Prava: Global warming will improve global agriculture

http://english.pravda.ru/print/science/earth/107812-global_warming-0

Global warming will improve global agriculture

19.06.2009

Source: Pravda.Ru

URL: http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/107812-global_warming-0

At many times in the past, the earth's climate has been warmer than it is today. During the period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum, global temperatures were about two degrees Celsius, or about four degrees Fahrenheit, higher than they are today. During the Holocene Climate Optimum, warmer temperatures and an associated increase in rainfall facilitated the development of agriculture, village communities, and eventually cities by humankind in many parts of the world. The increased global temperatures of the Holocene Climate Optimum warmed the world's oceans, causing increased evaporation, creating more clouds and storms, and ultimately increasing rainfall throughout the Tropical, Subtropical, and Temperate zones encircling the earth. During the Holocene Climate Optimum, California, the southwestern and southern USA, the Mediterranean region, the Middle East, the Ukraine, India, China, and northern Africa all recieved more rainfall than they do today. During the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Sahara desert became a lush savannah punctuated with rivers and lakes that supported elephants, giraffes, zebras, hippos, crocodiles, humans, and the cattle the humans had domesticated. During that time, agriculture spread from the Middle East into Europe, rice cultivation spread throughout east Asia, and maize, bean, and squash cultivation spread throughout Central America. The global warming of the Holocene Climate Optimum also caused global sea levels to rise by about two meters, or nearly seven feet. Evidence for that rise in global sea levels has been found in many places, including southern Mesopotamia and in numerous five thousand year-old beaches and coral deposits found throughout the world which are now standing two meters above the present sea level. In the current hysteria about Global Warming, or 'Climate Change', as it is now being called, the emphasis has been entirely placed on the predicted undesirable effects of Global Warming, and the possible benefits of Global Warming are very seldom mentioned. Al Gore, James Hansen, and the other Jeremiahs of Global Warming or 'Climate Change' warn us about catastrophic rises in sea levels which will inundate major cities and about chronic, severe droughts which they claim will dessicate and devastate most of the major agricultural zones of the earth. The geologic evidence from the Holocene Climate Optimum proves that Global Warming will indeed raise global sea levels with catastrophic effects on major cities and low-lying districts throughout the world. However, the evidence from the Holocene Climate Optimum also shows that Global Warming should improve global agriculture by warming and widening the earth's Tropical, Subtropical, and Temperate zones, and by increasing rainfall throughout the world. The loss of some major cities to rising sea levels will certainly be traumatic, but the loss of those cities will be offset by an increase in agricultural production, forestry, and grazing areas throughout the world. The increase in agricultural, timber, and livestock production which would result from an increase of two degrees Celsius of Global Warming is badly needed in our increasingly over-populated world. Plants breathe CO2; they require CO2 to live and they thrive on it. Many professional growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant production. Numerous land and satellite-based studies have shown an increase in global biomass during the time period that is associated with Global Warming. According to NASA scientist Ramakrishna Nemani, “Between 1982 and 1999, twenty-five percent of the Earth’s vegetated area experienced increasing plant productivity—a total increase of about six percent.” Al Gore, James Hansen, and the other prophets of Climate Change catastrophe never mention the actual and potential benefits of Global Warming. Why is that? Isn't science supposed to be about objectivity? Al Gore has invested heavily in carbon credit brokerage firms. For Gore, there is a financial profit to be made from promoting Global Warming alarmism. Gregory Fegel

© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

Letter to CCNet: RE: HOW MANY IPCC SCIENTISTS FABRICATE AND FALSIFY RESEARCH? [edited for text format]

