Maybe not.

Anybody who has taken a college physics course or studied thermodynamics knows there are no free sources of energy. Of course, actual science, these days is seldom taught anywhere but in the secondary schools. “Scientific indoctrination” is the crap that the teacher’s unions are pushing in the primary K-12 system - global climate is mankind’s fault, yada yada . . .

Alternatives to fossil fuels will take decades to develop and deploy to the point that we can abandon burning coal and oil for energy. The reality may be that worldwide, that may never happen. Hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear are generally out of the reach of third world nations from both fiscal and technology standpoints.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso posted an article at CO2 Science that analyzed a recent paper by Goncalves da Silva, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the State University of Campinas (Brazil). They conclude that the good professor sees the flaws in the free energy model:

So what does the professor finally conclude? He finds that “the new technology may actually be an energy sink, instead of an energy source, relative to the global total primary energy supply for many years or decades, depending on its intrinsic energy costs and deployment path, even though stated aims for its gross energy output are achieved [italics added].” Consequently, he says that “to achieve terawatts output from renewable sources, in order to displace massive quantities of fossil energies, will be a slow process, extending over many decades,” and that we should “not place undue hope in new energy technologies to save the world from fossil energies until well after many decades of deployment.” Or, we would add, if ever!

Emphasis mine. The entire post is here.

Speaking of solar activity, a giant coronal hole opened up in the Sun’s northern hemisphere earlier this week, triggering auroras at high latitudes. Image made by the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), via APOD. Click image to enlarge.

A couple of days ago, I received feedback from a reader who wanted to use our “Correlation Between Solar Activity and Global Temperature” animated graphic in his classes on Meteorology. “Professor Bob” who teaches at a community college in Virginia Beach, VA, is a rare find in academia these days. He shares our skepticism of the whole “Climate Change” hype. How refreshing is that?

The graphic, embedded at the right, originally appeared in a post we wrote back in August of 2006, “Correlating Solar Activity to Global Climate.” The post dealt with observations of sunspot activity and global temperature from 1600 to 1998 and correlated the two together. The graphic is an animated visual summary of the correlation between solar activity and global temperature.

Since the Professor wanted to include the graphic in a Microsoft Powerpoint presentation, I did some research on linking Flash™ to the presentation. I found some pretty good support from Microsoft on how to link to the graphic. I tried it here, saw that it worked, and sent the information to Bob. He emailed me this morning to say he had succeeded in getting the link to work at his end.

The whole climate scam, of course, is aimed at higher taxes on anything that emits CO2. That’s why Al Gore, most Democrats and the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. have been lying about the temperature figures ever since they started to decline after 1998. We intend to continue debunking the scam as long as we’re able.

Congratulations to Professor Bob for getting the thing working, and just as importantly, for passing the information along to his Meteorology Students.

After a day of grueling errands and chores in the desert, a dip in the cement pond out back is sure great for Damsel’s tired feet. Click the image to enlarge.

This is an interesting article on the SOHO website. The speeding of the internal plasma circulation is connected with the deepest solar minimum in a century.

One of the outstanding questions facing solar physicists is the origin of the solar magnetic cycle: What drives the 11-year sunspot cycle? We have just passed an extended and deep minimum, unlike any in the past 100 years. The late onset of the new solar cycle (#24) and the unusually deep minimum between cycles 23 and 24 took all experts by surprise, which suggests that there is a fundamental lack in our understanding of the origin of the solar activity cycle.

Image: Artist’s concept of the Sun’s meridional circulation, a large scale flow that transports solar plasma from the equator to the poles and back like a giant conveyor belt. Credit: Science@NASA

The Sun’s meridional circulation is a massive flow pattern within the Sun that transports hot plasma near the surface from the solar equator to the poles and back to the equator in the deeper layers of the convection zone, similar to a “conveyor belt”. The flow is rather slow, with typical speeds of 10-15 m/s (20 to 30 mph). The structure and strength of this meridional flow is believed to play a key role in determining the strength of the Sun’s polar magnetic field, which in turn determines the strength of the sunspot cycles. One class of dynamo models predicts that a stronger meridional flow produces weaker polar fields, whereas another class of models predicts stronger polar fields (and a shorter sunspot cycle) for the same flow. [more]

The 7.2 Baja earthquake of April 4, 2010 and numerous aftershocks have displaced the land around Calexico, CA, about 31 inches. From NASA:

NASA Radar Images Show How Mexico Quake Deformed Earth

PASADENA, Calif. — NASA has released the first-ever airborne radar images of the deformation in Earth’s surface caused by a major earthquake — the magnitude 7.2 temblor that rocked Mexico’s state of Baja California and parts of the American Southwest on April 4.

