committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-24--Energy via legislative diktat in Virginia

For those enamored by the clean electric-car , smoke-and-mirrors “ emission elsewhere scheme ” comes the recently enacted “ Virginia Clean Economy Act ” , which includes one of the largest energy storage targets in the country at 2.4 GW by 2035 , and prompts state regulators to craft a carbon dioxide cap and trade program that meets the objectives of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ( RGGI ) .
The act , which requires Virginia ’ s electric utilities and competitive suppliers to generate electricity from 100 % renewable energy by 2050 , passed on the same day that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest utility , announced its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 .
Carbon dioxide has been deemed a pollutant via legislative diktat .
Accordingly , embedded in this legislation is language which prevents the Virginia State Corporation Commission from approving “ any investor-owned utility to own , operate , or construct any electric generating unit that emits carbon as a byproduct of combusting fuel to generate electricity ” until the state legislature has had a chance to review a report from the Air Pollution Control Board .
Embedded in the act are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in case the 100 per cent carbon-free dream mandate fails in the real world .
In keeping with current virtuous political correctness and emotional zeitgeist , the bill also requires utilities and the commission to consider the social cost of carbon when reviewing the need for a new generation facility .
However , Dominion Virginia Power now says it may need to import energy from pollution intensive sources out-of-state , even though nuclear power is part of the permitted energy mix .
The price tag for this legislated decree wrought via politically virtuous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandering to climate activists now comes to light .
Get ready for acres of environmentally destructive solar panel installations which will fail to meet energy demand in the midst of winter , while decimating native habitat , and leaching toxic chemicals into the soil .
Look to the new Warren Buffet solar project in Arizona as the template for yet another taxpayer billion dollar boondoggle promising pollution free energy ( when the sun shines ) , and reliance on giga-battery installations when it does not .
Trust that the air-conditioner comes on during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those European-built , experimental off-shore wind turbines produce little electricity .
Trust that the Atlantic hurricane season does not cause them to shut down in a self-preservation safety mode just when you need electric power .
Trust that servicing those giga-windmills in a most hostile saltwater corrosive environment does not take them off-line too often .
Trust that those envisioned giga-battery storage complexes for when the sun doesn ’ t shine , and the wind doesn ’ t not blow can actually be built .
Trust that the tons of rare earth minerals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sourced , and that such battery installations do not become ticking fire and explosion environmental disaster bombs .
In England that risk to a small town has been compared to a small nuclear bomb .
Safe disposal of the toxic-laden , worn out solar panels is largely ignored .
Whatever these outcomes , Dominion can pass on these costs to their captive consumers .
The State Corporation Commission has estimated ratepayers could see “ at least a $ 23 per month ” increase on their bills by 2027-2030…stress on the “ at least.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ California for the title of creator of the most destructive and unreliable energy policy at the highest cost to its citizens and industry by embracing radical environmentalism , and rejecting objective science .
However , the realities of a Corona virus economy have finally put the brakes on California ’ s green dreams .
California Gov .
Gavin Newsom has proposed budget cuts include canceling billions of dollars in climate change spending .
Meanwhile , Virginia ’ s green plans appear unchanged .
“ Out of sight , out of mind , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land , and “ just-like-that ” ( thank you Forest Gump ) by legislative fiat we Virginians are all carbon free at the expense of pollution elsewhere .
Never mind that there will be no measurable effect on the climate .
As is usual , there is no definition of how the climate change will be measured ; it usually falls back to changes in atmospheric temperature .
Even the details of how , where , and when such temperature measurements will be made is open-ended .
Releasing the recent film “ Planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Moore has upset the green lobby with such comments as : “ most energy consumers don ’ t realize the complex ways that so-called renewable energy has been developed with a co-dependency on non-renewables , ” and “ “ The only reason we had been force fed the story ‘ climate change plus renewables equals we ’ re saved ’ is because billionaires , bankers and corporations profit from it.
” Warren Buffet said it about wind power in 2014 : “ For example , on wind energy , we get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of wind farms .
That ’ s the only reason to build them .
They don ’ t make sense without the tax credit.
” His afore-mentioned Arizona solar project would seem to fall into that same category , as does Virginia ’ s new legislation with hand-outs galore .
Lost in this green crusade is the fact that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas upon which plants depend for life .
Each one of us exhales carbon dioxide at an approximate four percent concentration with each breath , as we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these legislators by asking how much the climate will be saved by this “ Clean Economy Act ” , however it might be measured against an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 400ppm .
Get ready for needlessly increased energy costs for local governments and the public in this era of the Corona virus .
Natural gas and petroleum are at record low prices , yet Virginia ’ s new energy plan has promised increased energy costs .
For local governments no problem , just increase property taxes and property assessments .
Those out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By the target date of 2045 , the authors of this legislation ( including the Virginia governor and legislators who foisted this on the public ) will probably ( hopefully ? )
be out of office and forgotten , and have no fear of facing recriminations .
Not so lucky will be the children and grandchildren of the future facing an uncertain , but expensive , Virginia energy environment .

For those enamored by the clean electric-car, smoke-and-mirrors “emission elsewhere scheme” comes the recently enacted “Virginia Clean Economy Act”, which includes one of the largest energy storage targets in the country at 2.4 GW by 2035, and prompts state regulators to craft a carbon dioxide cap and trade program that meets the objectives of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
The act, which requires Virginia’s electric utilities and competitive suppliers to generate electricity from 100% renewable energy by 2050, passed on the same day that Dominion Energy, the state’s largest utility, announced its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
Carbon dioxide has been deemed a pollutant via legislative diktat. Accordingly, embedded in this legislation is language which prevents the Virginia State Corporation Commission from approving “any investor-owned utility to own, operate, or construct any electric generating unit that emits carbon as a byproduct of combusting fuel to generate electricity” until the state legislature has had a chance to review a report from the Air Pollution Control Board. Embedded in the act are escape clauses allowing fossil fuel energy just in case the 100 per cent carbon-free dream mandate fails in the real world. In keeping with current virtuous political correctness and emotional zeitgeist, the bill also requires utilities and the commission to consider the social cost of carbon when reviewing the need for a new generation facility.
However, Dominion Virginia Power now says it may need to import energy from pollution intensive sources out-of-state, even though nuclear power is part of the permitted energy mix. The price tag for this legislated decree wrought via politically virtuous green posturing, environmental sloganeering, and pandering to climate activists now comes to light. Get ready for acres of environmentally destructive solar panel installations which will fail to meet energy demand in the midst of winter, while decimating native habitat, and leaching toxic chemicals into the soil. Look to the new Warren Buffet solar project in Arizona as the template for yet another taxpayer billion dollar boondoggle promising pollution free energy (when the sun shines), and reliance on giga-battery installations when it does not.
Trust that the air-conditioner comes on during a summer lull in ocean breezes when those European-built, experimental off-shore wind turbines produce little electricity. Trust that the Atlantic hurricane season does not cause them to shut down in a self-preservation safety mode just when you need electric power. Trust that servicing those giga-windmills in a most hostile saltwater corrosive environment does not take them off-line too often. Trust that those envisioned giga-battery storage complexes for when the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t not blow can actually be built. Trust that the tons of rare earth minerals needed to build such batteries can be sourced, and that such battery installations do not become ticking fire and explosion environmental disaster bombs. In England that risk to a small town has been compared to a small nuclear bomb. Safe disposal of the toxic-laden, worn out solar panels is largely ignored.
Whatever these outcomes, Dominion can pass on these costs to their captive consumers. The State Corporation Commission has estimated ratepayers could see “at least a $23 per month” increase on their bills by 2027-2030…stress on the “at least.”
Virginia seems to be vying with California for the title of creator of the most destructive and unreliable energy policy at the highest cost to its citizens and industry by embracing radical environmentalism, and rejecting objective science. However, the realities of a Corona virus economy have finally put the brakes on California’s green dreams. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed budget cuts include canceling billions of dollars in climate change spending. Meanwhile, Virginia’s green plans appear unchanged.
“Out of sight, out of mind,” pollution is now the law of the land, and “just-like-that” (thank you Forest Gump) by legislative fiat we Virginians are all carbon free at the expense of pollution elsewhere. Never mind that there will be no measurable effect on the climate. As is usual, there is no definition of how the climate change will be measured; it usually falls back to changes in atmospheric temperature. Even the details of how, where, and when such temperature measurements will be made is open-ended.
Releasing the recent film “Planet of the Humans” liberal film maker Michael Moore has upset the green lobby with such comments as: “most energy consumers don’t realize the complex ways that so-called renewable energy has been developed with a co-dependency on non-renewables,” and “ “The only reason we had been force fed the story ‘climate change plus renewables equals we’re saved’ is because billionaires, bankers and corporations profit from it.” Warren Buffet said it about wind power in 2014: “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” His afore-mentioned Arizona solar project would seem to fall into that same category, as does Virginia’s new legislation with hand-outs galore.
Lost in this green crusade is the fact that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas upon which plants depend for life. Each one of us exhales carbon dioxide at an approximate four percent concentration with each breath, as we are carbon-based life forms. Do not embarrass these legislators by asking how much the climate will be saved by this “Clean Economy Act”, however it might be measured against an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 400ppm.
Get ready for needlessly increased energy costs for local governments and the public in this era of the Corona virus. Natural gas and petroleum are at record low prices, yet Virginia’s new energy plan has promised increased energy costs. For local governments no problem, just increase property taxes and property assessments. Those out of work are just out of luck.
By the target date of 2045, the authors of this legislation (including the Virginia governor and legislators who foisted this on the public) will probably (hopefully?) be out of office and forgotten, and have no fear of facing recriminations. Not so lucky will be the children and grandchildren of the future facing an uncertain, but expensive, Virginia energy environment.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-25--Weaknesses of wind and solar: When science and reality clash — Part II

