pollution – Page 32 – Len Bilén's blog, a blog about faith, politics and the environment.

Which is more threatening? The attack in Paris, or Climate Change?

Watching with horror the multiple simultaneous Islamic terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in Paris, France, while Paris was under the highest possible alert for terrorist activities, the French President Hollande among the spectators at a soccer match between France and Germany, and the climate control conference COP21 only two weeks away, the words of President Obama still rings in my ears:

“My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.”

Obama is also quite proud of his milestones on climate change, particularly after reaching a “historic” deal with China in 2014.

“The historic climate change announcements that we made last year in Beijing have encouraged other countries to step up, as well, increasing the prospects for a stronger global agreement this year,” Obama said in September during a meeting with Chinese President Xi at the White House. This historic agreement means that China is allowed to emit six times more CO2 than U.S.A. by the year 2030.

According to a well-researched article by Bjorn Lomborg, peer-reviewed, entitled “Impact of Current Climate Proposals” the predictions of how a total success in implementing all climate mediation recommendations, the result will be:

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100.

The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C.

The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.

All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

Of particular interest is the impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) with its reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100.

How much is 0.013 degrees? It is about as much as the adiabatic cooling of the atmosphere occurring between the feet and the head of an average sized person.

For this Obama is killing our Coal mining, while still calling the China climate agreement a success, allowing them to burn over half of the coal in the world.

And this is the most urgent danger facing us today?

Obama rejects the Keystone XL pipeline. A most deplorable decision for the economy and the environment, but good for Warren Buffett,

The President has decided to deny the permission to build the Keystone XL pipeline, thus satisfying the environmentalists that want to wean us off our dependency on carbon based products, such as fuel, food and fertilizer. The arguments for denying the decision are nearly exclusively political, while the arguments to build the pipeline are concerns for our national security and economy.

Here is the deal:

Canada has the tar-sands and is extracting the oil. This was not our decision. If we don’t buy the oil, China will.

We are importing crude oil from the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.), Nigeria, Venezuela and other volatile places, leaving us exposed to supply and price disruptions.

We export refined products to the Caribbean islands, which by the way have a larger carbon footprint per person than the U.S. This is good business, since the islands are too small for a refinery.

It takes more energy to run a refinery up north in a cold climate than in hot, humid Baytown, Texas.

The last time a major oil refinery was built in the U.S was 1976. A small refinery was built in 1993, in Valdez, Alaska. The US. regulatory climate is hostile to refineries. Colombia, O.K, U.S. No.

Warren Buffett’s bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad in February 2010 and paid 44 Billion dollars for it. The railroad paid Berkshire Hathaway 2.25 Billion in dividends during the first 13 months. Warren Buffet bought the railroad after Obama took office.

Right now the crude oil is transported from the Athabasca tar sands to Houston mostly 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.
https://lenbilen.com/2012/01/25/warren-buffet-profiting-from-working-on-the-railroad/
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: https://lenbilen.com/2013/07/07/ttain-derailment-in-quebec-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-a-limerick/

Warren Buffet is a major player in the Obama Administration; he has frequent access to the White House and is a major contributor to Obama and the Democrats’ campaign.

Sarah Palin succinctly coined the phrase: “This is Crony Capitalism.”

By not importing oil from Canada the total carbon footprint will increase. We lose, and Canada loses. (I am not concerned that the CO2 is increasing, but that a valuable natural resource is excessively depleted.) Now it turns out that Canada has left the Kyoto Protocol, thereby being free to burn as much of its carbon as they want. Was that really what the environmentalists wanted?

So why did Obama deny the permit? Here are five possibilities:

1. Obama is a true believer that ”this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”. As a true environmentalist his role can not be overestimated .

2. Obama is deliberately wrecking our economy, refuses to have an energy policy that will create jobs, but will support protest movements and foment unrest.

3. Obama is acting on orders from Global Governance people that do want U.S. to be totally dependent on international law and U.N. mandates.

4. Obama wants to show leadership in advance of the Paris Climate Conference 2015, and its associated treaty.

5. Obama wants to show leadership on something, and touts the “breakthrough” agreement with China, where he will allow China to emit six times as much CO2 by the year 2030 as the U.S.

6. https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/14/the-real-reason-obama-wont-approve-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/

7. Obama promised to be Brazil’s best customer from their deep sea oil drilling success, paid for by U.S. loan guarantees. He must be true to his promises.

8. Obama is half insane and surrounded by bad advisers.

This is the best I can do to explain the reasons for this decision.

Obama on leadership, COP21, the pause, warmest year on record, the facts.

