Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Sid Belzberg]

Re Dilip's Article on Heat Waves (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/not-...summer-explain - Post # 1547 - 23/7/30)

I read it.

Heat Waves are local, and have nothing to do with the mean temperature of the Earth's air/atmosphere. This is an average temperature, balancing all the various uniquenesses of various Earth geographic locations that affect heat variation.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

The problem is the MSM makes exaggerated claims about local heatwaves, not global temps. The article exposes these lies from the MSM

[Sid Belzberg]

Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent

By
Anthony Watts
-
July 17, 2023
1

Share

A number of media outlets are claiming that U.S. heatwaves are getting worse this week due to climate change. This is false. Actual data from temperature measurements show that heatwaves in the U.S. are on the decline even as climate change has occurred over the last 75 years.

It is summer in the Northern Hemisphere, and unsurprisingly to those that pay attention to data, it is hot in many places in the U.S. – in other words, business as usual for summer. But, the media sees climate change in every heatwave event, and seeks to exploit a connection, even though one doesn’t exist. For example, last week it was declared that the world had seen its hottest day ever on July 4, with some outlets claiming the “hottest in 100,000 years.” That of course, was proven laughably false here at Climate Realism on both counts.

This week, the media was at it again. The Washington Post, in an article titled, “Relentless heat wave reaching maximum strength: Weather updates,” says this:

“What is a heat dome? Understand the science and how drought and climate change make them worse.”

Axios, in the article “What this summer’s weather reveals about climate change” written by the ever-excitable Andrew Freedman, opines,

Monitoring the planet’s climate this summer can give one the impression that the climate system — which includes the oceans, atmosphere, ice sheets and more — has gone off the rails.

…

Climate studies have warned about an uptick in simultaneous heat waves occurring in the Northern Hemisphere.”

Then there is the “World Socialist Web Site”, with the headline: “Record-breaking US heat wave demonstrates the growing dangers of climate change.”

None of the news outlets running heat wave stories this week examined or cites historical data on heat waves, preferring instead to push scary numbers in the form of heat indexes that combine temperature and humidity, reprint the opinion of “climate scientists,” and reference computer models that suggest climate change is making heat waves worse.

Yet, data exists, for any reporter with a modicum of journalistic curiosity to find. The problem is that the data doesn’t look scary.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a web page on heatwaves in the U.S. which contains some very interesting data and maps. Despite the claims of climate change creating worse heatwaves, the data the EPA has compiled going back to 1948 says exactly the opposite.

The data is on display in Figure 1, below.
Figure 1: This map shows trends in unusually hot temperatures at individual weather stations that have operated consistently since 1948. In this case, the term “unusually hot” refers to a daily maximum temperature that is hotter than the 95th percentile temperature during the 1948–2020 period. Thus, the maximum temperature on a particular day at a particular station would be considered “unusually hot” if it falls within the warmest 5 percent of measurements at that station during the 1948–2020 period. The map shows changes in the total number of days per year that were hotter than the 95th percentile. Red upward-pointing symbols show where these unusually hot days are becoming more common. Blue downward-pointing symbols show where unusually hot days are becoming less common. Data source: NOAA, 2021, EPA
The EPA writes:

The data come from thousands of weather stations across the United States. National patterns can be determined by dividing the country into a grid and examining the data for one station in each cell of the grid. This method ensures that the results are not biased toward regions that happen to have many stations close together.

…

[Figure 1] was created by reviewing all daily maximum temperatures from 1948 to 2020 and identifying the 95^th percentile temperature (a temperature that one would only expect to exceed in five days out of every 100) at each station. Next, for each year, the total number of days with maximum temperatures higher than the 95^th percentile (that is, unusually hot days) was determined. The map shows how the total number of unusually hot days per year at each station has changed over time.



The EPA’s data for 1,066 weather stations across the United States showed a total of 863 stations, or 81 percent, reporting either a decrease or no change in the number of unusually hot days. By comparison, only 19 percent of all weather stations reported an increase in the number of unusually hot days since 1948.

Many of the stations showing hotter temperatures over the 1948-2020 period were located at airports or otherwise badly sited locations that created heat biases such as reported by the study Climate Realism covered last year, Corrupted Climate Stations: The U.S. Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed. As reported in that study, much of the upward heat bias occurs in the minimum overnight temperature at these weather stations, enabling them to reach higher than expected daytime high temperatures had they not had a “head start” from the warmer than expected overnight low.

