fossil fuels

Electric Vehicles Need Fossil Fuels

It seems that all Democrat candidates for president want to get rid of fossil-fuel-powered automobiles and have us all drive electric vehicles. But guess where the electricity to charge those vehicles comes from – mostly from burning natural gas or coal.

The other main problem with pure electric vehicles is their limited range. That problem has been solved, sort of.

In Australia and New Zealand, they are deploying small, diesel-powered generators. See photo below.

Another solution is to tow a generator behind your EV. Unknown to me, this option has been available for some time and for several car models. See Cars with Cords for photos of several models. Of course, this option turns your pure EV into a hybrid.

See also: Low-Emission Range Extender for Electric Vehicles, a 10-page analysis of the pros and cons of towing a generator. The article begins:

“Typical auto trips are within the driving range of efficient electric vehicles (EVs), but typical vehicle use also includes occasional trips that exceed EV range. EV users may face the necessity of maintaining a second car, or renting a car, for such trips. An alternative is the use of a range extending trailer (RXT), a trailer-mounted generator that, when towed behind an EV, effectively converts the EV to series-hybrid mode for long trips.”

Back in 1896, Thomas Edison told Henry Ford to forget about electric vehicles and stick to his gasoline engines. (source) Is this advice still relevant?

My article from 2010 gives a history of electric vehicles:

The Chevy Volt, Just the Latest Expensive Toy

 

 

 

 

Real-world Evidence that CO2 Emissions and Fossil Energy Enhance the Human Environment

This post is part of a presentation from the Heartland Institute’s 13th International Conference on Climate Change by Dr. Craig D. Idso. (Read paper and see slides here).

Excerpts:

In today’s world it’s almost impossible to avoid the seemingly daily deluge of pessimism surrounding climate change. The intended message and unifying thread of these so-called journalistic reports is that dangerous climate change, caused by rising levels of atmospheric CO2, is presently occurring to the detriment and peril of humanity and the natural world. And because the combustion of fossil fuels is the principal source behind the CO2 rise, society must abandon all use of fossil fuels. In a nutshell, this is the position and objective of climate activists, who seek to enforce government and private sector efforts to restrict fossil fuel use via tax, caps or fiat limits on CO2 emissions.

Reality, however, paints a much different picture. The real story is that there is no upcoming climate catastrophe and CO2 emissions and fossil energy should be celebrated for enhancing life and improving the standard of living for humanity and the natural world, and they will continue to do so as more fossil fuels are used in the future. Consequently, efforts to restrict CO2 emissions or limit fossil energy should be avoided, as such actions will most certainly bring about adverse outcomes and unintended consequences that will harm humanity and nature.

How CO2 emissions and fossil energy improve human prosperity:

1) Countries with lower per capita CO2 emissions have lower values of per capita GDP, whereas countries with higher per capita CO2 emissions have higher per capita GDP. So what does this mean? As countries have embraced and increased their production of fossil energy, their citizens have been amply rewarded with increased economic development and growth.

2) Higher CO2 emissions are associated with lower levels of extreme poverty. Nations enjoying the lowest percentages of their citizens living in extreme poverty are those that use the highest amounts of fossil energy. Consequently, it can confidently be concluded that abundant access to energy is an essential component to improving a nation’s living standards and alleviating its poverty.

3) A third metric documenting the positive relationship between fossil fuel use and human prosperity is found in trends of global literacy. For most of the first hundred years of the record, the vast majority of the population older than 15 was unable to read and write; in 1820 only one out of every ten persons older than 15 years was literate. By 1930 the literate portion of this population jumped to one-third. Fast forward to the present and 4.6 billion out of the 5.4 billion persons on earth today over the age of 15 can read and write. Contrast that to two centuries ago when there were less than 100 million who shared these skills. Thankfully, as nations have utilized fossil energy to industrialize, their populations have spent less time performing labors required of sustenance living and more time in the classroom becoming literate and gaining an education.

