Here is the graph showing the “monumental” event from Mauna Loa:

And here is a graph showing analyses from previous research on atmospheric carbon dioxide:

Note that both the modern measurements at Mauna Loa and the older measurements are measuring point sources which may or may not reflect global concentrations. The older chemical methods reported by Beck used a chemical analysis of air captured in flasks. Lest you think that’s too old fashioned, note that NOAA still uses that method to check the Mauna Loa data. “NOAA’s Earth Science Research Laboratory program also measures CO₂ in weekly flask samples taken at over 60 remote locations around the world.” (See link below)

The Mauna Loa observatory sits on the flank of an active volcano which “emits variable amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and sulfur dioxide (SO₂) from fissures at the summit.” NASA explains how scientists attempt to distinguish between carbon dioxide from volcanic emissions and overall atmospheric concentration here.

There is another fly in the ointment reported by Scripps Institution of Oceanography:

“Starting around May 1, we began experiencing intermittent difficulties with the computer used to control the Scripps CO₂ analyzer at the Mauna Loa Observatory. This led to delays in providing daily values and also some data gaps. Although such difficulties are not uncommon and rarely lead to significant long-term data loss, we have decided to switch over to reporting daily values from second Scripps instrument, operated in parallel at Mauna Loa…”

Whether or not the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has topped a “long-feared milestone” is irrelevant. Carbon dioxide rises as a result of increasing temperature which causes carbon dioxide to exsolve from the oceans and also rises from our increasing use of fossil fuels. For most of Earth’s history carbon dioxide has been well above 1,000ppm and Earth not only survived but life was robust and verdant.

Instead of fearing this artificial milestone, we should celebrate it and try to increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. For the reason see: A Modest Proposal: Triple Your Carbon Footprint.

See also:

Which comes first, rise in global CO₂ or rise in global temperature?

The Eocene climatic optimum and paradise lost

Much of the carbon dioxide could come from Arizona. In my post: Helium potential of Arizona may help fill shortage I point out that “Some of the richest helium-bearing gas in the world was produced from fields completed specifically for helium in northeastern Arizona in the 1960s and 1970s.” Carbon dioxide is a major byproduct of helium production.

According the Chamber report, CO2 EOR could produce almost as much oil as primary or secondary production.

“In the first phase of the oil field’s productive life, called primary production, the well is produced without the addition of anything to the oil containing formation. The natural pressure from the earth is the mechanism for the oil to flow to the wellbore. Depending on the characteristics of the rock formation, primary production can result in the recovery of up to 20% of the oil originally in the rock. This means that at least 80% of the oil may remain in the rock unless additional technology is used to increase the recovery.

“Usually, the next step in the oil field life cycle is the injection of water into the oil-bearing formation to maintain reservoir pressure, which produces more oil… This is called secondary recovery or water flooding. The water used for this step is largely recycling the water that is produced as part of the oil production operations. Water, typically saltwater, exists in the formation with the oil and natural gas. This water is separated and collected during production and reinjected into the oil-bearing formation to slow pressure decline. As oil fields age, they produce more water as a percentage of the total fluids recovered. The addition of secondary recovery has the potential to recover a further 15% to 20% of the original oil in place.

“Even after primary and secondary recovery, a significant amount of oil still exists in the rock formation. CO2 EOR is a type of tertiary oil recovery that can recover even more oil from these existing wells and reservoirs. In CO2 EOR, carbon dioxide is pumped into the oil-bearing rock formation to recover even more oil. CO2 EOR has the potential to recover an additional 15% to 20% of the original oil.”

The Chamber report goes on to explain how the CO2 EOR process works:

“The CO2 EOR process is primarily a function of how CO2 interacts with oil which is determined by the property of miscibility, when multiple liquids can mix together completely becoming one homogenous liquid. For example, water and vinegar are completely miscible. By contrast, water and oil are immiscible; they do not combine at any proportion. CO2 at a supercritical pressure and temperature is completely miscible with oil; it will combine completely.

