Hipp Direct Deposit: Fill & Download for Free

This is a vital question now as recent research about volcanos natural emission is a problem for alarmism.“Clearly, its time to put on hold all environmental action plans based on the cornerstone AGW principle of the global warming theory until additional geological CO2 emission research is conducted.”LET’S START WITH THE BASICS PRODUCTION OF THIS MARVELOUS GAS ESSENTIAL TO ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET.While this chart says fossil emissions at 29 Gt are very small at only 0.036% it should be much smaller if natural sources from volcanoes and wildfires were more accurately reported.“One expert climatologist Tim Ball estimates that human production of carbon dioxide is more than four times less than the combined statistical error (32Gt) on the estimated carbon dioxide production from all other sources.” IBID, page 74 Carter.\IIf human emission are dwarfed volcanos and wildfires the result dampens attribution of climate effects from human emissions.LET’S EXAMINE ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS OF CO2 EMISSIONS FROM VOLCANOS AND WILDFIRES TO TEST THE VIEW OF DR. TIM BALL OR 4 TIMES MEASUREMENT ERROR.Volcanos and wildfires produce variable amounts of Co2 often far more than any other natural source.“For example, until recently estimates of the carbon dioxide yield of one of the world’s best known land volcanoes, Kilauea Volcano (Hawaii), was 2,800 tonnes/Co2/day. In 2001, Gerlach and co-authors established by measurement a more accurate figure of 8,800 tonnes/day. which is over three times as great. If such uncertainty attends to well-studied subaerial volcanoes, the estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from submarine volcanoes, the majority, are obviously little better than guesses.” Robert M. Carter, CLIMATE: THE COUNTER CONSENSUS.NO DOUBT THE 2001 ESTIMATE IS WRONG AFTER RECENT HAWAII VOLCANIC EXPLOSIONSKilauea is one of the most active volcanoes on earth and has been in a state of constant eruption since 1983, turning explosive this month after a magnitude 6.9 volcano rocked the area.So far, at least 47 homes and other structures have been destroyed by lava from 23 open fissures, forcing thousands from their homes.This means the human contributions in context are not well understood because no one, including the IPCC, can satisfactorily account for the observed levels in detail. There is no doubt carbon dioxide sources and sinks have large DATA ERRORS. Even with guesses the IPCC admits man’s carbon dioxide contribution is small, but the IPCC argues that, nonetheless, anthropogenic emissions will ‘tip’ the natural balance of the planet causing dangerous climate change and acidification of the ocean. In exactly the same way the emission from wildfires are not well understood.Like underestimating the impact of major Volcanoes underestimating wildfires adds artificial fudged support to the alarmist narrative that fossil fuel emissions are the control knob of the climate. Covering up the real impact of fires is not much different than the IPCC trick of erasing the proven climate history of both the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age to make recent warming seem unprecedented when actually it was not.USGS/NASA LANDSAT DATAThis ice-covered Icelandic volcano may emit more carbon dioxide than all of the country’s other volcanoes combinedBy Sid PerkinsSep. 21, 2018 , 11:50 AMDespite being mostly smothered by a glacier averaging 200 meters thick, one of Iceland’s largest and most active volcanoes still manages to belch surprisingly large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, new research reveals.To help lift the veil on Katla (center right, above), which lies near the southernmost tip of Iceland, researchers flew a sensor-laden aircraft around the peak at low altitude three times in 2016 and 2017. At some points near the volcano, CO2 levels were about 8% higher than normal. Using computer simulations, the team identified a few possible sources of the excess CO2, including locations on the western flank of the volcano where meltwater full of dissolved gases emerges from beneath the peak-covering glacier. Other potential sources include some of the sinkholelike features that pepper the glacier near its peak.Based on the team’s models and data, Katla is emitting somewhere between 12,000 and 24,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide each day, the researchers report online this week in Geophysical Research Letters. That’s several times higher than previous estimates of emissions from all of Iceland’s volcanoes combined—which may be vastly underestimated because only two of that nation’s subglacial volcanoes have had their emissions measured in detail.Scientists estimate that volcanoes worldwide emit, on average, about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 per day (only about 2% of the amount that human activity causes). Yet that estimate may be far too low because it’s based on measurements from only 33 of the world’s most volcanically active peaks (only three of which are