We now have a report on the latest UN meeting at Durban concerning climate change. Cheryl Hogue reports in the December 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
The so-called "big change" is that greenhouse gas emissions, say carbon dioxide, will no longer be limited to industrialized countries as required by the original Kyoto Accord. It will now include all major CO2 emitters.
I don't see the difference. The concentration seems to be on China, which is a major emitter, because of its size, but it is also an industrialized country. If you don't believe that, check various retail stores for goods made in China.
Democratic Sen. Kerry says the US will lose now lose its long-held position that it will not abide by the Kyoto Accord, because China does not. Kerry seems to have the presumption that China will now be in agreement, which is not necessarily fact.
The original Kyoto Accord involved two stages of CO2 emission reductions. Canada, Japan, and Russia were part of the Kyoto Protocol, but they have now announced that they will not sign up for the second round of CO2 emission reductions. In addition, Canada announced that it is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol completely. It is said that Canada has done little to cut its CO2 emissions and may be susceptible to a fine. I say "hooray" for Canada. They should not be cutting CO2 emissions, but rather using all forms of energy in order to aid in developing an improved way of life for its citizens. It would be silly of Canada to actually pay any fine that might be placed on it.
Frank Maisano, an energy specialist representing utilities and refineries has said that path to a treaty established in Durban will be meaningless and nobody will follow through on it. I strongly hope this prediction will come true.
Let us remember that CO2 does no harm in the atmosphere with respect to any climate change. The whole idea of CO2 emission control is a political maneuver to equalize worldwide financial assets, through a tax program called Cap & Trade.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Improved Sea Transportation Route
Jyllian Kemsley has an article entitled, "Connecting Ice and Air" in the December 5 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. It is about a scientific probe concerning the role of sea ice in atmospheric chemistry as the Arctic warms. This seems to me to be a reasonable study, providing it doesn't cost "too much". I should also point out that I am not disputing warming of the Arctic and the reduction in ice coverage, nor am I disputing that there is such a thing as climate change. However, I do dispute any implication that the activities of man has had any significant effect on this climate change.
With that aside and unrelated to the basic study,, I am impressed with the shrinkage of ice coverage, leading to opportunities in sea transport.
According to Wikipedia, Roald Amundsen found a connection between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans north of Canada in the early 1900s.. However until 2009, Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Climate change has now reduced the Arctic pack ice making this waterway more navigable.
It should be noted that, other than this Northwest Passage, the only connections between the Atlantic and Pacific are through the Panama Canal and around the southern end of South America. The Panama route has its limitation in the size of ships if can handle, although the capacity has recently been somewhat expanded. The southern route has the disadvantage of increased distance, which extends the time of delivery.
We hear many predictions of doom from the effects of climate change. Here is one effect that could be significantly economically helpful.
With that aside and unrelated to the basic study,, I am impressed with the shrinkage of ice coverage, leading to opportunities in sea transport.
According to Wikipedia, Roald Amundsen found a connection between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans north of Canada in the early 1900s.. However until 2009, Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Climate change has now reduced the Arctic pack ice making this waterway more navigable.
It should be noted that, other than this Northwest Passage, the only connections between the Atlantic and Pacific are through the Panama Canal and around the southern end of South America. The Panama route has its limitation in the size of ships if can handle, although the capacity has recently been somewhat expanded. The southern route has the disadvantage of increased distance, which extends the time of delivery.
We hear many predictions of doom from the effects of climate change. Here is one effect that could be significantly economically helpful.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Climate Change Fear Mongers Are Still At It
The November 28 issue of Chemical and Engineering News reported that new talks would begin on that date in South Africa concerning the curbing of greenhouse gas emissions. They really mean reducing CO2. They also plan to brace the world for the worsening impacts of climate change, which are detailed in a recently released UN report.
I have not seen the UN report, but the C&E News article includes a picture with a caption that says "A new report says storms like Hurricane Irene are likely to become more intense but not more frequent". It would be interesting to see how they could make this prediction. I also note that in the subsequent issue of C&E News on December 5, there is no mention of the results of the meeting. Hopefully, it was a bust.
"Negotiators", and I use the term loosely as reported by C&E News, are trying to get China to reduce its CO2 emissions, but China has wisely not agreed. The US continues to sit on the fence by saying that if China doesn't agree, it will also not agree. While I don't like the rationale, at least it is progress in going nowhere on limiting CO2 emissions.
For those who may not have been following the aspects of CO2 emissions, the claim is that CO2 leads to global warming, with disastrous effects. However, the fact is that there are no data to support this theory. The basis is not so much an environmental concern but rather a government interest in obtaining additional tax revenues through a carbon tax. Another negative for even considering it is that it would cost trillions of dollars to control CO2 emissions unnecessarily from power plants and other major sources, at a time when the US is very strongly in deficit, with a completely unbalanced budget.
I have not seen the UN report, but the C&E News article includes a picture with a caption that says "A new report says storms like Hurricane Irene are likely to become more intense but not more frequent". It would be interesting to see how they could make this prediction. I also note that in the subsequent issue of C&E News on December 5, there is no mention of the results of the meeting. Hopefully, it was a bust.
"Negotiators", and I use the term loosely as reported by C&E News, are trying to get China to reduce its CO2 emissions, but China has wisely not agreed. The US continues to sit on the fence by saying that if China doesn't agree, it will also not agree. While I don't like the rationale, at least it is progress in going nowhere on limiting CO2 emissions.
For those who may not have been following the aspects of CO2 emissions, the claim is that CO2 leads to global warming, with disastrous effects. However, the fact is that there are no data to support this theory. The basis is not so much an environmental concern but rather a government interest in obtaining additional tax revenues through a carbon tax. Another negative for even considering it is that it would cost trillions of dollars to control CO2 emissions unnecessarily from power plants and other major sources, at a time when the US is very strongly in deficit, with a completely unbalanced budget.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Refrigerant Gases and Global Warming
In the early use of refrigeration, the process used ammonia and sulfur dioxide, for compression and decompression to obtain cooling. These gases were somewhat obnoxious and were subsequently replaced by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). However, someone later developed the theory that CFCs were reacting with ozone in the upper stratosphere and it was necessary to preserve the ozone as a protective barrier to damaging radiation from the sun at the Earth's surface. We will not now discuss the merits of this theory, but it led to modification of the CFCs, with the intention of using gases less reactive to ozone. These modified gases are now being criticized as contributing to global warming. See Cheryl Hogue's article in the December 5 issue of C&E News.
As is usual with most problems, a mathematical analysis usually brings the problem into perspective, with respect to its significance. Let's do this with refrigerants to determine whether their contribution to global warming is significant.
The weight of the Earth's atmosphere, which is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, is estimated to be 5.5x10 E 21 grams. The "E 21" means there are 21 zeros following the 5.5. The molecular weight of air is approximately 30 g per mole. Therefore, the number of moles of air in the atmosphere is 5.5x10 E 21 divided by 30, or about 2x10 E 20.
A mole of any substance is made up of 6x10 E 23 molecules. Therefore, the number of molecules of air in the atmosphere is 2x10 E 30 times 6x10 E 23, or about 1x10 E 44.