Asking Obama about his comments a year ago that America is the indispensable nation and that America leads, CBS 60 minutes interviewer Steve Kroft commented that Vladimir Putin “seems to be challenging that leadership” with his actions in Syria.

Obama’s response was revealing about how he sees the role of the United States as a global leader. “If you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership,” Obama replied. “My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy.”

Leadership? Obama seems to have an unique angle on leadership. He claimed in his April 18 weekly address to the nation, : “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.”

This will be one of his main arguments going into the Climate Conference COP21 in Paris in December.

How accurate is this statement?

Besides from the fact that we are not even close to the Minoan warming period 3000 years ago, or the Roman warming period 2000 years ago, not even the Medieval warming period 1000 years ago it is way off the mark on other facts as well. The figure below is from the Greenland Ice Core probings and is one of the best gauges for temperature records the last 10000 years. 2014 was still one of the 1000 coldest. Note also that the inter-glacial maximum temperature was around 6000 years ago and we are well into the bog-building face where normally Carbon would be deposited in the bogs and trigger the next ice-age. Burning Coal slows down the cool-down.

We are now experiencing an 18 year 8 month pause in the warming occurring since the little ice age. This is an undisputed fact if one looks at the satellite data.

However, if one looks at the data generated by the surface stations it looks quite different. There has been a substantial rise in global temperatures since measurements began, and indeed, this century is so far the warmest on record.

So, who is right? The official satellite measurements or the official surface temperature measurements?

The satellite measurements are done without any corrections, but the instruments are frequently calibrated to ensure no temperature drifts occur over time.

On the other hand, the United states Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is the custodian of temperature data from the 48 contiguous states. As temperature stations are dropped and others are added they try to do a homogenization step to present the most probable past temperatures for the 48 states. This leads to temperature adjustments to past readings. They sincerely try to do the best job possible to ensure the adjustments are without bias of any kind. If we look at the next picture they did a near perfect temperature adjustment of past temperatures as a linear function of CO2 concentration.

(Credit to Tom Heller who did the analysis). This means that all homogenization was performed assuming the temperature adjustments had to conform to the IPCC model.

In other words, by assuming the model is right you adjust the data until they fit the model. Using the adjusted data you then claim this proves the model is right.

Climate science?

Ted Cruz, the Sierra club, cooking and burning, the pause, and the 97% consensus.

During a hearing of a Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday Oct. 6 regarding regulation and minorities, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is running for the Republican nomination on a platform that includes rejection of mainstream climate change political science, seized an opportunity to show off his debating skills and knowledge of facts.

In the video below Cruz is questioning Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club, and an epidemiological-spatial analyst with the New York State Department of Health.

Senator Cruz asked if the Sierra club President was familiar with the term “the pause”. After conferring with his technical expert Mr. Mair said it referred to the pause in global warming during the 4o’s.

Sen. Cruz tried to educate Mr Mair it referred to the 18 year pause in global warming as presented by the satellite data. To which Mr. Mair answered “we concur with what 97% of scientists say” and that “the earth is cooking and heating up and warming.”

Senator Cruz wanted to know if the Sierra Club would change their beliefs about man-made global warming if they were shown facts that disproved it. Cruz didn’t get an answer. Just the usual, “we concur with what 97% of scientists say.”

So, Where did that 97% of scientists consensus come from?

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and scientist engineers with specialty control theory and thermodynamics. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma. The responses were still not satisfactory, so the subgroup was further cull down to those who in the past years had written multiple peer-reviewed papers on climate science. This yielded the 77.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The survey was taken in 1999, after a rapid temperature rise due to an unusually strong el nino, and nearly everybody had switched side from believing in global cooling in the 60’s to global warming, but even with that only 90% thought global temperatures had risen since the little ice age.

The second question is a little misleading for the average person. To a scientist significant means it is measurable outside the margin of error, not that it is major or even large, just that it should not be ignored. We can all agree that human activity such as clear cutting forests and turning the area into asphalt jungles will change the local climate. This is called urban heat islands. Likewise changing forests into agricultural lands tends to heat up the land by up to one degree. Air pollution tends to lower temperatures and is considered bad, adding CO2 tends to increase average global temperatures, the question is by how much and if that is good or bad.

Notice the second question did not deal at all with CO2, nor did it say anything about dominant contributing factor. Yet it is often cited in conjunction with “the 97%”

The other interesting question was: What is “the pause”

As presented by satellite data there has been no significant warming in the last 18 years and 8 months, as is seen in the following picture:

And the satellite data keep showing us this even though we are having a rather strong el nino. Without it the temperatures would be in decline.

