Archive for Governance

Global Warming Science

Posted in Talking Trash with tags , , , on October 15, 2010 by ditelhead

Carbon Budget

Please click the links. You must at least casually review these articles to understand what I am talking about.

What is the science or lack thereof behind “Global Warming”? It may surprise some people that the earth’s climate is a very complicated thing. Carbon dioxide can intercept infrared radiation at a wavelength of about 15 microns and heat up. When the earth heats up, it can release carbon dioxide. Which came first the chicken or the egg? The plain and simple fact is nobody knows. There is much more water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere; and, water vapor absorbs infrared radiation at a much broader band width than carbon dioxide. It is universally believed that water vapor accounts for the overwhelming bulk of the so-called green-house effect. Water vapor also turns into clouds. Sometimes incoming cosmic radiation can effect the formation of clouds. Clouds cool the earth significantly. Convection also cools the earth significantly. The effect of clouds and convection would completely overwhelm the effect of radiance in the troposphere. The classic view of climate change puts ocean currents and the position of continents in the driver’s seat. Volcanoes emit both co2 which supposedly warms the earth and sulfur which cools the earth. Forrest fires emit both soot which cools the earth and enormous amounts of co2 which supposedly warms the earth. Soot can also darken snow causing the snow to absorb more visible light.  Weathering of minerals also changes the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Weathering of kerogen or carbonates can add co2. Much of the earth’s historic co2 has been sequestered in carbonates by living organisms. Weathering of silicates absorbs co2 and most of the earth’s surface is covered by silicates. The mechanics of earth’s movement through space (Milankovitch cycles) also exert a significant effect on climate. Solar activity has a significant effect on climate; but, not the way you might think. It seems the solar wind associated with sun-spots is a barrier to cosmic rays. You can find an abundance of articles on the web connecting sun-spots with climate including the observations of Edward Walter Maunder eighty years before this climate debate began. Living things have a significant effect on the earth’s climate too. Animals produce co2. Plants absorb co2 and also cool by vaporization.  As if all this was not complicated enough, I can personally guaranty you that what we don’t know about the earth’s climate vastly exceeds what we do know! Yet it seems that the proponents of anthropogenic global warming have it all down to a computer model. I can only conclude that they must have computers based on the chips from the first “Terminator”.

 Balancing the atmosphere

By necessity, computer models are almost always cartoonish oversimplifications of reality. Both the code and the amount of processing time increase incredibly fast as one tries to make more realistic approximations of reality. Often these simplifications come surprisingly close to real world effects. Sometimes, they don’t. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi claims that the black body equations used by many so called climatologists are a gross over simplification of how radiative equilibrium works on a real planet. Dr. Miskolczi’s article published in Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40, which can be downloaded from: http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf. In defense of Dr. Miskoliczi’s article, many scientists believe that even though the partial pressure of co2 is equal to the air pressure outside the international space station, that the co2 in earths atmosphere completely extinguishes infrared radiation in it’s main absorption band of 15 microns in a few hundred meters. Carbon dioxide is like India ink to infrared radiation at a wavelength of 15 microns. The earth’s ability to maintain a relatively stable temperature is well known to earth scientists. So mystifying is the earth’s ability to maintain a relatively steady temperature that it has been given the whimsical misnomer “Gaia Hypothesis”. In fact no one really believes that the earth is alive or is being watched over by some Greek goddess and no one had any hypothesis to explain this fact until Dr. Miskoliczi published his article. Skeptical Science claims that extinction of co2 absorption spectra is irrelevant because of convection yet the cooling effects of convection are not taken into account nor any data set cited. Go ahead click their links. The sad fact is that we seem stuck like a broken record on these radiative transfer models. A doctor thinks he cures what you have and a specialist thinks you have what he cures. Dr. James Hansen specialized in radiative transfer models; but was never able to explain how greenhouse gasses could cause a planet to spin the wrong way. Many people think that Venus is hot because of its atmospheric pressure. In the troposphere radiative transfer is much less significant than heat conduction or convection. Conduction and convection is what your local weatherman looks at. This co2 based global warming thing is really based on a series of cascading positive feedbacks. Warmer air would contain more water vapor. The water vapor would multiply the co2 effect. Their collective effect would melt the tundra which would release methane, another greenhouse gas. These cascading effects would be triggered by the global temperatures rising above a “tipping point” beyond which the earth would be sent into an uncontrollable runaway greenhouse effect. It sounds logical; but it simply does not happen.

