
.
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.
Category: CO2
Go green like Spain? Obama’s dream. A Limerick.
Obama said: “Let’s follow Spain:
Go green, increase debt, show disdain.”
Flat Earhters are clueless,
as people go jobless.
Blame “carbon pollution” again.
Obama is bent on duplicating the success of Spain that went from 9% unemployment to 22% unemployment in one year when they went all out green. (It is now at 26%)
In testimony to the U.S. Congress, before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Prof. Calzada presented highlights from a major study on the Spanish experience with “green jobs,”
including these sobering facts:
• For every 1 green job financed by Spanish taxpayers, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost.
• Only 1 out of 10 green job contracts were in maintenance and operation of already installed plants, and most of the rest of the working positions are only sustainable in an expansive environment related to high subsidies.
• Since 2000, Spain has committed €571,138 ($753,778) per each “green job,”
• Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs.
• Each “green” megawatt installed on average destroyed 5.39 jobs elsewhere in the economy, and in the case of solar photovoltaics, the number reaches 8.99 jobs per megawatt hour installed.
“Spain has already attempted to lead the world in a clean energy transformation,” Dr. Calzada told the congressmen. “But our research shows that Spain’s policies were economically destructive. When the president of a country with a relatively low unemployment rate like the US decides to learn how to create jobs from a country like Spain with the highest unemployment rate among developed countries, it should be in a field where that country has a demonstrable
Sarah Palin understands energy. She wants us to no longer be dependent on the powder keg of the middle east and their oil “let Allah sort it out”
We have the resources.
CO2 is what makes life possible and is NOT a pollutant.
Thanks to the 14% increase in CO2 since 1970 we can now feed another billion people on earth. The planet is getting greener. (Click on the picture ) 20% are getting greener, only 3% drier.

This is especially true in areas where water is scarce. Photosynthesis works more efficiently with higher concentration of CO2 and uses less water to complete the chemical action.
Thunderstorms are regulating temperature in the tropics so it always has nearly the same average temperature, be it ice age or Roman warming period. The bulk of climate change is located around the poles and in areas of land use change.
Warmer temperatures are good “Minnesotans for global warming”. The polar bears love it. They are now five times as many polar bears as 70 years ago. The exception is in the dry belts around the 15 to 30 degree latitude, but this is also the area where the greening is the most pronounced.
James Lovelock, considered by many to be one of the “founding father” scientists of the environmentalist movement in the U.K. with his GAIA theory, has been unsparing in his criticism of wind power and his former global-warming alarmism, which he now says grossly exaggerated the non-crisis of climate change. Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, one of Germany’s most famous “greens” and a longtime AGW alarmist and champion of renewable energies, has likewise admitted to having been very, very wrong on these matters. Like Lovelock and many other leading scientists, Vahrenholt is calling for an end to the climate change hysteria and an end to the “green” lobby attacks on conventional fossil fuels.
The conclusion? Obama is living in the wrong universe. His policies will make things worse, not better. Now, if he means soot with his “Carbon pollution “, like they are spewing out of China.That is a matter for another discussion.
China is now burning 45% of all the coal burned in the world, most of it low grade coal, forming a soot cloud stretching far out in the Pacific, even reaching the arctic region, causing rapid ice melt during the summer, which non- scientists like Obama attribute to global warming.
More on this subject in the next BlogSpot.
Train derailment in Quebec and Keystone XL pipeline. A Limerick.
A train ran away in Quebec,
its crude-oil exploded the wreck.
To ship oil from the source;
Use a pipe-line of course.
The Keystone will thwart the OPEC.
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.”
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”.
Obama also said the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline should only be approved if the project would not “significantly exacerbate” greenhouse gas pollution.
Right now the crude oil is transported from the Athabasca tar sands to Houston by Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad. It is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.
The cost of transporting the oil is about #14 dollars per barrel, much of it the cost of energy (CO2). The pipe-line can do the job for about seven dollars per barrel, much of it capital costs.
We can see what happens when transporting crude oil:

Comparing to this, pipe-lines ate much more environmentally safe, and does the job for less than half the cost of railroad ttansportation.
If you were Obama, what would you do? Would you do the economic and environmentally friendly thing, or would you continue to favor your crony capitalist friends and the powerful OPEC?
Decisions, decisions.
