Michaelyya/contrarian-claims huggingface dataset:
Carbon sequestration frustration :: iNSnet Captured CO2 must be compressed to about 100 times atmospheric pressure (which takes energy), transported to a suitable underground reservoir (which takes energy) and pumped into the ground (which takes energy). A coal-fired power plant that sequesters its CO2 must burn about 30 percent more coal than conventional plants to cover these energy needs. And that extra coal must first be mined (which has environmental effects) and transported to the plant (which takes fuel) the list goes on and on. Even with this extra burden, a CO2-burying plant emits between 71 and 78 percent less CO2 than a normal coal-fired plant for each unit of usable electricity produced, Koornneef and his colleagues report. But when the researchers factored in all the cradle to grave pollution of a CO2-burying plant, emissions of acid rain-causing gases like nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides were up to 40 percent greater than the total cradle-to-grave emissions of a modern plant that doesnt capture its CO2.
The capture and subsequent geologic sequestration of CO 2 has been central to plans for managing CO 2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. The magnitude of the task is overwhelming in both physical needs and cost, and it entails several components including capture, gathering and injection. The rate of injection per well and the cumulative volume of injection in a particular geologic formation are critical elements of the process.
In Tuesday's speech, Obama did point to one success: "Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America." The United States is the only industrialized country to actually lower carbon emissions. We've done it, not through extreme policiesbut through private enterprise embracing our abundant natural gas. Encouraging extraction in the U.S. and approving Liquefied Natural Gas export terminals would reduce global carbon emissions and help our economy.
According to the WSJ editorial, from 2008-2012 the U.S. became the worlds natural-gas leader, with production increasing by nearly fourfold since 2008. The U.S. added 600,000 miles of gas pipeline, a 30% increase, utilities substituted gas for coal on a massive scale, and the economy grew. Methane emissions nonetheless fell.
Such is the hunger for energy that 80% of all new North American oil and gas drilling now utilizes this technique, which, in its current form, is barely a decade old. Fracking requires enormous amounts of water, which has midwifed the birth of a highly lucrative water services industry.
Pope Francis' concern for the environment is admirable. But to keep the poverty-reducing engine of economic growth running, it is necessary to continue to use fossil fuels. Our air is getting cleaner, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future as new capital replaces old. Abandoning fossil fuels would hurt the most vulnerable in societies throughout the world.
General Electric and Chesapeake Energy have formed an alliance to promote the use of natural gas as a fuel for cars and trucks, in a bid to capitalise on the US shale gas boom.
If I told you that you should hate coal, oil and natural gas, you might think I was crazy and you would be right. Everything we do involves these three energy reserves and the U.S. has so much of them that we could be energy independent of the rest of the world while, at the same time, exporting them.
Hydraulic fracturing has helped companies tap potentially decades of gas supply and huge amounts of oil from previously inaccessible shale formations dotted across the United States in recent years.
Pressure groups and governing elites used to argue that we are running out of oil and natural gas. That ploy no longer works. While fossil fuels may eventually prove finite, fracking has given us vast new supplies of petroleum and huge coal, oil and gas deposits have been placed off limits by government decree. We have at least a century to develop alternative energy sources that actually work that create real jobs, actual revenues, lower energy prices and true prosperity without the mandates, subsidies, deception, fraud and corruption that are the hallmark of green energy schemes.
Another analogy can be drawn with the U.S. exploration and production sector, which did very well to develop lots of natural-gas reserves. But the resulting oversupply has damaged the economics of the business. Value is accruing instead to those who transport and use the fuel. Increasingly, the likes of Exxon Mobil are muscling in. These bigger companies are willing and able to absorb the near-term pain of low prices in anticipation of a coming age of gas.
The technically recoverable natural gas resources in the United States total 40 percent of the worlds natural gas reserves. At 2,744 trillion cubic feet, it can fuel natural gas demand in the United States for 175 years at current usage rates, or selectively, it can satisfy the nations residential demand for 857 years or the nations electricity demand for 575 years.
Despite the Obama administrations efforts, coal will likely continue to play an integral role in providing the general public with inexpensive and reliable baseload electricity that powers our economy and affords Americans a high standard of living, Eick said.
But we have to keep our eye on the ball long-term, Jacoby says. Hes concerned about how cheap gas will affect much cleaner sources of energy. Wind and solar power are more expensive than natural gas, and though those prices have been coming down, theyre chasing a moving target that has fallen fast: natural gas.