In Part One we established a Rule of Thumb for electrical engineering which states : All Solar and Wind Power on an Electric Grid Must Be Backed Up With an Equal or Greater Amount of Fossil Fuel Power Running on Standby 100 % OF The Time .
There are those who claim that one day these intermittent sources will be backed up by batteries , which is the claim of the solar plant to be built in the Mohave Desert 30 miles NE of Las Vegas .
In a future article we will explain with simple arithmetic why this can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the laws of physics .
For now we want to address the claims that have lead to the distorted interest in solar and wind power .
Daily academia , the press/media , the CO2 industry , and politicians sound the alarms with headlines screeching : • None The Green New Deal will save the planet .
• None Anthropogenic CO2 is melting the polar Ice , threatening NYC , and Miami .
• None Global Warming will destroy humanity and the planet in 12-years .
• None Stop carbon now ; ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But when science and reality bite , they bite hard .
The field of energy has never had a shortage of folks with crazy ideas .
We have all heard stories of supposed perpetual motion machines , but most of us are smart enough to recognize that they do not and can not exist .
However , because we all also see the wind blowing and the sun heating , it appears that gaining useful energy from them should be both possible and relatively inexpensive .
After all we have long used the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the sun to heat a multitude of things .
Producing electricity however with an intermittent source of power is another thing that very few people understand .
Those who are proposing I such power tend to benefit from the government subsidies given by politicians who have absolutely no understanding of how power plants must work .
French writer and philosopher Voltaire had a crisp way of cutting through the fog of self-deception and self-aggrand izement .
He said , “ I always make one prayer to God , a very short one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies quite ridiculous !
’ God granted it.
” Yet it seems we will be forever battling a great deal of this ridiculous ignorance .
This three part series will hopefully strike a blow for common sense about energy production with little need to tax a readers understanding of math or engineering .
The production of electricity is complex when one needs to understand how a generator creates electric power but it is simple when we just leave the machinery where a turbine is turned inside magnetic coils .
[ i ] So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered by the shrilling media : • · Forbes , 5 September 2019 by .. A or energy transition to renewables , poses a significant threat to the nation ’ s economy and energy supply .
• , details the many misunderstandings using the Amsterdam-Schiphol 500 MW combined-cycle fossil-fuel plant plus a 100MW windmill plant .
Over a typical one-year operation , it reduced fossil-burn by 4.5 % with no reduction in CO2 .
But increased maintenance costs : • The often-used 20-year life cycle for a windmill is more likely 12 – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ net consumer of electricity when the wind is less than about 10 MPH , see figure 1 .
• · G W P F on the occasion of the 10 anniversary of the disastrous British commitment to the Paris Agreement stated While politicians flatter themselves as climate saviors the costs are borne in worsened business competitiveness and squeezed household budgets that weigh most heavily on the poorest in society .
… .
No other serious country will do anything quite so foolish in the name of saving the climate.
” What is happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they promised us ?
In the first segment , we introduced our rule of thumb shown at the beginning and end of this article.worth repeating again : We will now use the Netherland ’ s Schipol wind plant [ v ] as an example and walk through the significant factors to demonstrate the accuracy of our rule of thumb .
Let us first explain the two most common electric power plants .
A Simple Cycle plant burns fuel , normally natural gas or coal to create steam to turn a turbine that generates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a combined cycle of a natural gas turbine and a steam turbine using waste heat from burning the gas to power a second generator .
Figure 2 shows the bucolic image presented to the public/press .
In reality , the substance is the fossil-fuel part assuring the delivery of the needed base-load of 500 MegaWatts .
This is optimum efficiency assuring no brown outs or blackouts , and with minimum CO2 and pollution .
Then when the wind is blowing in the favorable speed range of 8 to 25 miles per hour ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought online , and the fossil fuel plant is then cycled down and modulated from its ideal 100 % to just 80 % to take into account the 100 Mega Watts being supplied by the wind .
As the wind speed varies the fossil fuel plant output can go back and forth between 80 % and 100 % .
As background information , a typical Gas-Fired , Combined-Cycle , Gas-Turbine Plant , will have a thermal efficiency around 60 % , and the modern ones are approaching 70 % .
But when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simple Cycle mode , meaning no steam power from wast heat , the efficiency is cut by more than half , and the CO2 and pollutants go up .
The steam part is eliminated in order to insure stable output of the electric grid .
Spinning Reserve : The plant is required to maintain a constant energy output ( 500MW ) and 50-Hz frequency , but the wind speed and f orces are constantly changing , and a Combined f Cycle plant can not react fast enough , but a Simple Cycle plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and down to synchronize the output power and frequency needed by the grid ( see Figure 3 ) .
But it comes with a major reduced thermal efficiency from the mid-60s to mid-20 % .
Thus , it increases the fossil-fuel burn and increases the production of CO2 and pollutants .
To more easily understand this just think of your automobiles gasoline mileage on the open road versus stop and go city driving .
• None You will find that the electric energy industry is quite supportive of windmills .
First , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting equipment .
Then they sell the equipment-rich Combined Cycle plant , operating in an erratic-open cycle mode .
This erratic operation stresses/consumes the most expensive spare parts at two to three times the normal rate , thus driving the spare parts sales through the roof .
• None The costs of this erratic operation quickly wipe out the reported 4.5j % fuel saving dollars by many factors .
Environmentally the damage is even more severe .
Because , if there were no windmills , the Combined Cycle plant would operate at its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thereby burning less fossil-fuel and produce far less CO2 and atmospheric pollutants .
• None The Netherlands is a small , densely populated country where much of its land has been meticulously reclaimed from the sea at great expense .
Yet here we find that building this do-nothing , 100-MW wind plant has also cost it more than ten square miles of farmland .
Three strikes and you are out .
STIKE-1 ) In the first segment , we demonstrated that wind or solar plants would likely never recover the energy that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foisting great damage on our little blue planet .
STRIKE-2 ) in this second segment , we demonstrate that these green machines produce no net energy for the grid .
STRIKE-3 ) we demonstrated the extensive ecological damage inflicted by building these monstrosities AND adding insult to injury , with no reduction in fossil fuel burned , and with increased levels of CO2 and pollution .
Back to Michael Moore .
In the latter parts of the documentary film , PLANET FOR THE HUMANS , Michael and Jeff Gibbs express grave concerns about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and growing .
They opine ; we are running out of room , running out of resources , running out of farmlands , how will we ever feed our population ?
We are already short on water like the Colorado River never reaches the Pacific Ocean anymore .
So , the discussion fades from Anthropogenic Global Warming to the Anthropogenic Population Alarm , and Michael and Jeff are ill-equipped for this discussion .
Fortunately , we are well equipped to answer the challenge .
In the third and concluding segment of this series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magic of fossil-fuels and nuclear power , humanity has already solved the pseudo-crisis of global overpopulation .
All efforts to convert to wind and solar power , while impossible in any case , would surely head the world toward the problems Moore and Gibbs so improperly fear .
We hope the world will eventually take to heart the Ciccone/Lehr Rule of Thumb which states “ All wind and solar power on an electric grid must be backed up by an equal or greater amount of fossil fuel power running on standby 100 % @ @ @ @