In 1991, usage of CFCs for refrigeration and blowing agents was 6.8x10 E 11 grams. Assume the worst-case for the atmosphere, which is that all the CFCs entered the atmosphere. The molecular weight of the most common CFC (dichlorodifluoromethane) is 120. Therefore, the number of moles of CFC entering the atmosphere was 6.8x10 E 11 divided by 120, or about 6x10 E 9. Again converting to numbers of molecules, 6x10 E9 times 6x10 E 23 gives 36x10 E 32, or 3.6x10 E 33.
We now divide the number of air molecules in the atmosphere by the number of CFC molecules entering the atmosphere in 1991. 1x10 E 44 divided by 3.6x10 E. 33 gives about 1x10 E 11. In other words, there were 100 trillion times more air molecules then CFC molecules in the atmosphere in 1991.
The theory of global warming is that some molecules are greater reflectors of heat than others. The global warming effect is said to occur by those molecules not allowing heat to escape from the Earth's surface.
Assume the worst-case scenario. That is, molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere allow complete passage of heat from the earth's surface to interstellar space, while molecules of CFC completely block this passage of heat.
Let us now also make an analogy that we have a net containing 100 trillion holes (pretty big net!). One of the holes is completely blocked. Is that enough to have any significant effect on what passes through all the remaining holes?
As is usual with most problems, a mathematical analysis usually brings the problem into perspective, with respect to its significance. Let's do this with refrigerants to determine whether their contribution to global warming is significant.
The weight of the Earth's atmosphere, which is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, is estimated to be 5.5x10 E 21 grams. The "E 21" means there are 21 zeros following the 5.5. The molecular weight of air is approximately 30 g per mole. Therefore, the number of moles of air in the atmosphere is 5.5x10 E 21 divided by 30, or about 2x10 E 20.
A mole of any substance is made up of 6x10 E 23 molecules. Therefore, the number of molecules of air in the atmosphere is 2x10 E 30 times 6x10 E 23, or about 1x10 E 44.
In 1991, usage of CFCs for refrigeration and blowing agents was 6.8x10 E 11 grams. Assume the worst-case for the atmosphere, which is that all the CFCs entered the atmosphere. The molecular weight of the most common CFC (dichlorodifluoromethane) is 120. Therefore, the number of moles of CFC entering the atmosphere was 6.8x10 E 11 divided by 120, or about 6x10 E 9. Again converting to numbers of molecules, 6x10 E9 times 6x10 E 23 gives 36x10 E 32, or 3.6x10 E 33.
We now divide the number of air molecules in the atmosphere by the number of CFC molecules entering the atmosphere in 1991. 1x10 E 44 divided by 3.6x10 E. 33 gives about 1x10 E 11. In other words, there were 100 trillion times more air molecules then CFC molecules in the atmosphere in 1991.
The theory of global warming is that some molecules are greater reflectors of heat than others. The global warming effect is said to occur by those molecules not allowing heat to escape from the Earth's surface.
Assume the worst-case scenario. That is, molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere allow complete passage of heat from the earth's surface to interstellar space, while molecules of CFC completely block this passage of heat.
Let us now also make an analogy that we have a net containing 100 trillion holes (pretty big net!). One of the holes is completely blocked. Is that enough to have any significant effect on what passes through all the remaining holes?
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Considering the Nitrogen Cycle for Weather Control Was Inconclusive
In the October 3rd issue C&E News, there is a nicely reported article by Rick Erickson. It is reported that at the August meeting of the American Chemical Society in Denver the group came to grips with how to incorporate the nitrogen cycle into future climate-change models and policies.
For those not familiar with the nitrogen cycle, it involves a very small portion of the 78% nitrogen in the atmosphere. The cycle involves bacteria converting small amounts of this nitrogen into chemical compounds which are used by plants to facilitate growth. When the plants die, other bacteria convert the chemical compounds back into atmospheric nitrogen.
The ACS group has extended the standard nitrogen cycle to include nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. I'm not sure how they came about this rationalization. However, there's no doubt that very small concentration of these chemical compounds do exist in the atmosphere. The origin may be from actions of lightning and some release to the air by bacteria.
There was the usual mishmash of opinions at the ACS meeting. Some claimed advantages for each of the chemical constituents, while others claimed disadvantages for the same constituent. As expected, the overall conclusion was inconclusive, in regard to any of their effects on weather.
The group discussion involved so much minuscule inflammation, that it appears the main aspects were completely ignored. With respect to global warming, these three constituents contribute parts per million concentrations to the total atmosphere. Since global warming is primarily a matter of the effectiveness of the gas in allowing passage of incoming solar radiation versus restricting heat radiation into the atmosphere, such low concentrations are bound to be insignificant. Perhaps they have some sort of magical powers, yet to be determined.
The bottom line is good news. All of this confusion tends to throw cold water on any attempts to control weather, which would be disastrous in this already weak economy.
For those not familiar with the nitrogen cycle, it involves a very small portion of the 78% nitrogen in the atmosphere. The cycle involves bacteria converting small amounts of this nitrogen into chemical compounds which are used by plants to facilitate growth. When the plants die, other bacteria convert the chemical compounds back into atmospheric nitrogen.
The ACS group has extended the standard nitrogen cycle to include nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. I'm not sure how they came about this rationalization. However, there's no doubt that very small concentration of these chemical compounds do exist in the atmosphere. The origin may be from actions of lightning and some release to the air by bacteria.
There was the usual mishmash of opinions at the ACS meeting. Some claimed advantages for each of the chemical constituents, while others claimed disadvantages for the same constituent. As expected, the overall conclusion was inconclusive, in regard to any of their effects on weather.
The group discussion involved so much minuscule inflammation, that it appears the main aspects were completely ignored. With respect to global warming, these three constituents contribute parts per million concentrations to the total atmosphere. Since global warming is primarily a matter of the effectiveness of the gas in allowing passage of incoming solar radiation versus restricting heat radiation into the atmosphere, such low concentrations are bound to be insignificant. Perhaps they have some sort of magical powers, yet to be determined.
The bottom line is good news. All of this confusion tends to throw cold water on any attempts to control weather, which would be disastrous in this already weak economy.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Another Great Delay in Curbing CO2 Emissions
In the September 26 issue C&E News, there is an excellent article entitled, "EPA Stalls on CO2 Rule s". Quoting from the article, "EPA has backtracked from its scheduled release of rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electric utilities. Instead EPA said in a statement it will issue the proposal "soon"."
This is good news, but the best news would be that EPA would give up this proposal altogether. Trying to control CO2 emissions from power plants would be a disastrous undertaking in view of the tremendous cost and the obvious fact that it would be completely unnecessary. There has been no information that CO2 has had any detrimental effect on our health, economy and particularly climate. All negativity has been speculation.
This is good news, but the best news would be that EPA would give up this proposal altogether. Trying to control CO2 emissions from power plants would be a disastrous undertaking in view of the tremendous cost and the obvious fact that it would be completely unnecessary. There has been no information that CO2 has had any detrimental effect on our health, economy and particularly climate. All negativity has been speculation.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Department Of Energy (DOE) Unjustly Criticizes CO2 Emissions
The September 5 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "Greenhouse Gas Versus the Economy". The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that the first time in more than 20 years, CO2 emissions grew more than the GDP did last year. The article says that the EIA is an independent agency in the Department Of Energy (DOE). Since they all work for Obama how can they be independent?
