Energy Deadline Approaching

Of course abiogenic petroleum doesn’t exist, just ask any liberal. So what is that ’stuff’ on Titan?

The nation has been consumed with health care reform, politicians not listening to the people’s concerns, the ACORN scandals, and rampant racism among critics of the new president, but the world continues to move on around all that chaos.

One of those other things is the extended deadline for commenting on the Draft Proposed Program on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy development, which expires September 21, 2009, after which time the Minerals Management Service (MMS) will analyze comments and make recommendations regarding offshore energy development.

Some very good information about this process and the possible effects, either positive or negative, to the nation’s domestic energy program can be found at Energy Tomorrow.

I wonder how much longer the scam of energy independence can last in America. Eventually everyone will figure out it’s a Democrat scam to raise energy prices and ration energy. In fact, it has now become scientific fact that old plants and dinosaurs are not necessary to form methane, the basis for all hydrocarbons, the earth can do it all by itself in the deep crust of the planet. It all runs on tectonic forces, the result is called abiogenic petroleum. The fact that Titan, a moon of Saturn, has surface methane is proof of the processes existence. Saturn is to far from the sun to have had life as we know it, meaning that what we understand as fossil petroleum could not exist there.

Abiogenic petroleum is understood to be petroleum that is produced deep within the earth through a series of non-biological means. From this perspective, abiogenic petroleum would be different from petroleum that is produced from what is called fossil fuels, which are found within the earth in a number of places around the world. At the same time, abiogenic petroleum would still be considered a form of natural petroleum, as the product would be created using natural components and a series of naturally occurring events.

The Sun Influences Earth’s Climate ?

You wonder who would ever dream up such a notion that the Sun may indeed Influence Earth’s climate. Didn’t Al Gore find that you could get rich combining a power point presentation with a scissors trolley? Who would have ever thought you could do that?

Now they are saying — Small fluctuations in solar activity, large influence on the climate. Further, Sun spot frequency has an unexpectedly strong influence on cloud formation and precipitation, rain like it is doing world wide these days in the total absence of Sun activity of any consequence.

Our sun does not radiate evenly. The best known example of radiation fluctuations is the famous 11-year cycle of sun spots. Nobody denies its influence on the natural climate variability, but climate models have, to-date, not been able to satisfactorily reconstruct its impact on climate activity.

Researchers from the USA and from Germany have now, for the first time, successfully simulated, in detail, the complex interaction between solar radiation, atmosphere, and the ocean. As the scientific journal Science reports in its latest issue, Gerald Meehl of the US-National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and his team have been able to calculate how the extremely small variations in radiation brings about a comparatively significant change in the System “Atmosphere-Ocean”.

Katja Matthes of the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, and co-author of the study, states: „Taking into consideration the complete radiation spectrum of the sun, the radiation intensity within one sun spot cycle varies by just 0.1 per cent. Complex interplay mechanisms in the stratosphere and the troposphere, however, create measurable changes in the water temperature of the Pacific and in precipitation”.

Top Down – Bottom up

In order for such reinforcement to take place many small wheels have to interdigitate. The initial process runs from the top downwards: increased solar radiation leads to more ozone and higher temperatures in the stratosphere. “The ultraviolet radiation share varies much more strongly than the other shares in the spectrum, i.e. by five to eight per cent, and that forms more ozone” explains Katja Matthes. As a result, especially the tropical stratosphere becomes warmer, which in turn leads to changed atmospheric circulation. Thus, the interrelated typical precipitation patterns in the tropics are also displaced.

The second process takes place in the opposite way: the higher solar activity leads to more evaporation in the cloud free areas. With the trade winds the increased amounts of moisture are transported to the equator, where they lead to stronger precipitation, lower water temperatures in the East Pacific and reduced cloud formation, which in turn allows for increased evaporation. Katja Matthes: “It is this positive back coupling that strengthens the process”. With this it is possible to explain the respective measurements and observations on the Earth’s surface.

From EurekAlert.

