California ARB Backs Down on Diesel Engines

This week California's Air Resources Board (ARB) announced a major shift in the ongoing matter of diesel engine emissions from off-road equipment. Fleet owners had expressed grave concerns over reduced safety and increased injuries if these large diesel particulate filters (DPF) are installed, and added that existing California law would be violated. ARB acquiesced by announcing that they intend to clarify the rules, and such DPFs will not be required where their installation would impair the equipment operator's vision in any direction.

As background, ARB has an ongoing campaign to remove diesel smoke from the air, as this smoke contains particulate matter (PM10) that causes health issues. ARB divides the world into two categories, stationary and mobile sources. Within the mobile source category, ARB further divides into on-road and off-road categories (and a few others not pertinent here). On-road trucks and vehicles have had regulations in force for some time. Off-road, diesel-powered equipment such as is used for heavy construction has a regulation that goes into effect March 1, 2010, only four months away at this writing. The vendors have developed (and continue to develop) after-market devices (DPFs) that are installed after the engine's muffler. These devices use different technologies, but the basic principle is to filter or trap the small particles, and burn the particles within the device thus creating CO2 and a small amount of water vapor and NOx. Residual ash is left in the DPF and must be removed periodically.

The point of contention is blocking the equipment operator's vision due to the size of the DPFs. The larger the engine, the larger the DPF, and in some cases, large engines require two DPFs arranged in parallel flow. The DPF may be approximately 2 feet long and 10 inches in diameter. Such a device can obstruct the equipment operator's vision, which could lead to increased accidents and injuries. It is common on construction sites for workers to walk and work very near a piece of heavy construction equipment.

California has existing regulations that prevent the installation of devices on equipment that decrease the safety. Equipment designers go to great lengths to design their equipment in as safe a manner as possible, using low hoods, elevated operator seats, large windows, strong but narrow window frames, and locating the engine exhaust pipe where it will least obstruct the operator's view.

While ARB has yet to release its final regulations and the exemption for operator visibility, based on language in the announcement, it is likely that DPFs will not be required if the DPF will not fit under the hood and out of sight.

From ARB's website:

"ARB, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, and the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) have agreed on an interim policy to address retrofit visibility concerns for off-road diesel vehicles. The interim policy will exempt any vehicles that cannot be retrofit without impairing the operator’s vision to the front, sides, or rear of the vehicle from the March 1, 2010 retrofit requirement for large fleets of off-road diesel vehicles. ARB will release details regarding the method to measure visibility impairment, as well the process for applying for an exemption as soon as possible.

For more information and a background on this issue, you may view the interim policy online.

Fleets that must complete retrofits in 2010 should begin by retrofitting those vehicles for which retrofits may be installed without impacting operator visibility (for example, under the hood or out of site of the operator)."

Celebrating 10000 Hits

Today marks a milestone for Sowell’s Law Blog, having just turned 10,000 hits along with 4,000 unique visitors.

In the blogging world, one never knows if anyone will ever read a word that gets published. Or if anyone does, who they are and where they are (although I am aware that there exists tracing technology for that). The pace of hits is increasing, now turning about 1500 per month, up from 1000 just five months ago.

As I wrote a few months ago on the occasion of 3,000 hits, I do not write this to attract the masses. Still, it is very gratifying to see that 4,000 people from 76 countries have stopped by. My interests in blogging tend to focus on the areas where the law and technology intersect, especially technology that encompasses energy, climate change, and engineering malpractice.

The laws of California also play a large role, as I am licensed in California. However, the federal laws also catch my attention.

I have noticed that the hits increase just before and after I make one of my speeches, which usually are made to audiences of engineers. I have four speeches scheduled for 2009, with a presentation to American Institute of Chemical Engineers at their annual meeting in Nashville, Tennessee on November 11, 2009. The presentation's topic is California's Global Warming Solutions Act: What Chemical Engineers Should Know. The presentation will be published in the meeting's proceedings.

One theme on SLB is that of global climate change, and man’s role in any changes. As my postings indicate, I am of the opinion that man has nothing to do with any global climate change. Furthermore, there is inadequate data on prior temperatures and weather phenomena, so that any comparisons to the past are pure guesswork. The evidence shows that gross misrepresentations have been made (deliberately? Or negligently?) as to the historic temperature record, thereby seriously undermining any claims that “man did it” and “carbon is killing us.” Fundamentals of engineering, physics, and process control dictate that all of the climate-change science is false. Actual, measureable events bear this out, whether they be fewer hurricanes, colder winters, shorter growing seasons, colder oceans, sea levels not rising, polar ice caps growing, or no “hot spot” in the atmosphere. The global-warming crowd has nothing to point to that vindicates their dire predictions, except for ever-increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am, of course, aware that my position is contrary to that of many leading scientists. I could be wrong, but then several aspects of long-proven physics must then be wrong, too. The evidence shows that CO2 is not warming the earth.

