Week in Review
Droughts are a sign of global warming. Excessive rains are a sign of global warming. Little snow fall is a sign of global warming. Powerful blizzards are a sign of global warming. Let’s see, what else? Meteorites threatening the planet are a sign of global warming. Gun violence is a sign of global warming. Obesity is a sign of global warming. And pretty much anything else is a sign of global warming. Because climate ‘scientists’ and journalists say so (see Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards by Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, posted 2/18/2013 on The Detroit News).
Ten climate scientists say the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.
“Strong snowstorms thrive on the ragged edge of temperature — warm enough for the air to hold lots of moisture, meaning lots of precipitation, but just cold enough for it to fall as snow,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Increasingly, it seems that we’re on that ragged edge.”
The ragged edge of temperature? So what this climate ‘scientist’ is telling us is that if it’s too warm it won’t snow. It will just rain. They’ve been telling us for DECADES that rising temperatures will melt the Arctic icecap. Raising the ocean levels. Swamping our coastal areas. Causing our farmlands to turn into deserts. And moving our warmer climes further north. Keeping the snow further north. So if temperatures have been rising and pushing the collisions of these hot and cold air masses further north we should be getting less snow in the mid latitudes and more snow in the higher latitudes. Burying them in snow. Especially in Canada around the Great Lakes. Because it’s the same amount of snow but in a smaller area. Building huge snow masses to provide a long snowmelt to fill those Great Lakes all spring and summer. Raising their levels to record highs. It’s a sound theory. Only one problem. The Great Lakes are at record lows.
But wait a minute, you say. What about rain? The reason it didn’t snow as much in the higher latitudes is because all that moisture fell out of the sky as rain before it got to those higher latitudes. An excellent point. Only one problem. North America suffered one of the worst droughts on record. Devastating our corn crops. And raising the price of food across the board.
But wait a minute, you say. That doesn’t prove anything. Because of rising temperatures it’s just not precipitating as much. Less moisture in the air because of higher temperatures means less rain AND less snow. Another excellent point. Only one problem. It has been raining. A lot. The UK suffered above average rainfalls this past year. Sending her rivers over their banks. And causing some of the worst flooding the UK has ever seen.
But wait a minute, you say. And I say, enough. Everything cannot be the result of global warming. Warmer temperatures and cooler temperatures cannot both be the result of global warming. Droughts and flooding cannot both be the result of global warming. Less snowfall and greater blizzards cannot both be the result of global warming. Every contradictory piece of empirical evidence cannot prove global warming. Real science doesn’t work that way. Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius. And boils at 100 degrees Celsius. These are distinct states of matter. And they cannot exist at the same time. For there are rules in science. And you can’t keep changing them to prove a theory.
Scientists won’t blame a specific event or even a specific seasonal change on global warming without doing intricate and time-consuming studies. And they say they are just now getting a better picture of the complex intersection of man-made climate change and extreme snowfall.
Then why have we been listening to you for close to three decades now? Why do we have laws that change the way we live going back decades when you’re only now understanding man-made climate change? If you were wrong decades ago how do we know you’re right now?
Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann points to the recent Northeast storm that dumped more than 30 inches in some places. He said it was the result of a perfect set of conditions for such an event: Arctic air colliding with unusually warm oceans that produced extra large amounts of moisture and big temperature contrasts, which drive storms. Those all meant more energy, more moisture and thus more snow, he said.
Do you know who Michael Mann is? He’s the guy that created the ‘hockey stick graph’ that supposedly proved global warming. Temperatures were relatively constant for 900 years. Then rose. Giving the shape of a hockey stick. He took data from tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores and calculated temperatures for the past 1,000 years. Giving us the hockey stick graph. But in 2010 some emails came to light showing other climate scientists, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and others, were not all on board with the hockey stick graph. Despite the powers that be in climate ‘science’ adopting Mann’s hockey stick (see Controversy behind climate science’s ‘hockey stick’ graph by Fred Pearce posted 2/2/2010 on the guardian).