ice-covered), among the 1500 or so that have erupted in the past 10,000 years. More data gathered from Iceland—as well as Antarctica, which is home to dozens of ice-smothered volcanoes—may help scientists come up with a better estimate for volcanic CO2 emissions.Discovery Of Massive Volcanic CO2 Emissions Puts Damper On Global Warming TheoryRecent research shows that the volume of volcanic CO2 currently being emitted into Earth’s atmosphere is far greater than previously calculated, challenging the validity of the man-made global warming theory.Figure 1.) Volcanic gas emissions breakthrough overlying fractured and partially melted glacial ice sheet. (Image credits: Christina Neal, AVO/USGS)The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere.A warmed atmosphere that directly, or in some cases indirectly fuels anomalous environmental disasters such as ocean warming, alteration of ocean chemistry, polar ice sheet melting, global sea level rise, coral bleaching and most importantly dramatic changes in climate.There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle.Identification of Volcanic vs. Man-made CO2Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint.It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (see here).This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991).Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers).Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence.To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents.By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.Especially knowing that volcanic activity varies greatly from area to area, volcano to volcano, and through time. Utilizing just 0.001 percent (10/901,500) of Earth’s volcanic features to calculate volcanic CO2 emissions does not inspire confidence in the resulting value.Non-Erupting Volcanoes Can Emit Massive Amounts of CO2 into Earth’s AtmosphereRecent geological research by the University of Leeds and others proves that non-erupting volcanoes can emit massive amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. The Gerlach calculation and all follow-up calculations utilized volcanic CO2 rates from actively erupting volcanoes.Lost in the numerous recent media articles concerning the argument of when, or if Iceland’s Katla Volcano will erupt is the discovery that this non-erupting subglacial volcano is currently emitting staggering amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere!Researchers from the University of Leeds who studied the Katla Volcano said this.“We discovered that Katla volcano in Iceland is a globally important source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in spite of being previously assumed to be a minor gas emitter. Volcanoes are a key natural source of atmospheric CO2 but estimates of the total global amount of CO2 that volcanoes emit are based on only a small number of active volcanoes. Very few volcanoes which are covered by glacial ice have been measured for gas emissions, probably because they tend to be difficult to access and often do not have obvious degassing vents. Through high‐precision airborne measurements and atmospheric dispersion modeling, we show that Katla, a highly hazardous subglacial volcano which last erupted 100 years ago, is one of the largest volcanic sources of CO2 on Earth, releasing up to 5% of total global volcanic emissions. This is significant in the context of a growing awareness that natural CO2 sources have to be more accurately quantified in climate assessments and we recommend urgent investigations of other subglacial volcanoes worldwide.”(see here)The Number of Volcanoes Emitting CO2 into the Atmosphere at Any One TimeThe calculation of the total yearly volume of volcanic CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is based on the presumption that very few volcanoes are erupting at any one time.Scientists from various worldwide volcano research institutions, most notably the United States Geological Survey, have estimated this number to be 20.This very low number has been challenged by many scientists including those at NASA.A multinational team led by NASA has initiated a high-resolution satellite CO2 monitoring project (see here). This project is focused on determining how many geological features are emitting CO2 at any one time.This project may eventually give scientists a better idea of how many land volcanoes are emitting CO2 at any one time.However, it is doubtful the project will properly record ocean CO2 emissions from Earth’s 900,000 deep ocean floor and very difficult to monitor volcanic features.In any case, this project is certainly a step forward towards achieving a better understanding of the climate influence of volcanic CO2 emissions.The Amount of CO2 and heat infused into Earth’s Oceans by Seafloor Geological FeaturesAbout 71% of Earth’s surface is covered by oceans making it a water, not land, planet. For many years now, scientists have contended that the nearly one million geological features present in these vast ocean regions have played a minimal role in heating and chemically charging ocean seawater.Instead