Category Archives: fuel cells

Study Says CO2 Not Statistically Significant In Global Temperature Change

This might be the most important report written in 2016 and perhaps in this century. In my simple understanding of things global warming, it seems that any honest scientist that reads this must be able to show this report to be wrong or, if not already, join us as a skeptic. By zeroing out natural causes, this report shows why man-made CO2 does not have a statistically significant impact on global warming. It validates other studies, especially ice cores,that show that CO2 is a lagging variable, not a leading variable.

A new report “ On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” demonstrates that CO2 has only minimal effect on the global warming. The authors of the report challenge critics of these finding by saying :

“Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused the reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?”

Some background. The damage to the US economy caused by the EPA claiming that CO2 emissions will eventually lead to catastrophic increases in Global temperatures was first permitted as a result of the US Supreme Court telling the EPA to determine if CO2 was hazardous. So if the EPA could make an endangerment  determination, then the Court would allow CO2 (and several other minor greenhouse gases) be added to the Clean Air Act (CAA). CO2 was considered in detail by Congress when they passed the CAA and Congress rejected its inclusion. Once again the Supreme Court, fully aware of Congress’ rejection, decided to legislate –not their prerogative– by including CO2 if the EPA said it was hazardous.

To no one’s surprise, the EPA did conclude it was hazardous and began sending out regulations of all kinds based upon their catastrophic global warming theory. The EPA in their CO2 Endangerment Finding said they had found 3 lines of evidence that demonstrates their Finding: They are:

“The assumption of the existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot (THS)” is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding. Stated simply, first, the THS is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations1. (The new report scientist are challenging this by saying that the proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three temperature trend lines [upper & lower troposphere and surface] all statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?)

Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.

Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan–recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies.

The scientists that issued the report: On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” have set out in detail their methodology and data used to arrive at their conclusions. These can be examined by clicking on the link above.

In summary, the scientists looked at natural causes for increases and decreases in global temperature as well as man-made causes. CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is a man-made source. There were three natural factors—an increase or decrease in Solar radiation, volcanic activity, and ENSO (El NINO Southern Oscillation) . Natural factors can not be the result of human actions.

ENSO is a three part phenomenon.. ElNino, LaNina and Neutral


El Ninos and La Ninas are irregular in their size and frequency. While this chart goes back to the fifties when ENSO was first recognized, Scripps Institute of Oceanography says:

There have been many El Niños observed in the past. Theres every reason to think that they have been happening for many thousands of years”

Obviously, fossil fuel produced CO2 is not a issue here.

These scientists removed from 13 temperature records the effect of natural causes of temperature changes leaving only the man-made causes. The temperature records were from balloons, satellite, ground and ocean temperature readings.

From the scientists report, here is what they did and found:

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate–13 times in fact–that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their (critic’s) claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?

I reviewed a website that had discussed these findings that there is no significant statistical evidence of CO2 causing global warming. Not a single challenge using data and facts. All of critics were saying that “97%” could not be wrong or using ad hominem attacks on the author.

So as the authors of the report say about having a factual disagreement, “Where is it?



Fuel Cell Vehicles–Hydrogen Too Costly

A previous posting, “Fuel Cell Vehicles”, reviewed the basics of the fuel cell and the fuel cell vehicles.   At the end of that posting, it was said that: “There are a lot of things going for H2 powered fuel cell vehicles except the economics.”

Hydrogen form Periodic Table of Elements

What does that mean? There are two factors that make H2 non-competitive versus other alternatives.  Factor one is that hydrogen (H2) is very costly to produce, and distribute.   The second are the physical characteristics of H2 that increase the cost of distribution and use.

Continue reading

Fuel Cell Vehicles

Like the tide, going in and out and so does the Fuel Cell Vehicle favorability.   Right now favorability is pretty well in the tank, but not completely.  The city of London is installing hydrogen (H2) fueling stations with the objective of encouraging their use.  California has a similar program, as does Germany.

Some of you may not be familiar with fuel cell cars because they have been  out of the spotlight recently.  The following is an overview of  the  fuel cell and the fuel cell car.   The cartoon below pictures most of the hardware needed.


Courtesy of

Continue reading

Bloom Box Surcharge Increases 570%, Stunning Delaware Utility Customers

In 2012 the Governor of the State of Delaware, Jack Markel, entered into a long-term contract with Bloom Energy.  The contract obligated Bloom to begin manufacturing their “Bloom Boxes” in the closed Chrysler Assembly plant.  Delaware was obligated to subsidize Bloom to the tune of the difference of the cost of the electricity produced by Bloom Boxes and the cost of open market electricity.  That subsidy rose from $0.67 in October 2012 to $3.83 for September 2013, a 570% increase, where it increases each ratepayers month’s bill. Delaware has mandated a requirement to buy renewable energy produced electricity that grows to 25% of the total energy used in the State by 2025.  The open market electricity price has been dropping due to the increased availability  of  natural gas from fracking operations around the Nation. The natural gas is becoming the major source of energy for producing electricity.   Natural gas is not considered a “renewable” form of energy.  But the State passed an exception to their renewable energy law that allows  Bloom Box energy  to be called “renewable” even though these boxes use natural gas as their energy source.  The irony here is that the electricity  produced using natural gas the standard way, the electricity is much less expensive than electricity produced by Bloom Boxes.   But remember, the State has a law  that demands the use of “renewable” energy produced electricity.

Continue reading