Activating Poa In Wisconsin Form: Fill & Download for Free

NONSENSE. Reducing your carbon dioxide footprint is surely folly!What is it about our so called carbon footprint that you need to lessen? As carbon dioxide is the most relevant issue in the climate debate I will address three questions relevant to your carbon footprint.Is Co2 pollution as Barack Obama often said?What is the proven value of Co2 on earth?Why does Co2 have no climate effect?INTRODUCTIONThe well accepted role of Co2 in science is as the chemical 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 ChemicalPause for a moment and substitute scientific understanding for the words lessen carbon footprint to see what we are playing around with in this goal. The result is you should lessen photosynthesis needed for all plant and animal life and lessen the emission of oxygen in the atmosphere. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO DO THIS?[SIDE BAR the earth is cooling or at least the warming has paused and the great prediction about moderate winters without snow and melting polar ice is fully false. Why? The most cogent answer is the science of solar cycles now very much in play with the sunspots disappearing.Solar cycle 25 is the beast that will bring down the fear of too much warming. ]Famous British meteoroligist Freeman Dyson says Climate Change Predictions Are "Absurd""We don't only have to worry about warming," the physicist argues. "It could very well be the climate gets colder. Nobody knows"—and we waste time arguing when we should be preparing. His view in the video below is more relevant everyday as we suffer long brutal winters and no sunspots to keep us warm.QUESTIONSIs Co2 pollution as Barack Obama often said? NO *********Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not PollutionCarbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and the global warming debate has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current global warming debate is about - greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.People are confusing smog, carbon monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere - carbon dioxide (CO2). Real air pollution is already regulated under the 1970's Clean Air Act and regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner".They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life.Thus, regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'carbon taxes', 'cap and trade' or the EPA will cause all energy prices (e.g. electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil) to skyrocket."CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, MIT"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet."- John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."- S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia"To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is actually plant food."- Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned."- Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant."- Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land."- David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants."- Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistryhttp://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html2. What is the proven value of Co2 on earth? **********Patrick Moore the importance of more Co2.Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon DioxideThe demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity. Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.Using energy from sunlight—together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth—plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates. (Since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants.) C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.At the current low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rubisco in C3 plants can be fooled into substituting oxygen molecules for carbon-dioxide molecules. But this substitution reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, especially at high temperatures. To get around the problem, a small number of plants have evolved a way to enrich the carbon-dioxide concentration around the rubisco enzyme, and to suppress the oxygen concentration. Called C4 plants because they utilize a molecule with four carbons, plants that use this evolutionary trick include sugar cane, corn and other tropical plants.Although C4 plants evolved to cope with low levels of carbon dioxide, the workaround comes at a price, since it takes additional chemical energy. With high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, C4 plants are not as productive as C3 plants, which do not have the overhead costs of the carbon-dioxide enrichment system.That's hardly all that goes into making the case for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant's photosynthetic cycles.The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better.Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.Mr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.Plants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppmAnthony Watts / May 9, 2015Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball is writing on behalf of the plants.The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reportsthat global monthly CO2 levels reached 400 ppm. They present this as threatening news, but it is good news for plants and animals. I was involved in a brief to the US Supreme Court opposing the EPA actions on CO2. I proposed we seek Power of Attorney (POA) for the plants. We would vote on behalf of the plants against any attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current claimed 400 ppm and for any increase, at least to a level of 1200 ppm.Seeking POA sounds like an environmental stunt for the Sierra Club, or all those who claim to care about plants and animals. Why aren’t they doing it? Why aren’t they proclaiming the good news for the plants and animals they say they care about? The answer is because the facts they have selected for their political agenda on the environment and climate puts them in a completely contradictory position. They know CO2 is critical for plant growth, but only promote planting more trees to reduce atmospheric levels because they have chosen to label CO2 a pollutant. It doesn’t occur to them that increasing the CO2 level enhances plant growth. It creates a moral and philosophical conflict, as they want plants to succeed, but want to reduce the input that makes them successful. They can’t see the forest for the trees.All life on Earth exists because of CO2. It is essential to flora, which then produce oxygen essential to fauna. Gore and others claim current levels are the highest ever. Others modify that claim arguing it is the highest in 650,000 years. That figure is convenient because it sounds like a long time. The levels are based Antarctic ice core data, which are clearly created artificially low to achieve the slope necessary for the political agenda against post-industrial CO2.The longer geologic record produced by Scotese and Bernier (Figure 1) shows that for most of Earth’s history the level was well above the current level. The only time when levels were commensurate with today was from 315 million years ago (mya) to 270 mya, yet for over half of that period temperature was similar to today.Most plants, especially the complex vascular plants evolved in the last 300 million years. The average level of atmospheric CO2 over that period was approximately 1200 ppm.Figure 12This suggests that most plants evolved with an optimum level of 1200 ppm.The work of Sherwood and Craig Idso supports this value as reported extensively in their research at their web site. Commercial greenhouse operators also use this information as they pump in CO2 to enhance yields. Figure 2 shows a commercial CO2 generator advertised as follows:Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1000 PPM, it results in higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1500 PPM per unit in a 4800 square foot (446 square meter) greenhouse. By adding CO2, especially during the winter months when greenhouse ventilators are closed and when low CO2 concentration becomes a limiting factor in growth, growers are obtaining yield and bloom quality similar to that which is normally associated with spring and summer conditions.Commercial CO2 GeneratorFigure 2During particular times of the year in new greenhouses, and especially in double-glazed structures that have reduced air exchange rates, the carbon dioxide levels can easily drop below 340 ppm which has a significant negative effect on the crop. Ventilation during the day can raise the CO2 levels closer to ambient but never back to ambient levels of 340 ppm. Supplementation of CO2 is seen as the only method to overcome this deficiency and increasing the level above 340 ppm is beneficial for most crops. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.The irony is this comes from a government planning a carbon tax to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. In their “climate change solution,” they introduced a cap and trade designed to“set a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that can be emitted.”The phrase “greenhouse gas pollution” is false. CO2 is not a pollutant. However, once that assumption is made emotion rather than facts produce policy that contradicts reality.If someone had POA for the plants, they could speak against the insane claim of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that CO2 is a “harmful substance”. EPA even convinced the US Supreme Court, supposedly the wisest people in the land, of this falsity.Plants are delighted that CO2 levels are now 400 ppm and rising. They would also vote, with numbers well in excess of the human vote of approximately 6.5 billion, to oppose any legislation or attempts to reduce those levels. They also hope you enjoy the oxygen they provide for a life, not just a better life.Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon DioxideMr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.Plants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppmAnthony Watts / May 9, 2015Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball is writing on behalf of the plants.The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that global monthly CO2 levels reached 400 ppm. They present this as threatening news, but it is good news for plants and animals. I was involved in a brief to the US Supreme Court opposing the EPA actions on CO2. I proposed we seek Power of Attorney (POA) for the plants. We would vote on behalf of the plants against any attempts to reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current claimed 400 ppm and for any increase, at least to a level of 1200 ppm.Seeking POA sounds like an environmental stunt for the Sierra Club, or all those who claim to care about plants and animals. Why aren’t they doing it? Why aren’t they proclaiming the good news for the plants and animals they say they care about? The answer is because the facts they have selected for their political agenda on the environment and climate puts them in a completely contradictory position. They know CO2 is critical for plant growth, but only promote planting more trees to reduce atmospheric levels because they have chosen to label CO2 a pollutant. It doesn’t occur to them that increasing the CO2 level enhances plant growth. It creates a moral and philosophical conflict, as they want plants to succeed, but want to reduce the input that makes them successful. They can’t see the forest for the trees.All life on Earth exists because of CO2. It is essential to flora, which then produce oxygen essential to fauna. Gore and others claim current levels are the highest ever. Others modify that claim arguing it is the highest in 650,000 years. That figure is convenient because it sounds like a long time. The levels are based Antarctic ice core data, which are clearly created artificially low to achieve the slope necessary for the political agenda against post-industrial CO2.The longer geologic record produced by Scotese and Bernier (Figure 1) shows that for most of Earth’s history the level was well above the current level. The only time when levels were commensurate with today was from 315 million years ago (mya) to 270 mya, yet for over half of that period temperature was similar to today.Most plants, especially the complex vascular plants evolved in the last 300 million years. The average level of atmospheric CO2 over that period was approximately 1200 ppm.Figure 12This suggests that most plants evolved with an optimum level of 1200 ppm.The work of Sherwood and Craig Idso supports this value as reported extensively in their research at their web site. Commercial greenhouse operators also use this information as they pump in CO2 to enhance yields. Figure 2 shows a commercial CO2 generator advertised as follows:Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1000 PPM, it results in higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1500 PPM per unit in a 4800 square foot (446 square meter) greenhouse. By adding CO2, especially during the winter months when greenhouse ventilators are closed and when low CO2 concentration becomes a limiting factor in growth, growers are obtaining yield and bloom quality similar to that which is normally associated with spring and summer conditions.Commercial CO2 GeneratorFigure 2It’s possible the company is promoting a product merely to enhance sales but consider the benefits set out by the Ontario governmentDuring particular times of the year in new greenhouses, and especially in double-glazed structures that have reduced air exchange rates, the carbon dioxide levels can easily drop below 340 ppm which has a significant negative effect on the crop. Ventilation during the day can raise the CO2 levels closer to ambient but never back to ambient levels of 340 ppm. Supplementation of CO2 is seen as the only method to overcome this deficiency and increasing the level above 340 ppm is beneficial for most crops. The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.The irony is this comes from a government planning a carbon tax to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. In their “climate change solution,” they introduced a cap and trade designed to“set a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that can be emitted.”The phrase “greenhouse gas pollution” is false. CO2 is not a pollutant. However, once that assumption is made emotion rather than facts produce policy that contradicts reality.If someone had POA for the plants, they could speak against the insane claim of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that CO2 is a “harmful substance”. EPA even convinced the US Supreme Court, supposedly the wisest people in the land, of this falsity.Plants are delighted that CO2 levels are now 400 ppm and rising. They would also vote, with numbers well in excess of the human vote of approximately 6.5 billion, to oppose any legislation or attempts to reduce those levels. They also hope you enjoy the oxygen they provide for a life, not just a better life.Plants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppmThere 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 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.How is CO2 produced commercially and why are we short of it?Jack is a lifestyle writer for Verdict, covering Netflix, gaming, and film. You can reach him at [email protected] UK is facing a severe shortage of CO2, which is going to have a huge knock-on effect on food and drink. The shortage is all to do with the way that the gas is made. But how is CO2 produced commercially and why has that led to a shortage?As it stands, three of the UK’s four major CO2 production facilities have shut down. Only one is still open. Across the whole of northern Europe, at least five CO2 producers are currently offline.There are a few reasons why there is a carbon dioxide shortage. Ultimately, it’s a combination of different factors and bad timing.How is CO2 produced commercially?While CO2 can be distilled from the air, that method is expensive and inefficient.Therefore, it is usually captured from other sources where it is a waste material. This could be anything from brewing beer to burning fossil fuels.However, the most efficient way of producing carbon dioxide is from ammonia.Ammonia is an inorganic chemical used in household cleaning products, plastic production, and food storage. The majority of ammonia is used in farming, though. Around 80% of ammonia produced around the world is used as plant fertiliser.It is