JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Global warming, not so bad at all really: says NIPCC report and thousands of references

I decided that the IPCC Impacts report was irrelevant speculation because it utterly depended on the IPCC science report and the climate models which we already know are wrong. But the dedicated team at NIPCC show that, even if we take the claims of “impacts” working group seriously, they still come to nothing. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, there is little risk of famine due to our emissions or due to global warming. Life in the oceans is likely to adapt reasonably well as so many studies have shown, and less humans will die overall as a bonus. For those of you who enjoy well written, well researched arguments, and especially if you are looking for scientific references and the nuance of this debate, there is much to learn. The NIPCC reports are an invaluable reference for me. Careful scientific language is so much more informative than the full-gloss IPCC double-speak about theories which are consistent with uncertainties but not with observations   – Jo

————————————————————

Report Finds Global Warming Causes ‘No Net Harm’
to Environment or Human Health

Independent review of climate science contradicts
“alarmist” views of United Nations report

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) on Monday released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. The 1,062-page report contains thousands of citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature — and concludes rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are causing “no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health.”

Click here to read the full report in digital form (PDF). An 18-page Summary for Policymakers is available here. Print versions of the full report and the summary will be released by NIPCC in Washington, DC the week of April 7. Individual chapters of the full report can be downloaded at the Climate Change Reconsidered Web site. (Look at middle of page and scroll down.)

Among the findings in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts: 

  • Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a non-toxic, non-irritating, and natural component of the atmosphere. Long-term CO2 enrichment studies confirm the findings of shorter-term experiments, demonstrating numerous growth-enhancing, water-conserving, and stress-alleviating effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants growing in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
  • There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefiting from rising agricultural productivity around the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
  • Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.
  • A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than are lost due to excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases.

NIPCC scientists and experts from Washington, DC-based think tanks will be in Washington the week of April 7 to publicly release the final two volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered II series: Biological Impacts, which is available online at www.climatechangereconsidered.org, and Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies, which will become available online during the coming week.

Credentialed media are invited to attend a press conference Wednesday, April 9 at the National Press Club to learn more about the report and question some of the scientists who produced it:

  • What: Breakfast press conference with authors and reviewers of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies
  • When: Wednesday, April 9, 8:00 – 11:00 a.m.
  • Where: National Press Club, Bloomberg Room, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC
  • Who: Joseph Bast, president, The Heartland Institute; Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia; Dr. Craig D. Idso, founder and chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; and other speakers to be announced.

For more information about the report, NIPCC, and The Heartland Institute, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/731-9364 (cell).


The Heartland Institute is a 30-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of scientists and scholars who first came together in 2003 to provide an independent review of the climate science cited by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC has produced five major scientific reports so far and plans to release one more in the coming weeks. These reports have been endorsed by leading scientists from around the world, been cited in peer-reviewed journals, and are credited with changing the global debate over climate change. No corporate or government funding was solicited or received to support production of these reports.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (88 votes cast)
Global warming, not so bad at all really: says NIPCC report and thousands of references, 9.1 out of 10 based on 88 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n4ey9y8

130 comments to Global warming, not so bad at all really: says NIPCC report and thousands of references

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Now were talking reality. :-)


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And of course, this will be the target of every “believer” in the universe.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Yonniestone

        True Roy and I hope every “believer” has a go if only to further expose their flawed logic, to quote Alexander Pope “For Forms of Government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.”
        Here’s some more Pope I think you’ll like if you haven’t read already http://theotherpages.org/poems/pope-e3.html I find this a great overview on life in general, no mean feat also.


        Report this

        51

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Not being a fan of poetry — it never grabbed me for some reason the way music did — this was unknown to me until I looked at it just now. It’s a bit of hard going but also true.

          Let the world’s straight thinkers prevail. That’s all we need to fix most of our problems.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And this is worthy of note:

        We had a truly unprecedented event last night. There was frost on every roof in the neighborhood when I got up this morning, April 3, 2014.

        Where, oh global warming, is thy sting of which we have heard so many dreadful things?

        I think it’s hiding under poor old Al Gore’s bed in mortal fear of discovery.


        Report this

        10

  • #
  • #
    Colin Henderson

    As any greenhouse operator knows increasing the temperature and CO2 results in better yields, not crop failures.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      handjive

      Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses
      the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
      Introduction

      The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        vic g gallus

        I needed some dry ice for a high school lesson. The guy at the fishing store gave me the third degree because a lot of people buying it were growing vegetables hydroponically rather than using it for fishing trips. Surely, if half the people in Port Adelaide know that its good for plants then the IPCC do to.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Eddie

          For growing plants hydroponically eh ? Was the shopkeeper more concerned about putting CO2 in the atmosphere or that he could be done for selling the goods for making these sort of plants., as there have been some high profile cases recently.
          Hydroponic equipment store owners admit cannabis charges


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Vic,

          I hope you asked him why he cared so much because either way he’s selling product. After all, that is the purpose for being in business, even a fishing store. He gets his money and the customer gets his goods. ;-)

          Even taking note of the cannabis comment below, how is the shop keeper responsible for what the customer does after leaving the shop?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            vic g gallus

            As Eddie pointed out, he can be held responsible for supplying a drug business. A bit silly but if he asks what it is for, he is off the hook.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Vic,

              I guess there are more differences between our two countries than I thought. But just out of curiosity, what happens if the dry ice buyer gets caught and then says the store didn’t ask him what it’s for? There must be more to it than that. The article says the hydroponic stores were doing a lot more than just selling the equipment.


              Report this

              00

      • #
        aussiebear

        Would you believe the CSIRO did a study of CO2 increase and the effect on fauna across the world?

        Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2
        => http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

        In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.

        Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions
        => http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Lawrie

          But the CSIRO supports the alarmist cry including future crop failures. They really are a duplicitous bunch of fools. Sorry CSIRO, if you don’t question the scam of global warming then you are all to blame for the CSIRO’s loss of integrity.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            aussiebear

            It gets even weirder with CSIRO…In 1987, they did this study.

            Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Increases Yield of Valencia Orange
            => http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/PP9870493

            The doubling of CO2 increased yields of valencia oranges by 70%!

            Do you see how those Left wingers don’t make any rational sense?

            ie: Former PM Gillard => “Food Bowl” vs “Carbon Tax”

            If you want to be Asia’s food bowl, wouldn’t you want to increase yields to meet Asia’s demand? Reducing CO2 emissions will reduce yields!


            Report this

            00

      • #
        sophocles

        handjive said:

        The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

        True, but from recent outrageous statements, you wouldn’t think so. You don’t even need a greenhouse to see it. Many years ago my wife was given a small pot plant. She kept it on a sunny window sill, out of draughts and watered it regularly. Year by year it looked green and bushy, flowering each spring, and it even grew a little bit.

        One winter her parents gave us a gas-heater. By the end of that winter, the plant had more than quadrupled in size and was now far too large for the window sill and its pot. It was re-potted and moved into a sunny corner of the living room.

        By the end of the second winter, it had taken over that corner. It was touching the ceiling and threatening to take over the rest of the living room.

        The magic ingredients from the gas heater:
        -water vapour
        -heat
        -and CO2.

        Lots of each.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.’ and it doesn’t seem to be very good, by the latests NBC report”

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpDew7oy1b4


          Report this

          01

          • #
            vic g gallus

            People link to papers put out by CSIRO and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food but we need to take seriously a youtube video of an NBC report?

            Seriously, if you doubt the CSIRO, go out and buy some dry ice and do the experiment yourself. Even a marijuana grower can do that little bit of science so I’m sure BD4 can


            Report this

            00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    It is not only the scare of Global Warming, but the villainization of fossil fuels that is the greatest crime. The source of the, literally, extravagant wealth enjoyed by a large portion of the world. They would have us back to burning whale oil and wood, so that we would no longer have to worry about saving the whale. Or the trees.

    Cheap energy has created the ability of these idiots to demonize what got them there.


    Report this

    200

    • #

      More important, many of these “idiots” became rich on fossil fuels and now they have their millions, everyone else can go to you know where.


      Report this

      151

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The worst complaint is that the U.S. uses something like 20 or 25 percent of the world’s oil but hasn’t nearly that percentage of the world’s population. In fact, at ~330 million we’re not even significant compared to the billions on this planet.

      BUT THEY LEAVE OUT THAT WE PRODUCE 20 OR 25 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S WEALTH, WEALTH THAT GOES AROUND THE WORLD BENEFITING EVERYONE.

      I’d say that’s a good deal, not a problem.

      President Obama, put that in your pipe and smoke it instead of what you’re smoking now. Maybe it will sink in.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    tom0mason

    What a difference.
    No scary stupidity, just a good solid piece of scientific reporting based on actual measurements and real world events and outcomes.

    Thanks Joanne and NIPCC!

    Of course the assumption from UN-IPCC and NIPCC is that global temperatures will rise (once we are out of the hiatus, pause, whatever…) but what if global temperatures fall?
    By that time most fossil fuels may be safely locked away, or their access made very difficult, by regulation foisted on the world by the UN’s insistence to compliant governments.
    How fast could we restart a closed coal mine, or capped oil wells?


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Neville

    The Bolter has some fun at the expense of the warming hysterics. One of his best columns.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/caravan-of-gloom-slowing-down/story-fni0ffxg-1226872710791


    Report this

    102

  • #
    Peter C

    The NIPCC has been doing the job that the IPCC was supposed to do but did not do (objectively asses the science and give reasonable and rational advice based on that science).

    Lewandowsky et al think that Skeptics suffer from Consipacist Ideation ( whatever that is), but what if there really is a conspiracy!

    I am starting to think that there really has been a conspiracy to distort the facts and present a false view of the causes and effects of Climate Change. The conspirators are a small group who manage the Summary for Policy Makers section of the IPCC.
    The climate Gate emails scandal and the goings on at Skeptical Science give us an insight into how it works.
    There is likely a much larger group of scientists who contribute to the IPCC, in good faith, but remain silent when the results their work is massaged by the few.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      tom0mason

      From http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipcc.htm

      Where are the IPCC’s “thousands of scientists”?
      I’ve heard several politicians referring to the “thousands of scientists” supposedly associated with the IPCC. For instance the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said “This is the conclusion of 4000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world, and the term “very likely” is defined in the scientific conclusion of this [IPCC] report as being 90% probable”.

      On the other hand, statistician Dr John McLean has many years experience investigating and analysing climate data and other climate-related issues. He makes the comment “How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the IPCC support the claims about a significant human influence on climate? It’s utterly wrong”. In fact “Fifty-three authors and five reviewers are all that can be said to explicitly support the claim of a significant human influence on climate. The figure of 4000 is a myth”. Indeed, against these few authors and reviewers are the tens of thousands of informed contrary views mentioned earlier. In other words, contrary to what Kevin Rudd implies, the consensus of informed scientists is against the IPCC.


      Report this

      140

  • #

    [...] Uppdatering: Några sammanfattande punkter från NIPCC-rapporten via JoNova [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    The IPCC should change their report to ‘Look, just give us all your money anyway.’


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Gasbo

      warcroft – or “We are going to take your money anyway so you may as well get something for it by believing you are saving the planet”!
      It’s also known as the “spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down” offset.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Eliza

    I actually object to these types of postings as they indirectly support AGW drivel. The NPIPCC is asying warming might be good after all… when the data is screaming THERE IS NO WARMING. Look at CET the only reliable temperature record since 1850. AMSU and RSS are the only reliable recent records and show nothing significant. All the rest GISS, HADCRUT etc are fabricated junk with endless adjustments to cool the past. Look at Steven Goddards site on adjusments.


