The Pickering Post
Tuesday, 27th June 2017

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Carbon Delusions and Defective Models

Viv Forbes

Viv has a degree in Applied Science Geology and is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

BLOG



The relentless war on carbon is justified by the false assumption that global temperature is controlled by human production of two carbon-bearing “Greenhouse Gases”. The scary forecasts of runaway heating are based on complicated but narrowly-focussed carbon-centric computerised Global Circulation Models built for the UN IPCC.

These models omit many significant climate factors and rely heavily on dodgy temperature records and unproven assumptions about two trace natural gases in the atmosphere.

The models fail to explain Earth’s long history of changing climates and ignore the powerful role of interacting cycles in the solar system which determine how much solar energy is absorbed and reflected by Earth’s atmosphere, clouds and surface. Several ancient societies and some modern mavericks, without help from million dollar computers, recognised that the sun, moon and major planets produce cyclic changes in Earth’s climate.

The IPCC models also misread the positive and negative temperature feedbacks from water vapour (the main greenhouse gas) and their accounting for natural processes in the carbon cycle is based on very incomplete knowledge and numerous unproven assumptions.


See: Errors in the IPCC Global Circulation Models:
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/media-release-evans-climate.pdf

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

The dreaded “greenhouse gases” (carbon dioxide and methane) are natural gases. Man did not create them - they occur naturally in comets and planets, and have been far more plentiful in previous atmospheres on Earth. They are abundant in the oceans and the atmosphere, and are buried in deposits of gas, oil, coal, shale, methane clathrates and vast beds of limestones.

Land and sea plants absorb CO2 and micro-organisms absorb methane in deep oceans.

Earth emits natural carbon-bearing gases in huge and largely unknown and unpredictable quantities. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and various hydrocarbons such as ethane, methane and propane bubble out of the ocean floor, seep out of swamps, bubble naturally out of rivers, are released in oil seeps, water wells and bores, and are sometimes delivered via water pipes into drinking water. 

They are also released whenever carbon-bearing rocks such as coal and shale are eroded naturally, catch fire, or are disturbed by earthquakes, construction activities or mining.

The vast offshore deposits of frozen methane are released naturally when geothermal heat or volcanic intrusions melt the ice containing the methane.

See: Widespread methane leakage from ocean floor off US coast:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28898223

Earth also entombs carbon in sediments and organic matter transported from the land by rivers and buried in swamps and deltas, or swept from the land into the oceans by typhoons and tsunamis. These will eventually become limestone, shale and coal deposits probably containing fossil evidence of a long-gone human era.

Recent measurements of the distribution of carbon dioxide over the surface of the earth produced surprises – several of the heavy concentrations of carbon dioxide do not follow man’s heavy industry but occur over places like the Congo, Indonesia and the Amazon (possibly seasonal emanations from soil or forests).

See: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Distribution from the OCO2 Satellite:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=oco-2+data&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisnPqglu3LAhWGL6YKHcEmCoAQsAQIMg#imgrc=kRW3ayOOn1mbqM%3A

Earth’s crust is flexed daily by the gravity-driven Earth tide – this movement opens and shuts joints and pores in rocks and soil and allows earth gases to be squeezed towards the surface. The crust is also dragged, raised and lowered by sub-surface movements, which release more trapped gases.

Volcanic activity also produces large but variable emissions of carbon dioxide, particularly if igneous rocks intrude beds of coal, oil shale or limestone. The periodic massive outpourings of undersea basalts along the mid-ocean ridges cause large oceanic degassing.

Oceans and the biosphere are wild cards in the carbon cycle. Warming oceans, rotting vegetation, ruminants and termites all expel large and unmeasured quantities of carbon bearing gases. And cooling oceans and growing animals and plants take up carbon compounds. And if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans and plants will take up more, thus providing a natural stabilising effect.

Eucalypt forests extract carbon dioxide for growth, but also emit hydrocarbons from leaves, producing the blue haze on distant hills on hot days. Soil carbon comes and goes depending on weather, biological activity and farm management practices.

Where are the measurements of the production and consumption of atmospheric carbon compounds by the vast herds of antelopes and reindeer, cattle and sheep or zebra and wildebeest?