Therefore, I have no conviction that these figures are even relevant.
I haven't had any difficulty breathing with the increased CO2 in the air. I haven't noticed that there is a considerable increase in plant growth from the increased CO2 concentrations, but some biologists claim that there is.
Mostly, the article is intended to reflect on climate change in a very negative way. However, I repeat again that no correlation has been found between CO2 concentration and negative climate change. Greenhouse gases do exist. They include nitrogen and oxygen, which are the majority concentrations in the atmosphere, and the increased concentrations of CO2 are insignificant.
Therefore, I have no conviction that these figures are even relevant.
I haven't had any difficulty breathing with the increased CO2 in the air. I haven't noticed that there is a considerable increase in plant growth from the increased CO2 concentrations, but some biologists claim that there is.
Mostly, the article is intended to reflect on climate change in a very negative way. However, I repeat again that no correlation has been found between CO2 concentration and negative climate change. Greenhouse gases do exist. They include nitrogen and oxygen, which are the majority concentrations in the atmosphere, and the increased concentrations of CO2 are insignificant.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Idea of Controlling Climate through CO2 Emissions Is Dying
In the August 8 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Commitments are Running Out". The subtitle is "Possibilities For New Global Climate Treaty Are Slim", which is good news.
The Kyoto Accord to reduce CO2 emissions is about to expire. The 37 countries involved have continued discussions. A proposed binding agreement in December 2009 Copenhagen failed. The next meeting is scheduled for Durban, South Africa. Havercamp, a director of an environmental group says that the Durban Meeting will probably not be able to achieve really significant commitments to global emissions. The reason given is that there is lack of US action, because of an uncooperative Congress. Hooray for the U.S. Congress, they're finally doing something right.
I am not denying that there is a phenomenon of climate change. Climate always changes. The question is whether destroying the economic integrity of the United States by CO2 emission control, on a weak supposition that it will have a positive effect, is not justifiable.
The Kyoto Accord to reduce CO2 emissions is about to expire. The 37 countries involved have continued discussions. A proposed binding agreement in December 2009 Copenhagen failed. The next meeting is scheduled for Durban, South Africa. Havercamp, a director of an environmental group says that the Durban Meeting will probably not be able to achieve really significant commitments to global emissions. The reason given is that there is lack of US action, because of an uncooperative Congress. Hooray for the U.S. Congress, they're finally doing something right.
I am not denying that there is a phenomenon of climate change. Climate always changes. The question is whether destroying the economic integrity of the United States by CO2 emission control, on a weak supposition that it will have a positive effect, is not justifiable.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Rep. Neugebauer's Position on CO2/Climate Change
Rep. Neugebauer was previously asked for his position concerning the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change. I have had a personal response from one of the Randy's staff members. She says they are working on a revision of their CO2/climate change form letter.
Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from one of the presently available form letters:
"I am pleased to inform you that I have already co-sponsored and voted for legislation that constrains the EPA’s ill-advised regulations. For example, I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011. This bill would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. It would also block the Agency’s attempt to extend an unprecedented level of control over vast sectors of the U.S. economy through unilateral regulation of GHGs, which amounts to a massive energy tax on all Americans. I also recently voted in support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which closes a loophole that previously enabled the EPA to deny permits for exploratory offshore drilling on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. For five years, the EPA had been using the Clean Air Act as justification to deny permits and had created an unnecessary, job-killing moratorium on development in the Arctic, even after President Obama’s Oil Spill Commission determined that the moratorium was unjustified. H.R. 2021 passed the House by a vote of 253 to 166 on June 22, 2011.
Please rest assured that I will do everything I can to keep the EPA in line."
With this above section, I'm convinced Randy is on the right track. However, the problem I see is that even with the House passing these bills, nothing becomes effective until the Senate also agrees and Obama signs them into law, which is highly unlikely. I think Randy and other House members must take a more innovative approach. Obama is already using one of them in that by Legislative Order he can circumvent anything from Congress. While this is a dictatorial technique, which should not be part of our government, it apparently exists and is effective in destroying our economy and establishing a Communistic/Socialistic state. I don't know how this can be stopped. Obama has already done a tremendous amount of damage to our economy and the country as a whole. I shudder to think of what else he can do in the more than one year he has left as term in office.
I wonder if Congress can sue in the Supreme Court that the Administration must conduct or decease certain actions.
Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from one of the presently available form letters:
"I am pleased to inform you that I have already co-sponsored and voted for legislation that constrains the EPA’s ill-advised regulations. For example, I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011. This bill would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. It would also block the Agency’s attempt to extend an unprecedented level of control over vast sectors of the U.S. economy through unilateral regulation of GHGs, which amounts to a massive energy tax on all Americans. I also recently voted in support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which closes a loophole that previously enabled the EPA to deny permits for exploratory offshore drilling on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. For five years, the EPA had been using the Clean Air Act as justification to deny permits and had created an unnecessary, job-killing moratorium on development in the Arctic, even after President Obama’s Oil Spill Commission determined that the moratorium was unjustified. H.R. 2021 passed the House by a vote of 253 to 166 on June 22, 2011.
Please rest assured that I will do everything I can to keep the EPA in line."
With this above section, I'm convinced Randy is on the right track. However, the problem I see is that even with the House passing these bills, nothing becomes effective until the Senate also agrees and Obama signs them into law, which is highly unlikely. I think Randy and other House members must take a more innovative approach. Obama is already using one of them in that by Legislative Order he can circumvent anything from Congress. While this is a dictatorial technique, which should not be part of our government, it apparently exists and is effective in destroying our economy and establishing a Communistic/Socialistic state. I don't know how this can be stopped. Obama has already done a tremendous amount of damage to our economy and the country as a whole. I shudder to think of what else he can do in the more than one year he has left as term in office.
I wonder if Congress can sue in the Supreme Court that the Administration must conduct or decease certain actions.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change
Randy,
I have received from one of my political advisers a message concerning your opinion on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and possible effect on climate change. My associate has already described the question better than I can.
Here is what he had to say, "Have you asked Randy for a yes or no answer to whether he agrees that carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate change? He can either say yes, no, or equivocate (or not respond). If no, encourage him to educate other members of Congress. If yes, challenge him to provide some scientific evidence ) which, of course, he cannot. If he equivocates, chide him for being ignorant or more interested in politics than the welfare of our Republic. If he does not respond, keep asking him again and again, and, finally,
include local letters to the editor of how remiss he is in his responsibilities as a Representative."
May I have your response, either direct or by form letter?
I have received from one of my political advisers a message concerning your opinion on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and possible effect on climate change. My associate has already described the question better than I can.
Here is what he had to say, "Have you asked Randy for a yes or no answer to whether he agrees that carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate change? He can either say yes, no, or equivocate (or not respond). If no, encourage him to educate other members of Congress. If yes, challenge him to provide some scientific evidence ) which, of course, he cannot. If he equivocates, chide him for being ignorant or more interested in politics than the welfare of our Republic. If he does not respond, keep asking him again and again, and, finally,
include local letters to the editor of how remiss he is in his responsibilities as a Representative."