CO2 the solution to Climate change.
Some time ago I came across this video that puts everything we have heard so gar about CO2 and its influence on the climate on its head.
We have been told about the dangers of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, how it is going to raise the temperature by 3 to 6 degree Celsius in the next century. If there is no gain in the system temperatures will rise only 0.9 degree Celsius if CO2 doubles. The truth is there is a dampening of the system instead. When there is more CO2 in the air, plants grow better. This changes the albedo and this helps to stabilize the temperature.
Matt Ridley, author of The Red Queen, Genome, The Rational Optimist and other books, dropped by Reason’s studio in Los Angeles to talk about a curious global trend that is just starting to receive attention. Over the past three decades, our planet has gotten greener!
After seeing the video I have the following recommendations to make to the administration:
Stop Biofuel subsidies!
Stop subsidizing electric cars! The energy equivalent of producing an electric car is equivalent to driving 80000 miles; the equivalent for a conventional car is about 30000 miles.
Continue battery research, but please do not subsidize battery manufacturing.
Stop subsidizing wind power, the generators are mostly made in China anyway.
Stop subsidizing solar power – the panels are made in China anyway, and China controls 97% of the rare earth metals needed to produce the solar cells.
Stop punishing coal plants!
Approve the Keystone pipeline!
Don’t even think of Cap and Trade!
Start a major push to Thorium based nuclear power. It produces 0.01% of the long term radioactive waste compared to a conventional Uranium based power plant. India and China are making major investments in Tritium technology. Done right, this will greatly lessen the burden on our electric grid.
The list could go on and on, but this will suffice for now.
A response to the energy portion of the State of the Union Message.
The Energy State of the Union message.
This is a short interpretation of the President’s State of the Union message as it pertains to energy.
First the speech:
After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.
But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.
The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.
Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. We’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year – so let’s drive costs down even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.
In the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and water.
Indeed, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we. Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long. I’m also issuing a new goal for America: let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next twenty years. The states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make it happen.
And now for the interpretation:
“After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.”
Thanks to drilling leases approved under the Bush administration we produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years.
“ We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. “
We are requiring future cars to double the driving distance on a gallon of gas by making them smaller and lighter. We have also doubled the amount of renewable energy from sources like solar and wind – from half a percent to a full percent of our energy need at a cost of over half a million dollar per job created.
“We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.”
Thanks to fracking, done nearly exclusively on private land in spite of the efforts of the EPA we produce more natural gas than ever before driving down the cost of natural gas.
“And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.”
Over the last four years our emissions of the dangerous carbon dioxide have actually fallen, but because of the increase in carbon dioxide the world can now feed two billion people more. Without this increase there would be mass starvation and death in the developing countries. The goal is population control according to Agenda 21, and increased levels of CO2 interferes with outr plans.
“But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.”
Our children are now facing a national debt of more than sixteen trillion dollars, in no small part by tilting at windmills.
“Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.”
Thanks to the fact that we have put weather stations on airports, on paved surfaces and in places of rapid land use changes, the measured temperatures have shown 12 of the last 15 years have been the hottest on record. It is true that urban heat islands show an increase, but temperature records for weather stations in undisturbed areas show a slight decrease.
Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense.
The raging wildfires of 2012 were less than average.
The crippling drought of 2012 was less severe than the 30’s dust bowl. Remember “The Grapes of Wrath”.
Tornadoes numbered about 30% less than normal and we broke a record for consecutive days without a death from a tornado.
The number of hurricanes and their severity is down.
“We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.”
Contrary to popular opinion Superstorm Sandy was an early warning of a new little ice age.
Storms are formed and driven mostly from temperature differences. The worst storm recorded on the Eastern seaboard was not Sandy. The headlines claimed the storm surge that hit the U.S. east coast during Sandy was unprecedented, and was caused by global warming. It is my contention that a more likely scenario is that it is an early warning of global cooling.
There have been two storm surges on the east coast larger than hurricane Sandy’s. They occurred in the years 1635 and 1638. Ship logs from the 1600’s also show storms were more violent during the little Ice Age. It got so cold that in 1658 the Swedish Army crossed the Great Belt in Denmark and sacked Copenhagen. The Great Belt is now nearly always ice-free.
“The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago.”
A few years ago John McCain and Joe Lieberman were hoodwinked into believing the IPCC panel political summaries of impending gloom. They keep scaling back their predictions since we have not have any significant increase in temperature the last 16 years while CO2 concentrations continue to increase.
“But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”
I will bypass congress and use the EPA to issue crippling regulations.
“ I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution,”
I will direct my Cabinet to make new coal-fired power plant unprofitable
“prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change,”
Our communities will be beaten into submission
“and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
We will continue to tilt at windmills and solar panels controlled by China, but not Nuclear Energy.
“Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it.”
Four years ago Spain went green and the unemployment rate went from 9% to 21% in just a year. It is now 26%
“We’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America.”
Thanks to making new coal-fired plants almost impossible wind energy contributed nearly half to all increase in capacity last year – almost enough to allow the economy to grow by half a percent.
“So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year – so let’s drive costs down even further.”
Solar energy has long been the most expensive way to produce energy. Without subsidies the cost used to be more than 30 c/kWh. With subsidies we can drive the cost down all the way to 17 c/kWh.
“ As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.”
The most drastic step we have done so far is to outsource manufacturing, mostly to China. In so doing we have actually decreased our energy use while China’s is doubled, and China is now using 50% more energy than the U.S. In addition, nearly half of all coal used in the world is burned in China. Not only that, China’s coal is of the soft, brown, dirty coal variety. It is so bad that Beijing now has the highest air pollution in the world. The soot clouds are carried by the prevailing westerly winds up into the Arctic.
“In the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.”
My Administration will cut red tape and begin by opening up the Arctic Wildlife Preserve to exploration.
“But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and water.”
Next to Hydrogen, natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel available
“Indeed, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together.”
A true energy hero, Governor Sarah Palin stood up to the Big Oil companies and instituted an oil depletion tax that was progressive, up to 70%, which she distributed to the people of Alaska rather than increasing the size of Government. Her approval rating peaked at 93%. I would like to duplicate that.
“So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good.”
Nah, instead of that I propose tonight we institute a crippling tax on trucks and cars to finally force them off using gas and diesel fuel.
“If a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we.”
We cannot let a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals do this. This is a job for Big Government.
“Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long.”
Let us follow the example of Europe. Their gas prices are about eight dollars a gallon. A spike of another dollar or two would no longer matter,
“I’m also issuing a new goal for America: let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next twenty years.”
I propose we install smart energy meters and relays that lets us decide if you deserve air conditioning or not, or if you can run the clothes dryer in the afternoon before you go out at night.
“The states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make it happen.”
Everybody knows that union states have the best ideas to preserve jobs, so let us promote that.
There were other gems in his speech, but this will suffice for now.
Groundhog day, Climate change and Obama’s Inauguration and State of the Union message.

Groundhog Day is over. Next step in prognostications of questionable value is the President’s State of the Union message. Punxsutawney Phil did not see his shadow this Feb 2. Through the ages he has seen his shadow 87% of the time and prognosticated six more weeks of winter. This year he forecast an early spring. His record is pretty good, he has been right 37% of the time.
As for the President, there has been a lot of ballyhoo about Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption/Climate Challenges – pick your term. Besides Al Gore who recently sold his Current TV channel to Al-Jazeera, a known champion for Mideast oil, few has been more vocal about Carbon Dioxide “pollution” than President Obama.
In his second inaugural speech there was scant mention of the economy, jobs, the impending debt crisis, overbearing regulations and loss of personal freedom. None of these things concern him. He was, however very concerned of climate change and promised a real effort to move towards sustainable energy. This is what he said:
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. ”The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries we must claim its promise. ”That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.”
Let us take the statements one by one and see how well we are doing so far. He has had one full term, so the verdict is in.
“We will respond to the threat of climate change
The most drastic step we have done so far is to outsource manufacturing, mostly to China. In so doing we have actually decreased our energy use while China’s is doubled, and China is now using 50% more energy than the U.S. In addition, nearly half of all coal used in the world is burned in China. Not only that, China’s coal is of the soft, brown, dirty coal variety. It is so bad that Beijing now has the highest air pollution in the world. The soot clouds are
carried by the prevailing westerly winds up into the Arctic.(More on that later) Another example of less than stellar action was the “cash for clunkers” program, where “nearly new” cars were destroyed to make room for new, more fuel efficient cars. This was a subsidy for the upper and upper middle class, since they were the only ones that could afford to upgrade. The real clunkers are still left on the road, driven by the less fortunate since the cars they had hoped to upgrade to were taken out of circulation, leading to higher prices for used cars. A true lose-lose proposition. And don’t get me started on Karma and Tesla, highly subsidized electrical play-toys for playboys.
“knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”
What we have done so far to betray our children and future generations is putting us in an unsustainable debt and deficit situation. Obama seems determined to follow the example of Spain. They went green, and in one year’s time their unemployment rate went from 9% to over 21%. It is now 26%. Their debt is as bad as that of Greece and we are headed that way. Our debt per person is over 52000 dollars, Greece’ is more like 47000 dollars.
“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
The real threat of climate change is not so much global warming but a possible onset of a new Ice Age. Before you dismiss me as a real whacko, let me assure you that I know CO2 to be a powerful greenhouse gas, second in importance only to water vapor, and without gain or attenuation in the response of the Earth, a doubling of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere would cause a 0.9 degree C warming. As an engineer I look at the impulse response of the earth to a variation in the Sun’s effect on temperatures. There are two overwhelming impulses from the sun. They are called day and night, summer and winter.
Let us first take the tropics, since it doesn’t really have summer and winter, only day and night. In an ideal situation,
where the sun bakes down on the surface with no clouds and the earth radiates back into space, the equilibrium temperature in the tropics would be about 140 degrees F (60C). But it isn’t, since thunderstorms and winds carry away the excessive heat from the equator towards the poles. One could say the tropical thunderstorms are the thermostat of the earth. The tropics have found its temperature. It was about the same as it is now even during the last ice-age. The absorbance spectrum of saturated water vapor covers the whole IR spectrum, so any amount of CO2 makes no difference.
But, you say, what happens at the poles? Glad you asked. The heat is carried towards the poles and comes down as rain or snow or not quite as cold air. Since many temperature stations are located on heat islands such as air ports and urban areas that have suffered significant land use change the most unchanging temperature observable is the melting point of ice.
So let us take a look at ice around the poles. The ice cap over the Antarctic is growing. Between Sep 25 and Sep 29 of
last year it hit a new all-time record since measurements begun. Notice the maximum occurred more than 3 months after maximum solar influx – a 96 day delay. The southern icecap is about 700000 km2 larger than the 30 year average nowadays.
Not so the Northern icecap. For a fleeting period around Mar 25 last year it was back to the 30 year average, after that came the most rapid snow melt on record, followed by the most rapid refreezing on record. At the minimum it was about 2.8 million km2 less ice than normal, leading to a flurry of press releases of our imminent demise, and of the polar bears. By the way, the number of polar bears has doubled since its minimum. They do not mind a slightly milder climate. There is now slightly more ice in the Arctic than last year – about 700000 km2 less than the 30 year average.
So, the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, but the Antarctic ice cap is growing. Why is that? The CO2 level is the same in both places. Something else must be the cause.
Let me suggest: Air pollution. We have outsourced our manufacturing of steel, gypsum boards and other high energy uses to countries like China and the third world. China is by far the world’s leading polluter and the soot cloud runs all the way into the Arctic. The tell-tale sign of soot pollution is the soot in
the bottom of the ice-ponds that form in the summer icecap, leading to a much more rapid ice-melt. This masks an inconvenient fact. It is getting colder.
In addition, because of more open water in the fall, evaporation increases and this leads to increased snowfall. Moscow has now the snowiest winter in over 100 years. Alaska broke records last year. The snow cap stretches over much of the northern hemisphere, increasing the reflection of the incoming sunlight, and that means a delayed spring.
What does this mean for us? The summers may or may not get warmer, but the winters will get colder in the temperate zone.
Storms are formed and driven mostly from temperature differences. The worst storm recorded on the Eastern seaboard was not Sandy. The headlines claimed the storm surge that hit the U.S. east coast during Sandy was unprecedented, and was caused by global warming. It is my contention that a more likely scenario is that it is an early warning of global cooling.
There have been two storm surges on the east coast larger than hurricane Sandy’s. They occurred in the years 1635 and 1638. Ship logs from the 1600’s also show storms were more violent during the little Ice Age. It got so cold that in 1658 the Swedish Army crossed the Great Belt in Denmark and sacked Copenhagen. The Great Belt is now nearly always ice free.
The raging fires of 2012 was less than average.
The crippling drought of 2012 was less severe than the 30’s dust bowl. Remember “The Grapes of Wrath”.
Tornadoes numbered about 30% less than normal and we broke a new record for consecutive days without a death from a tornado.
The number of hurricanes and their severity is down.
The solution: Increase the amount of CO2 in the air, but reduce the worldwide soot emissions.
”The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. “
I totally agree. The regulatory environment makes it nearly impossible to go forward with such worthwhile projects as geo-thermal, thorium-based nuclear power and the like.
“But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries we must claim its promise. “
We have already ceded the initiative in Thorium based nuclear energy to the Chinese, the Russians and the Indians. All three have active developments going including patents. Until recently China controlled 97% of the rare earth metals mining, – a national security threat. See my thorium blog posts: https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/nuclear-power-and-earthquakes-how-to-make-it-safer-and-better/
https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-based-nuclear-power-generation/
https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/15/eleven-more-reasons-to-switch-to-thorium-as-nuclear-fuel/
Nuclear Power. Why we chose Uranium over Thorium and ended up in this mess. Time to clean up.
”That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.”
CO2 is a non-participant in global warming. The earth, mostly through clouds and thunderstorms has wonderful feedback mechanisms, which keep temperatures stable on the warm side. The stabilizing mechanisms grow weaker on the cold side, and normal steady state for the earth is ice age. Increasing amounts of CO2 will delay the onset of the next ice age, and in a small way reduce the severity of storms.
We have not had any statistically significant increase in global temperatures for the last 16 years but the amount of CO2 has increased by more than 10%.
Are there benefits with an increased amount of CO2?
You bet. Thanks to increased CO2 the earth can now feed an additional 2 billion people, people that had otherwise starved to death. For a doubling of CO2, plant yields increase between 40 and 70%. In addition plants use less water to do the CO2 breathing when CO2 increases. This can be seen in the vegetation line growing northward south of Sahara.
It is still not a good idea to use ethanol from corn for fuel. Cutting down the rain forests of Borneo to produce biofuel is even worse. Irrigation is sometimes good, sometimes bad. Irrigating from the rivers feeding to Lake Aral was supremely unwise. That displaced about a million and a half people.
My suggestion is to attack environmental problems regionally, especially when it comes to land use. Central planning, especially about water use and water pollution is sometimes disastrous. The worst we could do is to entrust this to UN. They apply political considerations rather than scientific and rational every time.
To protect ourselves we must take back the energy initiative from China, India and Russia. Let us use scientific facts this time and not again succumb to political rhetoric.
A new record for ice cover in Antarctica. More CO2, please.
A record is set for Antarctica’s ice (1)
A truth inconvenient, but this will suffice. (2)
To nix the decision
“Curb carbon emission” (3)
CO2 is the gas to grow corn, wheat and rice. (4)
(1) The total ice cover in Antarctica set a new all time record. According to NOAA’s Sea Ice Extent it turns out day 265 set an all time record, and then day 266 (Sept 22nd) broke that record. Days 265 through 270 are now the 6 highest Antarctic Sea Ice Extent’s of all time (in the satellite record)! 11 of the top 15 extents are now in 2012.
(2) A) In the Antarctic, at the time of maximum sea ice extents, the “edge” of the sea ice very closely approximates a “crown” around the continent between latitudes 60 south and 62 south. At those latitudes, ANY increase in Antarctic Sea Ice extents will significantly increase energy reflections from the ice, and reduce the absorption of energy from the sun into the newly covered ocean waters. The result – of ANTARCTIC sea ice maximums expanding – is increased heat loss from the earth into space, and decreased global temperatures.
B) In the Arctic, on the other hand, all of the sea ice is now concentrated in a single “Beanie” cap around the north pole. This cap can be very closely approximated as a cap extending from the pole down to latitude 80 degrees (for 4 million km^2 sea ice) or to 81 degrees for today’s 3.4 million km^2 sea ice extents.
However, at those very high latitudes, during the time of minimum sea ice extents at the equinox, more energy is lost from the exposed ocean surface by radiation into space and evaporation (both of which will begin as soon as the sea ice “insulation” is melted out) than is gained by the ocean surface absorbing sunlight. NOTE: This effect, the reverse of the conventional CAGW alarmism about sea ice albedo! – is ONLY true for the far north latitudes. But, then again, those are the only latitudes where sea ice exists at the present minimum, so it is pointless and distracting and wrong to worry about any other latitudes …. FOR ARCTIC SEA ICE.
(3) Conventional “wisdom” according to IPCC dictates that there is a strong positive feedback between CO2 levels and global temperatures, so that a doubling of CO2 would yield a global temperature increase of between 3 and 5 degree Celsius. If there was no gain in the system, a doubling of CO2 levels would cause a 0.9 degree increase. However, there is a strong negative feedback due to changes in the cloud cover and associated thunderstorms so the net effect is an increase of the global temperature of no more than 0.3 degree C. This can be verified by calculations using a simple observation of the earth’s temperature response to the varying amount of solar influx in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere over a year.
(4) For every doubling of CO2 levels the trees, plants and grass will increase their growth by 30 to 70% dependent on the species. This effect will level off at about 1200 ppm, so we can use this effect to feed an additional two billion people, or alleviate the starving that is already occurring.
Conclusion: We need more CO2, not less, to help feed the world and stave off the coming Ice-age for a little longer.
Forecast of drought in Britain brings record April showers. Time to change climate models?
It is hard to make predictions – especially about the future (Yogi Berra, Niels Bohr, et al.)
The Met Office has caused a storm of controversy after it was revealed their £30million supercomputer designed to predict climate change is one of Britain’s worst polluters.
The massive machine – the UK’s most powerful computer with a whopping 15 million megabytes of memory – was installed in the Met Office’s headquarters in Exeter, Devon.
With a total peak performance approaching 1 PetaFlop — equivalent to over 100,000 PCs and over 30 times more powerful than what was in place before. It is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second to feed data to 400 scientists and uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power more than 1,000 homes.
So what glorious new and accurate information are they producing now?
Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April – June 2012 Issue date: 23.03.12
SUMMARY – PRECIPITATION:
The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the driest of the 3 months. With this forecast, the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period. The probability that UK precipitation for April-May-June will fall into the driest of our five categories is 20-25% whilst the probability that it will fall into the wettest of our five categories is 10-15% (the 197-2000 climatological probability for each of these categories is 20%).
CONTEXT:
As a legacy of dry weather over many months water resources in much
of southern, eastern and central England remain at very low levels.
Winter rainfall in these areas has typically been about 70% of average,
whilst observations and current forecasts suggest that the final totals for
March will be below average here too. The Environment Agency advises
that, given the current state of soils and groundwater levels in these
areas, drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable.
That was the prediction.
Ho well did they do?
Here is the result for April 2012:
2012 had wettest April for 100 years, Met Office says.
It has been the wettest April in the UK for over 100 years, with some areas seeing three times their usual average, figures from the Met Office show.
I am really impressed by their newfound forecasting ability.
So impressed I have written new lyrics to Merle Travis song: Sixteen tons (Popularized by Tennessee Ernie Ford)
Some people say people are made outta mud
Alarmists and warmists, they’re chewing their cud,
Chewing their cud and follow Al Gore
A mind that’s a-weak can you ask for much more?
More than one megawatt, and what did they get?
Another prognosis and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call ’em ’cause you must let ‘em be
They sold their souls to the IPCC.
They came in one mornin’ when the sun didn’t shine
They picked up their papers and continued the grind
They had sixteen conditions, mostly falsified bull
And the straw boss said “Well, a-bless my soul”.
More than one megawatt, and what did they get?
Another prognosis and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call ’em ’cause you must let ‘em be
They sold their souls to the IPCC.
They came in one mornin’, it was drizzelin’ rain
their prognoses had failed them again and again
The boss harshly told them, You will do many more
Do as I tell you, and agree with Al Gore.
More than one megawatt, and what did they get?
Another prognosis and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call ’em ’cause you must let ‘em be
They sold their souls to the IPCC.
The threatenin’ drought, it just didn’t last.
and hidin’ the warming that occurred in the past
Their ol’ man Mann and his hockey stick.
Conditions like that nothing ever will click.
More than one megawatt, and what did they get?
Another prognosis and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call ’em ’cause you must let ‘em be
They sold their souls to the IPCC.