Who measures the effects of termites and locusts, droughts and floods, bushfires and biofuel plantations, bacteria and fungi, algae and krill, seaweeds and sardines, oceans and volcanoes, grasslands and forests, decomposing rocks, sedimentation and underground waters? And what about the heat, CO2 generated and waste products buried by huge cities?

Earth’s total supply of carbon does not change – it just moves continually around the great carbon cycle residing temporarily as gases, liquids or solids in the atmosphere, oceans, biosphere and lithosphere.

Currently the supplies of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are recovering gently from record lows. No one knows exactly where it is all coming from but limited measurements and extrapolations indicate that about 96% of the CO2 added annually to the atmosphere is from nature. The only part of the carbon cycle that is measured with reasonable accuracy is the remaining 4% of atmospheric CO2 produced through man's recycling of coal, oil and gas.

See: Most of CO2 rise comes from natural sources:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.moKAPaHR.dpbs

We are asked to believe that we can use dubious estimates and forecasts of this one small component of the carbon cycle as the main input for computer models claimed to forecast future climate for decades ahead.

To use such dodgy forecasts to justify disruptive energy policies is a costly delusion.



Comments

Go The Donald!

Trump 'would exit global climate accord'

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, says that he would pull the United States out of the UN global climate accord and slash environmental regulations on the energy industry if elected.

The comments deepen the contrast between the New York billionaire and his Democratic rivals for the White House, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who both advocate a sharp turn toward renewable energy technology as a way to combat climate change.

"We're going to cancel the Paris climate agreement," Trump said on Thursday at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in Bismark, the capital of North Dakota, the second largest US oil-producing state.

It was Trump's first speech detailing the energy policies he would advance from the White House.

Trump said he would invite TransCanada to reapply to build the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the United States, reversing a decision by the administration of President Barack Obama to block the project over environmental concerns.

"I want it built, but I want a piece of the profits," Trump said. "That's how we're going to make our country rich again."

"President Obama has done everything he can to get in the way of American energy," he said. "If crooked Hillary Clinton is in charge, things will get much worse, believe me."

http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/trump-would-approve-keystone-pipeline/news-story/3ad66f7f374ab34cddf3d1a48fd14a56

_________________________________________________

And here is the detail:

TRUMP: An America First Energy Plan

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan

Alex Epstein in Forbes Mag.

Whenever I discuss any energy and environmental issue with anyone, near the very beginning I make sure to ask: “Would you agree that our goal here is to find the policy that will maximize human well-being? Would you agree that we need to look carefully at all the costs and all the benefits to get to the right answer?” It’s often necessary to bring up the non-impact issue explicitly: “Would you agree that to maximize our well-being we need to impact the world in all kinds of ways and that impact is not a bad thing but often a good thing? That we just want to minimize impacts that harm us?”

That reframing may seem simple or go unnoticed, but the resulting framework changes everything.

Consider the following ongoing policy battles: the Clean Power Plan, methane regulations, fracking bans, ozone regulations, pipeline blocking, new pipeline regulations, new train regulations, renewable fuel standards, wind production tax credit, solar subsidies, CAFE standards, green building standards, energy efficiency mandates, “green jobs” schemes.
All of these policy initiatives were initiated by Democrats, and Democrats are winning on most of them. Even when they “lose,” it doesn’t change the trajectory; Democrats have an unlimited supply of new anti-development, anti-freedom initiatives to propose if the old ones fail. Witness the short-lived “victory” of blocking a particular anti-fossil fuel proposal (cap-and-trade) being followed by a host of Executive Orders and international agreements to accomplish the same goal.

Since the Democrats make all the proposals and the Republicans react, Democrats control the direction of energy policy—against development and freedom, particularly the development of our most important form of energy, fossil fuels.

Science is not going to win the global warming debate because it’s not about science; climate is not going to win the global warming debate because it’s not about observed reality. If conservatives want to stop the global warming problem in its tracks the solution is within their grasp: refuse any more to indulge the left’s fantasy games; start talking about the interests of real, living people.

From James Delingpole,Breibart London

again, Pel, that's pretty subjective, depending on where your information is coming from (ie what are you reading that is your basis for such views). I am not denigrating what you say - and I am about as anti-islam as you can get - but I still ask what you are basing your claims on. What the minister believes is up to him. I have no doubt christian clerics listen to the official line then make their own minds up.

WINDMILL MURDER !

In 2014 in Europe there were about 40,000 winter deaths because millions of people were unable to pay for their electric bills – the so-called energy poverty currently impacts about ten percent of all Europeans. In the past 8 years the price of electricity in Europe has climbed by an average of 42 percent.”

http://notrickszone.com/2016/03/29/europe-lets-its-citizens-to-freeze-to-death-40000-dead-in-winter-2014-as-energy-poverty-explodes/

Knight, normally someone's gender on here is immaterial because it's about the content but you feel a bit silly to think for some time - based on the handle they pick - that you are communicating with a male when in fact they are the opposite. If I call myself mary, people would assume I am a female.

Lights..a daresay you are correct, in terms of your experience..so I would put it to you to ask these two questions of your local minder 1. Have the Christian Churches agreed that ALL Christian Church buildings are now available to use as mosques and 2. Ask what is the Christian hierarchy's attitude to islam (as in sharia law) (the interfaith BS will tell you that, but ask anyway)...then let us know..if they dont agree with what I have said, then they are lying to you

sorry, that should have read 'stars' not 'starts'

well how do you know if you don't attend a church, to see for yourself, what they are saying?? I'm not disputing your words Pel, but I have not heard - in the denomination generally, & specific church I attend - anything that touches upon the subject of your claim. Can't say fairer than that. And it's not bizarre...it's just a normal Anglican suburban church, with ordinary suburban people. When I joined that denomination as an adult, I attended the city cathedral of that church body and the minister in charge, told me to question everything, as I felt and thought it appropriate (I can tell you, he did ! ) To question isn't necessarily to doubt, it is primarily to learn. And as an adult, I had many questions. So I am puzzled to see how you can say “it is universal across the Christian Churches” when you apparently don’t attend church services to seek evidence or the truth/justification of what you have perhaps been reading.

So you see, you can say whatever you like, possibly based on your readings etc., but for me, it doesn’t have credibility, because I know that my one example or experience, isn’t doing what you say is ‘universal’. And I have to believe that if my church isn’t, then amongst millions, there would be others like mine.

I can’t say I know what the catholic churches are preaching from the pulpit, because I haven’t been to one. And individual churches and congregations are almost as numerous as the starts (!) so like any other entity, you get all the differing views and perceptions and approaches possible. From one suburb to the next, they may be saying something different. That is why I believe my direct, private, personal relationship with our Lord and God – if I can, with respect, call it that – is of far more importance, than church attendance (ie, the bible-directed public worship). That relationship is between your mind, your conscience and the Creator. That is what you will be answering to on Judgment Day.

Winston is a female. Would you know by the name? Is Gentleman and Bk a female?

I should come back on this site as Matilda and people will think I'm a female. It's crap.

Shotgun has argued with me on many occasions. i had no idea she is a female. Some time ago she said the sharemarket is going to crash and make the Depression of the 30's look like a picnic. i wrongly assumed she was a man and always thought that. It's just bullshit.

Yep. Grant you that Dis.

Knight, how many times have you written to soneone here asuming they are a male by their avatar name, to find at some time down the track they are actualky a female. Ridiculous.

Yes, men turn into little kids. But we don't pretend to be who we are not. People should have m or f next to their avatar. Like. Monte. Name of a man, picture of a man. Turns out to be a female. LOl ? what's the gender? Shotgun. You assume this is a man. Wrong!

3. Lead pipe which was used prior to 1930 and may still be present in some of the mains distribution pipes in the older suburbs of many capital cities.
This could account for the stupidity of inner city leftoids oongah. :-))

You have that right Shotgun... I feel much the same way. All good wishes to youl

Your irrationality suggests a vested interest in foreigners owning our strategic assets BK. Bugger the security of the nation just line your own pockets.

https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-overview.html

You seem to have lost the ability to have rational debate BK. Your missive addressed to me bears little relation to anything I said.

This is one of the reasons I don't argue with men. They turn into little children.