Sunday, 28 August 2016

US Biofuels increase rather than decrease CO2 emissions.


An article published in Climate Change under the title

Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use
DeCicco, J.M., Liu, D.Y., Heo, J. et al. Climatic Change (2016). doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1764-4

comes to the conclusion that:
Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions.
Uh-oh! Another nail in the coffin of the AGW hoax,

Abstract

The use of liquid biofuels has expanded over the past decade in response to policies such as the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that promote their use for transportation. One rationale is the belief that biofuels are inherently carbon neutral, meaning that only production-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be tallied when comparing them to fossil fuels. This assumption is embedded in the lifecycle analysis (LCA) modeling used to justify and administer such policies. LCA studies have often found that crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol and biodiesel offer at least modest net GHG reductions relative to petroleum fuels. Data over the period of RFS expansion enable empirical assessment of net CO2 emission effects. This analysis evaluates the direct carbon exchanges (both emissions and uptake) between the atmosphere and the U.S. vehicle-fuel system (motor vehicles and the physical supply chain for motor fuels) over 2005–2013. While U.S. biofuel use rose from 0.37 to 1.34 EJ/yr over this period, additional carbon uptake on cropland was enough to offset only 37 % of the biofuel-related biogenic CO2 emissions. This result falsifies the assumption of a full offset made by LCA and other GHG accounting methods that assume biofuel carbon neutrality. Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions. 

Glickson, consensus and hysteria: the state of alarmism

Anthony Cox

Andrew Glikson is implacable in his alarmism. His latest effort is to organise 154 fellow academics, all on the public teat, to write a letter pleading to shut down coal and basically Australia’s economy.

The letter is a cliché of alarmist platitudes and shibboleths. One such cliché is misanthropy. Glikson and his fellow alarmists agree with Turnbull’s ridiculous statement that human influence on Earth is a massive science experiment with catastrophic results. Glikson is like other alarmists who compare human influence to 4 atomic bombs going off every second. Why do alarmists never consider human influence as good and beneficial. We are always bad in their eyes and a blight on the Earth.

Another cliché is vanity. The idea that humans can control, even in a negative way, the climate of Earth is akin to King Canute wondering down to hold back the waves. Human CO2 is negligible compared with natural CO2 and human energy miniscule compared to planetary and solar forces. Even if you accept alarmism’s estimate of the forcing effect of the increase in CO2 (and that humans are responsible for this increase, which they are not) of 3.7W/m^2 accumulating over the next century this is dwarfed by just one daily natural process of condensation which William C Gilbert in his excellent paper notes involves fluxes exceeding 1000W/m^2. The idea that anything humans do can match natural process is delusional and manifestly wrong.

Glikson and his fellow alarmists have no shame. One of the other academics on the list is Chris