Archive

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

A Secret the Green-Machine Does Not Want You to Know

Numerous advocacy groups have been clamoring for more than 20 years about the need to take action against climate change.  Untold billions of dollars have been poured into this campaign with the goal to reach a global agreement similar to the Montreal protocol of banning ozone depleting gases, but as many are aware of the Copenhagen 2009 conference, this did not occur with carbon dioxide; namely fossil fuel CO2.  In the United States, a national attempt at capping CO2 gases met a similar fate.

Policies of returning back to “normal” fossil fuel CO2 levels are typically at the 1990 level of emissions.   It is never mentioned where we are with our “out of control” emissions, but we just are constantly warned that we need to give our government the okay to take over the “top-down” control of CO2 emissions.  Currently, more and more citizens are questioning what could be a global policy that would cost trillions of dollars.   Oddly enough, there is good reason for this lack of trust.

US CO2 Emissions from CDIAC Data

Source: CDIAC Data

The data is for 2007-2009 marked preliminary.  Confirmation of the general trend is confirmed by the EPA “Fast Facts“:

Source: EPA

The kicker is that according to CDIAC, the magic number of 1990 fossil fuel emissions level is…

1330618 (thousands of metric tons)

At the end of 2011, the US should be close to 1300000 (thousands of metric tons) in emissions (linear extrapolation).  All of this success without a global commitment or the EPA really clamping down with regulation.  All that was needed was a world class recession and most manufacturing shipped to China and India.

Source: CDIAC Data

Mission Accomplished!

Categories: Uncategorized

Wandering in Romm’s World

January 15, 2011 Leave a comment

While wandering aimlessly, I stumbled upon a post that struck me.  Since I have never been invited to or have read any books on the matter, I was curious on what this *wedge* might be.

Much like the many *games* that are played by the CAGW establishment, here is yet another:

Stabilization Wedge Game

In this “game”, it appears that you have pieces of “pie” to place on the “problem” to achieve a solution or “covering” of the problem.  Let us say that there is a CAGW problem, you have 8 pieces of a 45 degree angle wedge of pie to cover over the problem (mitigate, avoid, piss-on, piss-off, who knows…).  These are known as the “8-Strategies”.  Okay, check.

Of these “8-Strategies”, there are the following options:

1. Renewables & Biostorage Wedges (Green; of course)

2. Efficiency & Conservation Wedges (Yellow)

3. Fossil-Fuel Based Wedges (Blue)

4. Nuclear Electricity Wedges (Red; of course)

5-8 … No prefabricated wedges… hmmm…

Keeping emissions flat will require cutting projected carbon output by about 8 billion tons per year by 2055

is the goal.  Let us try to unravel this.

To make the problem more tractable, we divided the stabilization triangle into eight “wedges.” (Figure 4) A wedge represents a carbon-cutting strategy that has the potential to grow from zero today to avoiding 1 billion tons of carbon emissions per year by 2055, or one-eighth of the stabilization triangle. The wedges can represent ways of either making energy with no or reduced carbon emissions (like nuclear or wind-produced electricity), or storing carbon dioxide to prevent it from building up as rapidly in the atmosphere (either through underground storage or biostorage).

Okay, I shall not bore you with the silly linear slope of carbon production of fig. 4.  If you are inclined to read it, feel free.

Back to the post.  So, after the game pieces are cut, the *wedges* represent a billion tons a year that can be placed over the problem.

1. Renewables and Biostorage :

  • Wind-generated electricity
  • Solar electricity
  • Wind-generated hydrogen fuel
  • Biofuels Forest storage Soil storage

2. Efficiency & Conservation:

  • Increased transport efficiency
  • Reducing miles traveled
  • Increased building efficiency
  • Increased efficiency of electricity production

3. Fossil-Fuel-Based Strategies:

  • Fuel switching (coal to gas)
  • Fossil-based electricity with carbon capture & storage (CCS)
  • Coal synfuels with CCS Fossil-based hydrogen fuel with CCS

4. Nuclear Energy

  • Nuclear electricity

Wow.  What an interesting teaching tool.  Now, what I am understanding is that Joe Romm thinks that the Nuke wedge is not 1.00 but 1.77, which is a significant contribution from the “warmer” side of the CAGW debate.  I would have to modify the Renewables and Efficiency/Conservations to reflect a 77% reduction/effectiveness and this game might take off 😉

Categories: Uncategorized

Science Poker

October 31, 2010 Leave a comment
by Claes Johnson
In poker you can stay in the game even if you have lousy cards by continuing raising the bet.
As long as your bet is not called, you are in the game and have not lost.
In science this strategy is practiced a lot: If your theory cannot explain anything and is questioned because it is absurd and contradictory and does not fit with observations, raise the bet to an even more absurd and contradictory theory claiming that it might explain something, and so on….Some examples:

Continue Reading at Claes Johnson

Categories: Uncategorized

Skeptics from Around the World

October 13, 2010 Leave a comment

P. Gossilen’s No Tricks Zone had and interesting idea of posting a non-English blog Skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.  The site is in Swedish and usually those of us in English speaking countries have no idea what is being discussed in the rest of the world.  My aim is to survey and collect some of these discussions and aggregate the current discussions here.

The translation software is a little rough, but good enough.  For the source, click the CONTINUE READING link

I hope you will enjoy.

Categories: Uncategorized