of contending that man-made atmospheric CO2 was the root cause of changes to our oceans.Figure 2.) An underwater volcanic erupts in the Pacific Ocean (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science—AP).Recent research has proven that the contentions of these scientists are far from 100% proven. To the contrary, it has become clear that geological heat flow and chemically charged heated fluid flow into our oceans is far more influential than previously thought and possibly the root cause of changes to our oceans.One example is that geological features are warming Earth’s oceans and causing El Nino’s and La Nina’s (see here, here, and here). Warmed seawater is not capable of holding as much CO2 as cold water.So, the geologically warming of seawater indirectly leads to a large amount of CO2 being released from oceans and emitted into the atmosphere.Recent research shows that seafloor geological features also directly emit large amounts of CO2 into our oceans and atmosphere(see here, here, here, and Figure 2).In summary, the volume of volcanic CO2 being emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere has not been accurately assessed.Numerous research studies and articles conducted/written by qualified scientists concur with this contention (see here, here, and here).In a geological time frame, Earth has gone through many periods of increased volcanism. These volcanic periods resulted in; major plant and animal extinction events (see here, here, and here), the end of glacial eras (see here) and the dramatic alteration of Earth’s climate (see here).All indications are that Earth is currently experiencing another period of strong volcanic activity which is acting to infuse CO2 into our atmosphere thereby challenging the validity of the global warming theory.Clearly, its time to put on hold all environmental action plans based on the cornerstone AGW principle of the global warming theory until additional geological CO2 emission research is conducted.https://climatechangedispatch.co...How do CO2 emissions from forest fires compare to those from fossil fuels?CBC Radio · Posted: Sep 14, 2018 3:44 PM ET | Last Updated: September 14, 2018Forest fire season is underway in B.C. (Chris Harris/Getty Images)This week's question comes from Gary Schajer in Vancouver. He asks:Forest growth is well known to reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuel usage because it fixes carbon and so takes CO2 out of the atmosphere. The recent forest fires in BC and elsewhere have burned a lot of that carbon and returned the CO2 to the atmosphere. What is the relative size of the CO2 emission of the forest fires compared with that from fossil fuel usage?Dr. Werner Kurz has the answer. He is a Senior Research Scientist with Natural Resources Canada, and also leads the team that develops Canada's forest greenhouse gas inventories and the Forest Carbon Management Project of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS).Dr. Kurz says that in 2017 about 1.2 million hectares of forest burned in British Columbia, and 1.3 million hectares and counting this year. Compared to the average annual area burned in the province between 1990 and 2015, each of the last two years burned 15 times more than the average area. Forest fires like these release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, such as methane into the atmosphere. The initial - albeit unofficial - estimate is that the direct fire emissions in 2017 were about 150 (plus/minus 30) million tons of carbon dioxide.This is two to three times the emissions from fossil fuel burning from all other sectors in B.C.But the impacts on the atmosphere are even greater because the many trees killed by fires will decompose over the next decades, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Also, trees killed by fires will not be removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as living trees would. Therefore, the combined impact on the greenhouse gas emission balance is larger than just the direct emissions. Fortunately, most forests affected by wildfires will regrow in future decades, and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere again.https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/sept-15-2018-summer-science-camping-under-a-volcano-plastic-in-beluga-bellies-and-more-1.4821942/how-do-co2-emissions-from-forest-fires-compare-to-those-from-fossil-fuels-1.4821944By U.S. Department of Agriculture - Flickr: 20130817-FS-UNK-0004, Public Domain, File:The Rim Fire in the Stanislaus National Forest near in California began on Aug. 17, 2013-0004.jpgWHEN LOCAL CLIMATE DROUGHTS FOR EXAMPLE ARE HISTORICAL AND NOT GENERAL THIS NOT EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.Was the 2014 wildfire season in California affected by climate change?Happy Camp Complex in northern California in 2014. Photo by Kari Greer.2014 was a busy year in California for wildland firefighters. Battles were fought over 555,044 acres of blackened ground in the state, which was the eighth largest number of acres burned in the last 28 years. So far in 2015, fires have