Monthly Archives: July 2015

The 2015 El Niño is shaping up to be a big one

Watts Up With That?



July 2015 Ocean Temperatures –
Conditions are currently warming up in the Pacific, and the NOAA Climate Prediction Center expects a greater than 90% chance that El Niño will continue through the winter and most likely into the spring. This image shows the July 13-19, 2015 sea surface temperature departure from the 1981-2010 average. In addition to the warmer than normal waters generated by the El Niño conditions, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is also creating persistently higher than normal sea surface temperatures in the northeastern Pacific.

El Niño conditions are on the rise in the Pacific Ocean, this could potentially become a record event that might even beat the great 1997 El Niño as seen in the image above. We aren’t there yet, but the Climate Prediction Center has an advisory out that suggests we might be soon.

California could see an end to their drought situation, with the…

View original post 260 more words

Did CO2 Cause North Korea’s Environment To Collapse?

Why is North Korea’s environment in a state of collapse? Well it is not due to global warming, global climate change weather weirding or what ever the new evasive title is. From the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) “Nova” program titled “Inside North Korea’s Environmental Collapse” we learn this:

“North Korea has been hiding something. Something beyond its prison camps, its nuclear facilities, its pervasive poverty, its aching famine, its lack of energy—electrical, fossil, or otherwise. What the hermit kingdom has been covering up is perhaps more fundamental than all of those: an environmental collapse so severe it could destabilize the entire country. Or at least, it was hiding it.”

What initiated the collapse? Nova had this to say:

“North Korea’s isolation means detailed data on environmental conditions are hard to come by. However, a 2004 study by the Korea Environment Institute based in Seoul, South Korea, reports that forest cover in North Korea dropped by 17 percent from the 1970s to the late 1990s. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which provided oil to its communist ally at a discounted “friendship price,” oil imports dropped by 60 percent. Unsurprisingly, the use of firewood for heating more than doubled.

nkoreanwood(North Korean soldiers hauling firewood back to base. Fuel for heating is scarce, so many rely on what wood they can find, including, apparently, the normally well-supplied Korean People’s Army.)

“What resulted was an increasingly barren landscape. Even saplings are felled for fuel, stripping forests of their ability to regenerate. “They don’t have trees to hold the soil,” says Jinsuk Byun of Sookmyung Women’s University in Seoul. Byun was not a part of the recent delegation but has closely followed environmental conditions in the country. “When it rains the soil washes into the river, landslides occur and rivers flood. It triggers a really serious disaster.”


(Farmers preparing a field for the planting season outside Wonsan, North Korea, in the shadow of a denuded hillside.)

And this satellite photo from posting, “Is North Korea Cutting Down All Its Trees?


The Nova program cites loss of wildlife as follows:

” The lack of birds and other small animals noted by the scientists on their recent visit are a direct result of the famine in the 1990s, Demick says. “The frogs disappeared because everyone caught the frogs,” Demick says. “You see many fewer birds and small animals in North Korea than other countries. People living near the sea ate seaweed but that also ran out.”

Energy to heat homes. Energy to provide light . Energy to power the equipment to farm and do other forms of manufacturing.   The supply of fossil fuels is not sufficient to support the North Korean population.  This is a lesson for those who believe the world can manage without the use of fossil fuels.  Someday, perhaps it will, but alternative forms of energy–wind farm, solar cells and biofuels  are not ready for prime time, so be careful for what you wish.

In this case the North Korea leaders, present and past, are just plain crazy—- imposing a dictatorship that controls all aspects of the lives of the people. As the North Koreans are the same people as their cousins in South Korea, one would expect if the government quit regulating every aspect of their lives, they might be able to restore North Korea. Open up the country and spend the countries money on fossil fuels (energy) and stop spending it on nukes.


Tom Steyer Will Give Money To Any Politicians Promising To Push For A 50% Clean-Energy Economy by 2030.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire climate-change activist, wants to push the U.S, into a windmillfireimage4250/50 split of “clean energy with fossil fuel energy by 2030 and 100% by 2050. To accomplish his objective he promises to give money to any politician that promises to act on Steyer’s behalf.

This is not his first dip into the pool of buying politicians. He spent $73 million trying to get Democrat candidates elected in last year’s mid-term election.   His investment was almost a total loss. He was the biggest funder that year. The following data comes from a table used in the Sunlight Foundation’s posting “The Political One Percent of the One Percent: Megadonors fuel rising cost of elections in 2014”. Copying a saying that Glen Beck used to use, WARNING, warmers should wrap their heads with duct tape before they look at the list.

