Does this mean we should stop the electrification of the automobile, too? Or burn more coal?
Another question is, how will this affect auto sector product planning let alone stocks, like General Motors (NYSE: GM); Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F); Toyota Motors (ADR: TM); even Tesla (Nasdaq: TSLA) and others.
The study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a team of two geographers and two economists headed by professor Robert Kaufmann at Boston University (BU) say the sulfur in China coal plants literally offset the CO2, which explains why there has been no increase in earth temperature for the past ten years.
Who knew? Don’t you just love how governments pay scientists and universities millions in research only to hear another from the scientific community say, Oops, our bad?
Fact is, global warming advocates have long charged that burning coal releases carbon dioxide that traps heat from the sun, which raises temperatures to the danger level. What they failed to track, though, was the emission of sulfur particles which seem to help block the sun's rays. End result seems to be a cooler earth, at least in the short run.
Problem is, cleaning the air after burning coal makes the warming more of a reality, because it reduces particulates in the air.
In a way, the burdening impact on the economy to fight a climate problem that doesn’t exist now looks as absurd as many thought. Still, we have plenty of other reasons to not burn coal; it’s just that climate temperature isn’t one of them, at least according to this latest report. I’m waiting for a rebuttal, by the way, likely to be paid by your tax dollars.
I also realize American automakers are still getting hammered to totally eliminate fossil fuels, while China gets a free ride because they are supposedly an emerging economy. Have you checked their export numbers lately? That’s far from emerging except in the sense of getting ahead of the U.S.
Now for the other side of the equation
So, climate change is not affected by coal; almost a a zero-sum game, at least until you stop burning it and try to clean up the air. Then reality hits home.
Point is, sulfur has more than one use besides homeopathy, and fire and brimstone. But what about clean air for humans to breath? Breathing sulfur is not exactly my idea of clean air for my kids and grand kids. And as an asthmatic, I still say it’s important.
On the other hand, I detest scientists being used to promote a political agenda that has no basis in truth. And I definitely detest government officials using tax dollars to play their game.
Simple fact is, easy-to-get oil is past its peak, and that makes it too expensive as a fuel, which is reason enough to still switch to natural gas. Also, it burns cleaner. What a novel idea! Yes, I believe in competing commodities to act as a hedge.
It’s also a valid reason to rein in the pace of the Environmental Protection Agency and its efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. They should base their agenda on free-breathing, clean air, not just CO2 levels. Fact is, the EPA with its regulatory agenda has been at war with the American coal industry, and to a lesser degree, the auto industry.
And don’t forget the economic impact by government manipulation using EPA to ride herd on laws defined by them, like carbon management and credits.
Bottom line for me on this subject: I’m not saying we should give up on automotive electrification totally. It’s just we have sufficient economic reason to concentrate more on fuel efficiency, rather than some climate event that now has been proven to be non-existent.
I have always felt the world went warm naturally during the middle ages when there were no cars, no China and no major coal industry. Did scientists turn off their logic? And one look at a National Geographic program showing volcanoes deep in the ocean spewing did it for me years ago.
Now the BU study also confirms the huge impact that natural phenomena such as volcanic activity, ocean currents and solar activity have on climate. So, let’s stay the course for fuel efficiency, clean air and clean planet, but let’s not allow political and social engineers to sway us ever again from a sensible approach.
-----------------------
About the Reporter: After 39 years in the auto industry as a design engineer, Frank Sherosky now trades stocks, futures and writes articles, books and ebooks like, "Perfecting Corporate Character," "Awaken Your Speculator Mind", and "Millennial World Order" via authorfrank.com. He may be contacted here by email: [email protected]
________________________________________________
Additional Reading:
EPA sets milestone for alternate fuel industry with regulation amendments
Heckmann Corporation transitioning to LNG with Peterbilt 367
AT&T reduces dependence on foreign oil with CNG powered Chevy vans
Scuderi Air-Hybrid Engine technology setting up to challenge electric hybrids
Volt increasing traffic onto Chevy dealer showroom floors
Cella Energy achievement may make hydrogen fill-up a reality
Stop-start technology to advance more micro hybrids by 2016
Comments
You need to read the study
Permalink
You need to read the study more closely.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102467108
The cooling effect of the sulfur is short-lived compared to the warming effect of the carbon-dioxide. So, burning more coal (in the long run) means more and more warming.
The study does not contradict current science. It says that the observed hiatus is/was consistent with current science.
With all respect, you need to
Permalink
With all respect, you need to read the article more closely.
What the study does prove, is that certain scientists lied to the public by saying temps did rise, when this report gives reason as to why temps didn't. If the science community wants our respect and support as global climate watchmen, then it has to ALWAYS relate truth, no matter what that truth is; and stop rearranging data to support their own suppositions and politcial agendas.
In no way did I contradict the report or the fact that man induced it by burning the coal in the first place. Fact is, the planet changes temperature with or without man. The report merely gave the effect THIS TIME as not an immediate problem as has been reported. It is unfortunate that man now creates more warming as he attempts to clean the air.
Another point is, there are plenty of natural causes that have as much affect as man, and probably more so as noted in the article. After all, man only lives on 20 percent of the earth's entire surface, where 80 percent is ocean and naturally has the acreage to release far more internal heat. Isn't that how the little ice age came about when there was no coal burned of any significance?
I'm sorry, but you’re
Permalink
I'm sorry, but you’re wrong.
The trend has been rising temperatures. During the period from roughly 1940-1970 there was even some cooling (due to sulfur pollution.)
There’s really nothing new here. In June of 2001, even President Bush said as much:
President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change
No scientist has said otherwise.
Now, we’ve seen a similar hiatus, and certain people have suggested that means the warming isn’t happening. This study’s conclusion is that the hiatus is just what the science tells us should happen. (i.e. increased burning of coal temporarily slows the warming trend.)
Your argument is still
Permalink
In reply to I'm sorry, but you’re by Anonymous (not verified)
Your argument is still unbalanced and illogical. Explain the rise in temperature during the Depression era. Then explain the stable temperature during 1942-1982, using your own chart.
Fact is, the earth's core is intensely hot. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 80 percent of the earth surface has a lot of cracks in it under the oceans. That is statistically too much to ignore as a root cause for global warming.
Argue against coal for clean air and I am on your side, but not global warming using coal as the sole culprit. I will follow up with another article, clean coal technology.
Unbalanced and
Permalink
In reply to Your argument is still by Frank Sherosky
Unbalanced and illogical?
You’re ignoring decades of science.
Here’s testimony from 2001:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science_Key_Questions.asp
The cooling properties of
Permalink
The cooling properties of sulfates are not a new discovery. May I suggest you read:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.7.3372
It is most unfortunate that
Permalink
It is most unfortunate that due to pressures from petrochemical and agribusiness, we are frittering the small window of opportunity to save ourselves from extinction. We have only 10 years, before it is too late to reverse the global warming that will cause thawing of the tundra. Once that happens, methane will be released, precipitating warming 20x faster. Then it will be too late to save ourselves from extinction.
The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that earth is unequivocallly warming due to human activities, not due to a normal recurring natural phenomenon.
SEE Prof Fenner's comment: HUMAN EXTINCTION WILl TAKE PLACE WITHIN 100 YEARS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING AND OVERPOPULATION. ( small pox eradication guru)