The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[Kiwi Pete]

Err, I've been talking about it here for months, in my own random thoughts thread, as well as responding to the drought thread in weather . . .

https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/drought.229336/

They didn't really appreciate that either.

Truth hurts?

 

[Kiwi Pete]

First, thanks for your condolences. You can perhaps guess at the shock of receiving a death certificate announcing your brother married somebody more than 40 years ago and you never knew about it. Especially since he visited us in the UK soon after the alleged occurrence and shortly before we moved to Australia where we spent quite a bit of time with him over the next few years – and several of his “lady friends”. Fortunately the Registry of BD&M took my query seriously so they checked their records and confirmed he did not marry the man’s mother. In NSW a stepchild who was a dependant has a claim against the estate of his stepfather – and he would have been a dependant if the marriage had occurred as he claimed.

As I said in my brief acknowledgement to you, I have a lot of information stored on my computer; also in a book which aimed to show that it was possible to have a Zero Carbon Britain by 2030. I was asked to review a chapter before publication and received a copy as a “reward”. I can give references to the papers behind most of the statements which follow if I do not give them in the text, but do not expect a rapid response. I know from having given your many points some thought over the last couple of weeks this is going to be a very long response.

CO2e is not a trap. It is a convenient means of converting GHGs to one common denominator. This link shows CO2 alone as well as CO2e, and an index of how it has changed from 1979. https://www.co2.earth/annual-ghg-index-aggi There are other charts and links to more detailed information for anyone wishing to read in more depth.

As for who came up with the idea that CO2 is the dominant factor, I have already told you, including in the post you quoted, which stated I had posted previously, that it all began almost exactly 200 years ago. It is therefore an extremely long time (in scientific terms) for something to be accepted. Admittedly Angstrom argued against it at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries, suggesting that water vapour (wv) was of more importance, but I think nobody has argued against it since. The acceptance that other GHGs also play a part despite being in minute quantities in the atmosphere gave rise to sometimes lumping them together as CO2e. See this link https://www.co2.earth/1820-1930-fourier-to-arrhenius for a short history. I think again that nobody since Angstrom has argued that wv is a forcer of global warming.

To understand why certain GHGs are so important it is necessary to also know the climate sensitivity to the different gases and their relative feedback (forcing) effect on the climate. For example Methane and Nitrous Oxide are more forcing than CO2 so a given amount in the atmosphere has a much greater effect than the same amount of CO2. An increase in GHGs creates an imbalance between energy (heat) entering and leaving the earth. Wv is indeed a most powerful GHG, but despite its power, the reason it has very little effect on our temperatures is because it condenses. Clouds form and it may fall to the ground as the rain we all need to survive. Nevertheless, the small effect it does have is a positive one, thereby increasing temperatures further. As temperatures increase yet more this positive effect will also increase, giving rise to yet higher temperatures.

When wv forms clouds it has both a positive and negative feedback. Some trap heat in our atmosphere and some radiate it back into space. That means that not all wv is increasing global temperatures, some is decreasing temperatures. That does not happen with other GHGs they all force temperatures upwards. GHGs absorb radiation at different wavelengths and those wavelengths are used to check the radiation leaving Earth so that the source can be identified. The quantity of radiation leaving from non wv GHGs has been falling for a few decades, so they are increasing temperatures.

As for heat transference between different layers of the atmosphere, the lower is warming whilst the upper is cooling. This means that more heat is being trapped in the lower atmosphere thereby causing surface temperatures to be higher. The link @wilber gave at #1549 covers this at about 1.40mins. Yes, I know it is another YouTube video, but it is only 6 mins and it covers several more of the points you raised. Well worth 6 mins of your very valuable time. I think few posters have actually watched it. Especially those who agree with AGW. Why do I say this? Have a look at the lack of likes it has at the time of writing.

The level of the tropopause, the point at which temperatures cease to reduce with increasing altitude, is rising, meaning that there is a greater volume of the lower atmosphere, which as pointed out is increasing in temperature. The greater volume of this warmer, lower atmosphere means that it will require much more cooling to reduce it than if it was a smaller volume. This means that overnight cooling is less than it would be for a smaller volume. This is what is happening on my own property.

