Month: April 2017

A physicist’s take on the March for Science

A physicist’s take on the March for Science

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

As a theoretical physicist, I was excited to hear about Saturday’s nationwide March for Science. But after learning who is leading it and why, I am disappointed to report it is but a brazen attempt by political activists to hijack science. My dream of becoming a scientist started in the second grade and was my […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

April 21, 2017 at 12:55AM

A Sober Look At Earth Day

A Sober Look At Earth Day

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

Tomorrow is Earth Day, an opportunity for well-intentioned environmentalists to preach the gospel of man-made global warming. People are free to believe as they wish. The problem with the green movement is that it seeks to marginalize anyone who may have a different view. Those of us who are unconvinced of their teachings are branded […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

April 21, 2017 at 12:55AM

Climate Realists Urge President Trump to Pull out of Suicidal, Expensive and Pointless Paris Agreement

Climate Realists Urge President Trump to Pull out of Suicidal, Expensive and Pointless Paris Agreement

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released a video urging President Trump to keep his campaign promise and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. It features a speech President Trump gave in May 2016 explaining exactly why he wanted to pull out: “This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over our energy and how much […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

April 20, 2017 at 11:55PM

via NoTricksZone
http://notrickszone.com

Today we look a three new papers that reveal renewable energies don’t deliver what their proponents like to have us believe they do, i.e. clean, affordable and reliable energy.

The first paper by Emery et al., 2017, looks at biofuel and found:

Life-cycle non-GHG air pollutant emissions, particularly NOX [nitrous oxides] and PM [particulates], are higher for corn ethanol and other biofuel blends than conventional petroleum fuels.”

Other findings include 1) emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) increase by 9–50% per 100 km traveled for high-ethanol blends from corn grain and combined grain and stover feedstocks, 2) NOX, PM [particulates], and SOX [sulfur dioxides] increase by 71–124% from corn grain and 56–110% from combined grain and stover, relative to conventional gasoline. and 3) The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit.

In Germany many people are apprehensive about putting fuels blended with ethanol or biodiesel into their tanks because it is long known that these fuels are more aggressive with the vehicles fuel burning systems. I never put the stuff in my car.

—–

Another study by Mahapatra and Ratha, 2017, finds

 

Paris Climate Accord: Miles to Go

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

The vicious effects of climate change are sweeping the planet along with the creation of a level of emissions that would lock in a future of rising sea levels, intense droughts and food shortages, more…

 

The Paris deal is founded on a voluntary basis without any legally binding caps. The Paris Agreement is a relatively toothless one, which does not bind countries to actual emission limits, and has no mechanisms to impose actions. No sanctions will fall on any country that fails to come up to these intentions. The poor nations want clear promises to increase the aid for them, while the USA and other rich nations favour vaguer wording. Professor James Hansen—credited as being the father of climate change awareness— said that ‘the deal is worthless words’ (Wente, 2015).  The final text contains only bland platitudes. There is no necessary connection between the legally binding nature of an international agreement and its effectiveness in producing outcomes (Lake, 2015). The agreement delineates an aim for reducing temperatures to a 2°C above pre-industrial levels, but does not commit.

—–

Vass, 2017

http://ift.tt/2pYJGAR

Renewable energies cannot compete with forest carbon …

http://ift.tt/xxwarn

Renewable energies cannot compete with forest carbon sequestration to cost-efficiently meet the EU carbon target for 2050. Miriam Münnich Vass

 

Renewable energies cannot compete with forest carbon sequestration to cost-efficiently meet the EU carbon target for 2050 … [T]he average cost per unit emissions reduction is more than twice as high for renewables as for forest carbon sequestration. Hence, the results indicate that renewables are unable to compete with forest carbon sequestration unless they receive continued government support.

—–

 

 

via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com

April 20, 2017 at 11:41PM