The data reveal that in the area studied, the quake moved the Calexico, Calif., region in a downward and southerly direction up to 80 centimeters (31 inches). The maps can be seen at: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/UAVSARimage20100623.html .

A science team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., used the JPL-developed Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle Synthetic Aperture Radar (UAVSAR) to measure surface deformation from the quake. The radar flies at an altitude of 12.5 kilometers (41,000 feet) on a Gulfstream-III aircraft from NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif.

The team used a technique that detects minute changes in the distance between the aircraft and the ground over repeated, GPS-guided flights. The team combined data from flights on Oct. 21, 2009, and April 13, 2010. The resulting maps are called interferograms.

Overview of the UAVSAR interferogram of the magnitude 7.2 Baja California earthquake of April 4, 2010, overlaid atop a Google Earth image of the region. Major fault systems are shown by red lines, while recent aftershocks are denoted by yellow, orange and red dots. Image credit: NASA/JPL/USGS/Google

Click on the image to enlarge.

(More)

Here’s a little perspective on the gulf oil spill versus Cap and Trade . . .

Via The Patriot Post:

Via The Corner:

A very neat interactive map that lets you see what the spill would look like if its epicenter were your house.

I’ve set this one for Wickenburg, AZ . . .

Crossing the desert in the springtime is a very colorful experience. The ocotillo and wildflowers in this photo offer a small sample of the variety of desert colors. Click on the image to enlarge.

We visited the Joshua Tree National Park today. As always when we come here, we drove to Keys View to see the spectacular panorama overlooking the Coachella Valley and Salton Sea. This photo (slightly enhanced to reduce the haze) shows the Salton Sea just above the tops of the mountain ridge in the foreground. Click on the image to enlarge.

It’s true, but not on a global scale . . .

Increases in local temperature averages are due, in large part, to URBANIZATION. For those of us who bother to seek out actual scientific studies, we can clearly see that Urban Heat Islands are the cause of localized increases in temperature. Consider this study from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:

The Urban Heat Island of Mexicali, Mexico

Urban Heat Island Effect - Click on the image to enlarge

Background

Mexicali City borders the United States at the northern end of Mexico’s Baja California. It is an urban settlement that had its beginnings in the first decade of the 20th century. At that point in time it had an area of approximately 4 km2; but by 1980 it covered an area of a little over 40 km2, and by 2005 it covered something in excess of 140 km2.

What was done

Working with daily records of maximum and minimum temperature from six weather stations “in Mexicali City and its surroundings” covering the period 1950-2000, and with “a climatic network of rural and urban weather stations in Mexicali and its valley and the Imperial Valley, California” over the “contemporary period (2000-2005),” the authors characterized the spatial and temporal development of the city’s urban heat island over the latter half of the 20th century and the first five years of the 21st century.

What was learned

Garcia Cueto et al. state that Mexicali City “changed from being a cold island (1960-1980) to a heat island with a maximum intensity of 2.3°C in the year 2000, when it was compared with rural weather stations of Imperial, California,” noting that “the replacement of irrigated agricultural land by urban landscapes, anthropogenic activity and population growth, appear to be the major factors responsible for the observed changes.” And from the “more updated information (2000-2005),” they found that “the greatest intensity of the urban heat island was in winter with a value of 5.7°C, and the lowest intensity in autumn with 5.0°C.”

What it means

The results of this study clearly demonstrate that population growth and the clustering of people in cities can lead to localized warming (in areas where temperatures are routinely measured) that is both more rapid and much greater (by as much as an order of magnitude, in fact) than what climate alarmists typically attempt to characterize as the “unprecedented” warming of the 20th century. And that population-growth-induced warming — spread across the world — has likely contributed, in large part, to what they wrongly construe to be CO2-induced global warming.

Simply said, CO₂ is NOT a dangerous gas.

You might ask “what does increased levels of CO₂ have to do with peanuts?” Well, the climate experts that blog at World Climate Report have a baseball-related explanation:

Baseball’s Back - With More Peanuts Than Ever

For many citizens in the USA, this has been a winter for the ages. From no end of storms in the Southwest to record-breaking snow in the Northeast, this has been one long winter. But in Arizona and Florida, the boys of summer are dusting off their bats and balls and spring training is now underway. Fans are flocking back to the ballparks, and our consumption of peanuts is on the rise. American will eat more than 600 million pounds of peanuts this year at ballparks around the country (and elsewhere), we will eat over 700 million pounds of peanut butter, and we will spend over four billion dollars on our peanut habit.

What’s the climate change rub? Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are enhancing peanut productivity and protecting the crop from the harmful impacts of atmospheric pollutants such as ozone. Which means more peanuts to go around. So next time you raise your hand and call out “Hey Beerman, how about a cold one and jumbo bag of peanuts!” remember that elevated atmospheric CO2 is helping to keep your bag full. [more]