Medievel Warm Period

As I said, the earth has hot times and cold times; but always seems to bounce back to its “natural temperature range”. Currently we are at the cold end of that range. This is in fact an “ice age”. We just happen to be living during a short lived glacial retreat known as an “interglacial period”. Four of the previous interglacial periods were warmer and had more co2 than the current one. In fact for most of the past half billion years the earth has been warmer and had much more co2 in its atmosphere than now. Temperatures would have to go up 3-4 degrees Celsius and there would have to be three times as much co2 in the air just to get near normal. The earth is currently very deficient in co2. Even looking back just a thousand years it seems the climate was much warmer. A thousand years ago the North Atlantic was much warmer than it is now (medieval warm period MWP). Six hundred years ago the North Atlantic got very cold (the little ice age). In the 1800’s the North Atlantic began to warm up again. We don’t have rigorous temperature readings from these times; but, we have other proxies. Proxies are not all created equal. In school I found physics and math quite easy; but, geology was always a curve ball. Geology is all about evaluating proxies and the proxies don’t always point in the same direction. Tree rings can tell you if one year was better than another year; but, you can’t ferret out a tenth of a degree difference the way Dr. Michael Mann was trying to do. If you come across a frozen Viking farm; then you know that the climate had to be mild enough for whatever agriculture they were doing. Based on these proxies and the literature of the time; I can not see a thing remarkable about our temperature trend from 1800 to the present! Claims by the proponents of AGW that the Vikings were part of a vast right wing conspiracy have not been substantiated.  There is nothing unusual about the current warming trend, even if you include a litany of exaggerated temperature readings.

“Also I cannot believe that there is not a concerted protest at the secrecy that surrounds this statistical composite from Phil Jones. You’d think that figures as widely quoted as this should be public (in the same way the satellite record is), but you’d be wrong.”

http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/26/hadcru-temperature/

It’s not just a matter of data being available in some generic form. There is tones and tones of data out there. Which data set goes with which paper? Is the data available? Even today they don’t make it easy. Remember; it’s your tax dollars that are paying for all this data. As these figures become available to the public more and more “errors” are being found. Failures in NOAA satellites went unchecked and the NOAA tries to doge FOI requests. Steve McIntyre discovered the Y2K bug in GISS data. A few months later they found more slipshod work from the house of Hansen. Data from Russian stations was cherry picked. This is particularly important because Siberia is one of the few places in the northern hemisphere where you can get rigorous data from pristine environments. An unexplained bias is added to New Zealand data and a smoking gun is found at Darwin Zero. Once the GISS data was fixed and the Darwin Zero data was un-homogenized the both indicated that the hottest year was in the 1930’s. This is significant because the proponents of AGW often claim that the medieval warm period was regional; not global. They also claim that the lack of data in the Southern Hemisphere proves this. Only for AGW does a lack of data prove anything. Furthermore it’s not up to Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre to disprove the AGW theory. It’s up to the proponents of AGW to prove their theory and they have not come close to that. The vitriol aimed at these people is incomprehensible. Scrutinizing the integrity of the data is the first order of the day in any scientific endeavor. It is the difference between science and religion. Is the data driving the theory or is the theory driving the data?

Is it possible the sun has something to do with the climate? The AGW proponents say no. They claim that the suns brightness has not changed much in fifty years. Fifty years ago the northern hemisphere was well into its warming trend. The proponents of global warming have never produced the satellite records from four-hundred years ago, before the warming began. Furthermore the theory that it’s the sun has to do with sunspots. There is in fact a very good correlation with sunspots. When there are a lot of sun spots the suns atmosphere is very active. When the sun is active it injects more plasma into the solar wind which acts as a solar atmosphere stopping cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are thought to stimulate cloud formation which has a significant influence on the earth’s climate. That theory might not explain the global warming on Mars and Jupiter; but, something is happening that has nothing to do with people.