4) Plots the two hundred year trend of human life expectancy and fossil fuel consumption, revealing a high degree of correlation among the two records. Two hundred years ago, the average life expectancy of a child born was a mere 29 years. Health care was relatively non-existent and 43% of the world’s newborns died before reaching their 5th birthday. Thereafter, things began to change, though slowly at first. Society began to use fossil fuels on a much larger scale and industrialize. Rising energy production brought economic prosperity and literacy, which helped reduce poverty. Housing and sanitation improved. People ate more and they ate healthier, nutritious foods. A more educated population coupled with fast-developing societies provided fertile ground for key scientific breakthroughs in modern medicine that both saved and prolonged lives.

Fossil energy has also improved the natural world:

1) Among the most commonly recognized of these CO2-induced benefits to the natural world is an increase in plant productivity and growth. This occurs because carbon dioxide is the primary raw material or “food” utilized by the vast majority of plants to produce the organic matter out of which they construct their tissues, which matter subsequently becomes the ultimate source of food for nearly all animals and humans. And, as has been demonstrated in literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments conducted on hundreds of different plant species, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow. And the better plants grow, the more food there is available to sustain the entire biosphere.

2) A second major biological benefit stemming from the modern rise of atmospheric CO2 is increased plant water use efficiency.

3) A third major benefit of the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 is an amelioration of environmental stresses and resource limitations. Here, atmospheric CO2 has been shown to help reduce the detrimental effects caused by stresses of high soil salinity, high air temperature, low light intensity and low levels of soil fertility. Elevated levels of CO2 have additionally been demonstrated to reduce the severity of low temperature stress, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory (animals eating plants). ☼

Note: Dr. Craig Idso is the chief scientist of the blog: http://www.co2science.org/ an organization which reviews and reports on scientific literature. The folks at CO2Science have just established a non-profit educational organization advocating for the continued development and improvement of society and the natural environment: The Institute for the Human Environment ☼

 

Illustrating the failure of the climate movement – in one graph

This post is reblogged from

People like Bill McKibben of 350.org make a big deal out of the “successes” of carbon divestment, where the 350.org organization bullies convinces some hapless organization to divest from coal and petroleum stocks in investment portfolios. Besides the fact that this has no real impact, since when one person or group “divests”, another one buys the shares up, this graph shows why 350.org, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, NRDC, and the whole lot of climate campaigners are just practicing an exercise in futility.

Dr. Roger Pielke writes on Twitter:

I’m preparing some slides for an upcoming talk (on climate policy, yowza!). The attached is an effort to show in a readily understandable way the mind-bending scale of the energy challenge associated with deep decarbonization. What do you think?

This graph of global fossil fuel consumption tells the true story: green efforts to reduce fossil fuel use have not succeed with any impact at all. With a 57% increase in fossil fuel use since 1992, their efforts have been completely without effect.

Be sure to save this post URL and share it widely to those that think they have “made a difference”.

See also:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

Earth Hour: A Dissent

Reblogged from WUWT

Earth Hour: A Dissent

by Ross McKitrick

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, Univer...

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

In 2009 I was asked by a journalist for my thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour.

Here is my response.

I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.

Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading.

Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water.

Many of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases.

Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that’s how the west developed.

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity.

Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity.

People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.

I don’t want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in “nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

Here in Ontario, through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s, despite the expansion of industry and the power supply.

If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations.

No thanks.

I like visiting nature but I don’t want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilization with all its tradeoffs is something to be ashamed of.

Ross McKitrick
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph

In Defense of Fossil Fuels

This article is a repost of an editorial from CO2Science.org.  See the original post here.

A recent public letter, “To the Museums of Science and Natural History,” demands that museums in the United States accept no charitable donations from companies involved with fossil fuels. The idea that the world can or should abandon fossil fuels is deeply wrong-headed, not just from a scientific perspective, but also from a humanitarian perspective.

