Information Declan does not know and he is not alone.
RealClimate is run by the same people who edit Wikipedia.
Same goes for an IPCC reviewer.
Same for the MBH98/99 The Hockey stick.
Again the same with NASA .
These people work together and review each others works and refer the Media or the public to well renowned web Sites or organizations. Next time have a look as an example the NASA Web site ..Check Contributors. You will see the names of M Mann Gavin Schmidth Both of these guys work for James Hansen. Next look at Realclimate
You will see it is own by M Mann run by Gavin Schmidth and as a contributor under the name WM Connelly. The same Connelly is the Global warming editor for Wikipedia. Do the same kind of research about the IPCC and again you will find the same group " Kyoto" and of course within this tight group, others names appear here and there one of them Is AL Gore. We have today what is know as a CABAL.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
What enviros really think.
.
.
.
The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.
Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth”
concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!
Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).
Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.
Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
David Foreman, Earth First!
Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.
Pentti Linkola
If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.
Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.
John Shuttleworth
What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.
Economist editorial
We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
David Foreman, Earth First!
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
Earth First! Newsletter
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”
Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
Poverty For “Those People”
We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.
Carl Amery
Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.
Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.
Lamont Cole
If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered.
Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institute’s online magazine The Edge
The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them.
Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.
Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.
Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.
—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.
Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
the cost of inaction will cost less then action
First, though, let's look at Labor's determination to repeat that chorus, as captured by Hansard: "All are familiar with the fact that the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change'' (Rudd, June 26).
"This government does understand that the cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the cost of action'' (Swan, June 26).
It is the case that the economic costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action'' (Swan, June 24).
"Those of us on this side of the chamber understand that the economic costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of responsible action now'' (Wong, June 24).
"On the question of emissions trading, we on this side of the House know a simple fact and it is this: the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change'' (Rudd, June 23).
"Australians recognise that tackling climate change will not be painless, but I think the Australian people have a very clear understanding that, as I said, the cost of inaction would be greater than the cost of responsible action now'' (Wong, March 18).
"The fact of the matter is that it is the costs of inaction that outweigh the costs of action'' (Garrett, March 17).
"And overall our view has long been, put in simple terms, that the costs of inaction on climate change are much greater than the costs of action'' (Rudd, February 21).
"We on this side of the House recognise the costs of climate change and that the costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of action''(Swan, February 14).
But a comparison of tables taken from Professor Garnaut's July report and the paper he released on Friday shows that this is not so.
In his July 4 draft, he stated that the cost of no mitigation - that is, if no action were taken on so-called greenhouse gases - would be minus 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2020.
In his new paper he presents three scenarios for carbon-emission reductions by 2020.
At an "as-soon-as-possible'' level of 450 ppm (parts per million) he says the cost would be minus 1.6 per cent of GDP.
At the "first best'' conditional offer of 550 ppm the cost would be minus 1.1 per cent of GDP.
If a second-best "Copenhagen compromise'' was followed, the cost would be minus 1.3 per cent of GDP.
It is highly revealing that in presenting his first specific trajectories and estimated costs of emissions reduction, Professor Garnaut has found that the cost of reducing emissions is greater than the cost of doing nothing - although that is not how he sold his paper.
It is Rudd who is the denialist on the economics of climate change, if Professor Garnaut is to be believed.
The costs of action outweigh the costs of inaction.
Rudd and Swan have already warned Australians they face increasing unemployment.
To that must be added the costs of Labor's as-yet unspecific plans to deal with its over-hyped catastrophic view of climate change.
Professor Garnaut's report indicates Labor's mantra on climate change to be false.
Why does the ALP want to sacrifice the economy for a lie?
"This government does understand that the cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the cost of action'' (Swan, June 26).
It is the case that the economic costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action'' (Swan, June 24).
"Those of us on this side of the chamber understand that the economic costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of responsible action now'' (Wong, June 24).
"On the question of emissions trading, we on this side of the House know a simple fact and it is this: the economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change'' (Rudd, June 23).
"Australians recognise that tackling climate change will not be painless, but I think the Australian people have a very clear understanding that, as I said, the cost of inaction would be greater than the cost of responsible action now'' (Wong, March 18).
"The fact of the matter is that it is the costs of inaction that outweigh the costs of action'' (Garrett, March 17).