May I have your response, either direct or by form letter?
Congress Must Control the EPA on Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer.
Randy,
There has been a lot of confusion on who can control carbon dioxide emissions from various industrial operations, such as generation of electricity from coal burning power plants. Some individual States, Federal Trial Courts, and Courts of Appeals have previously claimed this right.
However, the US Supreme Court has put an end to that controversy. It concluded that regulating carbon dioxide is a job which Congress reserved for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act.
This is both good and news. In organized society, we need to know who has responsibility for any legal aspects. Designating a specific organization is the good news. Designating the EPA is the news.
We know from much previous analysis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere have no significant effect on climate change, but the EPA does not accept that fact. This happens for political reasons. It is the intention of the Obama Administration to develop alternate energy sources (solar and wind) and reduce dependence on oil, and apparently on coal as prime energy sources. We don't know why the Obama Administration has decided on this objective. It seems inconceivable that Obama would intentionally destroy our economy and our society. It is more conceivable that he would use this to develop world socialism through redistribution of wealth, with a taxation process.
The EPA is an agency that operates under the direction of the Obama Administration. Obama is the boss. He develops the rules to follow, and the EPA and its employees are supposed to be good soldiers and follow those rules. This is as it should be in any organization. Collective support and loyalty to a particular program are paramount to the continued existence of an organization. This is true whether it's on a corporate level or in government. Unfortunately, it has its downside. One example is the support of the German people to the Nazi government during World War II, leading to mass extermination of millions of Jews. This is an extreme example, and it's quite possible that employees who are not morally convinced concerning objectives of an organization have the option of lying to themselves for benefits and salary or leaving the organization to pursue other endeavors. We don't know which it is with the EPA and its employees, probably a little of both.
However, the real control lies in Congress. Congress set up the EPA. Congress can take down the EPA. Congress can also specify certain actions that the EPA is allowed to pursue.
Randy, you are a member of Congress. It's up to you and your associates to have the EPA work under a set of rules which will not destroy our economy and society.
Randy,
There has been a lot of confusion on who can control carbon dioxide emissions from various industrial operations, such as generation of electricity from coal burning power plants. Some individual States, Federal Trial Courts, and Courts of Appeals have previously claimed this right.
However, the US Supreme Court has put an end to that controversy. It concluded that regulating carbon dioxide is a job which Congress reserved for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act.
This is both good and news. In organized society, we need to know who has responsibility for any legal aspects. Designating a specific organization is the good news. Designating the EPA is the news.
We know from much previous analysis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere have no significant effect on climate change, but the EPA does not accept that fact. This happens for political reasons. It is the intention of the Obama Administration to develop alternate energy sources (solar and wind) and reduce dependence on oil, and apparently on coal as prime energy sources. We don't know why the Obama Administration has decided on this objective. It seems inconceivable that Obama would intentionally destroy our economy and our society. It is more conceivable that he would use this to develop world socialism through redistribution of wealth, with a taxation process.
The EPA is an agency that operates under the direction of the Obama Administration. Obama is the boss. He develops the rules to follow, and the EPA and its employees are supposed to be good soldiers and follow those rules. This is as it should be in any organization. Collective support and loyalty to a particular program are paramount to the continued existence of an organization. This is true whether it's on a corporate level or in government. Unfortunately, it has its downside. One example is the support of the German people to the Nazi government during World War II, leading to mass extermination of millions of Jews. This is an extreme example, and it's quite possible that employees who are not morally convinced concerning objectives of an organization have the option of lying to themselves for benefits and salary or leaving the organization to pursue other endeavors. We don't know which it is with the EPA and its employees, probably a little of both.
However, the real control lies in Congress. Congress set up the EPA. Congress can take down the EPA. Congress can also specify certain actions that the EPA is allowed to pursue.
Randy, you are a member of Congress. It's up to you and your associates to have the EPA work under a set of rules which will not destroy our economy and society.
Monday, July 4, 2011
New Industrial/Socialist Complex to Fleece Individual US Taxpayers
The global warming hucksters are still after your dollar. They want to redistribute wealth, if there is anything left after they first bleed you.
The topic has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". It was found that Global Warming was a little too specific. It was directly connected with the theory that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase Earth temperatures and cause massive devastation. That fear mongering has been pretty much ridiculed, based on the lack of science logic to support it. However the idea has not been completely discarded and is still supported by new imaginative terms such as "Radiative Forcing", which no one can really give a clear picture of what it actually is. Even the U.S. Congress has started to question global warming as related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In addition to changing the name of the topic, the hucksters have now developed a very clever approach. That is to obtain the support of major science industries, who will petition Congress for climate change (global warming) regulation. We will then be back to CO2 emission control, taxing, installing unnecessary emissions capture equipment, and subsequent redistribution of wealth.
This is not really very difficult to do, since the science industry would gain a lot of business through production of chemical control products machinery and construction, whether the objective is justified or not. These are business decisions, and in industry businessmen make the company decisions. Scientists in industry only make recommendations, and they generally tend to support the business leaders, who also control the salaries.
However, the global warming hucksters still use a somewhat devious approach. They ask industry whether industrial philosophy of flexibility, rather than rigidity, will help guarantee that a company will remain in business. You know the obvious answer to that one. It's "yes". The second question is, since climate change is an established fact (one day it's cloudy, the next day it is not), would it not be helpful to know more about climate change and how to control it. The obvious answer is again "yes".
The third question is would you support government research, to establish more information on climate change and allow it to help you in developing new products and protecting the longevity of your business. The obvious answer is again "yes". In this case the affirmative is based on a simple decision that it will cost the companies nothing. All they have to do is holler at Congress, which they been doing anyhow. Congress will listen, because industry is a good source of their campaign funds.
If this thing comes to pass, it will be an unnecessary waste of assets not only in continuing ridiculous grants from government agencies, such as NSF, to academic institutions for "research" to support the fallacy. More importantly, the tremendous waste in building unnecessary CO2 control operations will accelerate the bleeding of the already jeopardized taxpayer.
The only defense against this onslaught is an informed public which actually has the voting right to congressional seats and to convince Congress that this right will be used, in spite of any massive propaganda advertising by an Industrial/Socialist Complex.
Reference: C&E News June 27, 2011, page 13, Climate Change by Marc Reisch
The topic has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". It was found that Global Warming was a little too specific. It was directly connected with the theory that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase Earth temperatures and cause massive devastation. That fear mongering has been pretty much ridiculed, based on the lack of science logic to support it. However the idea has not been completely discarded and is still supported by new imaginative terms such as "Radiative Forcing", which no one can really give a clear picture of what it actually is. Even the U.S. Congress has started to question global warming as related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In addition to changing the name of the topic, the hucksters have now developed a very clever approach. That is to obtain the support of major science industries, who will petition Congress for climate change (global warming) regulation. We will then be back to CO2 emission control, taxing, installing unnecessary emissions capture equipment, and subsequent redistribution of wealth.
This is not really very difficult to do, since the science industry would gain a lot of business through production of chemical control products machinery and construction, whether the objective is justified or not. These are business decisions, and in industry businessmen make the company decisions. Scientists in industry only make recommendations, and they generally tend to support the business leaders, who also control the salaries.
