Stephen Harper is right — Shell’s CCS project is wrong

November 18, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Here is an item from the world of climate science that should make Stephen Harper feel good about his Canadian Conservative Party’s opposition to the Climate-Change Bill (Bill C-311), which the prime minister called “a completely irresponsible bill.” (See full story on that)

The other side of the coin is that the same item makes Shell’s CCS Project (a.k.a. Quest) look like a billion-dollar-plus boondoggle, which, if it should go through in spite of common sense, it most certainly will be.

Here it is:

South Pacific Oscillation and Cosmic Radiation
(German Title: “Südpazifische Oszillation und Kosmische Strahlung”)

By Horst Borchert, Ph.D. *
Mainz, Germany, 2010

Abstract
It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by solar activity, similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of [the solar wind] – Index “aa “ was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the Oscillation of Cosmic Radiation, which is controlled by the Forbush – Reduction by the magnetic fields of the solar protons of the [solar wind] and the delayed SO (K=0,8). The consequence of this observation is the postulation, that the increase of global temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was caused by solar activity with strong emissions of Proton-rays in Earth‘s direction during the 22nd and 23rd Sunspot-Periods reducing Cosmic Rays, with the consequence of reduction of cloudiness, increasing global rays and warming up the lower atmosphere (Svensmark–Effect). As a consequence resolved CO2 was continuously emitted from the slowly warming Ocean giving a good fertilizer of the flora of the world. A relevance of CO2 concerning Climate Change could not be found. [My emphasis, –WHS] With the end of solar activity in 2006 a cold weather period has started in the Southern Hemisphere, too.

*) Physics Director, Ph.D. rer. nat. Horst Borchert, Ret., Assistant Professor at the Geographical Institute of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany, Bcht01@aol.com, www.drborchert.com

In the conclusion of his discussion paper, Horst Borchert stresses that, “The examination illustrates that the temperature increase from 1980 to 2009 in the southern hemisphere, too, was not caused by humans but by extraordinary solar activity.” (Original emphasis)  Furthermore, he states there that, “CO2 is not relevant in relation to climate.  It cannot be shown through measurement techniques that its actual increasing trend is the cause of climate change and the warming of the air near the surface.”  Elsewhere in his discussion paper Horst Borchert identifies that, “CO2 is at the moment still rising linearly and is attributed to about 98.5% to CO2 emissions by the warmed oceans and other natural sources (UBA 1998, Ahlbeck, J., Schulze, E. 2009); the rest is anthropogenic.”(Page 3, par. 2)

Posted in Climate Change, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

Killed climate change bill flawed: Harper

November 18, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Defeating legislation passed by House unprecedented, opposition parties say
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 | 4:53 PM ET
CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has defended Tory senators who voted down a climate change bill ahead of an upcoming United Nations meeting on the issue in Mexico.

Harper, in responding to a query from NDP Leader Jack Layton in question period Wednesday in Ottawa, said Conservatives have been consistent and clear in their opposition to Bill C-311, which the prime minister called “a completely irresponsible bill.”….(Full Story)

That is an interesting development.  I wonder what the financial impact of that will be on Shell’s CCS Project.  From what Shell told me at their Bruderheim open house (Nov. 3, 2010), at which they promoted public awareness and acceptance of their proposed CCS Project, the contributions by the federal and provincial governments are supposed to be $150 million and $700 million, respectively, with an additional 20 percent of the overall price tag to come from funding by Shell.

A few hundred million here, a few hundred million there, and soon we are talking about real money — all of which is no skin off  the backs of either the governments or of Shell, as it will be the end consumers and taxpayers who will shell out the money for the Shell CCS Project, even though CCS will not have the slightest impact on global climate trends.

CO2 comprises 390 parts per million of our atmosphere (0.0039%). All man-made contributions of CO2 in the world amount to about 4 percent of total atmospheric CO2 content (0.000156% of total atmospheric CO2).  Canada’s contributions amount to a very tiny fraction of that.  The amount of CO2 that would be sequestered by Shell’s CCS Project would be an even much tinier fraction of that, at a price of more than a billion dollars.  The effect of that on global climate trends cannot ever be measured and would be exactly what?