When you add in the probable effect of the Sun’s quiescence and reduced maganetic filed strength caused by same, allowing increases in cosmic rays, which add to increased cloud formation, you wonder, do the cosmos actually control the Earth’s weather?

It’s The Sun, Stupid

SPPI’s authoritative Monthly CO₂ Report for July 2009 announces the publication of a major peer-reviewed paper by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, demonstrating by direct measurement that outgoing long-wave radiation is escaping to space far faster than the UN predicts, and proving that the UN has exaggerated global warming 6-fold.

Lindzen’s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows that the “global warming” scare is over. Thanks to recent peer-reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO₂ on temperature is small, we now why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.

This month’s CO₂ Report provides the latest real-world scientific data about the climate –

The IPCC assumes CO₂ concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for almost eight years, CO₂ concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections.

Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 °F (1.5 °C)/century, not the 7 F° (3.9 C°) the IPCC imagines.

Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20^th century and has been rising at just 1 ft/century since 1993. Sea level has scarcely risen since 2006. Also, Pacific atolls are not being drowned by the sea, as some have suggested.

Arctic sea-ice extent is about the same as it has been at this time of year in the past decade. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent – on a 30-year rising trend – reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years.

Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is at its lowest since satellite measurement began.

Solar activity has declined again, after a large sunspot earlier in the month. The Sun is still very quiet.

The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated. The Bill would cost trillions and achieve nothing.

Science Focus this month studies the effect of the Sun on the formation of clouds. IT’S THE SUN, STUPID!

Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, said: “From the oceans via the surface and the upper atmosphere to outer space, real-world measurements prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was not, is not, and will not be any ‘climate crisis’. All of the results we publish here are of direct relevance to the debate about “global warming”. Yet none of these results will likely be published in any mainstream news medium. The facts are not fitting the theory nor backing the scare, so the media simply suppress them.”

The full report can be read here:

For a layman’s explanation “How Hot Can CO2 Make Planet Earth“

How Hot Can CO2 Make Planet Earth?

Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the “Medieval Warm Period“, in which temperatures were higher or about the same as they are today.

Did you ever wonder why the streets in London are named after grapes and wines? Yes, they grew gra[es in England during the Medieval Warm Period and this is also the time when the vikings settled Greenland. Ever wonder how the Vikings settled on the name “Greenland”?

When talking about CO2 being an agent of global warming, you have to turn off the science and physics of atmospheric gas absorption to get there. My guess is few people understand gas absorption, how it works and how it responds to sunlight. There is this post on the site WattsUpWithThat that explains the basics of gas absorption and the various components of the atmosphere.

NASA Now Says Dalton Minimum is Possible

Story and comments here:

Dalton Minimum described here:

The data has been suggesting this, I have several posts about it, better late to the party than never. The sun is in a major funk.

What Global Warming Causes

It may not dawn on people yet, but global cooling is much worse for mankind than is global warming. Plants grow much better in warm climates than in cold.

NH crops have some catching up to do: 

The old corn farmer’s adage “Knee high by the Fourth of July” isn’t working this summer. Try ankle-high, as many corn fields across New Hampshire wait for warmth amid plenty of moisture.

Officials said produce has not rotted, although hay has been a dismal failure so far. They blame the rain and cold.

There were seven days in June when the high never reached 70 in Concord and it never got above 88, said Jim Mansfield, meteorologist at the National Weather Service in Gray, Maine.

Normally, corn would be over knee height in New Hampshire at this time of year. Obviously summer has been delayed which has delayed crop seed germination by some weeks, and growth seems lacking. If the corn crop is so lucky to grow to maturity before the fall snows, you may get a yield that is just suppressed, but if the cold comes sooner and colder, the whole crop will be lost.

This effect is happening world wide, northern and southern hemispheres, crops are slow to germinate, slow to grow. The enevitable result is food shortage. If something dopesn’t change with the sun’s performance, we are headed for trouble with not enough food to feed earth’s population.