For thousands of years only a small fraction of mankind lived well while the rest faced poverty, filth, hunger and disease. That has all changed over the past century and a half, thanks to the use of fossil fuels. The benefits of low-cost and abundant energy from fossil fuels have permitted a standard of living for most of society that exceeds the wildest dreams of past elites. Today China, India and other developing countries are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of deprivation by the greater use of fossil fuels. Despite these clear benefits, a movement has emerged that demonizes fossil fuels and anyone who questions the dogma that a near-term climate catastrophe is upon us. The letter is a good example of the movement’s tactics.

Nearly everyone today is instinctively an environmentalist. Most recognize that fossil fuels must be extracted responsibly, minimizing environmental damage from mining and drilling operations, and with due consideration of costs and benefits. Similarly, fossil fuels must be used responsibly, deploying technologies that minimize emissions of real pollutants such as fly ash, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds. If fully cleansed of such real pollutants, the exhaust from fossil-fuel combustion contains very nearly the same components, and in comparable proportions to those of a baby’s breath: a little oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor (H20) and carbon dioxide (CO2). So far the movement has not declared water vapor to be a pollutant, but for several decades it has mounted a vigorous, extensive and expensive propaganda campaign to demonize CO2.

Atmospheric CO2 is beneficial and it is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the most important food for life on Earth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere our planet would be as dead as Mars. At current CO2 levels of about 400 parts per million, the Earth remains in a CO2 famine compared to levels of 1000 parts per million and higher that have prevailed since the Cambrian period, some 550 million years ago. The world has already shown noticeable “greening” because plants are growing better and more extensively due to the modest increases of atmospheric CO2 seen over the past century.

However, the movement has promoted a multitude of scary scenarios associated with CO2, none of which have come to pass. Why doesn’t the letter contain the earlier favored phrase, “global warming?” Most likely because precise satellite measurements have shown there has been no global warming of Earth’s atmosphere for nearly 20 years, in stark contrast to the alarming predictions of the movement and deeply flawed computer models, most of which do not predict catastrophe anyway.

Instead of arguments based on science and facts, the movement labels any who question their dogma as “deniers,” funded, according to the letter, by “climate-change-denying organizations spending over $67 million since 1997 to fund groups denying climate change science.” The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Orders of magnitude more funding has been given by governments and foundations to organizations and individuals charged with “scientifically” proving the alleged evils of CO2 and inventing ways to cope with it. In 2011 alone, ten large foundations donated $577 million to environmental causes, nearly ten times more than the total funding since 1997 to the so-called “deniers.” And that does not count tens of billions of dollars from the government and other foundations. Apparently the movement’s scientific case is so weak that they feel threatened by any research that does not support their doctrine.

We applaud support for informative studies of the climate, for example, ocean monitoring programs, satellite instruments, or meteorological networks with high-quality data archives. This work needs no defense from scientific challenges, regardless of the source of funding. The honest scientists responsible for much of this excellent work cannot be blamed for the excesses of the anti-fossil fuel movement. But the signers of the letter include some of the biggest feeders at the climate trough, who benefit from millions of dollars of funding every year for research empires, which, in many cases, stoke a propaganda mill instead of producing real science. In the interests of transparency and intellectual integrity, the signatories of the “To the Museums” letter should have each revealed their annual and cumulative climate funding.

The criterion for valid science has been succinctly stated by physics Nobel Laureate, Richard Feynman: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong.” Experiments-observations-do not support the movement’s alarming scenarios.

We, the undersigned, urge museum managements to reject the exceptionally bad and misguided advice in the letter. Abandoning fossil fuels, aside from the economic impossibility of that proposition, would not help the environment but would likely harm it, and would be profoundly anti-human and immoral. Without the benefits of low-cost and abundant energy from fossil fuels, much of the world’s poor today and in the future would be condemned to continued poverty, ignorance and exploitation.

SIGNATORIES
Click here to view a pdf file of the signatories of this letter.

American Energy Renaissance Act

Development of energy resources in the United States is subject to many impediments from the federal government. To help remedy this situation, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-OK-1 have introduced the American Energy Renaissance Act which they say will “create good-paying American jobs, spur economic growth and expand opportunity.”