“An analogous example of how this process works in oil production could be a frying pan coated in grease. When the pan is rinsed with water, some of the oil remains because oil and water are immiscible. If a solvent, such as dish soap, is applied to the pan, the solvent combines with the grease and the grease is more completely removed from the pan. In CO2 EOR, the CO2 combines with the oil and helps move it through the rock pore spaces, enabling greater recovery of the oil in place.”

A 2011 Department of Energy report estimates that CO2 EOR could provide 137 billion barrels of additional technically recoverable domestic oil, of which 67 billion barrels are economically recoverable at an oil price of $85 per barrel.

Kinder Morgan is carrying out an expanded evaluation program of the St. Johns field in preparation for producing CO2 and shipping it east via pipeline.

See also:

The importance of minerals to our economy and national security

Petroleum and Natural Gas Potential of the Paradox Basin

Arizona may become a major producer of potash

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/02/04/arizona-co2-production-could-enhance-american-oil-supply/feed/ 0 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/12/28/an-open-letter-challenging-the-epa-on-co2-regulation/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/12/28/an-open-letter-challenging-the-epa-on-co2-regulation/#comments Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:14:27 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1660 This post is an opinion piece republished, with permission, from the Watts Up With That? blog. The list of authors/signers is at the bottom

The Supreme Court, in Mass. v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carry out an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.

If allowed to stand, the very existence of EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that significantly increases U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices–negatively impacting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.

To many scientists this situation seems incredible given the ample evidence that EPA’s finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. EPA bases its finding upon Three Lines of Evidence (LoE.)

Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE.

1.) EPA claims that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years, in large part due to human- caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the Tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was slightly cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the Tropics. But, as the figure shows, over the last 130 years, the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.

2.) EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fingerprint Theory is that in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected.

3.) EPA relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on this Fingerprint Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although GAST has actually been flat. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.

Bottom –Line: No scientist or team of scientists has come up with an empirically validated theory proving that higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels will lead to higher GAST–not EPA’s team and certainly not to the EPA’s 90-99% certainty. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating EPA’s Three LoE, then EPA’s claim that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods and droughts is also disproved. Such causality claims require a validated theory that higher CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s entire house of cards collapses.

More generally, EPA violated both the scientific method and the Scientific Advisory Board statute intended to enforce the scientific method when it made its highly influential scientific assessment in the Endangerment Finding.

EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments. The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”

EPA’s outsourcing of the science to international organizations beyond the reach of U.S. laws has also been challenged. Moreover, the ClimateGate saga is testimony to the dedication of some to subvert the science for their own agenda. And, a Hockey Stick is now famous as a symbol of temperature data manipulated to generate public alarm.

In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order. However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. A Remand of EPA’s Endangerment Finding by the U.S. Supreme Court would be appropriate.

Wryheat Note: That the endangerment finding is purely political is shown by the fact that the EPA is getting all worked up about carbon dioxide levels of around 400ppm. But submarine crews work efficiently in carbon dioxide levels over10,000ppm. See Does carbon dioxide make you dumb?

Opinion Piece Signer List (alphabetically)

Dr. Timothy Ball
Climatologist & Environmental Consultant
Ph.D. (Faculty of Science), University of London, England

Joseph S. D’Aleo
Chief Meteorologist
WeatherBell Analytics

Dr. Donald Easterbrook (Emeritus)
Professor of Geology
Western Washington University

Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
Astrophysicist
La Center, WA

Dr. Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford

Dr. William M. Gray (Emeritus)
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
Professor of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Missouri

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Western Technology Inc.
Deer Park Maryland

Dr. S. Fred Singer (Emeritus)
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

George H. Taylor,
Certified Consultant Meteorologist
President, Applied Climate Services

Dr. James P. Wallace III
President, & CEO, Jim Wallace & Associates LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Anthony Watts
Former TV Meteorologist and founder of

SurfaceStations.org, Intelliweather, WattsUpWithThat

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has a new report which refutes claims that global warming is stressing Earth’s natural and agro-ecosystems by reducing plant growth and development. The report,”The State of Earth’s Terrestrial Biosphere” (133 pages, 2.3Mb) is a meta-analysis, a review, of nearly 400 peer-reviewed scientific studies examining how the productivity of Earth’s plants have responded to the 20^th and now 21^st century rise in global temperature and atmospheric CO_2.

