Tuesday, November 29, 2011

A Summary of CO2 Models

Over the past year I have been blogging continuously over the issue of “manmade” climate change. First, I do not believe that manmade climate change is happening, but I do believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can be dangerous in large amounts. Thus, I have been researching to find a smart solution to combat CO2 without overreacting and destroying the economy with cap and trade policies. Here is summary of my past posts:

I ran a linear regression model to understand the relationship between global temperatures, carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the cost of electricity, and energy consumption when increasing our reliance on renewable energies (wind and solar) by 25% and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by 25%. In parenthesis are the results of increasing our reliance on nuclear energy by 25% instead of wind and solar.

  • Carbon emissions in our atmosphere increased from 391 to 428 (391 to 414) parts per million (ppm)
  • The global temperature decreased from 0.7 degrees to -1.84 (increase from 0.7 to 1) degrees from our 1980 global temperature levels
  • Energy consumption in the United States decreased 3 times (increase 25%)
  • The cost of energy increased by 38% (decrease by 22%)
  • The increased nuclear energy usage analysis proves there is little that can be done to combat global warming meanwhile; the increased wind and solar energy usage analysis proves the relationship between global temperatures and CO2 emissions are not necessarily directly proportional as global warming alarmists insist.

These results show there is no directly proportional relationship between global temperatures and CO2 emissions. The fact that CO2 is always increasing in our environment follows Thermodynamics Second Law that states the entropy in the universe is always increasing. Entropy measures the disorder or imperfections of a system. In other words, all products and life forms have imperfections. For instance, a human being and car have imperfections and emit carbon byproducts. Even if the world miraculously used green energy 90% of the time, CO2 emissions in our atmosphere will continue to increase. Thus, the billions of dollars that global governments are spending to make their power grids smart and to convert to renewable energies is a total waste of time and money. Thankfully, there are a few climate scientists that have some commonsense: Klaus Lackner from Columbia University and David Keith from Calgary University. They are developing promising carbon scrubbing technology that will not affect our lifestyles one bit while at the same time lowering CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Here are links to their studies:

http://www.physorg.com/news141915261.html

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/2523

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a conservative that is conscience of their carbon footprint for a few simple reasons. Reducing our carbon footprint lessens the amount of pollutants that enter the air we breathe and secondly, it can save us hundreds of dollars annually in energy bills. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an online calculator so each individual can compute their CO2 emissions. In other words, this calculator reveals the carbon footprint of each individual and family. This site is located at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html.

For more detailed information about global warming, climate change, and carbon emissions please refer to my earlier blogs: A Commonsense Solution to CO2 (Parts I through IV) and The Relationship between Energy Costs, Global Temperatures, CO2 Emissions, and Energy Consumption (Parts I through VI)

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

The Relationship Between Energy Costs, Global Temperatures, CO2, and Energy Consumption (Part VIII)

Below are the results for Energy Cost and Energy Consumption with the U.S. consuming more 25% more nuclear energy and 25% less fossil fuels (Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas).

