Powerful Stupidity Overcomes The White House And Scientific American

ScreenHunter_744 Jan. 14 18.42

Powerful Global Warming Pollution Cut by New U.S. Rules – Scientific American

Radiative transfer models used in climate models show that 2 PPM methane has almost no effect on Earth’s radiative balance, and that even a 10X increase would have almost no impact. And it oxidizes quickly in the atmosphere so the concentration could never get very high in Earth’s atmosphere anyway.

The only thing “powerful” is the level of bullshit by Scientific American and the White House.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Powerful Stupidity Overcomes The White House And Scientific American

  1. futuret says:



  2. gator69 says:

    This is another attempt to raise the cost of conventional energy, so that they can claim that renewables are gaining ‘parity’.

    They promised transparency and they delivered, you just have to know where to look.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Time to disband or at least completely defund the EPA.

  4. annieoakley says:

    I refuse to read anything in all caps. If I say what you said too bad. This is designed to advance Agenda 21. It is a war on the private sector and will destroy private property rights. We will all be living in gray concrete apartments with the bathroom down the hall. No hope of anything better just like the old Soviet Union.

  5. mkelly says:

    I have always heard methane was 23 times not 86 times more potent. Of course since CO2 does nothing either 23 or 86 times zero is still , well you know.

  6. Gail Combs says:

    Steve’s own The Methane Scam kills the whole BS song and dance.

    H/T to Sunsettommy

    • Yes Gail, Steve is right that CH4 has no affect on the atmosphere. However, he is wrong that CH4 is quickly oxidised to CO2. CH4 is not oxidised by oxygen. It can be measured in the atmosphere and is about 1.7 ppm. To burn methane, it is necessary to have an ignition temperature of about 650C. Your BBQ LPG (butane and propane) also does not burn until you ignite it. Further, there is a minimum limit to the concentration of about 5% before it can be ignited. Ozone up in the ozone layer and that created by lightning can oxidise methane but the normal product would be CH3OH or methanol which is highly soluble in water (or the oceans). -OH radicals have been measured high in the stratosphere with balloon carried instruments.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Thanks, Cementafriend.

        Please continue your experiments with the rain gauges and then do a write up for
        Jo Nova, WUWT…..

      • oeman50 says:

        With all due respect, caf, you have assumed the conditions for having a methane flame are the same as for oxidation. Methane will oxidize from atmospheric O2 at ambient temperatures and concentrations, or it would build up in the atmosphere since nowhere on earth naturally has the conditions you have described (except for your grill).

        • gator69 says:

          Volcanos would have those conditions (700F+).

        • Gail Combs says:

          People forget about the amount of energy the sun puts out in the upper wavelengths. Enough to beak chemical bonds even in the troposphere.

          Atmospheric chemistry at night
          Atmospheric chemistry is driven, in large part, by sunlight. Air pollution, for
          example, and especially the formation of ground-level ozone, is a day-time
          phenomenon. So what happens between the hours of sunset and sunrise?

          …The first Environmental Brief (1) considered in detail the photolysis of ozone at near-ultraviolet wavelengths to generate electronically excited oxygen atoms:

          O3 + light (λ O( D) + O2…..[R1

          Reaction R1 is a key process in tropospheric chemistry because the O(^1D) atom has sufficient excitation energy to react with water vapour to produce hydroxyl radicals:

          O(^1D) + H2O ==> 2 OH……..[R2]

          Reaction with oxidants such as OH is typically the rate determining step for removing trace gases from the atmosphere. Almost all gases emitted into the atmosphere derive from processes occurring at the Earth’s surface (e.g. natural emissions from biota on land or in the oceans; anthropogenic emissions from agriculture or from fossil fuel combustion for energy generation, industry and transport). Thus gases enter the atmosphere “from the bottom”, where they also encounter the OH radical. Only the few gases that are unreactive towards OH radicals (e.g. chlorofluorocarbons) persist long enough in the troposphere to be transported up to the stratosphere.

          The chemistry of OH is inextricably linked to the chemistry of nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + NO2). Reactions of OH with atmospheric trace gases usually produce hydroperoxy radicals, HO2, which are recycled back to OH by reaction with NO. In the process, NO is oxidised to NO2. The latter photolyses to produce ground-state oxygen atoms, O(3P), that recombine with molecular oxygen to produce ozone…..

          Click to access environmental-brief-no-3-2014_tcm18-237724.pdf

    • sunsettommy says:

      Another reason not to worry about CH4 is that the IR absorption bands, are in the LOW energy areas of the IR spectrum,meaning it absorbs very little energy,far less than what CO2’s already low IR absorption rate is.

      Here is a link and article showing how minor it is: Methane: The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas


      The chart in the link,make clear that the two little Methane bumps lies in the lower energy parts of the IR spectrum, and well away from the main OUTGOING terrestrial IR section.