Another favorite theme is Peak Oil, or rather, the Peak Oil Myth. This is a fascinating study in hoodwinking the few.

Yet a third favorite theme is the foolishness of nuclear power plants, due to their exorbitant high costs, ever-present danger of nuclear radiation, long-lasting toxic legacy of spent nuclear fuel isotopes, and the grossly unfair and disproportionate impact of their high electric power prices on the lower income echelons of society.

A fourth theme is the advent and growing presence of renewable energy systems, from solar, wind, wave, geothermal, bio-based, and ocean current. It is fascinating to me to read comments by others that such renewables are bit players, and will never be mainstream. The actual evidence shows that to be wrong, as renewable energy in California comprises more than 14 percent of all power generated and sold in the state. Only natural gas provides more energy. That is not true for all states, but in the largest state by population, that clearly shows that renewables play a significant role. The key to much greater use of renewables is large-scale energy storage.

Thank you to all who stop by here, and especially to those who leave a comment.

Early Winter Storm and Record Cold

California's AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was passed to prevent catastrophic events from occurring in the state. Such events include "a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack," (Cal. Health and Safety Code, Section 38501(a), where AB 32 is written)

As I write this (October 12, 2009 at 9:00 p.m. PDT), a massive Pacific storm is approaching the U.S. west coast and California. The local news headlines shriek that "3 to 6 inches of rain" are expected to fall. This is quite an event for Southern California, where 14 inches is the average rainfall during an entire year. The storm is quite large, and is expected to bring snow to the northern portions of the Sierras at the higher altitudes. California's primary source of water is melting snow from the Sierra Mountains. California also receives water from the Colorado river, wells, and a very small amount from seawater desalination.

It has also been quite cold, record-breaking cold, in fact, for the past few days. Not only in California, but across much of the U.S. A baseball playoff game was postponed due to record cold and snow this past Saturday night in Denver, Colorado.

Once again, the actual events do not bear out the predictions and concerns of the global warming scientists. This record cold event is not supposed to happen. Big storms that bring snow to the Sierras are supposed to be fewer, and certainly not appear before December. The reason for the disparity between the climate alarmists' predictions and reality is that CO2 has nothing to do with the earth's air temperature or water temperature.

AB 32 is supposed to create green jobs, improve the economy, keep the electric grid operating reliably with 33 percent of the state's power provided by intermittent, renewable power such as wind and solar, all while drastically reducing CO2 emissions. CO2 is to be reduced by approximately 30 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels - and that is on an absolute basis, not adjusted for population growth. This is very similar to the federal bill passed earlier this year in the House of Representatives.

As the months go by, it becomes more and more obvious that jobs are not being created, the climate is not warming, the seas are not rising, heat waves are not happening more frequently, and polar ice caps are not shrinking. It also becomes painfully obvious that California has passed the point of sustainable environmental regulation. When regulations stifle the economy and jobs are lost, it is time to repeal the regulations. Jobs are far more important than any mythical global warming based on bad science. California's unemployment is higher and the recession is far deeper than in most of the 49 other states, yet one would expect that to be the opposite since California already has a high percentage of renewable energy in the electrical mix. AB 32 proponents insist that more renewables and less CO2 emissions improves the economy and creates more jobs. Where are the jobs in California, then?

Lawsuit Says CO2 Is a Pollutant in Texas

From a Houston Chronicle article, "Public Citizen's lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in Travis County District Court, accuses the [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality] regulatory agency of violating the state's Clean Air Act by refusing to issue standards for controlling the emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants." The environmental group seeks to force the state of Texas to regulate CO2 emissions because, they say, CO2 causes global warming.

One can imagine how this plays with the public in Texas, the state with more refineries than any other, the greatest oil and gas production after Alaska, and hundreds of associated chemical and petrochemical plants. The comments following the article are excellent reading.

A limit on CO2 emissions, if restricted to coal-fired power plants, would be damaging enough. But, such a ruling would open the door to additional regulation of CO2 emissions from refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, plus other industries (steel and cement spring to mind), and of course natural gas-fired power plants.

TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw, a realist, hit the nail on the head when he stated “Reducing CO2 in Texas will do nothing to lower CO2 globally, but will have the effect of sending U.S. jobs to China and India.”

As I show in my speeches on California's AB 32, a state law that requires massive reductions in CO2 emissions, one state cannot possibly make a difference. California produces approximately 2 percent of all CO2 emissions in the world due to energy consumption. Texas produces approximately the same. A 20 or 30 percent reduction from a 2 percent base, implemented 11 years from now, would never be noticed in the world, and would be instantly overwhelmed by one year's modest increase in developing countries.

The science is not supportive of the position embraced by the US EPA, that CO2 causes atmospheric warming globally. The supposed mechanism for the global warming effect is that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb electromagnetic radiation in the infra-red range, or heat, as that heat is traveling upward toward outer space. The CO2 molecules then, the theory goes, re-radiate their absorbed energy in all directions, such that roughly half the energy is directed downward toward the earth's surface. The downward-directed heat then slightly increases the earth's surface temperature, and causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. The additional water vapor in the atmosphere then traps yet more heat, causing a runaway heating effect. Climatologists use the word "forcing" to describe the mechanism. The climate models are hopelessly inaccurate and have not yet predicted any of the events of the past 10 years - colder air, colder oceans, fewer hurricanes, growing ice caps, shorter growing seasons, early snowfalls in Autumn, late snowfalls in Spring, normal or zero ocean level increase, and indeed, lower sea levels in many areas including offshore San Francisco. The climate models have a basic assumption of constant relative humidity in the atmosphere, and if the air is indeed warmer, more water vapor should be held in the atmosphere.

Several real mechanisms act to thwart the climate modelers and their models. First, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, is clouds. More humidity creates more clouds, which cool the earth in at least two ways. One way is to increase the albedo or reflectivity of the earth, which allows less sunshine (heat energy) to reach the surface. Another way is increased rain, whereby great amounts of heat is released at high altitude where the water vapor condenses to rain drops. Water releases approximately 1000 Btu per pound upon condensing.

The second real mechanism is normal cycling of ocean basin temperatures. Third is the flow and position of the northern hemisphere jet stream. Fourth is the action of arctic winds and currents, and their effect on the floating ice pack. Time-lapse photography shows that the recent decrease in arctic ice is largely due, if not entirely due, to the effect of wind pushing the ice out of the arctic and into warmer waters where the ice melts. Such an event created the iceberg that sank the Titanic.

There is plenty of sound science for the state of Texas to rely upon that leads to the opposite conclusion reached by the US EPA: CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant, and therefore should not be regulated as one.

Let us hope that Texas does the right thing. Declare CO2 to not be a dangerous pollutant.

Liars, Damn Liars, and AGW Climatologists

What does one call a person who deliberately selects (cherry-picks) data to provide evidence that a pre-selected outcome occurs, when that cherry-picked data shows that the modern decades are the warmest in 1000 years? Is liar too strong a descriptor? Is it, perhaps, the only word that fits? A liar tells one thing while knowing it is untrue.

Steve McIntyre, blogger at ClimateAudit.org, wrote on the deception (my word, not his), on his blog. Steve's work shows that, when the entire data set for tree-rings from very old trees is examined and included in the analysis, that the last few decades are not warmer than any in the previous 1000 years, and in fact we are near the coldest.

The IPCC reports are based on the cherry-picked data (Steve indicates that there were 10 such trees hand-picked out of at least 34 total). Steve's work on ClimateAudit.org shows, yet again, that there is no science behind the "science is settled," and indeed, there is pure agenda-driven chicanery. Yet, this is the level of "science" on which California, via AB 32, other states, the USA, and other countries are embarking on a policy to curtail CO2 emissions to stop global warming.

In plain language, here is what happened: (source: WhatsUpWithThat.com, comment #4).

1- In 1998 a paper is published by Dr. Michael Mann. Then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper is named: Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. The paper becomes known as MBH98.

The conclusion of tree ring reconstruction of climate for the past 1000 years is that we are now in the hottest period in modern history, ever.

See the graph http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/mann/manna_99.gif

Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician in Toronto, suspects tree rings aren’t telling a valid story with that giant uptick at the right side of the graph, implicating the 20th century as the “hottest period in 1000 years", which alarmists latch onto as proof of AGW. The graph is dubbed as the "Hockey Stick" and becomes famous worldwide. Al Gore uses it in his movie An Inconvenient Truth in the famous "elevator scene".