The real red herring is the bogus climate crisis, which diverts public attention from Keystone XL??s manifest benefits: an estimated 42,100 new jobs and $2.3 billion inadditional GDP during the 2-year construction period, enhanced integration and efficiency of North American energy markets,stronger (rather than strained) U.S.-Canadian relations, and ??? compared to alternate delivery modes ??? fewer oil spills and feweraccidents .
Even if American companies choose not to drill at current oil prices, they can move quickly if prices rebound, said Joseph Stanislaw of JAStanislaw Group LLC, an energy advisory firm. U.S. drillers ability to pump lots of crude from shale caught the world by surprise, he said. And part of that surprise is that it is not as expensive as most people thought and is more durable than most people thought.
Fracking regulations. State and local regulation and cooperation with industry, constant refinements and improvements in rules and practices, and accommodation to public concerns about water, drilling and fracking fluids, road congestion, community impacts and other issues have been ongoing for decades. That is part of the reason that 2.5 million instances of fracking worldwide (over 1 million in the USA) since 1949 have not caused any serious harm. Thats a safety record any industry would envy.
Every day, humans continue to choose fossil fuel energy because it is one of the best forms of energy, and I work at a refinery, helping people to use that energy.
Yes, oil, gas, and coal producers should be worriedand the individuals and industries that count on America's abundant, available and affordable energy should be afraid, very afraid.
These competitive advantages have resulted in an overwhelming preference for electricity over the ten-year period, as installed natural gas capacity is projected to increase 38 percent over the ten-year period, while coal is projected to increase by only 6 percent, NERCs assessment said. Its predictions of demand for new generation have been overly generous in the past but now appear to be more realistic (Table 1). The EIA predictions of electricity demand growth do not include peak demand growth as a separate category, but rather predict energy consumption will grow 8.2% through 2018. Together, the NERC and EIA data clearly show that the need for additional, dispatchable load during on-peak hours will be a primary focus for electricity system planners. Expect more gas-fired reciprocating engine and combined-cycle plants designed for intermediate peaking service to be announced in the coming year.
Citing climate concerns, he has refused to permit construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and blocked or delayed Alaskan, western state and offshore oil and gas leasing and drilling. He's proud that US oil production has climbed 58% and natural gas output has risen 21% since 2008. But he doesn't mention that this is due to hydraulic fracturing on state and private lands; production has actually fallen in areas controlled by the federal government, and radical environmentalists oppose fracking all over the USA.
Mini-nuclear and geothermal are stand-alone power sources, in contrast, and produce no CO2.
A nuclear facility would be an even lower pollution option, but would cost more than coal. In my view, Small Modular Reactors are clearly the future and they have significantly less environmental concerns than does a large nuclear facility. Here is an interesting study on SMR economics.
As the concentration of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere increases, they effectively trap more and more heat in this lower layer, causing it to warm and causing the layers above to cool. But this sentence is not a verified fingerprint. It's just a parroted proclamation from the global warming religion - a hypothesis that has been falsified about 10 times in the text above. It has been demonstrated that the effect above, whether it looks attractive or not, is not sufficient - and maybe not even necessary - to explain most of the climate change in the real world.
Official climate science is based on the corrupted work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One proof of corruption is the constant moving of the goalposts. Theyre not moved to accommodate new evidence but to defend the hypothesis. A major example occurred in 2000 when CO2 continued to rise but temperatures declined, contradicting the claim that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase. Global warming became Climate Change.
Most climate models have falsely predicted global warming: Despite growing emissions of so-called greenhouse gases, temperatures are not rising. Snow in the winter is however a side-effect of global warming, climate scientists say.
Read here . The UK's highly publicized Stern report on global warming impacts has been analyzed extensively and now finds itself on the ash heap of likely fraudulent, totally misleading economic/science research.
In his enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. That's been a common refrain for environmentalists, too, and one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria: It's been really hot lately -- abnormally hot -- so we all need to be afraid, very afraid. The trouble is, it's no longer true.Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.A little less than a decade ago, the U.S. government changed the way it recorded temperatures. No one thought to correlate the new temperatures with the old ones, though -- no one until Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, that is.
In the dogmatically blind worlds of liberalism and environmentalism, the truth is irrelevant. Lomborg was never a climate skeptic as they originally hysterically claimed. Now he continues with his views, but they are conveniently and falsely misrepresented as rejecting climate skepticism. Two lies make a truth in the dogmatically dark world of liberalism and environmentalism. The only truth is Lomborg, the liberals, and the environmentalists still know nothing about climate science.