However, the global warming hucksters still use a somewhat devious approach. They ask industry whether industrial philosophy of flexibility, rather than rigidity, will help guarantee that a company will remain in business. You know the obvious answer to that one. It's "yes". The second question is, since climate change is an established fact (one day it's cloudy, the next day it is not), would it not be helpful to know more about climate change and how to control it. The obvious answer is again "yes".
The third question is would you support government research, to establish more information on climate change and allow it to help you in developing new products and protecting the longevity of your business. The obvious answer is again "yes". In this case the affirmative is based on a simple decision that it will cost the companies nothing. All they have to do is holler at Congress, which they been doing anyhow. Congress will listen, because industry is a good source of their campaign funds.
If this thing comes to pass, it will be an unnecessary waste of assets not only in continuing ridiculous grants from government agencies, such as NSF, to academic institutions for "research" to support the fallacy. More importantly, the tremendous waste in building unnecessary CO2 control operations will accelerate the bleeding of the already jeopardized taxpayer.
The only defense against this onslaught is an informed public which actually has the voting right to congressional seats and to convince Congress that this right will be used, in spite of any massive propaganda advertising by an Industrial/Socialist Complex.
Reference: C&E News June 27, 2011, page 13, Climate Change by Marc Reisch
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Red Herring on Climate Change
In the May 7 issue of C&E News, Mitch Jacoby reports on a new polymer to capture CO2. CO2 has various uses, among which are carbonation of soft drinks, fracturing to increase oil production, and a raw material in chemical manufacturer.
The basis of the article relates to reducing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which has been said to negatively affect climate change. The article does not say that laboratory studies have shown carbon dioxide is only slightly more efficient than nitrogen and oxygen as a greenhouse gas, but because of its low concentration in the atmosphere, it has basically no additional greenhouse effect.
The composition of the polymer is insignificant. It will have the usual medium cost per pound of chemical. Stability of the polymer for continued reuse has not been determined.
It is said that the polymer selectively removes carbon dioxide and nitrogen from a mixed gas, with about 30 times more selectivity for carbon dioxide than for nitrogen. The component concentrations of the mixed gas were not mentioned. Since the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only about 200 ppm, will the selectivity still be 30 to 1?
There is some discussion on using the polymer in membrane form, but a membrane application is only of value if there is restricted pass-through of one gas versus another, with the secondary factor that there is actually no gas absorption by the membrane. This is not the case with the new polymer. In fact, it is stated that the high temperature necessary to de-adsorb CO2 from the polymer reduces the effectiveness of the coal-fired operating plant by about 30%.
The present technology of CO2 capture from a mixed gas, such as electricity power plant emission, is use of an aqueous amine solution, with heating to release the adsorbed CO2. Use of the new polymer will only be practical, if the combination of polymer and hardware costs, with recycle ability and release mechanisms giving a total cost per pound of CO2 less than presently available in the standard amine process.
The basis of the article relates to reducing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which has been said to negatively affect climate change. The article does not say that laboratory studies have shown carbon dioxide is only slightly more efficient than nitrogen and oxygen as a greenhouse gas, but because of its low concentration in the atmosphere, it has basically no additional greenhouse effect.
The composition of the polymer is insignificant. It will have the usual medium cost per pound of chemical. Stability of the polymer for continued reuse has not been determined.
It is said that the polymer selectively removes carbon dioxide and nitrogen from a mixed gas, with about 30 times more selectivity for carbon dioxide than for nitrogen. The component concentrations of the mixed gas were not mentioned. Since the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only about 200 ppm, will the selectivity still be 30 to 1?
There is some discussion on using the polymer in membrane form, but a membrane application is only of value if there is restricted pass-through of one gas versus another, with the secondary factor that there is actually no gas absorption by the membrane. This is not the case with the new polymer. In fact, it is stated that the high temperature necessary to de-adsorb CO2 from the polymer reduces the effectiveness of the coal-fired operating plant by about 30%.
The present technology of CO2 capture from a mixed gas, such as electricity power plant emission, is use of an aqueous amine solution, with heating to release the adsorbed CO2. Use of the new polymer will only be practical, if the combination of polymer and hardware costs, with recycle ability and release mechanisms giving a total cost per pound of CO2 less than presently available in the standard amine process.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Futile Capture of CO2 Persists
The May 2 issue of C&E News has an article on CO2 capture.
The article says that carbon dioxide is related to climate change and that the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as one of the most pressing environmental concerns of our age. This is obviously an opinion based upon no facts that I have ever seen, and very different from what I personally believe.
Stuart Haseltine, a geoscientist at the University of Edinburgh, says that capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants has the potential to decrease global emissions of CO2 by some 20%. So what? Why do I want to decrease global emissions of CO2 by 20%? It doesn't do any harm. No one has ever proven scientifically that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any significance to climate change. This is merely a game to justify grant money for additional research. It is also intended to justify additional revenue to the federal income by taxing CO2 emissions. Justin Song, a specialist in catalyst and energy related materials at Penn State, says that coal-fired power plants emit 1500 megatons of CO2 per year. Is that supposed to impress me? How much CO2 is emitted by all human beings and animals in a year? How many molecules of water in all the oceans?
CO2 is not a poison. In high concentrations, it can deprive a person of obtaining enough oxygen through breathing. This is also true of nitrogen and argon, which are present in the atmosphere. However, we are not talking about that kind of maximum concentration. We are talking about parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Eliminating that side issue, the drum beaters are really concentrating on the theory that minor concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere affect climate. It is likely true, because the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is nitrogen and oxygen, and argon, and water vapor. In fact, we need all of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to normalize Earth temperatures. Without the ability of these gases to insulate against loss of heat, nighttime temperatures on Earth could fall to almost absolute zero in the neighborhood of -200°C.
The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere protect us from those radical temperature changes. The very small concentration of CO2 has a minimal effect on the whole.
I'm not opposed to capture of carbon dioxide, if it is worth capturing. Oil and gas drillers are said to be using a new technique of increasing production of oil and gas by a fracturing process, which uses carbon dioxide. The cheaper the CO2 source, the better. In all likelihood, capture would be from a high concentration source or some mixture that needs purification. Natural gas normally contains some carbon dioxide, which should be removed in order to make the remaining methane and ethane more effective as fuel sources. If we can take that carbon dioxide out of the natural gas and use it in fracturing to produce more natural gas, so much the better. However, the key point is not to confuse ourselves into thinking that the major consideration is to remove carbon dioxide from the environment. It is not necessary to do that. Various living plants have been naturally engineered to do that job. In the process, those plants also produce oxygen, which we need as humans for our own metabolism.
Let's get off the kick that carbon dioxide is detrimental to climate change or anything else of practical significance. Nature has already handled that matter. If we want to do something practical, let's get on with building flood control devices. There will be a constant amount of rain falling on the Earth each year. Unfortunately, it is not evenly distributed, nor is the distribution always the same.. We need to protect ourselves against the detriment of floods. We cannot control the amount of rain or its distribution. We can build flood control devices.
The article says that carbon dioxide is related to climate change and that the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as one of the most pressing environmental concerns of our age. This is obviously an opinion based upon no facts that I have ever seen, and very different from what I personally believe.