In Part One we established a Rule of Thumb for electrical engineering which states: All Solar and Wind Power on an Electric Grid Must Be Backed Up With an Equal or Greater Amount of Fossil Fuel Power Running on Standby 100% OF The Time.
There are those who claim that one day these intermittent sources will be backed up by batteries, which is the claim of the solar plant to be built in the Mohave Desert 30 miles NE of Las Vegas. In a future article we will explain with simple arithmetic why this can never happen at any affordable costs based on the laws of physics. For now we want to address the claims that have lead to the distorted interest in solar and wind power.
Daily academia, the press/media, the CO2 industry, and politicians sound the alarms with headlines screeching:
Global Warming threatens humanity.
The Green New Deal will save the planet.
Anthropogenic CO2 is melting the polar Ice, threatening NYC, and Miami.
Global Warming will destroy humanity and the planet in 12-years.
Stop carbon now; ground the jets and no more cows.
But when science and reality bite, they bite hard. The field of energy has never had a shortage of folks with crazy ideas. We have all heard stories of supposed perpetual motion machines, but most of us are smart enough to recognize that they do not and can not exist. However, because we all also see the wind blowing and the sun heating, it appears that gaining useful energy from them should be both possible and relatively inexpensive. After all we have long used the wind to sail boats and grind grain and the sun to heat a multitude of things. Producing electricity however with an intermittent source of power is another thing that very few people understand. Those who are proposing I such power tend to benefit from the government subsidies given by politicians who have absolutely no understanding of how power plants must work.
French writer and philosopher Voltaire had a crisp way of cutting through the fog of self-deception and self-aggrand izement. He said, “I always make one prayer to God, a very short one, ‘O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!’ God granted it.” Yet it seems we will be forever battling a great deal of this ridiculous ignorance. This three part series will hopefully strike a blow for common sense about energy production with little need to tax a readers understanding of math or engineering. The production of electricity is complex when one needs to understand how a generator creates electric power but it is simple when we just leave the machinery where a turbine is turned inside magnetic coils.
[i] So here are some headlines that are not covered by the shrilling media:
· Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report: Forbes, 5 September 2019 by Michael Shellenberger .. [ii] A new report by consulting giant McKinsey finds that Germany’s Energiewende, or energy transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation’s economy and energy supply.
Forbes, 5 September 2019 by .. A Windmills increase fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions , Article by C. LePair, [iii] details the many misunderstandings using the Amsterdam-Schiphol 500 MW combined-cycle fossil-fuel plant plus a 100MW windmill plant. Over a typical one-year operation, it reduced fossil-burn by 4.5% with no reduction in CO2. But increased maintenance costs: The often-used 20-year life cycle for a windmill is more likely 12 – 15 years Windmills are a net consumer of electricity when the wind is less than about 10 MPH, see figure 1.
, · G lobal W arming P olicy F oundation, Article by Rupert Darwall, on the occasion of the 10 th anniversary of the disastrous British commitment to the Paris Agreement stated “ While politicians flatter themselves as climate saviors the costs are borne in worsened business competitiveness and squeezed household budgets that weigh most heavily on the poorest in society. … . No other serious country will do anything quite so foolish in the name of saving the climate.” [iv]
What is happening? Where are all those benefits, they promised us? In the first segment, we introduced our rule of thumb shown at the beginning and end of this article.worth repeating again : We will now use the Netherland’s Schipol wind plant[v] as an example and walk through the significant factors to demonstrate the accuracy of our rule of thumb.
Let us first explain the two most common electric power plants. A Simple Cycle plant burns fuel, normally natural gas or coal to create steam to turn a turbine that generates electricity. A more efficient plant uses a combined cycle of a natural gas turbine and a steam turbine using waste heat from burning the gas to power a second generator.
Figure 2 shows the bucolic image presented to the public/press. In reality, the substance is the fossil-fuel part assuring the delivery of the needed base-load of 500 MegaWatts. This is optimum efficiency assuring no brown outs or blackouts, and with minimum CO2 and pollution. Then when the wind is blowing in the favorable speed range of 8 to 25 miles per hour (Figure 1), wind power is brought online, and the fossil fuel plant is then cycled down and modulated from its ideal 100% to just 80% to take into account the 100 Mega Watts being supplied by the wind. As the wind speed varies the fossil fuel plant output can go back and forth between 80% and 100% .
As background information, a typical Gas-Fired, Combined-Cycle, Gas-Turbine Plant, will have a thermal efficiency around 60%, and the modern ones are approaching 70%. But when the same plant is trimmed down to the Simple Cycle mode, meaning no steam power from wast heat, the efficiency is cut by more than half, and the CO2 and pollutants go up. The steam part is eliminated in order to insure stable output of the electric grid.
Spinning Reserve: The plant is required to maintain a constant energy output (500MW) and 50-Hz frequency, but the wind speed and f orces are constantly changing, and a Combined f Cycle plant cannot react fast enough, but a Simple Cycle plant can. The Simple Cycle can cycle up and down to synchronize the output power and frequency needed by the grid (see Figure 3). But it comes with a major reduced thermal efficiency from the mid-60s to mid-20%. Thus, it increases the fossil-fuel burn and increases the production of CO2 and pollutants. To more easily understand this just think of your automobiles gasoline mileage on the open road versus stop and go city driving.
You will find that the electric energy industry is quite supportive of windmills. First, they sell windmills and their generators and supporting equipment. Then they sell the equipment-rich Combined Cycle plant, operating in an erratic-open cycle mode. This erratic operation stresses/consumes the most expensive spare parts at two to three times the normal rate, thus driving the spare parts sales through the roof.
The costs of this erratic operation quickly wipe out the reported 4.5j% fuel saving dollars by many factors. Environmentally the damage is even more severe. Because, if there were no windmills, the Combined Cycle plant would operate at its peak efficiency of over 60%, thereby burning less fossil-fuel and produce far less CO2 and atmospheric pollutants.
The Netherlands is a small, densely populated country where much of its land has been meticulously reclaimed from the sea at great expense. Yet here we find that building this do-nothing, 100-MW wind plant has also cost it more than ten square miles of farmland.
Three strikes and you are out. STIKE-1) In the first segment, we demonstrated that wind or solar plants would likely never recover the energy that it took to build and install them while foisting great damage on our little blue planet. STRIKE-2) in this second segment, we demonstrate that these green machines produce no net energy for the grid. STRIKE-3) we demonstrated the extensive ecological damage inflicted by building these monstrosities AND adding insult to injury, with no reduction in fossil fuel burned, and with increased levels of CO2 and pollution.
Back to Michael Moore. In the latter parts of the documentary film, PLANET FOR THE HUMANS, Michael and Jeff Gibbs express grave concerns about the over-population of the Earth, seven-billion and growing. They opine; we are running out of room, running out of resources, running out of farmlands, how will we ever feed our population? We are already short on water like the Colorado River never reaches the Pacific Ocean anymore. So, the discussion fades from Anthropogenic Global Warming to the Anthropogenic Population Alarm, and Michael and Jeff are ill-equipped for this discussion.
Fortunately, we are well equipped to answer the challenge. In the third and concluding segment of this series, we demonstrate how, through the magic of fossil-fuels and nuclear power, humanity has already solved the pseudo-crisis of global overpopulation. All efforts to convert to wind and solar power, while impossible in any case, would surely head the world toward the problems Moore and Gibbs so improperly fear.
We hope the world will eventually take to heart the Ciccone/Lehr Rule of Thumb which states “All wind and solar power on an electric grid must be backed up by an equal or greater amount of fossil fuel power running on standby 100% of the time”
[i] A HITCHHIKER’S JOURNEY THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE, https://www.amazon.com/Hitchhikers-Journey-Through-Climate-Change-ebook/dp/B086R49RS6/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=a+hitchhiker%27s+journey+through+climate+change&qid=1587476127&sr=8-1
[ii] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables-threaten-german-economy-energy-supply-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/#2f0d3f898e48
[iii] https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/windmills-increase-fossil-fuel-consumption-and-co2-emissions/
[iv] https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/11/10years-CCA.pdf
[v] https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/windmills-increase-fossil-fuel-consumption-and-co2-emissions/


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-26--Americans return to space in private spacecraft Wednesday

On July 21 , 2011 , the Space Shuttle Atlantis landed at Cape Canaveral .
This was the shuttle program ’ s final flight , and the last time America was capable of launching astronauts into space .
We ’ ve been paying passengers , at $ 80 million per seat , on Russian Soyuz rockets ever since .
On Wednesday we plan to change that .
NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley are making their final preparations to launch into space Wednesday , May 27 , 2020 at 4:33:33 PM EDT .
To be the first to fly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courage .
We pray for their safety and success .
This is historic .
This is important .
First , the time for America to regain our capacity to independently launch astronauts into space is long overdue .
Second , the Space X Dragon spacecraft , sitting on the same pad from which our Apollo missions launched to the Moon , is a private spacecraft .
This heralds a new era in space .
Space X explains that , “ the Dragon spacecraft is capable of carrying up to 7 passengers to and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth , and will soon become the first private spacecraft to take humans to the space station.
” Space X pioneered reusable spacecraft that stand to dramatically reduce the price of lifting heavy payloads into orbit and beyond .
This opens up endless constructive possibilities for private enterprise in space .
It ’ s as if our astronauts are taking an Uber .
Space X is the creation of entrepreneur Elon Musk .
It is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admirers , but not fans of all things Elon .
His short range electric cars are beautiful driving machines , but would not exist without government mandates and subsidies .
His solar installations are likewise children of government waste with tremendous environmental footprints and likewise tremendous financial drains on rate and taxpayers .
Yet no one can deny Musk ’ s talent , creativity , and constant drive .
Elon Musk is a Michelangelo in other people ’ s money .
Space X just may make it all worth it .
Boeing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its own private spacecraft , the Starliner .
We look forward to it .
CFACT is optimistic that through the power of free enterprise , America is poised to lead the world into vast new opportunities in space .
Florida ’ s rainy season has begun and Wednesday ’ s forecast calls for rain and wind that could cause a flight change , but the word as of now is go .
Much has to go right for the Space X Dragon to launch safely and on time .