For a discussion on “the pause” vs. “Warmest year on record” see: https://lenbilen.com/2015/10/12/obama-on-leadership-cop21-the-pause-warmest-year-on-record-the-facts/

Source for “the 97%” : http://sppiblog.org/news/that-97-solution-again

Fair weather Climate alarmists? Protest moves from Boston Commons to Ritz-Carlton. A Limerick

In the Boston area, Know Tomorrow’s “Day of Action” with 17 local colleges has been moved from the Boston Common to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel because of the rain and winds, according to Politico. Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey is set to speak to students and “implore students to build momentum for Paris and follow in the footsteps of past movements, including women’s suffrage, voting rights, and the movement to end apartheid,” Politico reports.

A prayer for the Pope on his visit to the U.S.

Dear God. We come to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with praise and thanksgiving.

We thank you for a bountiful harvest, that thanks to the increase in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution provides food for an additional 2 billion people without starving. (1)

We thank you that the earth is getting greener, so that a wider variety of plants and animals can find habitat. (2)

We praise you for the clouds You put in the sky on the second day of creation that act as the thermostat of the earth so there is a cap on how warm it will get, especially in the tropics that has found its stable temperature. (3)

We thank you for the warming in the temperate regions since the little Ice Age, making wheat farming possible way up in Canada. (4)

We thank you that this warming causes less hurricanes,(5) less tornadoes,(6) less winter storms,(7) gives more rain(8) and less droughts.(9)

And we thank you for the increase in CO2 that is delaying the onset of the coming Ice Age.(10)

And we thank you there is a inexhaustible supply of Thorium, suitable for sustainable and distributed nuclear power so that the energy needs of the future is not dependent on fossil fuel.(11)

And now, we ask you, God to protect the Pope’s soul from the evil forces waiting him in Washington and the United Nations.

They will talk a lot about Carbon Pollution, with which they mean CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, but real pollution is a great threat to our well being and deeds to be combated at all levels. This takes large amount of energy to clean up the environment, and is made more difficult by making energy more expensive, so please, God, make the Pope see through all their lies.

And please Lord, make the Pope realize their predictions of doom come from failed climate models (12)

He has a meeting with godless and anti-Christian people who advocate Global Governance and the merging of all religions under this secular government.(13)

Jesus never said: Do as the Romans do, but this Pope is in danger of allying himself with these forces and agenda 2030, The New World Order.(14)

Lord, may all Christians heed Your calling in 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

And Lord, may there be a revival among all who trust in the finished work on the Cross, and follow the Lord, Jesus Christ, and may there be an awakening that the battle is spiritual, and Global Governance leads to even more tyranny,

And God, we thank you as in Lamentations 3:22-23 Because of the LORD’s great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

And we pray this in the Name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

And now for the explanations: (in progress)

(1) CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 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. (15) 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. (16) 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. (17)

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.

(2) The earth is getting greener! https://lenbilen.com/2013/03/19/co2-the-solution-to-climate-change/

greenearthhigh_resolution1

As we can see, since satellite measurements began, most of the earth has gotten greener, especially in the semi-dry savanna areas. A few, small areas in near desert areas are getting more parched, especially in the Socialist Government induced environmental disaster around Lake Aral, and in the Arctic, where some areas are getting colder.

(3)

Cloudmodels

What we see here is cloudiness versus latitude for a number of climate models compared to reality. It shows a total failure to model clouds properly. Modeling of clouds is exceedingly difficult. A better approach is to see what happens when clouds form, and when they do it. We all know that clouds warm by night and cool by day, but they also warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Observing the clouds, when they occur and what types of clouds form plays a major role in the climate balance, far more then increasing CO2.

(4) The saying now is: We had the warmest August ever, and 2015 is on track to be the warmest year ever. In fact, we are not even back to the medieval warming period, when there was at least one farm on Greenland (Gården under sanden) that produced and exported cheese, and there was a forest in what is now the Mendenhall Glacier, north of Juneau, Alaska, now melting and exposing 1000 year old tree stumps well preserved, some even with its bark. Another way of putting it: 2015 is still on track to be among the 1000 coldest in the last 10000 years. See chart at (10)

(5) On September 24 (Hurricane Wilma) it was 10 years since the last major hurricane hit the U.S mainland, by far the longest stretch of time since colonization began.

As we can see, there is a downward trend in hurricanes (+ taifuns, + cyclones) worldwide

(6)

In this picture number of strong tornados (EF>=3) are plotted versus CO2 level, not time, but the trend is clear; the higher the CO2 concentration, the lower the number of tornadoes.