Proponents of AGW claim that carbon isotope analysis proves that humans have caused a 33% increase in atmospheric co2. Humans produce only 4% of the worlds co2. How can humans be responsible for a 33% increase in co2? It simply is not possible! That would be a total violation of both chemical and biological laws of equilibrium. In fact there is only a fractional difference δ13c and δ12c in the biosphere due to photosynthesis. Plants seem to have a slightly higher amount δ13co2. The co2 in the air seems to be lower in δ13co2 than you would expect from burning plants. Dr. Roy Spencer thinks peaks in sea surface temperatures might have caused the difference. In his post in WUWT Dr. Spencer compares:

 The monthly C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa (1990-2005) are available here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2c13/flask/month/mlo_01D0_mm.co2c13

 The monthly Mauna Loa CO2 data (1958-2007) are contained in the 5th file listed here: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/

I find the claim that we know exactly how much co2 volcanoes produce to be questionable. Most of the worlds volcanoes are under water and very difficult to explore. Furthermore magma that encounters limestone would release huge amounts of co2. Marble comes from mixing limestone with magma. Simply examining a few volcanoes tells you nothing. The amount of co2 produced could vary greatly depending on what kind of rock the magma encountered. I know of no large scale census of volcanoes. In my last post I mentioned how a disproportionate number of most cited papers in the geosciences seem to deal with climate science, at least for American geologists. Where’s the “shake and bake”; that’s what gets people interested in geology in the first place.

“There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.”

-Dr. Roy Spencer http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/spencer-the-inquisition/

The idea that these AGW scientists just got together and in twenty years they got the Earths climate all figured out is the most ludicrous claim I’ve ever heard. If these people are really that good then they should develop fusion power and make the whole debate academic. In fact there is little historic data to go on and use of proxies is not well understood by theoretical physicists. I haven’t even gone into ocean currents, only three of which are generally discussed. Biology would be a whole new chapter in the discussion by itself. Co2 is one factor of many. In the future other factors influencing the climate will probably be discovered.  Take another look at what this much maligned man said: Balling

One of the things I like about Anthony Watts blog, WUWT, is how enlightened the comments are. In one post, Searching the PaleoClimate, the third comment states:

 “The analysis of Royer et al. (2004) assumes an unrealistically high pH correction. First, it neglects the ice-volume effect, which changes the relation between δ18O and T. Second, this large pH correction implies high temperatures for seawater even during times of extensive glaciations. Moreover, the analysis of Royer et al. (2004) consists of bootstrapping, by introducing a correction to T that is an implicit function of RCO2. It is then not surprising that a correlation between T and RCO2 is obtained. This would be the case irrespective of the RCO2 model utilized.”

Referring to: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RoyerReply.pdf

Many of these peer reviewed articles, promoting the theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming” have professional looking citations. There are thousands of articles by somebody et al. It is humanly impossible to begin to cover a fraction of them. Every time I’ve chased these musical “et al.s“; I find somebody et al. cited somebody else et al. who cited somebody who made an assumption about something they could not possibly know and had no physical reason as to why it should be so. (i.e. 100 year half life for co2 persistence in the atmosphere)

Personally I’m extremely skeptical of the theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW); but, that’s not really the point I’m trying to make here. The point is that things are allot more complicated than you’ve been told. The theory of AGW is not close to being proved and we are not close to understanding the earths climate.

NN

Advertisements

Climate Change

Posted in Talking Trash with tags , , , , on July 29, 2010 by ditelhead

Climate Temperature

I always let myself get tangled up in a discussion of whether global warming is real and man made. That is a distraction from the most important points. The most important points here are that:

1. Throughout most of the earth’s history the earth’s climate was much warmer than it is now.

2. If the earth’s climate did warm up; it would not be the disaster that some people are claiming.

3. The IPCC has carefully selected a time frame to support their Global Warming agenda rather than doing rigorous science.

If you went to see a movie and they only showed you one frame out of thousands of frames in that movie; do you think you would know what the movie was about? Physics, Climatology and Paleoclimatology are distinct disciplines. The physicist and climatologist look at one frame and they think they know what the movie is about. The paleoclimatologist stays to the end of the movie. A climatologist looks at clouds and differential equations. A paleoclimatologist looks at fluid inclusions and isotope ratios. Paleoclimatology is part of Geology and there is a war brewing, geologists vs. IPCC climatologists.