Stuart Haseltine, a geoscientist at the University of Edinburgh, says that capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants has the potential to decrease global emissions of CO2 by some 20%. So what? Why do I want to decrease global emissions of CO2 by 20%? It doesn't do any harm. No one has ever proven scientifically that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any significance to climate change. This is merely a game to justify grant money for additional research. It is also intended to justify additional revenue to the federal income by taxing CO2 emissions. Justin Song, a specialist in catalyst and energy related materials at Penn State, says that coal-fired power plants emit 1500 megatons of CO2 per year. Is that supposed to impress me? How much CO2 is emitted by all human beings and animals in a year? How many molecules of water in all the oceans?
CO2 is not a poison. In high concentrations, it can deprive a person of obtaining enough oxygen through breathing. This is also true of nitrogen and argon, which are present in the atmosphere. However, we are not talking about that kind of maximum concentration. We are talking about parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Eliminating that side issue, the drum beaters are really concentrating on the theory that minor concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere affect climate. It is likely true, because the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is nitrogen and oxygen, and argon, and water vapor. In fact, we need all of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to normalize Earth temperatures. Without the ability of these gases to insulate against loss of heat, nighttime temperatures on Earth could fall to almost absolute zero in the neighborhood of -200°C.
The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere protect us from those radical temperature changes. The very small concentration of CO2 has a minimal effect on the whole.
I'm not opposed to capture of carbon dioxide, if it is worth capturing. Oil and gas drillers are said to be using a new technique of increasing production of oil and gas by a fracturing process, which uses carbon dioxide. The cheaper the CO2 source, the better. In all likelihood, capture would be from a high concentration source or some mixture that needs purification. Natural gas normally contains some carbon dioxide, which should be removed in order to make the remaining methane and ethane more effective as fuel sources. If we can take that carbon dioxide out of the natural gas and use it in fracturing to produce more natural gas, so much the better. However, the key point is not to confuse ourselves into thinking that the major consideration is to remove carbon dioxide from the environment. It is not necessary to do that. Various living plants have been naturally engineered to do that job. In the process, those plants also produce oxygen, which we need as humans for our own metabolism.
Let's get off the kick that carbon dioxide is detrimental to climate change or anything else of practical significance. Nature has already handled that matter. If we want to do something practical, let's get on with building flood control devices. There will be a constant amount of rain falling on the Earth each year. Unfortunately, it is not evenly distributed, nor is the distribution always the same.. We need to protect ourselves against the detriment of floods. We cannot control the amount of rain or its distribution. We can build flood control devices.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Environmental Organization and White House Cooperate to Destroy American Wealth Through CO2 Taxation
In the April 11 issue of C&E News, there's an article entitled "Congress Splits on EPA CO2 bill". In this latest C&E News article, Fred Kraut, President of Environmental Defense Fund characterized the legislative efforts as an unprecedented assault on public health protections under the Clean Air Act.
What he was actually saying is that efforts of Republicans in the House and some in the Senate to limit the power of the EPA with respect to enforcing any regulation that CO2 has a pollutant should be controlled. The subterfuge in this statement is that the environmental group believes coal burning power plants should be shut down to the disadvantage of the general public with respect to availability of power and high prices of the remaining power.
This is consistent with my present understanding that environmental organizations are generally subversive in their efforts to reduce the economic and social power of the United States.
The White House supported the Democrats in the Senate for their position of not passing any regulation to reduce the power of the EPA. This is also consistent with Pres. Obama's policy of redistributing US wealth on a worldwide basis through taxation of CO2 emissions.
What he was actually saying is that efforts of Republicans in the House and some in the Senate to limit the power of the EPA with respect to enforcing any regulation that CO2 has a pollutant should be controlled. The subterfuge in this statement is that the environmental group believes coal burning power plants should be shut down to the disadvantage of the general public with respect to availability of power and high prices of the remaining power.
This is consistent with my present understanding that environmental organizations are generally subversive in their efforts to reduce the economic and social power of the United States.
The White House supported the Democrats in the Senate for their position of not passing any regulation to reduce the power of the EPA. This is also consistent with Pres. Obama's policy of redistributing US wealth on a worldwide basis through taxation of CO2 emissions.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
New Book on Global Warming
The March 28, 2011 issue of C&E News has a book review by Jovana J. Grbic. The book is entitled, "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg.
This is my commentary on both the review and the book. Since it is a review of the review, it is third hand and may be susceptible to some errors from lack of facts and interpretation of the original work.
Basically, Mr. Lomborg says that there is great exaggeration in attitudes concerning the effects of the global warming discussion. Some persons strongly deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Others strongly believe in its existence and predict dire consequences. Mr. Lomborg takes the position that anthropogenic global warming does exist but is neither inconsequential nor dire.. He does not specify how much anthropogenic global warming exists. He estimates that if the $$20 trillion, which is proposed to fight anthropogenic global warming, is actually spent, the global warming reduction would be only 0.1°F. I don't know where or how Mr. Lomborg gets his figures. Perhaps they are in his book.
I generally agree with Mr. Lomborg that there is anthropogenic global warming. Even though he acknowledges global warming at a level lower than those who have radical claims and predict dire consequences, he appears to believe that it is somewhat higher than I do. I claim it is insignificant.
I base my conclusion on laboratory results which show that the passage of infrared radiation through carbon dioxide is only slightly more impeded than passage through either nitrogen or oxygen. I further point out that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if doubled from its present value, would be so low as to impede heat radiation from the Earth to only a negligible extent. This procedure seems to have been ignored, even though it is standard practice in determining R values of building insulation materials.
This is my commentary on both the review and the book. Since it is a review of the review, it is third hand and may be susceptible to some errors from lack of facts and interpretation of the original work.
Basically, Mr. Lomborg says that there is great exaggeration in attitudes concerning the effects of the global warming discussion. Some persons strongly deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Others strongly believe in its existence and predict dire consequences. Mr. Lomborg takes the position that anthropogenic global warming does exist but is neither inconsequential nor dire.. He does not specify how much anthropogenic global warming exists. He estimates that if the $$20 trillion, which is proposed to fight anthropogenic global warming, is actually spent, the global warming reduction would be only 0.1°F. I don't know where or how Mr. Lomborg gets his figures. Perhaps they are in his book.
I generally agree with Mr. Lomborg that there is anthropogenic global warming. Even though he acknowledges global warming at a level lower than those who have radical claims and predict dire consequences, he appears to believe that it is somewhat higher than I do. I claim it is insignificant.
I base my conclusion on laboratory results which show that the passage of infrared radiation through carbon dioxide is only slightly more impeded than passage through either nitrogen or oxygen. I further point out that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if doubled from its present value, would be so low as to impede heat radiation from the Earth to only a negligible extent. This procedure seems to have been ignored, even though it is standard practice in determining R values of building insulation materials.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Another Questionable Condemnation of Carbon Dioxide
The January 10 Issue of C&E News had an article entitled, "Monitoring a Troubling Trend". The article is on ocean acidification and assumes acidification has been occurring and is still in progress.
The Federal Ocean Acidification Research & Monitoring (FOARAM) Act was signed into law in March 2009. The law created a program to monitor and research ocean acidification and inspire him greater investigation by federal agencies of the phenomenon's effect on ecosystems and strategies to conserve Marine life.
