The Happy Carpenter

Damn Jovian SUV's

.

For about 300 years Jupiter's banded atmosphere has shown a remarkable feature to telescopic viewers, a large swirling storm system known as The Great Red Spot. In 2006, another red storm system appeared, actually seen to form as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the curious reddish hue. Now, Jupiter has a third red spot, again produced from a smaller whitish storm. All three are seen in this image made from data recorded on May 9 and 10 with the Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2. The spots extend above the surrounding clouds and their red color may be due to deeper material dredged up by the storms and exposed to ultraviolet light, but the exact chemical process is still unknown. For scale, the Great Red Spot has almost twice the diameter of planet Earth, making both new spots less than one Earth-diameter across. The newest red spot is on the far left (west), along the same band of clouds as the Great Red Spot and is drifting toward it. If the motion continues, the new spot will encounter the much larger storm system in August. Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.

Not dead yet -- Let's beat this horse some more

As far as I'm concerned, Vice President Al Gore and Global Warming are completely discredited.  However, many folks haven't come to this conclusion yet, so here goes.  First, this doozey from Mr. Gore:

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore  (emphasis added - THC)

"Over representation of factual presentations" = LIES.  He lies.  They lie.  The Greens/Chicken Littles freely admit they lie for the express purpose of generating the "appropriate" hysteria to get their crap enacted.  Don't take my word for it that they're telling lies, take theirs.

Off we go to England, where they have lots of funny laws about speech.  In order to show Mr. Gore's file, An Inconvenient Truth, in schools, the courts of England ruled as follows:

From Newsbusters,

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.

...According to the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):
Advertisement

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

I hate those guys.

First in 34 years

That's the first application for a new nuclear power plant in the USA.  Very good news environmentally speaking, and a very interesting article, too.

If you're tracking the nuclear power revival in America, last Tuesday, September 25, was a milestone. For the first time since 1973, a new application for building a reactor was placed before the federal government...

Soon these new owners -- heavily staffed with veterans from the nuclear Navy -- were revitalizing the industry.

The results have been stunning. Whereas power plants traditionally ran at a "capacity factor" of 60 percent -- meaning they are up and running 60 percent of the time -- the nation's 104 reactors now run at a previously unimaginable capacity of 90 percent. (In South Korea, where nuclear provides half the electricity, the figure is 95 percent.) The average nuclear plant now runs uninterrupted for nearly two years before shutting down for refueling. Safety improvements have been spectacular. While there were 26 shutdowns of more than a year for safety reasons from 1987 to 1997 and 21 in the decade before, there has only been one over the past decade....

Yet even the best conservation scenarios only stabilize current consumption. (California has been able to accomplish this.) That still leaves us producing for 50 percent of our electricity with coal -- a billion tons a year that put three billions tons of CO2 into the atmosphere [That can't be right.  How can burning one ton of coal yield three tons of CO2? - THC]. That's 40 percent of the nation's greenhouse gases and 20 percent of the world's. "When it comes to providing our baseload electricity, the only choice is between coal and nuclear," says David Crane, of NRG. "You simply can't be serious about global warming and against nuclear power." (emphasis added)

Of course, Greens are religiously fanatical, not scientific, so opposing nuclear power will not pose the slightest problem for them.  It will be very interesting to see how this goes, though -- will the Greens be able to whip the American public into anti-nuclear hysteria again?  I don't think so.  They're about to discover they've over-played their global warming hand badly.

Global warming is good for us and it's not our fault

Two scientists who will soon be on the Green hit list report:

Global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon and its effects can even be beneficial, according to two leading researchers. Recent climate change is not caused by man-made pollution, but is instead part of a 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that has happened for the last million years, say the authors of a controversial study.

Dennis Avery, an environmental economist, and Professor Fred Singer, a physicist, have looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and concluded that it is very doubtful that man-made global warming exists. They also say that temperature increase is actually a good thing as in the past sudden cool periods have killed twice as many people as warm spells...

In contrast, they say there is evidence that wildlife is flourishing in the current warming cycle with corals, trees, birds, mammals and butterflies adapting well. In addition, sea-levels are not rising dramatically and storms and droughts have actually been less severe and frequent.

The authors claim that the change is not man-made because the most recent period of global warming took place between 1850 and 1940 when there were far less CO2 emissions than today. They claim to show strong historical evidence of an entirely natural cycle based on data of floods on the Nile going back 5,000 years. Evidence is citing showing records of Roman wine production in Britain in the first century AD.

Prof Singer, a specialist in atmospheric physics at the University of Virginia, said: "We have a greenhouse theory with no evidence to support it, except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events. "The models only reflect the warming, not its cause." They also say that natural temperature change can be caused by fluctuations in the sun.