On July 21, 2011, the Space Shuttle Atlantis landed at Cape Canaveral. This was the shuttle program’s final flight, and the last time America was capable of launching astronauts into space.
We’ve been paying passengers, at $80 million per seat, on Russian Soyuz rockets ever since.
On Wednesday we plan to change that.
NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley are making their final preparations to launch into space Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 4:33:33 PM EDT. To be the first to fly a new spacecraft requires tremendous skill and courage. We pray for their safety and success.
This is historic. This is important.
First, the time for America to regain our capacity to independently launch astronauts into space is long overdue.
Second, the Space X Dragon spacecraft, sitting on the same pad from which our Apollo missions launched to the Moon, is a private spacecraft. This heralds a new era in space.
Space X explains that, “the Dragon spacecraft is capable of carrying up to 7 passengers to and from Earth orbit, and beyond. It is the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth, and will soon become the first private spacecraft to take humans to the space station.”
Space X pioneered reusable spacecraft that stand to dramatically reduce the price of lifting heavy payloads into orbit and beyond. This opens up endless constructive possibilities for private enterprise in space. It’s as if our astronauts are taking an Uber.
Space X is the creation of entrepreneur Elon Musk. It is a tremendous achievement.
We at CFACT are admirers, but not fans of all things Elon. His short range electric cars are beautiful driving machines, but would not exist without government mandates and subsidies. His solar installations are likewise children of government waste with tremendous environmental footprints and likewise tremendous financial drains on rate and taxpayers.
Yet no one can deny Musk’s talent, creativity, and constant drive.
Elon Musk is a Michelangelo in other people’s money.
Space X just may make it all worth it.
Boeing, meanwhile, is putting the finishing touches on its own private spacecraft, the Starliner. We look forward to it.
CFACT is optimistic that through the power of free enterprise, America is poised to lead the world into vast new opportunities in space.
Florida’s rainy season has begun and Wednesday’s forecast calls for rain and wind that could cause a flight change, but the word as of now is go.
Much has to go right for the Space X Dragon to launch safely and on time.
We’re with you. Godspeed.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-26--Shocking statements by Dominion Energy to the VA State Corporation Commission

In April this year , the VA State Legislature , controlled by the Democrat Party , and Democrat Governor Ralph Northam , passed the Virginia Clean Economy Act ( VCEA ) .
The VCEA imposed on Dominion Energy , the monopoly authorized by Virginia to provide all of Virginia ’ s electricity , a series of unprecedented , drastic , and draconian mandates designed to assure that by 2045 all of Virginia ’ s electricity will be produced in a manner which will result in “ net zero emissions ” of carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) .
Dominion calls this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sweeping in the nation.
” On May 1 , 2020 , Dominion submitted to the State Corporation Commission the 15 year Plan for electricity generation which it intends to follow in order to achieve this net zero result .
Although the Plan is written in mind numbing legalese – designed to mask its true impact on electricity costs to VA consumers – its results are staggering and shocking .
Not only does the VCEA bypass the historic jurisdiction of the State Corporation Commission over electricity generation in the Commonwealth , it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 years a framework of mandates that are devastating for VA consumers .
What follows is a description of the immense costs which the average Virginia consumer will be required to absorb in order to meet these mandates .
First , hidden among the dense prose and jargon in the Dominion plan is the startling fact that the VCEA mandates an increase in the average monthly electric bill for the average consumer of 500 dollars per year !
This additional cost is above and beyond the ordinary cost which Dominion would incur in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The next obvious question is $ 500 per year for what ?
The answer is absolutely zero impact on climate .
That is zero .
As in nada , zip , zilch , bupkus impact on the temperature of Virginia , much less than on that of the Earth .
Dominion does not even claim as much , nor can it , because US Government climate models show that even if all fossil fuel use in the US were eliminated today , there would be no measurable impact on the climate of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being asked – actually required – to cough up 500 dollars per year for their electricity bill in order to enable ……….. cleaner air ?
No .
Cleaner water ?
No .
Cleaner land ?
Absolutely not .
Will the average VA consumer be able to feel , touch or smell any difference in their everyday environment because of this extra expenditure ?
Not at all .
But wait !
as they say in the midnight TV commercials .
It gets worse .
Hidden in the dense prose of the Dominion application @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals of the VCEA will require “ the construction of four interstate transmission lines at an estimated cost of $ 8.4 billion ” .
That ’ s 8.4 billion dollars in addition to the $ 500 dollars per year that VA ratepayers already have to absorb because of the VCEA .
After all of the mandates of the VCEA are added up , Dominion customers will be saddled with $ 30 billion in additional expense over the fifteen year period covered by the Dominion plan – $ 30 billion more than would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintained .
And if for some reason CO2 is of concern to you , the status quo would result in zero increase in CO2 output over that same 15 year period .
Had enough ?
Read on .
The Plan also states that the VCEA mandates “ large quantities of solar capacity in Virginia …….. which would require a land use of 490 square miles .
This land mass is nearly 25 % larger than Fairfax County …… or the equivalent of nearly 237,000 football fields.
” So not only do ratepayers need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Virginia countryside also will be blighted with a mind blowing landscape of solar panels .
Finally , the Dominion submission ends with these gems : [ VCEA mandates will result in ] “ reliability deficiencies on twenty six 115 kV lines , thirty two 230 kV lines , six 500 kV lines , and eleven transmission reformers ” …….. “ Therefore , the retirement of traditional generation coupled with the addition of large quantities of intermittent renewable generation will adversely affect both electric system reliability and the Company ’ s ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large scale blackout ” .
So there you have it : $ 500 per customer in additional yearly electricity costs , $ 30 billion in increased capital costs , the ruination of hundreds of thousands acres of Virginia landscape , and a significant hit to system reliability – with no visible improvement in the environment .
The Virginia electricity plan brought to you by the Democrat Virginia legislature and Democrat Governor Ralph Northam .
What ’ s not to like ?

In April this year, the VA State Legislature, controlled by the Democrat Party, and Democrat Governor Ralph Northam, passed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA). The VCEA imposed on Dominion Energy, the monopoly authorized by Virginia to provide all of Virginia’s electricity, a series of unprecedented, drastic, and draconian mandates designed to assure that by 2045 all of Virginia’s electricity will be produced in a manner which will result in “net zero emissions” of carbon dioxide (CO2). Dominion calls this requirement “one of the most aggressive and sweeping in the nation.”
They aren’t kidding.
On May 1, 2020, Dominion submitted to the State Corporation Commission the 15 year Plan for electricity generation which it intends to follow in order to achieve this net zero result.
Although the Plan is written in mind numbing legalese – designed to mask its true impact on electricity costs to VA consumers – its results are staggering and shocking. Not only does the VCEA bypass the historic jurisdiction of the State Corporation Commission over electricity generation in the Commonwealth, it also imposes on the Commonwealth for the next 25 years a framework of mandates that are devastating for VA consumers.
What follows is a description of the immense costs which the average Virginia consumer will be required to absorb in order to meet these mandates.
First, hidden among the dense prose and jargon in the Dominion plan is the startling fact that the VCEA mandates an increase in the average monthly electric bill for the average consumer of 500 dollars per year! This additional cost is above and beyond the ordinary cost which Dominion would incur in providing electricity to the average consumer.
The next obvious question is $500 per year for what?
The answer is absolutely zero impact on climate. That is zero. As in nada, zip, zilch, bupkus impact on the temperature of Virginia, much less than on that of the Earth. Dominion does not even claim as much, nor can it, because US Government climate models show that even if all fossil fuel use in the US were eliminated today, there would be no measurable impact on the climate of the Earth.
So the average VA consumer is being asked – actually required – to cough up 500 dollars per year for their electricity bill in order to enable ……….. cleaner air? No. Cleaner water? No. Cleaner land? Absolutely not. Will the average VA consumer be able to feel, touch or smell any difference in their everyday environment because of this extra expenditure? Not at all.
But wait! as they say in the midnight TV commercials. It gets worse.
Hidden in the dense prose of the Dominion application is the admission that achieving all the goals of the VCEA will require “the construction of four interstate transmission lines at an estimated cost of $8.4 billion”. That’s 8.4 billion dollars in addition to the $500 dollars per year that VA ratepayers already have to absorb because of the VCEA.
After all of the mandates of the VCEA are added up, Dominion customers will be saddled with $30 billion in additional expense over the fifteen year period covered by the Dominion plan – $30 billion more than would be the case if the status quo were maintained. And if for some reason CO2 is of concern to you, the status quo would result in zero increase in CO2 output over that same 15 year period.
Had enough? Read on.
The Plan also states that the VCEA mandates
“large quantities of solar capacity in Virginia …….. which would require a land use of 490 square miles. This land mass is nearly 25% larger than Fairfax County …… or the equivalent of nearly 237,000 football fields.” So not only do ratepayers need to absorb additional electricity costs, but the Virginia countryside also will be blighted with a mind blowing landscape of solar panels.
Finally, the Dominion submission ends with these gems:
[VCEA mandates will result in] “reliability deficiencies on twenty six 115 kV lines, thirty two 230 kV lines, six 500 kV lines, and eleven transmission reformers”……..
“Therefore, the retirement of traditional generation coupled with the addition of large quantities of intermittent renewable generation will adversely affect both electric system reliability and the Company’s ability to restore the system in the event of a large scale blackout”.
So there you have it: $500 per customer in additional yearly electricity costs, $30 billion in increased capital costs, the ruination of hundreds of thousands acres of Virginia landscape, and a significant hit to system reliability – with no visible improvement in the environment. The Virginia electricity plan brought to you by the Democrat Virginia legislature and Democrat Governor Ralph Northam.
What’s not to like?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-26--U.S. climate scientist James Hansen pushes for Canadian carbon tax