Rank Name Election Expenditures
1 Steyer, Tom $73,884.467
2 Bloomberg, Michael $28,474,729
3 Singer, Paul $11.193,474
4 Mercer, Robert $9,501,999
5 Eychaner, Fred $8,679,400
6 Simons, James $7,439,300
7 Ricketts, John Joe $6,168,273
8 Adelson, Sheldon $5,815,118
9 Koch, Charles $5,176,400


Charles Koch (I probably need to say THE EVIL CHARLES KOCH or they will not recognize the name) came in 9th, way below Steyer who dominated everyone with $73million. He was not even followed closely by No. 2, Michael Bloomberg, also a contributor to Democrats.

The concept of clean energy reaching half share or complete dominance is delusional in that time frame.

In the realm of vastly wealthy men, Bill Gates tops them all. From a June 25, 2015, posting by the Washington Times “Multibillionaire Bill Gates rejects calls to divest from fossil fuels” here is what Gates has to say about this:

“I don’t see a direct path between divesting and solving climate change,” Mr. Gates said, as reported in the Financial Times. “I think it’s wonderful that students care and now the Pope cares. But that energy of caring, I think you need to direct it towards something that solves the problem.”

But Mr. Gates told the Financial Times that the focus should be on increasing research and development in renewables, saying that the current technology could only reduce carbon dioxide emissions at a “beyond astronomical” cost.

“There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables and be able to use battery storage in order to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind,” Mr. Gates said.

“Power is about reliability. We need to get something that works reliably,” he said.

Gates is a man who has made his fortune dealing with electronics and science.

Steyer’s backgound is as a coal hedge funds manager. Is he is trying to atone for his “sin” of making billions from coal?





Little Ice Age By 2030?

Professor Valentian Zharkova of Northumbria University presented her results Cold-Weather-Cartoonfor a new model of the Sun’s interior dynamo to the Royal Astronomical Society. Zharkova and her team believe they have made a discovery that allows them to predict solar activity. From the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting 2015 – report 4” posting:

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs; originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different [for both] and they are offset in time,” says Zharkova. The two magnetic waves either reinforce one another to produce high activity or cancel out to create lull periods.

The model predicts that the magnetic wave pairs will become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. Then during Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch, cancelling one another out. This will cause a significant reduction in solar activity. “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” says Zharkova”

Continue reading

Can We Trust The EPA? Part 5–Alaskan Copper Mine Veto And Coverup

The EPA has put a stop to the development of the Pebble Mine in Alaska. The mine seems to possess a very high value. The mineral rights belong to Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. They have posted the estimated resources as follows:

“The 2014 resource estimate includes 6.44 billion tonnes in the measured and indicated categories containing 57 billion lb copper, 70 million oz gold, stock-vector-mine-cart-1487357813.4 billion lb molybdenum and 344 million oz silver; and 4.46 billion tonnes in the inferred category, containing 24.5 billion lb copper, 37 million oz gold, 2.2 billion lb molybdenum and 170 million oz silver. Quantities of palladium and rhenium also occur in the deposit

Continue reading

Can We Trust The EPA?  Part 4– The Sue And Settle Scam

Have you heard of the Sue and Settle scam often used by the EPA? Generally the idea is for the EPA to ask some non-government , big green organization to sue Cartoon - EPA & Energythem regarding some piece of  legislation. The suit is settled by a consent decree where the EPA and the big environmental group achieved their shared goals. The court sets a deadline for comments from other interested parties that is so brief that no one can make meaningful comments in time to prevent legislation from becoming law.

Continue reading

Can We Trust The EPA? Part 3—Secret Science

The last two postings discussed an EPA regulation being imposed on coal-based sad_danbo-t2power plants to reduce mercury (hg) and Air Toxics. The regulation is based on questionable/maybe fraudulent science because the full data used will not be provided to other scientists so they may verify the findings.