In fact, you can see this issue on display using maximum and minimum data for all weather stations in the U.S. Figures 2A and 2B below show maximum and minimum temperatures in the U.S. from 1948, so that it matches the start of EPA data in Figure 1.
Figure 2A maximum temperatures in the U.S. since May 1948 to June 2023, 2B minimum temperatures in the U.S. since May 1948 to June 2023. Source: NOAA National Temperature Index plotter. Note: color of the maximum temperature series in 2A has been changed to red from blue to delineate the two sets of data.
In figure 2A, you can see the maximum temperatures (the sort of temperatures that would occur in a heat wave) have not changed much since 1948. In fact, there are spikes of high temperatures in the U.S. in 1954 and in 1963 that are higher than the present day.

In figure 2B, you can see the minimum temperatures have had a slow and steady rise since 1948, with peaks in the last 20 years (warmer nights) being higher than values in the 1940s and 1950s.

Finally, another graph from the EPA shows that heat waves were actually the worst for the U.S. in the 1930s, well before climate change became a blip on the media radar. See Figure 3.
Figure 3. This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2021. These data cover the contiguous 48 states. An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value. Data source: Kunkel, 2022, EPA https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...ors-heat-waves
The bottom line is this: despite what the media says, real-world data shows heat waves are NOT getting worse in the United States due to climate change. This flies in the face of opinions by climate scientists cited in the mainstream media which seems wedded to the narrative that climate change is causing a crisis, despite data to the contrary.

[Bob Gillanders]

Finally, another graph from the EPA shows that heat waves were actually the worst for the U.S. in the 1930s, well before climate change became a blip on the media radar. See Figure 3.
Figure 3. This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2021. These data cover the contiguous 48 states. An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value. Data source: Kunkel, 2022, EPA https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...ors-heat-waves

Thanks for the link to the EPA website, now we can see the source of Dilip's graph. It looks like the Heat Index spiked in 1931, 1934, and 1936. The years in between those are lower but still relatively high. Are there any theories you have come across to explain the 1930's heat index spike? I don't know, sunspots, volcanic eruptions, etc. Unless we understand why, I am not sure what that tells us. Maybe the 1930's need to be treated as outliers? Just a thought.

I am also note figure 1 on the EPA site, Heat Wave characteristics by decades since the 1960's. That shows a steady increase from the 60's till now, as I would expect. Too bad it doesn't extend back earlier to include the 1930's.

But since Trump is getting arrested again today, I am sure all the media attention will focus there, and climate change will be on the back burner for some time yet. Too bad.

[Dilip Panjwani]

But since Trump is getting arrested again today, I am sure all the media attention will focus there, and climate change will be on the back burner for some time yet. Too bad.

I guess you are dreaming about MSM propaganda leading to agriculture being discontinued, use of fossil fuels made illegal, and everyone's income over a million being stolen by big government..
Well, sweet dreams... till you finally wake up!

[Bob Armstrong]

1. Agriculture will not be "discontinued". What may have to be discontinued, because of its colossal use of resources, is carnivore-directed farming.

2. Yes we must eventually eliminate fossil fuels for two reasons: a. pollution; b. they are finite (Renewables, that are "sustainable", as a percentage of our energy source, must increase, and rapidly).

3. Those who benefit most from society's systems, in any form of government, must pay the most into the support of the "system". In our current capitalist system, there is nothing illegal about a "wealth" tax, in addition to progressive "income" tax. No one is stealing anything, not the government, not the neighbour. Rather it is a user-pays system, and billionaire's have been shirking (Morally, not legally [The Oligarchs have managed to skew the system to their advantage], usually) their fair payment in.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)



Overview & Update

[Part I of 3 – see Parts II & III/3 below]

1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 30 (23/7/24 – 30: 7 days)

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(30 wks.)___________

........86...................76.........................32.....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (30 wks.)__________________

.............7.......................6.......................3............................5.


Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats continue in the range of the substantial jump of the prior week. This week's, and last weeks, stats are way beyond the 2023 average so far. There is much more “response” activity. This is generating a growing viewership.

There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change. All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

2. The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?


3. The Naturalists' Position

Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

[See Part II below]

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

[Part II of 3 – see Part I above]

4. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance....we are using the "Conversation Format" protocol.

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger. The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the defence to the first Challenge.

The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted

We have reached now 6 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

All are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are no outstanding proposed revisions, and so they currently stand unchallenged, or challenges have previously been defeated. So, for this forum, a number of the statements are now “generally accepted” as “fact”.

"Generally-Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]

“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time".

Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”

Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27

“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods

Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.

Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-re...=pocket-newtab “

Support 3 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1526 23/7/27

“This [July] Looks Like Earth’s Warmest Month. Hotter Ones Appear to Be in Store.

July is on track to break all records for any month, scientists say, as the planet enters an extended period of exceptional warmth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/c...d396a4debfd6ce “

Statement 2A (Proposed)

Bob Armstrong (As Group Secretary) – Post # 1548 - 23/7/31

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Status re Processing: If unchallenged for one week, our protocol is that the Statement is “generally accepted”. Deadline is 23/8/7 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Statement # 3:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)

"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."

Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)

"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."

Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)

"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."

Statement # 4

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”

Statement # 5

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

Challenge: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

Statement # 6

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Support # 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1415 – 23/7/2)

“Scientists have been warning us about climate change (global warming) for decades. The science is very complicated, but we now have 50 years of data to support the premise that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. We need to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels. Our options include renewables (solar panels, windmills) and nuclear.”

Support # 2 - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 1417 – 23/7/2)

“It is essential to have alternate sources of energy, as fossil fuels, including coal, won't last for very long.”

Support # 3 – Sid Belzberg (Post # 1419 – 23/7/2)

“In theory, this is a finite resource, but it is not scarce and likely would take several hundred years to deplete entirely.”

Support # 4 – Bob Armstrong (Post # 1423 – 23/7/2)

“Please note that I have introduced ....... including in renewables, "tidal" & "water turbines".”

[See Part III Below; Parts I & II are above]

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

[Part III of 3; Parts I & II above]

5. CT'ers Immediate Task

CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements"!

6. CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change

You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!

a. When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

b. You can also re-post the tentative STATEMENTS above.

~ Bob A. (Anthropogenicist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

1. Agriculture will not be "discontinued". What may have to be discontinued, because of its colossal use of resources, is carnivore-directed farming.


Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

You have not been reading the posts Sid has kindly provided you with, which details how badly European farmers are fighting big-government just to maintain their regular 'vegan' agricultural output...

[Dilip Panjwani]

2. Yes we must eventually eliminate fossil fuels for two reasons: a. pollution; b. they are finite (Renewables, that are "sustainable", as a percentage of our energy source, must increase, and rapidly).


Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Pollution is already being appropriately taxed with the carbon tax in a rare Libertarian action by governments, and since the renewables are finite, market forces will take care of the transition to renewable energy... your big-government does not need to mess up with that.

[Dilip Panjwani]

3. Those who benefit most from society's systems, in any form of government, must pay the most into the support of the "system". In our current capitalist system, there is nothing illegal about a "wealth" tax, in addition to progressive "income" tax. No one is stealing anything, not the government, not the neighbour. Rather it is a user-pays system, and billionaire's have been shirking (Morally, not legally [The Oligarchs have managed to skew the system to their advantage], usually) their fair payment in.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

You are confusing 'legality' with 'rightness'. Slavery and oppression of women was legal till recently, but these were not the right thing to do even when they were legal or constitutional in some countries. If our system is faulty in that it enables some to become unfairly obscenely rich and obscenely powerful, then the right thing to do is change the system, not try to counter it by legalizing theft (direct taxation), or legalizing weaponization of stupid laws... two wrongs never make a right.
Libertarianism is a very inexpensive form of government, and minor indirect taxes would be the appropriate user-pays system...

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Post # 1569 - Dilip Panjwani - 23/8/4

I do not favour the elimination of all farming..........I have severe doubts that is the case.......does it include "Apple Farming"? I wish to eliminate carnivore-directed farming.

But I will re-read Sid's post on "farming & climate change" ( Post 1552 - 23/7/31) in case I do have my facts wrong.

I will return thereafter with my comments on farming and climate change.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Farming & Climate Change

1. Organic Farming - Anti-Negative Climate Change

How do farmers help climate change?

Organic farming prohibits most synthetic inputs, which means reduced GHG emissions, as well as cleaner soil, water, and food. Furthermore, organic and sustainable techniques bring additional benefits for farmers, such as increased soil health and fertility, which leads to additional climate-friendly benefits.

https://foodwise.org/articles/10-way...limate-change/

2. Non-Carnivore Directed Farming

Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/02/01...ave-the-planet

3. Agriculture & CO2

a. Greenhouse gas emissions and agriculture

10% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production, excluding emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production.
The main gases emitted by agricultural activities are:

• Carbon dioxide
• Methane
• Nitrous oxide

Conversely, agriculture helps slow climate change by storing carbon on agricultural lands. Storing, or sequestering, carbon in soil as organic matter, perennial vegetation, and in trees reduces carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere.

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/env...eenhouse-gases

b. The Carbon Cycle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNLUzqW8IuA

c. Generally Accepted: Carbon is the primary component of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) that we burn to create power. Our growing use of energy has increased the volume of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. [ There is controversy over whether the amount of CO2 generated by man has a "significant" effect on Climate Change and rising temperature. The Anthropogenicists claim that man is increasing the air CO2 at a rate that is accelerating any "natural" warming of the Earth, due to a current warming cycle we are in.]

4. Elimination of All Farming

In my personal researching, all emphasis is on greater productivity in farming, given climate change, and how farming can reduce its carbon footprint. I have found almost nothing supporting the total elimination of farming, outside of the content provided in Sid Belzberg's Post # 1552 - 23/7/31. I am concerned that Sid gives no sources at all for his position (The one link is to a tweet about depopulation).

5. Farming & Methane

The global climate cult is getting ready to kick its war on food into overdrive with 13 nations – many of them major cattle and food-producing states led by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Spain – signing onto a commitment to place farmers under new restrictions intended to reduce emissions of methane gas.

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...104#post228065

The headline reads "Abolishing Farming" - this is significant false reporting! "New restrictions" is not "abolishing". This is scare-mongering. The focus re elimination is, as noted above, re carnivore-directed farming.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

The headline reads "Abolishing Farming" - this is significant false reporting! "New restrictions" is not "abolishing". This is scare-mongering. The focus re elimination is, as noted above, re carnivore-directed farming.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Bob A, Everyone knows that farming abolition will starve us all to death, and hence even the stupidest, most climate-anxious government will not do it (despite whatever dreams Bob G may have). The point is, do the farmers think it is possible to maintain today's food output with the suggestions you make? If so, just tax (like the carbon tax), the environment harming practices, and let the market forces take care of the rest, better than any draconian government regulations could do.
But it seems that unfortunately, if that is done, by draconian regulations or by market forces, the poorer amongst us will still starve to death...

[Sid Belzberg]

Farming & Climate Change

1. Organic Farming - Anti-Negative Climate Change

How do farmers help climate change?

Organic farming prohibits most synthetic inputs, which means reduced GHG emissions, as well as cleaner soil, water, and food. Furthermore, organic and sustainable techniques bring additional benefits for farmers, such as increased soil health and fertility, which leads to additional climate-friendly benefits.

https://foodwise.org/articles/10-way...limate-change/

2. Non-Carnivore Directed Farming

Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/02/01...ave-the-planet

3. Agriculture & CO2

a. Greenhouse gas emissions and agriculture

10% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production, excluding emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production.
The main gases emitted by agricultural activities are:

• Carbon dioxide
• Methane
• Nitrous oxide

Conversely, agriculture helps slow climate change by storing carbon on agricultural lands. Storing, or sequestering, carbon in soil as organic matter, perennial vegetation, and in trees reduces carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere.

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/env...eenhouse-gases

b. The Carbon Cycle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNLUzqW8IuA

c. Generally Accepted: Carbon is the primary component of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) that we burn to create power. Our growing use of energy has increased the volume of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. [ There is controversy over whether the amount of CO2 generated by man has a "significant" effect on Climate Change and rising temperature. The Anthropogenicists claim that man is increasing the air CO2 at a rate that is accelerating any "natural" warming of the Earth, due to a current warming cycle we are in.]

4. Elimination of All Farming

In my personal researching, all emphasis is on greater productivity in farming, given climate change, and how farming can reduce its carbon footprint. I have found almost nothing supporting the total elimination of farming, outside of the content provided in Sid Belzberg's Post # 1552 - 23/7/31. I am concerned that Sid gives no sources at all for his position (The one link is to a tweet about depopulation).

5. Farming & Methane

The global climate cult is getting ready to kick its war on food into overdrive with 13 nations – many of them major cattle and food-producing states led by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Spain – signing onto a commitment to place farmers under new restrictions intended to reduce emissions of methane gas.

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...104#post228065

The headline reads "Abolishing Farming" - this is significant false reporting! "New restrictions" is not "abolishing". This is scare-mongering. The focus re elimination is, as noted above, re carnivore-directed farming.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

The focus re elimination is, as noted above, re carnivore-directed farming.

Bob, for your information, Dilip did not state that the most recent article I posted was the only article on this subject. I have posted earlier articles here
that also is about attacks on plant-based farming that require Nitrogen-based fertilizers. Do you ever read the news about the hell the farmers in the Netherlands
are being put through over Nitrogen-based fertilizers?
Do you want the facts, or do you simply like the sound of your uninformed voice? Maybe you should read and listen before posting.

Nitrogen-based fertilizers are commonly used in agricultural production to enhance the growth of crops that require higher levels of nitrogen. Some of the foods that benefit from nitrogen-based fertilizers include:

1. Grains: Crops like wheat, rice, corn (maize), and barley are significant beneficiaries of nitrogen fertilizers. These crops are staples in many diets worldwide and play a crucial role in feeding the global population.
2. Legumes: Leguminous crops like soybeans, peas, and lentils also benefit from nitrogen-based fertilizers. These plants have a unique ability to fix nitrogen from the air through symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, but they can still benefit from additional nitrogen to boost their growth.
3. Leafy Vegetables: Nitrogen fertilizers are commonly used for leafy greens such as lettuce, spinach, cabbage, and kale. These crops require ample nitrogen for their lush green foliage.
4. Fruits: Some fruit-bearing plants, including tomatoes, peppers, and eggplants, benefit from nitrogen-based fertilizers to support their vegetative growth and fruit development.
5. Oilseeds: Oilseed crops like canola, sunflower, and cottonseed may also be cultivated using nitrogen-based fertilizers to increase their yields.
6. Root Crops: While nitrogen is more critical for the vegetative growth of plants, root crops like potatoes and carrots can still benefit from a well-balanced supply of nutrients, including nitrogen.

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...rous-Oxide.pdf

Nitrous Oxide and Climate

C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4

1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

November 10, 2022

Abstract

Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.


https://dailysceptic.org/2023/05/11/...trogen-crisis/

Entire Global Food Supply at Risk From Disastrous Response to So-Called ‘Nitrogen Crisis’

BY CHRIS MORRISON

11 MAY 2023 7:00 AM



The full horror of the ‘nitrogen’ war on agriculture is becoming more apparent every day. Food supplies around the world face collapse if the use of nitrogen fertiliser is severely restricted under Net Zero requirements. It is claimed that the fertiliser is warming the Earth and causing the climate to break down, as the by-product nitrous oxide is released into the atmosphere. In fact the entire global food supply is in danger of being trashed for the sake of what recent scientific work notes is almost unmeasurable 0.064°C warming per century.

Policies to address this non-existent crisis have already done enormous harm in Sri Lanka, where a ban on nitrogen fertiliser caused a rapid collapse in food yields, and led to the President fleeing the country in a hurry. The Canadian Government is committed to a 30% reduction in N₂O levels by 2030. In the Netherlands, the Government is following European Union instructions and trying to remove farmers from the land. Any compensation paid will be tied to a restriction not to start farming again anywhere in the EU. Political discontent is growing, and there are already fears for the supply of agricultural products since the Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world.

Nitrogen is a vital component of plant metabolism which is obtained from the soil. Alas, there is not enough nitrogen in the soil to grow plants at the scale needed to feed global populations. Before the arrival of commercial nitrogen fertilisers, famine was a frequent feature of the unreliable food supply across parts of the world. Without the fertiliser, famine will resume its gruesome role, something mainstream Net Zero politicians have to address in the near future. Virtue-signalling green delusions about ‘rewilding’, bug diets and organic farming will not feed the world, probably not even a quarter of it.


Like all greenhouse gases, its ability to trap heat within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum diminishes after a certain level as the gas becomes ‘saturated’. This helps explain why greenhouse gas levels have been much higher in the past without the Earth turning into an Armageddon fireball. After a certain point, any increased warming becomes logarithmic, according to the physicists, meaning it rises ever more slowly in response to additional greenhouse gases, which again provides a plausible explanation as to why temperatures have stayed within a relatively small band across the paleo record.

Every day seems to bring fresh concerns about the destruction likely to be wrought by the collectivist Net Zero project. As we have seen in recent articles, absolutist Net Zero fanatics at the Government-funded U.K. FIRES project look to a world in 2050 where Britain will lose 75% of its energy. Flying, shipping and eating beef and lamb will be banned, while bricks, concrete and glass will almost cease to exist. All the major political parties supporting the current strategy run away from facing true Net Zero reality. In the view of U.K. FIRES leader Professor Julian Allwood, the current strategy is as unrealistic as “magic beans fertilised by unicorn’s blood”.