( Calgary , Alberta ) The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers ( CTF ) has issued a showing most countries have frozen or rolled back carbon taxes , but US climate scientist James Hansen is pushing for a .
Hansen ’ s argument is that the tax has to be high enough that people will buy into the carbon dividend ( rebate to lower income households ) – effectively making Canadians into carbon serfs and a carbon welfare society .
CTF reports : “ About half of the emissions covered by carbon taxes are priced below US $ 10/tCO2e , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent State and Trends of Carbon Pricing ( 2019 ) .
” Canada has on the books , which have never been audited for effectiveness .
This begs the question of “ what is a climate scientist doing dabbling in Canada ’ s domestic affairs on carbon taxes , pushing a carbon tax that is 21 times that of the world , ” says Friends of Science Society .
As revealed by Lawrence Solomon in the 2009 article “ James Hansen , the scientist who more than any other is responsible for bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public , was among the scientists Enron commissioned.
” Enron had profited from cap and trade , but the company in 2001 due to off-book accounting and financial fraud .
None-the-less , a group of green billionaires took up the global cap-and-trade challenge , apparently working from the Enron carbon/cap-and-trade scheme model , as reported by .
Like Enron , they have funded local and global environmental groups to agitate for policies in countries around the world , favorable to their proposed global cap and trade plan .
The plans require a price @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their trillions in vested interests in renewables .
Many of these groups are associated with the Tar Sands Campaign that has falsely created of the Alberta oil sands and driven a downturn in the economy .
Michael Moore ’ s recent movie “ Planet of the Humans ” revealed how this green crony capitalism is destroying the planet for no climate benefit .
Canadians now face an onslaught of – the number one being Mark Carney , now UN Climate Czar and former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor .
Carney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not comply with his demands to report on climate risk and abandon fossil fuel investments .
As Robert Lyman ’ s new report shows : , Carney is misleading the public and investors on global oil consumption and demand .
Both oil production and consumption have risen by more than one million barrels per day per year since 2012 .
• Oil demand is at its highest level in history .
• In absolute terms , oil demand is growing twice as fast as renewables .
• Global oil reserves have risen throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1998 to 1730 billion barrels in 2018 ; peak oil is nowhere in sight .
That is a 10 million barrel per day increase over the nine years .
• In absolute terms , natural gas is experiencing the fastest rate of growth of all energy sources , almost three times as fast as renewables .
• Natural gas demand is at its highest level in history .
Friends of Science Society says carbon dioxide from human industry is a nominal influence on climate change , known since the 2013 IPCC AR5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts ’ like Mark Carney are still pushing the climate-carbon dioxide catastrophe theme constitutes a violation of securities regulations related to ‘ material change ’ .
Furthermore , as Roger Pielke , Jr. reports , climate catastrophe scenarios are the , which is far from reality or business-as-usual .
“ Green ” groups in Canada are demanding that the new Canadian Infrastructure Bank be used to finance their green crony capitalist schemes .
Friends of Science Society issued a into the development of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank in Nov. 2017 .
The Conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valid in their opinion .
Evidence from to shows that carbon taxes have no discernible impact on emissions reduction and are simply oppressive to taxpayers and industry .
Friends of Science Society says Carbonbaggers should not be using carbon taxes as a means of creating a Canadian climate welfare state , especially not driven by foreign influences , street theatre , and deception .

From Friends of Science
(Calgary, Alberta) The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers (CTF) has issued a new report on global carbon taxes, showing most countries have frozen or rolled back carbon taxes, but US climate scientist James Hansen is pushing for a $210/t carbon tax in Canada by 2030 . Hansen’s argument is that the tax has to be high enough that people will buy into the carbon dividend (rebate to lower income households) – effectively making Canadians into carbon serfs and a carbon welfare society. CTF reports: “About half of the emissions covered by carbon taxes are priced below US$10/tCO2e, according to the World Bank’s most recent State and Trends of Carbon Pricing (2019).” Canada has more than 600 greenhouse gas reduction/incentive measures on the books, which have never been audited for effectiveness.
This begs the question of “what is a climate scientist doing dabbling in Canada’s domestic affairs on carbon taxes, pushing a carbon tax that is 21 times that of the world,” says Friends of Science Society. As revealed by Lawrence Solomon in the 2009 article “Enron’s Other Secret” “James Hansen, the scientist who more than any other is responsible for bringing the possibility of climate-change catastrophe to the public, was among the scientists Enron commissioned.”
Enron had profited from cap and trade, but the company collapsed into a pile of ashes in 2001 due to off-book accounting and financial fraud.
None-the-less, a group of green billionaires took up the global cap-and-trade challenge, apparently working from the Enron carbon/cap-and-trade scheme model, as reported by Nisbet in 2018 . Like Enron, they have funded local and global environmental groups to agitate for policies in countries around the world, favorable to their proposed global cap and trade plan. The plans require a price on carbon with the intention of funding their trillions in vested interests in renewables. Many of these groups are associated with the Tar Sands Campaign that has falsely created “Fear and Loathing” of the Alberta oil sands and driven a downturn in the economy.
Michael Moore’s recent movie “Planet of the Humans” revealed how this green crony capitalism is destroying the planet for no climate benefit.
Canadians now face an onslaught of Carbonbaggers – the number one being Mark Carney, now UN Climate Czar and former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor. Carney threatens firms with bankruptcy if they do not comply with his demands to report on climate risk and abandon fossil fuel investments.
As Robert Lyman’s new report shows: “Broken Promises: Why Renewables Offer No Resilient Recovery” , Carney is misleading the public and investors on global oil consumption and demand.
Both oil production and consumption have risen by more than one million barrels per day per year since 2012.
• Oil demand is at its highest level in history.
• In absolute terms, oil demand is growing twice as fast as renewables.
• Global oil reserves have risen throughout the period, from 1141 billion barrels in 1998 to 1730 billion barrels in 2018; peak oil is nowhere in sight. That is a 10 million barrel per day increase over the nine years.
• In absolute terms, natural gas is experiencing the fastest rate of growth of all energy sources, almost three times as fast as renewables.
• Natural gas demand is at its highest level in history.
Friends of Science Society says carbon dioxide from human industry is a nominal influence on climate change, known since the 2013 IPCC AR5 report. The fact that financial ‘experts’ like Mark Carney are still pushing the climate-carbon dioxide catastrophe theme constitutes a violation of securities regulations related to ‘material change’. Furthermore, as Roger Pielke, Jr. reports, climate catastrophe scenarios are the product of green billionaires pushing the ‘climate hysteria’ scenario , which is far from reality or business-as-usual.
“Green” groups in Canada are demanding that the new Canadian Infrastructure Bank be used to finance their green crony capitalist schemes.
Friends of Science Society issued a request for ethics investigation into the development of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank in Nov. 2017. The Conflict of Interest concerns expressed there are still valid in their opinion.
Evidence from Norway to Zimbabwe shows that carbon taxes have no discernible impact on emissions reduction and are simply oppressive to taxpayers and industry. Friends of Science Society says Carbonbaggers should not be using carbon taxes as a means of creating a Canadian climate welfare state, especially not driven by foreign influences, street theatre, and deception.
See “The Roots of Global Warming” .


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-27--Postponed for rain.  Now watch historic Space X launch May 30th live!

Postponed for rain .
Historic space launch as Americans return to space on our own rocket .
Watch the run @ @ @ @ @ and the launch itself live now scheduled for Saturday , May 30th at 3:22 PM @

Postponed for rain. Historic space launch as Americans return to space on our own rocket.
Watch the run up to the launch now and the launch itself live now scheduled for Saturday, May 30th at 3:22 PM.
Godspeed astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley!


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-27--Annual counter to hurricane hype