    Report this

    191

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Yes! I have the same basic objection. But the warming “fix” is already in play. So perhaps we should allow a little leeway to say it won’t be much and won’t be harmful.

      Let’s also consider that reputable, sound scientists do see some possible warming from CO2.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    handjive

    Global Warming Breakthrough!

    Drones used to spot global warming in advance!

    A Montreal-based shipping company has become the first in the world to use drones to scout out ice hazards as its freighters navigate through the waters of the Arctic.

    Everyone knows the arctic was ice free in 2013 as NASA predicted in 2007.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I sometimes think there’s not a crock in the whole world large enough to contain this stuff.

      I think I’ll buy stock in companies that make at least knee length boots.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] don’t appear to have mocked the NIPCC recently, preferring to consign them to oblivion, but JoNova is somewhat implausibly singing their virtues, so I’ve noticed. If you read the report [...]


    Report this

    04

  • #
    TdeF

    Does the IPCC have anything to say which is not based on increased CO2, which as every ecologist will say, is not bad at all for plants and thus for all life on earth? After all if you are not a vegetarian, you are eating something which is, fish excluded.

    So in 26 years, has the IPCC found no other effect of man on the climate, the core concept on which the IPCC was founded in 1988 by the world meteorologists? This is a serious question. Have they spent billions of dollars beating the drum about CO2 and nothing else? Can we change microclimates by planting forests? Should we be building inland lakes, fake mountains and terraforming to change rainfalls and make the deserts bloom? Or should we just live in fear and pay Carbon taxes. Thanks for nothing, IPCC.

    So if the core hypothesis, in my opinion the pure speculation that CO2 increases are entirely man made is proven false, the IPCC have done nothing, achieved nothing and continue to justify the greatest rort in human history, descending into vague fears of an uncertain future for seven billion people. What about WWIII? What does the IPCC have to say about that, or it CO2 the only thing which matters. Then if the CO2 increase is not man made after all, then all the business of whether or not it heats the planet is irrelevant. If CO2 does not control planet temperature, we are not in control and besides, it is now obvious fossil fuels will run out long before increased CO2 will have a planetary heating effect.

    Disband the IPCC. It has done nothing except justify its own existence with doomsday scenarios. When is the next ice age anyway?


    Report this

    130

    • #
      tom0mason

      The IPCC was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

      and from the UNEP documentation for the inception of the UN-IPCC is -

      14th meeting
      17 June 1987
      14/20.
      Global climate change

      The Governing Council,

      Aware that national and international studies continue to conclude that a global climate change will result form increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities,

      Concerned that such change would have potentially serious consequences for human welfare and the natural environment,

      Mindful of the need to improve expeditiously scientific understanding of climate change, its causes and its consequences, as basis for formulating appropriate policy responses at the global, regional and
      national level,…

      from http://www.ipcc.ch/docs/UNEP_GC-14_decision_IPCC_1987.pdf


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Aware that national and international studies continue to conclude that a global climate change will result form increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities,

        If you start out searching for what you already believe is happening you can always find it. In fact, you must find it.

        The IPCC fits that down to the last period on the last page of their output.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I listened to a political debate tonight, where one of the participants Nick Clegg kept bleating on about the terrors of climate change.

    This guy is a left wing career politician, who has never had a real job. So he is a classic culprit for “Help me save the world” syndrome.

    This is a very dangerous syndrome for the scientifically challenged, and especially so in a populist politician. The IPCC exists to feed politicians like this garbage, so that a response can be generated by which the existence of the bloated Global Warming Industry can be perpetuated.

    The dreaded Climate Inquisition will come down heavily on these NIPCC heretics, because they speak common sense and the truth, which is very definitely not in the best interests of the Global Warming Industry.


    Report this

    110

  • #
     Doug  Cotton

    Of course it’s “not so bad” because the world has slight cooling for about 30 years from 1998 to 2028. Carbon dioxide and water gas cause lower supported surface temperatures, because they reduce the magnitude of the thermal gradient in the troposphere, so the whole profile rotates around a pivoting altitude (actually about 4Km) such that the surface end lowers as the so-called “wet adiabatic lapse rate” forms in more moist regions, which are shown to be cooler in a study soon to be pub;lished.

    April Fools Day is over, so now we face reality, because the world has been fooled too long with garbage such as Wikipedia promulgates about there being a radiative greenhouse effect on Venus, when even all the solar flux reaching the top of the Venus atmosphere could not raise the Venus surface temperature. You cannot expect to get out from the base of the troposphere many times the energy flux that entered at the top.

    This is what really happens on Venus, if you’re curious and want to learn …

    Firstly, you need to know that the gravito-thermal effect is confirmed empirically by the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, as I’ve now explained in the talk page for the vortex tube in the second note here

    This effect is what can be used to explain “heat creep” which is downward convection (diffusion and advection) driven by a temperature inversion which disrupts a prior state of thermodynamic equilibrium, that being the same as hydrostatic equilibrium.

    That is the process by which the Venus surface receives thermal energy and that process maintains existing temperatures in all atmospheres, surfaces and sub-surface regions in all planets and satellite moons in the Solar System.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Peter C

      Doug,

      When is your book coming out?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      the Griss

      Doug, I’ve been pondering how this theory (which you know I am basically in favour of) fits in with an adiabatic inversion. (ie Cool air trapped under warmer air on a still morning)

      There does not seem to be any heat creep downwards in this case.

      It normally takes the sun warming the surface, or a breeze, to re-establish the correct lapse rate.


      Report this

      31

      • #
        the Griss

        I think I may have figured it out. The cooler air below the inversion is actually more density than the air above, so while the average KE (ie temperature) is lower, because of the added density, there is still sufficient KE to hold up the less dense air above.