(7) Ship logs from the little ice age shows winter storms were more severe. On the other hand the Vikings went to America in open longboats during the medieval warm period.

Winter storm Sandy was said to be unprecedented. However there has been 2 stronger storm surges in Rhode Island, both during the little Ice age:

(8) While I still am looking for the chart signifying more rain, here is a chart that show an increase in maximum snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. It must have gotten colder, at least as to freezing temperatures. Notice, when it snows, the temperature is often close to freezing, then it gets really cold. So in a winter with much snow the average temperature can be higher than in a winter with little snow.

(9) Worldwide droughts has lessened slightly in the last 30 years, despite the latest California drought.

(10)

From the Minoan to the Roman to the Medieval Warming period we are now well into the bog generating phase of an interglacial period. Added CO2 will slow down our decent into the next Ice Age.

(11) Some reasons why a rapid development of Thorium based nuclear power makes sense.

Eleven reasons to switch to Thorium based Nuclear Power generation.

Eleven more reasons to switch to Thorium as Nuclear fuel.

(12) Here is a chart of 73 climate models with a calculated average temperature rise with time. It is to be noted that it is only for the tropical regions (20 Degrees N to 20 Degrees S) and the satellite and balloon data show a very small increase since 1979 0f 0.1C and none at all since 1997. In contrast the models predicted it should be at least 1C warmer by now, or ten times the observed increase. CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1

(13) https://lenbilen.com/2014/12/22/on-the-sin-of-the-world-and-the-lie-what-does-that-mean/ https://lenbilen.com/2012/01/31/chrislam-crusade-or-jihad-or-maybe-marx/

(14) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51973#.VgbTofSP97c

(15) https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/a-religious-message-from-1010global-org-and-a-limerick/

(16) chart11-2

Cut Methane 40-45%? Climate hysteria gone crazy. A Limerick

A Message that EPA sent.

Cut Methane by 40%.

No more rice, no more beef,

no more milk, no more cheese.

And yet, it will not make a dent.

What is the EPA belching out now?

Let us go over the main contributors to Methane gas generation.

The biggest contributor to Methane generation worldwide is Rice paddies, with about 20%. Of this U.S.A. has 1.2% of the worldwide rice production, so if we eliminate domestic rice production we will reduce the our Methane budget by a quarter of one percent, assuming people switch to potatoes and pasta.

Next, also about 20% of the Methane generation are wetlands. These swamps are most cherished by environmentalists, since they are spawning grounds for all kinds of life. No one seriously wants to drain all swamps anymore, so no cuts there.

Third, with about 12% are Ruminants, Methane belching from cows and people eating beans. We could make a dent in this methane production if people totally switched their diet. Maybe a fart-tax would price beef and dairy products out of the market? Don’t forget bean-tax!

Fourth is termites with about 8%. No, Orkin would not be able to handle this. Besides, Orkin uses strong poisons.

Fifth, also about 8% is Biomass burning. Our country is already doing much better than the rest of the world. Much of this burning is sticks and straws and cow-chips for the third world dinner fire.

Sixth is landfills , also about 8%. The largest landfills are already being fitted with methane recovery pipes, which is good. We may recover yet another couple of percent of the Methane budget.

Seventh is coal mining, contributes about 8% world-wide. Obama has promised to obliterate coal mining in the U.S. Unfortunately for him China is consuming over half of the world’s coal, so even if we did away with all coal mining, that would reduce the world-wide Methane budget by less than 2%.

Eighth is gas production, about 8%. The U.S. petroleum industry already burns off the methane, converting it to CO2, or recovers it as fuel. Not so worldwide. There can be improvements there, but not more than 2% of the worldwide budget.

Next is Methane wells in the ocean bottom and algae blooms in waters over fertilized by nitrates. This is probably under-estimated at 5%. U.S. has done great strides in for example the Chesapeake Bay, but more can be done. We could possibly gain 1% in the Methane budget from ocean cleanup.

The result? No way can we reduce Methane output by 40 – 45% unless we totally change our standard of living, our eating habits and our life-style.

How much reduction in global temperature would it give us? Less than 0.1C!

It turns out that there exists methane-eating bacteria, and they grow better with increased temperature, stripping the coal atom from methane, converting the rest to methyl alcohol and digesting that too. The Arctic, rich in methane eating bacteria may well be a methane sink, not a methane source.

Any takers?

