Saturday, 27 October 2018

Is Carbon Dioxide really a “Pollutant” ? (HINT: NO!)

by Astrophysicist Dr Gordon Fulks
 Reconstructed Total Solar Irradiance (after Wang 2005) with
Abdussamatov's prediction out to the mid 21
st century. 
The short answer is “NO!” But the longer answer is 
“Nonsense! Carbon dioxide is essential for life on this planet, important in many industrial applications, and not producing the warming that has been predicted.”
Of course, you will never see that explained in the constant climate propaganda, featuring photos of giant smokestacks spewing smoke or automobiles apparently belching smoke on a cold morning. 

They know that few people will realize that the “smoke” is really just water vapor. Water vapor is the other benign byproduct of our civilization and a much stronger “greenhouse gas.”

To be sure, smokestacks and automobile tailpipes do exhaust carbon dioxide too, but it is a colorless odorless gas that is invisible. If you want to see it, you will need to go to a grocery store and buy a chunk of solid CO2, commonly called 'Dry Ice.' But be careful, it is very cold and will disappear as it warms up, without ever going through a liquid phase.

Carbon dioxide is also important as an industrial compound. It makes a great welding and fire extinguisher gas, because it is substantially inert. It is used for enhanced oil recovery in oil fields. It works well as a propellant in many pressurized canister applications. It is also an important refrigerant that is widely used in the food industry and is being considered as the next refrigerant for automobile air conditioning systems.

But people are most familiar with the importance of CO2 in baking, where yeast is used to consume sugar in bread dough, forming CO2 to make the dough rise. Chemical leavening agents like baking powder or baking soda release CO2 when heated or exposed to acids, also making dough rise.

And of course, fermentation is important to making wine and beer. Yes, the fizz in champagne, beer, and soft drinks is dissolved CO2 coming out of solution as the pressurized beverage is opened or as it warms up. To call the fizz “pollution” is ludicrous.

Still more ludicrous is the demonization of a gas that is vital to the survival of life. We are all carbon creatures that derive all of our carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide. We get that carbon directly from plants or from animals that have consumed plants. Plants photosynthesize carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide and sunlight. One consequence is that we are slightly radioactive, because atmospheric carbon is slightly radioactive, due to the transmutation of nitrogen by high energy cosmic rays. Carbon from fossil fuels is not radioactive, because the radioactive C-14 has long since decayed away.

We not only use CO2-derived carbon to grow our bodies but also to burn for energy. Then much like our automobiles, we exhale CO2 and water vapor. And the concentration of CO2 is staggeringly higher than what we inhale. Ambient air contains about 400 parts per million CO2, while the air we exhale contains 40,000 ppm (80,000 ppm if we hold our breath). Breathing alone constitutes about six percent of the human carbon footprint. Every other creature on this planet does the same thing, from the single-celled to the largest whale. This is the crucial “Carbon Cycle.”

But what of the dangers of CO2? If you were to sleep on the ground near a lake in the Cameroons, you might perish overnight as the lake overturns and suddenly releases a large quantity of carbon dioxide that then hugs the ground, because it is heavier than air. If it fails to mix with the surrounding air, it can asphyxiate any creature close to the ground, including those animals who might try to scavenge those who have already died. Every gas other than oxygen is an asphyxiate.

Carbon dioxide is classified as non-toxic, despite great attempts by the climate crowd to make it seem diabolical. When submerged, US Navy submarines have to maintain an artificial atmosphere to support the crew for as long as a year at a time. That means they have to manufacture oxygen and scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere. But they regulate the CO2 to be less than 5,000 ppm. There is no reason to keep it as low as it is in the atmosphere.

And the amount of CO2 in the ambient atmosphere is still so low that we are near the minimum not the maximum that plants and animals tolerate. Plants prefer 1,000 to 1,500 ppm of CO2 and will not grow and eventually die below about 200 ppm. That makes the present level of 400 ppm near the low end.

Higher levels of CO2 are so desirable for plant growth that farmers growing such crops as tomatoes in greenhouses artificially increase the ambient CO2 by about three times to get a better crop sooner. And the increase in atmospheric CO2 has contributed to a greening of the planet, as observed by satellites from space. That in turn has substantially contributed to the “Green Revolution” that has allowed us to feed the nearly eight billion people who call this planet home.

What about the promised Global Warming from carbon dioxide? It has simply not materialized. Over the satellite era from 1979 where we have the best global temperature data, there has been only a slight warming trend that may be no more than a rebound from the cold of the 1970s. That was an era when alarmists were singing a completely different song, ICE AGE! It had a far more credible ring to it, because we know that we are near the end of this interglacial period we call the Holocene Climate Optimum.

But it too ignored natural variations caused largely by ocean cycles. These will prevent a rapid fall into the next Ice Age, because our oceans will keep us warm for centuries, even as advancing Milankovitch (orbital) cycles make the next Ice Age inevitable.

We should not rely on carbon dioxide to keep us warm. Look at how dramatically the temperature plummets this winter in isolated locations that are cut off from tropical ocean heat. Under clear skies with a very low dew point (relative humidity), the CO2 in the atmosphere is little help.

Am I the only one in the scientific community defending carbon dioxide? Hardly! The CO2 Coalition, of whom I am an unpaid Director, attempts to educate the public and blunt the effects of climate propaganda. We do so by teaching people the best science, as opposed to the best politics. It works with those who are open to the truth. That means too few in Oregon.

Don't take my word for it. See what one of my colleagues in Russia said:
“The Sun defines the climate. Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global and very prolonged temperature drop.”
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory

And he is not even talking about a fall into the next Ice Age, only a waning of solar activity that is already evident.

Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago's Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research and has no conflicts of interest on this subject.



Thursday, 25 October 2018

Tuesday, 23 October 2018

Energy & Environmental Newsletter: October 22, 2018

By  -- October 22, 2018


The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).
A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.
Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

Greed Energy Economics:
Lord Christopher Monckton – The Economics Behind Windmills

Turbine Health Matters:

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems:

Miscellaneous Energy News:
3 minute video: Benefits of Fracking

Manmade Global Warming Articles:

The UN’s (IPCC) Manmade Global Warming Report:


Attachments area

Friday, 19 October 2018

OPINION: TRUMP IS RIGHT TO QUESTION CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES

by   TOM HARRIS and JAY LEHR 


President Donald Trump was right to express skepticism about human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change in his October 14th interview on CBS television’s “60 Minutes.”

Contrary to Al Gore’s assertion in his PBS interview aired on October 12 that only “a few outliers” in the scientific community don’t support the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusions, there are many scientists who disagree with the U.N. on climate change.

Indeed, it was an understatement for the president to say in the” 60 Minutes” interview that We have scientists who disagree with that,” in regard to the view that Greenland is melting significantly because of anthropogenic climate change.”

In his October 8 lecture for the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Professor Richard Lindzen referenced “the finding by both NOAA [the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing.”

GWPF report that Lindzen, formerly Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology, “slammed conventional global warming thinking warming as ‘nonsense’.”

Many scientists agree with Lindzen and would applaud the president’s answer to the question posed by CBS’ Lesley Stahl, “Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?”

Trump responded,“I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade.”

In fact, the “Climate Change Reconsidered” series of reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change(NIPCC) summarize thousands of studies from peer-reviewed scientific journals that either refute or cast serious doubt on the climate scare.

NIPCC’s latest document, titled “Summary for Policymakers — Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels,” (“CCR — II — Fossil Fuels”), reports the contributions of 117 scientists, economists, and other experts. They conclude that we are not causing a climate crisis and we should be increasing, not decreasing, our use of coal, oil and natural gas.

The “CCR — II — Fossil Fuels” report, released on October 5, states:
The NIPCC is an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute.
“CCR — II — Fossil Fuels” is the fifth volume in the “Climate Change Reconsidered” series, and, like the preceding volumes published in 200920112013, and 2014, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the IPCC.

The latest NIPCC report addresses every aspect of our climate from sea level to hurricanes, the fallacy of climate models, the physics that controls weather, the irrationality of thinking industrial societies can run on either wind or solar energy, and the erroneous science used by alarmists to scare the public.

One of the reasons that IPCC reports have little credibility is that they often ignore the scientific method of testing hypotheses. Trump was justified to say that scientists promoting the climate scare “have a very big political agenda.

Indeed, the IPCC’s main focus is directed toward proving a political position rather than conducting an unbiased search for the truth. “CCR — II — Fossil Fuels” explains: 
IPCC and its national counterparts have not conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels, global warming, or regulations designed to force a transition away from fossil fuels, nor are they likely to do so given their political agendas.
In the past 20 years, the climate scare has plagued every nation, wasting billions of dollars attempting the impossible, namely, to control the temperature of our planet. It has been driven largely by a combination of arrogance and ignorance coupled with a desire to place the government in charge of most activities in society.

President Trump is right, it’s time to stop the war on fossil fuels, on American prosperity, and on American jobs. It’s time to finally defeat what Canadian historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball calls, “The greatest deception in history.”

Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition and is also a policy advisor to Heartland. 

Monday, 8 October 2018

IPCC's fake global warming

John Mclean previously exposed the myth that there were thousands of climate scientists supporting the fraud of man-made global warming. John's paper showed it to be 53 interrelated climate scientists scratching each other's backs.


Now, John, writing a paper for his PhD,  has discovered MANY FLAWS in the data used by IPCC to substantiate man-made global warming.

As James Delingpole writes (link)
according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.
And look at the errors John discovered:
  • Large gaps where there is no data and where instead averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.
  • Almost no quality control, with misspelled country names (‘Venezuala” “Hawaai” “Republic of K” (aka South Korea) and sloppy, obviously inaccurate entries.
  • Adjustments – “I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than 50 percent of adjustments were incorrect,” says McLean – which artificially cool earlier temperatures and warm later ones,  giving an exaggerated impression of the rate of global warming.
  • Methodology so inconsistent that measurements didn’t even have a reliable policy on variables like Daylight Saving Time.
  • Sea measurements, supposedly from ships, but mistakenly logged up to 50 miles inland.
  • A Caribbean island – St Kitts – where the temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions (somewhat implausibly for the tropics)
  • A town in Romania which in September 1953, allegedly experienced a month where the average temperature dropped to minus 46 degrees C (when the typical average for that month is 10 degrees C).

Buy the paper and help one of our climate warriors.