I had asked Shell about that at their Bruderheim open house (Nov. 3, 2010).  They could not tell me then, and I am still waiting for their answer.   I expected no better and am not disappointed, even though common sense would demand that a corporation spending more than a billion dollars of the people’s money to do good would be able to tell the world how much good they will do at that price.  However, this is not about common sense.  It is propaganda, very expensive propaganda.

It is a good thing that Stephen Harper and the Canadian Conservative Party put an end to the waste.  Let’s hope that the provincial government will do the same, but that would be taking a page out of the book by the Wild Rose Party, and that would never do, unless the voters wake up and do something about it, right?

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Climate Change, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

CCS can have impacts on freshwater aquifers

November 18, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Potential Impacts of Leakage from Deep CO₂ Geosequestration on Overlying Freshwater Aquifers

Mark G. Little*^† and Robert B. Jackson^†‡

Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, United States, and Nicholas School of the Environment and Biology Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0338, United States

Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP

DOI: 10.1021/es102235w
Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2010

Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

* Corresponding author phone: (919)681-7180; fax: (919)660-7425; e-mail: 6r4h@post.harvard.edu., † Center on Global Change., ‡ Nicholas School of the Environment and Biology Department.

Quoted from the abstract:

Carbon Capture and Storage may use deep saline aquifers for CO₂ sequestration, but small CO₂ leakage could pose a risk to overlying fresh groundwater….(Full Story and links to study report and supporting information)

(Thanks to Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com)

The study report is behind a pay wall.  The cost of accessing the report is $30 for 48 hours — more than I can afford to pay.

The Shell CCS Project (CCS meaning Carbon Capture and Storage or, correctly, CO2 Capture and Storage or Sequestration) in the area NE from Fort Saskatchewan, with a CO2 pipeline proposed to run north of Bruderheim, crossing the North Saskatchewan River and then running to the vicinity of Thorhild, where the CO2 is to be injected at a depth of about 2,400 m underground, will inject the CO2 into deep layers of porous rock that may border on saline aquifers into which the injected CO2 may and quite possibly will expand.

The study by Mark G. Little and Robert B. Jackson from Duke University identified that when CO2 was bubbled for more than 300 days through core samples from injection sites, “CO₂ caused concentrations of the alkali and alkaline earths and manganese, cobalt, nickel, and iron to increase by more than 2 orders of magnitude.”  That means  increases in concentrations a hundred-fold and more.

The study furthermore showed, “Potentially dangerous uranium and barium increased throughout the entire experiment in some samples.”

However, although some of that is bad news, the study also identified that “Manganese, iron, calcium, and pH could be used as geochemical markers of a CO₂ leak, as their concentrations increase within 2 weeks of exposure to CO₂.”

From reading Shell’s information that has been provided to me as of now, I neither recall that Shell’s CCS Project (also known by the creative name “Quest”) will employ such markers nor what action will be taken by Shell if a CO2 leak occurs underground at their CO2 injection sites.  That does not mean that Shell does not have contingency plans for possible CO2 leaks into overlying fresh groundwater.

Shell could well have contingency plans for possible underground CO2 leaks, but from the information provided at their Bruderheim open house (Nov. 3, 2010) it appears that Shell relies on the assumption that the CO2 they propose to inject will not move to the surface for at least a thousand years.

It is comforting to know that if nothing goes wrong with the premises of Shell’s CCS Project,  the residents who draw their drinking water out of the wells in the large area into which the injected CO2 will expand will be safe for at least for an estimated 1000 years.

Mind you, if something does go wrong, then all bets are off, and there is no telling as to what steps may  need to be taken to alleviate the impact of increases of mineral and metal concentrations in drinking water to objectionable and dangerous levels.

Have a look at what a CO2-driven water geyser looks like.  Here is more information on how the Chaffin Ranch Geyser came to be.