Major findings:

The productivity of the planet’s terrestrial biosphere, on the whole, has been increasing with time, revealing a great greening of the Earth that extends throughout the entire globe. Satellite-based analyses of net terrestrial primary productivity (NPP) reveal an increase of around 6-13% since the 1980s.

There is no empirical evidence to support the model-based claim that future carbon uptake by plants will diminish on a global scale due to rising temperatures. In fact, just the opposite situation has been observed in the real world. Earth’s land surfaces were a net source of CO₂-carbon to the atmosphere until about 1940. From 1940 onward, however, the terrestrial biosphere has become,

in the mean, an increasingly greater sink for CO₂-carbon. Over the past 50 years, for example, global carbon uptake has doubled from 2.4 ± 0.8 billion tons in 1960 to 5.0 ± 0.9 billion tons in 2010.

The observed global greening has occurred in spite of all the many real and imagined assaults on Earth’s vegetation that have occurred over the past several decades, including wildfires, disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation, and climatic changes in temperature and precipitation, more than compensating for any of the negative effects these phenomena may have had on the global biosphere.

There is compelling evidence that the atmosphere’s rising CO₂ content is most likely the primary cause of the observed greening trends.

In the future, Earth’s plants should be able to successfully adjust their physiology to accommodate a warming of the magnitude and rate-of-rise that is typically predicted by climate models to accompany the projected future increase in the air’s CO₂ content. Factoring in plant productivity gains that will occur as a result of the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO₂, plus its accompanying transpiration reducing effect that boosts plant water use efficiency, the world’s vegetation possesses an ideal mix of abilities to reap a tremendous benefit in the years and decades to come.

See also:

The Eocene climatic optimum and paradise lost

Climate Change and Biodiversity

Page’s prediction is based on observation of the geologic record. He notes that there has been no net warming since 1997 even thought carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen 8.5%. Page says that atmospheric temperature is driven by sea surface temperature (SST) which is, itself, solar driven. The oceanic oscillations control the general climate. There is good correlation between solar cycles and SST, but note that because of the enthalpy and thermal inertia of the oceans, there is a 10 – 12 year lag between solar cycle troughs and global SSTs. This lag time definitely establishes cause and effect similar to the lag in carbon dioxide changes following temperature changes in the major glacial cycles as shown in ice cores The graph below shows the variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the major oceanic oscillation (the red line is actual measurement, the blue line is predictive modeling.) (Graph source here.)

Page says than in the figure “an approximate 60 year cycle is obvious by inspection and this coincides well with the 30 year +/- positive (warm) and 30year +/- negative (cold) phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” The graph “shows warming from about 1910 to 1940-45, cooling from then to about 1975, warming to about 2003-5 and cooling since then. Total warming during the 20th century was about 0.8 degrees C.” He also says that it is clear that we are entering the beginning of a 30-year cool phase of the PDO.

Page goes on to say:

“The major ice age climate cycles are controlled by the sun – earth orbital eccentricity, and the earth’s obliquity and precession. These cycles are approximately 100,000, 41,000 and 21,000 years in length respectively and are well documented in the ice core and geological record. It is useful to keep in mind that the warmest temperatures in the current interglacial occurred about 7500+/- years ago and the general trend is now a cooling towards the next ice age.”

“These long term cycles are modulated by quasi cyclic trends in solar activity which may be decadal, centennial, or millennial in length. Of particular interest in deciding where we are with regard to the solar cycles is the approximately 1000 +/- year cycle which produced successively the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the recent 20th century warming.”