…Briffa…sent a long and passionate email. “It should not be taken as read that Mike’s series is THE CORRECT ONE,” he warned. “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’, but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”
What’s this? If you take the data beyond the starting point of Michael Mann’s data, back before man was creating any global warming, there was a matching rise in temperature? Or so said the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit. So Michael Mann is a guy that likes to look at limited ranges of data. Just enough to support his hypothesis. And not too much so it doesn’t refute his hypothesis. So one cannot help but to take whatever he says with a grain of salt.
So what does all of this mean? Global warming is more politics than science. Most of the accepted research was done by people funded by governments that want to take ever more control over the private sector economy. To increase the size of government. And to increase tax revenues. If you don’t believe this consider the volcano. When they erupt they tend to cool the climate. Because they put smoke, soot, ash, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The same things coal-fired power plants put into the atmosphere. Yet volcanoes cool the planet. While coal-fired power plants warm the planet. Go figure. Two things doing the same thing. Yet each producing completely opposite results. To understand this you have to enter the world where there are square circles. And intersecting parallel lines. A place where there are no scientific laws. Only wild imagination. For it is a wacky world when it comes to the field of climate ‘science’.
Tags: ash, blizzard, carbon dioxide, climate scientists, coal-fired power plants, cooler temperatures, drought, flooding, Global Warming, Great Lakes, higher latitudes, hockey stick graph, hypothesis, man-made climate change, melt, Michael Mann, mid latitudes, ragged edge of temperature, rain, smoke, snow, soot, sulfur dioxide, temperatures, volcano, warmer temperatures
Week in Review
Saving the planet with electric cars is a costly endeavor. Part of the problem is that no one wants these cars. Even with fat government subsidies. Because people would rather have big SUVs, trucks and full-size sedans. Vehicles that are useful. Safe. And have big gasoline engines in them that will always get you home. Which is why the government’s green energy investment into the electric car industry will never deliver any of its promises (see U.S. electric car policy to cost $7.5 billion by 2019: CBO by Bernie Woodall and Deepa Seetharaman posted 9/20/2012 on Reuters).
U.S. federal policies to promote electric vehicles will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and have “little to no impact” on overall national gasoline consumption over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued on Thursday.
Consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles, which can run as high as $7,500 per vehicle, will account for about 25 percent of the $7.5 billion cost, the CBO said.
The rest of the cost comprises of $2.4 billion in grants to battery makers and projects to promote electric vehicles as well as $3.1 billion in loans to auto companies designed to spur production of fuel-efficient vehicles.
“The more electric and other high-fuel-economy vehicles that are sold because of the tax credits, the more low-fuel-economy vehicles that automakers can sell and still meet the standards,” according to the report.
As a result, tax credits will have “little or no impact on the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”
So auto makers are selling electric vehicles for two reasons. Government subsidies. And so they can sell more lower-fuel-economy and higher-polluting profitable vehicles. The kind of vehicles the people want to buy. And will buy without any government subsidies. No one wants to buy the electric cars. And the automakers can’t make any money selling the electric cars. The only way any sales of electric cars happen is by transferring a large chunk of their cost to the taxpayers. Against their will. But, then again, that’s what government is for these days, isn’t it? Going against the will of their constituents.
While drivers of these electric vehicles use less gasoline and emit less greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide, the cost to the government can be high, the CBO found. The U.S. government will spend anywhere from $3 to $7 for each gallon of gasoline saved by consumers driving electric vehicles…
The CBO said an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours is eligible for the maximum tax credit of $7,500.
“However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle,” the CBO said.
And, the bigger the battery the greater the cost disadvantage for buyers of plug-in vehicles and conventional vehicles, the CBO said.
What happened to that laser-like focus on creating jobs? That’s what President Obama said back in 2009. And here we are in 2012 still suffering in the Great Recession. Despite their Recovery Summer back in 2010. The president is spending a lot of money. Some $500 billion or more to the solar panel maker Solyndra now in bankruptcy. As well as other green energy investments. Including the investment into electric cars to wean us off of expensive gasoline. While the cost of the subsidies for these electric cars will basically double the price of gasoline the rest of us pay (the price of the subsidy costs us as much as what gasoline costs us).
We’d be better off just paying for the expensive gasoline to put into the cars we want to buy.