        There is also the fact that below an inversion you get quite large concentrations of CO2, which is of course heavier than the molecules in the air above it, so not easily displaced.

        btw, the fact of this much raised CO2 concentration below an inversion, but sunshine reaching the ground, or a breeze, is needed to remove the inversion, also does great damage to the CO2 warming myth. :-)


        Report this

        32

        • #
          the Griss

          “actually more density ” who wrote that? …. preview… preview !!

          should be… “actually more dense”


          Report this

          32

        • #
          vic g gallus

          Just in case you don’t get a proper answer from Doug.

          Measure how long it takes to notice a fart in an elevator then multiply it by 1000 squared. This will be roughly how long it would take to get the lapse again through diffusion (weeks). Sorry, but the number crunching was too hard for a proper answer.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            the Griss

            I think you may be on the right track..

            The last fart in an elevation I “experienced”, had an almost immediate effect. :-)


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Thankfully I’ve been spared that experience, Griss.

              I did have an elevator door open for me one night in a hotel and expose a couple in a very compromising situation. Instant panic! Does that count? ;-)

              I’m not sure who was the more embarrassed.


              Report this

              00

      • #
        the Griss

        Its all in the wording..

        I think it was AndYG that said the pressure gradient allows the atmosphere to retain energy at value set by the lapse rate.

        Once energy, by any method, be it advection (I think that’s the word Doug uses), land or sea surface heating, radiation, convection, conduction etc reaches the bottom of the atmosphere, then the gravity KE/PE pressure gradient allows for the lapse rate to be maintained.

        In other words, the gravity based gradient TRIES TO CONTROL the temperature relative to the incoming solar energy of all types and frequencies.

        It is the thermostat.. so to speak.

        On Venus and Uranus, because of atmospheric depth, the atmospheric gravity field is enormous, and thus “rules”. very constant temps at the surface

        On Mars, the atmospheric field is rather tenuous, so radiative effects maybe govern, big swings from hot to cold

        Earth, on the other hand has a semi-tenuous atmosphere, and is somewhere in the middle.

        In the upper regions radiative effect govern, but the lower atmosphere is always trying to “balance” itself, and pressure effects govern in most instances.


        Report this

        01

    • #
      cohenite

      Doug, good to see the gravitational vs radiative heating debate continues.

      After reading your piece I went and reread SOD’s Venusian Mysteries and LTE posts.

      I look forward to your definitive book.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Mattb

        I can only read SOD. They are all far too polite for mine…


        Report this

        11

      • #
        vic g gallus

        From SOD’s Venusian Mysteries

        But for those who believe that high Venusian atmospheric pressure and the ideal gas laws cause the high 730K surface temperature – they have to explain how the heat is transferred to the surface so that it can radiate at 16,100 W/m².

        I don’t understand this. Molecules move. With no convection, molecules still move. The difference in entropy between molecules not moving and moving is huge.

        I know that physicists don’t like my chemists view point of gasses doing PV work going up and becoming heated when compressed, but the calculations of the temperature difference (given the pressure difference which is determined by gravity) is the same as that calculated from the gravitational potential energy.

        If you don’t like that one, then think about the collisions of molecules. These things fall. They accelerate downwards. Collisions downwards have more energy on average then upwards because molecules fall.

        FFS


        Report this

        10

        • #
          the Griss

          And once it gets there, the gravity gradient will not let the energy escape, so it builds up to the point that the gradient can accommodate.

          Over time, this is not an issue.

          As there seems to be only a 5C change over a several month period, this it totally consistent with Doug’s theory.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            vic g gallus

            I get the feeling that I wrote something somewhere incorrectly. I tried to describe the same thing in different way to get through to more readers (as pigeon on AB’s blog).


            Report this

            00

        • #
          cohenite

          Vic, you may be interested in this paper:

          http://devinplombier44.free.fr/CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf

          They say:

          Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release
          of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads
          to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other
          greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement
          is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The
          proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer
          in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure
          pa > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection
          (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water
          vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about
          8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection
          is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s
          atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)–
          mass redistribution in atmosphere


          Report this

          00

          • #
            vic g gallus

            Convection can’t explain how Venus has a much hotter surface than at the altitude where the clouds are so thick that little sunlight can reach the surface. It should be the other way around. A colder bottom like in the oceans.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              cohenite

              I might be missing something here but are you now saying that radiation is responsible for the greater heat in the Venusian atmosphere?

              The Chiligar paper says [page 5]:

              The adiabatic model was further verified by comparison of theoretical temperature
              distribution in the dense (consisting mostly of carbon dioxide) troposphere of Venus with
              experimental data. For Venus,  3ı, ˛ D 0:179,  D 43:5, cp D 0:2015 cal/gıC;
              Ts D 735:3 K, and Te D 228 K, and, therefore, Cr D 0:177 cal/gıC, Cw D


              Report this

              00

              • #
                vic g gallus

                I’m saying that the line

                Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)–mass redistribution in atmosphere

                is not quite right, Venus being the example of where if convection was the most important thing, the surface would not be 500 K hotter than the atmosphere above the clouds. Heat from the Sun doesn’t make its way down to the surface by convection.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall, where it should stay. extra text found on Climate Depot:

    3 April: UK Times: Ben Webster: Crackdown ordered on climate-change sceptics
    Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs.
    The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee’s Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by “health warnings”.
    Mr Miller likened climate sceptics to the Monster Raving Loony Party and said that the BBC should limit interviews with them just as it restricted the coverage it gave to fringe political parties.
    In a report published today, the committee criticises the BBC’s coverage of climate change, saying that its news programmes “continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight”.
    The MPs say that the BBC should apply the same “stringent requirements” to interviewing climate sceptics as it applies to interviewing politicians…
    The committee also criticises the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph for placing “heavy reliance . . . on the ability of their readers to distinguish between fact and opinion on climate science”.
    Responding to Mr Miller’s comments, Lord Lawson said: “I think it is appalling that a member of the House of Commons should want to shut down debate on this issue.”…
    (LOL, IF ONLY) BBC: While the vast bulk of our interviews are with climate scientists, as part of our commitment to impartiality it is important that dissenting voices are also heard.”
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Peter Miller

      The “climate change” debate can get pretty disgusting, but this is special.