These cycles are shown in the 2,000-year temperature reconstruction below (the white line is the smoothed curve):

Page says that “A reasonable case can be made that the warming peaks of a 60 year PDO cycle and the 1000 year solar cycle coincided at 2000 +/- and we are likely on the cooling slope of both.”

For a broader view, the graph below shows a temperature reconstruction for the past 11,000 years:

In his conclusion, Page says “Often the signal for a climate direction change is a see-saw effect between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. The Arctic is still reflecting the peak in the warming trend with low summer ice values. The first indication of a cooling event is however the increase in Antarctic sea ice which has already occurred.” (See my post: The Arctic-Antarctic seesaw)

Page is not alone is his prediction. Two years ago I reported that NASA was also predicting a cooling period based on the same natural parameters. (See NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period).

If this predicted cooling trend comes to pass, it will show, once again, that the forces of natural variation easily overcome the weak warming effect of carbon dioxide. And, by the way, if indeed the predicted cooling trend proceeds, atmospheric carbon dioxide will decrease because a cooler ocean can absorb more carbon dioxide.

This phase shift has some policy implications. It shows that curbing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels is unnecessary and perhaps contraindicated. If you believe that such emissions do have a significant effect on global temperature, we should continue and perhaps even increase emissions to forestall or lessen the effect of the cooling trend lest we find ourselves in another “little ice age.”

The mainstream media has been noticeably silent on EPA plans for the country … a slew of new rules and regulations to go into effect after November 7th that Obama has ordered be kept under wraps until after the election. What this Administration doesn’t want American families to know is precisely what they need to know.

 The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Staff recently released a report on the upcoming EPA rules and regulations that, it said, will “eliminate American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas, and coal production. They don’t want this economic pain to hit American families just before the election because it would cost President Obama votes.”

 The Senate report, A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013, looked at 13 of these new regulations, noting that they will hit American families, the poor, and those on fixed incomes especially hard, as Americans struggle more than ever in this economy and have already seen their energy costs skyrocket over the past four years.

 The entire report is a must read, but here are a few examples of what is being planned for us:

 New greenhouse gas regulations will no longer just affect coal plants, but will regulate churches, schools, restaurants, hospitals and farms, putting an enormous burden on Americans. “President Obama himself warned [these] would be worse than global warming cap-and-trade legislation,” said the Senate report. The new regulations will cost more than $300 to $400 billion a year and significantly raise the price of gas at the pump and energy in homes.

 Farms, for example, will be required to comply with costly permit mandates and have to pay a “cow tax” on each animal and an annual fee on greenhouse gases emitted. EPA estimates that over 37,000 farms and ranches will be subject to greenhouse gas permits, at an average cost of $23,000 per permit each year, affecting over 90% of the livestock production in the country. “The EPA will proceed to issue regulations, industry by industry, until virtually every aspect of the American economy is constrained by strict regulatory requirements and high energy prices.”

 New ozone rules will cost $90 billion a year by EPA estimates, while other studies have projected costs upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs, the report found. Large numbers of companies, by EPA’s own projections, will be unable to meet the stringent restrictions and are expected to close.

 Natural gas fracturing regulations will severely impact energy production, resulting in new permits and well workovers costing $1.499 Billion to $1.615 Billion a year. At least “14 Federal agencies are working to regulate hydraulic fracturing at the federal level, so that they can limit and eventually stop the practice altogether,” the report revealed.

 Clean Water Act new guidelines would allow EPA to expand federal control over virtually every body of water in the country, no matter how small, the report described.

 Final stormwater regulations proposed by the EPA would become “the most expensive rule in EPA history,” according to the Senate. It would establish for the first time, standards for post-construction runoff, mandate cities to change existing buildings, stormwater sewers and streets, “and mandate the use of ‘green infrastructure’ techniques (like ‘green roofs,’ rain gardens, permeable pavement) to replace conventional stormwater management practices.”

