Heliogenic Climate Change

“CONVERTING a greenhouse gas into a clean-burning fuel offers two benefits for the price of one. That’s the thinking behind a novel process for converting carbon dioxide into methanol at room temperature, developed by a team at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology in Singapore (Angewandte Chemie International Edition, DOI: 10.1002/anie.200806058).

Molecules of CO₂ are very stable, so processes that convert the gas to methanol normally require high temperatures and pressure. They also use catalysts containing toxic metal ions. “Our catalyst isn’t toxic, and the reaction happens rapidly at room temperature,” says team leader Jackie Ying. …

“Potentially, it’s a means for taking carbon dioxide out of the air and making it into something useful,” says Dongke Zhang, director of the Centre for Petroleum, Fuels and Energy at the University of Western Australia in Perth.” “How to turn greenhouse gas into a clean fuel” h/t Hall of Record

Earth to New Scientist: methanol fuel may be a benefit, but removing life-giving CO2 from the atmosphere is NOT!
-

“Given the current global cooling now in its 8th year, declining ocean heat content at least in its 5th year, sea level rises which have slowed or stopped, record rising Antarctic ice extent and rapidly recovering arctic ice since the 2007 cycle minimum, a sun in a deep slumber, increasing evidence that CO2 is a harmless gas that is in reality a beneficial plant fertilizer, you would think that this proposed [cap-and-tax] legislation and [EPA's "endangerment"] ruling would, in a sane world, have no chance of passing. But there is a huge political and NGO machine and all too compliant media and carbon crusaders like Al Gore and James Hansen and literally many billions of dollars behind making carbon evil and subsidizing unwise energy and carbon control solutions.” “Precious Few Months to Stop Disastrous Action“
-

“CADDO PARISH, La. — A massive natural-gas discovery here in northern Louisiana heralds a big shift in the nation’s energy landscape. After an era of declining production, the U.S. is now swimming in natural gas.

Even conservative estimates suggest the Louisiana discovery — known as the Haynesville Shale, for the dense rock formation that contains the gas — could hold some 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That’s the equivalent of 33 billion barrels of oil, or 18 years’ worth of current U.S. oil production. Some industry executives think the field could be several times that size. …

Huge new fields also have been found in Texas, Arkansas and Pennsylvania. One industry-backed study estimates the U.S. has more than 2,200 trillion cubic feet of gas waiting to be pumped, enough to satisfy nearly 100 years of current U.S. natural-gas demand. …

Just three years ago, the conventional wisdom was that U.S. natural-gas production was facing permanent decline. U.S. policy makers were resigned to the idea that the country would have to rely more on foreign imports to supply the fuel that heats half of American homes, generates one-fifth of the nation’s electricity, and is a key component in plastics, chemicals and fertilizer.” “U.S. Gas Fields Go From Bust to Boom” h/t CCNet
-

“Abstract: Solar activity is regulated by the solar dynamo. The dynamo is a non-linear interplay between the equatorial and polar magnetic field components. So far, in Sun–climate studies, only the equatorial component has been considered as a possible driver of tropospheric temperature variations. We show that, next to this, there is a significant contribution of the polar component. Based on direct observations of proxy data for the two main solar magnetic fields components since 1844, we derive an empirical relation between tropospheric temperature variation and those of the solar equatorial and polar [magnetic field] activities. When applying that relation to the period 1610–1995, we find some quasi-regular episodes of residual temperature increases and decreases, with semi-amplitudes up to 0.3 °C. The present period of global warming is one of them.” “Episodes of relative global warming” h/t CCNet
-

“Earth Day is past now, but this article is so popular we’re pinning it at the top of the home page today so everyone looking for it can find it.

For the next 24 hours, the media will assault us with tales of imminent disaster that always accompany the annual Earth Day Doom & Gloom Extravaganza.

Ignore them. They’ll be wrong. We’re confident in saying that because they’ve always been wrong. And always will be.