      Scientifically challenged individuals, purporting to claim to speak for the science while attempting to censor all possible debate is in the very worst traditions of the political -isms of the 1930s.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Angry

      Sounds just like the Natzis in the 1930′s……

      Very concerning !


      Report this

      62

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Two comments:

      1. OK! So go ahead and crack down. The more you do it the more pressure will be created for the truth to be said instead. All that happens is the ultimate breakdown of their fraud may take longer and be more damaging when it happens. But it will happen.

      2. Have they no shame at all? Don’t answer, I already know they don’t.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    always good for a laugh. Rendall couldn’t make the piece more unintelligible if he tried but, basically, Intercontinental flights are still exempted:

    2 April: BBC: Alasdair Rendall: Wednesday in the European Parliament
    21:05: MEPs are debating the future of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme – specifically a proposal to exempt emissions from intercontinental flights.
    21:05: The ETS is an attempt to reduce carbon emissions, but there has been longstanding disagreements over how this can be applied to the aviation sector.
    21:06: A compromise agreement reached between EU governments and MEPs would see intercontinental flights exempted until 2017.
    21:06: The parliament’s negotiator on the proposals, the German centre-right MEP Peter Liese says the compromise agreement is “living up to reality”.
    21:12: The procedure being debated is known as “stop-the-clock” procedure, and it is an attempt to allow other countries to work towards a global agreement on charging airlines for the contribution air travel makes to greenhouse gas emissions.
    21:13: At committee stage the proposed compromise was rejected.
    21:14: It was rejected on a tied vote – 29-29, meaning that the status quo remains.
    21:16: Socialist spokesman Matthias Groote is a long-term opponent of the compromise and has accused the EU of “bowing down to bullying by non-EU countries”
    21:19: Intra-EU flights would continue to fall (sic) part of the ETS.
    21:22: British Conservative spokesperson, Jacqui Foster MEP says the uncertainty over the proposals has put in jeopardy “large aircraft orders, which threatens investment and jobs”. She says that environmental impacts can be mitigated through advances in technology.
    21:23: She ends her speech with a scathing attack on the Commissioner, saying “your approach was naive and patronising. Next time you come up with a stupid idea, you should think about its impact before coming to this house.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/europe-26855029

    2 March: Reuters: REFILE-European Commission backs down over aviation emissions ahead of crunch vote
    (Corrects format of dateline)
    The European Commission urged the bloc’s Parliament to exempt international flights from paying for their carbon emissions on Wednesday, retreating from its own proposal on the eve of a binding vote amid pressure from national governments.
    In a late night debate in the Brussels parliamentary chamber, Europe’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard told members to back a weakened compromise rather than her own agency’s proposal to regulate the portion of international flights over EU territory.
    “Without doubt the Commission would of course have preferred and fought for a higher level of ambition…. it would’ve been better for Europe’s self respect and reputation and even more important, for the climate. But we are where we are,” said Hedegaard…
    The centre-right European People’s Party, the biggest parliamentary grouping with around a third of the 766 seats, wants to keep international flights exempt while the second-placed Socialists and third-ranked Liberals were split ahead of the vote…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/02/eu-carbon-aviation-idUKL5N0MU59720140402

    1 April: Reuters Point Carbon: Airlines snub CO2 regulation as EU vote looms
    LONDON, April 1 (Reuters) – Hardly any airlines complied with an EU deadline to report their 2013 emissions, official data showed Tuesday, as lawmakers continue to wrangle over how much of the sector should be regulated…


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    2 April: Bloomberg: Karin Mattusek: Two Britons Charged in Deutsche Bank-Related CO2 Tax Probe
    Frankfurt prosecutors charged two U.K. citizens in a tax-evasion probe that also ensnared two of the highest-ranking officials at Deutsche Bank …
    The British pair, aged 36 and 39, were accused of being part of a gang that tricked the authorities on value-added tax refunds in carbon emission trades, prosecutors’ spokesman Alexander Badle said in an e-mailed statement today. The men, who didn’t work for Deutsche Bank, were arrested in the U.K. last year, were responsible for evading 31 million euros ($43 million) of taxes, according to the statement…
    The case is part of a wider probe in which Deutsche Bank co-Chief Executive Officer Juergen Fitschen and Chief Financial Officer Stefan Krause are also being investigated. Six men were found guilty in December 2011 of evading a total of 260 million euros in taxes on carbon emission trades while running companies. They were sentenced to prison sentences of as long as seven years and 10 months…
    Prosecutors are investigating about 25 people at the Frankfurt-based company in the case. Some of the lenders’ employees are being investigated for purchasing the emissions allowances…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-02/two-britons-charged-in-deutsche-bank-related-co2-tax-probe.html


    Report this

    30

  • #
    GT

    It’s good to see some pushback, but it seems to me that everybody needs to focus on the actual aim of the political class: they want to tax energy use, and the climate scaremongering is simply the apocalyptic millenarian fantabulation that they’re using to prime the public to accept taxation of energy consumption.

    Why do they want to tax energy consumption?” you ask? for the same reason they tax petrol, tobacco and alcohol: because household demand for energy is inelastic and so basis point changes in the tax rate feed through to basis point increases in tax revenue at more than 1:1.

    Plus, after the normal workweek (five days at 9 hours in the cubicle and an hour each way in the car or on the train/tram), punters are too tired to bother looking at their bills to see how much of the cost of some or other budget item is indirect tax. Eventually it just ‘is’. People will know to within a pretty good margin, how much income tax they pay; how much they pay in rates; and so forth… but they miss the fact that a further 20% (roughly) of their post-tax income is taken in indirect (expenditure) taxes, either at the point of sale or somewhere in the supply chain.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Gasbo

      We used to joke that one day the politicians will tax us on the air that we breath,we know that would be crazy for them to do it, so what have they come up with,a tax us on what we exhale,well once they can get the people to accept CO2 is a dangerous pollutant and is going to destroy us all.The precedent and foot in the door is taxing CO2 producing energy and the next step from that is our personal CO2 production,no doubt the peer reviewed reports will have already been produced probably somewhere along the line of the “butterfly effect”.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    handjive

    Worst Apocalypse Ever!

