviewed papers in the last five years, was more than 50% about climate science”. 77 qualified, of which 75 responded positively that climate change is anthropogenic in origin. For most hat was the condition on which they had gotten the grant to produce the paper in the first place. On the other hand, more than 30000 engineers and scientists have signed a document stating that climate science is by no means settled. (R7)

Ocean acidification is mostly due to water pollution from acid rivers and acid rain. Sulfuric acid is more than 100000 times more acid than dissolved CO2. There is plenty of acid rain coming from China that burn 45% of all coal (mostly high sulfur lignite) and developing countries contribute as well. Underwater volcanoes do their part too. (R8)

We must develop alternate energy resources, like nuclear, and wind wherever profitable, continue solar research but refrain from mass production until profitability can be proven. My preference is for Thorium based nuclear power. (R9)

Alternate fuels like ethanol and biodiesel are terrible ideas. (R10)

Approve the Keystone XL pipeline today! (R11)

Fracking is our best way to become energy independent this decade. It is safe and economical and will finally get us out of this jobs recession. (R12)

Approve 400 acres for oil exploration in ANWR! It is Alaska’s oil anyway and by the Alaskan Constitution oil profits belong to the people, and is none of the Federal Government’s business. (R13)

We can be energy independent in less than 10 years if we go full out on fracking, approve ANWR and develop thorium based nuclear power. This will free us from dependence on Mideast, Nigerian, Nicaraguan oil, all countries that are unstable, have a terrible environmental record, and they hate us anyway. (R14)

Recycle whenever economically defensible (R15)

Regulation should be local whenever possible. (R16)

These are some of the differences between Democrat and Republican world views when it comes to energy. There are many more, and I have tried to be as fair as possible. After analyzing the facts I know where I stand, issue by issue. Do you, or do you only listen to and read from only one side of the spectrum prejudicing yourself?


(D1) CO2 is a pollutant.

(R1) CO2 is not a pollutant 

(D2): The earth is heating up rapidly

IPCC Report AR5 summary for policymakers.

(R2): The temperature of the earth is cyclical.  My best take on real climate science looking at what is really happening:

(D3) The earth is overpopulated with over 7 billion peopleplannedparenthood91

A happy  valentines’day massage from Planned Parenthood, Maryland: 

(R3) The best way to stabilize the world’s population is by encouraging energy production, which is closely tied to quality of living.

(D4) Increased CO2 levels may cause the earth to reach a tipping point

(R4) Increased CO2 levels lead to a greener environment

(D5) Storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts floods and all kinds of extreme weather is increasing. The president’s statement, no scientific backup, only an assertion.

(R5) With increased CO2 levels, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts are becoming less severe.

(D6) The coming temperature rise will render large areas of the globe uninhabitable.

(R6) The tropics has found its temperature.

(D7) 97% of active Climate Scientists agree global warming/climate change is caused by human activities.

(R7) The 97% consensus among active Climate experts is an old myth.

(D8) Increase in CO2 leads to ocean acidification.

(R8) Ocean acidification is mostly due to water pollution from acid rivers and acid rain.

(D9) We must develop alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal, but not nuclear.    

(R9) We must develop alternate energy resources, like nuclear

(D10) We must invest heavily in alternate fuels like ethanol and biofuel.

(R10) Alternate fuels like ethanol and biodiesel are terrible ideas

(D11) Do not approve the Keystone XL pipeline!It’s the kind of scene we’d like to think we’d put behind us.

How would you like to look outside and see masked radicals with torches on your front lawn?Pipelineexecutive
That’s what greeted Mark Maki and his family.
Maki was targeted for this shameful act of intimidation because he is a member of the board of Enbridge Energy Management which works with oil pipelines.
The masked perpetrators refused to identify themselves, or their group, claiming only that they represent “the people.”

(R11) Approve the Keystone XL pipeline today!

(D12) Don’t frack!

(R12) Fracking is our best way to become energy independent

(D13) Keep your hands off ANWR!

(R13) Approve 400 acres for oil exploration in ANWR!

(D14) Energy independence is a pipe dream,

(R14) We can be energy independent in less than 10 years

(D15) Recycle, Recycle, Recycle!

(R15) Recycle whenever economically defensible.

(D16) Regulate, Regulate, Federal Regulate!

(R16) Regulation should be local whenever possible.

These are assorted observations on the earth’s recent climate.