"And overall our view has long been, put in simple terms, that the costs of inaction on climate change are much greater than the costs of action'' (Rudd, February 21).
"We on this side of the House recognise the costs of climate change and that the costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of action''(Swan, February 14).
But a comparison of tables taken from Professor Garnaut's July report and the paper he released on Friday shows that this is not so.
In his July 4 draft, he stated that the cost of no mitigation - that is, if no action were taken on so-called greenhouse gases - would be minus 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2020.
In his new paper he presents three scenarios for carbon-emission reductions by 2020.
At an "as-soon-as-possible'' level of 450 ppm (parts per million) he says the cost would be minus 1.6 per cent of GDP.
At the "first best'' conditional offer of 550 ppm the cost would be minus 1.1 per cent of GDP.
If a second-best "Copenhagen compromise'' was followed, the cost would be minus 1.3 per cent of GDP.
It is highly revealing that in presenting his first specific trajectories and estimated costs of emissions reduction, Professor Garnaut has found that the cost of reducing emissions is greater than the cost of doing nothing - although that is not how he sold his paper.
It is Rudd who is the denialist on the economics of climate change, if Professor Garnaut is to be believed.
The costs of action outweigh the costs of inaction.
Rudd and Swan have already warned Australians they face increasing unemployment.
To that must be added the costs of Labor's as-yet unspecific plans to deal with its over-hyped catastrophic view of climate change.
Professor Garnaut's report indicates Labor's mantra on climate change to be false.
Why does the ALP want to sacrifice the economy for a lie?
“Bridge to Nowhere,
* Stevens championed proposed bridge near Ketchikan that became national symbol of wasteful spending
* Sen. Murkowski’s family would benefit personally from the bridge
* State of Alaska killed bridge
The proposed Gravina Island Bridge, also known as the “Bridge to Nowhere,” became a national symbol of wasteful congressional spending and driver of earmark reform. On Sept. 21, 2007, the State of Alaska officially abandoned the controversial project.
The Gravina Island Bridge initially received $223 million in 2005 via earmarks by Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski. The bridge would have connected Ketchikan, Alaska with its local airport on nearby Gravina Island (population 50). Congress stripped the earmark after a national uproar about it but appropriated the money anyway for unspecified transportation uses. Former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration set aside about $113 million of the appropriation for the Ketchikan bridge. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it. She said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.
On Oct. 20, 2005, Ted threatened to resign from the Senate if lawmakers took away money allocated for the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge and redirected it to Hurricane Katrina repairs in Louisiana. The attempt to redirect the bridge money was defeated, but Congress later removed the earmarks after intense public criticism.
If the bridge were built, the family of Sen. Lisa Murkowski would benefit. Murkowski’s mother Nancy, wife of former Gov. Frank Murkowski, is co-owner with her three siblings of a 35-acre parcel of land on Gravina Island. The plot is valued at $245,000 and is within a mile of the bridge’s western end. While critics charge that the bridge would increase the value of their property, the Murkowski family has taken umbrage at any suggestion of impropriety. Murkowski called her family’s undeveloped Gravina parcel “a worthless piece of property.”
See also: Lisa Murkowski » Don Young’s Way » Earmarks » Kenai River Keystone Drive » The Bridge to Nowhere Gets Nowhere »
* Sen. Murkowski’s family would benefit personally from the bridge
* State of Alaska killed bridge
The proposed Gravina Island Bridge, also known as the “Bridge to Nowhere,” became a national symbol of wasteful congressional spending and driver of earmark reform. On Sept. 21, 2007, the State of Alaska officially abandoned the controversial project.
The Gravina Island Bridge initially received $223 million in 2005 via earmarks by Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski. The bridge would have connected Ketchikan, Alaska with its local airport on nearby Gravina Island (population 50). Congress stripped the earmark after a national uproar about it but appropriated the money anyway for unspecified transportation uses. Former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration set aside about $113 million of the appropriation for the Ketchikan bridge. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it. She said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.
On Oct. 20, 2005, Ted threatened to resign from the Senate if lawmakers took away money allocated for the Gravina Island Bridge and the Knik Arm Bridge and redirected it to Hurricane Katrina repairs in Louisiana. The attempt to redirect the bridge money was defeated, but Congress later removed the earmarks after intense public criticism.