    Hey Nostra-dumbass.
    Did the rapture come?
    Because, I can’t recall.
    In fact, I can recall, it didn’t, and you suck!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    EU carbon falls as traders rethink European CO2 data
    LONDON, April 2 (Reuters) – EU carbon fell 5.6 percent on Wednesday to retrace more than half of the previous day’s gains as traders digested forecasts which predicted a deeper drop in emissions last year than initially indicated by preliminary EU data…
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4719415

    German study criticises rising CO2 output from coal plants
    FRANKFURT, April 2 (Reuters) – Germany’s 30 biggest power stations in 2013 raised their carbon dioxide output by 4.6 percent year on year to 239 million tonnes, a study from the Oeko-Institut research institute said on Wednesday, blaming low European carbon prices…
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4717690?&ref=searchlist

    ANALYSIS: Coal-reliant states readying for EPA power plant rules
    WASHINGTON, April 1 (Reuters) – Long before the Obama administration promised sweeping rules to limit pollution from power plants, states in the crosshairs of what critics call a “war on coal” have been finding ways to meet the expected new standards…
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4710377?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ross

    Completely off topic, but this guy has had to eat 3 or 4 huge humble pies in this massive back down and apology to David Evans

    http://theaimn.com/2014/03/12/an-apology-to-dr-david-evans/


    Report this

    60

    • #
      vic g gallus

      That apology is hilarious. He starts off by correcting the false assertion

      I wrote: “Evans, a mining engineer with a PhD in mathematics,…”. In fact:

      Evans is an electrical engineer with a PhD in electrical engineering from Stanford University (basically a qualification in high-tech).

      Only at the very end does he apologise for

      I wrote: “Evans has gone further in stating that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Rothschild family, that US President Barack Obama is a secret Jew, that the Holocaust never happened and that Jewish bankers and the Rothschild family have assassinated at least two US Presidents.”. In fact:

      In his articles, speeches, and interviews, Evans has never said anything about 9/11, inside jobs, Jews, or the Holocaust.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      scaper...

      Yeah, I know the author. I suspect that David sorted him out as far as the truth is concerned. Had an email exchange with that person the other day.

      Warned to be more diligent, especially in regards to another author on that site in regards to Gina and the IPA.

      Apparently ANDEV and the IPA control the government and are conspiring against Australians. Being a member of both organisations…oh how I laughed!


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Michael P

    Off-topic as well,but it appears that Stephan Lewandowsky is back and has made his paper “Recursive Fury” available as a blog post as he feels that “

    Given its popularity, and given that approximately 29,300 viewers did not complain about our work, it would be a shame to deprive the public of access to this article. Because the work was conducted in Australia, I consulted with the University of Western Australia’s chief lawyer, Kim Heitman, who replied as follows:

    “I’m entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and I’d be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.”

    — Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia

    So here, then, is Recursive Fury.”

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=1&t=56&&n=215


    Report this

    21

    • #
      tom0mason

      Just a little something to ease his rightly battered ego.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      vic g gallus

      A comment from one of the fans of his attempt to paint sceptics as believers in conspiracy theories

      It is not libel to write on matters of public record. Tony Watts has been paid large sums of money by the Heartland Institute to promote it’s oil sponsors anti-science agenda. You threw your hat in the ring with him, now you pay the public price for your ignorance. The intentionally contrarian opinions of the High school diploma holding Watts pale against the findings of rigorous scientific research. I can only assume you are similarly ill-equipped to talk about both science and ethics as your handler.

      If you were, you would not have joined the oil man McIntyre in his publicised harassment mission against the authors of this paper


      Report this

      11

    • #
      Eddie

      I wonder where they got the idea of dismissing personal legal actions as phoney from ?
      Let me guess . Who has recently popularised the idea of phoney, frivolous and unfair legal actions ?
      Has Lewandowski pulled a flanker on the UWA, by framing it as a potential personal legal matter. Have they no idea it is the reputation of the UWA that is at stake for publishing such discredited nonsense ?
      Can an insurance job save their reputation & prestige ?


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Oh, give me a home where the Buffalo roam

    Hey, don’t think of me now as a conspiracy theory guy, but, hey, if Climate Change/Global Warming really was ever true, could it be that it could actually be coming to an end!

    There’s this article out of the US that Bison and other animals are fleeing out of Yellowstone.

    If that caldera blows, then all hell breaks loose.

    Tony.

    Post Script: Say, I noticed in the short video that even fleeing Bison stay in the correct lane.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Gasbo

    Thanks Jo,pretty well nearly all the blogs on the net are non-informative,yours and a few others have shown us that science isn’t some secret boogabooga business but something that is straightforward.
    Scientists do make mistakes,but that isn’t the problem,even covering up mistakes can be understood as human nature but to deliberately deceive that is another kettle of fish.
    It is unfortunate that so many in the science community have fallen for greed and the allure of prestige and position,money and fame are seductive mistresses but also demanding and ultimately destructive.
    The scripture went You can’t love God and mammon both,the same could be you can’t love science and mammon both!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Perth Trader

    Jo..I’m sooooo disappointed you didn’t throw your hat in the ring in the West. Aust. upcoming senate elections. Senator Jo Nova has a nice ring to it .The climate debate will go on for a few years more until a ‘coup de grace’ is administered .