Obama also made the following comments about his energy policy

“It’s not just oil and natural gas production that’s booming; we’re becoming a global leader in solar, too.  Every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar; every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job can’t be outsourced.  Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it, so that we can invest more in fuels of the future that do.

And even as we’ve increased energy production, we’ve partnered with businesses, builders, and local communities to reduce the energy we consume.  When we rescued our automakers, for example, we worked with them to set higher fuel efficiency standards for our cars.  In the coming months, I’ll build on that success by setting new standards for our trucks, so we can keep driving down oil imports and what we pay at the pump.”

But I guess commenting on this will have to wait for another time.

I welcome comments that tell me where I am going wrong. The research is ongoing, and I am really trying to understand how we shall best live so we can leave this earth a better place than we found it.

2013, the year with the fewest tornadoes on record and no major hurricanes making landfall.

2013, the year with the fewest tornadoes on record and no major hurricanes making landfall.

In their desire to sensationalize natural disasters the typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda is billed by the media as the most powerful typhoon ever. Yet it was only a category 4 typhoon at landfall. The higher speeds were estimated from satellite images. Now, its eye and size was enormous, so the damage from the storm-surge was much larger than the wind damage. Likewise, Super-storm Sandy wasn’t even a hurricane at landfall, but the storm-surge was the third largest recorded on the east coast, the other two occurring during the little ice age.

Likewise, the recent tornado outbreak in the Midwest with 82 tornadoes in one day in November is the fourth largest outbreak on record, but the total number of tornadoes for the year is the fewest ever recorded.

Both are used to advocate the case for global warming, but I maintain that the case for global cooling makes for the stronger case.

The number of strong typhoons in the Pacific is decreasing, (maybe only temporary, the future is hard to predict) see Figure.typhoons

The number of strong hurricanes in the North Atlantic is at 0 for a record time span.


The number of tornadoes is at a record low for 2013 (even with the 82 tornadoes of Nov 17 included).


These figures indicate that we are in a sweet spot as to the frequency of natural disasters. As the temperatures keep falling we will experience even fewer hurricanes and typhoons, but the spring and fall storms may be more severe since the temperature difference between the Arctic and the Tropics is increasing. (The temperature in the tropical doldrums stays more or less constant thanks to the thermostat effect of thunderstorms.)

You don’t believe me? Check out the growth in Antarctic ice and the reversal of the Arctic Ice decrease. (The freezing point of water is a constant, so if if the ice is growing it must get colder.)


The solution to the global cooling? There is no solution. We are at the mercy of the sun, which is entering a 40 or more year cycle of less activity.

We can lessen the impact of the cooling by encouraging CO2 emissions. The increase in CO2 has a very positive effect on the environment, making plants grow better, using less water in the process, and water is often the limiting factor in plant growth. This is already showing up in satellite data proving the planet is getting greener. This is good for both Flora and Fauna. In addition the Spring and Fall storms will be less severe. Oh, and a planet with more vegetation is less prone to erosion. And it staves off starvation for both man and beast. Good news all around.

On the other hand, issues like using prime farmland to produce ethanol from corn, cutting down the rain forests of Borneo to produce bio-fuel, real air pollution, water pollution, mining concerns and recycling still remain, so there is much to do to ensure we leave this earth a better place than we entered it.

CO2, is it “Carbon Pollution?” A Limerick.

global_warming_name_changesSo, it happened again. Global warming was the word, then it became climate change, then it was briefly global climate disruption. Since we have not had any global warming at all for the last 17 years and the latest sign is that we will enter a new little ice age, Obama and the EPA are desperately trying to change the alarmists catchphrase again. This time they came up with “carbon pollution.” It is true, chimney sweeps know all about carbon pollution. Chimneys must be swept, or else we may have a chimney fire.  Is that what they mean? It must be, for CO2 is a totally clean gas. It has an effect on humans in large concentrations. Nuclear submarines  try to keep the CO2 levels below 8000 ppm for breathing air , or about 20 times current levels. Recent research indicate levels should be kept lower, maybe being capped at around 1500 ppm (see fig)


The results are interesting. CO2 levels seem to affect initiative and strategic decision making the most. So it is because of all the people full of hot air in congress nothing gets done! However, it is to be noted that this test was performed without allowing for the test subject to accommodate to their new environment. When you climb mountains you have to adjust for weeks before you react normally again. This test is therefore very suspect. While it is true that the people is the subs do not like the air they are forced to breathe, it is not because of CO2, but regular body odor and other pollutants. They get used to it, and their decision making process is not negatively affected except for an occasional cabin fever.

On a serious note, the 17% increase in CO2 the last 30 years has made the earth about 10 % greener, and we can support another one billion people on earth without starvation, increase wildlife and plant life by about the same amount. Why could that be called “carbon pollution?”

Obama, why carbon pollution?

Ban coal is no real solution.

CO2, it is clean,

Makes our earth much more green.

Now that is the green revolution.

Obama, the real Flat Earth Society spokesman.

The Flat Earth Society: Still going strong.
Obama the spokesman, so what can go wrong?
All his “Carbon pollution”
is a Marxist collusion.
It’s food for the hungry, so let’s get along.

President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech Tuesday Jun 25 at Georgetown University, saying he lacked “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”
“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”
O.K. I’ll bite. Who belongs to the true flat earth society?
Obama mentioned more than 20 times “Carbon pollution”. In his weekly radio address the following Saturday he mentioned it again, without specifying what he means by “carbon pollution”. He also likened it to Mercury and Arsenic pollution, so it must be very serious and dangerous in his mind. He did not specify if he meant carbon as in “soot” or carbon as in carbon dioxide, but he is not alone in not understanding the basics of Physics and Chemistry.
Earlier in his remarks, Obama said the “overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements” put “to rest” questions about pollution affecting the environment.
I agree totally. Mercury and Arsenic are poisons pollutants. What about Carbon?
Mercury is bad, unless of course it is used in energy efficient light bulbs that can break and splat Mercury all over the nursery.
Arsenic is bad in large doses. The jury is still out if there is a safe minimum dose. There was a suggestion at one time by the EPA to go to 5ppb as a safe drinking level. That would have put much of Maryland drinking water in the forbidden zone. So they settled for 10 ppb.

“The planet is warming. Human activity is contributing to it,” Obama said.
Well is it?
It is a fact that thunderstorms are a stabilizer of temperature. Thermal thunderstorms can start when the temperature exceeds 76 degrees Fahrenheit. In areas with daily thunderstorms, like in the tropical doldrums temperatures rarely reach 90 degrees and average out around 88 degrees. In the desert where there are no thunderstorms it can get substantially hotter.

My daughter lives with her family in the Delhi area of India. My grandchildren go to a school without air conditioning. They stop school for seven weeks during May-June when the temperature frequently tops 115 degrees. Around Jul 1 the monsoon starts, and the temperature goes down to around 88 degrees and humid, but they can go back to school. This is the great thunderstorm temperature regulator. During the ice age the tropics were still tropical, so that temperature is fixed regardless of what happens elsewhere.
Not so around the poles. If rising CO2 should have a great effect on temperature we should notice it there first.
The best indicator we have is the ice that covers the poles. We have all seen stories like: “the Arctic ice will have melted away in just 5 years.” That was in 2007 when there was an unusually large summer melt. Since then the icepack has recovered somewhat, but in 2012 it did it again and melted even more than in 2007. Why is that? Is it “carbon pollution” like Obama claims?
(Note the maximum snow/ice cove over the North Pole is much larger than the Antarctic ice cover)

The level of CO2 has increased about 14% in the last 30 years and is roughly the same all around the globe. Since that is true, if CO2 causes large temperature increases around the poles the Antarctic ice shield should be shrinking. Is that so?
The Antarctic ice shield hit an all time record since measurements begun more than 30 years ago last year between Sep25 and Sep29. This year it is on pace to equal or exceed that record with about 500,000 square miles more ice than the 30 year average.

Why then is the Antarctic icecap growing and the Arctic ice cap shrinking? It is the same CO2 concentration in both places.

Something else must be the cause.
May I suggest carbon pollution and volcanic activity as two possible hypotheses.
This time carbon pollution is not CO2 as Obama defines it, but good, old fashioned soot.

While Obama is fighting a war on coal China is building one coal fired plant a week, burning mostly low grade lignite coal. China now burns 45% of all coal burned in the world. They are said to use scrubbers, but since scrubbing costs money they are often down for “service” The soot that is choking the people of Northern China (Remember the Olympics when they shut down most production for the duration of the events to reduce air pollution?) is going out as a brown cloud, following the Siberian coastline. Some of ir reaches the Arctic and deposits itself on the white new fallen snow. When the snow melts the following summer the soot comes back to the surface and causes a more rapid snow and ice melt. The speedup of the ice melt occurs at the time of the changing albedo, so that must be a large contributing factor.

