TelesnaAg
Member
- Location
- Portland, Victoria - Australia
Getting info is hard work?
Is there a website where the report is available from?
Ant....
Is there a website where the report is available from?
Ant....
Committee on Climate Change Report The Future For Farming And Land Use
- Thread starter Frank-the-Wool
- Start date
WorkerDrone
Member
- Location
- Dorset
You can get the full report at
theccc.org.uk
TelesnaAg
Member
- Location
- Portland, Victoria - Australia
Cheers
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
This lecture from Dr Mike Joy of Victoria University, Wellington NZ, neatly explains the issue of EROEI (Energy return on energy invested) which is the achillies heel of most biofuels, a point missed in the CCC report:
- Location
- S E Glos
Our environment, yes, not so sure about climate.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
Meyer’s Law of Conservation of Energy is now often referred to as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Which very importantly states that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
This has got me seriously wondering about what actually is causing global temperatures to rise and is it all down CO2?
I have seen a graph curve that shows that the global temperature increase is exactly following our increased use of fossil fuels. There has also been an increase on the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. But is our temperature rise all down to CO2, commonly though of as a Greenhouse gas (GHG) or not?
Meyer’s Law plays an important part of this question that I wonder if is being forgotten.
When I light my log fire it releases energy as heat. Some of it goes straight up the chimney, but hopefully enough stays in the house to warm me up. However, eventually this leaks out of the house and warms the atmosphere. Over time and after all the energy, fossil fuel or otherwise (including my logs AND by the way, including Nuclear Power Station energy which is Carbon Neutral!) warms the atmosphere.
Isn’t most of this warming due to Meyer’s Law rather than CO2?
In other words, we release the stored Energy of fuel by burning/unlocking it and that Energy remains unlocked, ending up as heat Energy in the atmosphere?
I have heard that some Scientists counter the argument that increased CO2 in the atmosphere cause increased Atmospheric temperatures. They actually argue that the reverse is what actually happens!
Volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa in 1883, actually cause a mini ice age, despite releasing massive volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The week after 911 when all aircraft flights were banned over the USA actually caused a rise in temperatures due to the loss of jet aircraft con trails, reflecting the Sun’s heat back out to Space!
Which brings us neatly back to Meyer’s Law being the culprit!
We also know that increased CO2 in the atmosphere helps plant life, rather like a fertiliser.
Wouldn’t it therefore be nice if we could invent a system to direct the extra CO2 we have created at plants to use as a fertiliser?
Does CO2 actually come under the heading of “Convenient or Inconvenient Truth” when it come down to Climate change, to those who are going to benefit most from it..........Financially?
Which very importantly states that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
This has got me seriously wondering about what actually is causing global temperatures to rise and is it all down CO2?
I have seen a graph curve that shows that the global temperature increase is exactly following our increased use of fossil fuels. There has also been an increase on the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. But is our temperature rise all down to CO2, commonly though of as a Greenhouse gas (GHG) or not?
Meyer’s Law plays an important part of this question that I wonder if is being forgotten.
When I light my log fire it releases energy as heat. Some of it goes straight up the chimney, but hopefully enough stays in the house to warm me up. However, eventually this leaks out of the house and warms the atmosphere. Over time and after all the energy, fossil fuel or otherwise (including my logs AND by the way, including Nuclear Power Station energy which is Carbon Neutral!) warms the atmosphere.
Isn’t most of this warming due to Meyer’s Law rather than CO2?
In other words, we release the stored Energy of fuel by burning/unlocking it and that Energy remains unlocked, ending up as heat Energy in the atmosphere?
I have heard that some Scientists counter the argument that increased CO2 in the atmosphere cause increased Atmospheric temperatures. They actually argue that the reverse is what actually happens!
Volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa in 1883, actually cause a mini ice age, despite releasing massive volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The week after 911 when all aircraft flights were banned over the USA actually caused a rise in temperatures due to the loss of jet aircraft con trails, reflecting the Sun’s heat back out to Space!
Which brings us neatly back to Meyer’s Law being the culprit!
We also know that increased CO2 in the atmosphere helps plant life, rather like a fertiliser.
Wouldn’t it therefore be nice if we could invent a system to direct the extra CO2 we have created at plants to use as a fertiliser?
Does CO2 actually come under the heading of “Convenient or Inconvenient Truth” when it come down to Climate change, to those who are going to benefit most from it..........Financially?
Last edited:
- Location
- S E Glos
Another theory I heard recently was the earth temperature link to ocean temperatures. Oceans are massive heat sinks and in the 1930s and 40s were warmed up by the warm spell at that time. It can take 70 years though for them to release that heat, which they have been doing recently, thus causing atmospheric temperatures to rise. So nothing to do with CO2 ?
Also, be wary of higher CO2 to feed plants. That increases the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, which in turn allows insects to grow much larger (their breathing system is inefficient so limits their body size). It's happened in the distant past and we had wasps the size of crows, etc. all because of higher oxygen levels.
Imagine flea beetle the size of starlings
Also, be wary of higher CO2 to feed plants. That increases the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, which in turn allows insects to grow much larger (their breathing system is inefficient so limits their body size). It's happened in the distant past and we had wasps the size of crows, etc. all because of higher oxygen levels.