 New Gas regulations called Tier III, would lower the sulfur content in gasoline to from 30 to 10 parts per million at a cost of up to $10 billion initially and $2.4 billion each year. That would add another 9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs, cost that will be passed on to consumers at the pump.

 Farm Dust Regulations being proposed are so tightened, they would be below the dust created during normal farming operations and be impossible for rural American farms to meet.

 The report goes on in more detail about the planned regulatory onslaught. It also describes the war on coal, which includes the EPA obstructing 190 coal mining permits, jeopardizing 18,000 jobs, and trying to stop permits that have already been granted. It describes the war on oil and natural gas, such as EPA alleging water contamination from fracturing, even when it was unable to find supportive evidence and quietly withdrew the scares after the damage had been done to companies and had frightened homeowners.

 You can read the entire Senate report here.

 See also:

Electricity supply endangered by EPA regulations

BREAKING: Court tosses EPA Cross-state air pollution rule

EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

EPA fuel standards costly and ineffective

EPA, ethanol, and catch 22

EPA Admits CO2 Regulation Ineffective

How Many Haz-Mat Suits Do You Need to Change a Lightbulb?

Results: “On nine scales of decision-making performance, test subjects showed significant reductions on six of the scales at CO₂ levels of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) and large reductions on seven of the scales at 2,500 ppm.”  However, while “most decision-making variables showed a decline with higher concentrations of CO2, …measures of focused activity improved.”  The researchers also note “The strength of the effects at 2,500 ppm CO2 is so large for some metrics as to almost defy credibility, although it is possible that such effects occur without recognition in daily life.”  (See Berkeley press release here and EHP press release here, Full EHP report here. )

There are some possible confounding factors which could effect the test results, but which the researchers did not discuss. Since each group went through three sessions in one day, results may partially depend on the order of concentrations used and the time of day. For instance, the subjects may be more fatigued during the last test of the day or may be drowsy just after lunch. There apparently was no control group. Each group was tested just once so there was no effort to see if group results were repeatable.

The Berkeley researchers note: “While the results need to be replicated in a larger study, they point to possible economic consequences of pursuing energy efficient buildings without regard to occupants.”

U.S. Navy submariners and astronauts would disagree with the results of this study.  There has been abundant research on the physical and mental effects of carbon dioxide in enclosed spaces (see report from The National Academies Press here):

“Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO₂ concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO₂ concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm.”

“A number of studies suggest that CO₂ exposures in the range of 15,000-40,000 ppm do not impair neurobehavioral performance.”

“CO₂ at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen…”

“Exposures at 50,000-67,500 ppm in 19.2% oxygen for 37 h caused decreased hand-arm steadiness but caused no changes in computing, translating, number checking, or discrimination of pitch or loudness…”

Why did Berkeley/SUNY conduct this research?  Perhaps the EHP headline offers a clue: “Is CO₂ an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance.”  This ties in with the EPA’s contention that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that must be regulated.  The study was funded by the EPA through several sub-agencies.

See also:

EPA Admits CO2 Regulation Ineffective

Greenhouse gas regulations could cost trillions

Statistical Significance in Science – how to game the system

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) said of these new standards:

“This is an undemocratic, dangerous, and costly decision. The Obama administration’s heavy-handed regulation overrides American’s automobile preferences and imposes the choices of unelected bureaucrats on consumers.

Forcing ever-higher fuel economy mandates will lead to less safe cars and more automobile fatalities and injuries, according to leading safety experts. The problem with downsizing cars, according to the International Institute for Highway Safety, is that ‘smaller, lighter vehicles generally are less protective of their occupants in crashes.

Because the fuel economy mandate drives up the price of cars and trucks, millions of hard-working Americans will be priced out of the market..

 The federal government has a responsibility to provide information about fuel economy, but not the responsibility to dramatically limit people’s automobile choices because of the administration’s anti-fossil fuel agenda.”

