4 Billion Years of Climate Change


For the past several weeks, I have been planning on sending the link to  “The Grand View: 4 Billion Years Of Climate Change”.  The article is from the book “The Resilient Earth” by Doug Hoffman and Allen Simmons. It is really informative and for those of us that can’t keep on geological Eras, Periods, or the years relating to them straight,  it is a reference you might want to keep.

early_bombardment-500 Early Earth–From “The Resilient Earth

To give you a taste of what is covered, look at the following:

Observations

That concludes our whirlwind tour of Earth’s climate history. There are a number of observations that can be made from our overview of the Phanerozoic:

Earth’s temperature is always changing.

Over time there have been periods when it has been colder than it is today.

For most of the Phanerozoic it has been much warmer than it is today.

Life has persisted during periods both hot and cold.

There is no one “right” temperature.

Carbon dioxide has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere.

Over time there have been periods when CO2 has increased and decreased     naturally.

For most of the Phanerozoic it has been much higher than it is today.

Life has persisted during periods with high CO2 and low CO2.

CO2 levels will change with or without human contributions.

Over time there have been a number of ice ages—Life has endured multiple ice ages.

For most of the Phanerozoic there have been no persistent polar ice caps.

eras_and_periods-250

Eras and Periods from The Resilient Earth

To read the  article   click here

Cbdakota

Science and The Obama Administration—OSHA and the EPA


President Obama has stated he wants to “restore science to its rightful place”.   Now we are left to wonder how he squares that statement in view of his promotion of the man-made global theory  (see Cap and Trade).   Moreover,  it seems that he will tolerate more anti-science doings in his administration—-specifically in OSHA.   David Michaels is Obama’s nominee to head OSHA.

A Washington Times Editorial tells us that in the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals all 9 justices …”agreed that trial judges could hold hearings without juries present to determine if proposed ‘expert testimony’ is “relevant and reliable,” based on objective criteria such as use of scientific method and peer reviews.  This way, a trial can be protected from being polluted by hired guns who may look and sound impressive enough to sway a jury that has no particular scientific expertise but who actually are peddling bogus theories or trumped-up evidence.”

Michaels has railed against this, saying that the ruling created a social imbalance away from the interests of plantiffs and their lawyers.  He also heads a group funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute.  The group, Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, was initially funded by a trust fund created from the silicone breast transplant scare (which subsequent studies have shown the scare was unfounded).

See the full story here.

Which brings me to the EPA.  A suit was filed by Massachusetts against the EPA saying that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases.  In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had a good case and the EPA was charged by the Supreme Court to make a finding that CO2 was or was not a hazard.   The EPA‘s preliminary finding was that it is a hazard and should be regulated.  The EPA admits that they did not do any scientific study of their own but relied upon the IPCC 2007 report that concluded that man-made warming will result in a global catastrophe in the future. The EPA is soon to issue final ruling.

I don’t know what is more threatening,  passage of a Cap and Trade bill in the Senate to go along with the one passed in the House of Representatives or letting the EPA come up with regulations on how to reduce atmospheric CO2.  I have been predicting that the legislators would not enact cap and trade because they would be in danger of not being re-elected when the cost of that legislation was felt by the US citizens.  So, they would take the easy way and let the blame fall on the EPA if things turned out badly.

Now enter the US Chamber of Commerce which argues that the before a final decision is made that the EPA must be required to defend it scientific conclusions in front of an administrative law judge.  The EPA has said they don’t see the necessity of this. The following is statement by Senator James Inhofe, (Ok-R):

“Why would anyone oppose a full, open, transparent hearing to determine whether evidence supporting the most consequential regulatory decision of our time—affecting schools, hospitals, farms, apartment buildings, restaurants, nursing homes, and thousands of other sources—is up-to-date, accurate, and reflective of the best available scientific research? And why wouldn’t the Obama Administration, and its supporters in the environmental community, faced with a decision potentially imposing billions of dollars of costs on consumers and small businesses, favor a process that ensures maximum public participation and stakeholder input?”

“The answer is simple: in dismissing the Chamber’s petition as “frivolous,” EPA has made clear that, even before finalizing its regulation and considering thousands of public comments, it has already decided the question of endangerment. And in so doing, it has ignored, either deliberately or through omission, reams of scientific data, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has rigorously identified, undermining the case that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.

EPA has also made clear that it doesn’t want to hear dissenting voices on this important question. This runs contrary to President Obama’s speech last December, in which he expressed his views on scientific integrity in the administrative process. As he said, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.” (Emphasis added by Cbdakota)

Read Senator Inhofe’s full comments here.