Well, duh and I told you so.  It was just so obvious, wasn't it?  And yet the chattering class of the entire world fell for it hook, line, and sinker.  Maybe soon we'll be able to get to work on real environmental problems.

Why must they be so wrong about everything?

Nope.  I'm not granting them the shield of good intentions anymore.  Greens don't care whom they hurt in the pursuit of their idea of religious perfection any more than Islamic fascists do.  Case in point:

Tonight, PBS will air "Gold Futures," a film by Hungary's Tibor Kocsis. The film focuses on residents in Romania's Rosia Montana, a rural Transylvanian town, who are divided over the benefits of a proposed gold mine. It also features Gabriel Resources, the Canadian mining company trying to convince them to relocate so it can dig for a huge gold deposit estimated at 14.6 million ounces, worth almost $10 billion. PBS describes the film as a "David-and-Goliath story."

While the film gives time to supporters and opponents of the mine, it leaves unsaid that half of the villagers voicing opposition have now either sold their homes or will not have to move, because they live in a protected area where the village's historic structures and churches will be preserved. Viewers who see pristine shots of the Rosia valley won't realize the hills hide a huge, abandoned communist-era mine, leaking toxic heavy metals into local streams--or that while the modern mining project will level four hills to create an open pit, it will also clean up the old mess at no cost to the Romanian treasury. ...

There's plenty of typical Lefty manipulation -- fake but accurate -- in the story:

Mr. McAleer, a former Financial Times journalist who has followed the mine battle for seven years, says he "found that everything the environmentalists were saying about the project was misleading, exaggerated or quite simply false." He produced his film on a shoestring $230,000 budget largely provided by Gabriel Resources, but says he was given complete editorial control.

The Gabriel funding caused environmental groups to label the film "propaganda" and demand the National Geographic Society cancel plans to rent its Washington, D.C., theater to the free-market Moving Picture Institute for a screening. The Institute notes opponents rarely challenge the film's facts. As for Mr. Kocsis's documentary, his Flora Film corporate Web site lists as its partners Greenpeace, the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and the George Soros-backed Energy Club of Hungary, all of which oppose the Romanian project on either environmental or nationalistic grounds (Transylvania used to be part of Hungary). ...

"Local opposition to the mine is strong and organized" says a statement signed by 80 environmental groups in January.

80 environmental groups opposing one little mine!  Talk about a gold rush...

In his letter, Mr. Soros cites a recent poll organized by some members of Romania's parliament that "found 90% of respondents rejecting the project." But the poll turns out to be an unscientific Internet survey, and one of the environmental groups Mr. Soros funds urged people outside Romania to participate in it. What is clear: Two-thirds of Rosia Montana's people have accepted Gabriel's voluntary offer to buy their homes at above market rates....

Mr. McAleer tells me such encounters should wake up people "who, like myself, unquestionably believed environmentalists were a force for good in the world."...  (emphasis added)

If the gold mine goes ahead, then the toxic mess from the old communist mine will be cleaned up.  If not, then it won't be.  Yet those labeled Greens oppose the mine.  Why do you think that is?

The Humans are Dead!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoi1MSGu64

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WGoi1MSGu64"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WGoi1MSGu64" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

If I can't have my compressed air car, I'd settle for one of these

This is a plug-in hybrid diesel car.

.

.

.

This is a compressed air car.

.

.

.

.

They're both a heck of a lot better for the environment and for our foreign policy than our current addiction to fossil fuels.  The plug-in diesel hybrid is a big step forward from the current crop of hybrids, not least because of different batteries that are not an environmentalists worst nightmare (don't get me started).  The Speculist turned me on the the plug-in, which is also a pretty good idea.

But plug-in hybrids would be revolutionary. The off-the-grid electrical equivalent of a gallon of gasoline costs about 75 cents. And if the reported all-electric range of 60 miles with an experimental plug-in Prius could be achieved in a production vehicle, most people would essentially burn no liquid fuel in their daily commutes.

The hybrid technology that's been developed for the Toyota Prius and other nonplug-in hybrids has needed further refinement to give us a production-ready plug-in hybrid. Last month Lithium Technology Corporation demonstrated a converted Prius that addresses many of these problems...

By switching to plug-in hybrids we could reduce oil imports by 52%. Domestic electricity could power most of our daily commuting. Longer drives, or high-speed commutes would kick in the internal combustion engine...

For those who would argue that electric vehicles just move pollution to the power plants, studies have shown that even on a coal grid, pollution is reduced more than 60% over burning fossil fuels within the car...