The federal government estimates that these stricter standards will increase the price of a new car by about $3,000, a price at which the National Automobile Dealers Association said will price about 7 million potential customers out of the market. Other estimates place the additional cost at as much as $4,800 per car.

To be more fuel efficient, cars and light trucks will have to be smaller, lighter, and less crash-worthy.

An article in American Products American Power, a trade group, notes the grim statistics:

“In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences reported that the down weighting and downsizing that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of which was due to fuel economy standards, probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993. A study at Harvard and the Brookings Intuition found that downsizing vehicles was associated with a 14- to 27 percent increase in occupant fatality risk. This means that between 41,000 and 125,000 people have died because of these fuel economy mandates.”

The new mandate will make cars even more dangerous.

The premise that the mandate will reduce U.S. oil imports is flawed because it is the federal government itself that limits production of our abundant domestic resources. Lifting the government-imposed bans on exploration and production would reduce our imports.

That premise is also flawed because we find that people who own more-fuel efficient cars tend to drive more, thus at least partially negating the expected drop in total fuel consumption.

Where did the number 54.5 mpg come from? That is the number the Obama administration estimates would be necessary to cut vehicle carbon dioxide emissions in half according to the Arizona Daily Star.

This is all part of Obama’s war on fossil fuels and the carbon dioxide – global warming hoax. A few years ago, using IPCC figures, I calculated the alleged temperature rise supposedly caused by emissions of a family car. The result was three one-hundred-billionths of a degree C.

Under that assumption, if we were to replace our entire fleet of about 250 million vehicles (estimate from DOT) with vehicles that had half the current CO₂ emissions, it could possibly prevent a theoretical warming of 0.00035 degrees C. Wow, that’s really worth it don’t you think?

See also:

A Modest Proposal: Triple Your Carbon Footprint

Does the Chevy Volt produce more CO2 from its battery than from its gasoline engine

Electricity generated by wind power may raise temperatures and costs

Which Vehicles Are Most Energy Efficient?

See why attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions  will have no effect on global temperature:

Which comes first, rise in global CO2 or rise in global temperature?

To my knowledge, AGW proponents have yet to present any compelling physical evidence to support their contention. However, the alternative hypothesis has much supporting physical evidence. The latest is a new paper published in Global and Planetary Change:

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature by Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim from several Norwegian Universities.

The paper abstract reads:

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO₂ variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO₂, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO₂. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO₂ data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO₂, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions.

Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO₂ always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO₂ and temperature is found for CO₂ lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO₂ is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

The authors also say, “Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO₂ since January 1980. CO₂ released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO₂, and changes in atmospheric CO₂ are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

Comment:

It seems that AGW (human caused warming) proponents have a cause and effect problem. The figure below is from the cited paper. In that figure, green represents changes in CO₂, blue represents change in sea surface temperature, and red is the change in global surface temperature (HADCRUT3).

Recently, Dr. S. Fred Singer wrote an editorial which said in part:

“The science of climate change is not just of academic interest, but has been leading to policies for large-scale changes in energy use and supply — with important economic consequences. The burden of proof for AGW therefore falls on those who call for such policies. They must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that human activities are causing global warming, that a future warming will produce significant economic and ecological damage, and that it would be more cost-effective to mitigate now rather than to adapt later. They must also be ready to respond to any critique of the underlying science.”

Dr. Singer also poses some questions for AGW supporters:

**Why did climate warm between 1910 and 1940?

**Why did climate cool from 1940-1975? If the cause is assumed to be aerosols, also please explain the separate trends observed in the northern and southern hemispheres and compare with climate models. This asymmetry has been a puzzle for some time.

**Why is there a step increase (temperature “jump”) in 1976-77 — and again in 2001-2002? Such jumps are not in accord with the slow, steady increase calculated by climate models.

**Why is there no pronounced warming trend since 2002?

**And finally, why no warming for night-time marine air temperatures, troposphere, and proxies in the last two decades of the 20th century — in conflict with reported land-surface temperatures? Could one admit the possibility that there might be something wrong with the land-surface data used by IPCC as “evidence” for AGW?