If the bridge were built, the family of Sen. Lisa Murkowski would benefit. Murkowski’s mother Nancy, wife of former Gov. Frank Murkowski, is co-owner with her three siblings of a 35-acre parcel of land on Gravina Island. The plot is valued at $245,000 and is within a mile of the bridge’s western end. While critics charge that the bridge would increase the value of their property, the Murkowski family has taken umbrage at any suggestion of impropriety. Murkowski called her family’s undeveloped Gravina parcel “a worthless piece of property.”
See also: Lisa Murkowski » Don Young’s Way » Earmarks » Kenai River Keystone Drive » The Bridge to Nowhere Gets Nowhere »
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Dispelling Delusions: Human-Caused Climate Change and Carbon “Pollution” Mythology
By Dr G LeBlanc Smith, PhD, AIG, AAPG
As a retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist (geosciences - sedimentology), I make this observation and comment on Minister Wong�s statement, (and Professor Garnaut’s commentary): �Climate change threatens icons like the Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu wetlands and the multi billion dollar tourism industries they support.� Knowing and understanding the past is a vital key to the future, and earth scientists can present much of this information in a context that can assist in exposing the truth and misrepresentations of the current “Climate Change” debate. It is fact that the vast bulk of the Great Barrier Reef area was exposed land and above sea level, prior to 10,000 years ago, when sea levels were over 70m lower than present. There was no great coral reef there until recently, and Kakadu was probably not a swampy wetland then either.
I suggest that statements from Ms Wong and Professor Garnaut should be challenged for veracity by all responsible Government advisors and the CSIRO at the very least, and by any observant scientist to test their logic against evidence.
The evidence can be seen from the history of sea level variations mapped as a time-curve derived from joining dots of observed and dated sea levels that track the natural melt-out of the last glaciation ice sheets. Sea level has risen about 130m in the 10,000 years between 17,000 and 7,000 years ago; with a maximum observed level ~8m above present sea level in marine deposits dated ~ 6000 years old in perched Antarctic lakes. It has subsequently fallen in steps as the planet has cooled to our present level. This is in the published science literature and much can be readily “Googled”.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dispelling-delusions.pdf
More solid facts from the past: It is established fact that the ice core data from both Greenland and Antarctica show information that carbon dioxide variation lags behind temperature variation, throughout the nearly half a million year record contained in the ice cores.
In summary, I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion? I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to be exposed by the science itself. There is no atmospheric hot-spot from “greenhouse CO2” despite over 20 years of serious looking for it (read Dr Evans and Dr Spencer’s recent media and US Senate evidence statements). Occam’s razor would point to the sun as the driver of climate change of significance. Human generated carbon dioxide is arguably around 3% of the total carbon dioxide budget, and in the light of the above, we are effectively irrelevant to the natural climate change continuum.
There was a strong El Nino in 98 that was responsible for a large portion of the infamous 20th century warming period.The fact is that global temps have been flat from 02 to 07 and dropped so much in 08 that all of the warming of the modern warm period (75 to 02)has been wiped out. So Technically, there has been no net warming since 75.The past year marks the change to cold phase of the PDO. Get ready for 30 year of cooling. The PDO cycle is approximately 30 years of warm followed by 30 year of cool. Nothing new here, just more natural cycles.
The Solar influence has NOT been debunked and is indeed the dominent driver for the ocean cycles that actually drive climate.
CO2 plays a very small roll in warming and is only pushed by the multibillion dollar AGW industry to shame the ignorant into forking over their money.
As a retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist (geosciences - sedimentology), I make this observation and comment on Minister Wong�s statement, (and Professor Garnaut’s commentary): �Climate change threatens icons like the Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu wetlands and the multi billion dollar tourism industries they support.� Knowing and understanding the past is a vital key to the future, and earth scientists can present much of this information in a context that can assist in exposing the truth and misrepresentations of the current “Climate Change” debate. It is fact that the vast bulk of the Great Barrier Reef area was exposed land and above sea level, prior to 10,000 years ago, when sea levels were over 70m lower than present. There was no great coral reef there until recently, and Kakadu was probably not a swampy wetland then either.