Posted in Health issues, Shell CCS Project, Climate Change, Community & Industry, Heavy-Metal Poisoning & Pollution, Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

No price too high for appeasing climate alarmists

November 6, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Friends, neighbours, offspring,

Yesterday I had a bit of a problem with this blog and the associated website.  In retrospect, it is laughable and embarrassing that it occurred, but I won’t bore you with the details, other than that, while I was busy writing about what follows in this posting,  I copied and pasted the piece a number of times in trying to fix the problem I had been trying to cope with.  Every time I did that, I also thought of a better title for the piece.  The last two candidates I rejected in favor of the one I chose were these.

Constructing the global thermostat, a billion dollars a project

Blowing CO2 up Mother Earth’s derriere

If you can think of a better one, let me know, but it’s too late for this posting.  Large newspapers have headline writers who do that sort of thing for a living.

A few concerns emerged through correspondence from Shell, through a phone call from Integrity Land Inc. and through the discussions I had with Shell personnel I met at Shell’s open house in Bruderheim, Nov. 3, 2010, in connection with their proposed CO2 project and pipe line.

Although in my case I have grave concerns about lost-opportunity-costs due to land-use restrictions (which restrictions will also affect all other land owners near the proposed CO2 pipe line), my concerns are not just my own but apply to all land owners whose properties are located on or near the CO2 pipe line.  Furthermore, I have concerns about the lack of wisdom driving the project.  It is a make-work project with non-existent, at best questionable benefits that will not ever justify the expense of the project.

Shell’s CO2 project will not even come remotely close to paying back what the taxpayers must pay into it: at the very least close to a billion dollars, about $270 for every man, woman and child in Alberta — and that is just for the first billion dollars in expenditures for such useless catering to people who well know that their intentions are futile., and I don’t mean the poor people at Shell who for all intents and purposes are being forced to construct “their” CO2 capture and storage project  (they did not tell me that, but that is the way it is).  The project is a waste of good money, the taxpayers’ money.

Regulating atmospheric CO2 content is not possible.  Attempts at controlling man-made CO2 emissions will not affect total atmospheric CO2 contents by one Iota.  It is not possible to construct such a project and to see it put to use as a thermostat that will regulate the global climate.  After all, man-made CO2 contributions comprise no more than 4 percent of total atmospheric CO2, a trace gas.  The other 96 percent of atmospheric CO2 result from natural processes over whom mankind has not the slightest control.  Besides, CO2 is a vital life-giving gas without which no life as we know it would exist on Earth.

We must find ways to stop insanities like this that amount to nothing more than expensive sacrifices by taxpayers to political expediency through catering to alarmist hype and hysteria.

Together, and with the help of others who cannot or don’t want to shell out useless environmental head-taxes of $270 a shot, we will be able to do it.

The following will explain some of the details of what it is all about.

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	CO2 pipe line: concerns
Date:	Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:58:02 -0600
From:	Walter H. Schneider
To:	Ian Silk [at Shell]
CC:	Margit Phillips[at Shell]

Hello Ian,

It was a pleasure meeting you at Shell’s Nov. 3, 2010 Bruderheim open house, where I had promised to send you a copy of a letter, dated October 18, 2010, that had been send by Shell to me.  (Copy appended; two files, one each for page 1 & 2 of the letter).

Obviously I did not remember key issues correctly when I told you about the letter at the open house, such as the changes in pipe diameter and operating pressure.  It is good that I was wrong.  That will simplify things, but I still have grave concerns.

As I had mentioned, someone from Integrity Land called the other day (I believe it was Ken, on Nov. 1st or 2nd) to tell us on Shell’s behalf that the letter we had received had been sent in error and should not have been sent.

Looking now at the letter again, I wonder whether it truly had been sent in error and whether it is Integrity Land or Shell that is a bit mistaken.  Of course, if the contents of the letter that was allegedly sent in error that I hold now in my hands contains erroneous information, I may not need to worry about much, but I wonder.

