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.

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.

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.