Where are the protesters in Hawaii? Kilauea is spewing mega tonnes of sulfuric gas and ash that will blow over to North America, affecting the health of millions in California. Then there is the lava flowing out of the earth and burning everything in its path. Has anyone calculated the carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere from those fires? Hawaii has just blown away all the CARB and EPA schemes to regulate human emissions.

CO2 Production:
Natural causes: 86%
Man-caused: 14%

Current level: 400 ppm
Projected CO2 level in 2067: 500 ppm
Projected Change thru 2067 = 100 ppm

Nature's share of increase: 86 ppm
Man's share of increase: 14 ppm

So let's say the world (primarily the U.S.) spends $17 trillion, cuts carbon emissions by 5%
Reduction in man's footprint: 14 ppm X 5% = .9 ppm (point 9 ppm)

New projection for CO2 in 2067: 499 ppm

Atmospheric carbon reduction after $17 trillion: 1 ppm

It has been as high as 7000ppm
200ppm is a death sentence for plant life, so we are actually at a dangerously low point.




Climate Lessons from King Canute
By Viv Forbes May 7, 2018

Climate Aristocrats and Bureaucrats from 190 nations are meeting in Bonn, dreaming up rules “to prevent the globe from warming more than 2°C”.

They have forgotten the lesson of mighty King Canute - he demonstrated that not even his great power could control nature by rolling back the tide.



Changing Climate is the natural state on Earth.

J

None of the warm eras were caused by man’s use of coal, gas, or petroleum or by bovine emissions.

And none of the cold eras were triggered by mandating more windmills, taxing open fires or following emission targets set in Bonn, Brussels, Rio or Rome.

This is their 48th futile talk-fest.

It’s time the Climate Aristocrats admitted they cannot predict or control climate, they have harmed consumers (especially the world’s poorest people), and they are achieving nothing useful for the environment.

They should mount their zero-emission bicycles and go home immediately.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/climate_lessons_from_king_canute_.h...


Further Reading:

The Bonn Climate Change Conference - April 2018:
https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/bonn-climate-change-conference-april-2018...

Nothing New about Climate Change:
https://carbon-sense.com/2013/11/30/nothing-new-about-climate-change/

How Environmentalism has Hurt the poor:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/05/Paunio-EnergyLadder.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/05/kicking-away-the-energy-ladder-how-enviro...

Australia Feeds the Parisites:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/05/the-parisites/

Julian hates the copper internet legacy and now the nursing home awaits 

juliar wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2018 at 5:54pm:


Off topic.

CO₂ gets an A+.




Stick a fork in it, it’s done!
AMM  04/07/2018



Looks like Time will have to dust off their old 1977 prediction – one of the world’s most respected climate scientists, Dr Fred Singer, has published an article admitting what top scientists have privately been conceding – CO2 Acts to cool the atmosphere, not heat it.

With Does the Greenhouse Gas CO2 cool the climate‘ Prof Singer, emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia grudgingly admits this and adds, “Much further work awaits!”

This comes on the heels of the fact that ever more peer-reviewed papers are abandoning the so-called greenhouse gas theory, 17 such papers have been published in recent months.
Singer’s latest admission is a big boost to the findings of 1,300+ independent scientists and researchers (The ‘Slayers’) at Principia Scientific International (PSI). Since publication of their ground-breaking book in 2010 the ‘Slayers’ have insisted that empirical scientific evidence, proves CO2 cools the climate.

As such, the trace atmospheric gas therefore cannot be blamed for global warming or act as earth’s climate’s control knob.

Singer’s latest admission proves there is a growing, undeniable, intellectual schism among the world’s leading climate experts. Singer reveals his change of thinking has come after private discussions with the brightest and best, including Professor William Happer. Happer called climate science “a glassy-eyed cult.”

The greenhouse gas theory predicts that more CO2 in the air causes higher temperatures by “trapping” heat and/or delaying cooling. Even NASA had bought into the non-science nonsense that CO2 was guilty and earth’s atmosphere acts like a greenhouse. This theory was well refuted in ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’

In the 8 years since publication, this important book is being vindicated by the real world evidence, so something has clearly gone awry with the theory. Even to non-scientists, it is very clear that ever-rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are out of step with global temperatures, which have remained stubbornly flat for a generation.

Prof Singer writes of the “puzzling ineffectiveness of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in warming the climate”.

Implying that government climate science has been on the wrong track since the 1980’s Singer observes:

“Such is the power of group-think that even experts, with some exception, find the idea that CO2 might cool the climate difficult to accept.“

That “some exception” is Principia Scientific International (PSI). PSI has been forthright in challenging both alarmists and lukewarmists to openly and publicly debate the theory, but there have been no takers.

In 2015 the ‘Slayers’ drew ire from Singer after senior PSI scientist, Joseph E Postma published ‘Dr Fred Singer’s Position Consistent with No Radiative Greenhouse Gas Effect.’

Postma, a young Canadian space scientist, had the temerity to claim Singer stood apart from other lukewarmers and was “converging on the truth” after Singer published an article where he conceded climate sensitivity to CO2 was “close to 0.” At the time Singer confessed:

“I should note that I am somewhat out of step here with my fellow skeptics. Few of them would agree with me that the climate sensitivity is indeed close to 0. I will have to publish the analyses to prove my point and try to convince them. Of course, nothing, no set of facts, will ever convince the confirmed climate alarmists.”

Fellow PSI scientist, Dr Pierre R Latour spoke of discussions he had with Singer, both in person and in emails. At the time Singer conceded there were problems when assessing molecular transition and lapse rate. Latour wrote:

“I met Singer at his University of Houston lecture hosted by Prof Larry Bell on February 6, 2012 and his several talks at the latest Heartland Institute ICCC, Las Vegas, July 7-9, 2014….Singer correctly notes there are several different temperatures involved; a source of confusion I discovered years ago. The Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory (GHE) literature is intellectually incoherent, a mess. He is correct to point out atmospheric global warming ceased since 1997 until now, 2014. The globe warms about half the time, 4.6 billion/2 = 2.3 billn years. It cools half the time also.

Singer now thinks it is possible that CO2 could be the one ‘greenhouse gas’ that “produces cooling of the climate when its molecular transitions are in a region of positive lapse rate.”

Prof Singer points to persuasive new scientific findings now triggering a reassessment of CO2’s role in climate. Singer clarified further:

“Another example is temperature over the winter poles. While the climate cooling is not obvious, it counters warming.”

While Singer, Happer et al. play catch up elsewhere climate realism has taken hold already. Even in Japan, scientists are pointing out the hidden fatal errors James Hansen et al. rely on and another paper in 2018 shows how our planet’s temperature is easily explained without reliance on any greenhouse emissions.

Recently, Russian scientists have declared the ‘greenhouse gas’ science is dead as global cooling sets in.

http://morningmail.org/blow-blow-global-warming/#more-85237

The Greeny drongos are full of nonsense because they are too dumb and impractical to even begin to try to understand real technical stuff. Just look at the sad tragic local examples here. Thick as bricks.

For tech stuff you need qualified experienced engineers. Not self appointed Greeny drongoes.



Green power fantasies
Mark Lawson 27 May 2017 9:00 AM



The utopia of consumers trading power thanks to green networks and photovoltaics is pleasant to imagine but completely unrealistic.

The cool phrases among the proponents of green electricity are ‘distributed networks’ and ‘micro networks’ which, we are told, will eventually supplant the traditional networks of large conventional generators supplying whole regions.

Along the way, or so the fantasy goes, the networks will become 100 per cent renewable without reliability being compromised and consumers will pay less.

This fantasy world is discussed by academics who contribute to the academic site the Conversation, and set out in detail in an April report produced jointly by the CSIRO and a company called Energy Networks Australia, entitled Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap.

This report points to a utopia of consumers generating their own electricity through rooftop panels backed by household batteries, for sale back to the network through smart meters. With the right policies this new cottage industry could account for an astonishing 45 per cent of energy generated by 2050, as opposed to the existing share of just 5 per cent or so.

The bulk of the rest would be made up of wind, the report finds, with a contribution from large solar projects which have yet to really be sighted in the Australian energy mix to date.





Legislators and voters may not feel so confident about the report’s conclusions, given South Australia’s recent troubles, and the patchy record of renewables in other grids. As has been noted in this magazine previously, claims about the success of Denmark and Germany in this respect do not bear close scrutiny (Whacky Schemes, March 25).

There are some success stories, but those are due to circumstances which don’t apply in Australia. A good example of a micro-grid that has gone 100 per cent renewable is that of Kodiak Island off the Southern coast of Alaska, but about 80 per cent of the grid’s power came from hydro-electricity before the island’s government decided to make the change to cut diesel fuel consumption. Now, about 14 per cent of the power for the island’s 14,000 residents comes from wind, which is backed up by yet more hydro power and a battery which can store about 30 seconds worth of power – to smooth the transition when the wind goes down and the hydro-power is being ramped up. The island also still has the diesel generator to hand if worse comes to worst.

The upgrades required for the clean network cost the council about $55 million, including a $14 million grant and nearly $40 million in special clean energy bonds with nearly zero interest. Despite all that assistance and the elimination of the need to buy diesel, the payback period has still been calculated at about nine years, or too long to interest private investors.

Academics talking about micro-networks, however, do not like to mention these real-world examples. These micro-networks were not discussed in the CSIRO report, but the concept often pops up in the renewables debate with academics carefully explaining that they can be isolated grids or sub-sectors of major grids. These grids are utopias of consumers trading electricity from roof top PVs, so that consumers will get their electricity cheaper than the power produced by the hated fossil fuel generators. If they are part of an urban grid this activity may reach the point where a micro-grid can even operate independently from the main grid.

This, like so much else in the renewables debate, is nonsense. For some idea of the likely costs if anyone were to act on these ideas, we need look no further than Kodiak Island or perhaps the micro-grid to be built for the West Australian coastal town of Onslow. Situated at the point where the coast turns east, it is only a few kilometres from the giant Wheatstone LNG project.

Read the pathetic dribbling glooney Greeny stuff here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/green-power-fantasies/

Juliar lied:
Quote:


First thoughts about CO2 causing AGW were back in

1820

Arrhenius worked out the basic science in

1905

In the late

1940s–1960s

scientists working for the USN and USAF confirmed AGW was real. Since the late

1970s

satellites confirmed AGW once again. The back radiation of IR redirected back to the surface is known. No doubt about ANY of this.

So the Club of Rome or Al Gore have nothing to do with the reality of AGW.

Sensible people expect leaders to set and implement policy to reduce emissions and adapt and mitigate AGW. Clowns like YouLiar parrot the IPA etc. YouLiar knows no science.

Now we know that Antarctica is losing net ice. Sea level rise just became a more urgent problem.

Re the “CO2 is plant food” too much food can kill plants:

1. Much more CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce the amount of proteins and vitamins plants make.

2. Higher night time minimum temperatures will see plants close their stomata (to prevent transpiration of too much water) REDUCING their CO2 uptake. AGW is mainly raising night time minimum temperatures.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 7:25am:



Based on Satellite altimeters, GRACE satellite data. Where the error margins on the "measurements" are wider than the supposed melt by a very wide margin. Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 7:25am:



Please quote this study about CO2 killing plants.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 7:25am:


Plants behaving more efficiently. Lowering water and vitamin intake; but only marginally.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 7:25am:



Link?

But then why are the supposed daytime records accorded such headlines?

"Three different environmental factors affect the opening and closing of a plant stoma: light, water and carbon dioxide concentrations. Plant stomata close in darkness and when conditions are very dry. Since plant cells need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, carbon dioxide concentrations are another key factor. If carbon dioxide concentrations inside the leaf start to fall, the plant will open its stomata so that more CO2 can enter, even under dry conditions when the stomata would ordinarily be closed."

https://sciencing.com/co2-affect-opening-stomata-20980.html

Didn’t think YouLiar would understand the science 

With sea level rise having accelerated governments of all persuasions, left or right, democratic or dictatorial etc will start getting serious about reducing emissions and sequestering CO2.

Other things happen–a bow of the Jet Stream might be stuck for some years bringing drought to a region (e.g. California and now Iraq where the two rivers are drying up) or funneling storms to another region.

Yes, some scientists got stuck in ice—an Antarctic glacier had collapsed spilling into the sea.

And hydrogen will never be a mainstream fuel.