produced by burning natural gas to separate the carbon and hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen is then combined with nitrogen to create ammonia.The carbon atoms can then combine with oxygen to create CO2 as a byproduct. This CO2 can then be sold to the industries that need it.Why is there a CO2 shortage?As mentioned above, the present CO2 shortage is a confluence of a number of factors.Firstly, ammonia production is usually low in the summers anyway. Farmers don’t tend to need fertiliser in the summer, so ammonia production plants tend to close over the summer for maintenance. Less ammonia production means less CO2 production. Part of the reason for the current shortage has been too many ammonia producers shutting down at once.There’s also the high price of natural gas at the moment plus the low price of ammonia. That means factories have had to charge more for ammonia, and farmers who need it can import it cheaply from overseas. Consequently, less ammonia was produced this year and there was less CO2 produced as a result.On top of that, there’s the warm weather northern Europe has experienced, and the World Cup. This means there’s been a huge spike in sales of drinks such as beers and fizzy pop. As these drinks require CO2 to produce, there’s less to go around than normal.But why does the shortage matter? Well, that brings us to the next point…What is CO2 used for?As mentioned above, CO2 is used in the production of drinks, both soft and alcoholic. The bubbles in your lemonade are CO2 and so is the foam on the top of your beer. Simply put, if there’s no CO2, your favourite drinks can’t be made.But CO2 also has uses in food production. The gas is also used to stun animals before they are slaughtered for meat. If animals can’t be stunned, then the meat industry could grind to a halt.CO2 is also used in food packaging to extend the lifespan of everything from meat to salads. It is also used to create dry ice, which is used to keep food cool while it is in transit.Outside the food and drink sector, CO2 also has several other important functions. It is used in various medical procedures, semi-conductor manufacturing, and to help extract crude oil.In short, a lack of CO2 is a big issue for a lot of industries.When will the CO2 shortage end?That depends on how much we have left, and how much it is needed. Some reports from around the UK says food and drinks suppliers are using emergency reserves to keep production up and running.As we’ll discuss in the next point, it seems like lots of big brands have been affected. That might suggest the shortage is actually rather severe.However, it’s not all bad news. According to some reports, one of the UK’s largest ammonia production facilities expects to reopen as of next week. Even if that doesn’t totally end the shortage, it should alleviate the issue somewhat.Unfortunately though, CO2 is difficult and expensive to transport so it can’t just be brought in from abroad. Essentially, countries who run out of CO2 are on their own until they can get more.And if you’re thinking of writing to the government about this, you should know, there’s not much they can do. The government doesn’t regulate the industry so there’s nothing ministers can do to force producers to make more carbon dioxide.Trade journal Gasworld report that the shortage will probably continue for at least another next week.When the CO2 supply is restored, some industries will have priority over others. The abattoirs will get priority because animal welfare is involved. After that, it’ll be the biggest customers who get priority, so expect to be sipping fresh Coca-Cola before you enjoy your favourite craft cider.Who knew that we were so dependent on carbon dioxide?How is CO2 produced commercially and why are we short of it?3. Why does Co2 have no climate effect? ***********We think in pictures not words and the most important pictures in our minds are metaphors. Sadly the climate debacle has suffered from the bad metaphor of a GREENHOUSE fooling the public and many scientists as well.Why a greenhouse is not a true metaphorThere is a mountain of evidence that global warming from trace amounts of human emissions of plant food non-polluting carbon dioxide is not happening because at 0.1% of the atmosphere it is impossible. There is no cover of the earth to trap heat like the cover of a real greenhouse. The mislabeled ‘greenhouse gas effect’ is bunk no more effective than this shattered real greenhouse.Now French Scientist Trashes Greenhouse Gas Theory | PSI IntlNow French Scientist Trashes Greenhouse Gas TheoryPublished onSeptember 12, 2018Written by Camille VeyresThe Co2-driven radiative greenhouse gas theory can be demonstrated to be a fraud. A fresh analysis of the statistical trickery and misrepresentation of the physical properties of this benign trace atmospheric gas are examined herein.Summary:(1) The amount of carbon dioxide in the air in a consequence of the surface temperatures of the inter-tropical zone where most of the out-gassing takes place; it is a consequence (an integral over time) of past temperatures, and hence cannot cause the temperatures; 6% of the CO2 of the air is anthropogenic and 94% from natural out-gassing.(2) The so-called greenhouse effect exists only in vacuum and cannot exist in the atmosphere neither on Earth nor on Venus: a polytropic relation between pressure and temperature explains the surface temperatures; the Earth’s atmosphere is, due to its water vapor, extremely opaque to thermal infrared and cannot carry heat radiatively outside the water vapor window; the thermal infrared radiation of the troposphere (90% of that of the globe) is controlled by the water vapor content at say 300 mbar; changes of the carbon dioxide content of the air have no effect because water vapor is in control.Carbon cycle:Carbon dioxide is exchanged between oceans (39000 Gt-C), air (850 Gt-C) and vegetation and soils (2500 Gt-C) (figure 6-1 of IPCC-AR5-WG1). Cumulative anthropogenic emissions since 1751, 430 Gt-C, are about one percent of the total. Each year one fifth of the CO2 of the air is absorbed (discounting the daily respiration of the vegetation) by cold surface oceans (80 Gt-C/yr) and by plants (90 Gt-C/yr). From 1900 to 1999 the global terrestrial photosyntheticprimary production increased by 30% [1] as did the absorption by oceans; IPCC figure 6-1 underestimate by a factor three the exchange of carbon between surface ocean and deep ocean.Fact 1: The partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in sea water is driven by the temperatures and increases by 3.6 times between the border of the ice pack (200 µatm) that sucks CO2 from the air (400 µatm) and the inter-tropical zone (600 µatm) which belches CO2 into the air.Frauds and obfuscations: Revelle’s 1965 report [2], Bolin’s papers of the 1960s and IPCC use two main tricks to exclude oceans from the carbon cycle and to conceal the effect of temperatures; with only air and vegetation (no soils!) left, half of fossil fuel stays forever in the atmosphere (the “airborne fraction”) and half in vegetation. Trick 1: They say there is almost no exchange of carbon between the surface ocean (900 Gt-C) and the deep ocean (Revelle 1965: no exchange; IPCC 1990: 35 and 37 Gt-C/yr; IPCC 2013: 90 and 101 GtC/yr).Trick 2: Revelle’s equation dpCO2/ pCO2 = {8 to 12} d DIC/DIC is said to describe a static “equilibrium” between air and surface ocean.Fact 2: Quote from [3]: at temperate latitudes the subduction of dissolved inorganic carbon DIC and to a lesser extent the sinking particles maintain CO2 under-saturation, and hence absorption of carbon dioxide from the air. In the tropical band and in the Southern Ocean Dissolved Inorganic Carbon is obducted back to the surface. The 275 Giga ton per year supply by obduction and the 265 gigaton per year removal by subduction are 3 to 5 times larger than previous estimates.Comments: Revelle’s equation or “buffer factor” applies in a bottle with sea water and air but cannot be used globally: ocean water is moving, has surface temperatures between -1.5°C and 33°C and the carbon of the surface ocean is renewed continuously by intertropical obduction and middle latitude subduction.Fact 3: the CO2 content of the air is a consequence of past intertropical temperatures, their time-integral. See figure