Since I have seen nothing about this in the Arizona Daily Star, I will reproduce the major elements of the act from a press release from Senator Cruz for Tucson readers. The Act proposes the following:

Leave regulation of hydraulic fracturing in state hands. Hydraulic fracturing is driving the American Energy Renaissance. States have proven they can oversee hydraulic fracturing in a responsible, safe manner, and they should be allowed to continue. The American Energy Renaissance cannot thrive if the federal government disrupts this effective framework and impedes the jobs and economic growth hydraulic fracturing is already providing.

Streamline the permitting process for upgrading existing and building new refineries. The operating capacity of U.S. refineries has remained essentially stagnant for three decades. In order for the American Energy Renaissance to reach its full potential, barriers must be removed from expanding or constructing new refineries in the United States and the private sector jobs they will create.

Phase out and repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) over five years. The RFS has proven unworkable and costly. Its mandate that an increasing percentage of renewable biofuels be blended into gasoline and diesel each year ignores the reality there are insufficient amounts of some biofuels to meet the standard. It imposes significant costs, and offers few, if any, benefits. The RFS should be phased out so producers and refiners can focus on maximizing domestic resource potential.

Immediately approve and allow the private sector to build the Keystone pipeline. According to the U.S. State Department, constructing the Keystone XL pipeline could result in 42,000 jobs. Keystone has undergone five environmental reviews since its initial application in 2008, and none has found a significant negative impact on the environment. President Obama’s former Energy Secretary admitted that the decision as whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline is a political one, and not a decision founded in science.

Exclude greenhouse gases from regulation by the EPA and other federal agencies. Proposals to regulate greenhouse gases are very expensive and threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. The authority to regulate such gases should only occur with explicit authority from Congress.

Stop certain EPA regulations that will adversely impact coal and electric power plants. In 2008, President Obama promised to bankrupt coal. As of October 2014, there were already 381 coal units closed or closing in 36 states because of EPA policies. These 381 closures amount to a total of more than 60,100 megawatts of electricity generation no longer being available. Job losses as a result of coal units being affected by EPA regulations could amount to more than 50,000 direct jobs in the coal, utility, and rail industries, and an indirect job loss figure exceeding 250,000.

Require Congress to approve and the President to sign EPA regulations that will have a negative job impact, rather than allowing them to hide behind bureaucrats who are assumed to be responsible for them now. Certain planned and proposed EPA regulations could cost more than 2 million jobs. Increasing regulatory restrictions more broadly could cost nearly 2.8 million jobs over the next decade.

Expand energy development on federal lands by providing states the option of leasing, permitting and regulating energy resources (oil and gas, wind and solar) on federal lands within their borders. Onshore and offshore federal land lands have about 43 percent of America’s proven oil reserves and 25 percent of natural gas reserves, but not all of the land is available for energy development. Leasing and producing oil and natural gas on federal land could create more than 1 million jobs.

For those states opting not to self-regulate, federal leasing, permitting, and regulating must be reformed by:
Streamlining permitting and expanding development on federal lands by requiring decisions regarding drilling permit applications to be made within 30 days (which can be extended), requiring an explanation for any denial, and deeming applications to be approved if no decision has been made within 60 days, unless there are existing incomplete environmental reviews.
Improving certainty in the leasing and development process by instituting a presumption that certain land will be leased and by prohibiting the government from withdrawing a lease for any energy project, unless there is a violation of terms of the lease.

Expand energy development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and on Indian Lands. The mean estimate for conventional oil in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska is 895 million barrels of oil and 52.8 trillion cubic feet of gas. West of the Mississippi River, Indian reservations contain almost 30 percent of the nation’s coal reserves, 50 percent of potential uranium reserves, and 20 percent of known oil and gas reserves.

Open up the Coastal Plain of Alaska (ANWR) for development. ANWR consists of 19 million acres in northeast Alaska. Its 1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain is viewed as a promising onshore oil prospect with potentially 7 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.

Expand the offshore areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) available for development. Despite the potential for significant oil and gas development off the coasts of the United States, the Obama Administration has severely limited access to such resources by essentially prohibiting energy exploration and development off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

Streamline the permitting process for additional offshore exploration. Regulatory barriers to obtain leases and permits to explore and develop offshore areas of the Outer Continental Shelf should be removed by requiring lease sales within 180 days of enactment of the legislation and every 270 days thereafter, and requiring approval or disapproval of drilling permits no later than 20 days after an application is submitted.

Expand LNG exports by facilitating permits. As of March 3, 2015, the Dept. of Energy had approved only nine export permits to non-Free Trade Agreement countries. More than twenty applications are currently pending.

End the crude oil export ban. Last year, U.S. crude oil production increased 27 percent but many American refineries cannot handle the additional crude for technical and capacity reasons. The United States is missing out on export opportunities that could produce good paying private sector jobs in the United States.

Prevent excessively broad environmental review of coal export terminals. As the EPA makes it harder to use coal as a source of energy for electricity in the United States, there are opportunities to export coal to other nations. Removing excessive environmental reviews can help promote coal exports that will help keep coal jobs in the United States.

Direct all additional revenues generated by exploration and drilling on federal lands (excluding the share allocated to the states) exclusively to national debt reduction. The U.S. national debt was approximately $18.2 trillion in December 2014. As we free the development of U.S. natural resources to spur economic and job growth, we should prevent revenues from being used to further expand government programs and instead use it to free taxpayers from the debt burden that hampers the nation’s incredible potential.

That is the crux of the bill. Read the entire bill here.

Of course, these sensible provisions are very contrary to Obama policy and the orthodoxy of radical environmentalists. It will be interesting to see if this bill gets anywhere.

See also:

How President Obama has increased our energy costs

Obama Clueless on Energy – Part 2

Obama Clueless on Energy – Part 1

Obama says Drill Baby Drill

Obama administration still clueless on energy

Obama, the Keystone Cop-out

Obama’s Climate Action Plan is Clueless and Dangerous

Obama’s April Fools Joke

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment report and the UN IPCC both claim that human carbon dioxide emissions are “intensifying” the greenhouse effect and causing global warming. Let’s review claims relative to observed data.

We begin with a very simplified review of what the greenhouse effect is. Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface (this is called down-welling infrared radiation), and some of the radiation is radiated into space (this is called out-going long-wave radiation).

The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing due in part to emissions from burning fossil fuels. This increased amount of CO2 should “intensify” the greenhouse effect and cause global warming according to the National Climate Assessment and the IPCC. So, what phenomena should we observe from an “intensified” greenhouse effect?

With an “intensified” greenhouse effect, we should see a decrease in out-going long-wave infrared radiation into space. We should see warming of the atmosphere (the troposphere), a “hot spot” especially over the tropics. We should see more down-welling infrared radiation that further warms the surface. That’s the essence of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. But, real-world measurements show we are seeing none of those effects.

According to satellite data compiled by NOAA, out-going long-wave radiation into space has not been decreasing but, in fact, slightly increasing (source).

Outgoing radiation vs temp NOAA

Balloon-borne radiosondes and two separate satellite systems measure the temperature of the troposphere. None of these systems detect the model-predicted warming spot in the troposphere. [Source: Douglass, D.H. et al. 2007, A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, International Journal of Climatology DOI:10.1002/joc.1651].

Douglas temp model vs observations

Finally, an independent study, published in the Journal of Climate, based on 800,000 observations, find there has been a significant decrease in down-welling, long-wave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased about 7% over this period and according to AGW theory, down-welling long-wave infra-red radiation should have increased over this period with buildup of carbon dioxide.

There is one more failed AGW prediction: CO2 is supposed to start warming which evaporates water, a stronger greenhouse gas that will enhance warming.  That should increase global humidity, but measurements show that global humidity is not increasing.

Global-humidity

Empirical data show that the AGW hypothesis fails on four major predictions. This indicates that our carbon dioxide emissions have little to no effect on global temperature nor the intensity of the “greenhouse effect” possibly because the AGW hypothesis ignores convective heat transfer (weather) and other natural cycles that control the complex climate system.

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann

Feynmann’s admonition is demonstrated by comparing global atmospheric temperatures predicted by models (based on their false assumptions) with real world observations.

Temp models vs observation christy

UPDATE: A 2017 report that examined the EPA endangerment finding concludes that temperatures in 14 data sets can be explained by natural variations and that CO2 plays no significant part. Read the 73-page report here. Here is the abstract:

The objective of this research was to determine whether or not a straightforward application of the “proper mathematical methods” would support EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed. The temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the structural analysis results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models EPA claims can be relied upon for policy analysis purposes, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate—14 separate and distinct times in fact–that once just the Natural Factor impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all. Moreover, over the time period analyzed, these natural factors have involved historically quite normal solar, volcanic and ENSO activity. At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.

UPDATE 2: see The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

UPDATE 3:

C.A.Varotsos, and M.N.Efstathiou, 2019, Has global warming already arrived?, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 182, January 2019, Pages 31-38 (link)

Summary By Kenneth Richard

In a step-by-step dissection of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, or “greenhouse hypothesis of global warming”, two prominent Greek atmospheric physicists – Dr. Carlos Varotsos and Dr. Maria Efstathiou – expose the withering contradictions between (a) what is hypothesized to occur atmospherically according to AGW models and (b) what was actually observed from satellite measurements during 1978 to 2018.

According to AGW models, there was supposed to be “a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres” in response to the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases over the last 40 years.

According to temperature change observations in the satellite era (December, 1978, to present), this pattern did not occur.

According to AGW models, there was supposed to be an evident intrinsic relationship between lower stratospheric temperatures and tropospheric temperatures in accordance with the explosive increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during 1978-2018.

Satellite observations do not indicate that such a stratospheric-tropospheric relationship existed during this period.

The fundamental discrepancies between AGW models and real-world observations led these climate scientists to conclude that (a) “climate models are not able to simulate real climate”, and (b) the view that increases in greenhouse gases from human activities are what caused the global warming over the last 40 years cannot be reliably supported by observed evidence.

Only about 3% of CO2 in atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels

 

 

[See update below]

A new post on The Hockey Schtick reviews a new paper “that finds only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.”

The contention made by HockeySchtick seems to be supported by old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources.  The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

Global CO2 emissions EIA IPCC

If one wanted to make fun of the alleged consensus of “climate scientists”, one could say that 97% of carbon dioxide molecules agree that global warming results from natural causes.

[UPDATE: Since I first made this post, Hockey Schtick has taken down their post due to pressure from the referenced paper’s authors. However, the chart shown above is still valid and supports the claim that only 3% of atmospheric CO2 comes from human sources. HockeySchtick will repost once it gets some answers from the author. Meanwhile, my post was submitted to and published by Anthony Watts’ WUWT blog and has received many comments. I apparently made the same mistake as on the Hockey Schtick: I took what the original paper’s author wrote, to be was she meant. There appears to be some misunderstanding between atmospheric concentration of CO2 and flux of sources and sinks for CO2. The WUWT article is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/]

 

 

 

 

Obama Crony Capitalism and Green Tech Failures

As part of President Obama’s “war on coal” and fossil fuels in general, his administration has provided more than $100 billion to so called “green tech” or “clean tech” companies, most of which have gone bankrupt or somehow “disappeared” the money.

CBS 60 Minutes aired a show on January 5, 2014 exploring part of this issue (see video and transcript here).  “Hoping to create innovation and jobs, he [Obama] committed north of a $100 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks to Cleantech.  But instead of breakthroughs, the sector suffered a string of expensive tax-funded flops. Suddenly Cleantech was a dirty word.” Up to now, CBS 60 Minutes has been in the climate alarmist camp.  But with this report they are regarded by alarmist media as having “turned” and that media are attacking CBS (see here).

China is snapping up some of these failed companies.  CBS notes that the Chinese auto parts company Wanxiang has bought up 27 plants in 13 states with some 6,000 American workers.  Most of these failed companies made batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles. A company spokesman says that every third car made in the U.S. now has Wanxiang parts.”  Made in America takes on a new meaning under Obama.

On January 6, 2014, Fox News’ Kelly File program took up the story and added some things that CBS left out (see video here).  According to Fox News, of the approximately $100 billion that the Obama gave to green tech companies, 80 percent went to donors to Obama’s campaign and to other Democrats.  For every dollar those fund-raisers gave, they made back $25,000.  Such a deal.

Back in October, 2012, the Heritage Foundation provided a list of 34 companies that received government subsidies or loan guarantees, but had gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and heading for bankruptcy (see article here).  Heritage opines, “The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial.”

The money wasted on “green energy” could have been better spent on other things such as finding a cure for cancer.  Or the government could have saved us all money by not spending it at all.  The real question is “where did all that money go?” Is it parked in some off-shore bank accounts?

See also (links  update):

Your tax dollars at work and play

The hypocrisy of Obama’s energy boasts

Obama’s Climate Action Plan is Clueless and Dangerous

Geothermic Fuel Cells may make vast oil shale resources economically recoverable

The Colorado School of Mines has announced receipt of the world’s first geothermic fuel cell to test for extraction of oil from oil shale in an economic and environmentally responsible manner.  If the technology works, it could make available an estimated worldwide resource of 4.8 trillion barrels of oil, much of which, 2.6 trillion barrels, is in the United States.

Before proceeding, let’s clear up some terminology, the difference between oil shale and shale oil.

The term “shale oil” (and “shale gas”) refers to liquid crude oil and gas trapped in pores and fractures in rock. This resource can be directly pumped from wells. The recent revolution in “fracking” is all about shale oil.

As described by the Department of the Interior:

The term “oil shale” generally refers to any sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous materials (called kerogen) that are released as petroleum-like liquids when the rock is heated in the chemical process of pyrolysis. Oil shale was formed millions of years ago by deposition of silt and organic debris on lake beds and sea bottoms. Over long periods of time, heat and pressure transformed the materials into oil shale in a process similar to the process that forms oil; however, the heat and pressure were not as great. Oil shale generally contains enough oil that it will burn without any additional processing, and it is known as “the rock that burns”.

Oil shale can be mined and processed to generate oil similar to oil pumped from conventional oil wells; however, extracting oil from oil shale is more complex than conventional oil recovery and currently is more expensive. The oil substances in oil shale are solid and cannot be pumped directly out of the ground. The oil shale must first be mined and then heated to a high temperature (a process called retorting); the resultant liquid must then be separated and collected. An alternative but currently experimental process referred to as in situ retorting involves heating the oil shale while it is still underground, and then pumping the resulting liquid to the surface.

That’s were the geothermic fuel cell comes in.  The unit being tested at the Colorado School of Mines was built by  Delphi, headquartered in Rochester, NY, for IEP Technology, of Parker, Colorado.  The unit is described in detail by IEP here.

The idea is to place these fuel cells in wells where they will produce crude oil and natural gas to be collected by surrounding recovery wells.  A portion of the oil and gas produced is returned to power the fuel cell.

HOW-GFCS-Work1

“After an initial warm up period in which the cells are fueled with an external source of fuel, the GFC self-fuels from gases created by its own waste heat. This self-fueling system, in steady-state operation, produces oil, electricity and surplus natural gases. The result is a geothermic heater that is designed to produce a Net Energy Ratio (NER) of approximately 7.0 (i.e., 7 units of energy produced for every unit used). The net energy ratio of GFCs will increase to approximately 18.0 when primary recovery is combined with residual char gasification and resulting synthesis gas.”

The map below shows the location of the main oil shale resources of the United States.

American-oil-shale