Tuesday, November 29, 2011

A Summary of CO2 Models

Over the past year I have been blogging continuously over the issue of “manmade” climate change. First, I do not believe that manmade climate change is happening, but I do believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can be dangerous in large amounts. Thus, I have been researching to find a smart solution to combat CO2 without overreacting and destroying the economy with cap and trade policies. Here is summary of my past posts:

I ran a linear regression model to understand the relationship between global temperatures, carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the cost of electricity, and energy consumption when increasing our reliance on renewable energies (wind and solar) by 25% and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by 25%. In parenthesis are the results of increasing our reliance on nuclear energy by 25% instead of wind and solar.

  • Carbon emissions in our atmosphere increased from 391 to 428 (391 to 414) parts per million (ppm)
  • The global temperature decreased from 0.7 degrees to -1.84 (increase from 0.7 to 1) degrees from our 1980 global temperature levels
  • Energy consumption in the United States decreased 3 times (increase 25%)
  • The cost of energy increased by 38% (decrease by 22%)
  • The increased nuclear energy usage analysis proves there is little that can be done to combat global warming meanwhile; the increased wind and solar energy usage analysis proves the relationship between global temperatures and CO2 emissions are not necessarily directly proportional as global warming alarmists insist.

These results show there is no directly proportional relationship between global temperatures and CO2 emissions. The fact that CO2 is always increasing in our environment follows Thermodynamics Second Law that states the entropy in the universe is always increasing. Entropy measures the disorder or imperfections of a system. In other words, all products and life forms have imperfections. For instance, a human being and car have imperfections and emit carbon byproducts. Even if the world miraculously used green energy 90% of the time, CO2 emissions in our atmosphere will continue to increase. Thus, the billions of dollars that global governments are spending to make their power grids smart and to convert to renewable energies is a total waste of time and money. Thankfully, there are a few climate scientists that have some commonsense: Klaus Lackner from Columbia University and David Keith from Calgary University. They are developing promising carbon scrubbing technology that will not affect our lifestyles one bit while at the same time lowering CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Here are links to their studies:



There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a conservative that is conscience of their carbon footprint for a few simple reasons. Reducing our carbon footprint lessens the amount of pollutants that enter the air we breathe and secondly, it can save us hundreds of dollars annually in energy bills. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an online calculator so each individual can compute their CO2 emissions. In other words, this calculator reveals the carbon footprint of each individual and family. This site is located at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html.

For more detailed information about global warming, climate change, and carbon emissions please refer to my earlier blogs: A Commonsense Solution to CO2 (Parts I through IV) and The Relationship between Energy Costs, Global Temperatures, CO2 Emissions, and Energy Consumption (Parts I through VI)

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

1 comment:

  1. Yes, I agree

    It behooves all of us to be conscious of the environment and not be wantonly wasteful with energy or with anything else. One of the major problems with the whole man-made global warming (MMGW) debate is that the dishonesty of the Left and their tendency to be driven by agenda rather than truth sets up conservatives to look like they’re anti-environment simply for disagreeing with the conclusions about the science or with the proposed solutions. I don’t think that’s simply an accident. I think the Left wants it that way, so that people falsely see it as a choice between pro-environment and anti-environment. That’s how they sell it to school kids who then become the next generation of voters. Of course, we know the truth that - this is really a choice between the irrational and the rational.

    I laugh at the liberals who’ve suddenly discovered the wonder of being “green” and who lecture us on it with their noses up in the air. Where are they when it comes to all the waste that goes on in our schools and our government? The Los Angeles school district (run by liberals) built a $238 million school on an earthquake fault with reportedly toxic hazards, then they partially demolished it at an additional cost of $110 million and the entire debacle is supposed to cost taxpayers half a billion when it’s all said and done. But at least they installed recycling containers! That’s the kind of lunacy we’re up against. And that’s why I don’t take them seriously when they pretend to be frantic over the environment.

    Conservatives may cling to their guns and bibles but the liberals cling to their self-made fads.