Need proof? Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
Read the rest of this entry »

In Britain they’re playing a funny game. The government knows costly alternative energy schemes can’t possibly supply Britain’s future energy needs, it knows coal (or nuclear) is the only viable option, but it is also a professed true believer in the AGW religion, which views coal as Satan himself. What to do? Well (wink, wink), they’ll permit new coal-fired power plants now “on the condition they can be retrofitted [later] with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology within five years of 2020 – subject to the technology available“ (link). This is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Future promises, coal-fired power now. The green fanatics will be apoplectic:

“Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Martin Horwood said the government’s proposal were subject to “a dirty great loophole” – that new stations will only have to implement the retrofitting of CCS if the technology is ready.

“The technology does need to be proven,” Mr Miliband insisted.

“It needs to work. I believe it will work. But we need to discuss the conditions if it doesn’t.”" “Another step towards Kingsnorth” h/t CCNet

“So the government will give the go-ahead to new coal power station before the technology is proven. And then there will be the mother of all lobbying battles over a future decision by the Environment Agency over whether CCS must be installed.

The interim proposals make the companies happy since they mean power stations get the go-ahead now. Environmental groups are pleased at the safeguards, but ultimately nervous CCS may never be passed fit for service. And the chance of carbon capture becoming commercially viable? And what happens to the new coal-fired power stations if it doesn’t?” “The cold reality of today’s energy strategy” h/t CCNet

CCS is a terrible idea for two reasons. First, it doubles the cost of electricity and halves electricity output (the other half is consumed by the CCS process). Second, it deprives Earth’s CO2-impoverished atmosphere of the vital life-giving trace gas. What idiocy.
-

“

5. The current warming is accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: water vapour is dominant among them, and in smaller quantities there are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and ozone. This has always happened because it is an occurrence that accompanies cyclical warming and cooling. The periodic increase in the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, sometimes a value even several times larger than at present, has accompanied previous warming even before man inhabited the Earth.

6. Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar 4 times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times, in total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.

7. After a warm period in the past millennium, by the end of the thirteenth century, a cold period had begun and it lasted up to the mid-nineteenth century, and then a warm period in which we are living had begun. The phenomenon observed today, in particular the temporary rise of global temperature, are the result of the natural rhythm of climate change. Warmer and warmer oceans have a smaller ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and reducing the area of the long term permafrost leads to more rapid decomposition of organic compounds in the soil, and thus to increased emissions of greenhouse gases. …

8. A detailed monitoring of climate parameters has been carried out for slightly over 200 years; it only regards parts of continents, which constitute only 28% of the world. Some of the older measuring stations established – as a result of progressive urbanization, in the peripheries of the cities, are now within them. This factor, among other things, is the reason for the rise of the measured values of temperature. The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.” CCNet April 24
-

“At the cap-and-trade hearings, it was revealed that not everyone will suffer from this growth-killing energy tax. A congresswoman wanted to know why sea levels aren’t rising but Gore’s bank account is.

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it’s easy being green, at least for some. …

Last Friday, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and- trade legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Blackburn asked Gore about Kleiner-Perkins, noting that at last count they “have invested about a billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today.” …

[Gore] also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It’s a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.

As Stephen Milloy, author of “Green Hell,” points out, Goldman Sachs is lobbying for climate change legislation and is part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap and trade would be traded. …

Gore has not taken a vow of poverty even as he advocates legislation that will push millions into it. He has said greed and corporate profits are behind the studies disproving his alarmism. Maybe it’s his desire for profits that’s behind his manipulation of the truth.” “Cap-And-Trade: Al Gore’s Cash Cow“

“Absent legislation, the EPA will act. Why such certainty? The Obama Administration is top-heavy with climate change radicals, including Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren, Energy Secretary Chu and Climate Czarina Carol Browner. Even if Obama wants to go slow (he doesn’t, but he is politic), there will be just too much pressure – of his own creation – that will throw caution to the wind.

Not that anything we do will have much of an effect on global temperature. Between 2000 and 2006, US total carbon dioxide emissions were virtually constant, rising a mere 0.7%. China’s rose 103%, and by 2006 had passed us in emissions volume.

If the US had decided to emit zero carbon dioxide in 2000, the Chinese would have made up for our total and then some by next year. Do they have the same incentive to reduce emissions? No, they would rather export Chery automobiles. “EPA greenhouse gas finding allows Congress to duck legislative responsibility“
-

“The National Farmers’ Federation has thrown its backing behind controversial climate change dissenter, Professor Ian Plimer, whose new book aims to debunk the theories and dire predictions of some within the scientific fraternity.