I will explain what I conclude on the face of the evidence.

Shell envisions that my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be encroached by an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) that extends to a distance of 450m from your proposed CO2 pipe line.  That is an encroachment which does not presently exist but will occur if your proposed CO2 pipe line goes into operation.

It is not clear from either that letter or from the information I observed at the open house with respect to the proposed CO2 pipe line right-of-way, how wide the EPZ will be, that is, whether the proposed CO2 pipe line will run along the centre-line of a 450m EPZ or whether the EPZ will extend 450m in either direction from the proposed CO2 pipe line.  I would appreciate having you provide a map that will clear that up and show whether and which portions of my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be affected by the EPZ.  That should remove or confirm all of our doubts relating to that.

When Integrity Land called, they told me that I should not have received the letter, and the caller apologized on Shell’s behalf for the fact that I did.  Shell’s October 18, 2010 letter informs me that Shell understands (sic, implying that Shell does not know with certainty) that I am “located further” (sic, I assume what was meant was “farther”) than 450m from the proposed CO2 pipe line and that I am “no longer located in the EPZ.”  I truly wonder which of those truly confusing contradictions would stand up in court, but there is more.

Logically, I never was and never will be located in the EPZ, given that I reside in Bruderheim and would find myself in the EPZ only if I were to visit or work within it.  However, some of my land would be, and any of its occupants could be, located within the EPZ, contrary to Shell’s assertions that imply that no portion of my land is within 450m of the proposed CO2 pipe line.  After all, If I were to walk 450m in a westerly direction from the location of the proposed CO2 pipeline east from our quarter-section of land, I would find myself on our land and not quite a quarter mile away from the residence located there.

Is that why Integrity Land called me to say that the letter is wrong?  Are portions of my land located within the EPZ?  If so, which portions are they?  A map that shows the EPZ superimposed on my land would make that perfectly clear.  Therefore I request that you provide such a map to me.

Still, it seems to me that I am not the only one who errs now and then.  Shell’s letter dated October 18, 2010 indicates that, “These changes [that is, the reduced outside diameter of 12″], combined with a reduced operating pressure, still being calculated [as you also confirmed at the open house], will also result in a reduced Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of approximately 450m.”  Perhaps the letter should have stated as well that the precise extent of the EPZ cannot be determined until those calculations have been completed.  I expect to be informed by Shell of what the precise extent of the EPZ will be.

I cannot escape the conclusion that portions of my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be impacted by land-usage restrictions on account of being located within the EPZ.  For example, it may be that nothing is permitted to be constructed on land being put at risk.

Regardless of what the risk would be to any individual who finds himself within the EPZ during a however-unlikely catastrophic failure of the pipe line, land-use restrictions will apply because of the perception of that risk, for which reason the concept of an EPZ exists.  Therefore the term EPZ is a euphemism for the more precise term “activity exclusion zone”.

It is such perceptions that determine the market value of real estate.  The “precautionary principle” (which you so beautifully mentioned in rationalizing the need for Shell’s CO2 project) kicks into action when land transactions take place.  The precautionary principle in this case, regardless of what I personally or any of my descendants may wish for, will materialize in the form of lost-opportunity-costs, through a considerable reduction in the potential sales price for the land of concern.  At land prices that Shell is only too well aware it had to pay in the recent past, the lost-opportunity-costs in the case of our land could easily be in the order of $2 million or more within the foreseeable future.

I had explained that particular concern to you at your November 3rd Bruderheim open house.  You offered to send documentation (in digital form) that will explain in more detail what the specific land-use restrictions in an EPZ are according to applicable legislation.  I look forward to receiving that from you as well.

As things stand, Shell informed me in writing that neither I nor my land will be endangered by Shell’s CO2 pipe line, while I received verbal instructions by one of Shell’s contractors that I should disregard that written statement.  Yet, the facts pertaining to the location of the CO2 pipe line indicate that I must be prepared for  substantial lost-opportunity-costs, while other risk to life, health and property on our land remains undetermined.  I think that Shell needs to do better.  I am not a lawyer, but I know that a lawyer could make a lot out of what Shell informed me off as of now.  It seems like misrepresentation to me.  Shell needs to clarify how things stand.  Am I correct about me being not the only land owner who should be concerned about that compendium of confusion?