2- Steve attempts to replicate Michael Mann’s tree ring work in the paper MBH98, but is stymied by lack of data archiving. He sends dozens of letters over the years trying to get access to data but access is denied. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph publish a paper in 2004 criticizing the work. A new website is formed in 2004 called Real Climate, by the people who put together the tree ring data and they denounce the scientific criticism:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

3- Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.

4- Having the Yamal data in complete form, McIntyre replicates it, and discovers that one of Mann’s co-authors, Briffa, had cherry picked 10 trees data sets out of a much larger set of trees sampled in Yamal.

5- When all of the tree ring data from Yamal is plotted, the famous hockey stick disappears. Not only does it disappear, but goes negative. The conclusion is inescapable. The tree ring data was hand picked to get the desired result.

These are the relevant graphs from McIntyre showing what the newly available data demonstrates.

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies1.gif

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_merged.gif

UPDATE 1 (Oct. 1, 2009): Dr. Briffa responds to the accusations leveled by McIntyre. This is written in high-level scientist gobbledy-gook (and people say lawyers write so nobody can understand!). What Dr. Briffa seems to be saying is that McIntyre got it wrong, that Briffa simply used the methodology of another scientist. That methodology is responsible, not him, and the 20th century warming is real. Or, my words now, is it possible that Briffa selected a methodology that he knew would provide that outcome, and other methodologies (like using all the data rather than a few hand-selected trees) would show no hockey stick? Stay tuned...this is about to get interesting!

Obama Lies and Economies Will Die

Some of my friends recently challenged my assertion that Obama lies, and in fact is the Liar-in-Chief. While every politician makes promises while campaigning that he/she likely knows will never be kept, Obama has taken this to a new art. A lie is still a lie, even when delivered in stentorian tones by a master orator. A few days ago, Obama addressed the United Nations on the subject of preventing global warming - although he used the phrase "climate change," as if that makes a difference. Odd, though, that the only type of climate change he is against is the warming kind. And, he cleverly worked in the phrase, "Yes We CAN!!" Such an orator...

Below is a list of eleven lies I found in his speech, and my response to each. Eleven lies in a short, 15 minute speech is beyond acceptable, and the saddest part is that so many people nodded in agreement with each whopper.

1. 1. the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing (there is no threat from climate change, as warmer is much better – there is no urgency, and therefore there is no growing threat. Any changes in the climate are purely from natural causes such as solar activity, ocean basin temperature oscillations, volcanic activity, the earth's orbital variations, cloud cover. The earth has been through many climate changes before man ever discovered fire, let alone coal-fired power plants).

2. 2. we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe (nothing is irreversible except for entropy; ice ages come and go every 100,000 years, and nothing will stop the coming ice age – and it will come. )

3. 3. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline (sea level is dropping off the coast of California, and many other places)

4. 4. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent (hurricanes world-wide are fewer in number and intensity, droughts were much worse in the past, and so were floods)

5. 5. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. (there were bumper crops in the U.S. in the last three years; poor land management practices are causing crop failures and famines in under-developed nations)

6. 6. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. (no islands are losing real estate, the oceans are not rising any more than in the recent past 100 years – see Hilo, Hawaii data on my blog)

7. 7. It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat (nope, an absence of a threat requires no response, and the magnitude of man-made global warming is zero; plus, only 30 years ago the climate alarmists were shrieking that global cooling is imminent and disaster is about to overwhelm us – and look how that turned out! ).

8. 8. the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history. (Nope, commercializing oil, and especially natural gas in the early 20^th century did much more – it freed us all from choking to death from coal soot, and air-borne dried particles of animal manure.)

9. 9. national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks -- a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil (nope, the high mpg cars will cost consumers much more, and will never pay for the additional cost via fuel savings).

10. 10. [The U.S. passed an] energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses (nope, energy prices will rise much more than energy use will decline, resulting in cost increases that will be passed along to customers, making each business un-competitive and forcing many into bankruptcy or to close their doors; Obama himself has stated publicly that his policies will cause electricity prices to skyrocket)

11. 11. There is no other way [referring to all nations working together to reduce GHGs] (nope, there is no need to cut GHGs, rather, there is a need to allow the free market forces to reward innovation so that renewable energy sources gradually supplant high-cost energy sources. This especially applies to oil, which is manipulated into artificially high prices by oil-rich nations hoarding, denying access to oil reserves, and only gradually selling oil so as to maintain the high prices.)

UPDATE 1 (Oct 9, 2009): A commenter (see comments section) took me to task for using "inflammatory language" that only "right-wingers" would use by saying Obama lies. Here is yet another article, completely independent of what I wrote, also stating categorically that Obama lies, and lied again during his UN climate speech. This from a Canadian news source, the Canadian Free Press. Guess I'm not the only one who notices that Obama lies - and lies repeatedly.

Mandatory Bio-fuels Very Bad Idea

The U.S. now has mandatory bio-fuels requirements for gasoline and soon for diesel. This is a very bad idea and the consequences will soon be apparent.

Farmers know that farming and crop production are not reliable - some years produce good crops, other years do not. Even if a growing season is long enough and warm enough (more on that later), a bad year can be caused by (among others), flood, drought, hail, insects, and blight. Then, if none of those occur, untimely rain can cause the fields to be too wet to plant or too wet to harvest when the soil becomes too soft due to the rains. See here and here for current assessments of the farmers' plight.

A late frost can delay planting, and an early frost can ruin the crop before harvesting. Farmers made up for some of these issues by planting amazing seeds that yield many more bushels of product per acre than in the past. Proper use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides also remove some of the risk. Irrigation also helps to ensure the proper amount of water applied at the correct times for optimal yield. Yet, no one can control the rain, or hail, or frost. So, even if a farmer does all the right things at the right time, he can still end up with no crop to sell. And, where corn for ethanol is the crop, there will be no ethanol for blending into gasoline. The same is true of crop-based bio-diesel, such as from soy beans.

This year, 2009 summer, has farmers in the U.S. Midwest anxious about an early frost. The planting season was delayed one to two weeks in many areas this year, due to inclement weather. Or was it a climate change? No matter what label it is given, the fact remains that the crops were not planted as early as usual, therefore they cannot be harvested when they normally would. If the weather predictions are true, that this winter will be severely cold and long, an early frost may occur and eliminate much of the crops this year.

There have already been several days in late August where large portions of the northern states experienced frost. A few more of those in the next two to three weeks and the ethanol for next year may be very difficult to obtain.

On the other hand, oil wells produce around the clock, with no concern for weather or climate. Refineries run 24/7, each day of the year. Natural gas is weather-independent, also, and therefore has yet another reason to be the transportation fuel of choice.

None of this should come as a surprise. At least as far back in time as Joseph of Egypt, and the Pharoah who had a dream about seven lean cows that ate seven fat cows, famines due to crop failures were known. Not much has changed, except the wisdom of the leaders and decision-makers.

The normal manner to handle variation in supply is with storage, or inventory. There is an inventory for ethanol in the U.S., and per the EIA there are approximately 14 million barrels of fuel ethanol in storage at this time. However, that represents merely 17 days of demand, given that U.S. gasoline demand is approximately 8 million barrels per day, and ethanol content is approximately 10 percent. There may be corn storage at corn refineries.

UPDATE 1 (Sept 15, 2009): An early frost prediction for late next week has corn futures rising, and corn farmers worried. "Corn is lagging in maturity with USDA estimating that only 12% of the crop is mature versus the five-year average of 37%" And so, we see the new life we live. Gasoline blended with ethanol made from corn that is not reliable due to shortened growing seasons and early frosts. Who will the government penalize, when there is not enough ethanol to meet the increasing mandates? The farmers? The ethanol refiners? The coal plants' owners for pumping out all that global-warming CO2?

UPDATE 2 (Sept 27, 2009): And the frost is on the way, tonight. Western Nebraska is predicted to have a hard freeze, which will kill crops. See image below.

UPDATE 3 (October 13, 2009) The killing freeze occurred before the crops were mature this year in the farm belt of the U.S., as shown in this article. From the article, "About a quarter of the country's corn will leave the field immature [due to the killing freeze]. As of this past weekend, about 3/4 of the nation's corn crop is fully matured, according to Tuesday's USDA Crop Progress report. That's almost 20% more than a week ago, but still almost 20% below the previous 5-year average.

Corn harvest is at a similar pace: 13% of the corn crop's out of the field, versus the previous 5-year average of 35%." It is a very good thing that there is plenty of oil for manufacturing gasoline, and natural gas for powering CNG vehicles. It is a very bad policy to rely on weather and agriculture for our nation's energy security. This year's harvest is a prime example.