Annual counter to hurricane hype

Well it is getting to be an annual thing just before NOAA comes out with their forecast ( which I suspect is going to be close to ours , issued first on March 10 calling for a big season .
See our latest here : https : //www.weatherbell.com/may-2020-hurricane-season-update ) as sure as the snow melts 2 things happen 1 ) Hurricanes are worse than ever hype happens 2 ) Me exposing the lack of looking at other factors Here was last years piece : So let us go to this USA Today article which is making the rounds : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me being skeptical : Scientists studied 40 years of satellite images to reach their conclusions .
1 ) No joke ITS THE SATELLITE ERA , YOU DIDNT HAVE SATELLITES BEFORE THE 60S SO LIKE NOW how can you tell what it was like then ?
2 ) So what if they are if its mostly out over the ocean ?
Dr Bill Gray forecasted this anyway 40 yrs ago !
Bill Gray was no fan of man-made climate change ideas 3 ) THEY HAVE BEEN WEAKER COMING TO THE US COAST If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Atlantic in the 60S-1980s and you went back to the warm cycle , what do you think is going to happen naturally ?
And why isn ’ t the real premise of this is that the much-maligned for his AGW stance , Dr. William Gray , was exactly right , if this is true ?
But is it true or does it not dig into enough details to give a more focused picture ?
.
So here are some mitigating factors that have to be brought up , 1 ) Hurricanes now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unit , constantly monitored .
We know everything is going on , We see them from above , even if in the middle of nowhere .
A classic example was Wilma , at her strongest , her pinprick eye ( 2.3 miles wide ) would have never been seen by satellites in the 1980s , let alone in the pre-satellite era .
So we are seeing more and seeing them at their strongest .
How do we know if the 1938 hurricane was not a 5 at some time out in the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intensity is only reached for a relatively short time , a ship would have to have gone thru the center , and if you are sailing into a hurricane , chances are you are going to try to change course if you can to avoid that , 2 ) While hurricanes may be stronger over the water , they are weaker in general as they move in close to the US .
Let us take a look at major landfalls by decade , all maps from this site : As usual , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument .
BTW how do we know how strong those storms may have been before landfall , Katrine , Rita , and Wilma all hit as 3s but because we were constantly on top of them , we knew they had reached 5s : See that 38 storm ?
That could cause a lot of damage to former presidents Obama ’ s house at Martha ’ s Vineyard , raising the question ( which I will raise again in 1954 , TWICE , ) Why , if you believed in what you were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house 3 feet above sea level and only a 5-foot barrier island in front of it , on a funnel-shaped inlet where a south wind and surge piles water up if you knew what hurricanes have done to New England and are saying it was worse than ever now ?
( answer : because he can which is fine , its his call , but don ’ t blame man-made climate change for what is a matter of when , not if , naturally ) , maybe I am just jealous I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good place to ride out a storm if the house stands .
Interesting Wonder if I can out there and pal around so when one comes I can get out there ) .
1941-1950 10 ( including one that would cause immense damage to Mir a Lago .
Why would current President Trump buy a place there ?
Because he can , but t least he isn ’ t saying things are worse ( BTW people have been rooting for that place to be hit , so I guess we have a race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes a betting line at Vegas ?
What if they both get hit in one year ? )
I would advise both of them if you are buying here , its not if , but when , there is big damage .
Not because of climate change , but because history has shown us that : Donna had 3 landfalls , and that counts , The total major landfalls is 12 Carol and Edna would be a real problem for President Obama and even Donna Which I do not wish to see , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , if it happens again , blame climate change for something that obviously was a problem before , and a reason a radar “ fence ” was constructed on the east coast .
This was the most intense Ace/Storm decade on record .
Averaging over 10/storm Despite the headline on the article , Ace/Storm in the last decade is a tad over 8 The warm cycle of the Atlantic ended after that , In hits heyday 1931-1960 the average major hit/decade was 10/decade or 1 a year .
We are not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last 30 years of the warm cycle .
So the cold cycle takes over from the 1960s thru the 1980s .
So this 30-year period in which the satelite era started in earnest during a cold cycle , had 5 majors hits/decade , or half as much , But like so many things we see on the general issue today , we start at a point of convenience for the argument , The only true metric we have that is consistent over the years is the intensity at landfall , because we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land .
It was very hard to figure out how strong the might have been over the water relative to what we have today , So let ’ s get the to recent warm period and see if its worse than before , or just worse , as forecasted , relative to the cold period .
The most recent 10 years so far has been 3 , let ’ s say I am right about this hurricane season and 2 majors hit , let ’ s make it 3 , That would still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If they are no major hits , it would have been the weakest decade since 1911 !
So the average in this warm period is only as of now , 5.6/decade !
So what is going on here and why don ’ t articles like this touch upon this , Well , the warming is likely having some effect , Those of you that follow me have followed my ideas that the warming of the oceans is distorting temperature and pressure patterns so big large mature storms WEAKEN as they come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMERICA are lower than average during the hurricane season , the convergence needed to maintain the major storm is more spread out , Florence is classic , It weakened as it came to the coast .
The very warm water northwest of it meant the storm was spreading out , taking convergence away from the core .
Plus the very fact they may be stronger over the water means almost any factor can cause them to weaken , which does not support it being that strong .
This leads to 2 conclusions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvey , The shorter tracked storms are more likely to be strongest at landfall .
2 ) It is my argument for seeding major hurricanes coming to the coast .
to disrupt those processes ( wrote this last year : https : //www.cfact.org/2019/08/30/no-nukes-for-hurricanes-but-maybe-its-time-to-restart-project-stormfury/ ) Hurricanes need to focus energy at their core , spread it out , be it by large scale natural distortion of warmth or pressure patterns , or by seeding them , you will disrupt the storm , Given the exponential nature of the Saffir-Simpson scale , knocking it down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 hours , would be a plus , What have we got to lose ?
So what is the conclusion , 1 ) The article , like many preseasons “ it is getting worse than ” ever pieces , takes what has an arguable appearance of truth then projects from it , without looking at the counter-argument or the BENEFITS plainly seen in the lack of intense hurricane hitting the US the past… SIXTY YEARS NOW .
2 ) We don ’ t know what we would have seen in the era before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storms were hitting the US more frequently 3 ) The research is very important but my skepticism on purpose rises from every year we hear this about this time I have been forecasting a big year for natural reasons since March 10 , and most importantly THEY SHOULD BE STRONGER as per Dr. Bill Grays ideas , which were made when there was less activity in a colder time .
So they may be stronger out over the water , but something is causing them to weaken and I suspect its the spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pressure pattern ) that may supply a clue .
What is needed for major hurricane hits on the US coast are higher than average pressures over the Atlantic off NE and Mid Atlantic , which would focus the lower than average pressures , and hence enhanced upward motion patterns , over the areas where hurricanes in the 30s 40s and 50s frequented more oftenl Look at the pressure anomalies in the 11 years ending 1960 , the height of the hurricane hit pattern on the US .
Now notice the past 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hits .