Energy Cost

R Square

0.99

SE

1.60E-01

Coefficients

Coefficient Value

Value

Energy Cost

Ave

Energy Cost

Intercept

-54.18

1.00E+00

-5.42E+01

1.00E+00

-54.18

Coal KWH1

7.484

1.48E+00

1.11E+01

9.00E-01

6.7356

NG KWH1

2.443

4.71E+00

1.15E+01

3.10E+00

7.5733

Oil KWH1

3.494

1.85E+00

6.46E+00

1.15E+00

4.0181

NP KWH1

12.32

2.30E-01

2.83E+00

7.00E-01

8.624

Hydro KWH1

2.26

3.67E-01

8.29E-01

3.67E-01

0.82942

Geo KWH1

-6.728

9.20E-02

-6.19E-01

9.20E-02

-0.618976

Solar KWh1

13.88

4.17E-02

5.79E-01

4.17E-02

0.578796

Wind KWH1

4.848

1.43E-01

6.93E-01

1.43E-01

0.693264

CO2 GDP

0.003283

5.10E+02

1.67E+00

4.80E+02

1.57584

CO2 GDP1

-0.00312

4.16E+02

-1.30E+00

3.90E+02

-1.2168

USP

-32.38

1.80E-01

-5.83E+00

1.70E-01

-5.5046

Temp

-0.7734

7.00E-01

-5.41E-01

1.00E+00

-0.7734

Biomass KWH1

2.213

3.21E-01

7.10E-01

3.21E-01

0.710373

Energy ConsP

4.87E-08

9.46E+07

4.61E+00

1.10E+08

5.35777

CO2

0.08585

3.90E+02

3.35E+01

4.15E+02

35.62775

Temp5

-2.971

6.50E-01

-1.93E+00

7.50E-01

-2.22825

Result

1.01E+01

7.802187

Energy Consumption

R Square

1

SE

6.70E+05

Coefficients

Coefficient Value

Value

Energy Consumption

Ave

Energy Consumption

Intercept

378255947

1.00E+00

3.78E+08

1.00E+00

378255947

Coal KWH1

-66478559

1.48E+00

-9.84E+07

9.00E-01

-59830703.1

NG KWH1

-21325244

4.71E+00

-1.00E+08

3.10E+00

-66108256.4

Oil KWH1

-42947504

1.85E+00

-7.95E+07

1.15E+00

-49389629.6

NP KWH1

-176333962

2.30E-01

-4.06E+07

7.00E-01

-123433773.4

Hydro KWH1

-32454908

3.67E-01

-1.19E+07

3.67E-01

-11910951.24

Geo KWH1

-10174301

9.20E-02

-9.36E+05

9.20E-02

-936035.692

Solar KWh1

-79532965

4.17E-02

-3.32E+06

4.17E-02

-3316524.641

Wind KWH1

-109678477

1.43E-01

-1.57E+07

1.43E-01

-15684022.21

CO2 GDP

-9505

5.10E+02

-4.85E+06

4.80E+02

-4562400

CO2 GDP1

25085

4.16E+02

1.04E+07

3.90E+02

9783150

USP

35774485

1.80E-01

6.44E+06

1.70E-01

6081662.45

Temp

1003424

7.00E-01

7.02E+05

1.00E+00

1003424

Biomass KWH1

-8995579

3.21E-01

-2.89E+06

3.21E-01

-2887580.859

Energy Cost

8.46E+05

1.00E+01

8.46E+06

8.00E+00

6771080

CO2

100280

3.90E+02

3.91E+07

4.15E+02

41616200

Temp5

14160839

6.50E-01

9.20E+06

7.50E-01

10620629.25

Result

9.42E+07

116072215.6

These results are also what one may suspect. Energy costs will go down over 20%, but at the same time energy consumption will go up over 20%. When electricity costs go down consumption goes up since people have little incentive to save energy. This may be the best argument for using wind and solar energy since their higher costs force people to consume less energy.

What does this analysis on nuclear energy show or prove? It shows that any attempt of the United States to move to cleaner energy sources does very little to combat global warming and CO2 emissions. The reason for this is simple, the earth is warming normally and there is nothing anyone can do about that trend.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Saturday, November 26, 2011

The Relationship Between Energy Costs, Global Temperatures, CO2, and Energy Consumption (Part VII)

To be fair to solar and wind power, I performed a similar analysis on the same model except this time we kept solar and wind usage constant while increasing the use of nuclear power by 25%. Oil and coal usage were each reduced 10% and natural gas usage was reduced 5% (same as in the previous model analysis of increasing wind and solar energy usage). Below are the results solving for CO2 emissions in our atmosphere and the annual and five year average of global temperatures.

