Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Now, they have determined that the new products--those developed to save the Earth from destruction of the ozone layer--are causing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses purported to be the primary cause of global warming.

If Mr. Beck is correct in the information he used in that monologue,

However, despite its best efforts, the cumulative CFC, HCFC and HFC pollution now
in the atmosphere was directly responsible for 17% of man-made global warming in
2005.

What do you get when you impose a linear forcing on a non-linear system (i.e. one where the graph of the function over times show random peaks and valleys, ups and downs)? A rising function, with similar peaks and valleys, but with average value rising.

The amount of average rising depends on the magnitude of that linear forcing, relative to the magnitude of the forcings in the non-linear system..

When wind power blows, jobs will fall.
Dominic Lawson

You may recall the Beyond the Fringe sketch in which Squadron Leader Peter Cook tells Jonathan Miller, the doleful pilot, that he must set out on a doomed mission because “we need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war”.

I was irresistibly reminded of this by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, in his launch of plans to cut carbon emissions by switching to “renewables” for more than 30% of our energy use. This, he claimed, would “rise to the moral challenge of climate change”.

Miliband is of the generation of politicians struggling to find a great moral cause. Earlier in the Labour administration Tony Blair thought he had found it with wars of choice far from home, but that has, to put it mildly, lost its lustre. Now it is the “war against climate change”, given additional moral potency by the notion that the greatest concentration of sufferers from global rising temperatures would be among the world’s poorest.

Miliband’s citing of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech in support of his policy of subsidising the construction of many thousands of otherwise uneconomic wind turbines might appear grotesque, even comical; but not if you genuinely believe that Britain’s switching from coal to wind power for its electricity generation will save the lives of countless Africans.

I have no idea whether Miliband truly believes that it will - but if he does, he is deluded. The UK is responsible for less than 2% of global carbon emissions - a figure set to fall sharply, regardless of what we do, as a result of the startlingly rapid industrial-isation of countries such as China and India: each year the increase in Chinese CO2 emissions alone is greater than those produced by the entire British economy. On the fashionable assumption that climate change is entirely driven by CO2 emissions, the effect on global temperatures of Britain closing every fossil fuel power station would be much smaller than the statistical margin of error: in effect, zero.

The scientists at the energy and climate change department know this, but their political masters see things differently. Gordon Brown claims: “Britain is leading the world in the battle against climate change.” Such remarks are regarded as absurd in the chancelleries of Europe: if you do take as a measure of such commitment the proportion of domestic energy already supplied by renewables, the UK occupies 25th place in the European Union league table, above only Malta and Luxembourg.

Nevertheless, there is one great merit in being a follower rather than a leader in renewable energy: we can see how other European countries have fared in the experiment. Germany has long been subsidising wind power to the extent of almost €5 billion a year. Yet recent German Green party internal e-mails leaked to Der Spiegel magazine show this has not led to a reduction of a single gram of CO2 emitted on the continent of Europe. The much-vaunted emissions trading system is one reason: Germany’s unused certificates were snapped up at negligible cost by coal producers in countries such as Poland and Slovakia, which were thus able to increase their output of greenhouse gases.

There is a second reason, which would remain even if the European emissions trading system were to be scrapped. Because the wind blows intermittently, and may be at its calmest at times of freezing weather, Germany has not been able to close a single one of its conventional power stations, despite its vast investment in wind power.

Indeed, Paul Golby, who runs the British operations of E.ON, Europe’s biggest wind-power producer, has told the government that a 90% fossil fuel or nuclear back-up will be needed for any of the National Grid’s future wind-power capacity. As Martin Fuchs, his German boss, pointed out: “The wind, sadly, does not blow where large quantities of power are required . . . on September 12 last year wind power contributed 38% of our grid power requirements at all times, but on September 30 the figure went down to 0.2%.”

The powerful wind-turbine lobby in Germany constantly harps on about the number of jobs “created” by its subsidised investment, quite ignoring the number of jobs destroyed by high-cost energy, or indeed the greater number of jobs that could be created if the same amounts were invested in more profitable activities. This is why the Bremen Energy Institute argues that “wind energy macro-economically has a negative employment impact”.

Given the run-down state of our conventional generating capacity, it is easy to see that the government’s suspiciously round number of a “£100 billion” expenditure on installing 7,000 offshore steel structures, each the height of Blackpool Tower, at a projected rate of more than two every working day over the next decade, does not begin to cover the real cost. This is why the overall price of wind energy is a multiple of that incurred by nuclear power, which is equally carbon-free but does not appeal to the moral vanity of politicians.

Admittedly, the Labour government has made a belated commitment to replacing our ageing nuclear reactors " far too late to fill the yawning energy gap that Britain faces in the coming decade. As Professor Ian Fells points out in the new Civitas pamphlet Nations Choose Prosperity: “The energy agenda is focused on carbon emissions rather than security of supply and potential costs. What is rarely considered is the consequential costs when power cuts are inflicted.” These costs are not just measured in the collapse of business, but also in human lives, especially of the elderly and infirm.