But it’s worth the price to save the planet. That’s what they say. But I can’t help but notice that the planet has never been in worse shape since we started trying to save it. We know volcanic eruptions can lower the earth’s temperature with the amount of smoke, soot, ash and sulfur dioxide they put into the atmosphere. Periods of global cooling correlate to active volcanic activity. So that’s a given. We know it for a fact. So is it any coincidence that when we started putting scrubbers onto our coal-fired power plants to remove these same things from our smoke stacks that global temperatures began to rise?
Once upon a time we all burned coal in our houses for heat. Coal-fired locomotives transported people and freight. And every factory had a coal-fired steam engine. We covered our cities in smoke, soot and ash from all the coal we burned. But there was no global warming then like we have today. Why? Can it be that burning coal releases the same stuff volcanoes release when they erupt? And cool the planet? Perhaps. If the global warming alarmists were right then the attack on coal and all the emission controls they mandated on our cars should have made the planet a chilly place. Shortening our growing seasons. And given us a famine or two along the way. But that hasn’t happened. Because the global warming alarmists have been warning us that the end of the world was only 3 years away for the last 30 years. How much longer are we to quake in our shoes from their nonsense?
The earth is fine. We need to stop listening to these people. Because all they’re doing is transferring enormous sums of money from the private sector to the public sector. To play their games. And live comfortably. While those of us paying the taxes and buying the things they make ever more expensive have to sacrifice our quality of life so these talentless alarmist hacks can live a comfortable elitist life at our expense. And they’re laughing at us all the way to the bank.
Tags: ash, battery, Coal, electric cars, electric vehicles, emissions, gasoline, global cooling, Global Warming, global warming alarmists, government subsidies, green energy, green energy investment, greenhouse gas, jobs, lower-fuel-economy, save the planet, smoke, soot, subsidies, tax credits, Volcanic eruptions
Week in Review
Fighting global warming is one thing. But hurting aircraft sales is another. Which will happen if the EU goes ahead with their Emission Trading System. So Airbus is begging the EU not to ruin the aviation industry (see Airbus ministers seek EU CO2 plan delay: Hintze by Maria Sheahan and Victoria Bryan posted 9/14/2012 on Reuters).
Aerospace officials of the European countries where Airbus (EAD.PA) makes its planes will push for a suspension of the European Union’s Emission Trading System (ETS) for airlines to avert retaliation from China, an official said on Tuesday…
Michael Fallon, new business minister in Britain, said at the ILA Berlin Air Show on Tuesday: “Airbus has left us with no doubt that the threat of retaliatory action is a clear and present danger to its order list.”
There is harsh opposition to the ETS from European air travel companies and countries outside the EU such as the United States, Australia and Brazil that have said they want a global agreement to curb carbon emissions rather than a European law that extends to non-EU companies.
Which is a nice way of saying they should scrap the whole ETS. But if they said that the environmentalists would say they hate the planet. That they’re global warming deniers. And that they, of course, hate children. So by saying we should have a global system instead of just a European one sounds like they believe in global warming. While at the same time knowing there will never be a global system because the world can’t agree on anything. And that China is not going to fall for any of this nonsense. Because they play hardball.
China has threatened retaliation – including impounding European aircraft – if the European Union punishes Chinese airlines for not complying with its emissions trading scheme (ETS), intended to curb pollution.
The dispute between China and the EU froze deals worth up to $14 billion, though China signed an agreement with Germany for 50 Airbus planes worth over $4 billion during Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Beijing last month.
If the dispute is not resolved, Airbus will have to cut its production target for the A330 “pretty soon”, Airbus Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier said late on Monday.
Cancel billion dollar orders AND impound European aircraft? That’s right. The Chinese don’t take crap from anyone. Especially from a bunch of whiny global warming alarmists. Airlines everywhere are thanking China (behind closed doors, of course) for playing the heavy here. So they can act like they really want to do what is right for the planet. Without losing billions in business.
The airline industry has said the ETS distorts competition, forcing European carriers to pay more simply because of the fact they are based in the EU.
“We feel we are being discriminated against,” Hintze said. “We demand a global solution from an industrial policy point of view because we could otherwise put ourselves at a disadvantage in major markets…”
Airbus sales chief John Leahy suggested at a separate news conference on Tuesday that one possible solution could be that all airlines around the world pay a tax to ICAO for carbon emissions, regardless of where they are based.