CO2

R Square

1

SE

6.20E-01

Coefficients

Coefficient Value

Value

CO2 Levels

Ave

CO2 Levels

Intercept

391.7

1.00E+00

3.92E+02

1.00E+00

391.7

Coal KWH1

-7.136

1.48E+00

-1.06E+01

9.00E-01

-6.4224

NG KWH1

0.4164

4.71E+00

1.96E+00

3.10E+00

1.29084

Oil KWH1

-4.139

1.85E+00

-7.66E+00

1.15E+00

-4.75985

NP KWH1

29.63

2.30E-01

6.81E+00

7.00E-01

20.741

Hydro KWH1

5.829

3.67E-01

2.14E+00

3.67E-01

2.139243

Geo KWH1

25.52

9.20E-02

2.35E+00

9.20E-02

2.34784

Solar KWh1

-41.16

4.17E-02

-1.72E+00

4.17E-02

-1.716372

Wind KWH1

41.13

1.43E-01

5.88E+00

1.43E-01

5.88159

CO2 GDP

-0.05882

5.10E+02

-3.00E+01

4.80E+02

-28.2336

CO2 GDP1

-0.001466

4.16E+02

-6.10E-01

3.90E+02

-0.57174

USP

-7.274

1.80E-01

-1.31E+00

1.70E-01

-1.23658

Energy Cost

1.29

1.00E+01

1.29E+01

8.00E+00

10.32

Biomass KWH1

11.45

3.21E-01

3.68E+00

3.21E-01

3.67545

Energy ConsP

8.67E-08

9.46E+07

8.20E+00

1.10E+08

9.53832

Temp

3.437

7.00E-01

2.41E+00

1.00E+00

3.437

Temp1

6.772

6.50E-01

4.40E+00

7.50E-01

5.079

Result

3.91E+02

413.209741

             

Temp5

         

R Square

0.99

         

SE

3.00E-02

         

           

Coefficients

Coefficient Value

Value

Temperature

Ave

Temperature

Intercept

-23.22

1.00E+00

-2.32E+01

1.00E+00

-23.22

Coal KWH1

3.359

1.48E+00

4.97E+00

9.00E-01

3.0231

NG KWH1

1.007

4.71E+00

4.74E+00

3.10E+00

3.1217

Oil KWH1

1.93

1.85E+00

3.57E+00

1.15E+00

2.2195

NP KWH1

8.649

2.30E-01

1.99E+00

7.00E-01

6.0543

Hydro KWH1

1.534

3.67E-01

5.63E-01

3.67E-01

0.562978

Geo KWH1

0.1988

9.20E-02

1.83E-02

9.20E-02

0.0182896

Solar KWh1

3.739

4.17E-02

1.56E-01

4.17E-02

0.1559163

Wind KWH1

2.843

1.43E-01

4.07E-01

1.43E-01

0.406549

CO2 GDP

-0.000432

5.10E+02

-2.20E-01

4.80E+02

-0.20736

CO2 GDP1

0.0002631

4.16E+02

1.09E-01

3.90E+02

0.102609

USP

-2.602

1.80E-01

-4.68E-01

1.70E-01

-0.44234

Energy Cost

-0.102

1.00E+01

-1.02E+00

8.00E+00

-0.816

Biomass KWH1

1.463

3.21E-01

4.70E-01

3.21E-01

0.469623

Energy ConsP

2.80E-08

9.46E+07

2.65E+00

1.10E+08

3.07571

CO2

0.01546

3.90E+02

6.03E+00

4.15E+02

6.4159

Temp

-0.09777

7.00E-01

-6.84E-02

1.00E+00

-0.09777

Result

6.74E-01

0.8427049

             
             
             