Further in our discussions about your proposed CO2 capture and storage project (mislabelled by Shell as “Carbon Capture and Storage Project”, as it is not carbon but CO2 that is involved), I expressed my well-founded concern that Shell’s CCS project, requiring a one-billion-dollar expenditure of taxpayers money, is a wasteful scheme that is not based on settled science.  It is a make-work project that you are being forced to launch to comply with a government-bureaucracy-perceived solution to imaginary problems the perception of which is driven by irrational climate fears, hype and hysteria.

This letter to you is already lengthy enough.  I will therefore continue with addressing that aspect of our discussion through posting at http://lce.folc.ca information that presents rational views and objective facts relating to those irrational fears.

Still, I must add more right now, so as to complete the summary of the impressions I gained at the open house.  My wife and I observed with dismay that some of Shell’s representatives at the Bruderheim open house did not have sufficient scientific education and accreditation to enable them to offer more than unsubstantiated opinions as to the merits of Shell’s CCS project.  They presented what are in essence articles of faith as allegedly indisputable scientific facts.  Most of them had not even any idea that at the most-often visited science blog in the world the latest study reports by prominent climate scientists relating to the role of CO2 in our climate are being presented and discussed.

To the credit of those presenters and upon my insistence, they referred me to someone better qualified to discuss the scientific facts of the impact of CO2 on climate trends.  However, there is no doubt in my mind that many of the visitors to your open houses will fail to perceive such problems and will leave quite satisfied, happy in the knowledge that little tokens like flashlights, plastic shopping bags, memory sticks (containing the slick presentation CCS101.ca — permeated with weasel words), pens and so on (all products from China) are generous gifts, while being totally unaware that they, and only they, will pay the price of an estimated billion dollars (amounting to a cost of at least $270 for every man, woman and child in Alberta for every $ billion so spent) for an enterprise that will do nothing to alleviate an imaginary problem whose science is not settled.  They may as well employ you in the pursuit of a project to lengthen the daylight hours during the winter by having you hire chain-gangs of taxpayers to shovel light into barrels in the summer for release in January.  That at least would be totally safe for the environment and no environmental impact assessment would be required for that, although our government-bureaucrats would probably still insist that one be done for that, too.

It is too bad that our governments cater more to the political expediencies of alarmist climate fears than to the necessities of our lives.  A billion dollars, with more billions to follow, for funding such hare-brained schemes surely would be more appropriately spent in solving a large portion of what is wrong with things that we truly should be spending money on to fix, except that the truly important things that we should do are being neglected on account of government-revenue-shortfalls caused by reckless government-spending.  That needs to be stopped.

Sincerely,

Walter H. Schneider
Bruderheim

P.S. I have a bit of a problem with my regular e-mail account.  Please be so good and respond to walt@folc.ca

Cc: Lamont Leader, some of our descendants, Bruderheim and area residents, http://lce.folc.ca

2 Attachments

— End of quoted letter to Shell —

Friends, if you have come this far with reading about this billion-dollar Alberta CO2 scam, then you may also have some ideas on what to do about it.  I will gladly help with searching for facts, mailing, operating the blog on the Lamont County Environment and such things, but I can no longer be as involved as I was with the opposition to the Hazco Sulphur Project (a project for which we now pay through the nose but on which the bubble is burst, perhaps until someone, about 30 years down the line, begins to blow another bubble).

The interesting aspect of the CO2 capture and storage project is that, although it will do nothing to affect the global climate, once it is in operation, it is estimated that it will add a whopping four percent of nitrogen oxides to the atmospheric nitrogen oxides background levels that already exist in the Fort Saskatchewan area air-shed.

This issue requires someone younger, and I am going the other way.  Please, let me have a bit of rest, just not too much peace and quiet.