covered 838,465 acres in California, which puts it fifth highest in 28 years. (Stats from Cal FIRE and the NIFC National Situation Report.)We have always been dubious of linkages between one weather event and long term climate change. When a senator brings a snowball onto the Senate floor or a governor talks about this summer’s fires to prove their cases that climate change does or does not exist, both may be over stating their “evidence”.However, I’m not a meteorologist or climate scientist. But some of them who are, took a stab at investigating the possible attribution of extreme weather-related events in 2014 to global climate change. In their report, Explaining Extreme Events of 2014 from a Climate Perspective, 33 different research groups explored the causes of 29 different events that occurred that year.The first event in the report is titled, Extreme Fire Season in California: A Glimpse Into the Future. It is debatable if the 2014 fire season in California was “extreme”, since like we wrote earlier, it had the eighth largest number of acres burned in the last 28 years according to data from the land management agencies. The authors, Jin-Ho Yoon, S.-Y. Simon Wang, Robert R. Gillies, Lawrence Hipps, Ben Kravitz, and Philip J. Rasch, reported “thousands more fires than the five-year average” between January 1 and September 20.We don’t put very much stock in numbers of fires, since a small spot that can be stomped out by a couple of firefighters counts just as much as a 300,000-acre conflagration. Total burned acres is much more meaningful. The area burned data that the scientists studied was derived from satellite observations, which can underestimate wildfire extent due to its limit in the minimum detectable burned area, timing of the satellite overflights, light fuels cooling before being detected, and obscuration by cloud cover.The report also examined the Keetch-Byram Drought index, and determined that “in terms of the KBDI and the extreme fire risk, 2014 ranks first in the entire state”, but it was not clear what time period they were referring to (it may have been since 1979).The authors fall short of attributing the “extreme” 2014 fire season in California to global climate change:Our result, based on the CESM1 outputs, indicates that man-made global warming is likely one of the causes that will exacerbate the areal extent and frequency of extreme fire risk, though the influence of internal climate variability on the 2014 and the future fire season is difficult to ascertain.Location and types of events analyzed in the publication. The image is from the study.Was the 2014 wildfire season in California affected by climate change? - Wildfire TodayLA Times refutes California Governor’s assertion that larger fires are caused by climate changeWhen California Governor Jerry Brown visited the site of the Rocky Fire that burned over 69,000 acres and destroyed 43 homes, he linked this summer’s large fires in his state to climate change, saying, according to the LA Times,The fires are changing…. The way this fire performed, it’s not the way it usually has been. Going in lots of directions, moving fast, even without hot winds… It’s a new normal. California is burning.In an article that should have been published on the Opinion page rather than in the News section, LA Times Reporter Paige St. John wrote:Brown had political reasons for his declaration.Ms. St. John supported her argument by listing positions the Governor has taken on climate change, implying, therefore, that the Governor’s stance on climate change is “political”. Governor Brown previously encouraged presidential candidates to state their position on climate change, supported legislation to reduce gasoline use in California, and has spoken about climate change negotiations that culminate in Paris in December.The article also includes information from fire experts who mention other factors that affect fire behavior, such as landscapes altered by a century of fire suppression, timber cutting, and development.Ms. St. John wrote:But climate scientists’ computer models show only that global warming will bring consistently hotter weather in future decades. Their predictions that warming will bring more forest fires — mostly in the Rockies and at other higher elevations, while fires may actually decrease in Southern California — also are for future decades.The NOAA chart below, from an article we published in September, 2014, displays the average temperature in California for January through August of each year, from 1900 to 2014. It shows a clear trend in California of rising temperatures. Not “in future decades”, but for the last 115 years.California, average temperature, January through AugustThe graphic below from the 2009 Quadrennial Fire Review written for the U.S. Forest Service by the Brookings Institution, documents the “Lengthened fire season due to climate change”.The orange bars show estimates of new fire season length by region. Graphic from the Quadrennial Fire Review published in 2008, titled “The Future of Wildland Fire Management” by the Brookings Institution.Researchers