Well it is getting to be an annual thing just before NOAA comes out with their forecast( which I suspect is going to be close to ours, issued first on March 10 calling for a big season. See our latest here: https://www.weatherbell.com/may-2020-hurricane-season-update) as sure as the snow melts 2 things happen 1) Hurricanes are worse than ever hype happens 2) Me exposing the lack of looking at other factors
Here was last years piece:
https://www.cfact.org/2019/06/24/hurricanes-have-always-been-bad-why-arent-they-worse/
So let us go to this USA Today article which is making the rounds:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/18/global-warming-making-hurricanes-stronger-study-suggests/5216028002/
The First line of USA article Highlights leads to me being skeptical: Scientists studied 40 years of satellite images to reach their conclusions. 1) No joke ITS THE SATELLITE ERA, YOU DIDNT HAVE SATELLITES BEFORE THE 60S SO LIKE NOW how can you tell what it was like then? 2) So what if they are if its mostly out over the ocean? Dr Bill Gray forecasted this anyway 40 yrs ago! Bill Gray was no fan of man-made climate change ideas 3) THEY HAVE BEEN WEAKER COMING TO THE US COAST
If you were in a cold period in the Atlantic in the 60S-1980s and you went back to the warm cycle, what do you think is going to happen naturally? And why isn’t the real premise of this is that the much-maligned for his AGW stance, Dr. William Gray, was exactly right, if this is true?
But is it true or does it not dig into enough details to give a more focused picture?.
So here are some mitigating factors that have to be brought up, 1) Hurricanes now are like a patient in an ICU unit, constantly monitored. We know everything is going on, We see them from above, even if in the middle of nowhere. A classic example was Wilma, at her strongest, her pinprick eye ( 2.3 miles wide) would have never been seen by satellites in the 1980s, let alone in the pre-satellite era. So we are seeing more and seeing them at their strongest. How do we know if the 1938 hurricane was not a 5 at some time out in the middle of nowhere? Since that level of intensity is only reached for a relatively short time, a ship would have to have gone thru the center, and if you are sailing into a hurricane, chances are you are going to try to change course if you can to avoid that, 2) While hurricanes may be stronger over the water, they are weaker in general as they move in close to the US. Let us take a look at major landfalls by decade, all maps from this site:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/#tracks_us
As usual, I will use overwhelming force to make my argument.
1911-1920… 7
BTW how do we know how strong those storms may have been before landfall, Katrine, Rita, and Wilma all hit as 3s but because we were constantly on top of them, we knew they had reached 5s:
1921-1930 6
1931-1940 8
See that 38 storm? That could cause a lot of damage to former presidents Obama’s house at Martha’s Vineyard, raising the question ( which I will raise again in 1954, TWICE,) Why, if you believed in what you were saying about climate change, buy a house 3 feet above sea level and only a 5-foot barrier island in front of it, on a funnel-shaped inlet where a south wind and surge piles water up if you knew what hurricanes have done to New England and are saying it was worse than ever now? ( answer: because he can which is fine, its his call, but don’t blame man-made climate change for what is a matter of when, not if, naturally), maybe I am just jealous I can’t since it looks like a good place to ride out a storm if the house stands. Interesting Wonder if I can out there and pal around so when one comes I can get out there).
The house is reportedly on the north end of funnel shaped inlet. The house is reportedly on the north end of funnel shaped inlet.
I wrote this last year:
https://www.cfact.org/2019/12/14/if-obamas-worried-about-warming-why-buy-a-house-headed-under-water/
1941-1950 10 ( including one that would cause immense damage to Mir a Lago. Why would current President Trump buy a place there? Because he can, but t least he isn’t saying things are worse ( BTW people have been rooting for that place to be hit, so I guess we have a race going on here. Wonder if this becomes a betting line at Vegas? What if they both get hit in one year?) I would advise both of them if you are buying here, its not if, but when, there is big damage. Not because of climate change, but because history has shown us that:
Can you imagine living in S Florida in the 1940s with this? It is not why it happened, but why SHOULDN’T it happen again that is the question). Can you imagine living in S Florida in the 1940s with this? It is not why it happened, but why SHOULDN’T it happen again that is the question).
1951-1960
Donna had 3 landfalls, and that counts, The total major landfalls is 12 Carol and Edna would be a real problem for President Obama and even Donna Which I do not wish to see, but nor would I want to see him, if it happens again, blame climate change for something that obviously was a problem before, and a reason a radar “fence” was constructed on the east coast.
This was the most intense Ace/Storm decade on record. Averaging over 10/storm Despite the headline on the article, Ace/Storm in the last decade is a tad over 8 The warm cycle of the Atlantic ended after that, In hits heyday 1931-1960 the average major hit/decade was 10/decade or 1 a year. We are not even close as you will see in the last 30 years of the warm cycle.
1961-1970 7
So the cold cycle takes over from the 1960s thru the 1980s.
1970s 4
1981-1990 4 1981-1990 4
So this 30-year period in which the satelite era started in earnest during a cold cycle, had 5 majors hits/decade, or half as much, But like so many things we see on the general issue today, we start at a point of convenience for the argument, The only true metric we have that is consistent over the years is the intensity at landfall, because we know what they are doing when they hit land. It was very hard to figure out how strong the might have been over the water relative to what we have today,
So let’s get the to recent warm period and see if its worse than before, or just worse, as forecasted, relative to the cold period.
1991-2000 6
2001-2010 7 2001-2010 7
The most recent 10 years so far has been 3, let’s say I am right about this hurricane season and 2 majors hit, let’s make it 3, That would still only be 6 in the last decade. If they are no major hits, it would have been the weakest decade since 1911!
So the average in this warm period is only as of now, 5.6/decade!
So what is going on here and why don’t articles like this touch upon this,
Well, the warming is likely having some effect, Those of you that follow me have followed my ideas that the warming of the oceans is distorting temperature and pressure patterns so big large mature storms WEAKEN as they come to the US. If pressures over NORTH AMERICA are lower than average during the hurricane season, the convergence needed to maintain the major storm is more spread out, Florence is classic, It weakened as it came to the coast. The very warm water northwest of it meant the storm was spreading out, taking convergence away from the core. Plus the very fact they may be stronger over the water means almost any factor can cause them to weaken, which does not support it being that strong. This leads to 2 conclusions, and you saw this with Michael and Harvey, The shorter tracked storms are more likely to be strongest at landfall. 2) It is my argument for seeding major hurricanes coming to the coast. to disrupt those processes (wrote this last year: https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/30/no-nukes-for-hurricanes-but-maybe-its-time-to-restart-project-stormfury/) Hurricanes need to focus energy at their core, spread it out, be it by large scale natural distortion of warmth or pressure patterns, or by seeding them, you will disrupt the storm, Given the exponential nature of the Saffir-Simpson scale, knocking it down 1 or 2 categories in the last 24 hours, would be a plus, What have we got to lose?
So what is the conclusion, 1) The article, like many preseasons “it is getting worse than” ever pieces, takes what has an arguable appearance of truth then projects from it, without looking at the counter-argument or the BENEFITS plainly seen in the lack of intense hurricane hitting the US the past… SIXTY YEARS NOW. 2) We don’t know what we would have seen in the era before satellites, but we do know stronger storms were hitting the US more frequently 3) The research is very important but my skepticism on purpose rises from every year we hear this about this time I have been forecasting a big year for natural reasons since March 10, and most importantly THEY SHOULD BE STRONGER as per Dr. Bill Grays ideas, which were made when there was less activity in a colder time. So they may be stronger out over the water, but something is causing them to weaken and I suspect its the spreading out of convergence ( distortion of temperature and pressure pattern) that may supply a clue. What is needed for major hurricane hits on the US coast are higher than average pressures over the Atlantic off NE and Mid Atlantic, which would focus the lower than average pressures, and hence enhanced upward motion patterns, over the areas where hurricanes in the 30s 40s and 50s frequented more oftenl Look at the pressure anomalies in the 11 years ending 1960, the height of the hurricane hit pattern on the US.
High pressure over southern Canada some higher pressure off the east coast but the center of lowest pressure anomalies relative to the US and south, was over the tropics. High pressure over southern Canada some higher pressure off the east coast but the center of lowest pressure anomalies relative to the US and south, was over the tropics.
Now notice the past 11 years of relatively low warm cycle major hits.
The center of lowest pressures relative to surrounding pressures is centered out of the tropics, This distorts convergence away from the tropics, it is not so much the pressure anomaly, but where anomalies, relative to each other are, If large scale warming is distorting SLP patterns so the greatest anomalies are over the US rather than over the oceans close to the US, storms are more likely to weaken off their peaks. We have a big season forecasted and the US generated CFSV2 fits the pressure pattern that would lead to one. The center of lowest pressures relative to surrounding pressures is centered out of the tropics, This distorts convergence away from the tropics, it is not so much the pressure anomaly, but where anomalies, relative to each other are, If large scale warming is distorting SLP patterns so the greatest anomalies are over the US rather than over the oceans close to the US, storms are more likely to weaken off their peaks. We have a big season forecasted and the US generated CFSV2 fits the pressure pattern that would lead to one.
There’s the lower pressure to the south, higher pressures surrounding it, The 2017 season looked like this: Again the lower pressures to the south and high pressure in areas that would help convergence, not hinder it, in close to the US. Though pressures were low in the lakes, they were lower to the south and high pressure was steering storms toward the US while high pressure in the means over the Rockies provided the difference vs southeast of it: There’s the lower pressure to the south, higher pressures surrounding it, The 2017 season looked like this: Again the lower pressures to the south and high pressure in areas that would help convergence, not hinder it, in close to the US. Though pressures were low in the lakes, they were lower to the south and high pressure was steering storms toward the US while high pressure in the means over the Rockies provided the difference vs southeast of it:
So to sum up, I am grateful for articles like this, it is not that they have no value, and the research is great, I love looking at what other person has because it forces me to dig in and look. But articles like also offer the chance for counter observations needed for honest debate, I have no monopoly on the weather or tomorrow, but can look at what the past holds and offer ideas that need to be seen. So to sum up, I am grateful for articles like this, it is not that they have no value, and the research is great, I love looking at what other person has because it forces me to dig in and look. But articles like also offer the chance for counter observations needed for honest debate, I have no monopoly on the weather or tomorrow, but can look at what the past holds and offer ideas that need to be seen.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-28--‘CO2 levels’ and your ‘carbon footprint’ — NOT the problem you’ve been told