Write to me, preferably at http://lce.folc.ca [about this or any other related issue], where others can read what you have to say.  By the way, if I happen to be your father or grandfather, you don’t have to mention it.  Let’s just do what the politicians seems to be incapable of doing, use common sense.

Walter

Posted in Taxes, Deficits and Debts, Shell CCS Project, Propaganda debunked, Alarmist Insanity, Nitrogen-Oxides, Corruption & Fraud, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

Goal Posts for the Thompsons have been moved again

September 20, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Thompsons part 4: Every slope is a watercourse

When Matt and Janet first came to Western Australia they were told they could run a feedlot without regular licenses as long as they were not within 100m of a watercourse. It makes a big difference. If a farm is a category 68, it can run thousands of cattle (and many dairy farms do) without being licensed. This is the ongoing saga of how Big-Government can use complexity to play Kingmaker.

I didn’t think I’d ever find agricultural codes interesting, but by paying attention to the detail we can see just how powerful The Department of Environment (DEC) is, and how selective it can be. You would think it would be easy to measure off 100 m toward a waterway, but how do you define a waterway? You can I might expect that it would have banks, or that in a 100 year flood the water flowing in the gully might have a chance of reaching a body of water big enough to have a fish. Don’t apply for a job at DEC WA.

DEC has declared that Narrogin Beef Producers are a Category 1 property needing licenses because there are watercourses to the North of the feedlot, and to the South West. This picture below,  is a photo (slightly amended) of that paddock to the north in winter. Would you call this a watercourse?

A photo of the Northern “watercourse” of The Thompsons property. (Sign added).

This is the “watercourse” to the South West, a remnant waterway.

Thompsons South West “watercourse”

This is a dry gully visible in aerial shots in the south western edge of their property (see the map image below). There’s no running water in it, and there hasn’t been as long as the Thompsons have been there, and even in the event of a major flood, the gully leads to nowhere in particular. It doesn’t flow into anything. You can follow the tree line of these dry gullies in a google map and see that they eventually might meander into salt pans that are kilometers away….(Full Story)

Related and original story

Posted in Alarmist Insanity, Propaganda debunked, Fines & Penalties, Community & Industry, Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

URGENT – A call to action for the WUWT community

September 18, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

URGENT – A call to action for the WUWT community

Posted on September 18, 2010 by Anthony Watts

I need your help, they need your help. Please read this whole story and consider if you can help. WUWT readers may recall this story: Death of a Feedlot Operator

In which the anal-retentive government of West Australia has “licensed” a family farm out of operation due to some shonky science and arbitrary application of the “sniff test”. Yes that’s right, cattle farms smell, so do pig farms, as does any farm. But now it’s reason to shut one out due to baseless complaints from the local greens. And, it all started when Matt Thompson started doubting global warming and talking about it publicly.

I’ve never made a plea to the WUWT worldwide readership for help, I’m making one now to donate to these people to stave off eviction. If nothing else, do it to spite the government of Western Australia and the greens (Environmental Defender’s Office WA)  that have turned farming into a “crime”. The real crime is that government listens to these hotheads. From Jo Nova’s website:

4 days notice! The Thompsons are served notice of eviction.

Will, Abbey, Janet, Luke, Matt and Kate on their farm. April 2010

From Agmates (and many emails), news comes that The National Bank served notice today that the Thompsons have to be off their property in four days.

This is a family with four young children, who ran a profitable business; they filled in every form and ticked every box. They have broken no laws, and there are no outstanding environmental notices, but yet, they came to Western Australia with their life savings and they are losing everything. (Note: Matt and Janet are from the USA, Hugo, Oklahoma – Anthony)
Continue reading →

Posted in Corruption & Fraud, Alarmist Insanity, Censorship, Climate Change, Fines & Penalties, Pollution: Health Issues, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 2 Comments »

The IPCC and its relationship to the truth and objective science

September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

A look at the trends regarding the relationship of the IPCC to the truth and objective science:

Canada Free Press

Stop the lies, deceptions, denials and fantasy that is the world of political climate science

Latest Report On IPCC Another Insult As They Move Deck Chairs On The Titanic

By Dr. Tim Ball  Thursday, September 2, 2010

It’s time to stop the lies, deceptions, denials and fantasy that is the world of political climate science known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Official climate science recently offered more insults, comparable to the whitewash investigations of Michael Mann, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang, with its latest ‘investigation’ of the IPCC….(Full Story)

___________
The IAC IPCC recommendations that Tim Ball comments on are accessible here.

See also IPCC/Climategate Criticism Roundup, ScienceRoundup, Feb. 15, 2010

A review of the circumstances of the IAC criticism would not be complete without Rajendra Pachauri’s take on the IAC admonitions and recommendations:

I am happy that truth has come out: Pachauri, The Times of India, by Nitin Sethi, TNN, Sep 3, 2010, 03.44am IST

Obviously, Pachauri has no intention to repent.  It is business as usual, only more of the same: the IPCC will put greater emphasis on pushing even more politics, push more policy and will shove objective science onto the back burner.

Posted in Climate Change, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

Vancouver: Sulphur fire sparks evacuation warning

September 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Sulphur fire sparks evacuation warning

Boxcar mishap raises fears of toxic smoke

By Benjamin Alldritt, North Shore News August 13, 2010

(Full Story)

Posted in Health issues, Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

An ecological and environmental nightmare

August 13, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

We have made a lot of progress in cleaning up the environment.  Air quality is now a lot better, on average, than it was 50 years ago.  In London, England, for example, blue skies  are now the norm, while just a few decades ago the infamous London smog was a frequent visitor and often caused the deaths of many people.  The air quality in London is now much better than it was before at any time since the height of the industrial revolution.

Living- and health standards improved.   Average life expectancies rose, for example in the U.S.A., from about 59 years for women and 52 years for men in 1930 to 79 years for women and 73 years for men by 1996. (Source: USA Population Figures for the Years 1980 to 1996)

Yet, there is all-pervasive alarmism that the sky is falling and that we are all going to die.

A large dose of reality is required to illustrate how far we have truly come in a relatively short time and how much success we had in coping with what once, not all that long ago, were apparently insurmountable problems.

Portrait of an Unhealthy City: New York in the 1800s
From: Columbia University | By: David Rosner

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION | As New York City ascended from a small seaport to an international city in the 1800s, it underwent severe growing pains. Filth, disease and disorder ravaged the city to a degree that would horrify even the most jaded modern urban dweller. David Rosner, professor of history and co-director of the program in the History of Public Health and Medicine at the School of Public Health at Columbia University, paints a vivid portrait of a city in the throes of an ecological crisis….(Full Story)

And here is a video recording of a deservedly glowing report of the roles of human ingenuity and of exchange of skills and goods in human evolution, by Matt Ridley at TED : TED - Ideas worth spreading.  It is one of the best presentations on the subject of human ingenuity I have ever had the pleasure of watching. (Watch the video, 16 minutes)

Here is another video, this time of a presentation by Hans Rosling, Professor of International Health at Karolinska Institute, on What stops population growth? (10 minutes)

Dr. Rosling’s presentation of dynamic graphs is excellent and very informative.  He ends his presentation with, “The only way to stop population growth is to have small families.”  That is technically correct, but it seems to me, going by the information contained in his presentation, that Dr, Rosling should have added the proviso, “and that can only be brought about by ending war and creating wealth for all.”

It should not be necessary to point out that the best and perhaps only way to create wealth for all is to make cheap energy accessible by all.  It is neither humane nor practical to keep a quarter of humanity in the dark, without access to electricity and refrigeration.