Now that the President is on record for “restoring science etc……”  and “…..listening even when it is inconvenient”  shouldn’t you let him know that you want him to direct the EPA to have the hearing.

Cbdakota

Global Warming, Politics and Economy by Dr Akasofu


Translated from Japanese, Dr Syun Akasofu’s article “20 points of context on global warming, politics and the economy of the world” has been put online.  Dr Akasofu works at the International Arctic Research Center at the U of Alaska.  In his article he says that future global warming conferences, like the upcoming December Copenhagen Conference,  should be postponed until we know more science.  He has many more interesting comments such as:

8. One problem in this particular discipline of science is that scientists who base their research on computer simulations have become too arrogant, saying that they can predict the temperature in 2100, although too much is still unknown about the earth system. Ignoring natural causes of climate change and even unknown aspects of cloud physics, they rely on computer work in predicting the temperature rise in 2100. However, a computer is like a robot. It can perform only what it is instructed to do by the programs produced by the human brain. If a computer program is incorrect or inaccurate, the output will also be incorrect or inaccurate. In science, incorrect programs or hypotheses (produced by one or a group of scientists) are criticized by other scientists and can thus be improved. That is the way science should progress. However, the IPCC regards those who criticize them as “skeptics”, or “deniers”, etc., and brought this newborn and immature science to the international stage. They stated in 2007 that scientists have done all they can and that the science is settled, and the rest of the task should be in the hands of policy makers. Such a statement is very irresponsible.

10. The Obama administration is promoting wind power and solar power. However, there is no way to supply more than 10% of the US power needs (Obama says that they should try for 20%, but has he estimated the cost involved?) It is only about 2.5% at present. In any case, 80-90% of future electric power has to be found.

20. We should bring back the science of climate change to a basic science, avoiding interferences by policy makers and the world mass media. Only then can this particular science proceed in a scientifically healthy way. Only then can we discuss any global warming hypothesis as proponents and opponents (instead of as “believers” and “skeptics” or “deniers” in the religious sense), regardless of one side being in the majority or minority. In science, unlike in politics, a minority can be right.

While Dr Akasofu’s belief maybe accurate that Pres.Obama really wants to promote nuclear power, his left wing environmentalists don’t.  They will oppose with every lawsuit they can muster, every attempt at new nuke facilities.  While their success is not certain to stop these facilities, these environmentalists will delay startup and raise the cost.

Read all of Dr Akasofu  comments here

Cbdakota

The Rope to Hang Ourselves


We have been told that the Cap and Trade legislation will create millions of green jobs.  But thoughtful analysis plus experience in Europe tell us not to expect the new green jobs to be in millions.  And the analysis and experiences show that we will lose many more manufacturing jobs because the Cap and Trade bill rations and raises the price of energy in the US.

We have long known that the majority of the equipment needed for wind farms comes from overseas.   Now lets add to that knowledge.  It appears that the solar equipment will also be manufactured overseas.  The following quote is from the Energy Tribune’s entry “China’s Photovoltaic Industry: Exporting on the Cheap”:

“………it appears that Chinese PV producers will continue to push their panels onto the world market.  And they will do so at prices that undercut PV producers in the US and Europe.  Last month, the New York Times quoted Thomas M. Zarrella the chief executive of GT Solar International, a New Hampshire-based company that sells equipment to solar panel makers about the looming shift in global PV production.  ‘I don’t see Europe or the United States becoming major producers of solar products—-they’ll be consumers’, he said.”

The Energy Tribune blog notes that the pragmatic Chinese are exporting nearly all of their production overseas rather than using the panels in their own country. Read the blog here

Cap and Trade will construct the gallows and the Chinese will sell us the rope to hang ourselves.

Cbdakota

Would You Buy A Chevy Volt?


The Chevy Volt seems to be the most ballyhooed electric vehicle not yet available for sale. The vehicle is scheduled to be in the showrooms November 2010 with a price tag of about $40,000 before a government subsidy of $7, 200.

volt-garage-470-050-9

Chevy Volt

Courtesy of Popular Mechanics Magazine

It’s wheels are driven by an electric motor.  The power for the electric motor is a lithium-ion battery pack.  The pack can be charged either by plugging it into an electrical outlet or by the on-board 71hp Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) which can keep the battery pack charged. The range of the battery pack is about 40 miles before requiring recharging.   The range using the on-board ICE charger is essentially unlimited.  When operating on the  ICE charger, the MPG is said to be about 50.