Year after year, alarmists have changed their protective shells for more absurd answers regarding where the Earth has mysteriously stashed all the energy that greenhouse gases supposedly trapped. For years, alarmists said ocean waters were storing the missing energy. But when the ARGO project demonstrated that the heat was not in the ocean, at least down two kilometers (1.2 miles) beneath the surface, one prominent alarmist responded, "We are puzzled at the results." We are not puzzled.
There was, however, an inconsistency in the argument of the scientists. Scientists consistently drew on short-term temperature increases in order to give climate change meaning:
This is just unbelievable; ???the UWA experiment??. Think about what this refers to: University of Western Australia. This is where Cook launched his career defaming climate skeptics by helping Stephan Lewandowsky in designing/running a gussied up poll that was never actually posted on climate skeptic websites , that purports to give answers by climate skeptics, to be used in a paper where it is claimed that climate skeptics are believers that ???the moon landing was faked ???. What sort of ???experiment?? was John Cook running by stealing the identity of Dr. Lubos Motl, and writing comments under his name?
At this point I am reminded that James Hansen raised the alarm about global warming in 1988 when he had less than a decade of noisy global warming data on which to base his concern. The amount of warming heobserved between 1980 and 1988 was far smaller than known natural variations and far larger than the IPCC would go on to say was due to AGW during that period. So whatever the eventual outcome of the AGW debate, logically Hansen had no scientific case.
The ability of climate models to simulate large-scale temperature changes during the twentieth century when they include both anthropogenic and natural forcings and their inability to account for warming over the last 50 yr when they exclude increasing greenhouse gas concentrations has been used as evidence for an anthropogenic influence on global warming. new simulations support previous work by showing that there was a significant anthropogenic influence on near-surface temperature change over the last century. NO.
Of course there is nothing wrong, or at least not much that is wrong, with the ideals behind any of the above agendas except perhaps the last couple on the list. But the battles over them should be fought in the open and on their own merits rather than on the basis of a global warming crusade whose legitimacy is founded on still-doubtful science and on massive slabs of politically correct propaganda.
Starting today, world leaders are beginning a two-week meeting in Copenhagen in a bid to change the entire direction of the global economy. They will do so, not on the basis of empirical scientific facts about global warming, but on alarmist computer-modelled predictions based on a swath of raw temperature data. Oh yes, and the scientific integrity of those doing the feeding and interpreting the results.
Climate modelers like Kevin Trenberth would never be able to run another computer model telling us how hot our future apocalypse might be, since his NCAR computer is run by Wyoming coal . Likewise, NOAA??s Gaea supercomputer will be DOA since it can??t run on recycled vegetable oil.
Michael Mann of Penn State University who fabricated and contrived the headline graph in the UN's 2001 climate assessment report which falsely attempted to state that the middle ages were not warmer than the present day when the scientific, historical and archaeological consensus was and is that the middle ages was substantially warmer throughout the world and that today's temperatures are not exceptional.
How should he global warming scare be combatted? The scientific theories promoted by the global warming advocates are soft targets. Their science is lousy. But critical scientific arguments are highly technical and only of use in getting authoritative scientists to join the skeptical side. To influence the vast majority of citizens, including non-specialist scientists, emotional arguments are necessary. My suggestion would be to paint a picture of a future when global warming promoters get what they want and everyone else loses money, mobility, jobs, etc. Combine this with authoritative scientists saying that global warming dogma is scientifically flawed and you have a winning formula.
Most importantly, a human influence on climate is constantly asserted, even in the absence of evidence. Any doubts of that influence are expunged or buried deeply where they are hard to spot.
Galloping Camel writes: The IPCC issued its fourth assessment report (AR4) in 2007, updated for the Copenhagen conference in 2009. This report raised a fire storm of criticism which elicited only a feeble response. As a result the IPCC?s credibility has been seriously damaged. Will the new ?AR5? report correct the faults of its predecessors?
In response to questions, Mann claimed that the scientific consensus represented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agreed completely with him. On the other hand, his critics had been discredited and were not taken seriously by the same consensus. Inasmuch as Mann must be somewhat familiar with the literature in his own field, it is hard to conclude otherwise than that Mann was lashing out in an attempt to preserve what may be left of his own reputation. Although Mann's disgraceful performance contained nothing of scientific merit, it provided much entertainment and indicated a possible alternative career in Don Rickles-style heckling.
"Carbon math," wrote Mr. Lazear, "makes clear that without major effort and a good bit of luck, we are unlikely to control the growth of emissions enough to meet the standards that many climate scientists suggest are necessary." Those scientists are usually on college or university faculties where securing federal and other grants to study a warming that is not occurring leads to urging limits on carbon dioxide. Others are just huge liars who, like Al Gore, have been making predictions of warming that have not and are not coming true.