Temp

R Square

0.92

SE

9.50E-02

Coefficients

Coefficient Value

Value

Temperature

Ave

Temperature

Intercept

-71.98

1.00E+00

-7.20E+01

1.00E+00

-71.98

Coal KWH1

9.077

1.48E+00

1.34E+01

9.00E-01

8.1693

NG KWH1

2.671

4.71E+00

1.26E+01

3.10E+00

8.2801

Oil KWH1

4.071

1.85E+00

7.53E+00

1.15E+00

4.68165

NP KWH1

21.33

2.30E-01

4.91E+00

7.00E-01

14.931

Hydro KWH1

3.985

3.67E-01

1.46E+00

3.67E-01

1.462495

Geo KWH1

-4.161

9.20E-02

-3.83E-01

9.20E-02

-0.382812

Solar KWh1

4.266

4.17E-02

1.78E-01

4.17E-02

0.1778922

Wind KWH1

4.449

1.43E-01

6.36E-01

1.43E-01

0.636207

CO2 GDP

0.005277

5.10E+02

2.69E+00

4.80E+02

2.53296

CO2 GDP1

-0.0009683

4.16E+02

-4.03E-01

3.90E+02

-0.377637

USP

-5.521

1.80E-01

-9.94E-01

1.70E-01

-0.93857

Energy Cost

-0.2749

1.00E+01

-2.75E+00

8.00E+00

-2.1992

Biomass KWH1

2.388

3.21E-01

7.67E-01

3.21E-01

0.766548

Energy ConsP

2.05E-08

9.46E+07

1.94E+00

1.10E+08

2.25786

CO2

0.0813

3.90E+02

3.17E+01

4.15E+02

33.7395

Temp5

-1.013

6.50E-01

-6.58E-01

7.50E-01

-0.75975

Result

6.68E-01

0.9975432

             

These results indicate that carbon emissions in our atmosphere will increase to over 410 parts per million and global temperatures will increase dramatically from around 0.7 degrees to .85 and 1 degree respectively for the 5 year average and the annual reading. In other words, moving to an energy plan using more nuclear power will do very little to combat the current trends of increasing CO2 emissions and global temperatures. This would be expected since this analysis is just a very small percentage of the overall global energy consumption. The overall analysis of consuming more nuclear energy will be completed tomorrow.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The Relationship Between Energy Costs, Global Temperatures, CO2, and Energy Consumption (Part VI)

Below is the result of running a linear regression analysis on the model posted in Part I of this series of blogs solving for global carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere (CO2).

clip_image001

n

26

           

             

R2

1.00

           

Adjusted R2

1.00

           

SE

0.619

           
               

Term

Coefficient

95% CI

SE

t statistic

DF

p

Intercept

391.7

-155.6

to 939.1

241.95

1.62

9

0.1399

Temp

3.437

-0.725

to 7.598

1.8397

1.87

9

0.0946

Temp5

6.772

-8.159

to 21.703

6.6002

1.03

9

0.3317

Energy Cost

1.29

-1.47

to 4.05

1.218

1.06

9

0.3173

Energy Cons

8.6712E-08

-6.1142E-07

to 7.8484E-07

3.0861E-007

0.28

9

0.7851

USP

-7.274

-132.694

to 118.145

55.4423

-0.13

9

0.8985

CO2 GDP

-0.05882

-0.12638

to 0.00873

0.029862

-1.97

9

0.0804

CO2 GDP1

-0.001466

-0.071025

to 0.068093

0.0307489

-0.05

9

0.9630

Wind KWH1

41.13

-59.46

to 141.73

44.469

0.92

9

0.3791

Solar KWH1

-41.16

-222.38

to 140.06

80.109

-0.51

9

0.6198

Geo KWH1

25.52

-61.49

to 112.52

38.461

0.66

9

0.5236

Hydro KWH1

5.829

-50.193

to 61.852

24.7651

0.24

9

0.8192

BIO KWH1

11.45

-76.58

to 99.47

38.913

0.29

9

0.7753

NP KWH1

29.63

-269.11

to 328.38

132.061

0.22

9

0.8275

Oil KWH1

-4.139

-55.000

to 46.721

22.4831

-0.18

9

0.8580

NG KWH1

0.4164

-34.1482

to 34.9810

15.27949

0.03

9

0.9789

Coal KWH1

-7.136

-110.263

to 95.991

45.5879

-0.16

9

0.8791

Source of variation

Sum squares

DF

Mean square

F statistic

p

Model

4525.943

16

282.871

737.33

<0.0001

Residual

3.453

9

0.384

   

Total

4529.395

25

     