      I like to tell the warmist morons over at Facebooks Climate change discussion group, just small these two gases really are by this line:

      CO2 is a trace gas,with a trace IR absorption range, while CH4 is a super trace gas,with an infinitesimal IR absorption range.

  7. dikstr says:

    Scientific American has been a propaganda organ for CAGW for a long time. Part of the brainwashing elementary and secondary school children are receiving from the government and school political science types.

  8. Steve Case says:

    Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2.
    Not 85 times, and not 87 times but 86 times!
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  9. Steve Case says:

    Seriously, there are some reasons to assign CH4 with warming potential.

    1. Scientific American didn’t say by mass, but the usual claim does, and CH4 has a formula weight of 16 compared to 44 for CO2

    2. at 1 or 2 ppm it doesn’t take much to double the concentration of CH4.

    3. CH4 oxidizes in to yield CO2 and 4 H2O and this is probably the cource of H2O^ in the stratophere.

    But 86 times?

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  10. Steve Case says:

    When I was in the Navy, Dirty Ed would talk about his adventures before he enlisted. The hot cars he had, the rock band he was a member of and all the hot women he had his way with. I never told him, “Gee Ed your just a lying sack …” because I liked listening to him. And I think that’s why Scientific American gets away with such obvious bullshit. The subscribers like the pablum they’re fed.

  11. Don says:

    Back to the serious problem, the proposed rules from the evil Obama. As he cannot do a thing about fracking, since fracking is almost all done on state or private lands, this is his next best idea to destroy our energy independence. And further wreck the middle-class.

  12. John Goetz says:

    Here is the good news. I coach high school kids and made a wise crack about the weather today, that it was 50% warmer than Monday as measure from 0 degrees Fahrenheit. I followed it with “Hashtag GlobalWarming”. One girl exclaimed “oh wow, someone agrees with me!” and I asked her if she thought I was being sarcastic or sincere. She is a bit of a space cadet and thought for a moment before responding sincere. I told her, no, I was being sarcastic and that global warming was a scare-mongering crock. The other 40 or so on my team let an audible sigh of relief and agreed that global warming is pure BS. They were visibly relieved an adult sided with them. Many spent ten minutes citing proof one way or another that global warming is a scare.

    Obviously not scientific, but it points to the possibility that our young minds are not being shaped in the horrid ways we dread. Maybe – just maybe – they are thinking for themselves.

  13. Eric Simpson says:

    Electricity Rates Soar To Record Levels…


    U.S. average electricity rates will hit a record high… That record is expected to be beaten in 2016, as prices hit 12.86 cents per kilowatthour (kWh)– the highest annual average price in the 21st century.

    Electricity prices are set to rise even further as coal-fired power plants are shut down due to Environmental Protection Agency clean air regulations. So far, 381 coal-fired generators are slated to shutdown over the coming years due to EPA rules.

    • stpaulchuck says:

      consider that the largest number of them support the East Coast. I’m going to lay in extra popcorn and Valu-Rite vodka when then blackouts start to occur. Watching those lefty voters freeze in the winter and bake in the summer will be a real schadenboner for me.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Don’t forget to lay in firewood and a generator plus extra fuel…

        Oh that’s right. The EPA and the PC crowd are also banning wood stoves…
        EPA’s Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

        What is really wonderful is New England is closing nuclear plants too and at the same time refusing to allow natural gas pipeline. I am sure they are counting on the Hydro from Niagara Falls except Quebec is also very PC and is ALSO counting on the Hydro. (Snicker)

        6 [New England] Nuclear Plants That Could Be Next To Shut Down

        …Nuclear energy currently generates 19 percent of our nation’s electricity. If all 38 units at risk were prematurely retired, about one-third of our nuclear fleet would be shut down…

        • Gail Combs says:

          Here is the story on Pipeline Protesters:

          “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken

          Looks like the people of Fitchburg are working on it.

          Hundreds rally against natural gas pipeline
          FITCHBURG — Several hundred people from three states packed a high school auditorium Saturday to rally against a proposed pipeline that would carry high-pressure natural gas across Northern Massachusetts.

          Protesters from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York staged the ‘‘Stop the Pipeline Statewide Summit’’ at Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School in Fitchburg. The crowd included elected officials, environmental activists, and landowners whose property the pipeline would cross or pass near.

          ‘‘It’s all about numbers to the proponents of the pipeline,’’ Ken Hartlage, president of the Nashoba Conservation Trust, told the crowd. ‘‘They don’t care about your home, your farm, your legacy for your children.’’

          Houston-based Kinder Morgan Inc. plans to route the pipeline from Richmond, Mass., near the New York border, to Dracut, near the New Hampshire line. Supporters say the pipeline, which still needs regulatory approval, would help relieve the need for more natural gas in New England.

          Protest organizer Elaine Mroz of Lunenburg, along with her siblings, owns a tract of woods in Winchendon that has been in her family since 1901. She said a call from a surveyor last winter alerted her to the pipeline proposal…

          Boy am I glad I am out of there!