60% cleaner air on a coal grid?  I'd take that.  75% cheaper fuel?  Sounds good to me.

Speculist goes from there to the obvious recommendation to go nuclear (and being the Speculist, he goes from fission on to fusion!).  I like the compressed air car idea better, but wouldn't it be cool to have two different amazingly clean gasoline alternatives duking it out in the free market to see which idea wins?  And as long as gas mostly went away, who cares which one, or some other I don't know about yet, or an eclectic mix of three or more?  Think the Chevy vs. Ford vs. Dodge vs. Japanese pickup rivalries are strong?  They'd be nothing compared to this.

I'm 46 years old, and I've been reading stuff like this since I was 11 and first took a subscription to Popular Science.  These both feel like real technology to me, not pie-in-the-sky, not cool-but-it'll-never-happen.  Those Iranian and Saudi sh*t heads are going to wake up one morning real surprised to find no one asking them for oil and their checkbooks empty.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

Ahhh, global warming.  A friend of mine said to me yesterday at a graduation party, "It's sad, because it's our kids who will pay the price for it."

Now, Mark is a great guy.  Smart and thoughtful.  The perfect example of how effective the global warming hysteria has been.  I didn't get into it with him at the party, mostly because I just wanted to get the heck out of there and relax. but he'll be coming around as more and more stuff like this leaks through the media filter:

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said. (emphasis added - THC)

Indeed.  That, and we're already past the first dates for global climate disaster without any, you know, disasters.  It won't stop Vice President Gore's next book, but it will make him look even sillier. 

I want one. Behold, the AirCar!

.

Finally, the answer to the internal combusion engine. 

Now the first commercial compressed air car is on the verge of production and beginning to attract a lot of attention, and with a recently signed partnership with Tata, India's largest automotive manufacturer, the prospects of very cost-effective mass production are now a distinct possibility. The MiniC.A.T is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis that is glued not welded and a body of fibreglass. ...

Most importantly, it is incredibly cost-efficient to run – according to the designers, it costs less than one Euro per 100Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving [about 155 miles - THC]), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km. The car has a top speed of 68 mph.

Refilling the car will, once the market develops, take place at adapted petrol stations to administer compressed air. In two or three minutes, and at a cost of approximately 1.5 Euros [that's about $2! - THC], the car will be ready to go another 200-300 kilometres [155 miles].

As a viable alternative, the car carries a small compressor which can be connected to the mains (220V or 380V) and refill the tank in 3-4 hours...

The temperature of the clean air expelled by the exhaust pipe is between 0 - 15 degrees below zero, which makes it suitable for use by the internal air conditioning system with no need for gases or loss of power.

How does it work?

90m3 of compressed air is stored in fibre tanks. The expansion of this air pushes the pistons and creates movement. The atmospheric temperature is used to re-heat the engine and increase the road coverage. The air conditioning system makes use of the expelled cold air. Due to the absence of combustion and the fact there is no pollution, the oil change is only necessary every 31.000 miles.

At the moment, four models have been made: a car, a taxi (5 passengers), a Pick-Up truck and a van. The final selling price will be approximately 5.500 pounds [that's about $10,800 - THC].

That's it.  That's the answer.  For about $11,000 I'll get a car or very light pickup that can take me 150 miles, give or take, at, by my calculations, 1/10th of what it costs in gas to drive my pickup around.  That would save me about $2,600 a year in gas alone.  And that's before any big imporvements to air compressors which would be sure to come with the kind of demand a national fleet of compressed air cars would bring.  Add a bunch of clean electricity from new nuclear plants, and voila!

If you read the rest of the article, you'll see this is serious.  The patents are in place, and the Indian manufacturer is one of the biggest vehicle manufacturers in the world (although I've never heard of them).    This is not pie in the sky.  This is coming.

I wonder what these babies sound like?  And all that -15 degree exhaust?  Good-bye global warming!

Why I hate global warming hysteria

Betsy Newmark's husband makes an excellent summation of why we're skeptical about global warming in general as well as about anthropomorphic global warming.  It very direct and to the point and worth reading.

I hate global warming hysteria because it's taking all the resources and focus that should be on actual problems that we could actually solve within our life times with a fraction of the resources contemplated for global warming.  For instance, the oceans are being murdered primarily by over fishing.  So why not buy out the fisherman, set up a zillion marine sanctuaries, and solve the problems of large scale ocean fish farming?  Why not solve salt water intrusion into ground water by cracking the code to water alternatives such as desalinization or ice berg harvesting?  Clean & cheap energy (hello nuclear!).  Instead we're all running around like Chicken Little when we should be doing what we can now.

Makes me sick...