    Report this

    30

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      From a strictly selfish point of view, as her being a senator would subtract from her time on this site, I would not like it. But then I am not Australian (or even Austrian for the ignorant VP of the US). ;-)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    tom0mason

    Have fun with Food production as enumerated by the UN

    http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/Q/QD/E

    Funny how everything is on the up!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    ***NO COMEBACK AT ALL WHEN ZICHAL ANSWERS ‘CORRECT’ RE CO2 MAKES PLANTS GROW. OF COURSE, ZICHAL COULD CLAIM SHE’S JUST SAYING IT’S CORRECT THERE WILL BE ‘ARGUMENTS’:

    VIDEO/TRANSCRIPT: 2 April: ABC Lateline: Heather Zichal, former advisor to Barack Obama on climate change discusses climate policy
    TONY JONES: Let’s talk about this direct action policy, though, the regulation – the idea is pretty simple, really. It’s to treat carbon pollution as if it were a toxic pollutant in the same way that mercury or arsenic is a toxic pollutant, but you’ll get arguments about that, won’t you? I mean, you have people that say that carbon, CO2, is actually what makes plants grow.
    ***HEATHER ZICHAL: Correct…

    HEATHER ZICHAL: Every single thing this President has tried to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been met with some contention. And, you know, whether that was the work around the fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, the historic investments in renewables and energy efficiency, but he’s prevailed at every step of the way and I think that’s largely because the American people recognise the benefits of diversifying your energy portfolio, understand that energy efficiency means you’re driving costs down and that’s good for your pocketbook.
    ****And ultimately, as Americans are facing more extreme weather patterns, understanding what climate change means for them, there’s broad recognition that climate changes are having an impact today and that there’s a cost associated with that. So, these are investments worth making…
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3977228.htm

    ****Zicharl – Jones should have asked u for evidence, given the obama-obsessed channel MSNBC could get this poll result today:

    WUWT: Quote of the week, McKibben calls for a ‘climate strike’ while an MSNBC poll goes horribly wrong
    MSNBC POLL: Do you see climate change as a threat to your life or well-being?
    (FROM MOST RECENT COMMENTS) 83% no at 10:38PM Eastern Daylight Time
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/quote-of-the-week-mckibben-calls-for-a-climate-strike-while-an-msnbc-poll-goes-horribly-wrong/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO 14.33: 1 April: Bloomberg TV: Global Warming Effects: Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Mann
    On today’s “Charlie Rose,” a look at global warming and its effects which recently made headlines. Penn State professor Michael Mann, director of the Earth Institute Jeffrey Sachs and Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer speak…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/global-warming-effects-charlie-rose-04-01-8yMvdUaoT6Kt9Zd4WWiz7Q.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sunray

    Very impressive, but will it get the fanfare on FreeTV News Bulletins and Weather Girls/Boys, that the other mob get?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Eddie

    OT. Another ignorant politician deploys the highly appealing yet highly dishonest appeal to conspiracist ideation.
    Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg in the nationally televised EU debate with Leader of UKIP.

    Watch the Clip here, if Auntie will let you.

    ” Mr Clegg criticised a claim by the UKIP MEP over immigration, comparing his figures to conspiracy theories about the moon landing, Barack Obama and Elvis Presley’s death. ”

    The only good thing about these LibDems in government, is while they may be so gullible , they don’t trust the Tories.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Peter Carabot

    Jo, I hope you have reserved at least 20 special seats for the accredited scribes from the ABC and BBC. Oh and dont forget to put aside a few chairs for the Fairfax press….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    On the topic of CO2 being falsely call a pollutant, Tony Jones interviewed an ex-advisor to Obama last night on Lateline. The irony was that Tony Jones talked about a policy of Obama which he described as Direct Action. By the sound of it, it will still result in picking on electricity generators and, I expect, higher power prices in the States.

    What struck me however was Obama’s plan of bypassing congress, and therefore the democratic process, by using the EPA to do the dirty work. The way the Environmental Protection Agency are going to do this is by reclassifying CO2 as a pollutant.

    Nixon’s worst legacy, the EPA.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    The point is many doubters say co2 is an harmless trace gas that does nothing! But it isn’t, because it is ‘responsible for all life on Earth’, yet it has no effect on the climate. because it is in volume so small, does this not seem like an oxymoron to you?


    Report this

    01

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You appear to be one very confused bunny today – are you sure you have been taking your meds?

      None of what you have written makes sense, and can, in fact be interpreted in multiple ways. Sloppy writing indicates sloppy thinking.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Gregg

      Okay, I know Jo says she’s been trying to help you, so I’ll pitch in.

      So that you might understand how silly your comment seems, please read the following. I’ve substitued the essential element potassium for C02 in your comment:

      Potassium “is ‘responsible for all life on earth’ [look it up] yet it has no efect on climate. Because the volume is so small [there's a whole lot more C02 in the atmosphere than elemental potassium - again, look it up], does this not seem like an oxymoron to you?”

      Do you see it now? Being essential for life processes and catastrophically affecting climate have absolutely nothing to do with each other. So, to answer your question: no oxymoron detected.

      I hope this helps.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Your comment is not even an oxymoron. It is virtually unintelligible.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      …does this not seem like an oxymoron to you?

      The only oxymoron here is that you stick around in spite of being shot down over and over.

      The former does not follow from the latter. A perfect oxymoron.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Doing the same thing over again and again and expecting a different result is considered a form of insanity by many.

        I just call it leftism.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Hello… Testing, 1, 2, 3… The comment nesting seems to be broken again.

      …does this not seem like an oxymoron to you?

      The only oxymoron here is that you stick around in spite of being shot down over and over.

      The former does not follow from the latter. A perfect oxymoron.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    davey street

    The entire global warming/climate change scam is about nothing else apart from money. No one can tell me what has happened to the US$150 billion handed over to these gunslinging bushrangers since Al Gore got in on the act to pay his debts arising from the 2000 US presidential election against George W. Bush. It is just mind boggling how much public money has been wasted on this claptrap in less than fifteen years.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    richard

    it’s all down to know how,

    Even in the most extreme conditions you can have a vibrant agricultural industry.

    http://www.moag.gov.il/agri/files/Israel's_Agriculture_Booklet.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Jo,

    Change the vacuum tubes in your server. That always works for me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    blackadderthe4th,

    You say

    …it [CO2] is ‘responsible for all life on Earth’…

    which isn’t true. It isn’t the same thing as saying CO2 is vital for all life on Earth, which is true. It implies that CO2 created all life on Earth, which is impossible.