above: the time derivative of the ppm in grey, a linear function of the intertropical UAH-MSU temperature anomaly AT(t) in yellow-green. Hence d[CO2] (t)/dt = 1.7 (AT(t) – (-0,8°C)). Unit root tests on time-series (Dickey Fuller) require the ppm curve to be derived once w.r.t. time before attempting a correlation with the temperatures.The autocorrelation functions of times series “AT(t)” and “increments at Mauna Loa” are completely different of that of “anthropogenic emissions”. Subtraction of linear trends from the time series of the Mauna Loa increments and of the anthropogenic emissions kills any fictious (common “trend”) correlation: R² = 0.014 [see professor Munshi’s papers].Hence the ppm are the integral over time of the temperature anomaly of the intertropical zone where outgassing takes place, a consequence of past temperatures; CO2 ppm cannot control the temperature.Fact 4: As one fifth of the CO2 content of the air is absorbed every year, the carbon content of the air y(t) is a solution of dy/dt = f(t) – y(t)/5 or y(t) = 5 f(t) – 5 dy/dt, with f(t) input. This applies to both components, the natural and the anthropogenic (f(t) = 10 Gt-C/yr) parts of the carbon of the air.The anthropogenic component of the air is 5 yr x 10 Gt-C/yr – 5 yr 0,4 Gt-C/yr = 48 Gt-C = 23 ppm or 6%; the component from natural outgassing is 94%. The natural outgassing, since 1958, went up from 62 ppm/yr to almost 80 ppm/yr, while anthropogenic emissions went from 1 ppm/yr to 4.5 ppm/yr. Natural climate cycles drive the temperature that drive the natural outgassing, that provides today’s 94% of the CO2 of the air, and the total CO2 of the air drives the absorption, always (1/5) of it.Fact 5: 13C is 1000 ((13C/12C) /0,0112372 – 1), a linear function of the ratio of the number of atoms 13C and12C; the 13C of fossil fuels reflects the changing mix of coal, oil and gas; today, only 6% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: 6% (-30) + 94% (-7.1) = (-8.5) is the observed 13C.The naturally outgassed carbon (green curve) has the 13C signature of the ambient air some sixty years before; it displays some ups and downs because during El Niños, more carbon with a more negative 13Cis released; the 13C of the CO2 in sea water is about 1.5 per mil below that of the air.Deceptions and frauds: see IPCC FAR (1990) page 14, § 1.2.5 and IPCC AR4 p 139.Deceptions and frauds: Bern and Hamburg impulse responses: A compartment model is a set of linear equations solved by Laplace transform; its impulse response is a weighted sum of exponential time decays, with, here, eight free parameters tuned to make the convolution of the impulse response with the time series of anthropogenic emissions look like a heavily massaged version of Mauna Loa ppm, with a 100 years 1/e decay time.This is based on the A PRIORI hypothesis that all change of ppm is from fossil fuels. The impulse response for a “airborne fraction” of 50% of fossil fuels that remains forever in the air is half a Dirac! Those tales have been debunked by observations: the doubling of the production of coal between 2000 and 2010 with +40% on anthropogenic emissions had no visible change on the derivative or slope of the Mauna-Loa ppm (grey line on figure above) . In the 2013 IPCC reports, Bern formula disappeared from the WG1 report, but was still used by WG3.Fact 6: The +31% large historical growth in terrestrial gross primary production during the XXth century is in line with the observed acceleration of the forest stand growth dynamics in central Europe since 1870. [prof. Pretzsch]. Hence, during the XXth century, the +700 GtC of the vegetation and soil compartment and the + 220 Gt-C of the atmosphere came from 400 Gt-C released by fossil fuels and 520 Gt-C released by the oceans. The non-linear transfer of carbon from oceans to vegetation and soils was properly discussed in 1956 by Eriksson & Welander, a decade before Revelle’ report.Fact 7: The deep ocean carbon turnover time seems to be one or two centuries (270 Gt-C / yr obducted and subducted divided by 38000 Gt-C or by part of it). 60 meters of ice divided by Antarctic precipitations of 5 mm per year is 10 000 years. On a slice of ice-core the paths between different bubbles in the slice and the surface, say 80 meters above, close at different times due to the progressive and random closing of the pores in the firn. The moving-average time smoothing over millennia removes all trace of the oceanic century-long carbon cycles in the deep ocean.Hence ice cores cannot record century long changes of carbon dioxide in the air; their records below 300 ppm are a consequence of the time averaging by the physics of the closing of the pores. More: splicing the heavily time averaged ice core data to Mauna Loa instantaneous data is a fraud.Water vapor and elementary atmospheric physics:Fact 8: The simple diabatic model d’Q= Ch dT and the barometric relation prove the polytropic relation T(P)/T(P0) = (P/P0) R/(Cp- Ch) in the troposphere and the equivalent gravitational g/(Cp- Ch) temperature lapse rate. On Earth 288 K = 223 K + 10 km x 6,5 K/km = 223 K (1 atm /0,26 atm)0,19 while on Venus 735 K = 230 K + 63 km x 8 K/km = 230 K (92 atm /0,1 atm)0,17Frauds and obfuscations: Radiative heat trapping? No! The tropospheric temperature is an effect of the pressure! A runaway greenhouse effect on Venus? No! It is a straight consequence of the mass of the air, one thousand tons per square meter and of the polytropic relation. There is almost no light from the Sun on the surface of Venus.The diabatic curve above in black is warmer than the green adiabatic; water vapor absorbs solar infrared and releases heat by condensation. The tropospheric water vapor and the clouds provide the bulk of the global thermal radiation almost 200 W/m²; the top or skin of water vapor that radiates from the troposphere toward the cosmos is fed by evaporation-condensation and by convection, not-at-all by radiation from the surface. Stratospheric CO2 and ozone radiate the heat of solar UV absorbed by stratospheric oxygen and ozone. Surface-to-cosmos: 22 W/m² [4] onlyescape absorption by water vapor and clouds.Frauds and obfuscations: the surface is a blackbody (No! Kiehl & Trenberth schemes overestimate by 10% the thermal radiation from the surface); solar heat is released by thermal infrared emission of the surface (No! Only some 22 W/m² of 160 W/m²); the back-radiation of the air warms the surface (No! A heat transfer by thermal infrared radiation between A and B is: (radiated by A and absorbed by B) minus (radiated by B and absorbed by A) with is about zero between surface and air)Fact 9: There exist a greenhouse effect, but only in vacuum! On the Moon, under the pane with Sun at the zenith, the surface temperature would increase by some 75°C. But on Earth, the turbulent air with water vapor is an excellent heat pipe that carries heat from the surface to the top layer of the tropospheric water vapor; as water vapor is quite opaque the radiative net balance is zero between surface (A) and air (B).Fact 10: A pellicle or skin of optical thickness 1.07 transmits 20% and absorbs 80% of the incoming thermal infrared; hence it produces about 80% of the thermal infrared radiated by the body. The water vapor window from 28 THz to 39 THz is often closed by clouds. For an optical thickness of 100 and 30 kg/m², a layer or skin of 300 grams of water vapor, 1 km thick near 9 km and 40 m thick near the surface is the source of 80% of the radiation from the atmosphere.The lower limit of the radiating layer or skin is pictured in blue for water vapor, red for today’s CO2 ppm, brown for doubled CO2. CO2 radiates from the stratosphere except near 18.4 THz and near 21.6 THz. Doubling the CO2 content of the air pushes the radiating pellicle upward around those two absorption lines from 350 mbar to say 250 mbar, from red to brown, hence a “higher and cooler” effect in the troposphere, that reduces the OLR by some 1.6 W/m² for a test-profile, less than one percent of the water vapor tropospheric OLR.The blue curve shows that between 200 mbar and 400 mbar water vapor radiates over about 40 THz, almost 40 times the band of tropospheric CO2 at the same altitude.Frauds and deceptions: There exist a radiative forcing of 2.5 W/m² from a decreasing OLR due to more CO2 in the air. 93% of it goes into the oceansComments: OLR observed from satellites increased since 1979 by 1.1 W/m²/decade; Ocean Heat Content increases by some 0.25 W/m² since the 1970s. Radiative forcing is like the new clothes of the Emperor, made from nothing: no chemical reaction, no nuclear reaction, only by quackery.Fact 11: The Water vapor content of the air near 300 millibar is dynamic, extremely variable and regulates the Outgoing Longwave Radiation of the globe; the relative humidity is there from 20% to 50%. It wipes out in hours or days any tropospheric effect of more CO2 in the air.