are predicting that beginning 26 years from now the number of weeks in which very large fires could occur will increase by 400 to 600 percent in portions of the northern great plains and the Northwest. Many other areas in the West will see a 50 to 400 percent increase. The portions of California that have vegetation capable of supporting large fires will see increases of 50 to 300 percent or more.If they are correct, the effects of climate change are not generations away. Firefighters starting out today will be dealing with this on a large scale during their careers.The projected percentage increase in the number of “very large fire weeks”—weeks in which conditions are favorable to the occurrence of very large fires—by mid-century (2041-2070) compared to the recent past (1971-2000). (NOAA)It is our position that unusual weather for one day, a month, a year, or even a decade does not prove or disprove a long-term climate trend. So when a senator brings a snowball onto the Senate floor or a governor talks about this summer’s fires to prove their cases that climate change does not or does exist, both are over stating their “evidence”. (In the first example, to a ridiculous extent.)Both gentlemen need to consider much more data, such as the average size of fires over the last few decades or the California temperatures over the last 115 years.And yes, there are factors other than weather that affect the size of fires, including decades of fire suppression in some areas. But not all large fires have burned in areas that have not been visited by fire in 50+ years. A careful analysis can’t discount the effects we are experiencing now — higher temperatures and longer fire seasons.LA Times refutes California Governor's assertion that larger fires are caused by climate change - Wildfire TodayGreenpeace co-founder pens treatise on the positive effects of CO2 – says there is no crisisAnthony Watts / June 20, 2016Dr. Patrick Moore sent me this last week, and after reading it, I agree with him in his initial note to me thatThis is probably the most important paper I will ever write.Moore looks at the historical record of CO2 in our atmosphere and concludes that we came dangerously close to losing plant life on Earth about 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels approached 150 ppm, below which plant life can’t sustain photosynthesis. He notes:A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be described as “the balance of nature”.Now, with 400ppm in the atmosphere, the biosphere is once again booming (see figure 8 below). He also points out how environmental groups and politicians are using the “crisis” of CO2 increase to feather their own nests:A powerful convergence of interests among key elites supports and drives the climate catastrophe narrative. Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; scientists and science institutions raise billions in public grants, create whole new institutions, and engage in a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; businesses want to look green and receive huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar arrays. Even the Pope of the Catholic Church has weighed in with a religious angle. Lost in all these machinations is the indisputable fact that the most important thing about CO2 is that it is essential for all life on Earth and that before humans began to burn fossil fuels, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was heading in a very dangerous direction for a very long time. Surely, the most “dangerous” change in climate in the short term would be to one that would not support sufficient food production to feed our own populationA link to the full report follows. I highly recommend it as a sensible and practical take on the issue. – Anthony WattsExecutive SummaryThis study looks at the positive environmental effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a topic which has been well established in the scientific literature but which is far too often ignored in the current discussions about climate change policy. All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the global atmosphere. As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth.This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.IntroductionThis extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years. The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.There is a widespread belief that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for energy are a threat to the Earth’s climate and that the majority of species, including the human species, will suffer greatly unless these emissions are drastically curtailed or even eliminated.1. This paper offers a radically different perspective based on the geological history of CO2. CO2 is one of the most essential nutrients for life on Earth. It has been approaching dangerously low levels during recent periods of major glaciation in the Pleistocene Ice Age, and human emissions of CO2 may stave off the eventual starvation and death of most life on the planet due to a lack of CO2.2. This is not primarily a discussion of the possible connection between CO2 and global warming or climate change, although some mention must be made of it. There has been a great deal of discussion on the subject, and it is hotly contested in both scientific and political spheres.There is no question that the climate has warmed during the past 300 years since the peak of the Little Ice Age. There is also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, the emissions would result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere. Yet, there is no definitive scientific proof that CO2 is a major factor in influencing climate in the real world. The Earth’s climate is a chaotic, non-linear, multivariant system with many unpredictable feedbacks, both positive and negative. Primarily, this is a discussion about the role of atmospheric CO2 in the maintenance of life on Earth and the positive role of human civilization in preventing CO2 from trending downward to levels that threaten the very existence of life.End PointsWe should ask those who predict catastrophic climate change, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, some pressing questions regarding the outcome if humans had not intervened in the carbon cycle.• What evidence or argument is there that the global climate would not revert to another glacial period in keeping with the Milankovitch cycles as it has done repeatedly during at least the past 800,000 years?• What evidence is there that we are not already past the maximum global temperature during this Holocene interglacial period? • How can we be certain that in the absence of human emissions the next cooling period would not be more severe than the recent Little Ice Age?• Given that the optimum CO2 level for plant growth is above 1,000 ppm and that CO2 has been above that level for most of the history of life, what sense does it make to call for a reduction in the level of CO2 in the absence of evidence of catastrophic climate change?• Is there any plausible scenario, in the absence of human emissions, that would end the gradual depletion of CO2 in the atmosphere until it reaches the starvation level for plants, hence for life on earth?These and many other questions about CO2, climate and plant growth require our serious consideration if we are to avoid making some very costly mistakes.LINK TO FULL REPORT: THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS ON THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE ON EARTH (PDF)Moore – Positive Impact of Human CO2 EmissionsDr. Patrick Moore is a Senior Fellow with the Energy, Ecology and Prosperity program at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 40 years. Dr. Moore is a Co-Founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. Following his time with Greenpeace, Dr. Moore joined the Forest Alliance of BC where he worked for ten years to develop the Principles of Sustainable Forestry, which have now been adopted by much of the industry. In 2013, he published Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout – The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, which documents his 15 years with Greenpeace and outlines his vision for a sustainable future.Overview of photosynthesis and respiration. Carbon dioxide (at right), together with water, form oxygen and organic compounds (at left) by photosynthesis, which can be respired to water and (CO2).WIKIPEDIACarbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless gas with a density about 60% higher than that of dry air. Carbon dioxide consists of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms. It occurs naturally in Earth's atmosphere as a trace gas. The current concentration is about 0.04% (410 ppm) by volume, having risen from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm.Natural sources include volcanoes, hot springs and geysers, and it is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution in water and acids. Because carbon dioxide is soluble in water, it occurs naturally in groundwater, rivers and lakes, ice caps, glaciers and seawater. It is present in deposits of petroleum and natural gas. Carbon dioxide is odorless at normally encountered concentrations, but at high concentrations, it has a sharp and acidic odor.As the source of available carbon in the carbon cycle, atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary carbon source for life on Earth and its concentration in Earth's pre-industrial atmosphere since late in the Precambrian has been regulated by photosynthetic organisms and geological phenomena. Plants, algae and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product.CO2 is produced by all aerobic organisms when they metabolize carbohydrates and lipids to produce energy by respiration.It is returned to water via the gills of fish and to the air via the lungs of air-breathing land animals, including humans. Carbon dioxide is produced during the processes of decay of organic materials and the fermentation of sugars in bread, beer and wine making. It is produced by combustion of wood and other organic materials and fossil fuels such as coal, peat, petroleum and natural gas. It is an unwanted byproduct in many large scale oxidation processes, for example, in the production of acrylic acid (over 5 million tons/year).It is a versatile industrial material, used, for example, as an inert gas in welding and fire extinguishers, as a pressurizing gas in air guns and oil recovery, as a chemical feedstock and as a supercritical fluid solvent in decaffeination of coffee and supercritical drying. It is added to drinking water and carbonated beverages including beer and sparkling wine to add effervescence. The frozen solid form of CO2, known as dry ice is used as a refrigerant and as an abrasive in dry-ice blasting. On the other hand, is a promising feedstock for the synthesis of fuels and chemicals.BECAUSE CO2 IS INVISIBLE AND HEAVIER THAN AIR AND IS ONLY A TRACE GAS WITH UNPREDICTABLE PRODUCTION FROM NATURAL BUT VARIABLE EMISSIONS OF VOLCANOS AND WILDFIRES ANY MEASUREMENT IS FAR FROM EXACT.A major fault with the so called global warming from humans is that the measurements are far overNatural sources is wrong to capture volcanic eruptions at 0.03% and to ignore wildfires. What they are doing by ignoring volcano and wildfire Co2 is inflating fossil fuel emission to try vainly to make man-made warming plausible.This means that human emission of Co2 - the great bogeyman of the alarmist are no more than the statistical error of the estimates.Why I’m Skeptical of ‘Man Made’ Global WTheoryPublished by CCDeditor on November 06, 2018.MY PERSONAL EVIDENCE OF NEW UNMAPPED VOLCANOSIn 2008, as part of my bucket list I sailed as crew on a boat from Hawaii to Fiji that almost ended in disaster while I was at the wheel near the equator. We suddenly lost depth from 60 metres to 10 in a few minutes as we came across a new underwater hidden volcano. No harm, but during the same trip a family of 5 were not so lucky when they hit a new hidden volcano sending them all into the sea. They barely survived.TranscriptNARRATOR:“Scientists believe that 80 percent of the volcanic eruptions on Earth take place in the ocean. Most of these volcanoes are thousands of feet deep, and difficult to find. But in May of 2009, scientists captured the deepest ocean eruption ever found.Nearly 4000 feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean – in an area between Samoa, Fiji and Tonga - the West Mata volcano was discovered. The explosions of molten rock were spectacular. This volcano was producing Boninite lavas – believed to be among the hottest erupting on Earth. Scientists also witnessed molten lava flowing across the deep-ocean sea floor and spotted shrimp living near the volcano’s most active areas.This research allows us to closely examine how ocean islands and undersea volcanoes are born. It may also shed light on how heat and matter transfer from the interior of the Earth to the surface, and how life adapts to some of the harshest conditions on our planet.Finding West Mata was a huge break for scientists and for those interested in seeing what takes place in the deepest depths of our ocean.”https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/deep...Deep Ocean VolcanoesBlaming fossil fuel emission of Co2 at the level of statistical error or near zero is absurd.“How Does The Atmosphere Really Warm Up?ccdeditor On November 5, 2018…We live in a world of flux. Those who attempt to arrive at a global temperature are striving in vain. And those who attempt to blame mankind for upsetting the balance of nature by burning fossil fuels ignore at their peril the enormous cosmic influences, which affect the tides, the monsoons, and even the movements of the continents.Surely the Earth is warming and cooling, surely the climates everywhere are indeed changing and evolving, for in spite of wars and technological advances, the cosmic forces demand that mankind makes progress at an ever increasing speed.To return to my initial question: What heats the air? once we realize that only conduction can possibly heat the air, then all the talk of the greenhouse gases capturing the radiation from the Earth falls into place.So we may pose the question to ourselves? Is there any such thing as anthropological (man-made) global warming? Surprise, surprise!Yes, there is some man-made global warming, by means of the prevention of heat loss, through the greenhouse gases.But since the greenhouse gases are together in sum only 1% of the atmosphere, then only half of 1% can be attributed to mankind, as night follows day.And since nature produces 96% of carbon dioxide and only 4% is produced by man, the effect of mankind on the warming of the Earth can be reduced by a further 96%.So the Warmists may indeed claim 0.0048% of the warming and the Luke Warmers may agree, but dare I say it, the Slayers of the Sky Dragon are the only ones to have understood the whole picture.The quantities I have mentioned are so trifling as to be laughable. In any case, evaporation alone would negate any theoretical warming.”https://climatechangedispatch.com/atmospheric-warming/amp/?fbclid=IwAR3tgaHBc31sFr-sglOesQq9k0F7v0nSoWFg56bSprZHX3zsw7_PViS4g6Qhttps://climatechangedispatch.co...