The ETS is nothing but a way to generate revenue for a cash-strapped European Union. For what will they do with the money they raise from their ETS? Pretty much anything they want. And one of the things they most desperately want is to close their budget deficits. And the EU thought they had a real winner in the ETS. Collect money from EU members. And collect money from non-EU members. Effectively transferring some EU costs onto nations outside of the EU. It was perfect. Except for one thing. It required other countries to voluntarily pick up the tab for some EU spending. And some are choosing not to no matter how worthy the cause.
A global carbon tax payable to the ICAO? The United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization? And what, pray tell, will the UN do with that money? Spend it on grants to green manufacturers to see if they can make jet fuel out of sea weed? The aircraft manufacturers are doing everything they can to reduce jet fuel consumption because a plane that burns less fuel is a plane that sells better. They don’t need a grant to do that. Planes are carrying and burning less fuel per passenger mile than they ever have. And they still have an incentive to reduce that even more. Without any grants from the UN to improve fuel efficiency.
As countries around the world are suffering through economic problems the last thing they need is a new tax. If anything they need a tax cut. So the ETS should be the last thing we should be doing. The earth will get by just fine without it. In fact, it might even do better. For the rise in global temperatures interestingly correspond to the time we began to fight global warming. Back in the days when industry, trains and home furnaces belched coal smoke, soot and ash into the air we didn’t have a global warming problem. Our cities were covered with coal smoke, soot and ash but the temperatures were just fine. Perhaps a little more of the same would reverse this warming trend. Say, encouraging our airplanes to burn a dirtier fuel so they put more emissions into the atmosphere that can block those warming rays from reaching the earth’s surface. It works with volcanoes. Perhaps it’ll work with manmade emissions, too.
Tags: Airbus, aircraft, airline industry, airlines, ash, carbon emissions, carbon tax, China, Chinese airlines, Emission Trading System, emissions, ETS, EU, EU Airlines, European Union, Global Warming, ICAO, impounding European aircraft, smoke, soot
By burning Coal to Boil Water into Steam to Move a Piston we could Build a Factory Anywhere
We created advanced civilization by harnessing energy. And converting this energy into working power. Our first efforts were biological. Feeding and caring for large animals made these animals strong. Their physiology converted food and water into strong muscles and bones. Allowing them to pull heavy loads. From plowing. To heavy transportation. To use in construction. Of course the problem with animals is that they’re living things. They eat and drink. And poop and pee. Causing a lot of pollution in and around people. Inviting disease.
As civilization advanced we needed more energy. And we found it in wind and water. We built windmills and waterwheels. To capture the energy in moving wind and moving water. And converted this into rotational motion. Giving us a cleaner power source than working animals. Power that didn’t have to rest or eat. And could run indefinitely as long as the wind blew and the water flowed. Using belts, pulleys, cogs and gears we transferred this rotational power to a variety of work stations. Of course the problem with wind and water is that you needed to be near wind and water. Wind was more widely available but less reliable. Water was more reliable but less widely available. Each had their limitations.
The steam engine changed everything. By burning a fuel (typically coal) to boil water into steam to move a piston we could build a factory anywhere. Away from rivers. And even in areas that had little wind. The reciprocating motion of the piston turned a wheel to convert it into rotational motion. Using belts, pulleys, cogs and gears we transferred this rotational power to a variety of work stations. This carried us through the Industrial Revolution. Then we came up with something better. The electric motor. Instead of transferring rotational motion to a workstation we put an electric motor at the work station. And powered it with electricity. Using electric power to produce rotational motion at the workstation. Electricity and the electric motor changed the world just as the steam engine had changed the world earlier. Today the two have come together.
You can tell a Power Plant uses a Scrubber by the White Steam puffing out of a Smokestack
Coal has a lot of energy in it. When we burn it this energy is transformed into heat. Hot heat. For coal burns hot. The modern coal-fired power plant is a heat engine. It uses the heat from burning coal to boil water into steam. And as steam expands it creates great pressure. We can use this pressure to push a piston. Or turn a steam turbine. A rotational device with fins. As the steam pushes on these fins the turbine turns. Converting the high pressure of the steam into rotational motion. We then couple this rotational motion of the steam turbine to a generator. Which spins the generator to produce electricity.