Letter to CCNet: RE: HOW MANY IPCC SCIENTISTS FABRICATE AND FALSIFY RESEARCH? [edited for text format]
Dear Benny,The measured global temperature record which started around 1856 shows that the Earth was in a warming cycle until around 1880. The CO2record shows that CO2 was increasing by about 0.21ppmv/year over this period.During the cooling cycle which followed from 1880 to 1910, the CO2 concentration increased at a rate of about 0.30ppmv/year.The next warming cycle from 1910 to 1942 saw a dramatic increase in global temperature, but the rate of increase in CO2 concentration only grew to 0.33ppmv over this time period.The well documented global cooling period from 1942 to 1975 that had the world concerned about an impending return to the equivalent of the Little Ice Age, had a contemporaneous rise in atmospheric CO2 that equated to 0.63ppmv/year; almost twice the increase in CO2 of the precious warming cycle.During the warming that took place from 1975 to 1998, the rate of CO2 increase took another dramatic jump to 1.54ppmv/year, but this was followed by an increase to 1.91ppmv/year that we are currently experiencing during the present ongoing cooling cycle.Each successive cooling cycle has had an increase in the rate of CO2 growth over the previous warming cycle, indicating that there is no possible correlation of CO2 with global warming.In 1988 Hansen et al published a paper "Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model" in the Journal of Geophysical Research that introduced a "CO2 forcing parameter".This parameter had no actual physical basis, but was merely based on the assumption that a 100ppmv increase in CO2 was directly and primarily responsible for the measured increase in global temperature of 0.6 °C that had been observed over the past century.This assumption ignored the fact that over this time period there was both cooling and warming concurrent with rising CO2 concentration, and considering that this paper was published just 13 years after a 33 year cooling trend that also had a concurrent increase in CO2 concentration there is no possible valid rational for this assumption. Essentially in the 46 year period from 1942 to when the paper was published in 1988, there were 33 years of cooling and only 13 years of warming concurrent with increases in CO2, yet the models used a forcing parameter that directly related only warming to CO2 concentration increases.With no basis in fact, this parameter is entirely a fabrication, and the projections of climate models that are based on this fabricated parameter are also meaningless fabrications.In addition to the fabrication, there is a bit of scientific fraud in the creation of this CO2 forcing parameter.The Earth had been warming since the Little Ice Age at a rate of about 0.5 °C/century. The temperature value that went into determining the CO2forcing parameter was 0.6 °C, with the difference from the 0.5 °C/century value likely due to the urban heat island effect. Even if this difference was directly due to CO2 increases, the difference between the observed temperature and the natural warming since the Little Ice Age is only 0.1 °C but the full 0.6 °C was used to fabricate the forcing parameter.It seems that one fabrication leads to another, and when it became obvious that the natural warming of 0.5 °C/century since the Little Ice Age demonstrated the obvious deficiency in this forcing parameter of the climate models, the MBH98 temperature proxy also known as the "hockey stick" was fabricated to remove the Little Ice Age and allow the full 0.6 °C temperature increase to be related to CO2 increases.Considering that the climate models are the only support for the AGW premise, and the AGW premise is the only support for the climate models, exposing this simple fabrication is all that needs to be done to put an end to this circular argument that forms the basis for the entire climate change lunacy.Norm KalmanovitchCalgary Canada

$67 Billion carbon tax proposal.

Think "Four fifity gas" in the future.   

http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/26/the-energy-tax-budget/

The Energy Tax Budget - “Not one dime,” said President Obama in his address to Congress, referring to how much extra tax people earning under $250,000 a year will have to pay in his budget. Unfortunately, even if you don’t have to pay extra tax, you will have to pay extra fees for your energy, which are passed on to the government via energy companies. That’s the effect of the President’s cap-and-trade scheme for carbon emissions, an important part of his new budget. Energy companies will have to pay the government for permits for each ton of carbon dioxide or equivalent they emit in the generation of power. They will pass on these costs to the consumer, as has happened everywhere a cap-and-trade scheme has been tried. The Administration will split the revenues between $15bn for alternative energy pork and about $52 billion per year to help pay for the Making Work Pay tax cut/welfare check of $800 for “95 percent of all American workers.” By raising the price of fossil fuel energy and thereby making expensive alternative energy more competitive, the program is also aimed at reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. (Iain Murray, Cooler Heads)

Why a Tiny Alabama Town Wants a $375 Million Chunk of the Stimulus

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/01/08/why-a-tiny-alabama-town-wants-a-375-million-chunk-of-the-stimulus_print.htm

Why a Tiny Alabama Town Wants a $375 Million Chunk of the Stimulus

By Amanda Ruggeri

Posted January 8, 2009

At first glance, the town of Edwardsville, Ala., with a population of 194 people, might raise a few eyebrows with its bid to receive $375 million from theeconomic stimulus package being assembled by Barack Obama and lawmakers in Congress.

The tiny town, located near the Georgia border and 26 miles from the nearest "big city" of Anniston (population: 24,276), added 33 proposals—about two thirds of them related to "green" energy—to the list of "ready- to- go" projects assembled by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Total sum: $375,076,200.

That comes out to nearly $2 million per Edwardsville resident, although E. D. Phillips, the town's representative to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, says the projects would affect a wider region that comprises about 80,000 people. That number includes residents of nearby rural areas that aren't already incorporated into towns, along with the residents of Talladega Springs (population: 124), which partnered with Edwardsville and local municipal utilities on the projects.

There's certainly no denying that Edwardsville has big ambitions. Through the various proposals, which include a renewable energy museum, scenic railroad, and vineyards, these small Alabama communities envision themselves becoming a cutting-edge demonstration project for energy sustainability and a hub for tourism.

"I know we look like some little Podunk town, and by the census, we are," Phillips says. "But we really think we've done some amazingly progressive things in the past two years."

The town's proposals began to develop more than two years ago, when Phillips and another town official became intrigued by the argument that renewable energy could create a rural renaissance. If any community needed economic revival, it was Edwardsville—even before the recession. At 28.7 percent, the town's poverty level was nearly equal to that of Nepal and more than twice the national average, according to the 2000 census.

Along with the more traditional proposals to replace streetlights with solar-powered lights (cost: $3,479,200), to install solar panels on the town hall (cost: $77,000), and to build solar-powered recharging stations for electric golf carts and vehicles (cost: $620,000), Edwardsville and Talladega Springs have assembled a set of even more far-reaching projects.

An outlay of $50.4 million, for example, would go toward installing water pipelines beneath roads to soak up the sun's rays, transferring heat. That technology is currently being used in the Netherlands, which found that while the cost of installation was double that of normal gas heating, the system halved the amount of energy required.

With big dreams, however, come big price tags.

"Do you know how hard it is to fund some of these projects when your tax base is so low?" Phillips says. "So we just breathed this sigh of relief when we found out about the stimulus package . . . especially when it had a focus on renewable energy."

Not everyone shares the sentiment.

"This really exemplifies the problem. Why are we buying light bulbs for a local community?" asks Tom Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste. "If a municipality wants to save money, [it can] go out and buy the light bulbs. There is no reason the federal government should buy them."

One of Edwardsville's biggest proposed expenditures is for a "renewable energy museum and information dissemination center." Phillips envisions exhibits, audio tours, seminars, a research center, and a satellite lab run by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

To fund the museum, Edwardsville is requesting $32.1 million. That makes the facility the fourth most expensive museum proposed on the U.S. Conference of Mayors list—following facilities planned by Miami, Las Vegas, and Scottsdale, Ariz. (Some of those facilities have drawn their own controversy: Las Vegas's proposal for a $55 million "mob museum," for example, was used by Sen. Mitch McConnell this week as a prime example of pork spending.)

Some might wonder how many people a renewable energy museum in rural Alabama could attract. And there are other routes for museum funding, like the Institute of Museum and Library Services. If a project can't get funding through competitive grants, Schatz says, perhaps it shouldn't get funding at all.

"Clearly, no one else has been interested in funding this, so why should we be doing it now?" he asks, referring to all the projects on the U.S. Conference of Mayors list that are using the stimulus as a last-ditch funding effort. "Why should the federal government be doing something now that you couldn't do yourself?"

But with city and state budgets tight, says Ford Bell, the president of the American Association of Museums, it's small wonder that many are turning elsewhere. And, he adds, just because a museum is rural doesn't mean it's doomed to fail, noting the success of a living history museum in Fishers, Ind.