More information here “Record cold in Portland Maine in July“

Stupid Buoys

The ARGOS buoy system was supposed to prove the AGW hoax, since even the hoaxers admit that 80-90% of all the heat is stored in the oceans. The only problem, no one told the ARGOS buoys.

Little ocean tattletales fail to find right facts

In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.

No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So there must be something wrong with the buoys right? At what point do people say you aren’t a scientist.

Ozone And Environmental Foibles

Remember CFCs? They were replaced with HFCs. The experts said that CFCs were destroying the ozone hole. And now:

An international team of scientific researchers has warned that hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) gases – used increasingly in insulation foam, air-conditioning and refrigeration – present a significant threat to global efforts to stabilize climate change, in a move welcomed today by the head of the United Nations Environment Programme.

At the time, the Swiss brought up this exact same concern, but CFCs and ozone were the in thing, and now the money is in the global warming hoax. And HCFCs are becoming the problem, experts say. Did anyone stop and think, maybe the experts are what they seem?

Sort of sounds like the new soon to be mandatory mercury filled CFLs. Where do we get these brainiacs.

A scientific paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) highlights the need for urgent action over the HFC group of greenhouse gases, arguing that their use could climb sharply as replacements for gases being phased out to protect the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The funny part is the sun’s UV-A and UV-B create and destroy ozone, and as the sun continues to slumber, that fact is becoming clearer by the day.

DDT: Politics Over Science

“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said WHO’s malaria chief, Arata Kochi, in 2006. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual spraying. Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.” Mr. Kochi was right then, even if other WHO officials are now bowing to pressure to pretend otherwise.

After 25+ years of trying to prove the fraud that was Silent Spring, WHO finally gave up and relented tot he use of DDT. Now they are saying they will work to get a drastic reduction in the use of DDT. Notice the carefully word weasel statement.

So what science is this based on? Show us the science, show us the data. Anyone care to guess guess what is going on here? It’s clear, isn’t it. Since DDT was banned by EPA fiat in 1972 no science involved — This fiat rule came to be after the suit to ban DDT was turned aside, after the court said there was no science that supported the need for banning DDT.

And today, there is still no science. DDT has been proved to be safe, it was used extensively during WWII — GIs used to bath in the stuff, and no one has ever proved harm. Nor have there been anything in nature that was harmed.

“Sadly, WHO’s about-face has nothing to do with science or health and everything to do with bending to the will of well-placed environmentalists,” says Roger Bate of Africa Fighting Malaria. “Bed net manufacturers and sellers of less-effective insecticides also don’t benefit when DDT is employed and therefore oppose it, often behind the scenes.”

More here:

DDT, used the same EPA science that says CO2 is a pollutant … And harmful to what? If Obama says the world is flat, is the world then flat?

If you want more information: Some science readings: J. Gordon Edwards, professor of entomology at San Jose State University in California, has taught biology and entomology there for 43 years. He is a long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and is a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences has the list … Enjoy … the annotated list of Rachael Carson lies, or if you wish, the most egregious ‘mistakes’, is here. It takes a bold scientist to stand up to the left’s lies, but fortunately, there are more and more who are not going to sit quietly in the corner while the lies go unanswered.

Obama Clown Cars: Coffins On Wheels

What good is high gas mileage if you are dead?

Only a fool, who places no value on his own life, will drive around in one of these really dumb “smart cars”. IMHO, a car needs a minimum of 3500 lbs of weight to be safe in most crashes, a car about the size of a Honda Accord fits that minimum bill. Of course, this assumes high quality design, build and materials are used in the vehicle manufacture. You will note that the Honda Accord fared well, survivable, in the IIHS crash tests.

Instinctively people know this, small cars kill people. In crash after crash, one of the major survivability aspects is the weight(mass) of the vehicles involved. As speeds increase, mass becomes far more important in survivability. At normal USA highway speeds, in the event on an accident, these factors mean life or death. Sure you can design race cars that survive high speed crash, but at what cost per car? And yes, even then, drivers die for various reasons.