I have some aquaponics and record the temperature of the fish and live food tanks (daphnia) and the grow beds’ “soil” temps too. I compare these with the same temperature measurements for my terrestrial farming. The larger fish tank maintains a higher overnight temperature than the small daphnia containers, i.e. the lower volume cools more quickly. I use temperatures as a management tool, especially when applying foliar feeds and chemical sprays to my crops.

As you know, snow and ice reflect radiation, and obviously as the ice melts (and it is happening despite some of banjo’s videos) both land and sea areas are exposed. These darker surfaces then reflect less radiation and absorb more of the heat from the sun. Another positive forcing. This link, which I have posted before, gives a daily record of temperatures above the 80ºN latitude http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Whilst on links, here is the one for the Mauna Loa CO2 daily recordings https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 Now for those who claim that volcanoes put out a lot (we will not go into detail as to exactly how much) of CO2 in comparison to man, the current activity nearby would surely have raised the level at least a little bit would it not?

Levels of CO2 in the past that were much higher were all at a time when humanity did not exist. Homo sapiens did not evolve until about 200 thousand years ago. It is nearly a million years since levels were above 400pm. It is some 400 million years since levels may have been as high as the 8000ppm you mention – there is uncertainty about the figure being so high, but I accept it was at least more than 10 times the present level. There were glaciations at these extremely elevated levels too, see https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77 for a decent article about it.

Increasing levels of CO2 is not all good news for plant (or animal) growth either. See these links https://elifesciences.org/articles/02245 and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-global-warming-make-food-less-nutritious/ The second one is short, the first is quite heavy reading. I found similar articles when I was researching for a book I published a few years ago. I did not keep a record of those articles/papers.

I had to learn about Daphnia before I kept them – just another farm animal as far as I am concerned. Colonies are subject to total collapse from time to time, and this often occurs when there is an overabundance of food. Various theories have been put forward and include one that the algae on which they feed (they consume food as they swim rather than actively seek it) is of lower nutritional value when it grows quickly. Just a theory, but algae blooms are more frequent with increased photosynthesis and rising temperatures.

From your comments you are obviously knowledgeable about the climate of Venus. You will therefore be aware that it has been theorised that it is as it is because of an ever increasing greenhouse effect – similar to that we are now experiencing on Earth. Not that I am suggesting that will happen here in the foreseeable long term future, but eventually, at least in theory, it could. Pure guesswork, but since it was a natural occurrence on Venus, and our increasing levels of CO2 on earth appear to be due to burning fossil fuels, I think it unlikely. Of course the rising temperatures dissipated the planet’s water, but as you will know, some still exists as wv.

You repeat your theory about water, I can only repeat what I posted above about GHGs and CO2 in particular. My remarks about “world renowned scientists” were not to disparage you, I suggested that if you could disprove that rising CO2e did not cause rising temperatures you “would go down in history”. As indeed you would, because again, as I pointed out in the post you quoted, nobody in 200 years has disproved that CO2 is the main forcer. I had asked the question whether you believed CO2e did not cause temperatures to rise. You did not directly respond, but said you would not fall into the CO2e trap. I take it that means you believe CO2e does not cause rising temperatures. Not a lot I can do about that, only repeat that in 200 years nobody has disproved that it does.

As for the moon, I doubt you can call a move of probably less than 150 miles in a distance of about 240,000 miles a “lot further away”. Take into account that it has taken about 4.5 billion years to move that distance and it is an extremely slow movement – about a mile every 30 million years. Given our 200 thousand years here that means it has moved about 12 yards since H sapiens first evolved.

I cannot agree with you either that “the Earth got almost too cold for any life during the last ice age”. Given that the glacial maximum was little more than 20,000 years ago and there were great human movements across the planet during the glaciations, there were lots of life forms around before, during and after that glaciation.

I have already covered your point about better growing conditions for plants. As for more rainfall, it has to fall in evenly spread amounts to be effective. Tropical scale downpours for some months and a dry season (as I experience here in Portugal) of about 5 months is not conducive to good growing conditions. There will only be less amounts of desert if the rain does fall evenly. It is not expected to do so. There are no signs up to the present time that rain is being more evenly spread, either seasonally, or across the globe. Add to that the acidification of the oceans from higher CO2 levels and its devastating effect on many marine (and freshwater) species, particularly those that rely on a calcium based body covering, and we are going to be a great deal worse off.