Coefficients

Coefficient Value

Value

CO2 Levels

Ave

CO2 Levels

Intercept

391.7

1.00E+00

3.92E+02

1.00E+00

391.7

Coal KWH1

-7.136

1.48E+00

-1.06E+01

9.00E-01

-6.4224

NG KWH1

0.4164

4.71E+00

1.96E+00

3.10E+00

1.29084

Oil KWH1

-4.139

1.85E+00

-7.66E+00

1.15E+00

-4.75985

NP KWH1

29.63

2.30E-01

6.81E+00

2.30E-01

6.8149

Hydro KWH1

5.829

3.67E-01

2.14E+00

3.67E-01

2.139243

Geo KWH1

25.52

9.20E-02

2.35E+00

9.20E-02

2.34784

Solar KWh1

-41.16

4.17E-02

-1.72E+00

5.00E-01

-20.58

Wind KWH1

41.13

1.43E-01

5.88E+00

1.40E+00

57.582

CO2 GDP

-0.05882

5.10E+02

-3.00E+01

4.80E+02

-28.2336

CO2 GDP1

-0.001466

4.16E+02

-6.10E-01

3.90E+02

-0.57174

USP

-7.274

1.80E-01

-1.31E+00

1.50E-01

-1.0911

Energy Cost

1.29

1.00E+01

1.29E+01

1.00E+01

12.9

Biomass KWH1

11.45

3.21E-01

3.68E+00

3.21E-01

3.67545

Energy ConsP

8.67E-08

9.46E+07

8.20E+00

5.50E+07

4.76916

Temp

3.437

7.00E-01

2.41E+00

7.00E-01

2.4059

Temp1

6.772

6.50E-01

4.40E+00

6.50E-01

4.4018

Result

3.91E+02

428.368443

The model has excellent correlation as shown by the R² variable equal to 1. The results indicate that the 2009 value for CO2 levels in our atmosphere can increase from 390 parts per million to 428 parts per million by decreasing the United States reliance on coal, natural gas, and oil by 25% and increasing the United States reliance on Solar and Wind energy by 25% (highlighted in red). Nuclear power, hydro power, biomass, and geothermal variables were held constant. Other 2009 variables were adjusted to keep up with the trends of using renewable energies such as increased energy costs, higher global temperatures (Temp and Temp5 – even with lower CO2 emissions the global temperature trend is upward), lower energy consumption (including the USP variable), and lower CO2 to GDP numbers.

This result makes a lot of sense since an increased reliance of renewable energy sources in the United States will not affect global emissions very much since the United States only accounts for 16% of the total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. Besides, even a massive increase in the global usage of renewable energy sources will never completely eliminate carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

The best conclusion that can be drawn from this model is that while CO2 emissions increased by nearly 10% in our atmosphere; the model indicates that global temperatures would decline. This violates the hypothesis created by the global warming community that CO2 emissions are making the earth warmer. Keep in mind that models are only as good as the variables, correlation, and trends that currently exist. If, for instance, a trend changes, it can render any model useless. But the bottom line is it easy to build a model that contradicts the findings of climate change scientists.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The Relationship Between Energy Costs, Global Temperatures, CO2, and Energy Consumption (Part V)

Below is the result of running a linear regression analysis on the model posted in Part I of this series of blogs solving for energy costs.

R2

0.99

             

Adjusted R2

0.98

             

SE

0.160

             
                 

Term

Coefficient

95% CI

SE

t statistic

DF

p

 

Intercept

-54.18

-209.34

to 100.98

68.589

-0.79

9

0.4499

 

Temp

-0.7734

-1.8957

to 0.3489

0.49610

-1.56

9

0.1534

 

Temp5

-2.971

-6.370

to 0.427

1.5024

-1.98

9

0.0794

 

CO2

0.08585

-0.09759

to 0.26929

0.081091

1.06

9

0.3173

 

Energy Cons

4.8707E-08

-1.2841E-07

to 2.2583E-07

7.8298E-008

0.62

9

0.5493

 

USP

-32.38

-53.66

to -11.10

9.405

-3.44

9

0.0074

 

CO2 GDP

0.003283

-0.017417

to 0.023984

0.0091507

0.36

9

0.7280

 

CO2 GDP1

-0.00312

-0.02091

to 0.01467

0.007865

-0.40

9

0.7008

 

Coal KWH1

7.484

-18.552

to 33.520

11.5094

0.65

9

0.5318

 

NG KWH1

2.443

-6.282

to 11.168

3.8569

0.63

9

0.5422

 

Oil KWH1

3.494

-9.384

to 16.373

5.6931

0.61

9

0.5545

 

NP KWH1

12.32

-64.40

to 89.05

33.916

0.36

9

0.7247

 

BIO KWH1

2.213

-20.543

to 24.970

10.0598

0.22

9

0.8308

 