Prominent climate alarmists had to respond . Some, like Michael Hockey-Stick Mann, remain stalwart. Others, like James Hansen, first admitted the global temperature standstill was real , then, in what may have been a faux pas, said the lack of increased warming was due to an increase in global coal consumption.
Seeing is believing, but things are not always what they seem. Skeptical Science , a Web sitedevoted to debunkingglobal warming skepticism,asserts that Spencer??s claim about recent warming being only 50% of what the model consensusprojects is ??? flat-out ridiculously wrong ?? (original emphasis). Observed warming has been ???spot on consistent with climate model projections,?? Skeptical Science contends. The evidence, supposedly, is in the graph below (click on it to activate the presentation).
15) How Significant is the Climategate Release of E-Mails? While Climategate does not, by itself, invalidate the IPCC?s case that global warming has happened, or that humans are the primary cause of that warming, it DOES illustrate something I emphasized in my first book, ?Climate Confusion?: climate researchers are human, and prone to bias.
IPCC Gate Du Jour: UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
What follows is a sordid tale of a graph that overthrew decades of work, conveniently fitted the climate models, and was lauded triumphantly in glossy publication after publication. But then it was crushed when an unpaid analyst stripped it bare. It had been published in the highest most prestigious journal, Nature , but no one had checked it before or after it was spread far and wide. Not Nature , not the IPCC, not any other climate researcher.
Section I challenges the scientific basis of AB 1493 and ARB's regulatory proposal. The balance of evidence lies against the belief in an impending climate catastrophe. Global warming alarmism is based on hyperbole and fear, not science.
Baliunas: The science altogether is unsettled, but we know for sure that the models that make the predictions into the future are exaggerating the warmth. . . . The fact that we stop emitting carbon dioxide will do nothing to change the course of the climate. . . .
Lord Monckton's speech was anticipated by all and he didn't disappoint. His tongue-in-cheek British humor was entertaining, but then Monckton turned serious. It was because of Lord Monckton that the "Hockey Stick" report by the IPPC was thoroughly discredited. As Monckton described it, bogus facts were used to construct the computer model in an attempt to show that the rate of global warming is accelerating and that it's because of man.
I??m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.
The IPCCs pundits like to claim that the published evidence for humanity causing warming greatly outweighs any published evidence against it. This appeal to majority opinion on their part is pretty selective, though. They had no trouble discarding hundreds of research papers supporting evidence for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age when they so uncritically embraced the infamous Hockey Stick reconstructions of past temperature change.
However, several assessments have shown that the techniques and methods used to derive and verify the IPCC's climate predictions are fundamentally flawed. They indicate that the IPCC's central claims that the present warming trend is unusual, caused by human activities and will result in serious harm are not supported by scientific forecasts. Rather, these claims are opinions that are no more likely to be right than wrong.
Read here . All of a sudden, global warming alarmists are blaming the cold and snowy weather on human CO2-caused global warming. For those who don't appreciate the irony of the previous sentence, it has become a world-wide joke that all, and every , worldly condition is a direct result of human CO2 global warming.
I've encountered some folks who appear offended by the title of my new book Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. Why do you call it a "hoax"? they ask. Why not refer to the matter as a debate? The reason is quite simple: A debate describes a discussion in which participants competitively argue opposing points of view that are assumed to be based upon honest positions.
This is the second episode in the Cobar ACORN-SAT series examining BoM adjustments to the CDO temperature data here I start to look at adjustments to minimum temperatures. The 1st episode looked at maximum temperatures. A list of ACORN adjustments to Cobar data is here and you can see the first min adjustment listed is 1st Jan 1972 meaning the adjustment factor applies to all data earlier than that. You will see it is labelled as Statistical meaning there is no evidence for it in station diaries or admin records but it derives from computer driven comparisons sifting data differences from multiple stations as far away as Parkes and Hillston see map. In this case of the 4th adjustment the following stations data was used.
By 1989, Ann Henderson-Sellers was talking in terms of 100 years, and hinted that it might even be as much as 500 years. In effect, the lack of sufficient global warming this century has not caused the modelers to question their theoretical assumptions, or their models, but merely to seek excuses.
NCDC and NASA diligently attempt to ignore this phenomenon, and adjust about 0.1 degrees F for UHI.
Climate change skepticism seeps into science classrooms (L.A. Times) In the text above, an activist named Ms Neela Banerjee is crying that the "deniers" have succeeded in many states of the U.S. in their efforts to regulate the expansion of the global warming propaganda at schools. At some places, teachers are required to discuss the existence and/or arguments of climate skeptics.