Category Archives: fossil fuels

Global Temperature Only Lowered By 0.01C. Is It Worth All The Pain?


President Obama unveiled the “Clean Power Plan” prepared by the EPA. It claims much but testimony EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, gave at a Congressional hearing make those claims very questionable. She does not dispute that global temperature will only be lowered by 0.01degree C., — we goreandhairdryermust set the example for the rest of the world, she says. But 8 months ago, Obama agreed to China increasing their CO2 until 2030 at which time it will be three times greater than our emissions. What kind of example is that? The health improvements are touted but many are based on “secret science” that she wont let anyone see outside the agency. And some is based upon hypothetical set ups; hence, make-believe science. She was quoted as saying she “doesn’t actually need raw data in order to develop science. That’s not how it is done?” Since when, other than on Planet EPA?

Continue reading

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.”

nkoreahillside

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

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

North-Korea-deforestation-2013-vs-2015

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.

cbdakota

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?

cbdakota

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tenth International Conference on Climate Change


global-warming-south-carolina-political-cartoonI attended the “Tenth International Conference on Climate Change” held in Washington, DC on June 11-12, 2015.   It surpassed my expectations. The panel presentations were uniformly excellent. While I consider myself to be reasonably well informed regarding this topic, I realized that are certain important areas of which I knew little.     For example I learned many things about the way the EPA operates that makes me very angry. Several of the current Republican candidates for President have announced that if they are elected they plan to shut down the EPA and let the State’s environmental groups handle these issues.   I plan a future posting about this topic.

Mainly the Conference covered global warming science. However there were some tributes to contributors who have made an impact.   One interesting presentation was Christopher Monckton’s defense of Dr Willie Soon.

The entire conference is on video. It can be seen by clicking on this link

cbdakota

Pope Francis Is Poorly Informed About Global Warming


For centuries, the “consensus science” stated the Earth was the center of the universe. In 1610 the skeptic, Galileo Galilei, publicly disagreed saying the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way. The Catholic Church leaders called this a fallacy.  Galileo published his theory in 1632 and was found guilty of heresy and placed under house arrest where he remained until his death 9 years later. It now looks like the Church is about to make the same mistake of picking sides concerning the controversial scientific theory of catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). It is said that Pope Francis will issue an Encyclical saying that World should support the United Nations plan to eliminate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It doesn’t make sense.

Continue reading

OPEC Strategy Report Says Two More Years Of A Crude Oil Glut


frackingimagesOPEC meets 5 June in Geneva to discuss the cartel’s strategy for the coming years.  Reuters News Agency has obtained the draft report of OPEC’s long-term strategy. This report’s content will be a key discussion at the meeting. The report suggests that the global oil glut could persist for the next two years.   In general that seems like pretty good news for the world and specifically for U.S. if not for the OPEC cartel and Russia.

The drop in oil prices that began late last year did not shut down the fracking wells that were already producing as the wells continued to operate to cover their variable costs. It did cause drill rigs to be cut every week for 23 weeks. Reuters reports that only one rig was cut the week of 18 May.   Experts seem to agree that fracking can be profitable at a West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price around $60/barrel. That price level should bring on more fracking operations. Today’s price is $59.89. (changes often.)

Continue reading

Climate Debate And Pope Francis’ Encyclical On The Environment


A debate about the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW) took place recently between Carol Andress, of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Marc Morano of the Climate Depot Blog. The EDF website lists Ms Andress as having expertise in “Climate Change, U.S, Congress, air quality and U.S. climate policy”.

There are two themes during this debate; one is the credibility of the science supporting the CAGW and the other is Pope Francis’ expected papal encyclical on the environment.

The first theme was entirely won by Marano. This has been the consistent outcome of these debates between warmers and skeptics.   It is difficult for skeptics to get a warmer to debate anymore.  Because Ms Andress is considered an expert by the EDF, I am  further persuaded  that the EDF, as an organization, is weak on science as are most of the environmentally focused NGOs.  While nothing Ms Andress said with regard to the second theme was persuasive, the Pope appears to have been taken in. There is little likelihood at this point that he will change his mind.

Watch the debate on this YouTube video–it will initially open up with what looks to be another topic, but give it several seconds and it will switch to the debate.  The total time for the debate is about 15 minutes.

cbdakota