Miliband claimed last week that the result of his proposals would be an increase in costs to energy users of about 17%. However, the business and enterprise department admitted last year that Britain’s existing “climate policies” - even before Miliband’s latest Big New Idea - would add an extra 55% to energy bills. It’s obvious where this will lead: to the exit from Britain (and, indeed, Europe) of much of what remains of energy-intensive manufacturing industry - the euphemistic jargon term is “carbon leakage”.

Jeremy Nicholson, the director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents such industries as steel and aluminium, is exasperated beyond measure: “A future administration will have to say in public what ministers and their officials already admit in private, that the renewables target is neither practical nor affordable. Outsourcing our emissions is not a solution to a global problem. Politicians need to understand that unilateral action will come at a terrible cost in terms of UK manufacturing jobs, investment and export revenue, for no discernible environmental gain - is that really what they want?”

On the day Nicholson said this to me, last Thursday, Anglesey Aluminium, the biggest consumer of electricity in Wales, announced that it would cease production, precisely because it could see no prospect of signing up to a long-term supply of electricity at a rate at which it could make a profit. And on the day of Miliband’s announcement, a group of Labour MPs presented a “Save Our Steel” petition, saying: “We need to make sure we act before the light goes out.”

It may well be that the English steel mills will become unable to compete globally, even at current domestic energy prices; but deliberately to make them uncompetitive is industrial vandalism - and even madness when the consequence of Miliband’s Martin Luther King moment may be the lights going out not just for producers but for all of us in our homes. This is worse than a futile gesture: it is immoral.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
293
State Climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of Mississippi State University and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, declared his skepticism on warming in 2007. "First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists. Don't let anybody tell you there is," Wax said, according to a May 16, 2007 article. "I don't know if it's going to rain Thursday or not. Certainly I don't know what the temperature is going to be in 2050," Wax explained. "In 1957, all the thermometers (the government uses to track temperatures) were moved from fields onto airports. It went from the Weather Bureau, which supported agriculture, to the Department of Commerce. Cities are hotter. (If you look at the numbers) you'll see a major climate change in 1957 alone," he said. Wax, who chaired the U.S.D.A.'s Southern Region Research Committee for Climatology in Agricultural Production, also explained the geologic history of the Earth. "There was a little ice age from 1400 to 1800. We're warming back up, but it's not nearly as warm as it was 2,000 or 7,000 years ago," he explained. (LINK) & (LINK)

India widens climate rift with west
By James Lamont in New Delhi, Joshua Chaffin in Are and Fiona Harvey in London
Last updated: July 24 2009 09:57

A split between rich and poor nations in the run-up to climate-change talks widened on Thursday.

India rejected key scientific findings on global warming, while the European Union called for more action by developing states on greenhouse gas emissions.

Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.

He dismissed scientists’ predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming.

“We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere,” he said.

“Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience.”

Mr Ramesh was also clear that India would not take on targets to cut its emissions, even though developed countries are asking only for curbs in the growth of emissions, rather than absolute cuts.
MORE HERE:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2896b88-77bd-11de-9713-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming-

Now suppose A = the net amount of all average annual global forcings except those of CO2, and are causing the average annual global temperature to remain unchanged.

Suppose B = (1/N) x A = the net forcings of CO2 on average annual global temperature in the atmosphere.

72% Don’t Want Feds Changing Their Light Bulbs
Thursday, July 23, 2009

Washington’s got another bright idea that most Americans don’t like.

Just 18% of adults think it’s the government’s job to tell Americans what kind of light bulb they use, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Seventy-two percent (72%) say it’s none of the government’s business, and 10% are not sure.

The federal government under an energy bill passed in 2007 is requiring consumers to dump incandescent bulbs, the ones we’ve used for well over a century, for more expensive incandescent ones. The plan is scheduled to go into effect over the next 10 years in the name of great energy efficiency.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans and 78% of adults not affiliated with either major political party say it’s not the government’s role to make Americans change their light bulbs. Among Democrats, 58% share that view, but 29% say it is the government’s job.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2009/72_don_t_want_feds_changing_their_light_bulbs

Regardless global warming - energy saving bulbs save not only energy but a lot of money. (That's of course only if you have to pay for electricity.)
And you get them in a lot more variations as it was possible [?] with the old kind.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Regardless global warming - energy saving bulbs save not only energy but a lot of money. (That's of course only if you have to pay for electricity.)
And you get them in a lot more variations as it was possible [?] with the old kind.

I have no problem with people using CFCs if they save money/energy. I don't think anybody has any problem with people using the energy saving light bulbs if they save money/energy. We use them in various places in our home, but so far the energy savings has not been enough to pay for the higher cost of the CFCs or for the real pain-in-the-butt process of disposing of them when they burn out.