Hydro KWH1

2.26

-12.14

to 16.66

6.364

0.36

9

0.7307

 

Geo KWH1

-6.728

-29.148

to 15.693

9.9112

-0.68

9

0.5143

 

Solar KWH1

13.88

-32.38

to 60.15

20.450

0.68

9

0.5142

 

Wind KWH1

4.848

-22.062

to 31.758

11.8956

0.41

9

0.6931

 

Source of variation

Sum squares

DF

Mean square

F statistic

p

Model

27.078

16

1.692

66.28

<0.0001

Residual

0.230

9

0.026

   

Total

27.308

25

     

Coefficients

Coefficient Value

Value

Energy Cost

Ave

Energy Cost

Intercept

-54.18

1.00E+00

-5.42E+01

1.00E+00

-54.18

Coal KWH1

7.484

1.48E+00

1.11E+01

9.00E-01

6.7356

NG KWH1

2.443

4.71E+00

1.15E+01

3.10E+00

7.5733

Oil KWH1

3.494

1.85E+00

6.46E+00

1.15E+00

4.0181

NP KWH1

12.32

2.30E-01

2.83E+00

2.30E-01

2.8336

Hydro KWH1

2.26

3.67E-01

8.29E-01

3.67E-01

0.82942

Geo KWH1

-6.728

9.20E-02

-6.19E-01

9.20E-02

-0.618976

Solar KWh1

13.88

4.17E-02

5.79E-01

5.00E-01

6.94

Wind KWH1

4.848

1.43E-01

6.93E-01

1.40E+00

6.7872

CO2 GDP

0.003283

5.10E+02

1.67E+00

4.80E+02

1.57584

CO2 GDP1

-0.00312

4.16E+02

-1.30E+00

3.90E+02

-1.2168

USP

-32.38

1.80E-01

-5.83E+00

1.60E-01

-5.1808

Temp

-0.7734

7.00E-01

-5.41E-01

7.00E-01

-0.54138

Biomass KWH1

2.213

3.21E-01

7.10E-01

3.21E-01

0.710373

Energy ConsP

4.87E-08

9.46E+07

4.61E+00

5.50E+07

2.678885

CO2

0.08585

3.90E+02

3.35E+01

4.30E+02

36.9155

Temp5

-2.971

6.50E-01

-1.93E+00

7.00E-01

-2.0797

Result

1.01E+01

13.780162

The model has excellent correlation as shown by the R² variable equal to 0.99. The results indicate that the 2009 value for energy costs can increase from 10 cents per kilowatt – hour to 13.8 cents per kilowatt - hour by decreasing the United States reliance on coal, natural gas, and oil by 25% and increasing the United States reliance on Solar and Wind energy by 25% (highlighted in red). Nuclear power, hydro power, biomass, and geothermal variables were held constant. Other 2009 variables were adjusted to keep up with the trends of using renewable energies such as increased energy costs, higher global temperatures (Temp and Temp5 – even with lower CO2 emissions the global temperature trend is upward), lower energy consumption (including the USP variable), and lower CO2 to GDP numbers.

This result makes sense (38% increase in energy costs) since renewable energy sources are much more expensive. And what’s worse this analysis does not include potential energy cost increases if cap and trade legislation passes.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)

Saturday, November 19, 2011

The Relationship Between Energy Costs, Global Temperatures, CO2, and Energy Consumption (Part IV)

Below is the result of running a linear regression analysis on the model posted in Part I of this series of blogs solving for global temperatures (Temp5). This simulation is similar to the one done in Part III except this time the temperature variable being evaluated contains the running five year average of global temperatures.

