Correlation CO2/Temperature

Correlation

I used to add sawdust to my potting mix to allow water to percolate through the mix, which helps produce a sturdier plant. By making 25% of the mix sawdust, we didn’t need to excavate so much topsoil, so it was economical for us. There were a few portable sawmills operating in and around Arusha, so I used to buy a ute-load every now and then from a couple of guys I came to know. They were surprised that anyone would want to buy their sawdust, so they asked why I needed it. I told them I was adding it to my potting mix for our tree nursery… so they assumed it must be some form of fertilizer. So as entrepreneurial as those young guys were, the next time I visited, they had a sign which said Mbolea, advertising their sawdust as fertilizer and for half the price of urea! They were disappointed when I explained further how their sawdust worked in my potting mix.

 

It isn’t unusual for people to see a correlation of events and come to a random, mistaken conclusion. For instance the ancients thought that sacrificing a few children would please the gods thereby ensuring a plentiful harvest, and it worked! But not always, so they simply increased the number of sacrifices. The basis of the theory that greenhouse emissions, in particular carbon dioxide, being the cause of global warming springs from a correlation between the historical atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature records over the last 1000 years. One Michael Mann produced the now famous graph showing temperature closely following atmospheric carbon dioxide levels… and his graph ends with an alarming ‘hockey stick’, which shows the planet is going to heat up.

 

There are however a few scientists who believe that Mann’s hypothesis is arse about face, they say carbon dioxide levels follow temperature. The ocean is a large store of carbon dioxide and when the ocean is cold, it can hold more carbon dioxide than when it’s warm. So as the oceans warm, carbon dioxide is released… and that makes sense. But the thing is with a hypothesis, if you have to fudge the data to prove it, there has to be something wrong with the hypothesis, yet that’s exactly what some alarmist scientists are doing. In the ‘climate gate’ email, they discussed altering empirical data so their climate models would appear more logical… ok, so they were exonerated, but on what basis? And we’ve read the emails so isn’t it… fact? There have been other modifications to data as well, one of them was caught altering Wikipedia! Climate realists are accused of spreading misinformation, but there are bright people who show how data has been manipulated… and what they’ve dug up is convincing… however, ‘the powers that be’, don’t acknowledge any of it, and anyway alarmists won’t debate the issue… because ‘the science is settled’.

 

So here’s the elephant in the room… we’re told that the climate debate is settled, that 97% of scientists say so, and we must trust the science. Well, hang on… remember Wuhan and what World Health Organisation said at the start of the Covid 19 outbreak… and the deviousness picked up in the investigation about how the virus originated? And there’s a list of scientists who have been tripped up on misconduct, the list is as long as your arm!  And those are just the scientists that have been caught out. So in fact we’ve no reason to believe that the science is settled… especially just because politicians say so. There’s an obvious tendency to create alarm about climate change going back in newspapers as early as 1903, but prophesied far back into history. Why do certain people want to be prophets of doom? Maybe The Book of Revelation started it in earnest… but why? As a genuine warning, or to manipulate the minds of the masses so preachers could promise salvation if their followers behaved in a certain way. Back then, doom was the result of sin… blasphemy and illicit sex were high on the list of sins back then, and what do you know, nowadays blasphemy is speaking out against the climate narrative and now it’s carbon that’s illicit… but doom is still the promised punishment.

 

The climate narrative began with global warming, and when the data didn’t quite plat ball it became climate change and now it seems we’re back to global warming! The term doesn’t matter, the IPCC and COP26 as well as their previous thirty or so meetings have set a temperature goal that we must stay under to prevent doom. So temperature must be the most important factor of climate. My geography teacher taught us the difference between a continental climate and a maritime climate, which basically meant continents have extremes of temperature, especially in the interior while maritime areas are cooled by sea breezes and are influenced by ocean, so don’t have wide extremes of temperature… it’s more complicated, but that’s the gist. Most of the information that goes into the climate models is from a continental climate. The actual measurement of a world temperature is a can of worms, data from reading a thermometer becomes empirical data, and over time there’s a record, which is important if we’re going to discuss trends, but in reality, the data record doesn’t go back very far. Of the four billon years of the planet’s existence, we’ve only had 150 years of accurate measurement… yes, ice core and trees rings provide information too, which is a skilful process but while the interpretation might be genuine, bias is always a possibility. The United States have by far the most weather data, in comparison, the Southern Hemisphere has scant data that only goes back to about 1930, and even now the coverage is thin. All of which makes a world average to be a matter juggling the data available, where best estimates are used, and best estimates might depend on personal points of view. To add to the confusion, ground thermometers have considerable bias, because of their location… it’s difficult to get away from concrete, asphalt, lighting and motor vehicles. The former two store heat and increase local temperature readings, they also artificially hold heat into the night, while motor vehicles have hot engines and their bodies radiate heat. When weather stations were/are set up, there is certain criteria, first they needed to be where someone can take daily readings, and then the location becomes modified over time. A recent survey of US thermometers reveals 80% are corrupted, showing higher temperature than would be in natural surroundings. The weather organisations seem focused on the longevity of the record, rather than the accuracy of the temperature reading. However there’s the Climate Reference Network who have thermometers that are isolated and give a true reading. Those thermometers show there has been no warming since 2014!

 

Nowadays they have satellite temperature data… clever as that is, accuracy depends on computer programming. As well there are accurate measurements taken by balloons that relay data back to the scientist. It’s known that temperature loses 1⁰C for every 100 metres of elevation. Just how and why alarmism gets generated by the climate computer models is probably down to the media… the models are essentially estimates of what the temperature is going to be doing in the future and to find a result there has to be an estimate of the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. The models have been going for a while, and show far more warming than is actually happening… woefully so. Even the new CMIP-6 model, constructed for the COP26 conference is running far too hot. The model that’s nearest to actual is a Russian one… and you won’t get acknowledgement of that from US scientists. We have to understand that computers can’t just produce a model out of the blue, data and methodology has to be imputed… therefore if the models are running too hot, so either the data is wrong, or the methodology is wrong, or there is bias in the imputation of data. The models can’t cope with the medieval warm period, nor the little ice age, and they can’t cope with the ‘true readings’ of the Climate Reference Network thermometers. When there’s been a cooling trend for a few years, they call it a hiatus. From about 1940 there was a cooling trend, and by the late 1970’s scientists speculated an ice age was on the cards, Time Magazine even wrote about it. That cooling period mucked things up for the alarmist scientists. So to cover that up, graphs showing a modern warming trend starts at 1980, the lowest point of the cold period… so as the cooling ended 1979-80, of course there will be a warming trend since! Looking at a graph comparison, of all the models the calculated average has a trajectory of nearly 45⁰ which shows considerable warming, whereas the satellite temperature data shows a trajectory that’s almost flat or at the most 5⁰… which is confirmed by the non-corrupted thermometers - so why are the models being taken notice of?

 

Mann says carbon dioxide has impacted temperature since the start of the industrial revolution 1760, but surely it can’t have been a global phenomenon back then, coal-fire carbon dioxide at that time occurred in small pockets dotted around the northern hemisphere, hardly a global trend. So let’s start at 1840, for no other reason than there’s some significance for my country. Other than atmospheric carbon dioxide, what else might show a correlation that could cause climate change to occur since 1840? First up would be deforestation. Imagine standing in the Sahara desert at midday compared to the Burmese (Myanmar) rainforest forest - both are approximately the same latitude – straight away you see what forests do. Basically, forests (trees and all vegetation) cool the surface of the planet and since 1840 vast areas have been modified. So, tick, a change in climate correlates with forest removal. Second, cities and towns have expanded, suburban sprawl. Huge areas of concrete and steel buildings as well as asphalt  and railway lines store heat causing warmer nights, iron roofs radiate heat back into the atmosphere and at least in this country, people are painting their roofs and walls black… what are they thinking? So, tick, urbanisation also correlates with the perceived climate change. Third. Agriculture… since 1840 the increased population requires more food, so more land has to be cultivated. Bare soil warms much faster than soil with a cover of vegetation… any vegetation, just look at the Sahara. So, tick, the increased cultivated land area correlates with alleged climate change. Number four. The huge vehicle fleet on the planet is an extra source of heat their working engines, and steel bodies, depending on their colour, reflect heat just like bare soil… so why are black cars not banned? Anyway, tick, there’s a correlation between the world vehicle fleet and the wild weather that changing climate brings. Fifth. The human population has exploded since 1840, with normal body heat at 37⁰C, our bodies begin to lose heat when air temperature goes below 21⁰C… So, tick, there’s a correlation with population body heat and wildfires induced by climate change. All of these things might seem insignificant, but together make more sense than an insignificant amount of extra atmospheric carbon dioxide making changes to the planet.

 

It’s also possible to draw a correlation between weather extremes and sunspots! Scientists have long held the opinion… 1935 a great number of sunspots caused drought, floods and earthquakes… 1925 Sunspots caused tropical lake levels to rise… 1925 reduced sunspot activity caused temperatures to fall – poor summers, severe winters. There are many reports like those. The past 70 years has seen the longest and most intense solar activity for the last 80 000 years… 2014 marked the end of a very active 11 year cycle and, NASA said 2020 was the lowest solar activity for 200 years. Remember those uncorrupted thermometers recording no increased temperature trend since 2014?

 

There’s one other correlation… alarmism and the role media plays. It’s called click-bait, and there’s no doubt about it, forecasting doom is a big seller for media. In 1840, the only media was print… and in 1840 Europe was cold, because it would be another 20 years until the Little Ice Age finally died out. Nowadays every extreme weather event is emblazoned on TV and other media, each event is described as ‘unprecedented’. But if you look at the written record, old newspapers, there’s ample evidence that none of the recent events are unprecedented. All of those events happened in the past when carbon dioxide levels were low… the alarmist can’t dispute that the highest ever recorded temperature was as far back as1913.

 

Nobody’s denying that the planet needs careful nurturing, but the cost of mitigating carbon dioxide, as we’ve already seen, is detrimental to the economy… there’s another correlation. If there’s a choice between warmth and cold, more people die of the cold, so if the economy is depressed and energy is short, there’s less ability to assist the vulnerable. But what everyone needs to understand is, the goal of all the mitigation philosophy are to stop wild weather and the other consequences of climate change. Even the IPCC agree an improvement won’t happen for at least 100 years! So anyone thinking there will be fewer wildfires and extreme weather events just because we’ve changed to generating electricity with windmills and solar panels, and using electricity-powered transportation… and if we’re all eating plant-based food or insects… they will also believe that warthogs might sprout wings and fly.

 

 

 

Sustainability

 

Sustainability

 

Throughout my forestry career, we spent a lot of time to figure out what the mean annual increment was because it varies with every forest. It was necessary to how much wood volume the forest puts on per acre per year, and to do that we had to gather a lot of data, so we set up plots placed randomly throughout the forest, the plots were circular and one tenth of an acre. We measured each tree’s diameter at breast height and its total height, enough information to read off the tree’s volume using official volume tables. We remeasured the plots every two years to build up a data base, but of course part of the equation was the actual forested area, not the total land area… aerial photos were used for that. Our plot-sites were randomly selected, but with recognition to the aspect (growth is different on north faces compared to south faces), and elevation (growth rates vary because of height above sea level). Finding the mean annual increment allowed us to calculate the annual cut… sustainable harvesting of the forest… taking only the volume that forest grows each year. This is not the only way of achieving sustainability, it can be done by area, or by incorporating several forests but basically you don’t want the situation as has been happening in places like Tanzania, where the wood resource is being harvested seventeen times faster than it is growing. 

 

When applying for ‘development’ funds for third world countries and even in job specifications for The Agency, sustainability ranked highly… but sustainability was in reality, a pipe dream. Firstly, the volunteer brings with them funding that the locals have zero chance of raising themselves and secondly, the co-worker, who the volunteer is supposed to train, are perceived have a ‘new-found ability’, which allows them to find other employment or as in my case, both were wholly capable anyway, but unable to carry on without funding, but they had the confidence to set up ventures of their own.

 

Somehow Net Zero Carbon (NZC) has been touted as the road to achieving that elusive thing… sustainability, the panacea to all our ills! To attain the mythical goal, trillions of dollars have been spent or are going to be spent on the supply of renewable energy, and so far, for all that expense, only a tiny proportion of the world’s energy is generated under its banner. How has that cured any of the world’s ills? It has only filled the bank accounts a lot of people, which has indeed added to the list of the world’s ills.

 

Let’s figure out why NZC is a goal… some scientists say extreme weather will increase if the planet warms by more than 1.5°C… which is nothing more than an unproven theory. There has always been extreme weather, and strangely they say ‘extreme weather’ not ‘extreme climate’, but the data is clear, deaths by extreme weather events have reduced dramatically over the past 100 years. Granted, the cost of storm damage has risen, but that’s because of inflation and because more people live in vulnerable places in more expensive buildings… but on the world scale, only a tiny percentage of the planet is affected at any one time, which indicates that it’s weather anomalies rather than climate… but let’s put the climate change and carbon dioxide aside for now.

 

The number of fatalities due to extreme weather world-wide ranges between 10 000 and 20 000 per year. Meanwhile over 5 million die from air pollution world-wide each year… so why aren’t some of the trillions being spent to clean the air? Most of the extreme air pollution is in developing countries, which could be the reason… but despite what you might hear, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is not the cause of those deaths. But hang on, we’re not addressing the pollution in developed countries either, and there is plenty of it too, from sewage to refuse… couldn’t a trillion or two be spent addressing those issues? Sending plastic waste to Malasia or waste clothing to Ghana is hardly sustainable! Air pollution in India is one of the worst examples… yet they can send rockets to the moon, so is India’s air pollution due to a financial choice of government? There are six main causes of air pollution in India. Dust and construction 45%, waste burning 17%, transport 14%, electricity generation by diesel 9%, industries 8% and domestic cooking 7%. Tackling these issues would include culture aspects as well, because cremation on wood pyres is significant and while only 7% of the total is from cooking and home heating, the burning of dung and other nasties indoors causes respiratory issues because of the higher concentration without ventilation. Here’s where trade-offs are needed… natural gas electricity generation would be better, but the cost isn’t of the energy alone but the cost reticulation and cost of purchase. And if dung is returned to the soil, resulting vegetation might mitigate the dust to a certain extent… but it is possible to reduce dust? The other problem that needs targeting is illegal recycling of tyres to manufacture a low-grade oil and the fuel used in transport is blended and low-grade, but significantly cheaper. Basically, the whole issue is a conundrum that nobody seems willing to undertake, so the deaths continue.

 

Here we are on this planet charging through space and no matter how you think mankind ended up here, our survival is down to an environment that has suited us. And the population growth indicates that conditions are better now than they were 100 years ago… it’s fairly obvious that cold kills more people than extra warmth! Without us, the planet would have kept on its merry way, and without us it will carry on, no matter its condition. It is therefore sensible that we take good care of the planet for our sustainability… a key phrase that, the use of the word, sustainability really means, our sustainability. And ‘Saving the world’, means with a suitable habitat for human life. Because we have been good breeders, we manage an economy that is reasonably fit for purpose, otherwise society would collapse. So, we’ve identified three factors that make up sustainability; environment, economy and people.  What therefore is the role of Net Zero Carbon? Regardless of what alarmist might think carbon will do to the weather, carbon dioxide is key to the food chain, and more of it, as has been shown, the better, because it aids food production, which translates to the environment… green growth is just a part of the environment, nonetheless it creates habitat and biodiversity. There’s the trade-off… even if more carbon dioxide cause extreme weather, a buoyant economy can make resilience, but without food, it doesn’t take long before we die. Therefore, Net Zero Carbon will cause harm to the environment, and if it affects food supply, it cause harm to the economy, which will therefore negatively affect society too… bottom line? Net Zero Carbon will do nothing to enhance sustainability.

 

To keep the populus happy… whatever that might mean, and to be able to care for the environment… whatever that means, requires a robust world economy… again whatever that means. There was an adage that might not be exactly true, but true enough, which says: If third world countries want the same living standards as say, the USA, the resources of seven planets would be needed. Again, what exactly does that mean? There are some resources like oil and certain minerals that have the potential to run out, so obviously ways to make them last as long as possible should be a goal… and maybe we should learn to recycle some of them better. Are there any renewable resources? Manmade forests including bamboo are one… even though harvesting uses some resources. Animal products, like wool, hide and bone are others and agriculture crops like cotton, hemp and flax… in the search for sustainability, there have to be trade-offs because simple answers don’t exist.

 

Not only, but in the west, we have entertainers and sports people who are paid more than our brightest… on the other hand, intelligence isn’t necessarily as helpful as we would hope because intelligence does not equal common sense, and ideology gets in the way of critical or rational thinking… as we see in universities these days. A few years ago, I sat with someone who was learning English by watching television shows. Her favourite was a programme where entertainers allowed cameras into their home… there is only one word for what we saw; opulence! Not only was it the wanton consumption of resources, but there were multiple high-end cars, motorbikes, shoes or whatever. We all buy stuff we don’t need… and indeed doing so provides work for people and stimulates the economy… but there’s nothing sustainable about it. Our governments spend on wish-list stuff rather than core activities, some of which are left to rot.

 

Klaus Shwab and his WEF mob have an answer for this, which involves taking freedoms from everyone and keeping us from using natural logic and critical thinking. Worse, the United Nations seems to favour the idea… so we have to question what exactly is their role?  Anyway, with those wheels well in motion right now, it would be wise for the rest of us to come up with a better plan. Their plan is to control the populus through digital currency and brain implants, which is very possible… and sure, it could make the economy part of sustainability trio met. But the populus part of the equation would be more difficult, even though they have had practice through the Covid jabs and lockdowns. Take a look at our leaders… granted, it isn’t new, but we’re being told lies, blatant lies that those with minimum common sense really know aren’t true, but we seem to accept them, because nobody wants to stand up… the fire seems to have gone from our bellies.

 

One of lies is that the so-called renewable energy will bring prosperity… ref. the hail damage to the 3 300-acre solar farm in Fort Bent County. How are they going to dispose of those broken panels safely? They are made of cadmium, lead, arsenide, copper, selenium and if they are older, hexavalent chromium… all toxic materials. Currently recycling is not possible. Forgetting about the hail, and thinking about my forestry experience, I look at that 3 300-acre farm… say there are 2 500 panel per acre, that would mean there are 8.25 million panels in total. Panels have a lifetime of 25 years. So, if they establish 330 000 per year for twenty-five years, the staggered disposal volume-wise would allow time for recycling methodology to catch up…perhaps. But no solar farm should be allowed, without sensible disposal plans in place!

 

 It’s clear that to exist sustainably, which at some time we must do, (but there is yet time) our lifestyle has to change, mainly to keep in balance with the resources available to us. Obviously, where we are today, is through the use of inexpensive energy, which is also the key for poorer countries to improve their future prospects and maybe that means more trade-offs. One of the world’s problems right now, is illegal immigration, refugees or not, to which an unofficial response seems to be open boarders… the downside, among others is unwelcome cultures, attitudes and disease. The best response to that is for the people to be happy and safe in their own country… how? By making the United Nations fit for purpose, and utilizing funds that are otherwise wasted on green energy.

 

It will be interesting to watch the progress in my country; we have a newly elected government and one of their policies is a revised school curriculum where an hour each of reading, writing and maths on a daily basis is required. It’s a good start because those core subjects are the basis of logic and critical thinking… done well, there’s the real possibility that a generation or two down the track, true leaders will emerge who haven’t been corrupted by the idealism that has crept into our universities. We are missing those leaders right now!