Last year a student at a nearby university complained she couldn ’ t focus in class ; she was convinced high levels of carbon dioxide ( CO ) were the cause .
The entire building was immediately evacuated and tested for “ toxic levels of this dangerous gas.
” After determining the CO levels were less than 500 parts-per-million ( ppm ) , the classroom air was considered “ safe ” and classes again resumed .
Recently , this same school advertised that you can now “ offset carbon emissions from previously completed university-funded ground-transportation and air travel trips ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon offsets ” form , available in their “ Sustainability Office.
” Plus , this school is offering a course on “ how to lower your carbon footprint.
” National Association of Scholars is planning a meeting to discuss indoor CO levels , because they “ may reach levels harmful to cognition by the end of this century , and the best way to prevent this hidden consequence of climate change is to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
” A publication this week in states that “ government policies and human activity data , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 confinements , have decreased daily global CO emissions by ~17 % to ~25 % by early April 2020 , compared with mean 2019 levels.
” As I read this nonsense in the news every day , I feel like screaming : “ This nonsensical obsession with CO and the ‘ carbon footprint ’ is absolute insanity !
Where has common sense gone ?
” Doesn ’ t anyone remember — from grade school and high school biology — what they learned about plant photosynthesis requiring CO and all animals requiring oxygen ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this planet is carbon-based ; if we were not carbon-based , the next available tetrahedral element ( having four chemical bonds ) in Mendeleev ’ s Periodic Chart is silicon — in which case we would be able to live on the sun ’ s surface !
CO levels in our lungs reach ~40,000-50,000 ppm , which causes us to inhale our next breath .
One of the first things medical students learn in respiratory physiology — is that the carotid body ( small cluster of chemoreceptor cells , located at bifurcation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides of neck ) detects changes in arterial blood flow pO ( partial pressure of oxygen ) , pCO , blood pH , and temperature .
When the blood pCO reaches a critical level , this message is quickly sent to the medulla oblongata in the brainstem , which then sends signals our diaphragm to breathe ; more O is needed , and excessive CO must be expelled .
The human breathing reflex is controlled by blood CO levels , not O levels .
Too little CO , which can happen from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is called hyperventilation syndrome — usually brought on by stress and anxiety .
Symptoms include light-headedness ; tingling in the fingers , toes and face ; and chest pain ; sometimes people fear they ’ re having a heart attack .
Treatment for hyperventilation syndrome is to breathe into a paper bag , which increases your blood CO back to normal .
As the only physician on a commercial airlines cross-country flight , I was asked to examine a ~35-year-old woman who thought she was having a heart attack ; the obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxiety of meeting her inlaws for the first time ) .
I had her breathe intermittently into a paper bag to increase her blood pCO levels ; within ~20 minutes she was no longer symptomatic .
Had no physician been on that flight , they would have diverted the aircraft to St. Louis to a waiting ambulance , rather than proceeding to Portland , OR , the scheduled destination .
Breathing is automatic ( controlled by our autonomic nervous system ) — meaning that we don ’ t think about it ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minute .
This is one of God ’ s many miracles in all animals with lungs .
Heart rate , kidney blood flow , and digestion of our food — are other examples of autonomic-nervous-system regulation that constantly functions while we don ’ t think about it .
Today ’ s global atmospheric CO levels are about 415 ppm ; at these levels CO remains a limiting factor for growth of farm crops and trees .
Plants today are “ at least 25 % CO -starved.
” In fact , standard procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO to 800-1200 ppm ; this enhances growth and yield ~20-50 % .
Indoor air routinely ranges between 500 and 2,000 ppm of CO .
Submarines regularly operate with ambient CO levels between 2,000 and 5,000 ppm .
In past ages , ice-core data suggest CO levels have been as high as 10,000-15,000 ppm ( this was before humans ; in fact , before mammals evolved ) , and plant life flourished .
In recent times , “ normal ” CO ranges between ~150-180 ppm during Glacial Periods and ~280-300 ppm during Inter-Glacial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years has probably increased global atmospheric CO levels by ~135 ppm , which has improved crop growth .
To paraphrase Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski ( Chair , Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection ; Warsaw , Poland ) who testified before the US Senate Committee on Commerce , Science , and Transportation in 2004 : “ The basis — of most conclusions by United Nation ’ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) on anthropogenic ( man-made ) causes , and their projections of climatic change — relies on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pre-industrial atmosphere represent the ‘ normal ’ baseline .
From glaciological studies , we know this assumption is false .
Therefore , IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning and governmental policy.
” The atmospheric impact of CO on climate is overstated .
Since the Little Ice Age ( 1300-1860 ) , Earth has been warming naturally .
As temperatures rise , CO in the liquid phase ( oceans ) moves to the gaseous phase ( air ) ; we learn this in introductory chemistry .
Hence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increase — not the other way around !
“ Carbon emissions ” and “ carbon footprint ” as causes of global warming are nothing more than scaremongering buzzwords — created by global warming alarmists , insincere environmentalists , certain manipulative dishonest politicians , and misinformed journalists .
Earth has undergone climate change and local severe weather since its formation ~4.54 billion years ago .
Causes of natural variations in climate include : solar activity ; cloud type and amount ; radiative forcing and insolation ( amount of sunlight absorbed vs amount radiated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rotation and interplay between its atmosphere and oceans ; variations in precession , eccentricity and axial tilt of our planet ; gravitational pull of other planets of substantial mass ( especially Jupiter ) ; and volcanic eruptions both on land and underwater .
CO is an odorless , tasteless , invisible non-polluting gas on which all life on Earth depends .
“ Smoke ” from factory chimneys usually represents water vapor , not CO .
Dirty industrial fossil-fuel pollution is , of course , undesirable and causes health problems .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geological history and basic radiation-transfer physics — show that anthropogenic CO emissions have negligible influence on climate , in comparison to the natural factors listed above .

Last year a student at a nearby university complained she couldn’t focus in class; she was convinced high levels of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) were the cause. The entire building was immediately evacuated and tested for “toxic levels of this dangerous gas.” After determining the CO 2 levels were less than 500 parts-per-million (ppm), the classroom air was considered “safe” and classes again resumed.
Recently, this same school advertised that you can now “offset carbon emissions from previously completed university-funded ground-transportation and air travel trips” — by filling out a “travel carbon offsets” form, available in their “Sustainability Office.” Plus, this school is offering a course on “how to lower your carbon footprint.”
National Association of Scholars is planning a meeting to discuss indoor CO 2 levels, because they “may reach levels harmful to cognition by the end of this century, and the best way to prevent this hidden consequence of climate change is to reduce fossil fuel emissions.” A publication this week in Nature Climate Change states that “government policies and human activity data, due to decreases in travel during forced COVID-19 confinements, have decreased daily global CO 2 emissions by ~17% to ~25% by early April 2020, compared with mean 2019 levels.”
As I read this nonsense in the news every day, I feel like screaming: “This nonsensical obsession with CO 2 and the ‘carbon footprint’ is absolute insanity! Where has common sense gone?” Doesn’t anyone remember — from grade school and high school biology — what they learned about plant photosynthesis requiring CO 2 and all animals requiring oxygen (O 2 ) and exhaling CO 2 ? Life on this planet is carbon-based; if we were not carbon-based, the next available tetrahedral element (having four chemical bonds) in Mendeleev’s Periodic Chart is silicon — in which case we would be able to live on the sun’s surface!
CO 2 levels in our lungs reach ~40,000-50,000 ppm, which causes us to inhale our next breath. One of the first things medical students learn in respiratory physiology — is that the carotid body (small cluster of chemoreceptor cells, located at bifurcation of the common carotid artery running along both sides of neck) detects changes in arterial blood flow pO 2 (partial pressure of oxygen), pCO 2 , blood pH, and temperature. When the blood pCO 2 reaches a critical level, this message is quickly sent to the medulla oblongata in the brainstem, which then sends signals our diaphragm to breathe; more O 2 is needed, and excessive CO 2 must be expelled.
The human breathing reflex is controlled by blood CO 2 levels, not O 2 levels. Too little CO 2 , which can happen from hyperventilating, leads to respiratory alkalosis. This is called hyperventilation syndrome — usually brought on by stress and anxiety. Symptoms include light-headedness; tingling in the fingers, toes and face; and chest pain; sometimes people fear they’re having a heart attack. Treatment for hyperventilation syndrome is to breathe into a paper bag, which increases your blood CO 2 back to normal.
As the only physician on a commercial airlines cross-country flight, I was asked to examine a ~35-year-old woman who thought she was having a heart attack; the obvious diagnosis was hyperventilation syndrome (due to anxiety of meeting her inlaws for the first time). I had her breathe intermittently into a paper bag to increase her blood pCO 2 levels; within ~20 minutes she was no longer symptomatic. Had no physician been on that flight, they would have diverted the aircraft to St. Louis to a waiting ambulance, rather than proceeding to Portland, OR, the scheduled destination.
Breathing is automatic (controlled by our autonomic nervous system) — meaning that we don’t think about it; it “just happens” about 16 times a minute. This is one of God’s many miracles in all animals with lungs. Heart rate, kidney blood flow, and digestion of our food — are other examples of autonomic-nervous-system regulation that constantly functions while we don’t think about it.
Today’s global atmospheric CO 2 levels are about 415 ppm; at these levels CO 2 remains a limiting factor for growth of farm crops and trees. Plants today are “at least 25% CO 2 -starved.” In fact, standard procedures for commercial greenhouse growers are to elevate CO 2 to 800-1200 ppm; this enhances growth and yield ~20-50%. Indoor air routinely ranges between 500 and 2,000 ppm of CO 2 . Submarines regularly operate with ambient CO 2 levels between 2,000 and 5,000 ppm.
In past ages, ice-core data suggest CO 2 levels have been as high as 10,000-15,000 ppm (this was before humans; in fact, before mammals evolved), and plant life flourished. In recent times, “normal” CO 2 ranges between ~150-180 ppm during Glacial Periods and ~280-300 ppm during Inter-Glacial Periods. Industrialization during the past 130 years has probably increased global atmospheric CO 2 levels by ~135 ppm, which has improved crop growth.
To paraphrase Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski (Chair, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection; Warsaw, Poland) who testified before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 2004: “The basis — of most conclusions by United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on anthropogenic (man-made) causes, and their projections of climatic change — relies on the assumption that low levels of CO 2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere represent the ‘normal’ baseline. From glaciological studies, we know this assumption is false. Therefore, IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning and governmental policy.”
The atmospheric impact of CO 2 on climate is overstated. Since the Little Ice Age (1300-1860), Earth has been warming naturally. As temperatures rise, CO 2 in the liquid phase (oceans) moves to the gaseous phase (air); we learn this in introductory chemistry. Hence, rising global atmospheric temperatures cause CO 2 to increase — not the other way around!
“Carbon emissions” and “carbon footprint” as causes of global warming are nothing more than scaremongering buzzwords — created by global warming alarmists, insincere environmentalists, certain manipulative dishonest politicians, and misinformed journalists. Earth has undergone climate change and local severe weather since its formation ~4.54 billion years ago. Causes of natural variations in climate include: solar activity; cloud type and amount; radiative forcing and insolation (amount of sunlight absorbed vs amount radiated back into space); Earth’s rotation and interplay between its atmosphere and oceans; variations in precession, eccentricity and axial tilt of our planet; gravitational pull of other planets of substantial mass (especially Jupiter); and volcanic eruptions both on land and underwater.
CO 2 is an odorless, tasteless, invisible non-polluting gas on which all life on Earth depends. “Smoke” from factory chimneys usually represents water vapor, not CO 2 . Dirty industrial fossil-fuel pollution is, of course, undesirable and causes health problems. However, many scientific lines of evidence — including geological history and basic radiation-transfer physics — show that anthropogenic CO 2 emissions have negligible influence on climate, in comparison to the natural factors listed above.