To a geologist; if the direst predictions (temperature wise) of the IPCC actually happened; it would barley register. If the global climate warmed by 3 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit; North Africa would become wetter and greener. The greening of North Africa and the longer season in Siberia would be a huge co2 sink. There would be a slight lag time for the oceans to catch up with the land masses in temperature. During that lag subtropical deserts would grow; but, they would soon green up with more rain. This would be a net benefit for humanity. That is one advantage to the slow release of co2 by industry as apposed the radical one, two punch associated with the Siberian traps or the Deccan traps. Catastrophic volcanic activity blackened the sky. When the sky finally cleared; the plants and phytoplankton that would have mitigated the effect of the co2, were dead. The pp. co2 was 20 times what it is today. That was climate change.

Today the pp. co2 is about .006 psi. That tiny bit of co2 is getting all the blame for heating up the earth. Unscrupulous scientists like Stephen Schneider publish exaggerated claims to whip the global warming mafia into a frenzy. (yes, I’ve read the pitiful attempts of liberal bloggers to defend him) Legitimate scientists risk their careers and reputations simply asking the kind of questions that must be asked to make the science rigorous.

Antarctica

What is local and what is global? Can you find a pristine place to measure in the northern hemisphere? If you found a pristine place would you have a history of measurements? Consider a small outpost in Alaska. A hundred years later the city has a hundred thousand people. How would you compare the measurements? No place demonstrates this better than Antarctica. You’ve heard one side say the ice is melting and the other say it isn’t. They are both right! On the peninsula that almost touches South America the ice is melting. The Antarctic peninsula has registered the fastest warming of any place on earth. Away from South America the other 96% of Antarctica does not seem to be warming at all. Furthermore there is no detectable warming in the troposphere; and, that is significant. This indicates that at least some of what is being measured is urban or more correctly suburban sprawl.

Particularly damning is the convenient time frame the IPCC is using. The IPCC is using a time frame custom designed to promote the global warming agenda. Right as we go from the Little Ice Age, caused by the Maunder Minimum, into a warmer period. Even NASA says the models don’t work unless you include the solar intensity. How much is sun? How much is suburban sprawl and deforestation? How much is co2? The IPCC’s computer models were never designed to do anything but push the global warming agenda. Though it is generally assumed that the solar cycles can account for a third of the warming; many scientists are beginning to reassess that assumption. Is it possible that deforestation and the ubiquitous black asphalt might have enhanced the suns effects? Have any of you ever stepped on the street on a hot summer day in bare feet? Do you remember Antarctica? Is it all beginning to make sense now? I could just as easily used the year 1050 as my start point and claimed that there has been almost no global warming in 800 years! A hundred years or 960 years is a geologically meaningless time frame. That is why neither a climatologist nor a physicist can give context to their findings. The oldest ice cores are less than a million years old and that is still geologic plank time. Nonetheless if you follow the temperature from the year 1050 till the present; you would realize it’s just the earth doing what the earth has been doing for 4 billion years. (temperatures inferred from tree rings)

The other thing that is intellectually dishonest about the IPCC is this “Climate Change”. What is climate change? The climate is always changing. The IPCC is pushing global warming and some kind of carbon control scheme. I don’t know what or who is behind it but it isn’t science at least not rigorous science.

The final straw was when the IPCC tried to infer that all responsible scientists were onboard with Anthropogenic Global Warming. The geologists never were. I remember 30 years ago reading an article in Scientific American. A frustrated physicist addressed a conference of geophysicists about “Global Warming”. The geophysicists were delighted to find out the world was warming up. The frustrated physicist didn’t think the geophysicists understood. The problem was the geophysicists had seen it all before. Even scientists that believed that man made co2 was the overwhelming cause of global warming have felt bullied by the populist global warming mafia. Many scientists were beginning to realize that this wasn’t rigorous science. The physicists and climatologists are now jumping ship.

Computer models of even the simplest of systems are not simple. I have mentioned only a couple variables. Assumptions were made about how long co2 stays in the air and in the ocean. Assumptions were made about many things they could not possibly know. A computer model is no better than the assumptions it is based on. There are too many wholes in the IPCC’s “science” to cover in one article. The IPCC was specifically created to push the global warming agenda, yet the faithful act like anyone who challenges them is a heretic. Claims of a general consensus among scientists that work on climate change simply mean that people who depend on climate change grants want them to continue. We can’t go around, like Chicken Little, crying “the sky is falling’ every time the earths climate hiccups. You have to remember we are talking about a 1.25 degree increase in global temperatures and a 25% increase in pp.co2~.006psi. if you believe the IPCC.

Some articles for those that are interested:

UN Climate Scientists speak out

Minority Report

It’s a bit technical but this guy thinks the suns role in “Climate Change” might be under rated: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_PP23E.html

Robert Balling thinks the subject is complicated. Ya think? http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf

Basically Glassman thinks the IPCC is an outright fraud: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html

These guys found some curious anomalies in Greenland ice cores that don’t quite fit the “Global Warming” agenda: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/

This guy questions the scientific rigor with which temperature measurements were made: http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

Scare tactics of the past: Earth Day 1970

Digg Me

Housing Crash

Posted in Talking Trash with tags , on July 24, 2010 by ditelhead

Why did Alan Greenspan continue to raise interest rates past 4%? Back in 2005 the fed under Alan Greenspan was raising interest rates. I understand that interest rates could not stay at 1% (Fed funds rate). A long time ago in economics 101, I was told that the sweet spot in our economy was with interest rates at 4%. I’m not as smart as Alan Greenspan; but, after a 3% increase in interest rates; common sense would demand taking a breather. This isn’t hind sight. Even at the time I remember thinking, “what is he doing”. I thought maybe the need to borrow money for our war against Islam might have caused the need to raise interest more than would otherwise be necessary.

In all fairness, our government can’t completely dictate interest rates. The Fed, in theory, acts like that little lead weight they put on your tiers. The Fed must balance the governments financial needs with the market. That said, the U.S. government is a huge factor in the market and it has a disproportional influence on interest rates.

You can’t directly correlate the “Fed funds rate” with adjustable mortgages; but, any one who claims they did not see this real estate crisis coming needs to learn to count on their fingers. You can’t raise the fed funds rate 4.25% without having some effect on mortgages. Shortly after the fed funds rate reached its peak at 5.25%, Ben Bernanke succeeded Alan Greenspan as Fed chairmen. Greenspan blamed low interest rates for the housing bubble. The problem was not the bubble; but, the way they let the air out of the bubble, too fast. Ben Bernankes own Bernanke Doctrine says not to do this. In 2006 Ben Bernanke still had time to drop interest rates according to his own doctrine and administer a soft landing for an inflated housing market.

Between them, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, have more letters after their names than the Chinese alphabet. Alan Greenspan acted like a drunk and Ben Bernanke did nothing to undo the damage as the economy crashed. And now where are interest rates. This is yet another reason to keep the state small and the individual big.

Have either of these guys ever explained why they kept interest rates artificially high, knowing it would cause a cascading economic failure?

Save NASA:

Posted in Talking Trash with tags on July 5, 2010 by ditelhead

Excessive Government spending on programs that are only designed to buy votes with the people’s tax money is crippling this nation. The politicians say that most of this spending is built in to the budget. Well who built it into the budget? Much of it has to do with President Johnson’s Great Society. Social security was stolen and much of the money that BP has set aside will never reach the people who need it. Roosevelt’s New Deal actually made the great depression worse. Large government programs rarely benefit we, the people. The government, any government, is a black hole which swallows the people’s hard earned wealth. Invariably these programs are put in place to make the powerful more powerful. This is what Progressivism has become. By the very nature of governance the government does not produce wealth or improve conditions for people. Government programs do not improve the economy and they are riddled with fraud. As far as I know there is only one exception to this, NASA.

NASA

Almost unique among government programs NASA has achieved an extraordinary level of success. Their Hubble telescope has exceeded what anybody could possibly have expected. Discoveries made by the Hubble telescope have shaken physics to its core. The shuttle too has exceeded reasonable expectations. The shuttle was a first attempt at a reusable space craft; 25 years later there is still no substitute for it. I feel we will regret putting them in “moth balls”. Tracking hurricanes has saved thousands of lives. NASA technology is all around us, improving our lives every day. Their technology has done far more to improve life than the Progressives ever have. Some people claim that the government’s investment in “green technology” will produce the same results. I think that unlikely.

The space program as we know it was originally conceived as a form of “one-ups-menship” during the cold war.  Exploration of space is an extraordinary challenge. The government should do the things that only the government can do. For now the risks associated with space exploration put it far beyond the tolerance of any private business. The challenge is one of the things that make NASA unique. This reaching beyond our perceived limits goes to the heart of what it means to be an American.

I said NASA was “almost” unique among government programs. Many decades ago they interviewed some of the people who worked on the Panama Canal. These people worked under conditions that were miserable beyond comprehension in the modern world. Nonetheless every person interviewed only remembered being so proud to be part of a great and meaningful project. The challenge and the fact that this kind of exploration goes to the heart of what it means to be an American is why NASA has been so successful. I doubt that any of these “green projects” will ever come near that kind of achievement.

While irresponsible politicians spend tax dollars on irresponsible projects, NASA is dieing.

Corruption of the environmental movement:

Posted in Talking Trash with tags on June 23, 2010 by ditelhead

In the 1960’s we had a real problem with pollution of the soil and ground water. This is indeed a most insidious and difficult problem to deal with. Over used insecticides, heavy metals and just nasty stuff poisoned our soil and water. Uncontrolled air pollution over our cities was a problem too; but, unlike the pollution in the ground water and soil this was easy to deal with. By far the most dangerous pollution is ground water pollution. You can’t clean that up and it will take a hundred years for nature to flush it out.

All you hear about today is global warming. There is no nice way to put this, Global warming is a lie. The fact is the earths mean temperature would have to go up by 8 degrees Fahrenheit before the question even made sense. We’ve known for 70 years what direction the earth’s temperature is going and it isn’t up. Responsible scientists anticipate 2000 ft of ice in downtown Manhattan in the next few thousand years. The people who understand long term climate trends (Geologists) either work for the government or for oil companies. If some one works for an oil company CNN will say he’s a puppet of big oil. If some one works for the government CNN will forget to mention that people, who don’t carry the global warming line, will not work for the government very long.

The latter-day environmental movement has nothing to do with protecting the environment. Most of it has to do with rich people who are afraid that their day out on the yacht will be ruined by the sight of oil derricks or giant windmills. They worry that their property values will go down because of electrical lines. These people use much more gas and electricity than the rest of us. They remind me of the medieval lords who would not let the peasants hunt or have any kind of life. If they don’t want electric lines or oil derricks in their neighborhood that’s their right; but, they should not get gas or electricity. The latter-day environmental movement has made it clear that they want the rest of us to live like peasants while they live like kings.

Much has been said about the new electric cars that save gas. Batteries are the most inefficient devices known. To get 1 kilowatt hour out of a battery you have to put 2 kilowatt hours into the battery. What happens when we throw the battery away? I don’t know about the new batteries; but, the old ones were pretty toxic. It takes a very strong chemical reaction to produce even 1 volt. Here we are with the ground water pollution again and you can’t just plant a tree to fix that. On the other hand we could green up North Africa if we were serious about global warming. If there is anything to this global warming, which I doubt, North Africa will green up naturally. A 3 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures will turn North Africa green and that will be a huge sink for carbon dioxide.

Fission based nuclear power has been proposed as an alternative. On the hole I’m in favor of exploiting everything we can. Fission based nuclear power has a serious waste problem. God help us if that gets into the ground water. Several countries have begun reprocessing the waste. By reprocessing the waste, waste can be reduced by 90%. Still we need to use caution and common sense so these rich people can enjoy their day on the family yacht.

People are comparing the slow release of carbon dioxide through automobiles to the sudden release of carbon dioxide from natural events like the cataclysmic volcanism in Siberia 300 million years ago. Then global temperatures went up 10 degrees Fahrenheit in a matter of a decade. Furthermore this kind of event cause global zigzagging. In part 1 they block out the sun killing plants and causing global temperatures to drop precipitously. In part 2 the stuff that blocked out the sun drops out of the atmosphere and global temperatures rise 15 degrees Fahrenheit in a matter of a few years with no plants to mitigate the effects. Then the ocean currents could not adjust to the climate change. This is totally different than the slow introduction of carbon dioxide from cars and there is little evidence of global warming man made or otherwise.

Personally I’m for exploiting all of the resources at our disposal. That has nothing to do with global warming, it’s just common sense. We need to stop thinking about 24 hour power. The sun provides power during the times of peek usage. Think about how much burden we could take off the grid if individual houses and businesses just slightly reduced their power consumption with a simplified solar power scheme designed to run one appliance (like the air conditioner)  during peek hours. In America we tend to over complicate things.

Finally we need to address the possibility of nuclear fusion. My god we are using government resources everywhere but where they might do some good. We need to develop sustainable practical nuclear fusion now. Failure is not an option.

We also need to cut off all oil and gas going to Florida. We will see how well the tourist industry works when the jets and air conditioners stop running!

The Truth Ban

Posted in Talking Trash with tags , , on June 8, 2010 by ditelhead

The Truth Ban

Has the truth been banned from public discourse? Is George Orwell really rolling over in his grave? It would seem so.

Helen Thomas was forced into multiple mia-culpas the other day when she accidentally let the truth slip out. Referring to an act of piracy carried out in support of an illegal blockade imposed by an occupying force because the wrong people were elected in VichyPalestine. Both Fox and CNN showed an utter lack of journalistic ethics by referring to her remarks as “controversial” when in fact they were simply factual. Not conservative nor liberal nor anti-Semitic, just indisputable historical facts. All of Israel is occupied Palestinian land. Where the Jews should go is not the Palestinians problem. This is the inconvenient truth!

CNN is now doing a special on the poisoning of America with Sanjay Gupta. It’s is part of the whole anti industrialization anti corporation theme. They started with insecticides. CNN described how cavalier usage of these dangerous chemicals in the 1960’s lead to problems in the 1980’s and how many of us have these chemicals in our bodies. As far as that goes they are right. CNN did not mention that every year, insecticides save more lives than all the doctors and all the hospitals and all the wonder drugs in all the world in all of history, did they? CNN only tells half the story. Global warming is also part of their agenda; but, CNN forgets to tell people that for most of the last half billion years the earth was much warmer than it is now. Neither CNN nor the environmental lobby wants you to hear these two inconvenient truths; they’re not PC. Any one who has tried to mention them is ignored or belittled.

Now, to be really politically incorrect; we need the oil companies! Nobody thinks that these companies are run by saints. Oil companies are run for profit and that’s not a bad thing. Between the mess in the gulf and the enormous debt our democratic leaders are running up we better hope that oil companies, especially BP make allot of profit. We better hope that we will always have companies willing to take risk. By the end of this month BP will be the only company in the world that knows how to cap a well under a mile of ocean.

CNN interviewed an oil company executive who said we would not have to drill in such deep water if the government would open up federal lands and shallow water areas to oil exploration. CNN never followed that up, they just ignored the guy. Irresponsible environmentalists don’t even want to let people see how much oil might be there.

Lawyers and politicians who take no risk and produce nothing can always find fault. The Obama administration has taken an adversarial stance to the oil companies. Rather than working together to contain the problem the Obama administration pointed fingers and the BP executives used dispersants to hide the problem. Obama wants the government to do everything but what it needs to do. His lackluster response to this accident, when it was still containable was the real disaster here.

Politicians and lawyers always look for some one to blame. This only forces BP executives to run for cover and exacerbates the problem. Lawyers and politicians risk nothing and produce nothing but hot air. In the real world producing anything entails risk. In the real world shortcuts are taken and mistakes are made. No lawyer or politician has ever put one drop of gas in your tank. How long would the Florida tourist trade last without gas?

We need to work together to find out what went wrong. It will be impossible to do this if all the executives are running for cover. Government and industry must work together develop safer ways to do deep water drilling. Government must respond better next time to prevent an accident from becoming a catastrophe. Whether purposely or by sheer stupidity Obama let the gulf coast die to promote his green agenda.

Addendum:

I was amazed to see those robots work. The technology here is beyond beyond.

Disaster in the Gulf

Posted in Talking Trash with tags on June 3, 2010 by ditelhead

Gulf oil disaster

This is a disaster; no one in their right mind would say otherwise. While we are stewing in righteous and justified indignation; we need to understand, if we make these oil companies risk averse; we will be the ultimate losers. We need these companies to take risk.

All I’ve heard from the beginning is who’s liable. We are going to hold BP and Trans Ocean responsible and gouge them to the fullest extent of the law. How is this kind of talk helpful when part of the problem is that these guys are already running for cover? For gods sake people think. Real conservatives believe that the government should do what only the government can do and not micromanage every aspect of your life. The Gulf oil disaster is just such a situation where government needed to work to contain the oil spill while industry tried to plug the hole. All we have is a lynch mob of useless politicians with law degrees who would not know science if it bit them on the ass.

Who is really responsible for the worst environmental disaster in America’s history? In my opinion this disaster was caused by the unholy alliance of Government and the environmental lobby. Ridiculous restrictions on exploration and government policies pushed the oil companies out into deep water where they can’t fix things if their fail safes fail. We just had an oil spill in Alaska; a guy went out and fixed it with a wrench because it was onshore and he could get to it. It was after all our government that pushed these companies into deep water.

Obama just gave a speech where he said that the fact that BP was in mile deep water was because all the easily accessible oil was gone. Plain and simple, Obama lied and none of the press core challenged him on it! The government owns one third of this country and 95% of federal lands are off limits to oil exploration. The fact is we need to develop government lands. You may have heard dishonest politicians say America only has a few percent of the worlds oil reserves. Oil reserves refers to known oil containing structures. Oil does not bite you in the ass, you have to look for it and nobody knows how much oil is on federal land. Estimates range from 50 years to 1,000 years on land and in shallow water. In these places even a catastrophic failure could be contained. The total idiocy of banning oil production in ANWAR is unbelievable. Since it may take ten years to develop ANWAR, we need to start now! The same dishonest politicians have claimed oil companies are not using the leases they have. Once again you can blame the environmentalists as there are many reasons for non producing leases.

I neither excuse nor dismiss the abominable behavior BPs executives. This is a catastrophic ecological disaster. I spent many summers on Alabamas Gulf coast. Alabamas Gulf coast is probably the most beautiful place in the world. There is plenty of blame to go around and those that are pointing fingers (the government and environmentalists) are just as guilty as those that are hiding (the executives of BP and Trans Ocean). Instead of pointing fingers we could have set three layer boom completely around the well to contain the spill. The boom would have to rise three feet above the water and have a skirt shat drops 50 feet below the water.

We can’t make these companies so gun shy they stop drilling in deep water. Your clothing, medicines, fertilizers and even wind turbines are made of crude oil. There are over 3,500 wells in the gulf that survived Katrina and function every day with little environmental consequence. By far the most dangerous thing to our environment is the environmental lobby.

These rabid environmentalists are simply elitist that tell us we can’t continue the living standards of Americans while the environmentalists live at five times the consumption rate of the average American. They don’t want to see oil derricks off their beach. They don’t want to see wind turbines either. They don’t want to see power lines which would greatly increase the efficiency of the electric grid thus reducing pollution. They think they are the lords and you are peasants. It was the environmental lobby that put timber companies out of business. Timber companies were the best protector of the environment.

Number of environmentalist lobbying for fusion power: 0

Number of environmentalists living in town houses: 0

Number of environmentalists proposing real solutions: .001%

Number of environmentalists driving gas gulping machines: 89%

We can drill for oil where even catastrophic failures can be contained. In a situation like the BP oil disaster instead of pointing fingers and making threats government and business need to work together to minimize the damage. If we make these companies “risk avers” we will be the big losers. Someone needs to hold the environmental lobby accountable. What would it do to the environment if 50,000,000 Americans started cutting down the forest to heat their houses? Should we start hunting whales again?

In the final analysis we could try something almost unheard of … working together to fix the problem!