Pages

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Manmade climate change theory continues to be battered by reality


Two of the major concerns of environmentalists are manmade climate change, and in response to this theory, the absolute necessity of green energy sources to replace the relatively inexpensive conventional energy we now get from coal, oil and natural gas.

Although our air is cleaner today than at any time in the last hundred years or so, it’s not clean enough for the environmental zealots inside and outside of government agencies. Hardly anyone would argue that if the activities of humans seriously damage the Earth’s atmosphere and raise its average temperature, it just makes sense to move away from fossil fuel energy toward non-polluting green energy. All they need is a plausible scenario that human activity is indeed warming the planet to dangerous levels, and people will accept moving to green energy.

However, as time passes more and more evidence comes forth weakening the case for manmade climate change; the data no longer support the idea that climate change is an imminent crisis, or a danger so great as to justify the drastic action the radical environmentalists and the Obama administration favor.

When the dirty little secrets of some climate scientists escaped a while back, revealing the manipulation and outright falsification of data they utilized to make their case stronger, that should have convinced even the staunchest climate change defender that something was wrong with their theory.

However, that did not faze them, but maybe this will: Announcing to the world that “I made a mistake,” British scientist James Lovelock, “the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his ‘Gaia’ theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being ‘alarmist’ about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too,” according to MSNBC.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,” he told the cable network. “We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.” He went on to say that “the climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said, but “the world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising,” he added.

We should all be happy that those doom-filled prognostications have not materialized, because despite the grand efforts of government agencies that are doing such tremendous damage to the economy and such a disservice to the American people, the green alternatives continue to come up short as replacements for coal, oil and natural gas.

Now we learn that not only is wind energy expensive, generally unpredictable, and reliant upon rare earth metals that are found almost exclusively in China, wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night. This inconvenient truth was discovered using satellite data collected from 2003 to 2011 over a large area of Texas, which has four of the world’s largest wind farms. The study showed an increase of night-time temperatures of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit on the wind farms.  During the period of the study the number of wind turbines in the region increased from 111 to 2,385.

This data suggests that wind farms have a greater warming effect than the fossil fuel sources they are intended to replace.

The study notes that this wind turbine warming could harm local agriculture, which has already suffered through serious drought conditions over recent years. In addition to its contribution to our food supply, Texas agriculture contributes $80 billion to the Texas economy, second only to petrochemicals.

Wind turbines also take a toll on birds and bats, and make disturbing noises that affect nearby residents. And now we hear that solar farms also have problems that have stirred objections of environmentalists interested in protecting threatened species.

The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is the official reptile of California, and the creature is fighting for its life against the expanding encroachment of solar facilities into its native habitat of the Mojave Desert in California, and there is now a lawsuit against the government to block the multi-billion dollar Calico Solar Power project, which would cover 4,000 acres of the turtle’s vital habitat.

What an interesting juxtaposition: one of the preferred energy sources needed to overcome the climate change crisis, that one group of environmentalists tells us threatens our very existence, poses serious problems for the concerns of another group of environmentalists over green energy facilities that threaten the existence of some animal species.

Wind and solar energy are already expensive, too expensive to be a viable alternative to fossil fuels, and the pending legal battles between opposing environmental interests will not make that better.

Ultimately, this new information argues not against wind and solar power development, but for common sense and moderation to prevail in implementing these immature technologies, and in the dangerous aggressive war on fossil fuels. Moderation and common sense, however, are characteristics with which liberal environmental ideologues are neither familiar nor comfortable.

Click Here to Comment


16 comments:

CK said...

it seems his expediency in global warming ravishing the planet by the end of the century is all that he's rescinded... you left out this quote from his recent 'revelation'...

Now he admits: "We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit." ....

and the supply of fossil fuels is running out and depletion is eminent so we do need to transition to something that is renewable as well as cleaner...

At our current rates of consumption, fossil fuels will be depleted by the end of the century....so you're 'drill baby drill' and 'burn baby burn' chants are just a short term solution...

James Shott said...

"We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit."

But, of course, that is the whole point. It isn’t imminent, and it isn’t a crisis, so we need to stop pretending that it is a crisis, and wrecking the economy, throwing money at unprepared and unproved technology, and throwing people on the unemployment line in some ultra-foolish over-reaction.

You are just wrong about fossil fuel availability.

A lot of people believe Obama when he throws around that “2% of the world’s oil reserves” crap, as if that really means anything at all about future oil reserves. If they would do a little research they would find that 2% is just the tip of the iceberg:

“EIA defines proved reserves as those volumes of oil and natural gas that geologic and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. Proved reserves are a small subset of recoverable resources with a probability of recovery of at least 90%.”

Here’s another source of reliable information: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/03/13/exposing-the-2-percent-oil-reserves-myth/

CK said...

but they are 'finite' resources that will eventually run out... not sure how you can dispute that... especially as more and more countries come 'on the grid' in the next few decades...

this relates back to my belief that the normal laws of supply and demand will cripple the fossil fuel supply as demand far out weighs the the current and future supply...

and I'm not for 'pulling the plug' on fossil fuels immediately... that would be as big of a disaster as cutting all government 'handouts' at once...

we do need to think long term on these things... regardless if global warming happens in the next 20yrs or the next 200... the clock is ticking on their exhaustion...

Lord Nazh said...

We now have more of those 'finite' sources than we did during every one of the 'peak' times that have come before.

When/if they do run out, we will adapt just like humans have always done. We won't get anywhere throwing good money at bad products (ie Solar/Wind)

James Shott said...

Lord Nazh is correct, CK.

Relative to your point about the “finite” characteristic of coal, oil and natural gas, the EIA says this:

“Based on U.S. coal production for 2010, the U.S. recoverable coal reserves represent enough coal to last 239 years. However, EIA projects in the most recent Annual Energy Outlook (January 2012) that U.S. coal production will increase at about 0.4% per year for the period 2009-2035. If that growth rate continues into the future, U.S. recoverable coal reserves would be exhausted in about 168 years if no new reserves are added.” (Next update of reserves in July 2012)

“Domestic proved reserves of oil and natural gas increased significantly in 2009. U.S. natural gas proved reserves – estimated as "wet" gas which includes natural gas plant liquids-increased by 11 percent in 2009 to 284 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). This is their highest level since 1971, despite an approximate one-third decline in the prices used to assess economic viability for 2009 reserves as compared to the prices used in 2008. U.S. crude oil plus lease condensate proved reserves rose 9 percent to 22.3 billion barrels in 2009, regaining 1.8 billion barrels of the 2.3 billion barrel decline in 2008. These increases demonstrate the possibility of an expanding role for domestic natural gas and crude oil in meeting both current and projected U.S. energy demands.”

And then there is the relatively new theory that oil is NOT a fossil fuel at all, but that it is abiotic.

In summary, there is plenty of coal, oil and natural gas – plenty – to furnish our energy needs until well after wind, solar, and other alternative sources have been developed to a level sufficient to justify their replacing fossil fuels.

So, what’s the rush? There is no evidence to support impending doom, or even a noticeable increase in global temperatures at all, let alone as a result of human energy production; and the air in the U.S. is cleaner than it has been in decades, despite the increased use of fossil fuels, and technology keeps improving ways to burn fossil fuels so that less pollution is produces.

None of this is even part of the equation of the out-of-control, ideologically-driven EPA and POTUS. They are killing us with unwarranted and stupid regulations.

CK said...

do these figures and projections take into account increased demand from the global market or are they just looking at US consumption rates?

James Shott said...

They are supply/availability figures, and only for the U.S.

CK said...

then I have major problems with the facts and figures as you present them...

energy sources, like everything else, are traded on the global market... so you have to account for supply/demand/availability around the world and not just look at the US figures...

Lord Nazh said...

the supply has also went up globally there CK; again, we have more 'fossil fuels' than we've ever had (in the world) and the means to get them efficiently and economically. What we lack is a President and Congress with the balls and common sense to actually use the resources.

It matters little to 'save' something for future generations if no one will ever use it.

James Shott said...

The figures are the figures, and they are for domestic supplies.

While all are on global markets, ours are not the only sources.

Most U.S. coal is sold domestically, and once the government stops interfering, at least as much of it as we need will be purchased domestically. In 2011 we used five times as much coal as we exported.

We have enough domestic fossil fuels to keep us going for a long, long time, and since it costs more for foreign customers to buy and transport fossil fuels, so long as the government stays out of the equation, we will have as much of that domestic fuel as we need.

CK said...

@Lord Nazi... its impossible to increase our supply of fossil fuels as they formed over millions of years... we may have more available on the market than ever before (if thats what you mean)... but they will be exhausted and will run out eventually...

@Smokey... and as China, India, Brazil, etc continue to industrialize, they will start to buy our coal as demand will far outweigh the supply and our corporations and capitalist will sell to them...

buck F@ck it I guess... let's strip mine all we want, do some hardcore mountain top removal, pollute rivers, streams and ground water just so we can pay less for power and energy over the next few decades or maybe even a generation or two...

whats does it matter anyway since the rapture is right around the corner...

Lord Nazh said...

Will not reply to CK anymore ... unless he can learn to spell

James Shott said...

@CK – It is not impossible to increase our supply of fossil fuels. They are likely always being increased through natural processes.

Admittedly, the process is slow. However, do you deny the possibility, the LIKELY possibility, that there are resources already produced, but not yet discovered?

It is a basic law of economics that the higher the demand for limited resources results in higher prices for those resources. In response to increased demand are both higher prices, and a parallel drive to find more of the resources.

Increased demand does not necessarily equate to running out of the resource. And remember, there are three resources, not one, and natural gas is a relatively new player, and one with ever-increasing reserves, based largely upon better technology and new processes.

Your problem, CK, is that you enter the debate with a definite and intense bias against fossil fuels, assuming that the future is bleak and dismal. It is not necessarily so.

CK said...

i'm not against fossil fuels... and yes... there are undiscovered and untapped reserves... I have family that work in the mines so I support coal just as much as everyone else...

but i think we need to be as efficient as possible as to reduce extra unnecessary consumption... and this includes upgrades to furnaces and most of our means of energy production...

sadly... tech upgrades lead to fewer jobs as machines replace manpower...so there are always two sides to each coin...

there are too many people on the planet and as more improve their livings conditions and industrialize across the globe... its only going to strain our resources further...

@Lord Nazh... sorry... i actually had to go back an see what you were referencing... must've been a Freudian slip..

Whitesnake said...

There seems ta be a lot of hot air being blown out here!

James Shott said...

The natural order of things is for people to find better ways of doing things. Whether that means cleaner ways to burn coal and oil, or better ways to produce electricity, that is the way of the world.

However, for this to work well, governments need to quit making things so much more difficult and expensive.

Technical improvements may result in fewer people working in the area where the improvement occurs, but it doesn’t mean necessarily that there aren’t other jobs, perhaps newer jobs, for those people to move into.

When the automobile came around, we didn’t need as many people to make buggy whips as before, but we needed people to build automobiles.

Too many people on the planet? How so? What’s your evidence for this?

One estimate says that nearly 14 billion people can live on Earth. We aren’t quite half that number now. But if you’re concerned about that, why not teach people to abstain from having sex, or at least to be responsible enough to use protection. Of course, abortion helps keep numbers down, if you don’t mind the idea of killing developing people.