[1] J. E. Campbell et al. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary productionNature volume 544, pages84–87 (06 April 2017) Nature[2] http://climateandcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/06/Presidents-Advisory-Reporton-warming-1965.pdfpublished by the White House Washington DC Nov. 1965[3] M. Levy et al. 2013, Physical pathways for carbon transfers between the surface mixed layer andthe ocean interior, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 27, 1001–1012, doi:10.1002/gbc.20092[4] Costa S.M.S., Shine K.P. Outgoing Longwave Radiation due to Directly Transmitted SurfaceEmission J. Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 69, 2012 pp. 1865-1870The above content is compiled from the original presentation, ‘Eleven facts you must know to avoid being deceived by the AGW’ author, Camille Veyres, the Porto Climate Conference 2018 September 7 and 8, at Porto University (Porto, 2018)Now French Scientist Trashes Greenhouse Gas Theory | PSI IntlLike this smashed greenhouse from vandals in Scotland the greenhouse effect is literally and figuratively full of holes. A much more apt metaphor for Co2 ia a pinch of salt where a minute amount makes food taste better with chemistry just like photosynthesis uses a minute amount of Co2 as plant food.I will add peer reviewed climate research from around the world with my own choice of art metaphors that seem relevant and introductory.Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordNew research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. I will summarize leading science paper that do not support the deniers of natural variability from CHINA, FRANCE, CANADA, GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES.First China scientists with new research with the longest instrumental temperature record thus far.Hisorical Chinese Painting.The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are“the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.”The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature recordhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NATURALThe “driving forces” of climate change are natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming.AbstractThe identification of causal effects is a fundamental problem in climate change research. Here, a new perspective on climate change causality is presented using the central England temperature (CET) dataset, the longest instrumental temperature record, and a combination of slow feature analysis and wavelet analysis. The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. [Emphasis added]. Moreover, these driving forces were modulated in amplitude by signals with millennial timescales.James Matkin 
This research is very relevant and should make climate alarmists pause in their crusade against Co2 emissions from fossil fuels. Far too much focus on Co2 like a one trick pony in a big tent circus where solar radiation is a more compelling show. The thrust of recent research has demonstrated that climate changes continually and is determined by natural forces that humans have no significant control over. Many leading scientists have presented research of other "driving forces" and cautioned against the arrogance of many that "the science is settled." See Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and blogger at Climate Etc. talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about climate change. Curry argues that climate change is a "wicked problem" with a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the expected damage as well as the political and technical challenges of dealing with the phenomenon. She emphasizes the complexity of the climate and how much of the basic science remains incomplete. The conversation closes with a discussion of how concerned citizens can improve their understanding of climate change and climate change policy.
http://www.econtalk.org/arc...https://www.nature.com/articles/...JAMES MATKIN•2017-08-23 10:03 PMThe great failure of the Paris accord is the failure to accept that the IPCC Al Gore hypothesis of anthropogenic warming is not settled science. Indeed, none of the predictions of doom have occurred. New research confirms the view of leading climate scientists and scholars that trace amounts of Co2 emissions are not destabilizing the planet. Co2 is essential plant food and therefore green energy. The “driving force” of climate change is natural and not Co2 plant food emissions. A new Chinese study confirms climate change comes from natural cycles. This research is based on the longest actual temperature data of more than 400 years from 1659 to 2013, including the period of anthropogenic warming. The authors Geli Wang & Peicai Yang and Xiuji Zhou are scientists at the CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE and Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China 中国气象科学研究院 Their study confirms THE DRIVING FORCES OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE NOT ANTHROPOGENIC (human activity). The driving forces are “the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively.” The title of the study published in the prestigious NATURE Journal is: Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record Identification of the driving forces of climate change using the longest instrumental temperature record This means that climate change cannot be stopped as Paris attendees believed. Co2 is very beneficial plant food and we need more not less. Why climate change is good for the world | The Spectator It is good news for civilization that the Paris targets are not being met around the world.https://www.nature.com/news/prov...Genghis Khan established what would later become the largest contiguous empire in history.IPCC FUDGED Data in 2001 to remove the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD to make today seem unprecedented.MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD CHANGED WORLD ECONOMIC HISTORYGenghis Khan sweeps across the lands, conquering and subsuming all who stand in his way." the tree-rings showed that the years between 1211 and 1225—a period of time that coincided with the meteoric rise of Genghis Khan, who died in 1227—were marked by unusually heavy rainfall and mild temperatures.Eventually the Mongols would establish the largest land empire in history, ruling over modern Korea, China, Russia, eastern Europe, southeast Asia, Persia, India and parts of the Middle East.[1] W.The medieval warming with mild temperatures and heavy rainfall gave horses the advantage and this made Genghis Khan the greatest conqueror in history.“Human CO2 at only 0.01% of atmosphere”The entire misnamed greenhouse gases (these are infared gases that have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouses) together make up less than 4% of the earth’s atmosphere. The major gases are Nitrogen at 76.56% and Oxygen at 20.54 %. How can such a puny amount < 4% control the climate warming? It cannot.This critical graph of all the gases in the atmosphere is always ignored by climate alarmists because they know it would sow doubt about their ridiculous view that the science is settled.Don J. Easterbrook, PhDProfessor Emeritus of GeologyWestern Washington UniversityWhat we have found1. We are not warming the planetFor several decades now, it has been widely believed that humans are causing unusual global warming by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.Our research has convinced us that this man-made global warming theory is wrong. We will explain why we have come to this conclusion on this website.It is true that humans have been increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because of our use of fossil fuels. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide seems to have been about 0.03% of the atmosphere, while it is now about 0.04%.However, our research has shown that:It doesn’t matter whether we double, treble or even quadruple the carbon dioxide concentration. Carbon dioxide has no impact on atmospheric temperatures.We carried out new laboratory experiments, and analysed the data from millions of weather balloons, to calculate exactly how much global warming carbon dioxide was causing. When we did this, we discovered that the answer was zero.It turns out that some of the assumptions used in man-made global warming theory (and in the current climate models) had never actually been tested. When we tested them, we discovered that they were invalid.See the link below for a discussion of why:Summary: “The physics of the Earth’s atmosphere I-III”In addition, we have also shown that:The “unusual global warming” that has caused such concern is not unusual, after all.We found that the world naturally switches between periods of global warming and periods of global cooling, with each period lasting several decades.We also identified a number of serious mistakes in the studies which had claimed that there has been unusual global warming. These mistakes meant that the amount of warming in the last global warming period (1980s-2000s) was overestimated and the amount of cooling in the last global cooling period (1950s-1970s) was underestimated.When these mistakes are corrected, it turns out that it was just as warm in the 1930s-1940s as it is now.See the following links for our global temperature analysis:• Summary: “Urbanization bias I-III”• Summary: “Has poor station quality biased U.S. temperature trend estimates?”Summary: “Global temperature changes of the last millennium”Start Here - Global Warming SolvedDon J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology| WWUWill HapperWill Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.In testimony to Congress, he used the following analogy what he means:The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.DR. ANTHONY LUPOGlobal Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Madeby Anthony Lupo(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental tenets of our justice sys- tem is one is innocent until proven guilty. While that doesn’t apply to scientific discovery, in the global warming debate the prevailing attitude is that human induced global warming is already a fact of life and it is up to doubters to prove otherwise.To complete the analogy, I’ll add that to date, there is no credible evidence to demonstrate that the climatological changes we’ve seen since the mid-1800’s are outside the bounds of natural variability inherent in the earth’s climate system.Thus, any impartial jury should not come back with a “guilty” verdict convicting humanity of forcing recent climatological changes.Even the most ardent supporters of global warming will not argue this point. Instead, they argue that humans are only partially responsible for the observed climate change. If one takes a hard look at the science involved, their assertions appear to be groundless.First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant as many claim. Carbon dioxide is good for plant life and is a natural constituent of the atmosphere. During Earth’s long history there has been more and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we see today.Second, they claim that climate is stable and slow to change, and we are accelerating climate change beyond natural variability. That is also not true.Climate change is generally a regional phenomenon and not a global one. Regionally, climate has been shown to change rapidly in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Life on earth will adapt as it has always done. Life on earth has been shown to thrive when planetary temperatures are warmer as opposed to colder.Third, they point to recent model projections that have shown that the earth will warm as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.One should be careful when looking at model projections. After all, these models are crude representations of the real atmosphere and are lacking many fundamental processes and interactions that are inherent in the real atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario that is thrown around the media as if it were the main stream prediction is an extreme scenario.Most models predict anywhere from a 2 to 6 degree increase over the next century, but even these are problematic given the myriad of problems associated with using models and interpreting their output.No one advocates destruction of the environment, and indeed we have an obligation to take care of our environment for future gen- erations. At the same time, we need to make sound decisions based on scientific facts.My research leads me to believe that we will not be able to state conclusively that global warming is or is not occurring for another 30 to 70 years. We simply don’t understand the climate system well enough nor have the data to demonstrate that humanity is having a substantial impact on climate change.Anthony R. Lupo is assistant professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri at Columbia and served as an expert reviewer for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archi...It is essential to understand the complexity of measuring human made Co2 emissions and to realize at a detail level the trace amounts are indistinguishable from natural sources of co2.Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere. So whatdo the alarmists conclude from this:“0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate changes.The sun, oceans, volcanoes and other poorly understood major varying factors are ignored. Does all that sound plausible?Yeah right, and the price of tea in China drives the global econoBy P. Gosselin May 26, 2018Through the burning of fossil fuels, humans are also responsible for having boosted atmospheric CO2 emissions from some 300 ppm to 400 parts per million, which translates into a difference of 0.01% of the atmosphere. So what do the alarmists conclude from this:“0.01% of the world’s biomass and 0.o1% of the atmosphere are today almost solely responsible for climate changes.The sun, oceans, volcanoes and other poorly understood major varying factors are ignored. Does all that sound plausible?Yeah right, and the price of tea in China drives the global economy.”By P. Gosselin May 26, 2018CO2 and temperature decoupling at the million-year scale during the Cretaceous Greenhouse.Barral A1, Gomez B2, Fourel F2, Daviero-Gomez V2, Lécuyer C2,3.Author informationAbstractCO2 is considered the main greenhouse gas involved in the current global warming and the primary driver of temperature throughout Earth's history. However, the soundness of this relationship across time scales and during different climate states of the Earth remains uncertain. Here we explore how CO2 and temperature are related in the framework of a Greenhouse climate state of the Earth. We reconstruct the long-term evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration (pCO2) throughout the Cretaceous from the carbon isotope compositions of the fossil conifer Frenelopsis. We show that pCO2 was in the range of ca. 150-650 ppm during the Barremian-Santonian interval, far less than what is usually considered for the mid Cretaceous. Comparison with available temperature records suggest that although CO2 may have been a main driver of temperature and primary production at kyr or smaller scales, it was a long-term consequence of the climate-biological system, being decoupled or even showing inverse trends with temperature, at Myr scales. Our analysis indicates that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is time scale-dependent at least during Greenhouse climate states of the Earth and that primary productivity is a key factor to consider in both past and future analyses of the climate system.PMID:28835644 10.1038/s41598-017-08234-0https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub...“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN FoundationTHIS brilliant piece of research and writing by, Leo Goldstein. Defeat Climate Alarmism, represents a truly definitive guide to what is, undoubtedly, the greatest pseudoscientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind – the empirically unproven theory of man-made “Global Warming” aka “Climate Change” aka “Climate Disruption”…SUCH an important and pivotal (quick) read that needs to be spread far and wide, over and over and over again…Those who can make you believe absurditiescan make you commit atrocities.VoltaireClimate Realism Against AlarmismA Realist Side of the Climate Debate. CO2 is a product of human breath and is plant food, NOT a pollutant.CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda. Climate pseudo-science is wrong on physics, biology, meteorology, mathematics, computer sciences, and almost everything else. And even if the “climate science” were perfectly correct, climate alarmism politics would still be a tyranny and betrayal. Alarmists demand that the US and other Western countries unilaterally decrease their carbon dioxide emissions, while allowing unlimited increase to China and all other countries, which already emit more than 70% of carbon dioxide and almost 100% of other infrared-absorbing gases and soot.How could this happen? Carbon dioxide is exhaled by humans with each breath. How could the idea to call it a “pollutant” and to regulate its “emissions” get such traction in our society? How could a mad suicidal cult and its preachers obtain so much power in the academia and media, and become a cornerstone of the Democrats’ political platform, in the 21stcentury?Many factors were in play.This takeover did not happen overnight, but took some 30-40 years.Climate alarmism was born and acquired power abroad. It was led by a bunch of non-governmental organizations of the environmentalist and “global governance” persuasion, acting in cahoots with certain United Nations agencies. It infiltrated the US through American branches of foreign NGOs and their fellow travelers, such as NRDC and EDF. Climate alarmism made a huge leap in 1993, when its fanatical disciple Al Gore became the Vice President. Nevertheless, climate alarmism has always been and remains an essentially foreign phenomenon.For example, the infamous Congressional testimony delivered by Dr. James Hansen in 1988, on invitation from Senator Wirth, was instigated by foreign enviros and diplomats in the run-up to the Toronto conference that happened a few weeks later. The climate dogma had been developing largely in lawless UN agencies and unaccountable transnational organizations, often using them as an extra-territorial operational base when national public demanded answers about its mischief.There is indeed a strong consensus among foreign governments in support of climate alarmism. This consensus has nothing to do with the science. Many governments are promised “reparations” from the United States for alleged harm; other countries expect to benefit from the damage to North American oil & gas exploration inflicted by climate alarmism; and another group of countries enjoys immunity from limitations that climate treaties impose on Europe and North America and receive fringe benefits in the form of outsourced manufacturing and/or preferential trade terms. Finally, many European countries are ruled by coalitions including influential Green Parties, and the rest are too small to resist.Over the last 8-10 years, climate alarmism has achieved its huge scale by spending tens of billions of dollars on its own public relations, including payments to public relations firms, pseudo-scientists, corrupt academics, university administrators, journalists, and media outlets. It has also created its own institutions with scientific-sounding names and taken over formerly highly-regarded organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences. Climate alarmism continues to demand more and more money, and spends most of it on self-promotion and intimidating its opponents.The leaders and pseudo-scientists of climate alarmism are driven by many motives. Fear of just punishment is quickly becoming the leading motive, as it should be. Their crimes start with tax evasion, theft of hundreds of billions of dollars, inflicting economic damage on the order of trillions of dollars, include an attempt to murder millions of Americans by shutting down the national energy infrastructure, and possibly include high treason. It is likely that they hide the truth even from their nominal party leaders – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That makes the current situation even more dangerous and unpredictable.The foreign interference, money, and some confusion about the subject matter were not the only factors in the meteoric rise of climate alarmism. Since the late 1980s, the global warming agenda has been accepted by the left as “their cause,” and received unconditional support. The majority of the scientists leaned left, and many of them accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more reasonable then than today) of the environmentalists and general media without suspicion. These scientists also bore old prejudices against conservatives, to whom they attributed all kinds of anti-scientific leanings. Although these prejudices provided enough breeding ground for alarmism, the scientific community successfully resisted climate alarmism in 1990’s. The Oregon Petition, signed by more than 30,000 scientists and other professionals knowledgeable in sciences, is just one example.In 2001, even the International Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that carbon dioxide emissions did not cause harmful climate change. It reacted to this “discovery” by removing the word “anthropogenic” from its definition of “climate change.” That did not stop climate alarmism from gaining momentum. Instead, climate alarmism finally parted ways with science, and declared its dogma to be the undisputed truth.Scientifically illiterate Al Gore was responsible for the science in the Clinton–Gore administration from 1993-2001. He evaluated scientists according to their agreement with his views on global warming. Not surprisingly, his appointments and budget decisions had effect of deadly poison, administered to the American scientific enterprise. (To tell the truth, it was not all Al Gore’s fault. The scientific enterprise came under fire from many directions, from the academic “social constructivism” theory to “diversity” politics.) The scientific institutions, already leaning left before Al Gore, just fell to the left after his reign.George W. Bush was too naïve to fight cunning enviros on the government payroll posing as scientists, and was allowed too little time for that anyway. Concerned with maintaining national unity in the aftermath of the enemy attack on 9/11, he appointed Democrat John Marburger as his scientific advisor (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy). Marburger let government-financed scientific institutions slide further down and to the left, but his appointment did not save Bush from the usual accusations of “manipulating science for political purposes,” “censoring scientific results,” and “silencing the science,” all slogans shouted by the Union of Con Scientists and the rest of the attack pack.In 1997, the US Senate rejected the Kyoto pact, instigated by climate alarmism, by a 95–0 vote. The main reason was its discriminatory terms against the US. But these terms, demanding unilateral emission cuts by the US and few other countries, were more like an insult added to an injury. The injury was the corruption of the science by environmentalist quackery, of which the global warming catastrophism was just the latest example. This vote proved to be a palliative treatment. Many politically active leftist scientists, including distinguished ones, remained committed to the totalitarian ideals, wanted Congress to accept their beliefs as the science, and called for Congress to “restore science to its appropriate place in government.“ But the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The leftist scientists either did not understand the First Amendment, decided that it applied only to religion of the “ordinary folk” and not to them, or were egged on by their comrades whose “science” needed “a place in the government” because it took place neither in nature nor in the lab. When the Senate passed a resolution not addressing alarmist beliefs directly, these scientists probably concluded that the Senators did not have scientific arguments against the alarmist beliefs, and acted out of some ulterior political motives. And they accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more moderate then than today) as real science, and opposition to them as politically or financially motivated. Since many of these scientists were quite distinguished and sincere in their ignorance and hubris, their opinion carried much weight with their colleagues.The lawless nature of the IPCC and other UN agencies allowed climate alarmists to pull off a trick which would be impossible in any national forum. It was like the “telephone” game played by kids. Scientists at the bottom of the IPCC structure were saying one thing, while Greenpeace and its accomplices at the top of the IPCC structure were telling the public something entirely different, and invoking the authority of the scientists. When elected officials disagreed with the Greenpeace allegations, many legitimate scientists thought that the politicians misunderstood the science, and sharply criticized them. The leftist media was only too happy to amplify such criticism.One example is the play on the definition of “climate change.” If climate change is understood as “dangerous anthropogenic global warming,” as in the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change, then climate change does not happen. If climate change is defined to include natural climate variations, according to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), then it happens and has been happening for billions of years, but is not alarming. And there are dozens or hundreds of mutually incompatible definitions of climate change, produced by climate alarmists and by scientists trying to get crumbs from the alarmist table.The extreme left apparently took over the Democratic Party in 2002-2005. The DNC started to court the foreign vote openly. Internet made that courting easy and convenient. Democrat Congresspersons welcomed foreign “observers” at the US elections. Al Gore started a hedge fund called Generation Investment Management in the UK, and founded an exchange to trade hot air (voluntary carbon credits). Gore and his minions publicly fantasized that the hot air would become the hottest commodity of the 21st century, and prepped themselves to become multi-billionaires. Unfortunately, they did not stop at fantasizing, but attracted some serious money, and put it at work to scare us into buying those carbon credits. In 2006, following Al Gore’s fraudumentary An Inconvenient Truth, climate alarmism started its own offensive against the US on the American soil. This offensive has been going surprisingly successfully, and led to the current situation.The recent Attorneys General gambit is a show of desperation, rather than strength. Greenpeace, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and whoever else behind them have sacrificed three state Attorneys General – Eric Schneiderman, Maura Healey, and Kamala Harris – as if they were merely pawns. Maybe they were. Those who press an analogy between the energy companies and the tobacco companies just expose themselves as either hopelessly crazy or craftily malicious. Those who act on that analogy are either criminals or enemy agents. Tobacco is a harmful, addictive, and useless (for everybody but the smokers) product. This is why the unconstitutional and corrupt prosecution of the tobacco companies was successful twenty years ago. Oil, gas, and coal are exactly opposite to tobacco. They are energy sources necessary for the existence of civilized society, on which the lives of the majority of Americans depend. And not everybody in this country is an idiot, thinking that the power of his or her dreams can replace electricity and http://gasoline.By the way, the climate alarmist lobby opposes nuclear power and hydro power as fiercely as it opposes fossil fuels.Climate alarmism’s Tower of Babel is falling. It is voluntarily supported by the Obama regime from inside, and by the Guardian from outside. The Guardian used to be a respectable newspaper of the British Left, but dropped to the tabloid level and is awaiting indictment for espionage. Other supporters of climatism are in it only for the money, or because they are chained to it as galley slaves to their oars, or because they are too stupid to run away from the falling tower.CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human HistoryRole of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate changeMartin Hertzberg and Hans SchreuderMARTIN HERTZBERG - a long time climate writer, a former U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Stanford University and holder of a Fulbright Professorship.Abstract0(0) 1–13 ! The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: Journals Permissions DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16674637 Your gateway to world-class journal researchThe authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2. [Emphasis added]IntroductionOver the last 200 years, data show that there has been a more or less steady increase in the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), from 280 ppmv (parts per mil- lion by volume) to 400 ppmv. That is a 43% increase, from 0.028% to 0.040%. CO2 is said to be a ‘greenhouse gas,’ which traps heat or prevents infrared radiation from being lost to free space.It is argued that the increase of CO2 is caused by the human combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum products and natural gas, and that any continuing increase is a threat to the earth’s habitability. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) paradigm, increases in atmospheric CO2 precede and cause parallel increases in the Earth’s temperature.Corresponding author:Martin Hertzberg, private consultant, USA. Email: [email protected] Energy & Environment 0(0)A large number of the world Governments, professional societies, editors of scientific journals, print journalists, TV media reporters and many corporations generally accept the validity of the IPCC paradigm. Accordingly, there is a concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions, tax such emissions and replace fossil fuel combustion by alternative energy sources.The purpose of this report is to summarise all available observations and measurements relating to the IPCC paradigm and question all aspects of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW)/ catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACG) hypothesis.The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day. (The exact quantity depends on your activity level—a person engaged in vigorous exercise produces up to eight times as much CO2 as his sedentary brethren.) Take this number and multiply by a population of 7 billion people, breathing away for 365.25 days per year, and you get an annual CO2 output of 2.94 billion tons. International carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion for 2008 topped 34.7 billion tons. So the human race breathes out about 8.5 percent as much carbon as we burn.Are you heating the planet when you breathe? No Co2 is not a greenhouse gas and it has no climate effect.Carbon dioxide is heavier than air so our daily 2.3 pounds just falls to the ground and does no enter the atmosphere.In reality, oxygen gas has a density of 1.429 grams/liter at the so-called standard pressure and temperature (basically room temperature and atmospheric pressure) while carbon dioxide has a density of 1.977 grams/liter. If you do the math, you will find that carbon dioxide is 1.383 times as heavy as oxygen.3.3. CONCLUSION: GREENHOUSE GASESGreenhouse gases are not “well-mixed” and the attempt to pretend that they are means that all calculations based on this assumption are unreliable.The variability of water vapour in the atmosphere means it cannot be treated as a uniform “feedback” to climate models.The distribution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown, so its general or local effects cannot be assessed. VINCENT GRAYCO2 CONCENTRATION IS HEAVIER IN INDUSTRIAL REGIONS BUT VERY UNEVEN.Atmospheric methane is almost exclusively the result of the recycling of plant material, and its concentration in the atmosphere is constant, and possibly falling. It is a mystery why it is thought desirable to place restrictions on it, or to penalise farm animals, who recycle greenhouse gases rather than emit them.