The energy museum speaks to Edwardsville's larger hope: becoming a tourist destination. The town has requested $37 million for a solar energy-enhanced "scenic railroad line." It's also asking for $9 million to go toward establishing an eventual 640 acres of vineyards, 160 acres of which would be launched first. Each of the four vineyards would be designed around the theme of a different European country and, in a bid for weddings, dotted with gazebos and chapels.

To some, the vineyards, in particular, seem dubious. The Southeast is subject to a disease that puts traditional European grape varieties out of reach, usually limiting vineyards to the muscadine grape. Partly as a result, vineyards haven't exactly been the region's strong suit. Georgia has just 1,100 acres of vineyards, while Mississippi has 400. (Compare that with California's 800,000 or even Pennsylvania's 12,000.) The 640 acres for vineyards that Edwardsville ultimately wants to establish would nearly double the vineyard acreage of the entire state of Alabama, which is currently at 650.

Funding more than "a fraction of the scope" of neighboring states' vineyards with public money, therefore, would distort the market, says Bill Nelson, president of WineAmerica, the National Association of American Wineries.

It's not yet known whether Edwardsville will get any money from the stimulus package at all. There's no guarantee as to how many projects, if any, on the mayors list will get federal funding. And although $375 million may seem like a lot of money, it's also a fraction of the $96,638,419,313 requested by all the towns on the list.

But for Edwardsville, that money—whether seen as "pork" or not—would make a fantasy come true.

"We would love to be the poster child for rural America, for attempting to change through concern for the environment and clean energy," says Phillips. "We think if anyone can do it, we can."

Read more stimulus news.

I filled up yesterday, $1.63.9 per gallon and it's gone down more.

As I recall the highest I paid to "top off" was $3.89.9  Now it is under half with the cost seeming to fall even more.

One way to watch the future price of gasoline is thru First Fuel Bank.  http://www.firstfuelbanks.com/V3/FuelPrices.aspx

It's in the St. Could area so not much good for me.  The two amounts to compare are a "rolling account" and a "locked account".  A "rolling account" is effectively a cash or prepaid "house debit card".  Unleaded is currently $1.65.9  The "locked account" is cash or check prepay with the price locked in the future.  For unleaded this is $2.39.9  This is basically seventy-two cents more for a hedged no expiration date future purchase of gas.  Using a credit card for a "current price" purchase is a dime a gallon more than a "rolling account".

The dime a gallon more for credit cards seems like more of a promotion of the house cards than a real savings.  Credit card companies charge 2% to 3% for gas payments so they came close to a dime when gas was pushing $4 per gallon.

Anyway, watch the left and right unleaded prices at http://www.firstfuelbanks.com/V3/FuelPrices.aspx to see future market trends.

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2008sep27_g.html

SCIENCE: Global-warming - myth, threat or opportunity? by Walter Starck

The most critical problem we face is not global warming, or how to make fuel more expensive so we will use less, but providing enough at affordable prices to keep our economy going until alternatives can become reality, writes scientist Dr Walter Starck. The Lucky Country has the choice between disaster and a unique opportunity.Climate change looks more and more like becoming a catastrophe we inflict upon ourselves in trying to avoid one we have only imagined.The theory of catastrophic global warming due to CO2 emissions rests on two fundamental elements. One is that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. The other is that interactive computer models of climate have been constructed to show increased warming with increased CO2. However, a couple of dozen different climate models all produce differing results in accord with the assumptions and estimates they each incorporate.While the absorption of infrared by CO2 is undisputed, the amount of such heating on global climate is highly uncertain. There is good reason to think it has been greatly overestimated. The current understanding on which the climate models are based is very incomplete. As for the widely publicised catastrophic consequences of warming, these are not even predicted by the models but are only speculations regarding such warming.Lack of verificationComplex interactive models can be constructed and adjusted to produce any desired result. Without verification they reflect only the ideas on which they are based.The famed mathematical physicist and father of cybernetics, John von Neumann, once said: "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly."Those who claim a high degree of scientific certainty regarding global warming can only be woefully uninformed, overly impressed with themselves or less than honest. There are serious doubts and uncertainties about every aspect.The fundamental radiative physics involved in the complex and variable mix of gases and conditions that comprise the global atmosphere is far from clear. The distribution of heat through the myriad pathways of atmospheric and oceanic circulation is only poorly understood. The innumerable interactions and feedbacks involved in this immensely complex system have only barely begun to be recognised, much less understood well enough to be accurately modelled.In contrast to the virtual world of computer simulations, real world evidence presents a very different picture. To list but a few key facts:• Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies from all over the world indicate a Medieval Warm Period as warm or warmer than present temperatures. Recent warming is not unprecedented.• Numerous studies of extreme weather incidences indicate that recent occurrences are also not unprecedented, nor even unusual.• The tropical mid-tropospheric warming predicted by the models as a prominent signature of CO2-induced global warming has not occurred. The models are wrong about the dominant area of warming.• Most of the warming predicted by the models comes from increased relative humidity acting as a positive feedback to amplify CO2-induced warming. This too has not occurred. The models are thus also wrong about the major source of warming.• Contrary to greenhouse warming expectations, southern hemisphere trends have shown negligible warming.• The global temperature trend has been flat for a decade despite increasing CO2.• Most important of all, global temperatures have declined markedly in both hemispheres over the past two years, with widespread record and near record lows.The current cooling was unpredicted by any models. Although warming advocates have tried to dismiss it as only natural internal variability, they have previously strongly denied any such possibility in connection with warming.Even if one accepts some natural variability, widespread record cold clearly refutes the degree of warming that has been attributed to the Greenhouse (GH) effect. Moreover, such cooling is fully in accord with well-established correlations of temperatures and solar activity as well as the major multi-decadal shift in oceanic conditions known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has just recently switched into its cool phase.However, if we accept these influences to explain current cooling, then we must also accept their likely responsibility for most or all of the preceding warming.The claim that the threat of global warming is 90 per cent (or often 99 per cent) certain is simply a figure of speech reflecting the speaker's commitment to a belief. It has no mathematical basis, and should be seen as comparable to the 100 per cent certainty professed by religious devotees that theirs is the one true faith.Although one might expect that evidence that a serious threat may not really exist would be greeted with hopeful interest by anyone professing concern about it, the opposite is true. That global warming is no longer just a theory, but has become a belief is reflected in the reaction to any suggestion of doubt.No matter how well founded and clearly presented, this provokes only anger and rejection, not interest, in believers. As contrary evidence mounts and climate cools, defence of the belief only becomes more desperate and the claimed threats are ratcheted up still further. One might be forgiven the impression that the threats are not so much feared as they are fervently being hoped for.The oil supplyMeanwhile, however, the obsession with global warming has blinded us to a far more real and imminent danger. The oil supply on which our entire economy is based is not keeping up with increasing demand, and we are doing nothing effective in response. Consider just a few important facts:• Production has already peaked and is in decline in some 50 nations.• Despite major advances in exploration technology and effort, the rate of discovery of significant new reserves has steadily declined for several decades and is far below depletion rates.• Exports are decreasing in most exporting nations as their own domestic demand increases.• Refining capacity has not kept pace with demand, due to environmental restrictions and concerns over future supply of crude.