Category Archives: CO2

Fisker’s Karma Hybrid Gets Range Test


The Fisker Karma hybrid is a good looking car but perhaps beauty is only skin deep, as the old saying goes.

 This baby weighs in at about 5000 pounds. It is 16.5 feet long and has a 403 hp powerplant.  It costs $96,000.  EPA uses “inside volume” to determine the class and because it has less than 100 cu.ft., it is categorized a “Subcompact”.   The EPA fuel rating is 52 mpg-equivalent combined city and highway driving and it has a range on a full battery charge of 32 miles!!!!

The gasoline driven generator come on when the battery is exhausted,  and then it is rated at 20 mpg.

Fisker is promoting the test results they got using the European regulatory body TUV.  (It is said that their ratings are typically twice the EPA ratings.)  The TUV proclaimed the range 51.6 miles equivalent on electric-only mode.

cbdakota

 

Volt Outsells Leaf in October


The October sales for the Volt were 1108 and the Leaf were 849.  The last time this year that the Volt sold more than the Leaf was March.  The year-to-date figures are: Leaf—8066 and Volt—5003.

It is reported that Nissan and GM are targeting 10,000 sales for their vehicle—-about 2000 total or 1000 each month, November and December for the Leaf.   The Volt needs to average 2500 per month to meet the GM target.  Probably not going to happen.

cbdakota

DOE Ownership Cost Calculator–Cruze beats Volt


Using the new DOE cost calculator, the Chevy Cruze is a better buy than the Volt.

The chart above considers operating cost plus initial investment, expected depreciation and cost of maintenance at today’s prices.   The Volt does beat the Cruze when calculating only the cost of fuel.  The DOE uses a 2011  purchase price for the Volt at $40,280 and the Cruze at $18,125.  To make your own comparisons,  click here.

To read additional information, click here.

cbdakota

GRAPH THAT FOOLED THE WORLD


On Sunday, October 30, the London Daily Mail published the following two graphs.

The first graph labeled “Graph That Fooled The World” came from the BEST study that was released prior to peer review and publication.    The lead author Professor Richard Muller and his team from Berkley (University of California) Earth Surface Team (BEST) claimed that the chart showed that–the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continuously.  He said according to the Mail that the research: “proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer.”  This graph was presented to the MSM over a week ago.  It was reprinted for today’s edition along with the second graph which is new.

From the Mail:

It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.

The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

The second graph titled The Inconvenient Truth uses the BEST data that show global temperatures at a standstill.  This Graph was not sent to the media by Muller.

The Mail adds these comments by Professor Curry:

As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

‘To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified. (added emphasis)

And you should probably not hold your breath waiting for a mea culpa from the MSM  for their jumping on a story that was at a minimum misleading if not intentionally wrong.

There is another posting  that Greenwire  titled “Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming.”  The expert warmer scientists, in their own words, can not answer this question.  Interestingly, they have many theories but no CONSENSUS.   Obivouly nothing any of them say can possibly be correct if there is no CONSENSUS.   I will comment on that posting next.

For a full reading of the Mail story, click here.

cbdakota

The Federal Government Should Not Be Financing “Renewable Fuels” Projects


Much has been revealed in the recent weeks about Solyndra and the developing scandal that followed the bankruptcy of the company after having received a $523 billion dollar, low interest loan from the Obama Administration.  Much is yet to be learned, and it did not get advanced by the Top Officials of Solyndra pleading the 5th Amendment at the House of Representatives hearing on Friday 23 September.

The Institute for Energy Research condensed a report by ABC on the Solyndra fiasco in to 5 Reasons why the federal government should exit the finance business.  Those reasons are as follows:

First, the government loaned Solyndra money at a really, really low interest rate—a mere 1.025 percent quarterly. In fact, this was the lowest rate provided for any green energy project.

Second, this low rate was in spite of “red flags” about the risk of investing in Solyndra. One outside rating agency rated Solyndra only a B+ and another rated Solyndra only as “Fair” for credit worthiness.

Third, Obama’s Department of Energy announced the loans before the due diligence was complete and even after auditors raised concerns. But this was not for lack of attention because even the President visited the plant and praised Solyndra as an example of the future of energy.

Fourth, according to ABC News, “Solyndra’s most prolific financial backer is George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who was a bundler of campaign donations for Obama’s 2008 race. Kaiser’s Argonaut Ventures and its affiliates have been the single largest shareholder of Solyndra, according to SEC filings and other records.” This connection alone should have caused pause for the federal government when considering an expedited loan arrangement.

And last, and in my mind, by far the worst, Kaiser and his Argonaut Ventures are first in line to recoup their investment in Solynda in bankruptcy proceedings. As ABC News explains, “Energy officials confirmed this arrangement, saying that private investors including Kaiser would first recoup their $75 million, then the U.S. government would have a chance to recover $150 million of its investment. If any money is left, the private investors and the U.S. government would divvy up the remainder in equal shares.”

In sum, the Obama administration rammed through a half billion loan on very favorable terms to a shaky company, run by a George Kaiser, one of President Obama’s largest fundraisers. If Kaiser and his company made money with Solyndra, they would keep the profits and if Solyndra failed, as in this case, they still get their money back while the taxpayer is left holding the bag.”

Any Questions?

cbdakota

If They Could REALLY Model Global Climate Only One Model Would Be Needed


The chart below is from Dr Roy Spencer’s blog “Global Warming”.  It shows the output from 14 different climate models versus the CERES Global satellite measurement of heat loss into space.  This chart was assembled in response to criticism by Warmers that he had cherry picked the climate models he used to contrast their performance versus his work in a recently published paper in Remote Sensing. Following the post publication criticism, Dr Spencer has done a little tweaking but nothing that changes his conclusions.   See here  and here for discussion of this issue.

But this posting is not to review the bidding on Dr Spencer’s paper.   It is to talk about the Warmer’ Global Climate Models.  Whenever I see this assembly of Warmer Global Climate Models output, I wonder why anyone believes the predictions they make.  If they could REALLY model our global climate they would only need one model.   Instead, all 14 give different results!!!   Does that really instill you with a lot of confidence in their ability to do skillful prediction?    What the 14 models do is allow them to make predictions based upon the most extreme model output.  It also allows them to match just about any condition at any time with at least one of the models.  Think—-A stopped watch tells the right time two times a day.

cbdakota

Dr Evans:”Climate Models Are Violently At Odds With Reality”


Dr. David Evans has posted “Four Fatal Pieces of Evidence” demonstrating that using computer climate models as the basis for man-made global warming (AGW)  theory is,  in Dr. Evans’ view,  “violently at odds with reality”. He maintains there is “no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made.  If there was, we would have heard about it.  Tens of billions of dollars have been spent looking for it.”Dr Evans uses four pieces of evidence to illustrate his position.

First: Evans examines the Climate Model predictions made by James Hansen (the so-called godfather of AGW) during his testimony to the US Congress in 1988.(click on chart to enlarge)

Evans says:”… the actual temperature rises are about a third of what he predicted. Remember, they have been saying the “science is settled” since the early 80’s, and the models now are essentially the same as they were then.

Furthermore, Hansen’s models predicted the temperature rise if human carbon dioxide emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was not rising at all. But in reality, the temperature did not even rise that much. Which proves that the climate models don’t have a clue about the effect of carbon dioxide on world temperature.”

Second: Evans looks at ocean warming.  This is a better gauge of global warming than is measuring atmospheric temperature fluctuations.  The Argo Buoys were put into service in 2003.  The measurements of ocean temperatures prior to the Argo program are suspect in my view.  Nothing before 2003 remotely resembles the scope of Argo measurements.(click on chart to enlarge)

Evans says: the climate models predict the oceans should be warming. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since 2003, using the ARGO system. In ARGO, a buoy duck dives down to 2000m, slowly ascends and reads the temperatures on the way, then radios the result back by satellite to HQ. Three thousand ARGO buoys patrol the oceans constantly. They say that the ocean temperature since 2003 has been basically flat. Again, reality is very different to the climate models.

Thirdly: Evans looks at the “hotspot” which was  a climate computer prediction  which is the  Warmers’ proof of the positive feedback.  Feedback that is able to take a weak CO2 forcing signal and double or triple it.   Unfortunately for the advocates of this hypothesis, the hotspot does not exist.(click on chart to enlarge)

Evans says: “the climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming. In particular, the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the so-called “hotspot”. But we have been measuring atmospheric temperatures by weather balloons since the 1960s, and millions of weather balloons say there was no such hotspot during the last warming from 1975 to 2001. The hotspot is integral to their theory, because it would be evidence of the extra evaporation and thickening of the water vapor blanket that produces two thirds of the warming in the climate models…”

Fourthly:  Evans hits on one of the most discussed topic in recent times—that of outgoing radiation into space.    Note in the chart below that the top row left is the actual measurements of outgoing radiation by the stat elite ERBE program (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment-click here for more information.)   The other boxes are climate model predictions. (Chart source=Lindzen and Choi 2009)

Evans says: “satellites have measured the outgoing radiation from the earth and found that the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. Who could have guessed? But the climate models say the opposite, that the Earth gives off less heat when the surface is warmer, because they trap heat too aggressively (positive feedback). Again, the climate models are violently at odds with reality.”

Evans sums up saying:” Those are four independent pieces of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed. Anyone one of them, by itself, disproves the theory of man-made global warming. There are also other, more complex, pieces of evidence. Remember, there is no direct evidence that man causes global warming, so if the climate models are wrong then so is the theory.”

Read all of Evan’s posting here.

cbdakota