I suggest that statements from Ms Wong and Professor Garnaut should be challenged for veracity by all responsible Government advisors and the CSIRO at the very least, and by any observant scientist to test their logic against evidence.
The evidence can be seen from the history of sea level variations mapped as a time-curve derived from joining dots of observed and dated sea levels that track the natural melt-out of the last glaciation ice sheets. Sea level has risen about 130m in the 10,000 years between 17,000 and 7,000 years ago; with a maximum observed level ~8m above present sea level in marine deposits dated ~ 6000 years old in perched Antarctic lakes. It has subsequently fallen in steps as the planet has cooled to our present level. This is in the published science literature and much can be readily “Googled”.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dispelling-delusions.pdf
More solid facts from the past: It is established fact that the ice core data from both Greenland and Antarctica show information that carbon dioxide variation lags behind temperature variation, throughout the nearly half a million year record contained in the ice cores.
In summary, I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion? I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to be exposed by the science itself. There is no atmospheric hot-spot from “greenhouse CO2” despite over 20 years of serious looking for it (read Dr Evans and Dr Spencer’s recent media and US Senate evidence statements). Occam’s razor would point to the sun as the driver of climate change of significance. Human generated carbon dioxide is arguably around 3% of the total carbon dioxide budget, and in the light of the above, we are effectively irrelevant to the natural climate change continuum.
There was a strong El Nino in 98 that was responsible for a large portion of the infamous 20th century warming period.The fact is that global temps have been flat from 02 to 07 and dropped so much in 08 that all of the warming of the modern warm period (75 to 02)has been wiped out. So Technically, there has been no net warming since 75.The past year marks the change to cold phase of the PDO. Get ready for 30 year of cooling. The PDO cycle is approximately 30 years of warm followed by 30 year of cool. Nothing new here, just more natural cycles.
The Solar influence has NOT been debunked and is indeed the dominent driver for the ocean cycles that actually drive climate.
CO2 plays a very small roll in warming and is only pushed by the multibillion dollar AGW industry to shame the ignorant into forking over their money.
The Indoctrination of Children
remove all fragile objects from your reach before you read.
Childhood indoctrination. It’s a dirty word. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. It can never happen here in the free world, now can it? Of course not.
In the past few days, I have had a couple of disturbing conversations about AGW with the younger generation, including my own daughter. Particularly striking is the one I had with the 12-year old daughter of a friend.
(Warning: The following transcript may incite anger in libertarians and parents).
Dee: So, do you believe in Global Warming?
Melissa: Oh, yes!
Dee: Oh? Do you think that people are responsible?
Melissa: Uh huh. They put all that junk in the air and it has to be causing the world to get warmer.
Dee: Is that so? That junk is called carbon dioxide and of all the carbon dioxide that is going into the air, how much of it do you think that people are adding?
Melissa: I dunno… Maybe 75 percent?
Dee: 75%? What if I told you it was less than 5% and the rest was all natural?
Melissa: Well how about all the polar bears that are drowning? The ice cap is melting.
Dee: Ummmm… How many polar bears have drowned?
Melissa: I dunno, but they’re going extinct.
Dee: Oh, really? Polar bear population had doubled in the last few of decades.
Melissa: You are making me mad.
Dee: Why is that?
Melissa: Cause you are.
Dee: OK, so where did you learn that the polar bears are dying?
Melissa: A movie they showed at the school.
Well, gentle readers, I knew to which movie she was referring: Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. In fact, I was there that day when the school’s earth science class sponsored a public showing and did my best to correct some of the more glaring errors made by Mr. Gore, but it seems that I failed in my task.
To this day, the indoctrination continues to warp the opinions of children too young to understand the science or politics behind AGW and who only care about the cute, cuddly polar bears having to swim 50 or more miles between melting ice flows just to stay alive.
Our Friend, the Polar Bear
Recently, the American Institute for Public Service, a national foundation that honors community service, recognized Cool the Earth for the efforts to educate the youth of the San Francisco Bay Area about the dangers of Global Warming. The founder of Cool the Earth, Carleen Cullen had this to say:
“What I love about working with young people is their absolute optimism,” said Cullen. “You tell them, ‘Hey, we’ve got this little problem over here with our friend, the polar bear, and with humans as well,’ and they’re not overwhelmed by it; they’re not skeptical or cynical. They just ask, ‘What can I do to fix it?’ “
Read the entire article at the SF Chronicle here: Carleen Cullen fights global warming or see it for yourself at Cool the Earth.