Depending on the type of driving you do, you might like this car.  If you seldom drive more than 40 miles a day, you have a garage where you can recharge the battery pack and  you don’t expect high performance, then this may be the vehicle for you. Because you are happy getting 50 MPG,  you don’t mind the under performance you get from a battery pack charged by a  71 hp engine,  it could work for you.  For those of you that like to be seen as “early adopters” or like to let people know of your environmental credentials,   this could be the car for you.

Before you buy—–

If you find that the above noted specs fit you, there are a couple of things more that you should consider.   First consideration is the price of the Volt.   An Edmund’s study compares the Volt’s high purchase price versus other lower priced hybrids with nearly as good mileage. That study says, despite the estimated 230 miles per gallon for the Volt, the $11+thousand higher purchase price would not the Volt owner to  break even with the Prius for 17.4 years.  See that study here.

voltpayback-thumb-555x364

The mileage of these all-electric vehicles will use the expression “miles per gallon equivalent” (MPGe).  This term is based upon the electrical energy consumed expressed as the equivalent energy in a gallon of gasoline.   A gallon of gasoline is pegged at 115,000 btu per gallon.  The electrical equivalent is 33.7KWh.  For example if your electric vehicle uses 150 W-h per mile,  it’s MPGe = (1/150  W-h/mile)(33,700W-h/gal)= 225 MPGe

The big issue

The battery pack is probably the most problematic issue with respect to the Volt and for that matter for every all-electric vehicle.   In my next posting, I will discuss some of the potential pot holes in the road that the battery pack may represent.

Cbdakota


LET’S REDUCE FOREIGN CRUDE BY USING OUR OWN!


Why not use our own domestic oil supplies to reduce the amount of foreign crude we import!  Because our government restricts us from producing some 100 billion barrels of recoverable crude.   A recent exchange between Rep. Sestak (D Pa) and myself caused me to write this entry:
  • Rep. Sestak says that the US is without a comprehensive energy policy and that is why he voted for the Cap and Trade (ACES) bill.  But ACES does not improve our security but rather it jeopardizes it.
  • He says that he wants to reduce the amount of foreign crude oil used in the US.   If so, the best way to do that is to let our petroleum industry develop our Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and ANWR oil fields.  We have four times more oil in these fields than we do in the fields we are presently allowed to produce.  But the Democrats and their militant environmentalist friends wont permit this to happen.
  • Russian, China, Brazil, Spain and Norway are obtaining OCS oil drilling leases from Cuba and the Bahamas.  In some cases the drilling will be less than 90 miles from the US.
  • The Democrats and the militant environmentalists say that it will take 10 years to develop those fields.  But Brazil is bringing in a large off-shore field in some 24 months.
  • Analysis shows that most of the 120 months that is typical in the US is due to government bureaucracy and environmental law suits.

The following is a more complete discussion of this issue and the source for the burger dot notes above.

In your letter’s 4th paragraph you say “For too long, this country has been without a comprehensive energy policy.”    We certainly agree on this point.   We have year by year increased the amount of foreign crude oil we import. Further, over those years the nation has sent untold billions of dollars to many countries that are not particularly friendly with us. And last year, when the supply got tight, the price of gasoline, rose to $4 per gallon.   You are right, our energy policy does not seem to be working.   The American Clean Energy and Security Act,  does nothing to make our energy policy cogent, and it  does not improve our security but rather jeopardizes it.   It seems odd that in your letter, you emphasize the need to reduce our nation’s use of crude oil, when ACES is clearly directed at the electrical utilities where crude oil is hardly used at all.  But lets discuss how we could really help improve our security.

It isn’t that we don’t have domestic crude oil.   The US  supplies about 40% of the our own crude oil needs from fields estimated to contain 25 billion barrels.  According to The US Geological Survey, there are other very large reserves that the US has.  That organization says that we have some 86 billion barrels of oil in the outer continental shelf (OCS).  In addition to that,  ANWR  is said to have reserves of 10 billion barrels.   The Baaken field in the Northern Plains is estimated to contain nearly 4 billion barrels—and there are estimates that the as yet unproven that Three Forks-Spanish formation may have equally as large reserves.  But OCS and ANWR are off limits because of environmental objections.  Just think how much better off we would be if we were allowed to produce the other 100 billion barrels reserves which are about four times greater than those reserves that we are allowed to use.    Robert Samuelson, in a Newsweek article titled THE BIAS AGAINST OIL AND GAS, says “Expanding any fossil-fuel production offends many Americans.  But policies placating this prejudice aren’t in our national interest.”  Read more here.