In Heaven and Earth: Climate change – the real science, Prof Plimer, from the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, notes that climatic change is “the norm”, sea levels rise and fall all the time, and that climate cycles are driven by massive forces completely unrelated to carbon emissions.

“Climate changes in the past have been far greater and far more rapid than anything measured in the present,” he writes.

“Not one previous climate change has ever been driven by carbon dioxide.

“To talk of carbon pollution shows an appalling ignorance of basic school science.

“Carbon dioxide is plant food, without it humans could not exist.”

Prof Plimer will be a keynote speaker at the NFF’s upcoming National Congress in Brisbane in June.

While not explicitly supporting the position Prof Plimer takes, NFF president David Crombie said it was time the climate change debate heard more from those with dissenting opinions.

“We’ve heard ad nauseam from those scientists convinced that climate change will ruin us all and, seemingly, hell-bent on making grim doomsday predictions,” Mr Crombie said.

“But we’ve heard precious little from those experts for whom the jury is still out, or, in the case of Professor Plimer, say their research shows extreme climate change predictions are over-stated.

“Now, before I’m carted to a stake for public torching, I’m not saying Professor Plimer is right, nor that his colleagues with differing views are wrong.

“Just that it’s about time we had a balanced, informed discussion and debate… free from vilification of those who dare to question conventional wisdom.”

In his book, Prof Plimer claims that every scientific argument ever used to show that humans change climate is wrong and cites over 2300 scientific references in support of his claims.” “NFF backs climate change dissenter” h/t CCNet

“The Rudd Government is being told to scrap its proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS) …

[A]ccording to [opposition spokesman on transport Warren] Truss, any move to push ahead with the scheme will accelerate job losses and lead to a decline in business investment.

“Quite simply, the existing Rudd ETS is a rabid dog that will cause havoc wherever it goes. It should be put down and given a quiet burial,” Truss says.” “Rudd told to scrap ‘rabid’ ETS scheme” h/t CCNet
-

“And if co2science and many other excellent sources are right on the benefits of carbon/CO2 (and I believe they are), then there is no need for us to reduce our carbon footprint, decarbonize our economies, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, cap and trade on CO2, tax carbon, or engage any other endeavors to limit the basis and food of all life. In fact, according to paleo-climate records, our atmosphere is still “CO2 impoverished”.

Dangerous levels of CO2 are not reached till up around 5,000 ppm to 10,000 ppm, and some sources suggest that CO2 levels are not dangerous till 15,000 ppm (see co2science.org, “Does high CO2 harm humans” under Health Effects at CO2: General or http://co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/91598q1.php). The low levels of atmospheric CO2 that we have been experiencing in this latest ice era are the real problem for life on Earth. Life evolved over the past 600 million years at the more healthy average level of 1500 ppm.

And when CO2 was at 7000 ppm there was no dangerous global warming. When it was at 4,400 ppm during the Late Ordovician Period, Earth was as cold as it is now. So also over the past 150 years.” Wendell Krossa on CCNet April 20
-

“California on Wednesday is expected to adopt landmark rules to curb carbon emissions from transportation fuels …

[T]he low-carbon fuel standard would become the first measure in the nation to impose on motor fuels limits on the amount of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

Similar rules are under consideration in 11 other states that are waiting for California to act. President Barack Obama also has called for a nationwide low-carbon fuel standard to help meet his goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent by mid-century. …

The new standard would require refineries, producers and importers of motor fuels sold in California to reduce the “carbon intensity” of their products 10 percent by 2020, with greater cuts thereafter. …

[T]he measure would lead to 20 percent of the state’s fossil fuels being replaced by cleaner alternatives, such as electricity, hydrogen, natural gas and biofuels.” “California Pursues Low-Carbon Fuel Constraints“

“CALGARY – California’s new low-carbon fuel rules may be a violation of NAFTA and World Trade Organization provisions because they would unfairly limit exports of crude from Canada’s oil sands to the state, a prominent Canadian trade lawyer said on Friday. …

The measures to slash such emissions would force refiners to consider the carbon footprint of the fuels they produce, a potential blow to synthetic crude upgraded from Alberta’s oil sands, whose production emits more carbon-dioxide than conventional oil.