I was not even aware that this law was being considered, but now that we have the law I am seriously concerned about its justification. It appears to me that this is another boondoggle operation on which to spend large sums of money. The National Science Foundation, which is a major supporter of such work, announced last fall $24 million in special grants for ocean acidification research. The National Research Council report says that the key element is a broad and integrated monitoring program which would measure ocean temperature, salinity, oxygen, certain critical nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon, pC02, total alkalinity and pH.
With that background, I am wondering how this program ever got started. Not knowing its exact origin, I can only speculate. As a scientist and a human being, I am endowed with a certain sense of curiosity. There is always something to pique one's curiosity. The C&E News article says that the present pH of the ocean is 8.1 and that it has risen from 8.2. This leads to a couple of obvious questions. How was it determined that the pH is now 8.1? Did someone have a new pH meter and ran around taking the pHs of anything he saw? When and where were these measurements of 8.1 and 8.2 made? Did someone run down to the beach and grab a sea water sample or is this a collection of pH data from samples taken at various locations in the world, including the Mississippi Delta, the Indian Ocean, the Coast of Labrador etc.,? We can also what the sensitivity of the pH determination is. Is it 1/100 of a pH unit? If so, why do we only report it to 1/10?
All this adds up to my suspicion that no one was ever significantly concerned about the pH of the ocean, until someone decided to relate it to carbon dioxide, which was part of the ideology of the present Obama Administration. In other words, the Administration may have questioned whether carbon carbon dioxide could be condemned for some atrocities other than just global warming. How about ocean acidification? Power plants burning coal have previously been shown to contribute significant quantities of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, which is later later oxidized to sulfur trioxide and forms sulfuric acid when mixed with rain. Acidification of lakes and ponds and possibly rivers has been noticed from this affect. Surface waters routinely drain into the ocean. Would this be enough to affect pH of ocean waters? Since that thought does not do anything to condemn carbon dioxide, perhaps the Administration has ignored it.
We can also consider motivations for actual investigative work in this area. Again, it is a matter of federal funds being used for research and particularly in private grants, wherein one is obligated to come up with an answer which fits the ideology of the search background.
I'm also critical of C&E News with the title "Monitoring A Troubling Trend". Is the "Troubling Trend" a matter of the pH apparently dropping from 8.2 to 8.1? It does trouble me that C&E News could leap to this conclusion, especially without considering the obvious questions concerning pH determination accuracy and water samples from various locations.
My bottom line is a suggestion that Congress take another look at that law, in these times of budget tightening, and consider whether it should be eliminated.
The Federal Ocean Acidification Research & Monitoring (FOARAM) Act was signed into law in March 2009. The law created a program to monitor and research ocean acidification and inspire him greater investigation by federal agencies of the phenomenon's effect on ecosystems and strategies to conserve Marine life.
I was not even aware that this law was being considered, but now that we have the law I am seriously concerned about its justification. It appears to me that this is another boondoggle operation on which to spend large sums of money. The National Science Foundation, which is a major supporter of such work, announced last fall $24 million in special grants for ocean acidification research. The National Research Council report says that the key element is a broad and integrated monitoring program which would measure ocean temperature, salinity, oxygen, certain critical nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon, pC02, total alkalinity and pH.
With that background, I am wondering how this program ever got started. Not knowing its exact origin, I can only speculate. As a scientist and a human being, I am endowed with a certain sense of curiosity. There is always something to pique one's curiosity. The C&E News article says that the present pH of the ocean is 8.1 and that it has risen from 8.2. This leads to a couple of obvious questions. How was it determined that the pH is now 8.1? Did someone have a new pH meter and ran around taking the pHs of anything he saw? When and where were these measurements of 8.1 and 8.2 made? Did someone run down to the beach and grab a sea water sample or is this a collection of pH data from samples taken at various locations in the world, including the Mississippi Delta, the Indian Ocean, the Coast of Labrador etc.,? We can also what the sensitivity of the pH determination is. Is it 1/100 of a pH unit? If so, why do we only report it to 1/10?
All this adds up to my suspicion that no one was ever significantly concerned about the pH of the ocean, until someone decided to relate it to carbon dioxide, which was part of the ideology of the present Obama Administration. In other words, the Administration may have questioned whether carbon carbon dioxide could be condemned for some atrocities other than just global warming. How about ocean acidification? Power plants burning coal have previously been shown to contribute significant quantities of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, which is later later oxidized to sulfur trioxide and forms sulfuric acid when mixed with rain. Acidification of lakes and ponds and possibly rivers has been noticed from this affect. Surface waters routinely drain into the ocean. Would this be enough to affect pH of ocean waters? Since that thought does not do anything to condemn carbon dioxide, perhaps the Administration has ignored it.
We can also consider motivations for actual investigative work in this area. Again, it is a matter of federal funds being used for research and particularly in private grants, wherein one is obligated to come up with an answer which fits the ideology of the search background.
I'm also critical of C&E News with the title "Monitoring A Troubling Trend". Is the "Troubling Trend" a matter of the pH apparently dropping from 8.2 to 8.1? It does trouble me that C&E News could leap to this conclusion, especially without considering the obvious questions concerning pH determination accuracy and water samples from various locations.
My bottom line is a suggestion that Congress take another look at that law, in these times of budget tightening, and consider whether it should be eliminated.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Merchants of Doubt
The January 17 Issue of C&EN has a book review by Gavin Schmidt. His review is entitled, "Sowing Seeds of Doubt". The book he reviewed is entitled, "Merchants of Doubt".
In his review, Gavin Schmidt says, "Scientists such as ourselves are not immune to self-delusion, and even the brightest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking for rigorous logic when the science points to conclusions that uncomfortably conflict with our world view". This caught my attention and possible relevancy to the topic of "Climate Change", which previously was called "Global Warming". I read Gavin's whole article, but I did not read the original "Merchants Of Doubt".
I came away somewhat confused. Who are the merchants of doubt? Gavin refers to an example in the original work whereby a handful of scientists obscured the truth on health issues of tobacco smoke. Are these supposed to be the "Merchants of Doubt"? By my logic, they are not. They were supporting a myth that there were no health issues related to tobacco smoking.
Contrarily, I am a "Merchant of Doubt". Although I never gave it much thought during the period I was smoking, I never was a merchant of doubt on the health issue. Anyone else who opposed smoking as a possible health problem, was in my judgment a merchant of doubt at that time. In other words, anyone who goes against a generally accepted viewpoint is more logically consider a merchant of doubt.
I also read recently in the Retort a very-well written article by Amanda Strickland on the life of Lavoisier. Lavoisier was an old-time French nobleman, who engaged in scientific work among other things. During his era, there was a generally accepted theory that when things burned, they gave off a material called phlogiston. Apparently, Lavoisier did not initially contradict the phlogiston theory, but in his work he found that when he burned phosphorus, the weight actually increased. How could that be? The phlogiston theory said that after burning, the weight should be decreased. While it took many years, the phlogiston idea was finally debunked as a product of imagination.