I have an additional question. If CO₂ is such a powerful greenhouse gas and the major driver of global temperature as alleged, why does it stop rising? According to AGW hypothesis, CO₂ should cause temperature to rise which would produce more water vapor (a strong greenhouse gas), and lead to an enhanced or runaway greenhouse effect which would cause even more carbon dioxide to exsolve from the ocean. But something seems to curtail each rise in carbon dioxide. The cited paper suggests that both temperature and atmospheric CO2 content is controlled by sun-driven decadal ocean cycle oscillations.  If there is some influence from human carbon dioxide emissions, it is too small to be detected in the study.

For some additional perspective, I show a table below, constructed by a geologist several years ago, which shows the relative contributions to the greenhouse effect.  That estimate concludes that total human contribution is just 0.28%.  If that estimate is anywhere near reality, it helps explain why the researchers in the first paper cited above found “changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”

[Note to potential commenters: stick to the facts of physical evidence. Any other types of comments may be deleted.]

See also:

US Temperature trends show a spurious doubling says Anthony Watts

New study shows that 50% of warming claimed by IPCC is fake

NOAA temperature record “adjustments” could account for almost all “warming” since 1973

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

The Case Against the IPCC and Proponents of Dangerous Anthropological Global Warming

Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 2012 ; e-Viewdoi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-0110.1

CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropogenic Global Warming

Ernest Agee,1 Andrea Orton and John Rogers

Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

　Abstract

A scientific plan is presented that proposes the construction of CO2 deposition plants in the Antarctic for removing CO2 gas from the Earth’s atmosphere. The Antarctic continent offers the best environment on Earth for CO2 deposition at 1 bar of pressure, and temperatures closest to that required for terrestrial air CO2 snow deposition, 133°K. This plan consists of several components, including: (a) air chemistry and CO2 snow deposition, (b) the deposition plant and a closed-loop liquid nitrogen refrigeration cycle, (c) the mass storage landfill, (d) power plant requirements, (e) prevention of dry ice sublimation and (f) disposal (or use) of thermal waste. Calculations demonstrate that this project is worthy of consideration, whereby 446 deposition plants supported by 16 1200-MW wind farms can remove 1 B tons (1012 kg) of CO2 annually (a reduction of 0.5 ppmv), which can be stored in an equivalent “landfill” volume of 2 km x 2 km x 160 m (insulated to prevent dry ice sublimation).

The individual deposition plant, with a 100m x 100m x 100m refrigeration chamber, would produce approximately 0.4m of CO2 snow per day. The solid CO2 would be excavated into a 380m x 380m x 10m insulated landfill, that would allow one year of storage amounting to 0.00224B tons of carbon. Demonstrated success of a prototype system in the Antarctic would be followed by a complete installation of all 446 plants for CO2 snow deposition and storage (amounting to 1B tons annually), with wind farms positioned in favorable coastal regions with katabatic wind currents.

Like all wind, Katabatic winds are intermittent, but they can blow at hurricane force. Now what could go wrong with that?

Sounds like a few new green jobs.

This scheme, like all geoengineering schemes, is one of academia’s answers to a phantom problem. Because carbon dioxide is plant food and necessary for all life, we should not waste time and resources trying to get the atmospheric concentration down to some imagined correct magic number, see “A Modest Proposal: Triple Your Carbon Footprint.”  The geologic history of Earth shows that the normal concentration of carbon dioxide is at least three times what it is now.  Most plants and animals evolved under this higher concentration.

Although the authors of this paper are just trying to fill a perceived need (and maybe acquire politically correct grant money), all geoengineering schemes are foolish and unnecessary. Too bad they don’t direct their expertise toward something useful.

For another view, read an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: “20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea.”

See also:

Geoengineering Wacky Schemes to Control Climate

British Balloon to spew sulfur, another wacky geoengineering scheme

Girthic Warming