P.S. I haven’t given up hope for Melissa - she is a bright kid. I am planning on making a special middle school-level presentation to help her understand both sides of the debate so she can make up her own mind. Who knows, perhaps I can shame the school into letting a skeptic have equal time.
Childhood indoctrination. It’s a dirty word. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. It can never happen here in the free world, now can it? Of course not.
In the past few days, I have had a couple of disturbing conversations about AGW with the younger generation, including my own daughter. Particularly striking is the one I had with the 12-year old daughter of a friend.
(Warning: The following transcript may incite anger in libertarians and parents).
Dee: So, do you believe in Global Warming?
Melissa: Oh, yes!
Dee: Oh? Do you think that people are responsible?
Melissa: Uh huh. They put all that junk in the air and it has to be causing the world to get warmer.
Dee: Is that so? That junk is called carbon dioxide and of all the carbon dioxide that is going into the air, how much of it do you think that people are adding?
Melissa: I dunno… Maybe 75 percent?
Dee: 75%? What if I told you it was less than 5% and the rest was all natural?
Melissa: Well how about all the polar bears that are drowning? The ice cap is melting.
Dee: Ummmm… How many polar bears have drowned?
Melissa: I dunno, but they’re going extinct.
Dee: Oh, really? Polar bear population had doubled in the last few of decades.
Melissa: You are making me mad.
Dee: Why is that?
Melissa: Cause you are.
Dee: OK, so where did you learn that the polar bears are dying?
Melissa: A movie they showed at the school.
Well, gentle readers, I knew to which movie she was referring: Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. In fact, I was there that day when the school’s earth science class sponsored a public showing and did my best to correct some of the more glaring errors made by Mr. Gore, but it seems that I failed in my task.
To this day, the indoctrination continues to warp the opinions of children too young to understand the science or politics behind AGW and who only care about the cute, cuddly polar bears having to swim 50 or more miles between melting ice flows just to stay alive.
Our Friend, the Polar Bear
Recently, the American Institute for Public Service, a national foundation that honors community service, recognized Cool the Earth for the efforts to educate the youth of the San Francisco Bay Area about the dangers of Global Warming. The founder of Cool the Earth, Carleen Cullen had this to say:
“What I love about working with young people is their absolute optimism,” said Cullen. “You tell them, ‘Hey, we’ve got this little problem over here with our friend, the polar bear, and with humans as well,’ and they’re not overwhelmed by it; they’re not skeptical or cynical. They just ask, ‘What can I do to fix it?’ “
Read the entire article at the SF Chronicle here: Carleen Cullen fights global warming or see it for yourself at Cool the Earth.
P.S. I haven’t given up hope for Melissa - she is a bright kid. I am planning on making a special middle school-level presentation to help her understand both sides of the debate so she can make up her own mind. Who knows, perhaps I can shame the school into letting a skeptic have equal time.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Oil reserve
Are we running out of Oil?