We now return to climate change. Several scientists developed some time ago the theory that carbon dioxide emissions, from burning fossil fuels such as coal, was causing global warming. While this situation was somewhat similar to the phlogiston theory, it is much more complex. During the phlogiston era, the idea just sat there. There was no financial support from government or private individuals to perpetuate it. Contrarily, the CO2/climate change gained power because of its economic importance. The federal government saw an immediate opportunity to gain new revenue by taxing the CO2 bad guy. To build on this and ultimately convince the American public of the need for CO2 control and the related aspect of tax revenue, various departments of the federal government issued grants to scientists to perform additional supporting "scientific" work.
As Gavin Schmidt has said, "even the highest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking". In this case, the motivation to support global warming was to gain federal money for laboratory development, salaries, etc.. The way that persons fall prey to wishful thinking is through motivations, such as money. This is not to say that all scientists have been deceptive when they work in this area. It only means that they have been duped into scientific prostitution by federal funds.
With all of the subsequent "scientific" work performed by these climatologists, I have not seen one shred of evidence to support the notion that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant, which is radically changing our environment. I continue to be open to receiving such data, which would legitimize the claim but have received nothing to date. Scanning various reports from climatologists have made one thing clear. None ever face the direct problem, but skirt the edges with a load of gobbledygook, presumably intended to confuse news reporters, congressional officials, and the public at large.
Returning more directly to "Sowing Seeds of Doubt" and "Merchant of Doubt", we need such merchants in our society. Without them, we will all fall off the cliff like lemmings into the sea. There is already talk of ecological engineering, of how we can change climate through variously induced procedures involving distributing certain chemicals in the atmosphere. These are ridiculous notions which would cost untold billions of dollars in waste, on top of what is already being wasted on ridiculous "scientific research" supported by taxpayer dollars.
At one time, the general consensus of the public was that the earth was flat. This view was held for a long time, but eventually was displaced by scientific evidence of an independent nature. How would it have been if the US government had decided to spend billions of dollars maintaining the myth and then subsequently adding other billions of dollars in futile efforts to make the earth round? There were merchants of doubt at that time, among which was Galileo. We still need merchants of doubt.
In his review, Gavin Schmidt says, "Scientists such as ourselves are not immune to self-delusion, and even the brightest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking for rigorous logic when the science points to conclusions that uncomfortably conflict with our world view". This caught my attention and possible relevancy to the topic of "Climate Change", which previously was called "Global Warming". I read Gavin's whole article, but I did not read the original "Merchants Of Doubt".
I came away somewhat confused. Who are the merchants of doubt? Gavin refers to an example in the original work whereby a handful of scientists obscured the truth on health issues of tobacco smoke. Are these supposed to be the "Merchants of Doubt"? By my logic, they are not. They were supporting a myth that there were no health issues related to tobacco smoking.
Contrarily, I am a "Merchant of Doubt". Although I never gave it much thought during the period I was smoking, I never was a merchant of doubt on the health issue. Anyone else who opposed smoking as a possible health problem, was in my judgment a merchant of doubt at that time. In other words, anyone who goes against a generally accepted viewpoint is more logically consider a merchant of doubt.
I also read recently in the Retort a very-well written article by Amanda Strickland on the life of Lavoisier. Lavoisier was an old-time French nobleman, who engaged in scientific work among other things. During his era, there was a generally accepted theory that when things burned, they gave off a material called phlogiston. Apparently, Lavoisier did not initially contradict the phlogiston theory, but in his work he found that when he burned phosphorus, the weight actually increased. How could that be? The phlogiston theory said that after burning, the weight should be decreased. While it took many years, the phlogiston idea was finally debunked as a product of imagination.
We now return to climate change. Several scientists developed some time ago the theory that carbon dioxide emissions, from burning fossil fuels such as coal, was causing global warming. While this situation was somewhat similar to the phlogiston theory, it is much more complex. During the phlogiston era, the idea just sat there. There was no financial support from government or private individuals to perpetuate it. Contrarily, the CO2/climate change gained power because of its economic importance. The federal government saw an immediate opportunity to gain new revenue by taxing the CO2 bad guy. To build on this and ultimately convince the American public of the need for CO2 control and the related aspect of tax revenue, various departments of the federal government issued grants to scientists to perform additional supporting "scientific" work.
As Gavin Schmidt has said, "even the highest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking". In this case, the motivation to support global warming was to gain federal money for laboratory development, salaries, etc.. The way that persons fall prey to wishful thinking is through motivations, such as money. This is not to say that all scientists have been deceptive when they work in this area. It only means that they have been duped into scientific prostitution by federal funds.
With all of the subsequent "scientific" work performed by these climatologists, I have not seen one shred of evidence to support the notion that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant, which is radically changing our environment. I continue to be open to receiving such data, which would legitimize the claim but have received nothing to date. Scanning various reports from climatologists have made one thing clear. None ever face the direct problem, but skirt the edges with a load of gobbledygook, presumably intended to confuse news reporters, congressional officials, and the public at large.
Returning more directly to "Sowing Seeds of Doubt" and "Merchant of Doubt", we need such merchants in our society. Without them, we will all fall off the cliff like lemmings into the sea. There is already talk of ecological engineering, of how we can change climate through variously induced procedures involving distributing certain chemicals in the atmosphere. These are ridiculous notions which would cost untold billions of dollars in waste, on top of what is already being wasted on ridiculous "scientific research" supported by taxpayer dollars.
At one time, the general consensus of the public was that the earth was flat. This view was held for a long time, but eventually was displaced by scientific evidence of an independent nature. How would it have been if the US government had decided to spend billions of dollars maintaining the myth and then subsequently adding other billions of dollars in futile efforts to make the earth round? There were merchants of doubt at that time, among which was Galileo. We still need merchants of doubt.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Global Warming is Here!
The Washington Post
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
(keep reading)
Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
(keep reading)
Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Valuable Carbon Dioxide
EIN News says, "Carbon Dioxide, the Bane of Environmentalists, Is in Demand in the Oil Industry. The Obama administration views carbon dioxide as a pollutant that warms the earth, and it imposed new regulations at the beginning of the year to begin to control CO2 emissions. But to Texas oilmen, carbon dioxide is a useful - and scarce - commodity that is vital to extracting hard-to-reach oil reserves. (nytimes.com)".
Water is more of a pollutant than carbon dioxide. We can see the damage that water does through flooding and drowning deaths. However, it can be useful.
No one has yet shown that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. There is no obvious damage to the environment, such as with water, and about everything related to it and climate change is pure fantasy.
I am pleased that oilmen have found a good use for large quantities of carbon dioxide in oil production. It takes some effort and cost to extract it as a component from natural gas, and there may be some reasonable justification for capture from coal-burning power plants. Both of these might satisfy the fantasies of fear-mongering carbon dioxide climate-change enthusiasts.
Water is more of a pollutant than carbon dioxide. We can see the damage that water does through flooding and drowning deaths. However, it can be useful.
No one has yet shown that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. There is no obvious damage to the environment, such as with water, and about everything related to it and climate change is pure fantasy.
I am pleased that oilmen have found a good use for large quantities of carbon dioxide in oil production. It takes some effort and cost to extract it as a component from natural gas, and there may be some reasonable justification for capture from coal-burning power plants. Both of these might satisfy the fantasies of fear-mongering carbon dioxide climate-change enthusiasts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
