Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.
WHY is this NEWS?I learned about this cycle in the 50's.My dad learned about this in the 20's.There is nothing new(s) except a bunch of charletons looking for their 15 second soundbite...seesh!
Politicians treat voters like children on this issue offering two options : Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax. What about the third way - listen to the science? It's the sun, stupid. There is no experimental evidence to support CO2 and AGW, or we'd have seen it. The house of cards was built decades ago and all the derivative 'research' since then has no scientific foundation.Moreover, we have no practical alternative to hydrocarbons and we must leave the carbon economy in place. The problem however, is the leftie political/intellectual construct of "BIG OIL". The state of affairs, actually is that "REALLY BIG OIL", the national oil companies like Russia and Venezuela and all the rest of the inefficient and uncompetitive national oil companies (e.g., PEMEX) have driven prices through the roof by incompetence. It is fair to call these super giants “REALLY BIG OIL”. They sit on 93% of the resources and reserves. The US is suffering from NIMBY for certain, but gas in Europe is about $9.00 - $11.00 a gallon equivalent and rising for similar NIMBY reasons; unable to build refineries. We are in for a fight. Most politicians know the truth about CO2 and are aware of the petition of 31,000 scientists who agree that CO2 is beneficial to life on the planet (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine; released at the Washington Press Club), and that Kyoto would severely affect prosperity for the poor and those on fixed incomes. However, ‘real scientists with Ph.D.s’ (Doctor of Philosophy degrees) is not a constituency and that was an election year. Pols now cater to an humanist educated mass of humanity who are lured by demagogues and driven by fear or worst case fictional scenarios. Interestingly enough, politicians use politically correct subjects to coerce politically correct voters. It is clarifying to quantify the scale of the economy and our heavy industrial boot on the neck of the environmental construct. Some examples:British Columbia: The mines in British Columbia have a footprint of 0.06% (6/10,000s) of the total land area of the Province. The prosperity of BC and the world has been enormously assisted by copper mining. Athabasca Oil sands: At the present time, after 30 years of mining the footprint of open pit mining in the oil sands is 0.047%; the pits will be backfilled and reclaimed with clean sand. The rest will likely be developed by underground thermal methods. The Alberta-Saskatchewan tar sands spill may reach an equilibrium foot print of 0.10% mining and following reclamation - 0.0%. Considering that the oil sands outcrop and bleed into the river in the summertime, Suncor and the others are cleaning up one of the largest (natural) oil spills on the planet. Montana: The palladium/platinum mines of Montana have a footprint of 641 acres. That is (1/147,165 square miles) 0.00068% of Montana.Alaska: Thanks to horizontal drilling, the 2000 acres of Alaska requested from the ANWR have a footprint of 4.7 x 10-4 % or 0.00047% of Alaska. The risk: reward ratio of these projects is de minimis. De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, which is used mostly as part of de minimis non curat praetor or de minimis non curat lex, to say that the law is not interested in trivial matters. De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law's attention. In risk assessment, de minimis refers to a level of risk that is too small to be concerned with. Some refer to this as a "virtually safe" level.  WikipediaIs it too Orwellion for you?
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups. The climate celebrities are linking climate and the economy. Yes, there has been warming since the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loops, multiple output, and complex system. The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious 'pollutant'. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house gas followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking greenhouse gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great 'sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.CO2 has been rising and Earth and her oceans have been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is under experimental review, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome. “Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.” As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climateActive sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climateThat is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that. Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat. Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center. http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx
Your'e right. Politicians do treat voters like children in this issue. But we must not blame or make excuses, we must pay close attention to mother earth's needs.
Post a Comment