    One word differences can change the meaning you intended and in this case makes an otherwise sensible statement into a senseless statement. Do you begin to see why you aren’t well received here?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Jo,

      Maybe an oil change too while you’re at it. ;-)

      What a mess!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        I think it has to do with BA4 being on moderation. Apparently his “comment” managed to show up before being approved. But any “replies” to it go as new comments below it, and any other comments go before it. In other words, it is at the bottom of the barrel.

        Kind of poetic if you think about it.


        Report this

        00

  • #
     Doug  Cotton

    It’s just so easy to smash the Venus greenhouse:

    (1) The Venus surface (and all its troposphere) cool by about 5 degrees during the 4-month-long night. So Venus could easily have cooled right down, and is not producing enough internal energy to keep it as hot as it is. (The same applies to Earth)

    (2) The surface and troposphere rise in temperature by 5 degrees during the Venus day. Physics tells us this requires energy input.

    (3) If that energy input were totally from radiation, then a flux of about 14,000 to 16,000 W/m^2 would be required and would have to come from a hotter source, namely the Sun.

    (4) The Russians dropped probes and estimated the incident solar flux to be a mean of 10 to 20W/m^2. This is because our vegetation’s friend carbon dioxide is absorbing at least 95% of incoming solar energy and radiating it back to space, thus preventing it warming the surface.

    (4) Now if you think back radiation is raising the temperature, then you need to explain how you are getting far more radiative flux out of the base of the troposphere than the Sun is putting in, even at the top of the Venus atmosphere before most gets reflected or absorbed and radiated back to space.

    So go tell Wikipedia administration that their Venus article should not talk about a greenhouse effect thereon. I tried, as you can see in the “Talk” pages, but their bias was obviously apparent, to say the least. Trust Wikipedia? Sure can’t”


    Report this

    00

  • #
     Doug  Cotton

    How about you guys stop arguing about oxymorons and go back here to discuss the straight forward fact that simple physics proves there is no greenhouse on Venus. This is the thin edge of the wedge, guys. You need to see that Earth is supposedly operating under different laws of physics than Venus is. Supposedly, according to climatology, that is.

    Soon we will be reading about the Zeroth, First, Second and Third Laws of Climatology:

    0: Listen to zero physicists

    1: Remember you are number one authority

    2: Radiation transfers thermal energy two-ways even if it only goes one way itself, like the Sun’s radiation heating the ocean thermocline.

    3: The Earth’s atmosphere multiplies the Sun’s energy by three.

    3:


    Report this

    00

  • #
     Doug  Cotton

    How about you guys stop arguing about oxymorons and go back here to discuss the straight forward fact that simple physics proves there is no greenhouse on Venus. This is the thin edge of the wedge, guys. You need to see that Earth is supposedly operating under different laws of physics than Venus is. Supposedly, according to climatology, that is.

    Soon we will be reading about the Zeroth, First, Second and Third Laws of Climatology:

    0: Listen to zero physicists

    1: Remember you are number one authority

    2: Radiation transfers thermal energy two-ways even if it only goes one way itself, like the Sun’s radiation heating the ocean thermocline.

    3: The Earth’s atmosphere multiplies the Sun’s energy by three.


    Report this

    00

  • #
     Doug  Cotton

    Have you ever wondered why the thermal gradient in Earth’s outer crust is at least 20 times steeper than in the hot regions of the mantle? It doesn’t look anything like a linear conduction plot all the way from the core, now does it? Why is it so?

    If you look at data from the 9Km deep German KTB borehole you’ll see they measured 270C at 9Km depth, which really surprised them. Furthermore, if you consider just the data from 9Km to, say, 5Km and extrapolate it to the surface you do indeed get close to the mean daily minimum temperatures of the surface. How does it “know” down there what temperature to aim at? There must be a feedback mechanism, and indeed there is as I have explained in my hypothesis for all planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures.

    Does the core of the Earth really “know” how to generate just the right amount of nuclear energy or whatever to get the “right” surface temperature, which then gets the “right” lapse rate to get down to the radiative temperature at the right altitude?

    I can explain what happens, but can you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert O

    I am amazed at the illiteracy of politicians, journalists et. al. relating to the gas carbon dioxide. Anybody working with greenhouses knows that enrichment of up to 1000 ppm. increases crop yields. Essentially, it is the basic building block of organic chemistry (the chemistry of Carbon) whereas it is converted into carbohydrate in the cells of green plants by a photochemical reaction known as Photosynthesis, and oxygen which we breathe is given off as a by-product. Like all chemical reactions its rate is dependent on substrate concentration, temperature, and in this case light concentration. All life is dependent on it as animals do not synthesise carbohydrate; they eat plants, or smaller animals that eat plants etc. A lot of carbohydrate is synthesised in the oceans by phytoplankton which are the base of the marine food chains, but also by the forests which store this as wood. If, for example, the sun did not shine, all life would eventually cease in a short time as the reserves of carbohydrate are depleted, animals would die, plants would die, due to lack a of light and heat as the earth cooled. So what do we do put a tax on it. Doesn’t make much sense, but that is what our political leaders are espousing just demonstrating their scientific ignorance.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    WHY THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING

    People in the USA, are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.

    In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

    In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

    When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

    After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

    http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/kultur-sjael/historie/vikingetiden/erik-den-roede.aspx

    The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.

    “The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

    The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”

    Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.

    FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE.

    Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

    At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

    CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

    CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

    If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

    The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.

    If the Earth’s temperature graph is not shown above, you can see this temperature graph at the link:
    http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm


    Report this

    00