Coal-fired power plants are hungry plants. A large plant burns about 1,000 tons of coal an hour. Or about 30,000 pounds a minute. That’s a lot of coal. We typically deliver coal to these plants in bulk. Via Great Lakes freighters. River barges. Or unit trains. Trains made up of nothing but coal hopper cars. These feed coal to the power plants. They unload and conveyor systems take this coal and create big piles. You can see conveyors rising up from these piles of coal. These conveyors transport this coal to silos or bunkers. Further conveyor systems transfer the coal from these silos to the plant. Where it is smashed and pulverized into a dust. And then it’s blown into the firebox, mixed with hot air and ignited. Creating enormous amounts of heat to boil an enormous amount of water. Creating the steam to turn a turbine.
Of course, with combustion there are products left over. Sulfur impurities in the coal create sulfur dioxide. And as the coal burns it leaves behind ash. A heavy ash that falls to the bottom of the firebox. Bottom ash. And a lighter ash that is swept away with the flue gases. Fly ash. Filters catch the fly ash. And scrubbers use chemistry to remove the sulfur dioxide from the flue gases. By using a lime slurry. The flue gases rise through a falling mist of lime slurry. They chemically react and create calcium sulfate. Or Gypsum. The same stuff we use to make drywall out of. You can tell a power plant uses a scrubby by the white steam puffing out of a smokestack. If you see great plumes puffing out of a smokestack there’s little pollution entering the atmosphere. A smokestack that isn’t puffing out a plume of white steam is probably spewing pollution into the atmosphere.
Coal is a Highly Concentrated Source of Energy making Coal King when it comes to Electricity
When the steam exits the turbines it enters a condenser. Which cools it and lowers its temperature and pressure. Turning the steam back into water. It’s treated then sent back to the boiler. However, getting the water back into the boiler is easier said than done. The coal heats the water into a high pressure steam. So high that it’s hard for anything to enter the boiler. So this requires a very powerful pump to overcome that pressure. In fact, this pump is the biggest pump in the plant. Powered by electric power. Or steam. Sucking some 2-3 percent of the power the plant generates.
Coupled to the steam turbine is a power plant’s purpose. Generators. Everything in a power plant serves but one purpose. To spin these generators. And when they spin they generate a lot of power. Producing some 40,000 amps at 10,000 to 30,000 volts at a typical large plant. Multiplying current by power and you get some 1,200 MW of power. Which can feed a lot of homes with 100 amp, 240 volt services. Some 50,000 with every last amp used in their service. Or more than twice this number under typical loads. Add a few boilers (and turbine and generator sets) and one plant can power every house and business across large geographic areas in a state. Something no solar array or wind farm can do. Which is why about half of all electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants.
Coal is a highly concentrated source of energy. A little of it goes a long way. And a lot of it produces enormous amounts of electric power. Making coal king when it comes to electricity. There is nothing that can match the economics and the logistics of using coal. Thanks to fracking, though, natural gas is coming down in price. It can burn cleaner. And perhaps its greatest advantage over coal is that we can bring a gas-fired plant on line in a fraction amount of the time it takes to bring a coal-fired plant on line. For coal-fired plants are heat engines that boil water into steam to spin turbines. Whereas gas-fired plants use the products of combustion to spin their turbines. Utilities typically use a combination of coal-fired and gas-fired plants. The coal-fired plants run all of the time and provide the base load. When demand peaks (when everyone turns on their air conditioners in the evening) the gas-fired plants are brought on line to meet this peak demand.
Tags: ash, boil water, boiler, Coal, coal-fired power plant, combustion, electric motor, electric power, electricity, energy, fly ash, generator, heat, heat engine, lime slurry, power, pressure, rotational motion, scrubbers, steam, steam engine, steam turbine, sulfur dioxide, turbine, waterwheels, windmills
Week in Review
Good news. There’s nothing we can do to lower the sea levels. So we can stop all of that global warming nonsense. And live life normally again (see Rise in sea level can’t be stopped: scientists by Nina Chestney posted 7/1/2012 on Reuters).
