Category Archives: AGW

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.

cbdakota

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

New Solar Cycle Charts Now Reflect The Revised Sunspot Counting System.


bigspotfd_thumbRevised Sunspot number as discussed in previous posting of July 2015 numbers can be seen below:new #solarterrestialjuly

Below is the Sunspot number posted before the numbering was changed to match the new criteria discussed in the “Sunspot Number History Change Is Underway“.

solarterrestrialjuly1-2015

The only thing different is the green line the “30 day Wolf Number. The new number is greater than the old one.

Quoting SILSO: “In the values themselves, the most prominent change will result from the elimination of the 0.6 factor formerly used by the Zürich Observatory to scale the modern numbers down to the scale of the initial Wolf observations. This factor has always led to some confusion and now has lost its sense more than 130 years after Wolf’s observations. This change will thus raise the scale of the entire sunspot number time series by a factor 1/O.6, which may significantly affect software using the sunspot number as input.”

cbdakota

 

Crude Oil Sales Ban Must Be Lifted


This site has written before (click here)  about the crippling of the US petroleum producers by not permitting them to sell crude oil outside of the US. The posting crude-oil-diagram-barrel-price-32155165warned of continuing loss of American jobs and resulting in higher crude oil prices.   Now the chairman and CEO of Continental Resources (Harold Hamm) tells why the ban on US crude oil sales must be lifted. In a WSJ online posting, he says this:

” The situation is urgent, as OPEC’s recent predatory pricing tactics are also hurting America and prematurely ending the boom in U.S. oil production due to hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, and horizontal drilling. The U.S. rig count has dropped by more than 50% since Thanksgiving, according to the oilfield services company Baker Hughes. More than 126,000 oil and gas workers have been laid off, and job losses are expected to double if the export ban is not lifted.”

Continue reading

Solar Cycle 24: June 2015 Update


How Cycle 24 June Sunspot plot will look when the new Sunspot numbering system is used is not yet clear. Using the “old Wolf system” that is the sun-womanInternational Smoothed Sunspot number basis, it would be expressed as 57.2 thirty day average versus last months number of 58.8.   The number for June 2015 is estimated to be 46.9 when the smoothing process is employed. What ever the measuring system, Cycle 24 is still heading downward to a minimum.

Continue reading

Recent Research Papers Show That IPCC Climate Sensitivity Is Too High


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes, every 3 to 4 years, their version of the science supporting their theory of global warming. Laboratory tests would indicate that for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature should rise about 1C. That is not really very threatening. Their theory says that a doubling will bring about a 3C temperature increase.   The theory postulates that the temperature rise caused by CO2 would increase the amount of water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere. This increase in water vapor, the major so called greenhouse gas, would result in an additional 2C rise— thus when added to the 1C from the CO2 effect would give the 3C rise for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is their view of climate sensitivity. The warmer’s climate models are programmed with this sensitivity. And if you follow this topic at all, you know that the models have predicted much higher temperatures than the real, measured temperatures. And the gap between actual temperature measurements and the climate model forecasts keeps growing.

A 20 June 15 posting on Niche Modeling titled “Published measurements of climate sensitivity declining has a chart that compares the current research versus older research into  climate sensitivity. From that posting:

” Scientists made numerous estimates of climate sensitivity over the last few decades and have yet to determine the correct value.  The figure shows the change in published climate sensitivity measurements over the past 15 years (from here).  The ECS and TCR estimates have both declined in the last 15 years, with the ECS declining from 6C to less than 2C.  While one cannot extrapolate from past results, it is likely that the true figure is below 2C, and may continue to decline.  Based on this historic pattern we should reject the studies that falsely exaggerated the climate sensitivity in the past and remember that global warming is not the most serious issue facing the world today.

#2climatesensitivities

Frow Wiki, an expanded definition of ECS andTCR:

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  The transient climate response (TCR) is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year. The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the “inertia” of ocean heat uptake.

Over the 50–100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR.   With atmospheric CO2 now at a level of about 400 ppm and some experts claiming that the amount of CO2 will never rise to 800 because fossil fuels will be depleted by then.  I don’t know how to assess that but getting to 800ppm is a long way off into the future.

cbdakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letterman versus Lomborg—Interview on Letterman’s Late Show


Bjorn Lomborg was invited on the David Letterman show to discuss global warming. The video, below, sheds little new light on the issues, but the contrast wave generatorsimagesbetween two global warming advocates is pretty striking. Lomborg never pretends that he is a scientist but he is quite knowledgeable about the topic of global warming. He is a believer in the theory of man-made global warming but with a difference. The difference is that he does not buy into the alarm that many, if not most, of his fellow believers use routinely when discussing global warming.

Letterman is not a scientist nor is he knowledgeable about global warming. Letterman is an alarmist. And worst of all, Letterman is an anti-capitalist, or he gives a very good imitation of one. According to him, the industrialists of the world are all in a cabal where they wont let anything get out that might improve the world if they can’t make a profit of it.   I bet Letterman bought many of those kits that would allow you to make gasoline out of water—the ones that those industrialists suppressed.  And how about those batteries that always stayed charged.   Oh, yes,  and those tires that never went flat. Cars could be so much better if Ford and GM would be forced to put those secrete things out on the market. Just think what we could do with those wave machines that David would like to work on, if only those………..

So, have I biased you enough, if so, click on watch the video.

cbdakota

 

 

Bjorn Lomborg Says Global Warming Is A Poor Place To Spend $


Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economist, joins the “consensus” supporting the theory of man-made global warming (AGW), but not catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). He is disliked intensely by the wamers but not because he doesn’t believe in CAGW. He gets this lack of love because he believes that the money spent in the name of global warming is largely misspent. He says the money would be better spent to reduce malnutrition, make immunizations available, better education, prevention of AIDs, providing electrical power to reduce air pollution, etc. These beliefs are laid out in the TED talk video below.

This a fascinating talk.  He shows how much improved Earth has become from 1900 to 2013 and projects changes to 2050.

Continue reading