However, the state may have no business imposing such rules on oil produced in other countries, a Canadian lawyer said, and the provisions may violate international trade treaties.

“There’s definitely a NAFTA case and a WTO case. There’s no doubt in my mind about it,” said Simon Potter, a partner at the McCarthy Tetrault law firm whose practice includes trade and competition law.” “New California Fuel Rule May Violate NAFTA – Lawyer“

“ANCHORAGE – An appeals court on Friday struck down the Bush administration’s five-year plan for offshore oil and gas leasing, saying it was put into effect without proper environmental review.

The US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ordered the Interior Department to rewrite the 2007-2012 plan, which was challenged by a coalition of environmental groups and Alaska Natives. …

Although the case disputes oil development in the Alaska outer continental shelf, the court’s ruling mandates a rewrite for the entire nation, said Peter Van Tuyn, an Anchorage attorney who represented an Inupiat Eskimo village and some of the environmentalists who objected to the plan. …

It is unclear what will happen to the leases sold last year for exploration rights to the remote Chukchi. Shell was the major player in that lease sale, spending $2.1 billion to acquire leases. Shell and ConocoPhillips, which also acquired leases in the sale, have conducted seismic testing in the area and said they plan to start drilling in 2010.

Van Tuyn said he is doing further research to determine whether those leases are now voided. …

Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, said she disagreed with the court’s conclusions.

“I am disappointed that the D.C. Circuit has issued this decision to vacate and remand the five year Outer Continental Shelf leasing program to the extent that this may now cause a further delay in the development of the oil and gas resources that America still requires to fuel its economy,” she said.” “US Court Strikes Down Bush Oil Leasing Plan“

“But the cap-and-tax gang miscalculates, because pro-growth lawmakers are not stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have a third option: Just say no to cap-and-tax, let President Obama and his Congressional allies take ownership of the regulatory morass EPA’s endangerment finding will spawn, and then capitalize on the political backlash.

As University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke, Jr. observes, “Far from being an incentive for Congress to act on its own, the looming possibility that EPA will take regulatory action is a strong incentive for Republicans to stalemate Congressional action and a nightmare scenario for Democrats.”

Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute agrees. Threatening to sic EPA on the economy is tantamount to promising to commit political suicide. Team Obama, he says, might as well tell Republicans and moderate Democrats, “Don’t make me raise energy prices! You’ll really be in trouble with your voters when I raise their energy prices!”

Pro-growth lawmakers need to clear their minds and see the endangerment finding for the unexpected political opportunity it is. The following mantra may be helpful: “I will not reward the Obama-Boxer campaign of legislative extortion; I will not rescue the cap-and-tax gang from the political retribution that is their due; I will let the CO2-litigation lobby dig its own political grave.”” “EPA’s Endangerment Finding: Legislative Hammer or Suicide Note?“
-

“Which brings us back to the Obama Administration’s political roulette. Democrats know that their cap-and-tax agenda is losing ground, notably among Midwestern Senators. The EPA “endangerment” [finding] is intended to threaten businesses and state and local governments until they surrender and support the Obama agenda. The car industry is merely the first target, meant to be the object lesson.

Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey put it this way at MIT recently: “Do you want the EPA to make the decision or would you like your Congressman or Senator to be in the room and drafting legislation? . . . Industries across the country will just have to gauge for themselves how lucky they feel if they kill legislation in terms of how the EPA process will include them.”

This “Dirty Harry” theory of governance — Do you feel lucky? — is as cynical as it is destructive. And contra Mr. Markey, if cap and tax is killed this year, it will be done in by Democrats, many of whom are starting to realize the economic harm it would inflict. In March, the Senate voted 89 to 8 on a resolution vowing to pass a climate bill only if “such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.”

That’s called democracy, but for the Obama Administration such debate is an inconvenient truth. If they can’t get Congress to pass their agenda, they’ll use EPA and the courts to impose it. How lucky do you feel?” “Reckless ‘Endangerment’–the Obama EPA plays ‘Dirty Harry’ on cap and trade“

“The IPCC has advertised itself to be the most authoritative scientific body for keeping the world informed on man-made climate change. But the IPCC is more of a policy-oriented body that uses cherry-picked scientific research to further its agenda. Their enlistment of most of the world’s leading climate researchers allows them to simply dismiss any other scientists who disagree with them. Their goal has always been to build the scientific case for global warming being man made and damaging, thereby enabling governmental control over the world’s energy supply. The free market will no longer be free.