R2

0.99

           

Adjusted R2

0.97

           

SE

0.030

           
               

Term

Coefficient

95% CI

SE

t statistic

DF

p

Intercept

-23.22

-47.24

to 0.79

10.615

-2.19

9

0.0564

Temp

-0.09777

-0.32014

to 0.12460

0.098301

-0.99

9

0.3459

CO2

0.01546

-0.01863

to 0.04956

0.015072

1.03

9

0.3317

Energy Cost

-0.102

-0.219

to 0.015

0.0516

-1.98

9

0.0794

USP

-2.602

-8.271

to 3.067

2.5060

-1.04

9

0.3261

Energy Cons

2.7961E-08

1.9196E-09

to 5.4003E-08

1.1512E-008

2.43

9

0.0381

CO2 GDP

-0.000432

-0.004280

to 0.003416

0.0017010

-0.25

9

0.8052

CO2 GDP1

0.0002631

-0.0030553

to 0.0035816

0.00146694

0.18

9

0.8616

Coal KWH1

3.359

-0.876

to 7.594

1.8722

1.79

9

0.1064

NG KWH1

1.007

-0.460

to 2.474

0.6485

1.55

9

0.1549

Oil KWH1

1.93

-0.02

to 3.88

0.863

2.24

9

0.0521

NP KWH1

8.649

-4.094

to 21.393

5.6334

1.54

9

0.1591

BIO KWH1

1.463

-2.617

to 5.543

1.8036

0.81

9

0.4382

Hydro KWH1

1.534

-0.890

to 3.957

1.0713

1.43

9

0.1860

Geo KWH1

0.1998

-4.0556

to 4.4552

1.88113

0.11

9

0.9177

Solar KWH1

3.759

-4.558

to 12.075

3.6762

1.02

9

0.3333

Wind KWH1

2.843

-1.707

to 7.394

2.0116

1.41

9

0.1912

Source of variation

Sum squares

DF

Mean square

F statistic

p

Model

0.737

16

0.046

52.60

<0.0001

Residual

0.008

9

0.001

   

Total

0.745

25

     

Coefficients

Coefficient Value

Value

Temperature

Ave

Temperature

Intercept

-23.22

1.00E+00

-2.32E+01

1.00E+00

-23.22

Coal KWH1

3.359

1.48E+00

4.97E+00

9.00E-01

3.0231

NG KWH1

1.007

4.71E+00

4.74E+00

3.10E+00

3.1217

Oil KWH1

1.93

1.85E+00

3.57E+00

1.15E+00

2.2195

NP KWH1

8.649

2.30E-01

1.99E+00

2.30E-01

1.98927

Hydro KWH1

1.534

3.67E-01

5.63E-01

3.67E-01

0.562978

Geo KWH1

0.1988

9.20E-02

1.83E-02

9.20E-02

0.0182896

Solar KWh1

3.739

4.17E-02

1.56E-01

5.00E-01

1.8695

Wind KWH1

2.843

1.43E-01

4.07E-01

1.40E+00

3.9802

CO2 GDP

-0.000432

5.10E+02

-2.20E-01

4.80E+02

-0.20736

CO2 GDP1

0.0002631

4.16E+02

1.09E-01

3.90E+02

0.102609

USP

-2.602

1.80E-01

-4.68E-01

1.60E-01

-0.41632

Energy Cost

-0.102

1.00E+01

-1.02E+00

1.00E+01

-1.02

Biomass KWH1

1.463

3.21E-01

4.70E-01

3.21E-01

0.469623

Energy ConsP

2.80E-08

9.46E+07

2.65E+00

5.50E+07

1.537855

CO2

0.01546

3.90E+02

6.03E+00

4.30E+02

6.6478

Temp

-0.09777

7.00E-01

-6.84E-02

7.00E-01

-0.068439

Result

6.74E-01

0.6103056

The model has excellent correlation as shown by the R² variable equal to 0.99. The results indicate that the 2009 value for the 5 year average of global temperature can decrease from 0.7 degrees to .6 degrees by decreasing the United States reliance on coal, natural gas, and oil by 25% and increasing the United States reliance on Solar and Wind energy by 25% (highlighted in red). Nuclear power, hydro power, biomass, and geothermal variables were held constant. Other 2009 variables were adjusted to keep up with the trends of using renewable energies such as increased energy costs, higher global temperatures (Temp – even with lower CO2 emissions the global temperature trend is upward), lower energy consumption (including the USP variable), and lower CO2 to GDP numbers.

Global warming alarmist may look at this result as proof that moving to renewable energy sources will eliminate CO2 and therefore, reduce global temperatures. This, however, is not true and this result can be misleading as will be revealed in future blog posts evaluating this model further.

My Book: Is America Dying? (Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble)