Posted on 08/24/2019 5:27:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
Efforts to stampede the USA and world into forsaking fossil fuels and modern farming continue apace. UN and other scientists recently sent out news releases claiming July 2019 was the “hottest month ever recorded on Earth” – nearly about 1.2 degrees C (2.2 degrees F) “above pre-industrial levels.” That era happens to coincide with the world’s emergence from the 500-year Little Ice Age. And “ever recorded” simply means measured; it does not include multiple earlier eras when Earth was much warmer than now.
Indeed, it is simply baseless to suppose that another few tenths of a degree (to 1.5 C above post-Little Ice Age levels) would somehow bring catastrophe to people, wildlife, agriculture, and the planet. It is equally ridiculous to assume all recent warming has been human-caused, with none of it natural or cyclical. Moreover, as the University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer has noted, this past July was most likely not the warmest. The claim, he notes, is based on “a limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends.”
The measurements come primarily from airports and urban areas that are artificially warmed by cars, jets, asphalt, air conditioning exhausts and other human heat sources that warm the measuring sites as much as ten degrees F above temperatures in rural areas just 10 to 25 miles away. They do not reflect satellite data or “global reanalysis estimates” that would give a much more accurate picture. The “hottest month” assertions also ignore major changes in measurement technologies, especially for ocean data, over the past 100-150 years. Perhaps most important, they ignore the paucity or absence of data for millions of square miles of oceanic, Siberian, Arctic and other regions, many of which have much cooler temperatures that would drive “average planetary temperature” figures downward. (And let’s not forget the record cold temperatures recorded for February 2019 in many parts of the world.) The news media, however, dutifully repeated the spurious hottest-ever assertion as fact – and made no effort to seek out or quote skeptical experts like Spencer. Far worse, most of the experts who developed and propagated the “overheated planet” claims know all of this. But they have a narrative, an agenda, and are not going to let inconvenient facts get in the way. The “mainstream media” behaves similarly.
Then, a few days later, the same doom-saying “experts” issued dire warnings that global agriculture is on the brink of disaster. A “landmark report” by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said our dangerously warming planet is continuing to damage lands and forests, imperiling mankind’s ability to produce food. Climate change has become a growing danger to global food supplies, it intoned. Prolonged rains well into the 2019 Midwestern US spring season certainly delayed planting and could affect 2019 corn and other harvests. However, bumper crops elsewhere in the world cast serious doubt on this latest round of IPCC and media fear-mongering. India’s rabi (winter) wheat crop weighed in at an official record of 101.2 million tons. Near-record corn (maize) exports and sunflower seed harvests were forecast for Ukraine. In Argentina, wheat farmers expect a record harvest. In Crimea too. The Canadian National Railway logged all-time grain movement records. The USDA’s October 2018 Crop Report showed record northern USA canola production.
Better hybrid seeds, biotech seeds, and modern fertilizers, pesticides, tractors, and farming practices all play a role, as did weather that cooperated with farmers, if not with climate alarmists. However, another major factor is more carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere – which helps crop, forest, and grassland plants grow faster and better and also withstand droughts better. In fact, Dr. Craig Idso has estimated, rising CO2 levels generated some $3.2 trillion in cumulative extra global crop yields between 1961 and 2011 and another $9.8 trillion in predicted CO2-enhanced global crop harvests by 2050.
And now, in a bout of schizophrenia, the IPCC has further muddled its climate chaos message. Now it claims modern agriculture is not just a “victim of climate change.” It also causes climate chaos and must thus be part of “the solution.” Agriculture is responsible for over a quarter of total global greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and methane), and therefore must change its practices “to save the world.” Plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide is 0.04% of the atmosphere, and methane represents 0.00017% – of which one-third is from natural sources (termites, swamps and bogs) and two-thirds from human activities: 39% of that from fossil fuels, 16% from landfills, 9% from waste management and 27% from farms. In other words, agricultural methane could possibly be 27% of two-thirds of 0.00017% of atmospheric methane (CH4) – and that barely detectable 0.00003% (30¢ out of $1-million) of the atmosphere is driving dangerous manmade climate change. Based on that, we must change our farming and eating habits. Instead of beef, humans must switch to “nutritious and environmentally sound” alternatives like green pepper, soy, asparagus and squash, says the IPCC. Instead of the full package of beef, pork and poultry, we should eat buckwheat, soy, pears and kidney beans – or other “globally optimal plant replacements.” Of course, locusts, grasshoppers, grubs and other insects are also excellent protein sources, it notes. The 20,000-some activists, bureaucrats and politicians heading to Salt Lake City for the August 26-28 UN climate change and sustainability conference will no doubt be following that sage advice. (Will they share their menu and veggie-insect recipes with us?) They could also have had a global teleconference, instead of flying and driving halfway around the world – instead of spending millions of dollars, consuming millions of gallons of aviation and vehicle fuel, and emitting prodigious quantities of CO2 and CH4. But they’re much more comfortable lecturing the hoi polloi of humanity on how we must travel, eat, and heat and cool our homes (no cooler than a comfortable 82 F in summer, say EPA-Energy Star experts) in more sustainable and climate-friendly ways. UN elites much prefer to tell the poorest people on the planet how much they will be “permitted” to develop and improve their living standards.
Dangerous manmade climate change “deniers” like me were of course not invited to participate in this taxpayer-financed UN event. We never are. So the Heartland Institute organized a separate program, a few blocks away, at which alternative evidence and perspectives will be presented and live-streamed. Heartland speakers will explain why climate change is some 97% natural, not manmade (contrary to that phony 97% consensus that says otherwise); and why real-world evidence does not support IPCC claims about dangerously rising seas, increasingly violent storms or worsening droughts. My talk will focus on why biofuel, wind, solar and battery technologies are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable. I will point out for example that replacing 100% of US gasoline with ethanol would require some 360 million acres of corn – seven times the land area of Utah. Replacing the more than 25billion megawatt-hours of electricity the world consumed in 2018 would require some 100 million 400-foot-tall 1.8-MW bird and bat-butchering wind turbines that would actually generate electricity only about 20% of the time. Assuming just 15 acres apiece, those monster turbines would require some1.5 billion acres – nearly 80% of the entire Lower 48 United States! And those wind turbines would need some 200 times more raw materials per megawatt than combined-cycle gas turbine power plants. Building and installing them would require massive increases in mining and quarrying all across the globe. The UN and IPCC delegations and Green New Dealers absolutely do not want to talk about any of this – much less about slave and child labor for cobalt, rare earth, and other metals that are the foundation for their make-believe “renewable, sustainable, no-fossil-fuel” future. No wonder they don’t invite us. These are vitally important issues. They demand robust, evidence-based debates – with all interested and affected parties participating – including the world’s poor and manmade climate chaos skeptics.
Just finished “State of Fear” by the late Michael Crichton. Very interesting & relevant to all this GW BS. Recommended.
Move the UN to Greenland, and have no fossil fuels heat the building.
Let them eat their own air polluting bull____!
I am so tired of the IPCC crap. This article is excellent in its presentation of climate change skullduggery. One minor addition to the argument on fraudulent data: More than 30 years ago, meteorologists began dismantling most of the record keeping weather stations so that today, vast swaths of territory, once measured by many arrays data instruments, now have to provide measurements that are an average of much fewer devices.
Hockey stick, goalie pads or icing the puck?
DEFUND/DISMANTLE anti-truth, anti-freedom collectives and their perps.
and right in time for the G7 meeting, the lies are being spread non-stop about the fires in South America:
24 Aug: Accuweather: 5 things the media won’t tell you about the Amazon fires
By Jesse Ferrell
But there’s a lot of misinformation out there, and there is some good news: It may not be as bad as some in the media are reporting. This is serious stuff! We need to stick to the science. Here are five things that the media (which rarely gets it right on science) aren’t telling you…
The Amazon region isn’t even seeing above-normal fire activity this year.
Yes, there are a lot of fires in South America, some of them in the Amazon rain forests, but how unusual is that? Unfortunately, it’s not unusual at all. The map below shows little change, and on Aug. 15, NASA wrote (LINK):
“As of August 16, 2019, satellite observations indicated that total fire activity in the Amazon basin was slightly below average in comparison to the past 15 years.”
UPDATE: NASA changed the text from the quote above from “slightly below” to “close to the” without explanation. See bottom of blog…READ ON
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/five-things-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-the-amazon-fires/520290
24 Aug: Bloomberg: More Fires Now Burning in Angola, Congo Than Amazon: Maps
By Kevin Varley
Satellite data show 6,902 blazes in Angola in past 48 hours
Congo has over 3,000 fires, Brazil scorched by more than 2,000
Blazes burning in the Amazon have put heat on the environmental policies of President Jair Bolsonaro, but Brazil is actually third in the world in wildfires over the last 48 hours, according to MODIS satellite data analyzed by Weather Source…READ ON
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-23/more-fires-now-burning-in-angola-congo-than-amazon-maps?srnd=technology-vp
Yet at the same time record cold temps were hitting Siberia and southern Russia, and there are winter storm warnings for Alaska in mid august. Selective monitoring is what they do to support these claims.
Fires in the Amazon - how is that a thing?
Ever tried to burn green wood?
Where are the record temperatures?
I haven’t seen any new records posted.
Where are the record temperatures?
I haven’t seen any new records posted.
Of course they are not going to share them on mainstream news, it wouldn’t fit their narrative.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Astronomy: precession of earth .
The phenomenon we call "precession" was discovered by Greek astronomer Hipparchus when he compared his own circa 200 BC records with older charts. What he saw was that the equinoxes in his day (where the sun's path crosses the celestial equator) were in a different position among the stars than the 150-year-old comparison charts showed. This is due to a gyroscopic wobble of earth's spin axis that takes 26000 years to complete.
The tilt reached a maximum of 24.2 degrees about 9500 years ago, and has been decreasing ever since. The tilt is now near the average value, but the rate of change of the obliquity is near a maximum.
The most startling consequence of this is that the tropics (the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, where the most northerly or southerly vertical rays of the sun strike) are MOVING TOWARD THE EQUATOR. The rate is more than 14 meters per year! Example: the government of Taiwan erected a monument in a park marking the tropic in 1908. The actual tropic is now more than a kilometer south of this location! The arctic circles are likewise travelling toward their respective poles. The temperate zones gain 1550 square kilometers of territory every year!
Another consequence may be seen in climactic data from oxygen isotope data: there a appears to be a cyclic climate pattern with a 41,000-year period, one of the so-called Milankovitch cycles. This can be qualitatively understood: when the obliquity is low, the polar regions get less sunlight, cool, and accumulate ice and snow. The total amount of sunlight caught by the earth remains the same, so it is premature to positively identify obliquity changes as the root cause of the ice ages.
Most of the stuff he wrote was good.
Thanks for the information. Appreciate it.
Noticeable at night. Around here, rural Virginia, it was in the low 90's and the airports Dulles, Reagan, BWI were also in the low 90's. But at night we were 8F lower than Reagan and 2-3 lower than Dulles and BWI. The runways hold some heat but the undeveloped areas around Dulles and BWI do not. At Reagan there are no significant non-developed areas for miles.
The difference is that daytimes have wind to stir up the air and even out the temperature. At night the cities radiate their heat into the local area.
Solar is just as bad for materials and space, but there is one difference. Solar doesn't wear out. The newest panels only lose about 1% per year. If people want to put up the money to finance them, that's fine. They will pay off themselves in from 5 to 15 years compared to using fossil sources.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.