Application For Alarm System Permit: Fill & Download for Free

BADLY. Do you really think tax laws will change the climate? Fortunately, the public are skeptical and see carbon taxes as nothing more than a greedy government “cash grab.”POLLS SAY “72% of people in Ontario believe the carbon tax is a cash grab” and gallop poll shows climate change ranks the lowest in public concern.Recent science studies confirm, as the public increasingly knows, there is no climate crisis to justify more taxes especially in these economic hard times from the Covid 19 pandemic.Our non-linear climate swings HOT BOX (Civilization thrives) to ICE BOX (Civilization dies)over millions of years. Stop the madness conspiring with the Paris Accord to make the climate colder!"Bjorn Lomborg's new book offers a data-driven, human-centered antidote to the oft-apocalyptic discussion characterizing the effect of human activity on the global climate. Careful, compelling, and above all sensible and pragmatic."―Jordan Peterson, author of 12 Rules for LifeWe hear extreme heat can be deadly, but we do not hear cold weather is deadlier. There are 33 cold-related deaths for every heat-related death. In what may seem ironic, heat waves are less deadly in hot cities than in cooler ones. This is good news for a warming planet. People who are used to the heat adapt better.An overarching theme of the book is that humans are creative and adaptable. Further, the wealthier they are the better they are able to adapt and not just to extreme weather but to any adversity.This brings us to one of Lomborg’s major points. Climate policies are frequently ineffective and sometimes harmful. By ignoring the benefits of adaptation in favor of policies to cut CO2, we provide meager benefits with an unconscionable delay and at a cost that reduces the growth that will make future generations resilient in the face of all kinds of problems.A case in point is the Paris Agreement. Lomborg devotes a whole chapter to it. By the year 2030 he estimates the agreement will cost $2 trillion to $3 trillion per year and these annual costs will continue through the end of the century. Yet, these trillions will moderate world average temperature by a ridiculously small 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit. Even that tiny temperature impact will not occur until the year 2100. The intervening years will see an even more trivial cut. Saddling future generations with a $100 trillion burden whose reward is 0.05-degree moderation in average world temperature is nothing for which the present generation should expect thanks.Book Review: False Alarm by Bjørn LomborgBY DAVID KREUTZERCarbon taxes historically have not reduced emissions of carbon dioxide by industry as intended. The data is clear human agreements like carbon taxes are useless.GOVERNMENT ATTACKING CO2 FROM INDUSTRY ARE ONLY WORDSWhy? I submit the primary reason is the amount of CO2 by industry at 0.3% is overestimated and dwarfed by unpredictable volcanos and wildfires. In any case it is too little to make much difference notwithstanding that the alarmist scientists have badly overestimated the amount of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.Remember CO2 is 50% heavier than air and does not mix well with other atmospheric gases. This means significant amounts of fossil fuel emissions simply fall to the ground or sea.We have very compelling evidence of the low fossil fuel impact as a result of the world wide COVID -19 lockdown whereMay 2020 Mauna Loa data shows CO2 levels are increasing over last year. Why? Because human emissions are not that significant source of CO2. Dr Timothy Ball thinks they are misrepresented by as much as 4 X too high in order to keep up the fear mongering by alarmists about fossil fuels.The carbon tax is not really about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The real agenda is a cash grab by governments to bolster their weak revenues.…the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner“… it should be known that the term «climate» comes from the Latin word «clima», meaning «region». Thus, strictly speaking, a «world climate» does actually not exist even if interdependencies exist between the single climates.“Most people have no idea how little the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere really is… In spite of this, the carbon-dioxide is always washed out by rain which impedes an unlimited accumulation.” ALLMINDINGERCarbon taxes are intended to encourage consumers to use less carbon dioxide by making fossil fuels more expensive and save humanity from a climate catastrophe of a future too hot climate caused by industry. This unfounded fear is called anthropogenic global warming AGW and it ignores that the earth is in the Quaternary Ice age and more warming is most desirable to escape the brutal cycles of icing over North America for example. It also ignores that CO2 is essential to all life on the planet through photosynthesis and more is very beneficial and needed for greening the planet including the deserts.Carbon taxes are regressive like a sales tax everyone pays the same thus hurting the poor over the rich. Using taxes as an instrument of social policy only works if the taxes are high enough to be factored into the so called negative behavior - [using fossil fuels] and there must be an alternative unlike useless wind and solar. If there is no reasonable alternative then the taxes are just a money grab by governments without any environmental effect. This is exactly what the Paris Accord was about. The Accord is a scientific fraud by a grand income generating scheme for many governments encouraged to reach carbon reduction targets by using carbon taxes. Leader of the UN IPCC pushing the Accord admitted that their real agenda was not the climate or the environment. See Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer giving clarity to the purpose of the UN-IPCC:Because the purpose of carbon taxes is to change behavior they must be high enough to matter. The advocates know at current rates they only hurt industry making exports less competitive and they do not change behavior.Even once the tax reaches $50 per tonne in 2022, Harvey says it’s unlikely to induce widespread change on its own. That tax level would only add between 10 and 12 cents per litre to the price of gas, he says. “To get a wholesale shift to more efficient vehicles and to get industry to shift, … it’s going to have to rise to $100 or $200 a tonne.” In other words, the cost to fill up has to jump substantially if people are going to trade in gas guzzlers.Is a carbon tax Canada’s best option to help the environment?To raise taxes so high would be political suicide especially after the world wide economic collapse of the Covid-19 pandemic. This means the taxes harm the economy without achieving their avowed purpose. Carbon taxes are foolish and harmful virtue signally gesture- that’s all.Does this purpose mean that shoddy environmental science is to be brushed over because the real goal is world wealth redistribution? But the carbon taxes are invidious and the attack on fossil fuel has enormous harmful impacts on the bringing > 2 billion people living off the grid cheap electrical power from coal and other fossil fuels.Carbon taxes have been justified by computing a social cost of CO2 ( using disputed climate science. But the cost is dwarfed by the benefits of CO2.Social Benefit Of Carbon Is Ten To A Hundred Times The Estimated Social CostBy Ed Caryl on15. October 2015By Ed CarylWe see many articles and posts about the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) as an excuse for carbon taxes, but nothing about the Social Benefits of Carbon (SBC). The very reason civilization is consuming fossil fuels and producing carbon dioxide is ignored. Carbon-based fuels drive civilization and have done so since man’s taming of fire. They heat and light our homes and places of business, transport us and our goods, and fuel industry. All that energy production has value. Ignoring this value is as insane as if you only entered checks in your checkbook and ignored deposits.There is great argument about the value of the SCC. The amounts are estimates based on the costs of production and future pollution and impacts primarily, and range from a few dollars per ton of CO2 to a few hundred dollars, depending on the computation method. Here are the U. S. government’s most recent figures:Table 1 from The White House here.But all these computations ignore the benefits attached to consuming carbon fuels. At first glance, it may seem difficult to put a value on benefits due to all the myriad ways that fossil fuels are used. Producing electricity is one use, and this was addressed in Boosting Per Capita Prosperity And Energy Consumption Is The Only Way To Care For Our Planet posted here in June 2013. But a more fundamental way to measure the prosperity that fossil fuels provide is to simply compare the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to the per capita CO2 emissions. The plot below uses data from the World Bank found here and here. The data from 2011 was used because that year had the most complete data.Figure 1 is a plot of emissions versus GDP for 189 countries for which the World Bank has data for 2011. Both axis are logarithmic scales. For a version of this graph with country labels and population, go to this link at GapMinder.The outliers in Figure 1 are small countries with unusual circumstances, such as Luxembourg and Qatar (upper right). The United States is the dark blue dot at the upper right. The European countries are clustered to the left of the US. It is clear that a high GDP requires high emissions but it doesn’t answer the question as to the value of a tonne of CO2. The next plot answers that question by dividing the per capita GDP by the emissions per capita for each country and plotting that against per capita emissions.Figure 2. The vertical scale is the per capita GDP per metric tonne of CO2 emitted, this is the Social Benefit of Carbon in each country. The horizontal scale is the CO2 emissions per capita. The large blue triangle on the right is the U. S. Both vertical and horizontal scales are logarithmic.In figure 2, the first 19 countries on the left are in Africa, with very small emissions per capita but high GDP relative to those emissions. The European countries on the right have high emissions but most also have high GDP relative to those emissions. The three lowest GDP dots with high emissions are “‘stan” countries in central Asia. The social benefit of carbon for the 19 African countries is quite high because they use very little carbon now and would benefit greatly from using more. The U. S. SBC is $2,924.84. The country-average SBC of all the points in figure 2 is $3,774.75. The Social Benefit of Carbon is ten to a hundred times the estimated Social Cost of Carbon in Table 1.The Excel spreadsheet that generated the above graphics is available here.Carbon dioxide is vital in so many products and uses including fire extinguishers and neonatal baby incubators.Competitive Fire Extinguisher CO2 Fire Fighting High Pressure Fire SuppressionSee The role of CO2 and central chemoreception in the control of breathing in the fetus and the neonateRobert A. DarnallWhy would you want for example to make CO2 fire extinguishers and CO2 baby incubators more expensive with a carbon tax?8.1. Current uses of CO2Nowadays different applications are known that can be used for demonstrating that CO2is a useful, versatile and safe product. Figure 11 illustrates most of the current and potential uses of CO2.Figure 11.CO2 uses. Different pathways for utilisation CO2.This chart shows how diverse and amazing are the benefits and uses of CO2 that are weakened and lost by the plan of carbon taxes.Fortunately, world leaders are waking up to the reality that the science of AGW is false. I will post some recent and extensive research attacking the premise of carbon taxes ie that carbon dioxide is a temperature and climate changing greenhouse gas.Data From 2 Independent Studies Show No Correlation Between CO2 And TemperatureBy P Gosselin on29. July 2020German climatologist Professor Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke recently took data from two independent studies and superimposed them. The result shows the long claimed atmospheric CO2-global temperature correlation doesn’t exist.The first data set was global temperature anomaly going back 600 million years, taken from the results of a paper by Came and Veizer, appearing in Nature (2007) and plotted below (blue):The second data set was of atmospheric CO2 going back 600 million years, taken from a published study by Berner (2003), also appearing in Nature. These data are plotted in the above chart in blue.No correlationThe plots were combined in the above chart to see how well they correlated, if at all. The result: no correlation.For example, as the chart shows, 150 million years ago the atmospheric CO2 concentration was over 2000 ppm, which is 5 times today’s atmospheric concentration of 410 ppm – a level that some climate scientists say is already “dangerously high”. Yet, the global temperature 150 million years ago was more than 2°C below the long-term mean.450 million years ago the relationship was even far more on its head: atmospheric CO2 concentrations were more than 10 times today’s level, yet the global temperature was a frigid 3.5°C below the mean!“There’s no correlation between earth temperature and CO2,” Prof. Lüdecke concludes, observing recorded data.Carbon dioxide and fossil fuels are not the driver of the climate as the greenhouse gas theory is unfounded.Solar cycles are far more relevant and impactful. GHGs have almost zero effect (Co2 in particular) and it cannot be determined whether that minuscule effect is cooling or warming. We know making fossil fuels more expensive will have an immediate negative effect on the poor and the export industries who will immediately become disadvantaged with the majority of nations without a carbon tax.The greenhouse gas theory about trace Co2 emissions is false and many research peer reviewed papers expose the errors. Harming the poor and the economy with carbon taxes is a futile plan accomplishing nothing.Scientists: Oxygen & Nitrogen ‘Radiatively Important’ Greenhouse Gases With IR Absorption Temps Similar To CO2By Kenneth Richard on10. February 2020Earth’s atmosphere is made of 78% nitrogen (N2) and 21% oxygen (O2). The “consensus” view is N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases (GHGs) and don’t absorb infrared radiation (IR). But scientists have been saying N2 absorbs and radiates IR since 1944 and more recent (2012, 2016) studies have found N2 and O2 are “radiatively important” greenhouse gases with IR temperature absorption capacities similar to CO2.It’s been known for 75 years that nitrogen – the Earth’s most prevalent atmospheric gas – absorbs and “strongly” radiates infrared energy (Stebbins et al., 1944)Image Source: Stebbins et al., 1944Methane (CH4) is thought to be an 84 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.Image Source: Environmental Defense FundNitrogen, oxygen are “natural greenhouse gases”Scientists (Höpfner et al., 2012) publishing in Geophysical Research Lettersdispute the “common perception” that nitrogen and oxygen – accounting for 78% and 21% of the Earth’s atmospheric gases – do not contribute signficantly to the Earth’s greenhouse effect.They assert N2 and O2 are “radiatively important” “natural greenhouse gases” primarily because their concentration is “about 2000 (550) times higher than that of CO2and about 4.4 × 105 (1.2 × 105) times more abundant than CH4.”Nitrogen, oxygen combined are more potent GHGs than methaneThe atmospheric abundance of N2 and O2 compensates for their relatively weaker IR function (when directly compared to CH4).For example, “the natural greenhouse effect of N2 and O2 would be larger than that of CH4 by a factor of 1.3” when considering their combined isolated GHE influence.Further, the reduction in the atmosphere’s infrared transmission amounts to 25.7% for N2, 14.2% for O2, and only 6.9% for CH4.Nitrogen’s greenhouse gas influence also rivals CO2’sHöpfner and colleagues also suggest N2 reduces outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) by 4.6 W/m² compared to CO2’s 5.1 W/m² when assesing their solo absorption capacity. This would appear to be a rather minor difference.If the number of N2 molecules in the atmosphere were hypothetically doubled, it would produce a 12 W/m² longwave greenhouse effect forcing.Doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm only yields a 3.7 W/m² radiative forcing.The authors reject the “view that the radiative forcing of N2 increase operates only indirectly by broadening the absorption lines of other gases.” Instead, N2 has a “direct impact” (as well as an indirect impact) within greenhouse effect forcing.Image Source: Höpfner et al., 2012Experiment: nitrogen, oxygen absorb IR to about the same limiting temperature as CO2A real-world experiment (Allmendinger, 2016) assessing the efficacy of CO2’s IR-absorption temperature capacity relative to air (N2, O2) and Argon (Ar) further establishes CO2 is not the “special” GHG it is commonly thought to be.Twin styrofoam Saran-wrap-sealed tubes exposed to sunlight were used, one with pure (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 and the other with air (N2, O2) and/or Ar.The results were admittedly “surprising” given expectations CO2 would operate as a radiatively distinct GHG.The tube absorbing IR with N2 and O2 (air) and Ar warmed to a temperature limit quite similar to (55°C to 58°C) the temperature limit in the 100% CO2 tube (58°C).There was no remarkable or “special” heat absorption capacity for CO2 relative to air observed. And Argon – not considered a greenhouse gas – absorbed IR to the same temperature limit as CO2. With a concentration of 9300 ppm, Ar is the third-most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.Because there is so little to distinguish CO2 from the most abundant gas molecules in Earth’s atmosphere, Dr. Allmendinger assesses “a significant efect of carbon-dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption can already be exluded.”Further, “the greenhouse theory has to be questioned.”Image Source: Allmendinger, 2016Scientists: Oxygen & Nitrogen ‘Radiatively Important’ Greenhouse Gases With IR Absorption Temps Similar To CO2I am posting three major peer reviewed papers published in respected science journals that demolish the radical unproven GHG theory.Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsFULL TEXT PDF https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdfRole of greenhouse gases in climate changeRole of greenhouse gases in climate changeMartin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons, Hans SchreuderFirst Published April 26, 2017 Research ArticleRole of greenhouse gases in climate change - Martin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons, Hans Schreuder, 2017Article informationHertzberg et al., 2017“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”GREENHOUSE IS FAKE METAPHOR OF THE OPEN ATMOSPHEREThis article on the Climate Greenhouse Theory is long and very detailed for Quora readers, but the issue is so important and the past science so shoddy that it is worth taking the time to consider it. Also Allmendinger presents and alternative to the discredited GHG theory.Review Article Open AccessThe Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful AlternativeThomas Allmendinger*Glattbrugg/Zürich, Switzerland*Corresponding Author:Thomas AllmendingerCH-8152 Glattbrugg/ZürichSwitzerlandTel: +41 44 810 17 33E mail: [email protected] date: March 14, 2017; Accepted date: April 12, 2017; Published date: April 18, 2017Citation: Thomas Allmendinger (2017) The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1:123.Copyright: © 2017 Thomas Allmendinger. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Visit for more related articles at Environment Pollution and Climate ChangeView PDF Download PDFAbstractIn view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophyit appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novel measurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented.The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes.KeywordsAlbedo; Measuring Methods; Stefan-Boltzmann Law; IRabsorption by gasesI have written an answer to a similar question here:James Matkin's answer to How does carbon price help reduce greenhouse gas emissions?