________________
Thanks for some of the links in this posting are due as follows,

• Portrait of an Unhealthy City,  John F. Hultquist
• Video recording of Matt Ridley’s presentation, pointman
• What stops population growth?, chris y

Those links were provided through comments posted in a discussion thread at wattsupwiththat.com: The Three Chinas and World Energy Demand, Posted on August 13, 2010 by Anthony Watts, Guest post by Thomas Fuller.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

Putting to rest the CO2-caused global-warming scare

August 9, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The following shows excerpts from two research efforts that explain why CO2 contents of the atmosphere are not worth worrying about.

theresilientearth.com

Why Carbon Sequestration Won’t Work
By Doug L. Hoffman, 2010 08 08

For those who believe in anthropogenic global warming, carbon dioxide is public enemy number one. They warn that CO2 must be avoided at all costs or Earth will heat up uncontrollably causing all sorts of ecological havoc. One proposal for avoiding global warming is the sequestration of CO2 by trapping it at combustion sites or extracting it directly from the air. Supposedly, such sequestration could help avoid a large rise in atmospheric CO2 from the use of fossil fuels, avoiding the hellish fate that surely awaits mankind otherwise. Referred to as carbon capture and storage (CCS), the coal industry has seized on sequestration as a way to get greens off their backs and stay in business. However, it is not clear how effective different types of sequestration and associated leakage are in the long term, or what their consequences might be. A recent paper takes a critical look at the sequestration option….

In the ocean storage option, CO2  is injected at depths between 2,500 and 3,500 m ( 8,000 to 11,500 ft), in the low–mid latitude reaches of the ocean. Total dissolution of the CO2 into the water column was assumed. Quite unsurprisingly, not all of the carbon injected stayed sequestered, and their were some rather draconian side effects as well.

The study found that deep-ocean carbon storage leads to extreme acidification and CO2 concentrations in the deep ocean, together with a return to the adverse conditions of a business-as-usual projection with no sequestration over several thousand years. In other words, it won’t work in the long run and it will mess up the oceans. Bad idea….

…unsurprisingly, the model simulations found that all three of the leaky geological storage scenarios didn’t eliminate global warming, they just postponed it….

Depending on the storage mechanism, side effects include damaged underground aquifers and expansion of ocean “dead zones.” Moreover, once started down the sequestration route, mankind would be committed to a continuous effort for a length of time longer than all of human history past. What a deal….(Full Story)

By co-incidence, climaterealists.com shows an article, “Mean Free Path of Photons through the Troposphere and Time of Crossing Path of Photons,” by Dr. Nasif S. Nahle, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet, 2010 08 09.

That article states that,

The CO2 is diluted in the atmosphere in a concentration of 0.038%, and it has been proposed by the IPCC as a main driver of the climate on Earth. Contrary to what the IPCC proposes, the physics of the thermal energy transfer indicates smashingly that the CO2 is not capable of changing the temperature of the atmosphere in a significant way….

The cited study report states that,

The water vapor in the atmosphere, at an average density, allows the photons go into the troposphere towards the outer layer of the tropopause in 0.024 s. Compared the water vapor ability to avoid the escape of photons from the atmosphere with the capacity of the atmospheric CO2 to avoid the photons escape to the outer space (0.0042 s), we can assure with 100% of certainty that the CO2 is irrelevant on warming the atmosphere or the surface. (p. 12, second-last par.)….

If we consider also that the carbon dioxide has a total absorptivity and total emissivity by far lower than those of the water vapor, we can fairly conclude that the carbon dioxide is not a driver of the climate on the Earth. The whole climate is driven by the hydrological cycle, and the main retainers of the solar thermal energy are the oceans, the land, the subsurface materials and the water vapor….(p. 13, 4th par., Full Report)

There it is, carbon capture and sequestration is a wild goose chase, a cure for a non-existing problem, but a lot of people will be employed to earn revenues — and even far more will be forced to pay for all of that — so that a few parties hyping up that particular, unfounded climate-change scare can make hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars in profits.

For those who argue that the science on all of that is settled, no, it isn’t!  The only thing that is settled is that there is an enormous profit incentive, and that there will be an enormous amount of profit that can be made for as long as those who need to pay for it all are willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Alarmist Insanity, Climate Change, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »