Carbon Credit — reblogged from Level-headed discussion of politics and science

Rain in an oak forest --  Ivan Shishkin (Russian:  1832 – 1898)
Rain in an oak forestIvan Shishkin (Russian: 1832 – 1898)

Here is an article that considers the possibility that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily detrimental to our survival.

Carbon Credit

The word “carbon” is often used as a shorthand for carbon dioxide. Environmentalists talk of “carbon footprints” and “carbon pollution” and have injected such terms into the language. But not too long ago, we all recognized that Earth’s biosphere was one of “carbon-based life.” That is, of course, still true. But humans are changing the picture a little bit:

The Carbon Biosphere

How do trees get so big? A 75-foot oak tree might weigh fifteen tons. Where does the mass come from? Almost half is water; we subtract that and get about eight tons of “dry mass” for this oak tree. Some is nutrients pulled from the soil and other elements such as oxygen and hydrogen incorporated into the tree’s molecules, but these account for only about half of the tree’s weight. The rest is from the tree building its structure using carbon (C) from CO2, releasing the O2 back into the atmosphere.

(continued here)

I suppose the prospect of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere frightens some. However, there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere, and we could triple that amount, and there would still be very little.

What we need to consider is that the earth is heated by the sun, not man. As far as we know, the earth’s ice ages and tropical periods may have resulted from variations in the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun. However, the news media likes to talk about variations in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not variations in the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun. We have no control of the sun. We might have some control over the amount of CO2. Therefore, changes in the amount of CO2 atmosphere presents scary possibilities. Changes in the amount of sunlight could only result in what has happened before, and the life on the earth survived the ice ages and tropical periods.


27 thoughts on “Carbon Credit — reblogged from Level-headed discussion of politics and science

  1. Good information. However, there are two sides to factor Check out this site for a more comprehensive discussion or explanation. All I know for certain is pollution is not healthy to breathe into your lungs and somehow must be regulated in the US or are all going to have to wear masks as they are now doing in China industrial cities.

    Regards and goodeill blogging


    1. This discussion is about carbon dioxide, not pollution, despite what the National Geographic propagandist site asserts. They have not yet retracted their fraudulent polar bear articles, despite ignoring research and fabricating data.

      Even the opening paragraph stacks up scary and incorrect messages. Those same forests did quite well 125,000 years ago, when it was much warmer than now:

      The scare folks are pining for bark beetle calamities, and barking about pine beetle destruction, but these concerns are vastly overplayed. This set of questions and answers, with a link to relevant research, will provide some good background.

      Your comment about what will happen to US cities is … very disappointing, and suggests among other things that you mentally equate carbon dioxide with “pollution” just as tildeb and his ilk would like you to. Do you really believe your assertion about US cities that you say that you “know for certain”? How did you come to know this?

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You are right, I did confuse co with co2. Please, if you will explain, why the Gov wants to tax carbon emissions instead of co emissions. We average non chemists know we are getting sick breathing in co and think carbon is the culprit when it is .co from burning fossil fuels that is the real culprit. Amazing what we can learn on the social media.


        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hmm. Carbon monoxide can be fatal in enclosed spaces (at a concentration of about 1/10th of normal CO2), but is pretty much a non-issue in terms of the current environmental hysteria. The problem with carbon monoxide (CO) is that it acts like oxygen in mammalian respiratory systems, clinging to the same hemoglobin transport molecule used for oxygen … but then it is hard to shake loose. And doesn’t fuel reactions as oxygen does. So, in an environment with lots of CO, the red blood corpuscles take it up and get tied up, leaving fewer and fewer transporting actual oxygen until the victim suffocates. In open air, the problem eventually fixes itself as the CO molecules get gradually knocked clear of the hemoglobin, but it’s not an instant process. One can still die of suffocation after being pulled into open air.

          It is flammable, and we used to use it instead of natural gas to heat homes and run vehicles. In small quantities, it can actually be therapeutic for certain conditions.

          But except for rare occasions where CO is created in enclosed areas (by incomplete combustion with insufficient oxygen), it is not an important pollutant; and gets converted in the atmosphere to other molecules.

          But environmentalists don’t hesitate to use the “carbon monoxide is deadly thus carbon dioxide is bad” notion. Molecular differences are important! It is akin to worrying that you shouldn’t eat sodium (a metal that burns violently in contact with water) or breathe chlorine (a poisonous gas), therefore table salt (i.e., “sodium chloride” and made from only sodium and chlorine) is deadly. (As an aside, the mass media/medical community is just catching up with the notion that table salt is not even the blood pressure issue it was thought to be for decades. Now they’re wondering how many tens of thousands of people died from being improperly placed on low-salt diets.)

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 2 people

        2. But environmentalists don’t hesitate to use the “carbon monoxide is deadly thus carbon dioxide is bad” notion. Molecular differences are important!

          This is so stupid it burns, but ya gotta love the quotation marks. It almost makes it seem true.

          Yes, there are idiots in the rank and file of those who think we should be more circumspect about our environment and perhaps one or two might even say such a stupid thing. but for you to select this stupidity as if representative of those who understand the indisputable link between rapid climate change and dramatic rising levels of CO2 from human activity demonstrates your contempt for reality and disdain for those who respect it.

          You’re a real piece of work, Keith, and intellectually dishonest to the core.


        3. You still seem to be struggling with the question, tildeb. How about a Yes or No or I don’t know?

          And amusingly, you follow up calling me a liar by admitting that I might be correct, however rare you think the event is. I mentioned carbon monoxide specifically in response to Matthew’s discussion of CO versus CO2.

          To have someone like you call me intellectually dishonest is amusing in its irony. I am careful; you are merely caustic. And you evince the behavior of a True Believer, lashing out at anyone who threatens your faith; you are rather more defensive here than Citizen Tom is about Christianity. For aspects of his faith, evidence cannot be obtained in principle. But for yours, evidence IS obtainable, and this is increasingly showing that you have problems, hence the signs of the abandonment of the catastrophist faith by governments in Australia, England, Germany and elsewhere.

          Your sadly oft-touted “97 percent” meme is of 77 scientists who (1) are paid/funded to write about global warming and would not be funded otherwise, and (2) agreed only with the proposition that is is warmer now than two centuries ago (i.e., during the Little Ice Age) and that mankind has contributed to this. I’d certainly agree with those propositions, and I regularly write as a True Believer of Global Warming Catastrophe on behalf of clients when required to by governments. Otherwise, they don’t get funded. In some cases, they’d lose their jobs. Is it any wonder they go along with the gag at least publicly?

          The key question is this: Is global warming going to be a catastrophe that requires that governments collect and spend trillions of dollars to combat? (This includes the assumption that such efforts would be likely to solve the problem, which is not at all part of proposals such as the Kyoto Protocol or the recent China-US “deal.”) The answer to this key question is “evidently not” — and no consensus of “yes it’s a catastrophe that we must spend trillions to fix it” has ever been demonstrated. There’s a reason such polls are not done; the results would not suit your purposes.

          You believe in a faith that is unfalsifiable. Everything is caused by global warming, from more snow to less snow to bigger lobsters to smaller lobsters to a thousand other predictions that are notable for both their hysteria and the fact that they typically cover both possible directions, so you can never be proven wrong. Some of the websites that collect these predictions are rather amusing, and there are more added every week.

          I have yet to see a catastrophist who correctly predicted the reduction in cyclones and tornadoes, one who called the lack of extreme weather events ahead of time. Unless you count those who noted, decades ago, that the cooling of the 70s was causing more extreme weather. By reversing those rhetorical positions (as backed by the science of cyclonic weather, which notes that they are driven by temperature differences and not merely “warming”), you could sort of say that the Stephen Schneider of 1970 got it right, and the Stephen Schneider of 2000 was utterly wrong. The strongest cyclones in the Solar System are on cold planets indeed.

          But weren’t you here complaining that Citizen Tom wouldn’t answer a question to your satisfaction? Your own track record in this regard is becoming rather dismal. Try a direct answer on my CO2 question to you.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

  2. CT, proposing that increases in CO2 might be good for plants is like suggesting beheading might be a good way to lose weight for the health conscious. It’s astoundingly idiotic, which describes the climate change denialist camp accurately.


    1. So tildeb doesn’t think increases in co2 are good for plants. (It isn’t just “might be” of course.) Interesting. It seems that tildeb is here representing the anti-science Left, evidently.

      Why do you suppose that CO2 is regularly and intentionally increased by hundreds or thousands of PPM in greenhouses?

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


      1. Ooo.. basic biology. Shocking. AGW causing raid climate change must be false because all climate scientists don;t grasp this astounding fact of basic biology.

        As I said, climate change denial is idiotic.


        1. Your initial assertion denied this “basic biology.” Let’s test it. Do you accept that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past century has been responsible for a substantial (i.e., more than 10%) increase in crop productivity world-wide?

          So let’s try your answer to that question: Try a either Yes/No/I don’t know, and then you can expand upon your answer if you wish.

          Of course, developed countries have had crop productivity increases more than that, and crop yields world-wide continue to set records. The great thing about increased CO2 is that this helps plants whether the local agriculture is advanced or not.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


        2. Why might higher levels of CO2 be a problem when it’s a necessary ingredient for plants? Golly, gee, whiz, Keith, that’s a remarkable observation you’re making. I’m not sure exactly how tens of thousands of working climate scientists managed to miss this basic biology. Goo d thing you’re on the job. Yup, because CO2 is good for plants, so can only be problem in climate science because… wait for it… it must be because it’s not a problem. Quick, let send this off to Wattsupwiththat.

          What is the matter with some people? Can they not think critically… for even a moment?

          As I said, the denialist camp is idiotic. As a card-carrying member of that camp, Keith, what does that say about you and your approach to understanding why a trivial 97% of climate scientists somehow find your idiotic arguments like this one insufficient? Oh right, it must be because there’s a global conspiracy combined with the fact that you’re the smartest guy in the room because – Hey! – CO2 is plant food – a fact you presume is missed by all these scientists!

          Keith, you have access to the internet, for crying out loud. Stop cherry picking whatever recent stupid supports your most recent belief and start learning (a shockingly rude and militant suggestion, I grant you). You can do it. You just have to put your towering ego and your conspiratorial beliefs aside for a few clicks.

          But I don’t think you will because then you won’t feel special. What’s true doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn; what’s important is you.


        3. Thank you for the link to that little alarmist video. It is a classic example of attacking the person instead of the problem, shooting the messenger instead of figuring out what to do about the message.

          Supposedly, we have global warming, but the amount of warming doesn’t approach anywhere near what was predicted. So what do the alarmists do? They blame every bit of bad weather on “Climate Change,” they call what use to be called Global Warming “Climate Change,” they claim to be the overwhelming majority, and they call their opponents “deniers.” What has the scientific method got to do with any of that?

          Except for raising taxes on fossil fuels, the people who are complaining about “Climate Change” don’t have a clue as to what to do about their imaginary problem. Every alternative energy source has problems, and you cannot get the rest of the world to use them. So you have no plan to stop “Climate Change,” a problem you have no proof even exists. You just have an excuse to tax people and wreck the American economy.

          Frankly, I don’t understand your enthusiam for calling people names. The “deniers” are going to stop you from implementing a plan that won’t accomplish anything? That’s what you call rational behavior? What’s the point?


        4. Matthew


          As I said, the denialist camp is idiotic. As a card-carrying member of that camp, Keith, what does that say about you and your approach to understanding why a trivial 97% of climate scientists somehow find your idiotic arguments like this one insufficient? Oh right, it must be because there’s a global conspiracy combined with the fact that you’re the smartest guy in the room because – Hey! – CO2 is plant food – a fact you presume is missed by all these scientists!

          I deny pseudo-science, not true science. Pseudo-science is subject to consensus and preference, yet true science is subject to objectivity and facts. True science does not support the allegations of global warming fearmongers (or alarmists). True science demonstrates that the earth’s weather fluctuates (e.g., heating and cooling periods). True science demonstrates that CO2 is vital for survival — plant life plays a big role. True science has demonstrated — beyond a reasonable doubt — that global warming reports are inaccurate, deceptive, and biased (see UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report). Many honest scientists are leaving the global warming scare cult owing to true science. It appears that you, Al Gore, and 97% of so-called climate scientists place faith or trust in pseudo-science. So, who is the denier?

          Liked by 1 person

        5. Matthew, you’re factually wrong. And the science is indisputable.

          The only way to pretend that the earth’s climate is not changing and warming at an unprecedented rate is to be an idiot and select only those bits of data that seems to fit the contrary belief. But the evidence is now overwhelming that links human activity to this accelerated warming that is causing our climate to change. Your children will hold this generation to account and I will point to people like you and Keith as a central problem that will have to be overcome in order to even BEGIN to respond appropriately. YOU are very much part of the problem and you’ve been sold a lie that you now try to defend. But reality isn’t lenient and will not go along with just your cherry picked bits of data. It’s going to allow all of us to enjoy the fruits of the denialist campaign and its will harm real people in real life with unnecessary pain and suffering so that people like Keith can feel special ’cause he’s so smart that he knows the Pentagon is wrong, NASA is wrong, the Royal Society is wrong, that dozens and dozens of the world’s most respected scientific institutions are all wrong, that tens of thousands of working climate scientists are wrong. None of them do ‘true’ science; all of them are part of some Grand Conspiracy. The plot to make people like Keith right is so idiotic and so contrary to good science that only idiots can go along with it. Malicious idiots. Idiots who would prefer to see tremendous suffering increase on a global scale so that they can feel special and help stop the political powers from being able to do anything because the political capital is being successfully diverted by the merchants of doubt that can convince idiots to claim scientific consensus is wrong but cosnpiracy lunacy is much more plausible.

          I am disgusted.

          Denialism is both deplorable and immoral and you ought to be ashamed of being such a good little dupe and going along with lies intentionally promoted and believed by the credulous, the gullible, and the idiotic. It’s you’re choice which category you want to belong to before making your inexcusable excuses known to the next generation.


        6. Here’s the level of intellect and integrity of tildeb’s fellow True Believers: Despite the fact that tornadoes are at an all-time low, and have been for going on four years, every single tornado that does happen is because of the dreaded Global Warming, and is an example of “fossil-fueled extreme weather.” The new phrase du jour is evidently “poisoned weather,” since Twitter hashtags must stand in place of actual evidence these days. Consider this example.

          If you shout loud enough, or act extraordinarily ashamed of those skeptical of these claims, you (and your media and government cohorts) might carry the day and implement the taxes and regulations they want. Otherwise, science will win — and the catastrophists will be looking for work.

          Here’s a new bit I’ve seen recently: The phrase “climate change,” as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change created in 1988, is being blamed on Republicans, who supposedly invented the term in 2003. The background here is that a Republican pollster mentioned in a document at that time that “climate change” sounded less scary than “global warming,” choosing from among the terms in use at the time. But by then, the dreaded global warming had stopped again, having risen from the 20s to the 40s, dropped to the 70s, then risen again to the 90s.

          It took adjusted data to make the 80s and 90s rise look scary. Multiple times per year they adjust the older years to be cooler. By now, they’ve adjusted the warm 1930s almost out of existence. It took seven years of adjustments after 1998 for 1998 to finally become warmer than 1934. The old years are now so much colder than they were that it is easy to proclaim “the hottest year ever!”

          Unless, of course, you’re using satellite data which does not get this retrofitting treatment. On the basis of satellites, we’re still down from the 1990s. They do not go back to the 1930s of course, but I expect that they would have shown current temperatures still down from the 30s as the ground stations do without the new, arbitrary over-and-over-again adjustments.

          So, of course, catastrophists prefer adjusted stations and don’t like the satellites, which are quite good at lower atmosphere temperature measurements, are cross-checked against radiosonde balloons, and cover areas that ground-based thermometers miss by thousands of miles. But satellites are less precise at measuring water height, and are no longer cross-checked against tide gages (and often not even against another satellite) — so they use them instead of the more precise, and unadjusted, tide gages, to try to show a non-existent “alarming acceleration in sea level rise!” Which is, of course, completely absent from the actual tide gage measurements.

          Sea level rise was less than a foot last century (no one was alarmed), and is on track to be less than a foot this century. Amusingly, Florida’s “oh my God we’re gonna drown” sea level climate change warning document includes one of these dreadfully unexciting tide gage charts, showing nothing different happening at all. I’m surprised they included it, as it rather punctures the rest of their argument.

          In addition to measurement confusion and cherry-picking selection, the Left gets confused chronologically; I’ve seen several assert that we were attacked in New York and Washington on 9/11 because of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And that the Islamic jihad spread across the Middle East and into Europe, conquering millions and converting them to Islam at swordpoint, because of the Crusades launched hundreds of years later. Apparently the prophesy gig worked better for the Mohammedans; they foresaw that the West would defend, so they were justified in attacking in advance.

          Or maybe the Left’s defense of jihadism is just pathetic. At least their catastrophism still largely sounds scientific, so far, though it is losing ground.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        7. Matthew

          @ Tildeb

          I concur that true science is indisputable and binding; however, pseudo-science is questionable. Seriously, a YouTube video? Why not something academic, as a peer-reviewed journal? The fact remains, the basic, elementary science of the carbon cycle discredits any global warming fearmonger. C’mon, Tildeb, you are brighter than that.

          Liked by 1 person

        8. Sure, fair enough. How about from Yale? After all, there are only thousands of peer reviewed studies to draw on so who knew you could find some online? I understand that actually reading such online material might be daunting for those who don;t want to understand climate change, and so I thought a video under ten minutes that linked the changing extreme weather patterns to increases in CO2 might actually be informative. But now that you’ve determined it was done by a ‘hack’ I understand your desire now to find peer reviewed material.

          Right. Pure of motives to actually understand before arriving at an idiotic conclusion, I see.


        9. I’m still looking for your position on this science:

          Do you accept that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past century has been responsible for a substantial (i.e., more than 10%) increase in crop productivity world-wide?

          Try a either Yes/No/I don’t know, and then you can expand upon your answer if you wish.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person


          Idiotic question:

          “Do you accept that the removal of one’s head will produce a substantial decrease in total body weight?

          Try a either Yes/No/I don’t know, and then you can expand upon your answer if you wish.”

          I cannot fathom why anyone might think your CO2-is-plant-food approach has been debunked thoroughly (hence the video showing your hero Lord Moncton – who has denies AIDS, by the way – using the same idiotic trope) and so is actually nothing more than a non sequitur to the tremendous problems associated with human caused climate change by the mechanism of adding unsustainable levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. Just look at how well the plant life is doing on Venus thick with CO2!

          Who cares if the argument you present has already been scientifically considered and then debunked, right? It sounds pretty good to the uncritical ear. That’s why you use it. You don’t care if it doesn’t address the issue of why too much CO2 from our emissions causes far more problems than it solves.

          Maybe you can explain why your point shouldn’t be considered another tired debunked denialist trope… you being smarter than almost all members of the National Academy of Science who reject it. all the members of NASA and Jet Propulsion Laboratory who reject it, the planning teams for United States Armed Forces who reject it, the transnational insurance companies who reject it, well… you get the idea of just how scientifically fringe and extreme one must be to fall into the denialist camp. But you, being so very very clever, already know just how far out from mainstream science your position really is… based on such remarkable insights as basic biology and all. Whodathunk?

          At least you’re a consistent Idiot unwilling to learn anything but what appears to support your fringe scientific understanding of AGW while ignoring and dismissing scientific consensus.

          Oh, wait… does that mean that maybe you’re not one of the smartest guys on the planet? Nah… silly me; of course you are.


        11. @tildeb, who wrote”

          Idiotic question:

          “Do you accept that the removal of one’s head will produce a substantial decrease in total body weight?

          I agree with your characterization of your question as idiotic, but it can still be answered. Yes. The primary mechanism would be massive blood loss, as otherwise the head and remainder of the body would weigh about the same as before. The head is, of course, part of the body.

          But I would suggest to you that the increase in carbon dioxide currently feeding approximately a billion people on the planet is far more relevant to the discussion of climate impacts upon humans than is your odd rhetorical support for jihadist practices.

          I have no problem answering even your “idiotic” questions, tildeb, in exactly the manner that I am requesting from you for clarity. Now you try it:

          Do you accept that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past century has been responsible for a substantial (i.e., more than 10%) increase in crop productivity world-wide?

          Answer with either Yes/No/I don’t know, and then you can expand upon your answer if you wish.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        12. My answer is no, but it’s complex and has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is a necessary ingredient for plants to synthesis sugars and everything to do with how too much atmospheric CO2 destabilizes climate and changes the frequency and amplitude of weather patterns by introducing the capture of more heat.

          The problems associated with this capture for agriculture is colossal and negative in comparison to the benefits for plant life of a richer atmosphere in CO2. To make my point, it doesn’t matter to the agricultural output of a once fertile region how rich the CO2 is when farmland becomes desert or salt water penetrates deep into fresh water estuaries. It doesn’t matter how rich the CO2 is when aquifers go dry or prolonged run off depletes fertile soil. The focus on CO2 as plant food is an issue only for the simple-minded when the tremendous problems caused by rapid climate change is begun to be fully understood. That’s why transnational insurance underwriters are beginning to refuse to cover local insurance – municipal and rural – throughout the US Midwest and agricultural belts in the South… because we’re just beginning to appreciate the scope and sequence of problems that are coming from a variable weather pattern that simply aren’t mitigated by enriching the CO2 levels.

          These problems are real. The cause is known. We can do something about it. We aren’t. We are looking at about a 4 degree C global rise over the next 100 years. This will alter today’s agriculture radically. Just get an idea of how profound is this coming change, a 7 degree change will make Florida and much of Texas fatal to humans exposed for 20 minutes. Most people don;t get this. They think it will just be warmer and that the fern might grow taller.

          You’re not helping. You are hindering this understanding. And you’re doing so for really poor reasons in that you don’t understand the science and underestimate just how disruptive even small amounts of climate change is. As the people of Buffalo how disruptive a single weather event was? Now multiply the frequency of these events by the amplitude of severity from the norm to begin to even glimpse how disruptive climate change of a small amount can be. That’s why the US military has to plan for it, why their naval base at Norfolk must be rebuilt at a cost of somewhere around a trillion dollars. Find out why insurance companies are suing US cities for not preparing adequately for these KNOWN changes. And this is before Greenland becomes an archipelago, before we lose massive glaciers in the Antarctic, before historical El Ninos swamp the drought of California, before the Pakistan and Bangladesh deltas displace hundreds of millions of people.

          We are at a tipping point and we need to do more than pretend these problems are not directly related to human behaviour we must change.


        13. Incidentally, tildeb, you are wailing and failing, as you are merely attacking me rather than actually addressing the science. Your consistent “arguments from authority,” e.g., your assertion that all these smart science folks believe it so it must be true, is not impressive — as I am one of them. I, too, write scientific documents that, at least on paper, buy into the church of Global Warming; this must be done to get papers and proposals accepted by government authorities.

          So you could conceivably quote me as someone who has written that “Global Warming is real!” (that phrase actually appears in some research papers, though not by me). Does this mean that the authors of scientific papers all truly believe it. No, of course not. It is simply the password you must give at the door to be allowed into the club. I am working on one such document today, in fact, for a Federal agency (HRSA), which notes in passing the impact on climate change on health.

          Your posted link to the EPA page shows a temperature chart post-adjustment, of course. Even NASA’s own previous versions of this chart looked rather different, and showed the 1930s as warmer than the 1990s until adjustments that took place after 2000 when it became expedient to do so. Since I’ve been following such charts since the 1970s, and I am aware of the code changes that make these adjustments retroactively, I am not impressed; I remember the earlier data, and have it on my system.

          The ground station temperature adjustments are not automatically evil, though their usage in this sort of chart by the EPA is highly misleading. For those familiar with financial markets, the issue is similar to charting, say, oil prices of oil futures contracts. The current (May 2015) light sweet crude oil contract is at $51.29 as of this writing. The next contract, June 2015, is at $53.11. This nearly two-dollar difference needs to be accommodated as the contracts change over, which will take place early in May. So the standard practice when stringing these prices together is to adjust ALL previous prices by the difference at the moment of change-over, often a dollar or more, so that your financial models are not thrown off-kilter by the sudden artificial jump in price. The current price can then be added without adjustment, until the contract changes over again.

          But the effect of these adjustments, done for each of the several contracts per year, is to displace old prices by a large degree. It makes oil prices from many years ago look like negative numbers on the charts. Clearly this does not reflect reality, but for models that rely merely on changes up and down, the numbers and mechanics still work. So this contract adjustment process is accepted, and everyone does it, while never using the adjusted chart to actually quote old prices. (Exactly the same mechanisms are used for all futures, from corn to pork bellies to memory chips.)

          The same applies to temperature. As new temps are calculated, the GISS and other temperature computer code reflects small adjustments back through all previous readings. They do this, ostensibly, to keep things consistent and comparable as new stations come online and old ones are dropped. But unlike the futures folks, they then use the adjusted charts to report old values as if those were the reality at the time. This is what I and others have a problem with, and this is what the EPA has done in the chart you linked to.

          But if the catastrophists showed that US temperatures are substantially down from 80 years ago, we wouldn’t have much of a catastrophe, would we?

          And global temperatures suffer from the same adjustment issues — particularly Russia, whose old Soviet-era readings (reported cold so they could get more fuel for heat from the government) produce the world’s current “hot spot” by comparison. The problem extends to other nations as well, and all of the “adjustments” are to make current temperatures warmer and old ones colder, and then report the increase as the new reality.

          It isn’t.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


        14. You are a climate denier and immune from good science. This has happened becuas eyou’ve agreed to purchase this doubt from well paid salesmen thinking you’re a proper skeptic. You’re not. You’re failing to see the sky from horizon to horizon because you’re looking in only agreeable portions.

          What you don’t see is that you’re an idiot for doing this, a person who has been lead down the denialist rabbit hole and thinks to have a much better view of the ‘entire’ sky from the warren. Don’t like what you see when you look up? Your solution is to go farther down so that your window become more of a pin prick in order to keep the bit of sky you want to see in view. It’s not representative of the sky as a whole.

          We have data pouring in about the rapid increase in climate change with obvious weather pattern whiplashing effects globally that align with this model of AGW. That’s the sky you’re not seeing. You take each effect only in isolation and then build doubt upon any causal uncertainty. This is dishonest. That’s what you are selling as ‘skepticism’: dishonesty. And this post describes just how intentionally dishonest one must be to continue to be an AGW denialist.


  3. Matthew

    Correct me if I am wrong. I recall reading an article some time ago about plant life and the industrial revolution. If I recall correctly, the article claimed that plant life was at its highest during the industrial revolution owing to high concentration of CO2. CO2, evidently, is part of the photosynthesis process — plants furbish oxygen. The article did not advocate pollution, of course, but merely stated that CO2 is essential to survival, and it is not an “evil” element as fearmongers of global warming, climate change, or change of weather — or whatever phraseology — claim. This, obviously, is basic knowledge. Efforts to reduce CO2 have nothing to do with the environment; rather, to control the people in the name of environment — it is all about directing the behavior of people.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Plant productivity is at its highest now, in fact; satellites have been tracking a massive greening of the biosphere, for the reasons you suggest.

      By calling carbon dioxide “pollution,” people distract attention away from real pollution problems.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: My Article Read (4-9-3015) (4-10-2015) | My Daily Musing

Comments are closed.