The use of Secret Science in the above is not the first use. From the Committee Report on the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015:

“EPA also has a record of relying on science conducted outside the Agency that is not available to the public—or to the EPA—and therefore cannot be replicated or verified by independent research- ers. For example, virtually all Clean Air Act regulations under the Obama Administration have been justified by data sets collected by two non-governmental institutions over 30 years ago, which have been withheld from the public and cannot be replicated. In 2014, Congress learned this data either no longer exists, is of such poor quality that modeling results cannot be replicated, or has not been coded to facilitate independent analysis. However, EPA continues to rely on this data to support major regulations. “

Continue reading

Can we trust the EPA? Part 2—Particulate Matter, 2.5 Microns Or Smaller

In the previous posting, it was noted that the Supreme Court stopped enforcement of an EPA regulation that reduced emissions of mercury (Hg) from coal-based power plants. In addition to Hg, the regulation was designated to reduce “Air Toxins”. In this case the toxins are particulate matter—2.5microns (PM2.5) or smaller in diameter.   For perspective, how big is a 2.5micron particle? 2.5 microns are equal to 0.00025 centimeters or 0.000099 inches. Yes, you are right, you can’t see them.

The EPA touts a study that says PM2.5 is dangerous, but they wont share all the secretscienceimagesdata with anyone. Thus, no other science body can confirm or deny the studies results. Secret Science. We are told we must take their word for it.

Continue reading

Can We Trust The EPA? Part I— Mercury

Enforcement of an EPA regulation that would shut down many, if not all, of the US coal based power plants has been stopped by the Supreme Court.

The Science and Environmental  Policy Project  reports:

“By a 5 to 4 vote, the US Supreme Court overturned a decision by a lower Austin power-plantcourt enforcing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) rules on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) released from power plants. . Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it was not appropriate for the EPA “to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.” The EPA argued that it factored in cost later in the process of crafting the rules, even though the EPA has failed to calculate costs of some of its earlier regulations. In fact, the EPA has long publically asserted that it is not required to include the costs of regulations under the Clean Air Act.”

There it is. The EPA says it isn’t required to factor in the cost of regulations. That is convenient in that they believe that they can do any thing they think is appropriate.

Lets look at the EPA reasoning behind the MATS regulations and see if the regulations are really needed.    Lets look first at mercury (Hg) emissions  which they say are bad for the children. How do they know that? Some actual data on Hg from “Bogus Mercury Scare Used To Shutdown Coal Electricity Generating Plants“:

Mercury Emissions – Natural and Man-Made

Source Emission Quantity, Mg/Year % of Total
Natural 5207 69
Manmade 2320 31
            TOTAL 7527 100
North American Coal Plants 65 0.9

 Data From Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5951–5964, 2010 by N. Pirrone, S. Cinnirella, X. Feng, et al.

The  total mercury emissions from the North American coal-based plants are less than one per cent of global emissions!!  So the effect on the health of people in the US through reduction of some fraction of the coal-based plants mercury emissions is essentially too small to measure.  Even if they had data showing that Hg was causing a problem, shutting down US coal-based plants to reduce Hg would likely not have any measurable effect at all.

Tests of communities where fish is the main staple in the diet have not shown any measurable IQ problems in the children—(see Bogus Mercury Scare Used To Shutdown Coal Electricity Generating Plants above).  Pat Michaels gave a talk at the 10th International Conference on Climate Change where he reported the EPA,  developed their cost model using a hypothetical group of 240,000 women that would give birth to a child. From this they claimed to have calculated the harm caused by Hg to our nation’s children. Because some fish do accumulate Hg, this pretend group of women would pretend to each eat 300 pounds of fish per year. Almost a pound per day on average.

The EPA decided that each child had a resulting loss  of 0.00209 IQ points. And they calculated that loss of IQ would yield a $1425/per year loss in income per child. The grand total loss annually for the nation would be $3,350,000. If you are not rolling on the floor laughing your behind off, I am very surprised. Only hypothetical people in the US eat 300 lbs of fish per year. IQ scores have a +/- 10 points 95 % confidence level. And the EPA has audacity to think that a 0.00209 IQ loss can actually be measured and used to provide meaningful data?

So much for the Hg scare.

Next we will look at the secrete science behind the EPA’s claim that certain air toxics are potential killers. But that will take up some more words so it will be saved for part two.


Pursuit Of The Dream Of “Carbon-free Energy” Is Creating An Ecological Catastrophe

Christopher Booker writes for the UK’s Sunday Telegraph.  On 4 July 2015, he posted “Why are greens so keen to destroy the world’s wildlife?” From this posting he said:

”All in all, wherever we look, this pursuit of the dream of “carbon-free energy” is creating an ecological catastrophe. Like so many of the great crimes of history, this one is being perpetrated by people who imagine they are doing something praiseworthy. In this case, possessed by their delusion that they are battling for nature and the future of the planet, they are in fact doing as much as anyone to destroy the very things they kid themselves they are trying to save.”

Continue reading