Imagine flea beetle the size of starlings
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
Yes, but at least we could then shoot the bar-stewards!Another theory I heard recently was the earth temperature link to ocean temperatures. Oceans are massive heat sinks and in the 1930s and 40s were warmed up by the warm spell at that time. It can take 70 years though for them to release that heat, which they have been doing recently, thus causing atmospheric temperatures to rise. So nothing to do with CO2 ?
Also, be wary of higher CO2 to feed plants. That increases the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, which in turn allows insects to grow much larger (their breathing system is inefficient so limits their body size). It's happened in the distant past and we had wasps the size of crows, etc. all because of higher oxygen levels.
Imagine flea beetle the size of starlings
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
More interesting stuff here re the first two laws of Thermodynamics:
Suggesting that it is physically impossible for GHG’s to warm the earth, in fact quite the reverse!
It concludes:
Based on actual data, CO2 causing global warming is clearly a figment of the UN IPCC's imagination. The only actual physical attribute that can be ascribed to atmospheric carbon dioxide is one of increasing the cooling efficiency of the total atmosphere, as recently demonstrated by Dr Noor van Andel . For that matter, as discussed, all greenhouse gases, including the most notorious water vapor and including carbon dioxide, cool the planet. Taxing carbon will have a deleterious effect on the economies of the world. Many scientists, including the authors, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global hoax.
If GHG’s are responsible for Global warming, this theory flys completely in the face of the first 2 laws of Thermodynamics and is therefore impossible!
The article itself explains it really well, much better than I can and is a really good and worthwhile read.
See what you think of it?
Suggesting that it is physically impossible for GHG’s to warm the earth, in fact quite the reverse!
It concludes:
Based on actual data, CO2 causing global warming is clearly a figment of the UN IPCC's imagination. The only actual physical attribute that can be ascribed to atmospheric carbon dioxide is one of increasing the cooling efficiency of the total atmosphere, as recently demonstrated by Dr Noor van Andel . For that matter, as discussed, all greenhouse gases, including the most notorious water vapor and including carbon dioxide, cool the planet. Taxing carbon will have a deleterious effect on the economies of the world. Many scientists, including the authors, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global hoax.
If GHG’s are responsible for Global warming, this theory flys completely in the face of the first 2 laws of Thermodynamics and is therefore impossible!
The article itself explains it really well, much better than I can and is a really good and worthwhile read.
See what you think of it?
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I may be being thick but why should the first graph be read right to left? Surely that's going back in time?
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I’m probably just as thick as you are!
.........But I think it has something to do with the Thermodynamics of the solubility of CO2 in water, depending on what temperature that water is:
In Al Gore’s presentation of his "Inconvenient Truth" documentary, he conveniently separated the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 graphs so you could not see which came first, a warming spike or a CO2 spike. He said that a CO2 spike came first but alas, it was the just the opposite as shown in the Vostok Ice Core graph in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core Data .
When both lines are combined on one graph and viewed in the correct direction from right to left, it is clearly seen that a warming spike always comes first (blue line) followed by a CO2 increase (red line) some 800 years later.
There are many reasons for the oceans to warm and cool over long periods of time and those influences are not the subject of this paper. Warming of the oceans reduces the solubility of CO2 in water which results in the liberation of CO2. An additional effect of the oceans warming up is that more water vaporizes and for each pound of water evaporated 1,000 Btu of cooling occurs. Increased water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere then causes a further cooling effect through the reflection of more radiation back to outer space. Nature has this under control.
Gore also gave no explanation what would cause a CO2 spike to occur in the first place. What is so disturbing here is that many climatologists and meteorologists, just like Al Gore, seem to have a problem discerning cause and effect. It is very simple, if what you call an effect comes first, you have it backwards; a cause always comes first to produce the effect.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
Heresy only happens when one refuses to believe in any alternative to one’s own beliefs or accept that everything is questionable. Therefore they forego any opportunity to learn.Be careful TT, you are preaching Heresy here according to some....
More fool them!
The Seeker
Member
Not forgetting how many atom bombs were tested / used ...
- Location
- S E Glos
To be fair to the IPCC, they have already released a statement to the effect that their next report will admit that the major influence on climate change is solar activity, not mankind. Unfortunately that report isn't due out for a couple of years, plenty of time for it to be redacted, edited whatever by the climate change activists.
primmiemoo
Member
- Location
- Devon
If this wasn't all so serious, I'd be musing over the likelihood that this human race really does descend from the passengers on that Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet ship from h2g2 by now ...
So someone pointing out that an assertion you made is factually incorrect is pointless?
Dan Powell
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
Interesting discussion but not much sound science being used in it. The law of conservation of energy is a red herring here as the earth is not a closed system. Most of the heat in our atmosphere obviously comes from the sun not from @Two Tone 's chimney... The greenhouse effect is very, very real. Without it the earth would be uninhabitable. It regulates the amount of heat that radiates into space. The larger the effect, the more retained heat. As for whether we are changing this, I haven't done the 10,000 hours study required to understand the truth of the matter but I suspect that the "97% of climate scientists" are getting closer to the truth than a bunch of Google educated farmers who are pee'd off about having to change their ways (myself included).
So Piers Corbyn's research and findings will be vindicated...? ?
Dan Powell
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
Well clearly. It's colder at night. Ergo the sun is responsible for most "climate change." Do you have a source for this massive claim you've just made?