Meta |
The Impact of Carbon dioxide on Climate Change and Earth’s Plant and Animal KingdomsThis is a very useful presentation of simple graphs illustrating all aspects of the global warming and carbon demonization scams. Well worth printing in colour for close study: By H. Leighton Steward: The 2013 Heatwave in SE QueenslandBy Mike Williamson There has been much comment on our summer heatwave. This prompted a search for the history of temperatures in S.E. Queensland. The longest continuous record of local temperatures was from Amberley: the data set was begun in late 1941 and is still active. The record shows that the highest monthly mean maximum temperature for the month of January in each year was way back in 1942 and has not been surpassed since. (See Figure 1) The linear trend for the years 1942 to 2012, shows is a slight rise in the temperature trend. This is not surprising as the Earth’s temperatures have had several rising phases ever since the last Ice Age ended over 10,000 years ago. The Amberley data shows that the highest mean maximum January temperatures appear to be fairly similar when they periodically occur. However the lower mean maximums appear to be creating the very slight upward trend. This does not then appear to support the man-made global warming hypothesis since if carbon dioxide is retaining heat in the atmosphere it should do so at all temperature levels, whether high or low. If carbon dioxide is causing the heating, why is carbon dioxide rising steadily whereas temperatures are not? A Short Observation on Bushfires Grass, peat, leaves and timber all ignite at temperatures well above 40oC. Even highly inflammable, easily ignitable, kerosene needs a spark exceeding 200oC for combustion to be initiated. Therefore heat wave temperatures cannot cause fires. Something else ignited them. Once ignited, hot temperatures and high winds make the fires more severe, but something else ignited them. [Mike Williamson is a Graduate Fuel Technologist/Chemical Engineer, with experience in minerals processing and applications of coal technology. He is now retired and has no connection with industry of any kind. As a self-funded retiree he relies upon lifetime savings for his quality of life in retirement. No one paid him or asked him to produce this.] Global Warming Stopped 16 Years AgoWell, the verdict is in on Global Warming, and guess what? There isn’t any!!! So says the British Met Office in a new report, issued quietly and without any publicity last month. In fact, they sheepishly admitted that there has been “no measurable increase in Global Temperature during the last 16 years”. If you missed this story when it broke, you can read the full article at the following link: Is Solar Power the Answer?By Don Aitkin “I object to having to pay more for electricity that is produced inefficiently and erratically because some people are worried about the end of the world. In the 1980s, solar energy looked a possible way in the future of protecting our small and diminishing reserves of oil – because even then there were experts telling us that ‘Peak Oil’ had already arrived. It would never have occurred to me that we would be considering it as a source of baseline power. How would we store overnight the energy gained during the day? No one had the answer then, and no one has produced an efficient working model of the answer today. For isolated settlements and properties? Yes. For the grid? No.” From: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14447 Rescue from the Climate SavioursDoes an increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere increase global temperature or not? Most climate commentators immediately parrot the conventional wisdom of the climate alarmists – “The atmosphere is a blanket retaining the heat from the sun. Increased carbon dioxide thickens the blanket and will cause dangerous warming, leading to a tipping point where runaway heating becomes irreversible.” However an experiment conducted in 1909 shows this conclusion to be wrong – the atmosphere acts more like a radiator, quickly removing heat from land and water surfaces, transporting it aloft and radiating much of it back to space. The atmosphere is a great temperature moderator – it stops daytime temperatures from rising too high, and keeps night-time temperatures from falling as low as they would otherwise. The net result, averaged over the whole world, is not known, but the daytime shading probably has a greater effect on surface temperatures than the night-time insulation. For much more real science from one of the few authors who writes clearly, see this paper: Klause Ermecke, 2010 – “Rescue from the Climate Saviours – Is there any Danger from “World Climate?” KE Research. Read the full paper: Solar Power: Promises and SubsidiesHarnessing sunlight for heating and other power purposes is not new. Solar collection devices were developed in the 17th century to protect plants brought from the tropics to northern countries, and both the first solar water heater and the first solar oven were developed the 18th century. Indeed, the solar power revolution has been on the verge of taking off for centuries. In response to the Arab Oil Embargo, in part, the relatively new U.S. Department of Energy (along with other agencies) began a slew of programs to fund solar energy research, deployment and commercialization. Based strictly on performance, these programs have failed at the cost of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. More: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st334.pdf [PDF, 1.7 MB] Don’t Fiddle with Wind Farms – Build higher Dykes“Germany and the European Union have taken a pioneering role on climate protection, under the mistaken assumption that other countries would follow our example. That’s the wrong strategy. Making this kind of advanced effort weakens our bargaining position. Instead of building wind turbines, we should build higher dikes.” – German government advisor Kai Konrad Wind and Solar are Worse than Coal and cause the Waste of GasJames Hansen, an outspoken world climate alarmist says: “Coal-fired power plants are factories of death”. The Australian Greens want a fast end to coal mining in Australia, and support a swift expansion of wind and solar power. As the Greens are part of the coalition which governs Australia, the electricity industry is now being coerced by carbon taxes and green subsidies and mandates to replace efficient and reliable coal-powered electricity with costly and unreliable wind and solar plants. All of this paranoia is driven by climatist claims that carbon dioxide causes environmental harm by triggering dangerous global warming. Let’s look at whether coal energy or green energy does more harm to the environment. There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide causes any measurable changes to climate. In fact, the evidence indicates that changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are a result, not a cause, of variations in global temperatures. Moreover, burning coal in clean modern power stations has definite benefits for the biosphere – it puts food and drink for all life back into the atmosphere. The major coal combustion products are – nitrogen plant food from the air (69%), carbon dioxide plant food from the coal (21%) and water vapour, the liquid for life, from the coal (7%). The other 3% comprises mainly inert atmospheric gases from the air and an ash residue of trace minerals from the coal. The green bogey-man, carbon dioxide, is the gas of life and a free gift from coal combustion to the biosphere. More carbon dioxide has proven benefits in making plants grow faster in good weather and helping them survive better in droughts or frosts. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is insurance for the biosphere no matter what climate change is in store for us. Green energy, however, can affect local climate and does cause environmental damage… More, as well as:
Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/wind-solar-coal.pdf [PDF, 221 KB]
Cartoon Credit: Steve Hunter http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/political-cartoons/ Keywords: Coal, wind, solar, gas, gases of life, wind farms affect the climate, turbine fires, bird kills, UN, Agenda 21. Sustainable FarmingBy Viv Forbes September 2012 “To be truly ‘sustainable’, a farm must recycle everything – otherwise it is depleting its soil minerals. Therefore it cannot sell any of its produce. This means it cannot buy items from the outside world, such as machinery, to make labour less arduous, and to produce more food. It is thus an impossible dream.” – Bob Long The man-made global warming crisis has gone cold, the “man-made extreme weather” scares are wearing thin, and people are waking up to the “tax war on carbon”, so a new theme is needed for handing control of our lives, businesses and property to the world bureaucracy. The theme for the next green alarm is “sustainability” and a favourite target is “sustainable farming”. We need to recognise some realities. Modern cities are not sustainable without farms, and modern farms are not sustainable without modern machinery, mineral fertilisers and affordable energy. City people should thank the lord for the machinery and cheap energy that produce the surplus food and all the trucks, road trains, refrigerated vans and milk tankers that bring it to their supermarkets every day. The last thing they should advocate is “sustainable farming”. Unlike most armchair experts on sustainable farming, my early life was spent on an almost-sustainable farm. The memorable lessons we learned are described below. Cows were milked by hand, ploughing and planting was done with a team of draft horses. Here is how green power works:
Lucerne was cut using a horse-drawn mower and rake. Haymaking on our “almost sustainable” farm was when everyone got a job with a pitchfork – mine had a special short handle. I still have it. Here is how it was done:
For more descriptions on how a sustainable farm really works you can quickly download the full article in print-ready PDF at: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sustainable-farming.pdf [PDF, 132KB] Renewable Energy is a $250 Billion Dollar Industry that Makes about 3% of our ElectricityIn June this year the UNEP report announced that Global Renewable Energy investment reached $257 Billion in 2011. It’s so large it rivals the $302 billion invested in fossil fuel power. But how much electricity do we get for all that money? When the details are pulled from the fog, a quarter of a trillion dollars appears to produce only about 3% of all our global electricity, and even less of our global energy. All that money, so few gigawatts.
Cartoon Credit: Steve Hunter http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/political-cartoons/ |
RSS