The Institute for Energy Research wrote to then President Bush urging him to increase domestic supplies by immediately repealing the Presidential Executive Order that established a moratorium on OCS energy production.  They wrote,

“Because of these outdated bans, more than 97 percent of our nation’s vast OCS remains fallow, with less than 3 percent being leased for energy production. We believe it self-destructive and immoral for us, as a nation to continue  to allow our consumers to suffer the economic consequences of government policies that deliberately restrict access to energy supplies.  The consequences of the OCS moratoria have been devastating to American energy security.  We are the only advanced country in the world that ties its own hands behind its back with such a policy.  Brazil, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia and Norway are all examples of advanced nations and allies that do not restrict their own energy production.   Americans are suffering unnecessarily.”

President Bush responded by removing the barriers.  But the Obama Administration has re-imposed so many restrictions that no US energy company can afford to move forward to tap these vast resources.   And get this, Cuba and the Bahamas have signed deals with China, India, Russia, Brazil,  Spain,  and Norway to begin exploratory drilling in the Caribbean .

“Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Russians could drill closer to our shores than American oil and gas companies? The losers would be the American consumers who are cut off from the trillions of dollars in government revenue and thousands of new jobs that could be created if more of America’s oil and natural gas resources could be developed,” Katie Matusic, media relations manager for the oil industry lobbying group American Petroleum Institute, wrote in an e-mail.

It would make most Americans mad if they were to learn that our government is letting others have this oil. Here again the mainstream media is covering for the radical environmentalists as I have yet to read about this in my local newspapers or hear it on TV.   The BBC, in an 29 July entry reported that  Russia is planning to drill off Cuba.  And the BBC added:

Russia is to begin oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, after signing a deal with Cuba, says Cuban state media. The Cuban state media are reporting this so it’s not a secret.   Read more here.

The Democrats have another strategy that says, well it will take 10 years to bring on the production and that is too late.   This is false on several levels.    Brazil has tapped a large OCS field and they are on schedule to have it producing oil in 24 months.  Why then do we have to take 120 months?   A Reasononline entry explains  why it takes so long in the United States.

“In Anchorage last month, Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, explained to me the following time frame for ANWR drilling: Expect 12 months or more for an Environmental Impact Statement after Congress approves drilling. And this is working fast.  It would likely take much longer.  Expect 12 to 18 months for the Department of Interior to draw up and bid out the lease-sale process.  Plan on two years for the oil companies to test drilling and analysis. Drilling and transport of heavy equipment can only be done in the winter months when the permafrost ground is solidly frozen, from December through April. Concurrently with oil drilling, a 75 mile pipeline spur needs to be built to connect to the main Alyeska pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the Southern shipping port..  However, this time frame does not allow for environmental lawsuits ‘every step of the way’ as Crockett warned.  The rest of the 10 year time frame is to allow for lawsuits trying to prevent or harass production in one way or another. “

So, the majority of the time needed is due to government bureaucracy and the militant environmentalists.   If Congress were really serious about reducing oil imports, they could make it happen.  But the extreme environmentalists have them by some body part and are making them toe their green line .

The second reason why the “its always too late to drill” not valid is that the oil import situation is going to get worse long before it gets better.   The demand for energy is not going to go away.   India, China, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, etc want to bring their less developed nation’s population up to standards comparable to those that developed nations have.   They have categorically stated they are going to continue to use fossil fuels irrespective of what Europe, the US and Japan think.  As the price for manufacturing in the US skyrockets due to the rationing of lower cost fossil fuel forcing us to use high priced “renewable fuels” we will see our manufacturing sector leave for more economically friendly shores.   And the jobs will go to those countries.   It is laughable that there seems to be people who believe that these nations will give in and join us in the folly of rationing fossil fuels.  Read here to disabuse yourself of the idea that these nations are going to change their minds.

Cbdakota

Scientifically Illiterate and Innumerate


Someone said to never underestimate the public’s willingness to be fooled.  The media exploits that trait often by peddling alarm.   This has never been more evident than in the case of the man-made global warming theory.  Unfortunately, the general public is woefully lacking in scientific knowledge.  If they had  better scientific knowledge it might allow them to be fooled less often.  The Energy Tribune’s blog “Scientifically Illiterate and Innumerate: Why Americans are So Easily Bamboozled About Energy” sheds some light on why we are easily taken in.  I would guess that the public in most countries suffers from the same lack of knowledge as do we Americans, hence their governments have  been able to push though legislation like cap and trade.

We all need to give a hat tip to the Aussies.  Their citizens became educated and forced their legislative body to reject cap and trade legislation.    Good on ya Mate.

To read the Energy Tribune blog entry click here.

Cbdakota

Sea Surface Temperatures–Record Warmth?