The IPCC is supported by climate thugs who run the website RealClimate.org where they demonize any scientists who dare to disagree with the “scientific consensus” on global warming. These folks still don’t realize something that even the public knows: “Consensus” is a political term, not a scientific one.

And in the process of achieving their goals, the leaders of the IPCC have corrupted a scientific discipline for their own political, philosophical, financial and career-enhancement reasons. The blame does not lie with the hundreds of climate scientists involved in the IPCC effort. They are largely along for the ride, being assured of continued government funding for research to work on a topic that everyone agrees sounds important— saving the Earth from climate change.

But whereas climatology used to involve collecting and analyzing observations of the Earth in order to figure out how nature works, most climate research money is now funneled into increasingly expensive and complex computerized climate models—which are claimed to be correct simply because they are so expensive and so complex.

The time has long passed for Americans to demand that the activities of the IPCC be reviewed. For instance, the IPCC never seriously investigated the possibility that climate change might be largely natural. After all, natural climate variability is its enemy: It distracts from the claim that mankind is now the main driver of the climate system.

The IPCC insists that increasing CO2 due to mankind is the only known reason for global warming. And it is right—it is the only one known to IPCC scientists because they have covered their eyes and ears whenever they are confronted with evidence to the contrary. The IPCC has never asked for government funding of research to see if, just maybe, there are natural reasons for global warming.

And this is where new science is chipping away at the house of cards the IPCC has built for itself. I now believe that the IPCC’s most significant scientific blunder has been its continuing insistence that global cloud cover, the main determinant of global temperatures, always remains the same. For if global cloud cover can change naturally, then global temperatures can also change naturally, and that would open the door to the possibility that global warming is more natural than man made. …

The IPCC’s second major scientific blunder has been its use of computerized climate models as the ultimate authority to answer climate questions. Contrary to our actual observations of the climate system, these models predict that the little bit of warming from the extra CO2 we pump into the atmosphere will be greatly amplified by changes in clouds. But the available satellite evidence of the real climate system, when interpreted properly, shows just the opposite: Clouds tend to reduce warming tendencies in the climate system, not amplify them.

The IPCC knows about this discrepancy between its models and the observations, but their explanation is that the models are right and the observations are wrong. …

If you are wondering why NASA’s James Hansen—the godfather of global warming research—thinks the climate system is hypersensitive to the extra CO2, it is because he ignores the observational evidence from today’s climate system. He instead relies upon speculative and unprovable interpretations of how the climate system was allegedly working hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. …

It is time for the public to tell our elected representatives to start asking some hard questions about our country’s reliance on the IPCC for definitive answers regarding global warming. The IPCC’s demand to be believed just because it has created the largest infrastructure and the biggest climate models should be tolerated no longer.” “Global Warming Gloom and Doom Cools Off“

“Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole according to new research published this week (Thurs 23 April 2009). …

Using satellite images of sea ice and computer models the scientists discovered that the ozone hole has strengthened surface winds around Antarctica and deepened the storms in the South Pacific area of the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. This resulted in greater flow of cold air over the Ross Sea (West Antarctica) leading to more ice production in this region.” “Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked to the Ozone Hole“

“New research has found that despite climate change concerns, the amount of ice may actually be increasing across much of Antarctica.

Ian Allison, head of the Australian Antarctic Division’s ice, ocean, atmosphere and climate program, says outside of western Antarctica, ice levels are remaining steady or possibly increasing. …

“In east Antarctica there may be a slight increase due to increased snow fall.”" “Ice cover ‘increasing in east Antarctica’“

“Abstract: This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CRdriven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.” “Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion“
-

“Like a living thermometer, a species of owl in Europe is turning a deep shade of red as climate change pushes temperatures ever higher, according to a new study.” “Owls Getting Redder as Climate Warms“

Only one problem — the planet has been cooling for more than a decade.
-

Sure enough, while I was away EPA came out with the most absurd “scientific finding” in the history of science — the essential life-giving trace gas CO2 is dangerous!:

“After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. …

As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate. “”EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare“