Letter Of Recommendation Form 2017 Cycle: Fill & Download for Free

MY OUTLINE ADDRESSES THESE THREE QUESTIONS:1. Why is there no climate crisis of global warming?2. Why is it a very bad idea to reduce our carbon footprint?3. Why is planting more trees a very good idea for the environment?There is no climate crisis of global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide. The claim is bunk and unfounded pseudo science.Co2 is entirely beneficial as it greens the earth and saves lives in hospitals.There is not scientific reason to stop using coal for the electric grid and there is a major humanitarian reason to use coal because the greatest environmental tragedy today according to the WHO is outdoor cooking in under developed countries.Bad idea therefore to follow Paris Accord and reduce our carbon footprintIt is a good idea to increase forests by planting more trees like Johnny Appleseed.REFERENCESThe alarmist campaign by the UN signed by governments around the world during the PARIS ACCORD to reduce fossil fuel energy because of the pseudo-science that carbon dioxide emissions from industry are making the climate DANGEROUSLY HOT is the major and devastating energy crisis of our time. Yet there is abundant evidence that solar radiation is the driver of temperature and it is in decline.THE SUN IS WANING GOING BLANK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITYSUMMARYElectricity available from a national grid is a boon to civilization enabling economic, social and educational progress.Energy for grid power around the world from fossil fuels with coal being the major provider is at 99.2% after trillions wasted in subsidies of renewables.Wind and solar fail as a source of grid electricity with less than 1% use world wide.Renewables fail because they are intermittent when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine.Vainly introducing wind and solar to the grid increases the cost because of the need for double back up with fossil fuels to kick in when the renewables fail.The earth is in the Holocene interglacial of the Quaternary Ice Age and at the peak of warming.Warm is never too warm based on past evidence and is always more beneficial than cold.We can expect falling into a cooling period like the Little Ice Age soon from the evidence of the decline of solar activity of Cycle 24-25.Further the greatest fear is the next cycle of glaciation not global warming as we are at the peak of the current interglacial.During the last glaciation most of the USA and Canada became inhospitable covered in ice > 1 mile thick.There is no evidence that Co2 including our emissions from fossil fuels has any effect on the climate.Solar cycles and activity correlates well with temperature not Co2.The sun has gone blank with few sunspots leading to the earth cooling.Most of earth’s history has been tropical with robust growth of plants and animals and not like the current ice age.Humans are a tropical specie and thrive in warmer weather.Fear of global warming is bad science and terrible public policy.REFERENCES“These two graphs illustrate a fundamental dilemma about the energy crisis. Electricity costs increase significantly because of increased renewables. Germany and Denmark have the most renewables and highest electricity cost. The reason is the intermittency requires a double fossil fuel back up constantly ready to kick in when the wind does not blow (at the coldest and hottest weather) and when the sun does not shine (during cold cloudy weather increasing abound).”“Fact 1: We are in an ice age, the Quaternary to name it, and have been for 2.58 million years. Given that the previous four ice ages lasted for right at 30 my, we likely have more than 27 my to go (the two ice ages that kicked things off were of snowball-Earth proportions and lasted much longer. Ice ages occur every 155 my, and we don’t know why. That’s a much longer cycle than Milankovitch cycles can account for. Those tell us things like why North Africa has been a desert for 5 ky when before that it was a populated savanna.“Fact 2: We are in an interglacial, the Holocene epoch to give it its name, a respite from glaciation. During an ice age, interglacials occur at 90 to 125 ky intervals and last approximately 7 to 14 ky. The Holocene is 11.7 ky old, but there is new evidence that the Allerød oscillation 13.9 ky ago was the actual start with a meteor strike 1 ky in producing the Younger Dryas cooling.* If we are actually, 13.9 ky into our interglacial, then natural cycles tell us we will be rapidly descending back into glaciation in 5… 4… 3…[Charles Tips QUORA writer and former Science Editor organized these facts.]“The combination of glacials and interglacials looks like this:THE sun continues to be very quiet and it has been without sunspots this year 62% of the time as we approach what is likely to be one of the deepest solar minimums in a long, long time.Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1977 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis CenterNew research shows fear of global warming is bad science.Marine species evolved, thrived, and diversified in 35 to 40°C ocean temperatures and CO2 concentrations “5-10x higher than present-day values” (Voosen, 2019 and Henkes et al., 2018).Image Source: Wunsch, 2018In the near-surface layer of the ocean (0-20 m), temperatures rose more than 5 times faster from 1900 to 1945 (~1.2°C, 0.27°C/decade) than they did during 1945 to 2010 (~0.3°C, 0.046°C/decade), which is the opposite of what would be expected if CO2 emissions were driving thermal changes in the ocean (Gouretski et al., 2012).Image Source: Gouretski et al., 2012II. The astounding warmth of the distant past – when marine species thrivedA year ago, Henkes et al. (2018) determined marine animals “thrived” in water temperatures that averaged 35-40°C in “widespread regions of the oceans,” which is more than 20°C warmer than today’s average ocean surface temperature (~16°C).The authors note that today’s tropical temperatures (25-30°C) can be equated to the “icehouse” conditions of the Carboniferous.Further, when marine animals thrived in waters >20°C warmer than today, this warmth was accompanied by CO2 levels “5-10x higher than present-day values” – about 2000 to 4000 ppm.Image Source: Henkes et al., 2018In a new paper published in Science, Voosen, 2019 uses the data compiled by Henkes et al. (2018) to further reiterate“Some 450 million years ago, ocean waters averaged 35°C to 40°C, more than 20°C warmer than today. Yet marine life thrived, even diversified and to construct a graphical representation of global ocean temperatures from the Paleozoic onwards. Voosen affirms “marine life diversified in extreme heat” and “mammals evolved during a warm period.”Image Source: Voosen, 2019In sum, coupling the 1) insignificant thermal ocean changes during modern times and the 2) extreme warmth (and high CO2 levels) of the distant past would seem to support the contention that marine animals are not currently in any sort of obvious danger from either rapid warming or high CO2 levels.https://notrickszone.com/2019/07...NO, global warming has not happened and is not happening now.The evidence shows temperatures have hardly increased over the past 140 years at 0.8 ‘ C and are now falling at 0.4 ‘ C. This small increase is easily explained by solar activity and natural variability. Measuring global temperatures at this level of precision is not credible and it is certainly not cause for concern as climate always seesaws hot and cold everywhere so the range of statistical error must be very high.Figure 1: The world's surface air temperature change ("anomaly"), relative to the world's mean temperature of 58° F or 14.5° C, averaged over land and oceans from 1975 to 20082. Inset are two periods of no warming or cooling within this overall warming trend.Just as important is when there was truly global warming in the past marine and other life thrived and this is when Co2 levels were 5 X HIGHER THAN TODYAY!We are in the Holocene interglacial warmer period of our Quaternary Ice Age of the past 2.5 million years. What is happening as to warming is no different and in fact cooler than temperatures of the Medieval Warm period where humans, plants and animals thrived.Holocene climatic optimum - WikipediaThis graph is taken from Wikipedia. It shows eight different reconstructions of Holocene temperature. The thick black line is the average of these. Time progresses from left to right.On this graph the Stone Age is shown only about one degree warmer than present day, but most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present; this need not to be mutually excluding statements, because the curve reconstructs the entire Earth's temperature, and on higher latitudes the temperature variations were greater than about equator.Some reconstructions show a vertical dramatic increase in temperature around the year 2000, but it seems not reasonable to the author, since that kind of graphs cannot possibly show temperature in specific years, it must necessarily be smoothed by a kind of mathematical rolling average, perhaps with periods of hundred years, and then a high temperature in a single year, for example, 2004 will be much less visible.The trend seems to be that Holocene's highest temperature was reached in the Hunter Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, however, superimposed by many cold and warm periods, including the modern warm period.However, generally speaking, the Holocene represents an amazing stable climate, where the cooling through the period has been limited to a few degrees.History of Earth's ClimateThis chart shows the seesaw hot and cold blips over 100 + years but ending where the temperature started and now returning to the colder temperatures from 1950 to 1980.“Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial hereJennifer MarohasyJennifer Marohasy22 August 20177:49 AMAccording to author Leo Tolstoy, born at the very end of the Little Ice Age, in quite a cold country:The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.Over the last few years, I’ve worked with Dr John Abbot using artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast monthly rainfall. We now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals showing these forecasts to be more skilful than output from general circulation models.During the past year, we’ve extended this work to estimating what global temperatures would have been during the twentieth century in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide.We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’.Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period.There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period. This was before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold to inhabit Greenland.The modern inhabitation of Upernavik, in north west Greenland, only began in 1826, which corresponds with the beginning of the industrial age. So, the end of the Little Ice Age corresponds with the beginning of industrialisation. But did industrialisation cause the global warming? Tolstoy’s ‘intelligent man’ would immediately reply: But yes!In our new paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network – remember our big data/machine learning technique – trained on proxy temperatures up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century.Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000.Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused).For more information, including charts and a link to the full paper read Jennifer Marohasy’s latest blog post.Illustration: Detail from Peasants before an Inn, Jan Steen, The Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery, The Hague.”The greatest concern about the climate is the risk we are returning to the devastation of seesaw glaciation of the LITTLE ICE AGE. An abrupt return of falling temperatures is very concerning. NASA Goddard Institute finds warming of 0.8* Celsius (1.4* Fahrenheit) since 1880. This means an average of only 0.0175 degree Celsius temperature increase annually. This minute amount is within the statistical error of data or natural variability of climate.“The earth is cooling not warming!It is not disputed that we are in an ice age from 2.5 million years ago so have temperatures changed upward enough that we break out into the nest global warming period?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ic...An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar icesheets and alpine glaciers. ... By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene.Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.Individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or, alternatively, "glacials", "glaciations", "glacial stages", "stadials", "stades", or colloquially, "ice ages"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials" or "interstadials" with both climatic pulses part of the Quaternary or other periods in Earth's history.In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.“The earth is cooling as temperatures declineLikely coldest April since 1895 – U.S. farmers delay planting cropsAnthony Watts / 1 day ago April 26, 2018Farmers are suffering as the cold, wet spring has put a stunning halt to agriculture. Ice Age Farmer Report – 19 Apr 2018Soil temperatures are below normal, and not conducive to planting yet.Ice Age Farmer highly recommends putting in your own greenhouse.“According to Mike Tannura of T-Storm Weather, there’s a strong correlation between historically cold April months and below trend yields. On Monday, Tannura told AgriTalk After The Bell host Chip Flory that April 2018 will go down as one of the three coldest Aprils since 1895.“Based on the data we’re looking at today, there’s a chance it could be the coldest of the entire period going back to 1895,” he said.Here are some of the Ice Age Farmer’s warnings:· Folks in Ohio are not able to start planting.· Folks in Nebraska are not able to start planting.· Folks in Illinois are not able to start planting.· Folks in North Dakota are not able to start planting.· Folks in South Dakota are not able to start planting.· None of Iowa’s farmland is ready for planting”“Climate Scam Collapsing: ‘Reality Is Cooling…MORE Snowfall’Published on November 19, 2018Written by Tony HellerThe global warming scam is beginning to collapse. Even CBS News Boston is starting to understand.BOSTON (CBS) — Despite the snow blitz of 2015, many baby boomers still insist that, overall, we don’t get the harsh bitter cold and deep snowy winters like we did in the good ole days.Weather records prove that just isn’t the case and despite the ongoing claims that snows are becoming rare and hurting winter sports, this millennium has been a blessing to snow lovers and winter sports enthusiasts.The last decade stands out like a sore thumb! It has had 29 major impact northeast winter storms with NO previous 10-year period with more than 10 storms! In Boston, 7 out of the last 10 years have produced snowfall above the average 43.7 inches.2008-09: 65.9″2009-10: 35.7″2010-11: 81.0″2011-12: 9.3″2012-13: 63.4″2013-14: 58.9″2014-15: 110.6″ Greatest On Record Back To 18722015-16: 36.1″2016-17: 47.6″2017-18: 59.9″https://principia-scientific.org...Monday, 01 October 2018″“THE SUN DRIVES THE CLIMATE NOT MINUTE AMOUNTS NEAR ZERO OF HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2. SOLAR CYCLES MATTER MOST TO TEMPERATURE CHANGE.THE ABOVE CHART SHOWS VERY STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN SOLAR CYCLES AND TEMPERATURE.This solar evidence destroys the unproven human made climate change idea.Recent in depth academic research supports the robustness of the 11 year solar cycle to explain natural variability not Co2.GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L14809, doi:10.1029/2011GL047964, 2011“On the robustness of the solar cycle signal in the Pacific regionS. Bal,1,2 S. Schimanke,1,3 T. Spangehl,1 and U. Cubasch1Received 6 May 2011; revised 9 June 2011; accepted 10 June 2011; published 27 July 2011.[1] The potential role of the stratosphere for the 11‐year solar cycle signal in the Pacific region is investigated by idealized simulations using a coupled atmosphere‐ocean general circulation model. The model includes a detailed representation of the stratosphere and accounts for changes in stratospheric heating rates from prescribed time dependent variations of ozone and spectrally high resolved solar irradiance. Three transient simulations are performed spanning 21 solar cycles each. The simulations use slightly different ozone perturbations representing uncertainties of solar induced ozone variations. The model reproduces the main features of the 20th century observed solar response. A persistent mean sea level pressure response to solar forcing is found for the eastern North Pacific extending over North America. Moreover, there is evidence for a La Niña‐like response assigned to solar maximum conditions with below normal SSTs in the equatorial eastern Pacific, reduced equatorial precipitation, enhanced off‐equatorial precipita- tion and an El Niño‐like response a couple of years later, thus confirming the response to solar forcing at the surface seen in earlier studies. The amplitude of the solar signal in the Pacific region depends to a great extent on the choice of the centennial period averaged. Citation: Bal, S., S. Schimanke, T. Spangehl, and U. Cubasch (2011), On the robustness of the solar cycle signal in the Pacific region, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L14809, doi:10.1029/2011GL047964.1. Introduction[2] It has been suggested that large scale near surface climate variability during the 20th century is related to the 11‐year cycle of the sun [White and Tourree, 2003]. The quasi decadal oscillation (QDO) reveals similar spatial characteristics as the El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and is similarly governed by a delayed action oscillator mechanism in the tropical Pacific [White and Tourree, 2003; White et al., 2003]. While ENSO associated with 3‐to 7‐year period variability is an internally generated mode of the coupled ocean‐atmosphere system, model studies indicate that solar forcing is necessary to generate the QDO of 9‐to 13‐year period [White and Liu, 2008a]. Moreover, there is evidence for a phase lock between QDO, ENSO type vari- ability and the 11‐year solar cycle resulting in a distinct temporal evolution of the solar signal [White and Liu, 2008a, 2008b]. Based on observations spanning the period from the late 19th century to present, van Loon et al. [2004, 2007] find1Institut fu ̈ r Meteorologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 2Department of Physics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India. 3Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Norrköping,Sweden.Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union. 0094‐8276/11/2011GL047964a La Niña like response with lower sea surface temperatures (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific mainly for solar maximum peak years. Meehl et al. [2008] confirmed a pro- posed mechanism on the basis of ensemble experiments with two different ocean‐atmosphere general circulation models (AO‐GCM). The resulting ensemble mean response patterns are similar to the observations in the Pacific region but the amplitude is only about half the magnitude of the observed response. A possible explanation for this underestimation is the neglect of stratospheric forcing and coupling mechanisms [e.g., Shindell et al., 2006].[3] Coupledchemistry‐climatemodels(CCM)havesofar been able to simulate important features of the stratospheric solar signal [e.g., Marsh et al., 2007]. In a recent study Meehl et al. [2009] successfully reproduce the strength of the observed response in the tropical Pacific region when employing a CCM coupled to a deep ocean model. However, their simulation reveals some discrepancies with respect to the exact shape and temporal evolution of the response. As their conclusions solely rely on a single realization with only one model, important aspects that need to be addressed are the role of (i) internal variability and (ii) ozone related sen- sitivities for the simulated/observed signals. In the present study we assess the associated uncertainties based on an ensemble of idealized simulations performed with a strato- sphere resolving AO‐GCM.The whole global warming saga is a group think movement using fear and prejudice to sell more newspapers and buy more votes. When you see the true non-science motives behind the radical claims of media and alarmists then you understand the fudged data and wrong hypothesis about the climate and how it really works.Dr. Endenhofer reveals the real climate agenda of the UN and other lefty alarmists.As to global warming Mother Nature has let the sun go to sleep resulting in cooling temperatures and weather that is reminiscent of the Little Ice Age.Monday, 01 October 2018″“NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun ActivityWritten by James MurphyThe climate alarmists just can’t catch a break. NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind.So, start pumping out that CO2, everyone. We’re going to need all the greenhouse gases we can get.“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.Who knew that that big yellow ball of light in the sky had such a big influence on our climate?There’s a bit of good news in all of this. When the thermosphere cools, it literally shrinks, therefore reducing aerodynamic drag on satellites in low Earth orbit. In effect, the shrinking thermosphere increases a satellite’s lifetime.But that appears to be where the good news ends, unless you prefer cold weather and increased space junk. “The bad news,” according to Dr. Tony Phillips, editor of SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids, is: “It also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.”Mlynczak and his colleagues have created the Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI), which measures how much NO is dumped from the Thermosphere into outer space. During Solar Maximum the TCI number is very high. At times of Solar Minimum, TCI is low.“Right now, (TCI) is very low indeed,” said Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s ten times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle."SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, but Mlynczak and the scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center have been able to recreate TCI measurements back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us how to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output — things that have been measured for decades,” said Mlynczak.In fact, TCI numbers now, in the closing months of 2018, are very close to setting record lows since measurements began. “We’re not quite there yet,” Mlynczak reports. “but it could happen in a matter of months.”The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate. God — and that big yellow ball of light in the sky — have much more impact on our climate than we ever could.”COMMENTJames Matkin •The earth is actually cooling and NASA grudgingly begins to admit reality over the fiction of failed computer modelling by the iPCC. So much waste and damage from the futile attempt to reduce our Co2 emissions for a colder climate. The climate alarmists have ignored solar natural variability not because of the science but because of their left wing economic agenda. They have ignored leading science papers like the 400 page study THE NEGLECTED SUN Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, by Professor Fritz Vahreholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning. This study demonstrates that "the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity." As NASA admits the sun is in a cooling phase and the solar cycles make impossible "the catastrophic prospects put forward by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the alarmist agenda dominant in contemporary Western politics."https://www.thenewamerican.com/t...”“Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate changeby University of CopenhagenAn ice core from the deep drilling through the ice sheet at Law Dome in Antarctica.The greatest climate change the world has seen in the last 100,000 years was the transition from the ice age to the warm interglacial period. New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2follow each other closely in terms of time. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Climate of the Past.In the warmer climate the atmospheric content of CO2is naturally higher. The gas CO2(carbon dioxide) is a green-house gas that absorbs heat radiation from the Earth and thus keeps the Earth warm. In the shift between ice ages and interglacial periods the atmospheric content of CO2helps to intensify the natural climate variations.It had previously been thought that as the temperature began to rise at the end of the ice age approximately 19,000 years ago, an increase in the amount of CO2in the atmosphere followed with a delay of up to 1,000 years."Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of CopenhagenCo2 has no effect on the climate as it follows rise in temperatures that is the result of solar cycles.“No Empirical Evidence forCO2 Causing Global WarmingSome say historically, that increased CO2levels in the atmosphere have created periods of global warming throughout our history. They cite the Vostok, Antarctica ice core data (1) as proof of this seeFigure 1. However, the problem is that whoever came up with that analysis had thecause and effect reversed. If you look closely at the graph, it is obvious that global warming always comes first. At temperature (blue line) spike always comes before the CO2concentration (red line) spike. After a temperature spike from the sun, the oceans start to warm and eventually liberate more CO2 due to its reduced solubility in seawater at higher temperature. Another relevant question is, what other mechanism could possibly cause CO2 concentrations to increase other than a solar spike from the sun? Where else could the CO2come from, especially during those times before the industrial age?Figure 1. Vostok Antarctica Ice Core Data (420,000years Back from Present)Recent empirical data (2) show that atmospheric CO2concentrations have no discernible effect on global temperature, see Figure 2.The temperature plots shown are from two sources; the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration's (NASA) Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and the United Kingdom's (UK) Hadley Climate Research Unit. The CO2 plot is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.Figure 2. Earth temperature and CO2concentration 1998-2008While CO2levels increased some 20 ppmv over the past 10 years, global temperatures did not increase as predicted by the IPCC models - they fell! The earth's temperature from 1998 to 2008 dropped by 0.65 - 0.78 o C depending on which temperature set is chosen.https://www.researchgate.net/pub...”“After record breaking temperatures, some cooler weather hits parts of EuropeBut the reprieve was not universal, with Germany measuring a record high temperature for June.Sun 5:36 PM 22,125 Views 8 CommentsShare11 Tweet EmailPeople watch the sunrise this morning on the mountain Brocken in Schiere, Germany,Image: Matthias Bein/dpa via APA WELCOME TEMPERATURE drop has hit western parts of Europe today bringing relief to areas that have sweltered through a widespread, deadly heatwave for almost a week.But the reprieve was not universal, with Germany measuring a record high temperature for June and Spanish firefighters battling three major blazes with the help of more than 700 soldiers and water bombing planes.In Rome, Pope Francis told pilgrims on Saint Peter’s Square:“I pray for those who have suffered the most from the heat in recent days; the sick, the elderly, those who work outside, on construction sites… let no one be abandoned or exploited.”Six days of intense heat fuelled huge blazes and spikes in pollution in many countries, and officially claimed four lives in France, two in Italy and another two in Spain.The victims included a 17-year-old harvest worker, a 33-year-old roofer and a 72-year-old homeless man.Today, in northern and western France, hot-weather warnings were lifted days after the country posted successive record temperatures as it sizzled alongside Italy, Spain and some central European nations.The mercury was predicted to drop by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in Paris today but to continue rising in central and eastern Germany and in Italy before rainstorms cool things down by Tuesday.On Sunday, a record 38.9 Celsius was measured in Bad Kreuznach in Rhineland-Palatinate state, according to data from the national weather service, wiping out the previous high of 38.6 degrees recorded Wednesday in two other towns.Following on from high temperatures of the last few days, things were a bit cooler across the country today. Some showers and moderate winds kep temperatures a bit lower.The week ahead is looking mostly dry with a mix of sunshine and cloudy spells, and temperatures ranging from 15 to 22 degrees in some areas.Runners collapseIn Frankfurt, Germany, the blazing heat took its toll on US athlete Sarah True, who had been leading the Ironman European championships but lost the race as she collapsed a kilometre before the finish line.The firefighter service in Hamburg reported that “many runners collapsed during a half-marathon which took place under a heat that reached 33 degrees. Twenty-four runners had to be brought to clinics for treatment”.Police used water cannons to help cool down the crowd at a summer street festival in Soemmerda in Thuringia state.In central Spain, temperatures close to 42 degrees hammered firefighting crews yesterday, notably near Almorox where at least 2,000 hectares (4,900 acres) have burnt while flames crept towards Madrid, forcing the evacuation of a village and 200 people from a campsite, emergency services said.Another major fire burned near Toledo, while in northeastern Catalonia, an inferno that had begun on Wednesday was being brought under control, regional authorities said.Four Spanish weather stations have reported June records from 38.8 Celsius to 41.9 Celsius.In France, fires razed about 600 hectares (1,480 acres) and dozens of houses in the southern Gard department.”- © AFP 2019 with reporting from Cormac Fitzgerald”Short URL·MY PUBLISHED COMMENTJim MatkinNo one living or dead has witnessed climate change if they are true to science, because climate change is only a statistic that measures weather over centuries or millennia. The statistic comes from weather, but it is not the weather hot or cold.“Climate change is any significant long-term change in the expected patterns of average weather of a region (or the whole Earth) over a significant period of time. W” .The alarmists media ignore science by portraying the recent heat wave in France as linked to climate change. This is impossible to know and in fact after a short 4 days France is now facing unusually colder weather for this time of year. The alarmists fooled again by ignoring the fact we are in the e ice cores from the two bores at Siple Dome (red) and Byrd Holocene warming of the inter-glaciation of the Quaternary Ice Age for the past 2.5 million years and temperatures are swinging from hot (Medieval Warming) to cold (Little Ice Ag) in a chaotic and random fashion. This is not global warming.https://www.thejournal.ie/heatwa...The key question is why do you want to reduce this marvelous vital gas that is entirely beneficial? The earth is starved today of Co2 and needs more. It is folly to lessen your so called carbon footprint.“The well accepted role of Co2 in science is as the chemical agent that makes photosynthesis possible where plants convert radiant light and energy into chemical energy.Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters the plant leaf through stomata, i.e., minute epidermal pores in the leaves and stem of plants which facilitate the transfer of various gases and water vapor.The entire process can be explained by a single chemical formula.6CO2+12H2O + Light → C6H12O6+ 6O2+ 6H2O.Water (6H2O) + carbon dioxide (6 CO2) + sunlight (radiant energy) = glucose (C6H12O6) + Oxygen (6O2).Credit: Energy Explained Penn State University.Plants take in water, carbon dioxide, and sunlight and turn them into glucose and oxygen. Called photosynthesis, one of the results of this process is that carbon dioxide is removed from the air. It is nature's process for returning carbon from the atmosphere to the earth.The "fossil fuels" we use today (oil, coal, and natural gas) are all formed from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and were fossilized. When we burn (combust) these carbon-rich fuels, we are pulling carbon from the earth and releasing it into the environment.Radiant to Chemical”There is much harm in the false notion that reducing your carbon foot print is reducing pollution.In fact reducing Co2 emissions will be very detrimental to life of earth. Co2 is non-toxic even at 4000 ppm for submarines for 7/ 24.· What is at stake with reducing Co2 emissions?· We need much more as the earth is starved based on past experience.· We lose increased plant and forest life from photosynthesis as Co2 is essential.· We lose greening the deserts and more water retention.· We lose carbonization of real greenhouses at > 2000 ppm making plants grow bigger and faster.· Co2 is often the used in fire extinguishers to put out fires.We lose life saving medical use in premie incubators and Co2 for surgery at 20,000 ppm.Medical Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide is used as an insufflation gas and as a cryotherapy agent.Carbon dioxide is commonly used as an insufflation gas for minimal invasive surgery (laparoscopy, endoscopy, and arthroscopy) to enlarge and stabilize body cavities to provide better visibility of the surgical area.Medical Carbon dioxide“Medical carbon dioxide.Therapeutic indicationsCarbon dioxide is used:• to increase depth of anaesthesia rapidly when volatile agents are being administered. It increases depth of respiration and helps to overcome breathholding and bronchial spasm• to facilitate blind intubation in anaesthetic practice• to facilitate vasodilation and thus lessen the degree of metabolic acidosis during the induction of hypothermia• to increase cerebral blood flow in arteriosclerotic patients undergoing surgery• to stimulate respiration after a period of apnoea• in chronic respiratory obstruction after it has been relieved• to prevent hypocapnia during hyperventilation• for clinical and physiological investigations• in gynaecological investigation for insufflation into fallopian tubes and abdominal cavities• as solid carbon dioxide (dry ice) in tissue freezing techniques and for the destruction of warts by freezing.”Ask yourself what is the greatest environmental danger today?·The answer according to the WHO is outdoor cooking in underdeveloped countries where > 2 billion are off grid living in the dark. The cooking fumes kills and harms many millions everyday research shows.· Why? Because they are off grid.· How to overcome? With cheap coal powered electricity.· But coal is the enemy of the hoax and renewables are not an alternative in our life time.· Further Co2 is not pollution. It is the non-toxic air you emit with every breath at 35,000 ppm.· Co2 is vital for all plant and animal life through photosynthesis and more is needed as we are at starvation levels now.·The major flaw in the work of the UN climate bunch and the resulting alarmist science is that they ignore the overriding relevance of solar radiation which is the source of all heat and energy for the climate. By narrowing the focus to demonizing Co2 from fossil fuels the science is very distorted and much oversimplified explaining why someone might think we could combat the climate.But even Co2 is not much under human domination as natural is only 0.039% and we emit only 3% of that or 1 Co2 molecule in every 100,000 molecules which is near zero.Our Polynesian ancestors also thought they could fight the climate but in their myths about Maui using ropes to slow the sun down they at least focused on the sun as the key player unlike the UN biased science.“This book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, ProfessorIn this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.” AMAZONThe sun has gone blank without sunspots and a cooling of the climate with early and massive winter storms is evident around the world.So much snow in Japan mountains that it is now a popular tourist site. [Note the UN predicted moderate or no snow from their so called global warming. WRONG WRONG]ALARMISTS ALSO WRONGLY PREDICTED THAT THE ARCTIC SUMMER ICE WOULD BE GONE BY 2013.AUSTRALIA EARLY AND MASSIVE SNOWFALL IN OUR SPRING.Easterbrook-Projected CoolingSee also:The Looming Threat of Global Cooling23 May 10 – “You thought last winter was bad? Wait until this winter,” says Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA.See Looming Threat of Global CoolingSee also:Geology professor forecasts abrupt cooling10 Nov 09 – The lack of sun spots has surpassed all records since the Dalton Minimum, suggesting that we may be headed for a Dalton or Maunder type minimum with severe cooling.See Geology professor forecasts abrupt cooling“VANCOUVER JUST SUFFERED ITS COLDEST OCTOBER 9TH SINCE 1930OCTOBER 10, 2019 CAP ALLONAccording to Environment Canada, temperatures around the Lower Mainland were at record lows on Wednesday morning.A bone-chilling 1.8C (35.2F) was registered near Vancouver International Airport yesterday, which Armel Castellan, Meteorologist with Environment Canada, has confirmed was the coldest October 9th in 89 years, since the 1.7C (35F) recorded way back in 1930.“It’s safe to say that it’s the coldest October 9th since 1930 and one the top 10 coldest in history,” Castellan told the Daily Hive, adding that the coldest Oct 9 ever belongs to 1916, with a low of 0C (32F).Furthermore, NEWS 1130 Meteorologist Russ Lacate has said: “Thursday morning will be even colder” and is set up to be “frosty” and “break more records.””Why is the greenhouse gas metaphor false?Think about this beautiful real greenhouse keeping plants warm at night when temperatures fall a lot without any sunshine. The fact the panels are all sound and closed is the reason so the heat trapped from day light cannot escape.But the earth has no such canopy of panel covering the atmosphere. All the GHG together only cover 4% of the outside and 9% is water vapour leaving only 0.117% or near zero of the GHG for human Co2 emissions.A fake useless greenhouse is the result:What about back radiation at the molecular level FOR the earth’s greenhouse? [False but even if true there is still too little Co2 to make difference.]“17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2Greenhouse Effect As PrimaryExplanation For Climate ChangeBy Kenneth Richard on 8. June 2017Huang et al., 2017“Various scientific studies have investigated the causal link between solar activity (SS) and the earth’s temperature (GT). [T]he corresponding CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] results indicate increasing significance of causal effect from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperature] since 1880 to recent years, which provide solid evidences that may contribute on explaining the escalating global tendency of warming up recent decades. … The connection between solar activity and global warming has been well established in the scientific literature. For example, see references [1–10]. … Among which, the SSA [Singular Spectrum Analysis] trend extraction is identified as the most reliable method for data preprocessing, while CCM [Convergent Cross Mapping] shows outstanding performance among all causality tests adopted. The emerging causal effects from SS [solar activity] to GT [global temperatures], especially for recent decades, are overwhelmingly proved, which reflects the better understanding of the tendency of global warming.”Hertzberg et al., 2017“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative GreenhouseEffect’. 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.”Allmendinger, 2017“The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory“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.”Blaauw, 2017“This paper demonstrates that global warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory. This explanation is based on a simple model of the Earth’s climate system consisting of three layers: the surface, a lower and an upper atmospheric layer. The distinction between the atmospheric layers rests on the assumption that the latent heat from the surface is set free in the lower atmospheric layer only. The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers. All variations in the energy exchanges can be expressed in terms of the temperature variations of the layers by means of an energy transfer matrix. It turns out that the latent heat transfer as a function of the temperatures of the surface and the lower layer makes this matrix next to singular. The near singularity reveals a considerable negative feedback in the model which can be identified as the ‘Klimaversta¨rker’ presumed by Vahrenholt and Lu¨ning. By a suitable, yet realistic choice of the parameters appearing in the energy transfer matrix and of the effective heat capacities of the layers, the model reproduces the global warming: the calculated trend in the surface temperature agrees well with the observational data from AD 1750 up to AD 2000.”Nikolov and Zeller, 2017“Our analysis revealed that GMATs [global mean annual temperatures] of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. … The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure … The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally.”Mt. Kilimanjaro located at Equator (~3.1° S) is a GREAT EXAMPLE of the atmospheric pressure effect on ground temperature: As air pressure decreases from 92 kPa at the foothills of Kilimanjaro to 47.8 kPa at its Summit, the mean annual surface temperature drops from 23° C to -6° C“7 Things to Know About the IPCC’s Special Report on Climate Change and Landby Kelly Levin and Sarah Parsons - August 08, 2019PrintAbout 23% of human-caused emissions come from forestry, agriculture and other land uses. Photo by Cunningchrisw/Wikimedia CommonsMost discussions of climate action focus on energy, industry and transport. A new special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states unequivocally that land is critically important as well—both as a source of greenhouse gas emissions and as a climate change solution.In fact, the report found that while land sequesters almost a third of all human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, it will be impossible to limit temperature rise to safe levels without fundamentally altering the way the world produces food and manages land.Here are a few of the main takeaways:1. The way we’re using land is worsening climate change.About 23% of global human-caused greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, forestry and other land uses. Land use change, such as clearing forest to make way for farms, drives these emissions. Additionally, 44% of recent human-driven methane, a potent greenhouse gas, came from agriculture, peatland destruction and other land-based sources.Learn MoreFor a deeper dive into the IPCC special report on land, check out our other blog posts:Forests in the IPCC Special Report on Land Use: 7 Things to KnowHow Effective Is Land At Removing Carbon Pollution? The IPCC Weighs InThe IPCC Calls for Securing Community Land Rights to Fight Climate Change2. But at the same time, land acts as a tremendous carbon sink.Despite increased deforestation and other land use changes, the world’s lands are removing more emissions than they emit. Land removed a net 6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 per year from 2007 to 2016, equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the United States. Further deforestation and land degradation, though, will chip away at this carbon sink.3. The very land we depend on to stabilize the climate is getting slammed by climate changeScientists found that land temperatures increased 1.5˚C (2.7˚F) between 1850-1900 and 2006-2015, 75% more than the global average (which factors in temperature changes over both land and ocean).This warming has already had devastating impacts on the land, including wildfires, changes to rainfall and heat waves. Further impacts will impair land’s ability to act as a carbon sink. For example, water stress could turn forests into savannah-like states, compromising their ability to sequester carbon, not to mention harming ecosystem services and wildlife. The report found that “the window of opportunity, the period when significant change can be made, for limiting climate change within tolerable boundaries is rapidly narrowing.”4. Several land-based climate solutions can reduce emissions and/or remove carbon from the atmosphere.The largest potential for reducing emissions from the land sector is from curbing deforestation and forest degradation, with a range of 0.4–5.8 GtCO2-eq per year. We’ll also need large-scale changes to the way the world produces and consumes food, including agricultural measures, shifting towards plant-based diets, and reducing food and agricultural waste.In addition to reducing emissions, the land sector can also remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The report found that afforestation and reforestation have the greatest carbon removal potential, followed by enhancing soil carbon and using bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), a process that uses biomass for energy and then captures and stores its carbon before it is released back into the atmosphere. That being said, the authors note that most estimates do not account for constraints like land competition and sustainability concerns, so these solutions’ actual carbon-removal potential could be significantly lower than most models suggest.5. Many land-based climate solutions have significant benefits beyond curbing climate change.The report found the following solutions have the greatest co-benefits: managing forests, reducing deforestation and degradation, increasing organic carbon content in soil, enhancing mineral weathering (a process of speeding up rocks’ decomposition to increase their carbon uptake), changing diets, and reducing food loss and waste. For example, increasing soil’s carbon storage can not only sequester emissions, but also make crops more resilient to climate change, improve soil health and increase crop yields.6. Some land-based climate solutions carry significant risks and trade-offs, and need to be pursued prudently.For one, it will be important to consider the net carbon benefits of any intervention; for example, planting forests on native grasslands could actually lower the amount of carbon stored in soil, hampering an important carbon sink. Some interventions may lower emissions, but cause other changes that ultimately increase temperatures. For example, planting a dark evergreen forest at high latitudes would lead to darker surfaces, especially during winter when snowpack would be covered, thus increasing the absorption of solar radiation—much like changing from a white shirt to a dark shirt on a sunny day. Planting certain tree or plant species may threaten other species and ecosystems. And most biological carbon sinks will eventually reach a saturation point where they can’t absorb any more carbon. Also, future forest carbon uptake is not guaranteed, since forest fires and pest outbreaks are likely to increase in a warmer world.7. In particular, land-based climate solutions that require large land areas could threaten food security and exacerbate environmental problems.Land-based emissions-reduction and carbon-removal efforts that require large land areas – for example, planting large-scale forests and growing plants for bioenergy – will compete with other land uses like food production. This can in turn increase food prices, worsen water pollution, harm biodiversity, and lead to more conversion of forests to other land uses, thus further increasing emissions.Furthermore, the report found that if the world fails to reduce emissions in other sectors like energy and transport, we’ll need to rely ever more heavily on land solutions, exacerbating food and environmental pressures.Learning from the IPCC Land ReportPerhaps the most overarching insight from the IPCC report is that land use and climate stability are a delicate balancing act: Getting it right can reduce emissions while creating significant co-benefits; getting it wrong can fuel climate change while worsening food insecurity and environmental problems.WRI’s recent World Resources Report lays out 22 solutions to create more sustainable food and land systems. We can feed the world while curbing climate change, protecting forests and growing economies—we just can’t do it the way we’re doing things now.7 Things to Know About the IPCC’s Special Report on Climate Change and Land”“How President Trump Can Trounce St. Greta And Save The PlanetSchool drop-out, global irritant, and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greta Thunberg has found yet another cause to badger us with: saving the world’s trees.We cannot allow her to get away with this.I don’t mean the stuff about saving trees: obviously saving trees is a good thing.Rather, I mean this ludicrous idea that she and her fellow green loons have that only they know how to care for the planet and that the rest of us — conservatives, especially, who believe in economic growth and free markets — know only how to destroy it.It’s time, I think, that we conservatives reminded the world that we are the original and best conservationists — and that there’s absolutely nothing urban, yogurt-weaving, tofu-munching eco-loons can teach us about caring for nature.Trees are a very good example of this. Almost everything the greenie propagandists tell us about trees is a lie.Greta Thunberg✔@GretaThunberg”World losing area of forest the size of the UK each year.”We should of course be planting as many trees as possible. But equally important - and hardly ever mentioned - is to leave the existing ones standing and to leave the natural habitats intact. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/deforestation-world-losing-area-forest-size-of-uk-each-year-report-finds …World losing area of forest the size of the UK each year, report findsChance of ending deforestation by 2030 seems lower than when pledge was made five years agotheguardian.com77.7KOne obvious recent example of this is the Amazon fire scare.It dominated the headlines all summer, with politicians such as France’s President Emmanuel Macron and celebrities from Madonna and Jennifer Lopez to Leo DiCaprio piling in to warn us of this man-made catastrophe.But as I wrote in a piece titled ‘Amazon Fires – A Big, Fat Nothingburger of a #FakeNews Scare Story this wasn’t actually true.The pictures were old, the claims exaggerated or misleading.As Matt Ridley noted in the Spectator:More significantly, the rate of deforestation in the Amazon basin is down by 70 per cent since 2004.Furthermore:Around the world, wild fires are generally declining, according to Nasa. Deforestation, too, is happening less and less. The United Nations’ ‘state of the world’s forests’report concluded last year that ‘the net loss of forest area continues to slow, from 0.18 per cent [a year] in the 1990s to 0.08 per cent over the last five-year period’.A study in Nature last year by scientists from the University of Maryland concluded that even this is too pessimistic: ‘We show that — contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally — tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2(+7.1 per cent relative to the 1982 level).’This net increase is driven by rapid reforestation in cool, rich countries outweighing slower net deforestation in warm, poor countries.But more and more nations are now reaching the sort of income levels at which they stop deforesting and start reforesting. Bangladesh, for example, has been increasing its forest cover for several years. Costa Rica has doubled its tree cover in 40 years. Brazil is poised to join the reforesters soon.So, in the real world — as opposed to the fantasy one greenies inhabit — the very worst-case scenario is that deforestation has dramatically slowed and the best one is that forest cover has actually increased.One reason for this is global greening caused by increasing CO2 levels. Another is that prosperity is enabling poorer countries to find the spare money they need to engage in environmental projects.Both the above examples are, of course, anathema to greenies who see CO2 — or “carbon” as they prefer to call it because it sounds all black and scary — as unmitigated evil and “prosperity” as the enemy because it involves economic growth.Greenies really don’t have a track record worth boasting about on trees. Back in 2018, they sought to blame the disastrous wildfires in California and elsewhere on President Trump’s denial of climate change.But the real reason those wildfires burned and spread with such uncontrollable intensity was because of maladministration arising from greenie ideology.In my original article, I quoted the Daily Caller, which had interviewed an experienced forester called Bob Zybach.He blamed misguided, eco-friendly policies dating from the Clinton era:While some want to blame global warming for the uptick in catastrophic wildfires, Zybach said a change in forest management policies is the main reason Americans are seeing a return to more intense fires, particularly in the Pacific Northwest and California where millions of acres of protected forests stand.“We knew exactly what would happen if we just walked away,” Zybach, an experienced forester with a PhD in environmental science, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.Zybach spent two decades as a reforestation contractor before heading to graduate school in the 1990s. Then the Clinton administration in 1994 introduced its plan to protect old growth trees and spotted owls by strictly limiting logging.Less logging also meant government foresters weren’t doing as much active management of forests — thinnings, prescribed burns and other activities to reduce wildfire risk.Let’s be clear: Greta Thunberg, the Democrats, and the rest of the green movement have zero credibility on the issue of trees and forest management or global greening generally.Conservatives, on the other hand, can — and should — clean up on this issue and make it their own.In a world where almost everyone seems to be obsessed with environmental fake news, here is a worthwhile and genuine green cause that conservatives can embrace and be seen to embrace.It needs to be done sensibly. For example, as Matt Ridley notes in a separate article for the Telegraph, the world doesn’t simply need more trees. It needs the right kind of tree in the right place.In the United Kingdom, for example, we don’t want any more of the grim Sitka spruce or lodgepole pine trees planted as part of some hare-brained scheme by the Forestry Commission.The woodlands we want are not closed-canopy forests of trees all the same age, but patchy woods with glades where oaks can spread their branches, while scrubby birch, hawthorn and rowan jostle with bracken and heather for sunlight, views can be glimpsed from hill tops and butterflies dance in the sunny clearings.Also, it’s not a question of planting new trees but preserving some of the old ones we already have.For example, it is quite ludicrous that American hardwood forests are being chopped down to be chipped and turned into “biofuel” and shipped across the Atlantic so that the Drax power station in Britain can meet its carbon emissions reductions targets.There’s also the major problem of tree diseases like the Xylella fastidiosa ravaging citrus trees in the U.S. and olive groves in southern Italy.Imagine if some of the millions of dollars currently being squandered on politically-driven research into climate change could instead be directed towards the much more pressing and real problem of tree disease.As I’ve argued before here is an easy way for President Trump to stop his enemies outflanking him on green issues. By becoming the savior of the world’s trees he can:Claim to be leading the way on CO2 reduction. (It doesn’t matter if you believe CO2 is a problem or not. Greenies do. And trees sequestrate ‘carbon’.Get all the other world leaders on board, so they’ve something positive to talk about at all those summits.Give greenie protestors something useful to do: plant trees.Annoy the hell out of the Democrats and all those other groups that want to paint Trump as a heartless, uncaring, planet-destroying capitalist.Actually, genuinely help save the planet.How President Trump Can Trounce St. Greta And Save The Planet