Rising sea levels cannot be stopped over the next several hundred years, even if deep emissions cuts lower global average temperatures, but they can be slowed down, climate scientists said in a study on Sunday…
“Though sea-level rise cannot be stopped for at least the next several hundred years, with aggressive mitigation it can be slowed down, and this would buy time for adaptation measures to be adopted,” the scientists added.
You know the best thing we can do to try and stop the sea levels from rising? Stop trying to stop the sea levels from rising.
Volcanic eruptions have lowered global temperatures by throwing soot, ash and sulfur into the atmosphere. Some famines have been blamed on volcanic activity shortening the growing season. Making it cooler and wetter. So volcanic eruptions lower global temperatures by throwing soot, ash and sulfur into the atmosphere. You know what else throws soot, ash and sulfur into the atmosphere. Coal-fired power plants. Interestingly, the catastrophic rise in global temperatures corresponds to the attack on coal. Could this mean that the global warming alarmists have caused global warming by their efforts to stop global warming? Yes. It could very well mean that. And when some of their own talk about pumping sulfur in the atmosphere to combat global warming it’s even harder to dispute this.
It looks like the climate scientists may be responsible for global warming. While the coal-fired power plants were keeping the global temperature down all along. How about that?
Tags: ash, atmosphere, climate scientists, coal-fired power plants, global temperatures, Global Warming, lowered global temperatures, sea levels, soot, sulfur, Volcanic eruptions
Week in Review
The ‘dangerous rise’ in global temperatures roughly corresponds to our actions to lower global temperatures. In particular our attack on coal. First we put scrubbers on our coal-fired power plants. Then we turned to shutting them down in favor of renewable energy. Which may have been a mistake. For those coal-fired power plant emissions actually cooled the planet. Thanks to the soot, ash and sulfur they threw into the atmosphere. Like a bunch of tiny volcanoes. Which have been blamed for some cooling spells that have led to famines. Because all of that soot, ash and sulfur in the atmosphere kept the sun from heating the planet. And shortened growing seasons. But this knowledge hasn’t changed anything. Because the attack on coal is good for government coffers (see Renewables blowout as wind, solar hit harder than tax by Sid Maher and Michael Owen posted 6/16/2012 on The Australian).
SUBSIDIES for rooftop solar panels will cost consumers about $2.3 billion over the next year as the combination of a federal government solar subsidy program and state government feed-in tariffs add about $140 a year to household power bills.
The figures emerged as the South Australian government’s electricity regulator yesterday announced an 18 per cent rise in electricity prices for the state’s households, with the cost of the state’s solar feed-in tariff scheme outstripping that of the carbon tax. State and federal governments are facing calls for reform of the schemes as they are driving electricity prices higher, in addition to the increases associated with the carbon tax.
That’s billion with a ‘b’. That’s a lot of money to spend. And governments just love spending money. So what if it raises our electricity prices? As far as they are concerned burning coal is as bad as smoking a cigarette. And this is just a sin tax for everyone. For the sin of being human. And taking control of our environment to create the modern world. Which the environmentalists disapprove of. We belong in caves. Hunting and gathering like our ancestors. Well, gathering, at least. For the environmentalists would rather we coexist with our fellow animals. Share our pristine environment. And not eat them. Of course, that wouldn’t stop them from trying to eat us. But that would be okay. For they could take control of their environment. As long as they don’t burn coal. Or are overly flatulent. Because too much methane released into the atmosphere could raise global temperatures, too.
Tags: ash, attack on coal, Australians, carbon tax, Coal, coal-fired power plants, electricity prices, environmentalists, global temperatures, solar panels, soot, sulfur
Week in Review
Volcanoes are amazing things. They can belch so much soot, ash and sulfur into the atmosphere they can lower global temperatures. British Airways Flight 9 (callsign Speedbird 9) flew into a cloud of volcanic ash in June 1982 over the Indian Ocean. In the black of night. All four engines flamed out with the crew unable to figure out what was happening. They continuously tried to restart the engine as the plane lost altitude. When they saw they wouldn’t clear some high mountains on the island of Java they began turning the plane back over the ocean. To try a water landing. But then an engine sputtered to life. Then another. Till all four restarted. They didn’t know it but as they passed through about 13,000 feet they emerged from the bottom of the ash cloud. Which let them relight their engines. Allowing them to fly the plane safely in.