        • rah says:

          “What is really wonderful is New England is closing nuclear plants too and at the same time refusing to allow natural gas pipeline.” Yep and at the same time their demand for natural gas is increasing because of the conversion from heating oil to gas for home heating.

        • Anthony Scalzi says:

          Nearby folks are also protesting a propane depot.

          And in my neck of the woods, they are protesting an 800MW natural gas plant located in an industrial park at the intersection of a gas pipeline and high tension powerlines. Somehow they’ve gotten the impression that there will be pure soot coming out of the stacks, never mind that thousands of people in the affected area burn natural gas in their houses. Idiots.
          You’d think they’d get the message that we need new plants with electrics rates doubling this year.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Anthony Scalzi,

          The Worcester MA Telegram, not too far from Fitchburg. Looks like it is time to put a bug in the ear of my Brother-in-law. He is editor for one of the papers in your neck of the woods….

          NAH, I will just tell him to make sure he has a good whole house generator and plenty of fuel. It is about time the Peoples Republic of Taxechusetts did a crash and burn.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Speaking of blackouts to come, listen to this:

      Europe plunged into energy crisis as Russia cuts off gas supply via Ukraine:

      Russia cut gas exports to Europe by 60 per cent today, plunging the continent into an energy crisis ‘within hours’ as a dispute with Ukraine escalated. This morning, gas companies in Ukraine said that Russia had completely cut off their supply.

      Six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas shipped via Ukraine today, in a sharp escalation of a struggle over energy that threatens Europe as winter sets in. Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Croatia and Turkey all reported a halt in gas shipments from Russia through Ukraine. Croatia said it was temporarily reducing supplies to industrial customers while Bulgaria said it had enough gas for only ‘for a few days’ and was in a ‘crisis situation’.

      The UK is suffering one of its coldest nights this century with temperatures plunging to as low as -10C…

      ———- —————- —————– —-
      Wow, throughout all of Europe because of global warming er “climate change” they’ve ransacked their own energy producing capabilities in favor of whimsical costly virtually worthless green energy like wind. The chickens now come home to roast. In the dead of winter. Lol.

    • futuret says:


  14. stpaulchuck says:

    (un)Scientific (un)American has been a Marxist tool for a long time now I dropped my subscription years ago over their Marxist redistributionist Econ broadsides and then the CAGW nonsense.

  15. rah says:

    “SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN” Indeed! (sarc)

  16. Gail Combs says:

    Not Stupidity, pure carefully contrived PROPAGANDA!

    The BBC censorship scandal has reared it’s ugly head again. It has now come out that the ’28-gate’ conference was funded by the Tony Blair government. (Tony Blair was head of the Fabian Society.)


    List of the ‘Twenty Eight ‘Advisors’ to the BBC that shaped it’s policy of Censorship. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/

    Of interest are these two quotes:
    “It has had a major impact on the willingness of the BBC to raise these issues for discussion. Joe Smith and I are now wondering whether we can help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world” – Roger Harrabin

    “The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing significant changes in the tone and content of BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming,” – Dr Joe Smith

    So after the BBC ‘experiment’ in propaganda they decided to export the same censorship and propaganda to “help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world”

    As I said pure carefully contrived PROPAGANDA exported around the world.

  17. Billyjack says:

    I canceled Scientific American, when they gave Jeffrey Sachs a monthly column to spout Marxist bullshit, in what is supposed to be a science publication. Since Marxist liberals are too stupid to understand science, who actual supports these propaganda rags and keeps them in business?

  18. geologyjim says:

    It is worth recalling that “Scientific American” published the Stephen Schneider hit piece on Bjorn Lomberg’s “Skeptical Environmentalist” back in 2002 – so they’ve been propagandizing for many years

    used to love the math puzzles in the 60s

  19. catweazle666 says:

    “Radiative transfer models used in climate models show that 2 PPM methane has almost no effect on Earth’s radiative balance”

    Given that atmospheric methane concentration are given in PPB (parts per billion) and it has a very short half-life, this is just another bit of alarmist industrial sabotage.

  20. John says:

    I’m a fan of this. Methane is far more useful to us as a fuel to burn than released into the atmosphere. Same reason we shouldn’t (and generally don’t) flare it.

  21. rachase says:

    Anyone catch George Will’s column yesterday (Wed. 1/14). He high lighted two recent books that detail the dramatic historical events that occured during (and as a direct result of) the dramatic natural [i.e., before CO2 and human activities started causing them 🙂 ] changes in climate that brought on by the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Both fact based books pretty much blow the current alleged human driven crisis out of the water. “The Third Horseman: Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century” by William Rosen, and “The Global Crisis: War, Climate Change & Catastrophe in the 17th Century” by Geoffery Parker, a history professor at Ohio State.

  22. JeffK says:

    What’s pkanned next is they’ll stop rigging the data and graphs will begin showing cooling trends — “thanks to climate change policy and regulations.” Just watch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s