• Most existing refineries are designed for light sweet crude, the supply of which is rapidly declining.• Future oil will increasingly be heavy sour crude which only a minority of existing refineries can use.• The major oil-producing nations have no incentive for massive investment to increase production, accelerate depletion, reduce their earnings and end up with huge expensive infrastructure which would soon be surplus to dwindling supply.The price increases over recent years are primarily the result of near static supply in the face of increasing demand. Ongoing growth in demand, shortages, significant further price rises and a dampening effect on the global economy are almost certain to continue for the foreseeable future.While speculation may have contributed to accelerating the increases, it cannot sustain them. Their persistence and ongoing rise indicate a firm basis in underlying tightness in supply. Further price increases will only cease when cost suppresses demand.SynfuelAffordable liquid fuel for transport and mobile machinery is essential to the functioning of our whole economy. Viable alternative energy is still decades away and we are doing nothing to prepare to get from here to there.Synfuel from coal and gas could supply all our needs here in Australia at less than half the current price of oil. This can be done using commercially-proven technology which can be implemented now with no uncertainties.Companies are ready, willing and able to implement the technology. Only emission restrictions on CO2 are holding them back. All focus by government is on "clean" renewable technology that is totally inadequate now and decades from becoming commercial.Despite the resources boom, the Australian economy is in a highly vulnerable position. Manufacturing is in decline and, at 13 per cent of GDP, is among the lowest in the developed world. The trade balance remains in chronic deficit with no foreseeable improvement. Foreign debt is growing at twice the rate of the economy. At over $600 billion it is now about 60 per cent of GDP, the highest in the developed world.The current boom rests on high commodity prices; but commodity booms normally last only a few years before increased production, spurred by high prices, brings prices down again.With or without any added influence from a global economic slowdown, an end to the boom is inevitable. This will result in a fall in the exchange rate of the Australian dollar and a blow-out in foreign debt.In the almost certain event of fuel shortages leading to substantial widespread price increases and a global recession, a large debt obligation which could not be met would result in a collapse of the $AUD.Dependence on imports for most manufactured goods will exacerbate the problem. Having an economy that is independent of world markets for our own energy needs would be a huge advantage.Australia's contribution to global CO2 emissions is about 1.4 per cent. This is equal to only six months' growth in China's emissions. Natural uptakes of CO2 over Australia's land and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) area absorb half again more than this. Our net contribution to global CO2 emissions is already negative. Whatever we do or don't do will be trivial to the global situation, either in quantity or even as an example.The opportunityGlobal warming is a distant and uncertain possibility of a problem that most likely does not even exist. It can only be meaningfully addressed by developments that will require decades and which, in any event, must be undertaken even without the threat of warming.Severe economic hardship, however, is an imminent probability. This could be greatly alleviated, if not avoided altogether, by development of our own liquid-fuel supplies.It would be far easier to do this now in a time of prosperity than trying to do so in a recession. Having such capacity already in place might well even avert a recession here altogether. Being energy-independent would be a huge competitive advantage in a time of high energy costs and shortages everywhere else.Precaution in the face of uncertainty may sound sensible, but the realm of hypothetical risk is without limit. Many perceived risks turn out to have no reality. Remember the Y2K millennium-bug scare?We cannot build fortresses against every shadow of doubt. Precaution too is not without risk. Any proposed precautionary measure must be weighed against alternatives as well as consideration of its own consequences.Obsessing over distant uncertain risks, while ignoring immediate consequences, is poor precaution. For Australia, drastic cuts to carbon emissions to prevent global warming is to climate what anorexia is to obesity.Economic declineThe proposed carbon taxes will only result in a vast new windfall for government, large cost/price increases and economic recession. Emission-trading is set to become a huge new non-productive industry of wealth redistribution with little or no actual reduction in emission beyond what is effected by economic decline.The world is headed for an energy crisis with consequences we have not even begun to appreciate. Australia is better positioned to cope than any other nation. The only thing holding us back is blind adherence to an ill-founded belief that daily becomes more hysterical, in denial of conflicting evidence, contrary to sound science and detached from climate itself.The choice is unambiguous. We can either adhere to the dogma of the eco-cult and suffer immense self-inflicted hardship, or risk an increasingly dubious prophecy to take a clear path to the future.Seldom is the way forward so obvious. One path goes down easy street; the other takes a detour through Jonestown. The political leaders who recognise this and present it to the electorate will be the next government.- Walter Starck is one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs. He grew up in the Florida Keys and received a PhD in marine science from the University of Miami in 1964. This article is reproduced from National Observer (Council for the National Interest, Australia), No. 77, Winter 2008.

I filled my gas tank up for the first time in a month

$3.45.9 per gallon, I later saw $3.43.9 but what the heck. I last filled up on August 07 for $3.49.9. Under 225 miles driven for the month but it's summer and I have been using the bicycle a lot. I may have to go out in the country, a 225 miles round trip.