Periods of high volcanic activity have cooled the earth so much that it has affected agriculture. Colder and wetter growing seasons led to poorer crop yields. And famine. So volcanoes are powerful. They can dramatically cool global temperatures. Even kill us by reducing the length of our food growing season. Now someone is thinking about deliberately pumping sulfur in the atmosphere to combat global warming (see The black sheep of climate engineering by Doug Craig posted 6/9/2012 on redding.com).
In his book, Hack the Planet, Eli Kintsch explains “manually tinkering with Earth’s thermostat to reverse global warming” was seriously proposed in 1997 by Lowell Wood, also known by some as Dr. Evil, and the conservative Edward Teller, “the father of the hydrogen bomb,” because “geoengineering was a better way to tackle the climate crisis than the Kyoto accords.”
A decade later, Wood recommended burning sulfur and “then dumping the particles out of high-flying 747s, spraying them into the sky with long hoses or even shooting them up there with naval artillery. They’d be invisible to the naked eye, Wood argued, and harmless to the environment. Depending on the number of particles you injected, you could not only stabilize Greenland’s polar ice — you could actually grow it. Results would be quick: If you started spraying particles into the stratosphere tomorrow, you’d see changes in the ice within a few months. And if it worked over the Arctic, it would be simple enough to expand the program to encompass the rest of the planet. In effect, you could create a global thermostat, one that people could dial up or down to suit their needs (or the needs of polar bears).”
As I read this all I could think about was the attack on coal. And the correlation between the rise in global temperatures and this assault on coal. From adding scrubbers on coal-fired power plants to phasing out coal-fired power plants because they purportedly contribute to global warming. But much like the volcano burning coal has a cooling affect on the planet. For it throws up soot, ash and sulfur into the atmosphere just like a volcano. Who’d a thunk it?
Funny, isn’t it? By trying to save the planet from global warming they’ve actually caused global warming. Perhaps we should fire up more coal-fired power plants. And remove those scrubbers. To cool the planet. But not too much. We wouldn’t want to cause a famine now, would we?
Tags: ash, assault on coal, attack on coal, cloud of volcanic ash, Coal, coal-fired power plants, cooled the earth, famine, global temperatures, Global Warming, lower global temperatures, soot, sulfur, volcanic ash, volcanoes
Week in Review
Global warming is real. So says all the global warming climate scientists’ science. With some interesting qualifiers. Where they explain drops in global temperatures. Which are caused by the very things that are causing global warming. Man putting smoke, soot and ash into the atmosphere from our fossil fuels (see Climate Canard No. 2: ‘Warming Has Stopped’ — A Very Temporary Duck by Bill Blackmore posted 4/29/2012 on ABC News).
The slight dip in the 1950s is believed by climate scientists to have been caused at least partly by the post-World War II economic boom, which produced great amounts of industrial smog whose tiny particles reflect warming sunlight back into outer space — as does the thick smoke from volcanoes.
Now see, this is the reason why there are climate skeptics. There is no science that explains this dip in temperature. Just anti-science. Hunches. And guesses. If smog and smoke lowered temperatures why didn’t they lower temperatures during World War II? For American industry was humming during the war, too. Not to mention all those trucks, tanks, jeeps, ships and airplanes pumping all of that pollution into the atmosphere. None of which had any emission controls. Then add in all those fires from the destruction of oil refineries. Ships. Planes. Tanks. And the burning down of cities. Like Dresden. And Tokyo. Throw in a couple of mushroom clouds. You add all of this up and it should at least equal the pollution we were throwing up into the atmosphere during the Fifties. Yet this same chart shows higher temperatures during the war. Which would make sense if pollution caused global warming. Instead of preventing it. As they claim happened during the Fifties.