Your final remarks about renewables being competitive with oil and coal is perhaps a moot point. I think I am correct in saying that Portugal no longer has any coal mines. Consequently all coal has to be imported and I believe there will be no coal fired power stations within the next couple of years. Oil is a similar commodity. On the other hand, Portugal is a very windy country and the enormous number of windmills do at times produce more power than is needed for the whole country and this is sold to Spain. Those who have holidayed in Portugal in summer might well think it is ideally suited to solar power, but for economic reasons wind is the preferred source. Certainly solar is useful, but specifically for heat rather than power.

Great post, bloody disturbing content, but an accurate and well-worded piece.

I would also like to offer my sympathy for your loss, and hope the days get brighter for you from now on

 

[Farmer Roy]

They didn't really appreciate that either.

Truth hurts?

childish amateurish reductionist ignorant close minded self entitled twits who think the world ( or at least the British public who they hold in such disdain) owes them a living above & beyond anyone, or anything, else . . .

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Edited bad language out. .

Change is scary though - unless you accept that change is vital

Would be interesting to know how many even on this thread are reducing their footprint and reliance to help create a future for our species - who talks the talk, and who actually walks the walk to reduce inputs, machine hours, travel, cultivation, bare soil or herbicided monocultures - I can tell a few of us do from the posts I have read.

Who actually comsiders themself as an educator, an environmentalist among us?

Who is creating and promoting new ways for future farming operations, this issue is not about scoring points but acceptance that people need to change what they do - and helping guide those changes through leadership and our deeds and our voices and our votes?

Who?

 

[Farmer Roy]

Change is scary though - unless you accept that change is vital

Would be interesting to know how many even on this thread are reducing their footprint and reliance to help create a future for our species - who talks the talk, and who actually walks the walk to reduce inputs, machine hours, travel, cultivation, bare soil or herbicided monocultures - I can tell a few of us do from the posts I have read.

Who actually comsiders themself as an educator, an environmentalist among us?

Who is creating and promoting new ways for future farming operations, this issue is not about scoring points but acceptance that people need to change what they do - and helping guide those changes through leadership and our deeds and our voices and our votes?

Who?

There are a few over here . . .

https://www.facebook.com/insideoutsidemanagement/posts/1819849731391203

 

[bovrill]

Would be interesting to know how many even on this thread are reducing their footprint and reliance to help create a future for our species - who talks the talk, and who actually walks the walk to reduce inputs, machine hours, travel, cultivation, bare soil or herbicided monocultures - I can tell a few of us do from the posts I have read.

I suspect that, with no children, I'm probably well ahead of most people!

 

[Kiwi Pete]

I suspect that, with no children, I'm probably well ahead of most people!

I have to say that is pretty much the ideal advice for people to follow Respect

In that respect my wife and I are only maintaining the problem - I often wonder if GP's are actually paid to tell folk the are unlikely to ever concieve, honestly there are very very many 'miracle babies' born.....
Not sure if that is a trend, or droughts and heavy rains events are...?

In light of my above post which you quoted, would you or do you tell people why not having kids is our way out?
It is just as relevant, but people get precious when you suggest it on a personal level especially if it is advice given a few years to late

Good point

 

[Farmer Roy]

Change is scary though - unless you accept that change is vital

Would be interesting to know how many even on this thread are reducing their footprint and reliance to help create a future for our species - who talks the talk, and who actually walks the walk to reduce inputs, machine hours, travel, cultivation, bare soil or herbicided monocultures - I can tell a few of us do from the posts I have read.

Who actually comsiders themself as an educator, an environmentalist among us?

Who is creating and promoting new ways for future farming operations, this issue is not about scoring points but acceptance that people need to change what they do - and helping guide those changes through leadership and our deeds and our voices and our votes?

Who?

Obviously not as scary as " bad " words
They are far more offensive than climate change denial or sheer ignorance it seems

 

[Pond digger]

childish amateurish reductionist ignorant close minded self entitled twits who think the world ( or at least the British public who they hold in such disdain) owes them a living above & beyond anyone, or anything, else . . .

Go on Farmer Roy, why not tell us what you really think.

 

[Old McDonald]

Great post, bloody disturbing content, but an accurate and well-worded piece.

I would also like to offer my sympathy for your loss, and hope the days get brighter for you from now on

Thanks.

I had almost all of the info readily to hand, including several of the links, but it still took a whole evening to put it all together to match the order in which @wanton dwarf had laid it out. He put a lot of queries into that post and he came back on some points towards the end. Difficult to get the response right under those circumstances, but I always (unlike some folks on here) feel obliged to respond in a sensible manner.

It seems good timing that I made the post when I did about increasing rainfall not necessarily being a good thing. Flooding in Europe, the UK and the USA in the few days since then sort of pale into insignificance compared to the Middle East where the desert countries of Oman and Yemen had up to 278 mm fall in just 24 hours. Three years' rain in one day according to one report I read. I know the effects we had from 20 days continuous light to steady rain from 27th Feb for an average of only just over 19mm a day. Eleven inches in one day would have been a wipe out for me.

I also find it extremely interesting that the CO2 levels on Mauna Loa are reflecting reality and not the ginormous amounts some posters claim arise from volcanoes. Maybe they have an explanation that I have so far not discovered?

 

[Old McDonald]

I suspect that, with no children, I'm probably well ahead of most people!

Not really. Especially since you are somewhat smarter than the average fence post. People like you should procreate to a limited extent.

If nobody breeds then humans will cease to exist. I am all in favour of reducing our numbers, but we have to be sensible about it. My wife and I chose to have one child, thereby doing our bit to reduce numbers, but not obliterate the species.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Thanks.

I had almost all of the info readily to hand, including several of the links, but it still took a whole evening to put it all together to match the order in which @wanton dwarf had laid it out. He put a lot of queries into that post and he came back on some points towards the end. Difficult to get the response right under those circumstances, but I always (unlike some folks on here) feel obliged to respond in a sensible manner.

It seems good timing that I made the post when I did about increasing rainfall not necessarily being a good thing. Flooding in Europe, the UK and the USA in the few days since then sort of pale into insignificance compared to the Middle East where the desert countries of Oman and Yemen had up to 278 mm fall in just 24 hours. Three years' rain in one day according to one report I read. I know the effects we had from 20 days continuous light to steady rain from 27th Feb for an average of only just over 19mm a day. Eleven inches in one day would have been a wipe out for me.

I also find it extremely interesting that the CO2 levels on Mauna Loa are reflecting reality and not the ginormous amounts some posters claim arise from volcanoes. Maybe they have an explanation that I have so far not discovered?

We have had a slightly tricky rain pattern here this year too but not that extreme
For example, instead of rain during the November-Feb period we just set new temperature records and then broke them....
Most of the rain from that period just stayed away.
Then it came.... this last week we have had 155mm in the guage, which is roughly our average rainfall for two months... so it averages out OK for the climate change deniers to dismiss!
You have remarkable endurance and patience, I sometimes read this thread but the obvious fact of the matter is that our Banjo seems to like confusing and obfuscating whenever the day's weather counters the fact the climate is changing - so I gave up!
Odd that GB has had the wettest winter, the beast from the east, a wet spring and now an early unseasonal "heatwave" "drought" (well aware of the hype ) but it is nothing unusual ......

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Not really. Especially since you are somewhat smarter than the average fence post. People like you should procreate to a limited extent.

If nobody breeds then humans will cease to exist. I am all in favour of reducing our numbers, but we have to be sensible about it. My wife and I chose to have one child, thereby doing our bit to reduce numbers, but not obliterate the species.

I agree with the logic behind this - it isn't the smarter and more successful variants that need to limit procreation IMO
However it IS a numbers game, all the same, my ex partner has 7 children and I find that a bit extreme!
From a farmers perspective, we are certainly allowing/supporting some superb traits into our society, but I would sound like a terrible person if I listed them!

 

[Farmer Roy]

Go on Farmer Roy, why not tell us what you really think.

I did, but half of it was edited out . . .
that was the polite version

 

[Pond digger]

I did, but half of it was edited out . . .
that was the polite version

Very good.

 

[bovrill]

Not really. Especially since you are somewhat smarter than the average fence post. People like you should procreate to a limited extent.

If nobody breeds then humans will cease to exist. I am all in favour of reducing our numbers, but we have to be sensible about it. My wife and I chose to have one child, thereby doing our bit to reduce numbers, but not obliterate the species.

That's got to rank amongst the most complimentary dressing downs I've ever had!
Thank you!

I completely agree with you, but as soon as there's any hint of suggesting that people's 'right' to produce a large family of thickoes should be curtailed, there are accusational cries of eugenics.
Even on this forum, which I would have thought would have an overall greater understanding of breeding, traits, and genetics than probably any other forum available!

 

[Old McDonald]

That's got to rank amongst the most complimentary dressing downs I've ever had!
Thank you!

I completely agree with you, but as soon as there's any hint of suggesting that people's 'right' to produce a large family of thickoes should be curtailed, there are accusational cries of eugenics.
Even on this forum, which I would have thought would have an overall greater understanding of breeding, traits, and genetics than probably any other forum available!

Who will inherit your kilt - and that sporran the ladies like to stroke?

Nothing wrong with eugenics apart from the fact that it begins eu.

 

[wanton dwarf]

CO2e is not a trap. It is a convenient means of converting GHGs to one common denominator. This link shows CO2 alone as well as CO2e, and an index of how it has changed from 1979. https://www.co2.earth/annual-ghg-index-aggi There are other charts and links to more detailed information for anyone wishing to read in more depth..

This graph doesn't mention water at all.

Yet water is the most significant factor in Climate bar none.

To give you a some very clear examples.

1) The oceans as a heat sink alone their affect is massive.
2) The oceans drive weather patterns, winds and currents which move heat from hot to cold .. for example high radiation equator to low radiation North and South poles.
3) The North and South poles reflect radiation.
4) The North and South poles drive currents pumps.
5) Evaporation moves heat from all surfaces higher into the atmosphere.
6) Clouds stop energy from reaching the surface, reflect energy into space and cool the surface via cold rain, snow & ice.
7) Clouds retain heat over night.

I'm sure there are other factors .. but it makes no sense to have water missing from any climate data.

You then go on to chose to include water when it suites your case, for example Ice and melting. You can't have it both ways. Either the data should be in the graphs and examples or not. Not a mish mash of when it suites.

You also fail to acknowledge that Water has at least 3 states on the Earth. Soild, Liquid and Gas. There is of course a fourth which is clouds which is sort-of a mix of Liquid and Gas.

CO2 for the most part never turns into a Liquid nor a Solid. Therefore it never changes density enough to either raise nor fall through the atmosphere and therefore provides no cooling. It's pretty much static. In this sentance alone you should realise that CO2 is not dominant at all .. because if it was there would be runaway heating in the atmosphere already - because CO2 doesn't cool.

I will have a read on what you have posted but I think already I've proved you wrong .. and I think you partially admit it when you talk about the reflection properties of Ice/Snow and melting.

As I say CO2 can't be dominant simply because it heats the atmosphere only .. as you admit all the other gases do as well .. therefore Water and natural radiation are cooling and dominating all the other heating gases .. sorry but there's the facts.

 

[Old McDonald]

No, no and no.

I am not going to spend another few hours giving you information from papers published over the last 200 years for you to come back with remarks that do not reflect what I have posted. I disagree with your contentions, and you disagree with mine. So be it.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

One interesting point of note with our oceans is plankton and just how much our "careful harvesting" of marine life has diminished the CO2 sinking of our oceans - basically a mirror image above and below mean sea level.
As more and more nutrients enter the oceans the booms and busts are much greater now than ever before (and no I won't bother to link any evidence of this, for obvious reasons)
The anecdotal evidence does support the hypothesis that it is not necessarily tillage or housing, just the holistic impact of man forcing his will on nature that brings change.

Hopefully as nature fights back this will be too difficult to deny, and real changes in how we operate can begin.... things like encouraging a "one child policy" and recycling efforts and sourcing food from closer to home....

But the fact also remains that the world won't change with this level of misinformation rife nor by politicians trying to be popular

Any fool can say yes.
But it takes leadership to say no, and explain why not

Either way, the concept of growing energy intensive food to be dumped in a landfill miles away is not something I subscribe to, finances aside - as producers of the food, we do need to form our own values as to who/where we target our produce IMO

harder here in the bargain basement but simply done where food is too affordable to be treasured the way it should be?
I simply don't sell stock for export, it goes against my grain and my values, so it is all "local trade" beef and lamb... the brexit referendum thing got us into a farm, so payback is that my lamb doesn't go on a boat

As touched on on other threads, the downside to farmers being "paid what a lamb actually costs" is that many will simply use even more energy on the back of it farmers are quite dangerous in many respects