But nevertheless, by all means, if there is a demand and savings to be had, let people who want to use them use them.

But don't give government the power to tell us what light bulbs we can or cannot use based on something as inconclusive as anthropogenic global warming.

(We both know that if they were not being pushed to 'save the planet', CFCs would probably be banned or licensed because of the mercury content in them.)

I have no problem with people using CFCs[sic] if they save money/energy. I don't think anybody has any problem with people using whatever light bulbs if they save money/energy.

We use them in various places in our home, but so far the energy savings has not been enough to pay for the higher cost of the bulbs or for the real pain-in-the-butt process of disposing of them when they burn out.

But nevertheless, by all means, if there is a demand and savings to be had, let people who want to use them use them.

But don't give government the power to tell us what light bulbs we can or cannot use based on something as inconclusive as anthropogenic global warming.

(We both know that if they were not being pushed to 'save the planet', CFCs would probably be banned or licensed because of the mercury content in them.)

What are mercury emissions caused by humans?
EPA estimates the U.S. is responsible for the release of 104 metric tons of mercury emissions each year. Most of these emissions come from coal-fired electrical power. Mercury released into the air is the main way that mercury gets into water and bio-accumulates in fish. (Eating fish contaminated with mercury is the main way for humans to be exposed.)
Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL " about 14 percent " is released into air or water when it is sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken. Therefore, if all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) " they would add 0.16 metric tons, or 0.16 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans.

Sunday, February 17, 2008
CFC Light Bulbs
Traditional incandescent lightbulbs are on the way out. There is a new alternative that lasts longer and uses less energy: CFC light bulbs, or compact flourescent. While we are waiting for even more efficient and long lasting LED light bulbs to be developed for home use, CFC light bulbs are a great way to make your home more green
http://www.your-green-life.com/2008/02/cfc-light-bulbs.html
(CFC is an accepted term)

We will also start replacing our outdated power grid with a digital smart grid so that we don't lose precious energy and billions of dollars like we did in the 2003 New York City blackout. We'll follow the lead of states like California and change the way utilities make money so that their profits aren't tied to how much energy we use, but how much energy we save. Finally, we know that if every home in America replaced just five incandescent light bulbs with five compact fluorescent bulbs, it would eliminate the need for twenty-one power plants. We'll do one better. I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs - a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills.

Obama Speech - Portsmouth NH - Oct 8, 2007
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/08/obama_to_announce_new_plan_to.php

Obama makes light bulbs more energy efficient
Updated: Wednesday, July 1st, 2009 | By Catharine Richert

Light bulbs beware: President Barack Obama has announced major changes in lighting standards that advocates say will effectively phase out the least efficient bulbs.

“One of the fastest, easiest and cheapest ways to make our economy stronger and cleaner is to make our economy more energy efficient,” said Obama in a June 29, 2009, announcement that fluorescent tube lamps (most commonly found in offices and stores) and conventional incandescent reflector lamps (think track lighting in your kitchen) will become more efficient starting in 2012.

The administration says that these changes will reduce carbon emissions by 594 million tons between 2012 and 2042 and save consumers $1 billion to $4 billion in the same amount of time.

The announcement reflects this promise Obama made on the campaign trail:

"I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs " a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills," Obama said in an Oct. 7, 2007 speech on energy efficiency.

We already rated this promise as No Action because, as far was we could tell, there was no bill in Congress to phase out all incandescents, and therefore no law for Obama to sign. At the time, advocates of new efficiency standards told us that Obama would have been better off saying he would get rid of the least efficient bulbs, not all incandescent bulbs.

As part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, traditional pear-shaped incandescents are already on track to become more efficient. Obama's effort extends those rules to conventional incandescent reflector lamps, the cone-shaped bulbs most commonly used in recessed lights and track lighting. Other incandescents, like some used to illuminate driveways or sidewalks, will remain on the market.

We asked Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, whether the new rules represented some sort of political compromise.

"No, I don't think it does," he said. "It takes a significant step towards getting the rest" of the inefficient bulbs that weren't included in the 2007 law, he said. "We're getting incandescents down to a small level."

The new efficiency rules represent the biggest energy-saving effort ever announced by the Department of Energy, Nadel added.

Back in March when we first wrote about the light bulb promise, we struggled with how to rate it, and we still are struggling. Obama is not trying to take all incandescents off the market, but he is trying to make most of them more efficient " and energy efficiency advocates say that's a big step. In 2007, however, it seems Obama had more ambitious plans for light bulbs. Maybe Obama backpedaled or maybe he spoke carelessly; either way it's not a Promise Kept. As a result, we rate this one a Compromise, not because of any clear indication that Obama had to backtrack from his original position to broker a deal, but because it's the most accurate measurement we have to gauge the progress he's made on the issue, even if it's not what he originally promised.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/492/phase-out-incandescent-light-bulbs/