If you back up one decade to the Thirties, it appears there was no change in global temperatures. Again, this would make sense if man was causing all of the warming. Because man wasn’t doing much during the Great Depression. But then even this logic fails if you back up one more decade to the Twenties. To the Roaring Twenties. When the world was modernizing. The new electric power supported a manufacturing boom. Included in that boom was the new automobile. That jammed our city streets. Filling them with raw emissions. While steam locomotives puffed soot, smoke and ash into our cities and across the country. And what did all of this manmade pollution do? It lowered temperatures. Which supports their original claim that air pollution prevents global warming. But then this doesn’t agree with the data from the Forties. When air pollution caused global warming. And to confuse us a little more they have another chart that shows temperatures fell during the Forties.
The dip in the global temperature from about 1942 to 1970 is believed by climate scientists to be due partly to the intense industrial activity of World War Two and the economic boom that followed.
The gray and black particles in the smoky emissions from factories actually help cool the earth by reflecting some of the warming sunlight back into outer space, thus preventing it from hitting the earth where it changes into the invisible infrared light that is trapped by greenhouse gasses, warming the air.
So what are they telling us? Are we causing global warming by cutting emissions from fossil fuels? Should we create more electricity from coal? And should we let those plants belch pollution into the atmosphere? To save us from the perils of global warming? For if there is any correlation between the rise in global temperatures and manmade activity it is this. Global temperatures took off when we started reducing manmade polluting emissions. The data absolutely supports this. And no one can deny it. Not even the most respective global warming climate scientists.
Again, this is the reason why there are climate skeptics. Because global warming climate scientists make it so easy to be skeptical.
Tags: air pollution, ash, atmosphere, climate data, climate scientist, climate skeptics, emissions, fossil fuels, global temperatures, Global Warming, industrial smog, manmade pollution, pollution, smog, smoke, soot
Week in Review
Utility prices are always a political hot potato. No matter where you are. Currently in Australia they’re talking about eliminating pricing measures in place that have been keeping rates below actual costs. Doing so, though, will hit consumers with a huge increase in electricity rates which isn’t going to make anyone happy (see Power prices to rise more than 23 per cent by Daniel Mercer posted 4/5/2012 on The West Australian).
Electricity prices are likely to rise much further than the 23 per cent hike flagged by WA’s economic regulator after Premier Colin Barnett dismissed calls for cross-subsidies for country towns to be scrapped.
The Economic Regulation Authority released a long-awaited report yesterday into the tariffs of State-owned electricity retailer Synergy, showing households were still paying significantly less for power than it cost to provide.
According to the ERA, consumers would have to pay 23.1 per cent more power before prices reached “cost-reflective” levels, driving primarily by the need to remove the discount applying to prices and the incoming carbon tax.
What’s really interesting, of course, is that last bit about a carbon tax. A 23.1 percent increase in utility rates won’t help any elected government at the next election. So they’re going through political gymnastics about who not to anger. Those receiving the subsidies. Or those paying the subsidies. And while they’re trying to keep the cost of electricity down so people can use it without going broke the federal government is implementing a carbon tax to make it more expensive so people do go broke if they use it. To save the planet.
Mr Barnett said this morning that while no decision had yet been made about the size of forthcoming utility price hikes, his Government would not be responsible for the effect of the tax.
“We are doing all that we can to keep the increase in the price of electricity to a minimum and by that I mean something around or just above inflation,” he said.
“The carbon tax – that’s a Federal Government tax.
“And remember I don’t support the carbon tax, the Liberal Government does not support the carbon tax but the whole ideas of the carbon tax – Julia Gillard’s idea – is you raise the price of electricity so people use less of it.
“So the whole purpose of a carbon tax is to raise electricity prices.
“I don’t support that, I think it’s a flawed and failed policy.”
While the local government is trying to save the people by making electricity more affordable the federal government is saying screw the people. We need to save the planet. Which is rather silly. For the planet is far cleaner than it was during the Industrial Revolution. And here we all are a century or so later. Alive and well from the affects of the Industrial Revolution. When smoke, soot and ash covered our cities from coal-burning steam engines powering our factories. When some people were so filthy that they coughed soot and ash. They may have died young. But the planet that bore them is alive and well. So I think it’s time to stop with some of the silliness. And allow people to live on this planet. Especially now that it is cleaner than ever.
Tags: ash, Australia/New Zealand, carbon tax, electricity, electricity rates, Industrial Revolution, save the planet, smoke, soot, utility prices