(Here is an older version of the song:)
The electric car. Is it good or bad Karma?
The electric car. Is it good or bad Karma?
Boy are we advancing in leaps and bounds:
Here is the Roberts electric car, built 1896.
It gets 40 miles to the charge.
116 years later, how far have we come in battery development?
Most electricity is produced by burning coal. Much peak electricity is produced by burning natural gas. We have recently discovered large quantities of shale deposits. One of the chief developer of the North Dakota deposits is Mr. Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, who at one time had a brief talk with President Obama. Mr. Hamm told Obama of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. He wanted to make sure that the President knew about this.
The President’s reaction? He turned to Mr. Hamm and said: ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’
116 years after the Roberts electric car we have the 2012 Chevrolet Volt. It gets 36 miles to the charge.
But it is not over yet.
The latest entry in the electric car business is the Fisker Karma. It sports 32 miles to the charge. When running on electricity, the claim is it gets the equivalent of 54 miles per gallon. After that it has a regular sports car engine that gives 20 MPG. What does that last statement mean? Batteries store energy and can never be more than 100% efficient. There is a loss of energy when you charge them and a loss of energy when you discharge them. The energy is typically produced by burning coal. By charging batteries you need to keep old coal burning plants in production longer. The average energy efficiency of an aging coal plant is 31%, the transmission losses are about 8% and battery efficiency is about 75%. When electric car companies calculate MPG equivalency they only take into account the battery efficiency. For the Karma the total energy efficiency equivalence would not be 56 MPG, but 16 MPG.
For now the Karma will be built in Finland, with a half billion dollar loan guarantee from the Federal Government. After one year this energy guzzler is supposed to be built in Delaware. Maybe it will be as popular as the Chevy Volt, which is on track to sell 6000 vehicles this year.
There already exists a car that claim 135 miles per gallon equivalent fuel consumption.
(The picture to the right shows the Tesla in a car crash in of all places Aalbaek, Denmark. The Tesla is at the bottom.)
The car is Tesla, a new car company set up privately in 2003. It got a 465 million dollar Federal loan guarantee in 2009, but has yet to turn a profit. The car is all electric, and gets up to 300 miles to a charge. It can be yours for a mere $109500 plus taxes, but you will get a 7500 dollar federal tax rebate unless you live in Colorado where you will get an additional 40000 dollars in state and local tax rebate. The car is sold to rich playboys, who use it as the ultimate chick attractor, and the making of the car is financed on borrowed money. If one is to include the losses in producing the 4000 cars sold thus far, the cost per car approaches 200000. But fear not. One of the sources of income for Tesla is the sale of zero emission credits to other car companies so they can meet their emission standards. It is the new round of charlatans selling indulgences so the global governance can be realized.
Why am I down on electric cars? First, the energy to drive the car must have been produced somehow. As long as we use coal to produce electricity there will be more CO2 in the air with electric cars than with diesel powered cars. Second, electric cars are heavier than corresponding gasoline powered cars and have less room. Third, it takes an awful lot of mining to produce all the rare materials that goes into a modern battery. This too takes a lot of energy and leaves scars on the landscape. Fourth, batteries last only so long and are expensive leading to a much more expensive car to purchase and maintain.
The same arguments can be raised against solar and wind power. It takes more energy to mine and refine the materials than the equipment generate since they generate the electricity when they want, not when the need is there.
Are we doomed? Not at all. As oil and gas is becoming more and more expensive, especially if the Middle East cuts off its supply, we should build up the nuclear power plants, not with old Uranium based nuclear plants with all their nuclear waste, but with small, distributed thorium based plants. They have 0.01% as much nuclear waste as uranium based plants and are earthquake safe and much less vulnerable to sabotage. They also respond much better to demand fluctuations. As the plants would be more distributed it would lessen the need for an expanded electric grid, which is unbelievably vulnerable to sabotage. The long and short of it: Go Thorium and then Electric cars!
The 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” A. Conan Doyle.
The first Earth Day in Philadelphia 1970, April 22 (the 100 year anniversary of Lenin’s Birth) 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 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 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 southern 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 2005 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 explosions. 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). 
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” and soon to be released “Climategate3.0” This is what happens when politicians take over science and make further funding contingent on obtaining desired results.