The National Climate Data Center said that the average global ocean temperature in July was 62.6 degrees and that was the hottest since recording keeping began in 1880.  Seth Borenstein’s column on this reported record says:

Breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land.  That’s because water takes longer to heat up and doesn’t cool off as easily, said climate scientist Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria British Columbia.   “This is another yet really important indicator of the change that’s occurring,” Weaver said.

Sometimes the alarmist seem eager to overreach in order to be,  well , alarmists.  The real issue is that measuring sea surface temperature (SST) is only one piece of the information needed to measure OCEAN HEAT CONTENT.  Ocean heat content is the only way to know if our vast oceans are warming or cooling.  The record shows that the oceans have slightly cooled.

This claim that July 09 SST  is the hottest on record does not seem to be true.  Roy Spencer has a post discussing this and he shows that this is not a record.  And if you look at the data he provides, you can see that 1998 was a significant period of SST warming.  Spencer says “None of this represents proof that July 2009 was not a record warm month in ocean surface temperature, but it does cast significant doubt on the claim.  But the focus on a single month misses the big picture: recent years have yet to reach the warmth of 1998. “

Read Dr Spencer’s full post here

Spotless Days


As of today, 26 August, 2009, the sun has not had a sunspot  for 47 days.  Since 1849, this is the 5th longest period without sunspots. If there are no sunspots in the next two days,  the new total of 49 will put this period in 4th place.   The number 1 period was 92 days long without a sunspot and that occurred in 1913.  See chart below for other long periods without sunspots.

The sun’s activity remains low with the 10.7 solar radio flux at 67. If you are unfamiliar with this measurement, the following from my entry   “Sun and Climate—an  Essay”  should help:

Another indicator of the Sun’s activity is the 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) radio flux.  This measurement is the amount of solar noise that is emitted by the sun at 10.7 cm wavelengths. Some consider it to be better than Sunspots as an indicator of solar activity.  The solar flux is measured and reported at approximately 1700 UT daily.   It can vary from values below 50 to values in excess of 300 (representing very low solar activity and high to very high solar activity respectively). Values in excess of 200 occur typically during the peak of the solar cycles.

PERIODS WITH SPOTLESS DAYS (>20DAYS) SINCE 1849

Courtesy of Solaemon’s Spotless Days Page

Spotlessoverview

Cbdakota

Birds, Dogs and Humans–Values Check


Writing something about the value of humans versus animals is a perilous undertaking.  But lets give it a go away.

Michael Vick signed a contract to play for the Philadelphia Eagles, pro football team. Vic, recently released from prison,  served  time for killing a number of dogs.   Vick’s actions here were reprehensible.  But the man is being pilloried in the newspapers, and people are carrying signs at the Eagle’s preseason football camp condemning his actions and insisting he not be allowed to play football. While this is going on, practicing with his football team, is a player recently given a two month sentence for having been convicted of DUI vehicular homicide.    Vick’s sentence was for  23 months.  Not infrequently, players are found guilty of beating up their wives/girlfriends and return to play with no concurrent uproar.    There is a lack of  perspective here.

Which brings me to another news item from the blog “Green Hell” that also shows a lack of perspective.

Exxon has been fined for causing the death of 85 protected waterfowl, hawks and owls.  The birds had ventured near reserve pits and waste water storage facilities. Exxon’s total cost could be considered to be about $3.1 million for the 85 birds or $36,470 per bird death.  The blog compares that cost to what our service men receive, “the death gratuity” of $12,420 for active duty and $100,000 for combat deaths.

The response by “papiertigre”  to Steve Miloy’s Green Hell blog was so good, it is added as follows in its entirety.

papiertigre Says:

August 19, 2009 at 3:09 pm

Come on Steve. Everybody knows that a raptor’s life is worth a million sub-Saharan Africans catching malaria.
So of course a raptor’s death will be priced at just under 3 times as much as a soldier’s.

But what I’m wondering is why are windmills in Altamont killing 4.7k birds, actually chopping their feathery heads off, without any financial repercussion?

http://baynature.org/articles/jan-mar-2009/altamont-power-struggle

The Altamont, a major migratory corridor, hosts large raptor populations, including one of the world’s highest densities of breeding golden eagles. When wind turbines were installed here in the 1980s, their blades’ lethal effects were little known. But for more than 25 years, Altamont’s 5,400 turbines have been killing up to 4,700 birds annually–as many as 1,300 of them raptors.

25 times 4,700 times $36,470 equals
————————————–
$4 billion 285 million 225 thousand and 000
dollars and cents.

Pay up suckers.

Seriously, we have precidence here. Established law. What do they call it?

Oh yes Stari desisis.

Cbdakota