Reserves:
- 1.8 to 6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)
- 986 Billion barrels of oil are estimated using Coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion of U.S. Coal Reserves (DOE)
- 173 to 315 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (Alberta Department of Energy)
- 100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
- 90 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Arctic (USGS)
- 89 Billion barrels of immobile oil are estimated recoverable using CO2 injection in the U.S. (DOE)
- 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (MMS)
- 60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)
- 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
- 31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)
- 7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)
- 4.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)
- 3.65 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation (USGS)
- 1.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Eastern Great Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Permian Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.1 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Powder River Basin Province (USGS)
- 990 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Portion of the Michigan Basin (USGS)
- 393 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. San Joaquin Basin Province of California (USGS)
- 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Illinois Basin (USGS)
- 172 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Yukon Flats of East-Central Alaska (USGS)
- 131 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Southwestern Wyoming Province (USGS)
- 109 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Montana Thrust Belt Province (USGS)
- 104 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Denver Basin Province (USGS)
- 98.5 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (USGS)
- 94 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Hanna, Laramie, Shirley Basins Province (USGS)
For Comparison:
- 260 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Saudi Arabia (EIA)
- 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Venezuela (EIA)
Reserve Speculation:
- 580 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Russia's Arctic Ocean Shelf (Source)
- 400 Billion barrels of oil are estimated under the Arctic Ocean (Source)
Brazil reports massive oil discovery (WorldNetDaily)
Billions of gallons of oil in North Dakota, Montana (WorldNetDaily)
Finding New Oil In Long-exhausted Oil Wells (Science Daily)
Huge Oil Reservoir May Lie Under Northern Plains (FOX News)
Massive Canadian Oilfield Could Be Exploited Using New System (Science Daily)
Massive oil field found under Gulf (WorldNetDaily)
Mexico discovers 'huge' oil field (BBC)
Russia’s largest field is far from depleted (WorldNetDaily)
Saudi Arabia: 1.2 trillion barrels of oil or more (WorldNetDaily)
Tens Of Billions Of Additional Barrels Of Oil Remain To Be Tapped Miles Below Gulf Of Mexico, Cornell Geologist Says (Science Daily)
The Oil Sands Of Alberta (CBS News)
Thunder Horse in the Gulf (WorldNetDaily)
Ultra-low Cost Well Monitoring Could Save Thousands Of Marginal Oil Wells (Science Daily)
Shale Oil:
Shale Oil (Video) (5min)
America Needs A (Shale) Oil Change (Investor's Business Daily)
Reserves:
- 1.8 to 6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)
- 986 Billion barrels of oil are estimated using Coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion of U.S. Coal Reserves (DOE)
- 173 to 315 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (Alberta Department of Energy)
- 100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
- 90 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Arctic (USGS)
- 89 Billion barrels of immobile oil are estimated recoverable using CO2 injection in the U.S. (DOE)
- 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (MMS)
- 60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)
- 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
- 31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)
- 7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)
- 4.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)
- 3.65 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation (USGS)
- 1.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Eastern Great Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Permian Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.1 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Powder River Basin Province (USGS)
- 990 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Portion of the Michigan Basin (USGS)
- 393 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. San Joaquin Basin Province of California (USGS)
- 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Illinois Basin (USGS)
- 172 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Yukon Flats of East-Central Alaska (USGS)
- 131 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Southwestern Wyoming Province (USGS)
- 109 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Montana Thrust Belt Province (USGS)
- 104 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Denver Basin Province (USGS)
- 98.5 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (USGS)
- 94 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Hanna, Laramie, Shirley Basins Province (USGS)
For Comparison:
- 260 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Saudi Arabia (EIA)
- 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Venezuela (EIA)
Reserve Speculation:
- 580 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in Russia's Arctic Ocean Shelf (Source)
- 400 Billion barrels of oil are estimated under the Arctic Ocean (Source)
Brazil reports massive oil discovery (WorldNetDaily)
Billions of gallons of oil in North Dakota, Montana (WorldNetDaily)
Finding New Oil In Long-exhausted Oil Wells (Science Daily)
Huge Oil Reservoir May Lie Under Northern Plains (FOX News)
Massive Canadian Oilfield Could Be Exploited Using New System (Science Daily)
Massive oil field found under Gulf (WorldNetDaily)
Mexico discovers 'huge' oil field (BBC)
Russia’s largest field is far from depleted (WorldNetDaily)
Saudi Arabia: 1.2 trillion barrels of oil or more (WorldNetDaily)
Tens Of Billions Of Additional Barrels Of Oil Remain To Be Tapped Miles Below Gulf Of Mexico, Cornell Geologist Says (Science Daily)
The Oil Sands Of Alberta (CBS News)
Thunder Horse in the Gulf (WorldNetDaily)
Ultra-low Cost Well Monitoring Could Save Thousands Of Marginal Oil Wells (Science Daily)
Shale Oil:
Shale Oil (Video) (5min)
America Needs A (Shale) Oil Change (Investor's Business Daily)
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
1850/ CO2
The total warming from 1850 to the present has been 0.7 degrees C—but 0.5 degrees of the warming occurred before 1940. Eighty 80 percent of humanity’s greenhouse gases emissions came after that date.
The earth’s net global warming since 1940, moreover, has been a barely-measurable 0.2 degrees C—over 70 years. During this time the climate forcing power of CO2 molecules has been declining logarithmically, to the point where soon additional CO2 won’t make any further climate impact.
The earth’s net global warming since 1940, moreover, has been a barely-measurable 0.2 degrees C—over 70 years. During this time the climate forcing power of CO2 molecules has been declining logarithmically, to the point where soon additional CO2 won’t make any further climate impact.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The Atmosphere and CO2
The explanation is that 150 years ago the atmosphere was made up of 99.96%
nitrogen, oxygen and argon and today it is still 99.96% nitrogen, oxygen and
argon. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small that an increase
from 280ppmv to 400 ppmv (parts per million by volume) does not affect the
concentration of the major components.
Argon points out a very interesting fact.
There is over 25 times more argon in the atmosphere than CO2 but CO2 emissions
are millions of times more than argon emissions.
This is because argon is an inert gas that forms from the radioactive decay of
potassium40. It has been doing this for the entire 4.5 billion year history of
the Earth but it is an inert gas with no where to go so it has just collected
in the atmosphere.
CO2 on the other hand is always being added and removed from the atmosphere
through the "carbon" cycle and has come to an equilibrium concentration that is
very small. Human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is
minute compared with the natural sources and the scientific evidence points to
warming being a cause of increase in CO2 concentration not the result of it.
(Close inspection of the geological records shows that warming always leads
increase in CO2 concentration.)
Two processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere. THe first is photosynthesis which
uses the energy of the sun to undo the "burning process" (oxydation) that
created CO2 from oxygen and carbon. The carbon is added to the plant and the
oxygen is returned to the atmosphere.
The second process takes CO2 dissolved in the oceans and combines it with
calcium to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that forms sea shells and other forms
of limestone deposits.
-->nitrogen, oxygen and argon and today it is still 99.96% nitrogen, oxygen and
argon. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small that an increase
from 280ppmv to 400 ppmv (parts per million by volume) does not affect the
concentration of the major components.
Argon points out a very interesting fact.
There is over 25 times more argon in the atmosphere than CO2 but CO2 emissions
are millions of times more than argon emissions.
This is because argon is an inert gas that forms from the radioactive decay of
potassium40. It has been doing this for the entire 4.5 billion year history of
the Earth but it is an inert gas with no where to go so it has just collected
in the atmosphere.
CO2 on the other hand is always being added and removed from the atmosphere
through the "carbon" cycle and has come to an equilibrium concentration that is
very small. Human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is
minute compared with the natural sources and the scientific evidence points to
warming being a cause of increase in CO2 concentration not the result of it.
(Close inspection of the geological records shows that warming always leads
increase in CO2 concentration.)
Two processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere. THe first is photosynthesis which
uses the energy of the sun to undo the "burning process" (oxydation) that
created CO2 from oxygen and carbon. The carbon is added to the plant and the
oxygen is returned to the atmosphere.
The second process takes CO2 dissolved in the oceans and combines it with
calcium to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that forms sea shells and other forms
of limestone deposits.
Perhaps it would be beneficial to refine the geological perspective to the paleo-botanical perspective and examine the history of the plant community. When vascular plants first evolved. about 425 million years ago (Cooksonia), CO2 levels were about 3000 ppm. Gymnosperms evolved between 385 and 365 million years ago under CO2 concentration of near 4000 ppm and angiosperms evolved with CO2 levels of 2200 ppm about 165 million years ago. These earlier plant forms used C3 photosynthetic pathway better adapted to higher CO2 concentrations. However, as CO2 levels approached present day levels of 274 to 400 ppm, many of the C3 plants exhibited stress due to CO2 starvation. As a result of this environmental stress, two new photosynthetic pathways evolved; the C4 pathway and CAM. C4 plants first evolved up to 50 million years, they did not reach significant numbers until about 8 million years ago Crassulacean acid metabolism or CAM, which is typically of the cactii, evolved even more recently, apparently to counter the effect of CO2 starvation. As CO2 levels rise above recent lows, most plants grow more efficiently and harbor water resources more effectively. Hot houses typically increase CO2 levels to 1000 to 1500 to promote growth rates. CO2 and plants They thrive at 1000 ppm in green houses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)