Last year when the freeze cycle started again new ice accumulated at a record pace, so the ice pack may be largely gone in early September, but at that time the albedo change is of little consequence since the Sun is almost gone anyway. In the Arctic the winter Albedo comes mostly from snow over land, so that would be highly sensitive to soot. This pollution is partly manmade from unclean burning.

The other hypothesis is volcanic activity. The island of Svalbard lies near the 80th latitude and the Western part is mostly ice free all year. We learned in school it was due to the Gulf Stream transporting warm water from the Mexican Gulf all the way to the Barents Sea, which is the reason towns like Hammerfest in Norway are ice free all year. The northern part of the Gulf Stream is now called the North Atlantic Current, and it has been strong for a long time.

Most of the ice melt is due to melting from warm water underneath. But there is another reason it is so warm between Iceland and Svalbard. The North Atlantic Ridge between the Norwegian islands Jan Mayen and Svalbard is rising out of the Atlantic at a rate of 0.4 inches a year.


Some peaks are so high the depth is only 60 feet, and the next volcanic eruption can form a brand new volcanic island much like the island of Surtsey, south of Iceland was created some 40 years ago. This volcanic activity may account for about 30% of all volcanic activity in the world, but it occurs with very small earth quakes and is under water, so it has not attracted much attention. The heat up of the ocean is, however substantial and goes a long way to explain why Western Svalbard is Ice free, and why the whole ice cap is melting.
Of course since this ridge is rising out of the ocean, the water must be rising somewhere else, so it is not surprising the whole Eastern seaboard is slowly sinking into the Atlantic,
What is the conclusion? The Antarctic Ice cap is the best indicator we are in a cooling trend, and the increasing CO2 levels will help delay the start of the coming ice age.
(Not one day has the temperature been above average in the Arctic above 80 lat. since May 5 this year)
The rising CO2 levels has already made it possible to feed another billion people on earth, because increasing CO2 levels improves the photosynthesis in plants, increasing plant growth, so it is good for both flora and fauna.

In addition, an increased CO2 level makes photosynthesis more efficient over a larger temperature range, using less water in the process.
The earth is getting greener. A greener earth makes it more resilient to climate change, whether manmade or natural.
This cooling of the world is of course anathema to true flat earth believers like Obama.He is desperate too control CO2 emissions under the guidance of U.N. regardless of what goes on in nature. This is not to deny we have problems by manmade climate change. For example, cutting down the rain forests of Borneo to make biofuel is a really bad idea, but it is going on. To use corn to make alcohol may be even worse, nearly half of the weight of sugar is converted to CO2 during the fermentation process. To transport crude oil through a pipeline is far more efficient than transporting it via railroad, even if Warren Buffet owns the railroad. The energy used in mining the material used in batteries and motors exceeds the potential energy savings in Hybrid cars. Making electric cars charged from household electricity makes no sense as long as we generate electricity from coal. Wind power kills birds and bats, and when the wind does not blow you still need all the generation capacity. Solar energy is most efficient where it is not needed. The electric grid is overloaded and vulnerable to attack. Uranium based nuclear power generates waste products lasting for millennia
What to do?



Solar, wind and biofuel are but hairs on the energy chart.
One solution is converting electric power production from coal fired plants to thorium based nuclear power generators. There is an 800,000 years supply of thorium ready to be mined. Thorium based generators produce 0,01% as many waste products as uranium generators after 300 years. Thorium generators are scalable, cheaper to make and operate than all alternatives except coal and natural gas generators. They can be made inherently earthquake safe and in case of terrorism really easy to poison and be made unusable.
This is lacking in our energy debate.
Mr. President, we need an energy policy, not a war on coal and CO2 generation without a clue on how to solve our energy needs for the future. As Sarah Palin so succinctly put it: “We must be good stewards of all our God-given resources, for when they’re gone, they’re gone”

Sarah Palin in Field day in Baltic S.D. Jul 25. A Limerick.

Sarah Palin in Field day in Baltic.
When she speaks, it is making us all tick
It’s not “Carbon pollution,”
It is plant growth infusion,
She is my presidential pick.

Sarah Palin shared via Facebook: I’m so looking forward to joining hard working farmers in America’s heartland this week at the Ag PhD Field Day in South Dakota. It’s an honor to get to travel with my entourage (er, that would be Piper) to be with those who are feeding the nation.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers