Daily Archives: May 2, 2011

Wonder if this will quieten down the anti-frackers

New Material Scrubs Fracking Pollution, Energy Dept Says

An absorbent form of silica can remove nearly all petro-chemicals from the water produced by hydraulic fracturing in shale-gas wells, Energy Department scientists announced late last week.

After field testing the modified silica, called Osorb, DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory confirmed it can remove more than 99 percent of oil and grease from water, and more than 90 percent of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes—also known as BTEX—the volatile compounds that can poison drinking water.

“These tests showed that total petroleum hydrocarbon levels were slashed from 227 milligrams per liter to 0.1 milligrams per liter,” said DOE spokesman Jenny Hakun in an April 28 press release that describes Osorb as a “breakthrough technology.”

Hydraulic fracturing of shale has become increasingly important for freeing vast reserves of natural gas from shale formations in the United States, such as the Marcellus Shale formation under the Appalachian Mountains. But opposition to “fracking” has mounted because water injected underground to shatter the shale carries toxic hydrocarbons back to the surface and could imperil drinking water aquifers. (Forbes)

Polish gas giant; big paper picking your pocket through renewables credit and; Phew! Wind safe from warming… actually not

Poland Dreams Of Becoming Europe’s Shale Gas El Dorado
Monday, 02 May 2011 07:43 Bernard Osser, AFP

Poland is dreaming of becoming a European shale gas El Dorado thanks to estimates of huge deposits, which if confirmed could make it an natural gas powerhouse and free it from energy dependence on Russia.

“If early estimates are confirmed, it will be a revolution like in Norway or Great Britain after the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea,” Piotr Krzywiec, a geologist at Poland’s National Institute of Geology (PIG) told AFP in a recent interview. “Poland could become Europe’s number one or one of its largest natural gas producers,” he adds. (GWPF)

Paper Industry Still Getting Renewable Fuel Tax Credits
by BRIAN MCGRAW on APRIL 29, 2011

Continue reading

Although the world’s climate is basically insensitive to fossil fuel use there’s a lot of discussion as though it were not

and before anyone writes in, that is the world’s climate – locally, possibly even regionally, it is a different matter.

Natural Gas: A Better “Climate” Fossil Fuel?
by Chip Knappenberger

When it comes to climate, are all fossil fuels equal?

Continue reading

The UK – still sacrificing energy sources

Britain’s Royally Disastrous Energy Policies
By Peter C Glover

In June, London-based auctioneers Christie’s expects to raise £100,000+ selling Margaret Thatcher’s famous Asprey handbag. It’s the bag often carried by the Iron Lady on foreign trips and gave rise to the term “hand-bagging”, a term used by the British press to describe Mrs Thatcher occasional style in political debate with other national – mostly European – leaders.

If its value weren’t quite so high, it would be worth the investment of UK energy insiders who might consider using it to knock some sense into the heads of those having anything to do with formulating current coalition energy policies. (Energy Tribune)

Is Atlas Shrugging the UK?
by Dennis Ambler

Continue reading

At last! A functional climate model!

Climate model finally produces meaningful results

Thanks to the nocarbontax website.

Editor: Satirical Press

In a shock result, a new climate model produced results that make sense. The new CCFAFM* model shows that future projected temperatures are closely tied to financial and political forcings. Unlike other climate models, the awkwardly titled CCFAFM was not coupled with oceanic or terrestrial carbon cycle simulations, but with money and politics. The model studied the flow of finance and found a quasi-linear relationship with Climate-Fear. (Jo Nova)

Big warming costs you plenty

Adventures in the Climate Trade
By Norman Rogers

Global warming, now called climate change, is a big industry with academic and commercial branches. One way or another the government provides the money to keep it in business. The academic side supports thousands of scientific workers churning out some good science larded with lots of junk science. The commercial side is busy turning out tank cars filled with corn ethanol and covering the landscape with windmills. Nobody would be doing any of this without government subsidies and mandates. A recent example of how the geniuses in Washington direct policy is the loaning of hundreds of millions to electric car companies like Tesla. Tesla is the stock that everyone is going to be trying to short when they aren’t trying to short First Solar.

Some of this government support is direct, such as the 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour subsidy for windmill electricity. But much is mandated by regulations that result in increased consumer prices — a hidden tax. For example utilities may be required to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from green sources such as windmills. Since the electricity from these sources is expensive, prices to the consumer must be raised. (American Thinker)

More crisis discussion – on academic research funding

Guest Post “Crisis in Academic Funding” By Toby N. Carlson

Crisis in Academic Funding by Toby N. Carlson. Professor of Meteorology, Emeritus. Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802

In recent articles (Carlson, 2006; Carlson 2008: Carlson 2010; see also Roulston, 2006), I described a growing crisis in academic funding brought about by (1) a shrinking financial support for research in real dollars; (2) an increase in the number of PhDs requesting funding; (3)  an increased emphasis placed by academic administrations on the importance of funded proposals, when making decisions for tenure and promotion,  and (4) the tendency for agencies such as NASA to require their own scientists to compete for funding with academic faculty. The search for financial support amongst university faculty has led to (1) an explosion in the number of proposals and research papers submitted to funding agencies or to journals, (2) a huge increase in the number of PhDs and post docs required to produce the research for professors who are generally too busy with the fierce competition for funds to have sufficient time for doing their own creative work (research by proxy), and (3) a declining quality of the proposals.  (Roger Pielke Sr.)

On the glacial pace of Greenland’s ice melt

A 225-year reconstruction of Greenland ice melt

Last week, the most popular article from among those recently published in the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres was one which presents a 225-yr reconstruction of the extent of ice melt across Greenland. We are happy to say that your obedient servants here at World Climate Report were part of the research team of this oft-downloaded paper. (WCR)

Tornadoes destroying last remaining vestiges of warmists’ credibility

Romm Goes Full Stupid On Tornadoes
Steven Goddard

Romm is blaming the high tornado count the last two weeks on global warming. There are so many things wrong with his analysis, it is difficult to tell where to start. (Real Science)

Lawrence Solomon: Tornadoes could be an omen of global cooling

Continue reading

Rich misanthropists meddle to keep renewable power from millions

Brazil furious with Human Rights Commission decision cuts all relations

Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff decided to cut all relations with the Inter American Human Rights Court following on the CIDH decision to request that the construction of a huge dam in the Amazon be suspended, following an appeal from indigenous groups. (MercoPress)

The Brazilian government says the 11.000 MW Belo Monte dam is crucial for development and will create jobs, as well as provide electricity to 23 million homes.

Celebrities such as singer Sting and film director James Cameron have joined environmentalists in their campaign against the project.

Really? Last I heard Sting and James Cameron had electricity aplenty – reckon the “environmentalists” likely do, too.

I missed this one earlier but it’s still worth a run

Dioxin causes insanity
At least at the EPA, which wants to erase all traces of it
BY TREVOR BUTTERWORTH MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2011

If, in the next few weeks, the National Academy of Sciences loses its epic battle with the Environmental Protection Agency, Americans are in for a shock. Overnight, the world will become a much more dangerous place, as the agency’s new “guidelines” on dioxin turn everyday foods — meat, fish, eggs, dairy, even water — into fearsome sources of cancer, and transform acres of urban land, possibly including your own backyard, into virtual toxic waste dumps. Most bizarre of all, if the new guidelines pass, breastfeeding, according to the EPA, will turn into a significant cancer risk for your baby.

Dioxin’s reputation has long exceeded the danger it demonstrates in the data, thanks to industrial accidents and assassination attempts. The chemical — a byproduct of forest fires, backyard burning, and industries, many of them long gone — has been declining in emissions and dropping in blood levels since the 1970s. There is no evidence that Americans are at risk, and yet, urged on by environmental activists and some of their supporters in the Democratic Party, the EPA is determined to purge dioxin from the soil to a point where it will be lower than the background level in nature.

The agency also wants to reduce what is called the reference dose — the maximum amount of a substance that can be taken orally — to a level that is below the trace amounts we consume each day in food. As dioxin accumulates in breast milk, breastfeeding would exceed the reference dose.

If vegans wanted to take over America, this would be their plan. (The Daily)

Jon Entine with more on BPA and media scaremongering

Milwaukee’s Best No Longer
By Jon Entine

A brewing ethical brouhaha at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel illustrates the hazards of politicized science reporting.

In an era of partisan journalism, some have presumed that at least one area of reporting, science, was insulated from blatant bias. After all, there are facts, and it’s presumably easy to identify when data is being cooked. But that’s naive, and a brewing ethical brouhaha at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel underscores how the public can be short-changed when ideology, ambition, or hubris takes precedence over a news organization’s public responsibility to report controversies in context.

This incident erupted after a comprehensive review of plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA) by the German Society of Toxicology was published two weeks ago in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, a prestigious international journal. BPA is used to add strength and flexibility to many plastic products, from the protective lining of metal cans to bottles to dental sealants.

Over the past few years, the dominant narrative among select publications—the Journal Sentinel, most notably—is that BPA is dangerous to humans, infants, and pregnant women in particular, because it distorts development. Because of this, some have labeled it an “endocrine disruptor.” Indeed, it does subtly alter the way hormones in our endocrine system work, as do many chemicals, including soy, nuts, wheat, and berries. The “BPA is harmful” thesis never gained mainstream acceptance among scientists—no regulatory panel in the world has recommended restricting BPA based on the evidence, although political bodies have imposed restrictions, partly because of public perceptions stirred by articles in the Journal Sentinel and other publications. (The American)

Ever more dangerous EPA making another massive power grab

Obama’s Other Hand

Regulation: While we were distracted by the president’s birth certificate show-and-tell, his EPA releases its guidelines for expanding federal power under the Clean Water Act. America’s economy and freedom are at stake.

President Obama’s long-form birth certificate wasn’t the only thing released last Wednesday, but it was probably the least important. The Environmental Protection Agency also released its guidelines for expanding federal power over the nation’s waterways, ponds and puddles.

These guidelines will take effect after a 60-day comment period and will serve as a reference for environmental agencies in determining their jurisdiction over a particular body of water, large or small. They will eventually morph into binding regulations as damaging to our economy and freedom as the EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

The 1972 Clean Water Act was originally intended to protect the “navigable waters of the United States” — you know, the kind boats travel down. It was broadly and quickly interpreted to any pool of water in America capable of supporting a bathtub-variety boat.

The word “navigable” was forgotten and ignored, and the act’s scope expanded to the point that water that collected after a rainstorm was considered a “wetland” worthy of environmental protection.

A 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case from Michigan produced five different opinions and no clear definition of which waterways were covered. This essentially left the government with a clean slate on which to write its own interpretation — just about everything. (Investors.com)

Robert Bryce on the President’s bizarre position on energy

Obama on Energy: Inconsistent, Incoherent
By Robert Bryce

President Barack Obama’s policies toward energy in general, and oil in particular, are inconsistent and incoherent. And that approach is costing US consumers dearly.

The president’s confused approach to energy was laid bare last month, when the president sent a letter to Congressional leaders asking them to “eliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, and to use those dollars to invest in clean energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

The bogeyman of “foreign oil” appears three times in Obama’s two-page letter. And he insists that his approach, which aims to cut $4.4 billion in tax preferences for the oil and gas sector will create an “energy policy that creates jobs and makes our country more secure.”

On its face, the president’s position is incoherent. The subsidies given to the upstream sector help encourage the production of oil and gas in the United States. Eliminating those tax preferences will have the obvious effect of increasing the cost of doing business for domestic oil and gas producers, which, obviously, should result in lower levels of production. It’s beggars common sense to believe that a measure which increases the cost of doing business for domestic producers will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. (Energy Tribune)

Roger Pielke Sr. collates items and discusses recent tornado outbreak

Family Outbreaks Of Severe Tornadoes and Climate

There have been a number of excellent posts on the family outbreak of tornadoes in the South last week. These include, for example,

Epic Tornado Outbreak ended Thursday with tornado report count up to 292 with death toll at 337 and climbing

The Night they Tore Old Dixie Down… The April 27,2011 Tornado Outbreak

NOAA: Preliminary analysis of April 27-28 tornado outbreak makes it the 3rd deadliest so far

MORE Tornadoes from Global Warming? That’s a Joke, Right? Tornado madness

Weather is not climate unless people die

I want to add a perspective to the discussion. First, as presented in my post

La Niña and Tornado Outbreaks In The USA (Roger Pielke Sr.)