Background: NY Times, Business day:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to propose as soon as Tuesday the first-ever federal regulation to cut emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, by the nation’s oil and natural-gas industry, officials familiar with the plan said on Monday.

The proposed rule would call for the reduction of methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent over the next decade from 2012 levels, the officials said. The proposal was widely expected, after the Environmental Protection Agency said in January that it was working on such a plan.

The new rules are part of Mr. Obama’s broad push for regulations meant to cut emissions of planet-warming gases from different sectors of the economy. This month, Mr. Obama unveiled the centerpiece of that plan, a regulation meant to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, a move that could transform the way the nation produces and consumes electric power.

The new rules on methane could create a tougher regulatory scheme on the nation’s fossil fuel production, particularly on the way that companies extract, move and store natural gas.

Environmental advocates have long urged the Obama administration to crack down on methane emissions. Most of the greenhouse gas pollution in the United States comes from carbon dioxide, which is produced by burning coal, oil and natural gas. Methane, which leaks from oil and gas wells, accounts for just 9 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution — but it is over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so even small amounts of it can have a big impact on global warming.

The oil and gas industry has resisted methane regulations, insisting that new rules could stymie a booming natural gas industry and that voluntary industrywide standards are sufficient to prevent methane leaks. Mr. Obama is pressing efforts to cut harmful emissions as he works toward forging a United Nations global warming accord in Paris in December. The aim of the accord is to commit every nation to enact policies to cut greenhouse gases. The United States has already submitted a plan to the United Nations laying out how it will cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

CO2 reductions to solve Climate change? Wrong solution for the world. A Limerick.

Renewable energy: – Clean.

The world is so dirty and mean.

Never mind the expense

and it doesn’t make sense.

CO2 is what makes the world green.

The White House Aug 3 announced a target of 32% reduction in CO2 emission from U.S. power plants by 2030. This is a target that no existing Coal fired power plant can meet, only natural gas fired power plants. He also proposed a 70% reduction in emissions other than CO2, which has its merits.

Obama may yet succeed in his campaign promise: “Under my plan the electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”

Obama wants us to have as expensive electricity as Denmark and Germany, the two countries with the most wind and solar power per capita.

The chart tells it all. Thirty Cent/ kWh in Denmark.

Us is (was?) an outlier with cheap and abundant fossil fuel and low fuel taxes.

Australia is an outlier, They are paying for implementing a carbon tax.

The President said in his announcement that last year was the warmest on record and that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years occurred in this century.

Another way of looking at the temperature record is: Last year was still one of the 700 coldest in the last 10000 years. See fig: We have now had over ten years since the last major hurricane hit the U.S. mainland. A new record.

The rise of the oceans is partly because we are still recovering from the last Ice age. One point in Northern Sweden is rising as much as three feet per century. This and normal continental drift explains why many coastlines such as the Eastern Seaboard are sinking.

Growing GMO modified rice eliminates Methane pollution. An inconvenient truth for Green Heads. A Limerick.

A true GMO revolution.

Grow rice without Methane pollution.

Half the world fed with rice.

Feed the hungry, how nice.

“Green heads” will explode: – Wrong solution.

In addition to a near elimination of greenhouse gases associated with its growth, SUSIBA2 rice produces substantially more grains for a richer food source. The new strain is shown here (right) compared to the study’s control. Image courtesy of Swedish University of Agricultural Science

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/29/the-perfect-storm-for-environmentalists-gmo-engineered-rice-reduces-greenhouse-gas-emissions-to-near-zero/

A majority of people are worried about GMO food. Yet we all eat it, knowing or not. The modification gene in this rice is taken from a gene in barley. It works by producing more starch instead of more roots. Test plantings in China yielded 90% reduction in Methane production compared to unmodified rice.

One possible downside: Less roots may mean less minerals absorbed, and more starch may mean less protein as a percentage of the rice.

The U.S. economy shrank by 0.7% in first quarter due to lack of Global Warming. A Limerick.

The U.S. economy shrank by 0.7 in the first quarter of 2015 as harsh weather dampened consumer spending and energy companies struggling with low prices slashed spending.

Gross domestic product contracted at a 0.7% percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said Thursday, coming dangerously close to a recession. That was a big step down from the fourth quarter’s 2.2 percent rise and does not bode well for the rest of the year.

This winter’s cold Climate Disruption

has caused a big growth interruption.

When it’s warm it is good

makes the plants grow more food.

This CO2 scare: Just corruption.

CO2 concentration has increased from about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to over 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. But instead, something rather interesting is occurring. The earth is getting greener! 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. 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.

The support for this argument: https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/