Anesthesiologist Tells the Facts About CO2. It is NOT the Demon they Pretend!

American Thinker
October 10, 2014
50,000 dot com
By Charles Battig

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…
That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…

That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Climate Alarmists are Looking Rather Foolish, as the Earth Cools Down……

Global warming scare declared over

Source: WND  agw-earth

‘Past time to stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat’

Scientists and others on a team assembled by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which focuses on free-market solutions to today’s problems, say the “scare” of global warming from the use of carbon fuels and other human activities “is over.”

It’s “past time” for the world to realize that and “stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat,” contends Kenneth Haapala, the executive vice president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project at the Heartland Institute.

Institute experts said Thursday the Remote Sensing Systems, which provide data to NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation, have confirmed “the global mean surface temperature has not risen for 18 consecutive years.”

“This extends the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming to a new record, one not predicted by the climate models of the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change,” the organization said.

Craig Idso, senior fellow in environment for the Heartland Institute and co-editor of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a counterpart to the IPCC, said that to “the world’s climate alarmists, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a dangerous trace gas, and for years, they have been insisting its increase will raise global temperatures and wreak havoc upon Earth’s climate and biosphere.”

“Yet, despite a 9 percent increase in CO2 over the past 18 years, there has been no rise in global temperature,” he said.

“Think about that. Over this time period the air’s CO2 content has risen some 40 parts per million, which represents fully one-third the total global CO2 increase since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, yet contrary to model projections, planetary temperatures have failed to rise,” Idso said.

Idso said it’s “time for global warming diehards to face the facts.”

“Stop denying the models have got global temperature projections wrong. Stop denying CO2 has a lower climate sensitivity than you have been claiming. Stop denying the societal benefits of continued fossil fuel use. It’s not too late to make a course correction and support sound science,” he said.

James Taylor, the institute’s senior fellow for environmental policy, said, based on the latest results in the climate studies, that the “ongoing 18 years without any warming strongly contradict alarmist predictions of global warming doom-and-gloom.”

“According to nearly all of the United Nations’ computer models, this lack of warming could not occur,” he noted. “The real-world climate proves the alarmist computer models overstate the warming properties of carbon dioxide. Even when Earth resumes its modest warming, which it likely will at some point in the next couple of decades, the pace of warming will continue to be quite modest and beneficial to human welfare and global ecosystems.”

Haapala dinged the federal EPA over the issue.

“The EPA claimed that carbon dioxide emissions are pollutants that endangers human health, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. Green plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis to create the food plants and animals need to survive. The EPA stated that it based its finding on three lines of evidence. These lines of evidence do not exist, or no longer exist. They are: (1) a distinct human fingerprint in the atmosphere over the tropics; (2) late 20th century warming was unusual; and (3) climate models predict that human-caused warming would become dangerous to humans in the 21st century. No one, including the National Academy of Sciences, has been able to find the distinct human fingerprint except those who falsely claim such a warming is uniquely human-caused,” he said.

“Late 20th century warming stopped about 18 years ago. Climate models cannot explain why, even though, according to the White House, federal expenditures on climate science and programs to fight global warming/climate change amount to about $22.5 billion a year. There is no scientific reason to assume significant warming will occur in the future from human carbon dioxide emission.”

Haapala said it’s “past time to stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat to human health.”

Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, pointed out that the established criteria of global-warming alarmists shows their models are not reliable.

“In 2008, the NOAA ‘State of the Climate’ report specified exactly what observations would indicate whether the models are reliable or not: Fifteen years of no warming. In 2009, climate scientist Phil Jones agreed, telling a colleague in one of the leaked Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,’” Harris said.

“Having just passed 18 years with no warming, the criteria, as set by alarmists themselves, is now satisfied. The global warming scare is over,” Harris said.

H. Sterling Burnett, research fellow at the institute and managing editor at Environment & Climate News, said this year’s high school graduates “were raised to believe in and fear something that stopped happening before they were born.”

“Growing Antarctic ice sheets, increased greening of the earth, more walruses and polar bears than at any time since the beginning of the 20th century, fewer hurricanes and tornadoes, only a modest sea level rise, longer life spans and better overall health … if these are the terrors of global warming, I’ll have more please.”

James Rust, retired professor of nuclear engineering at Georgia Tech, said there have been dozens of “explanations” for the “pause in global warming – most claiming heat is hidden somewhere in the ocean.”

“These claims are fiction, as was the claim by a British meteorologist in 2001 that children today, in 2014, would never witness snow,” he said.

Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, said the evidence simply shows carbon dioxide is not the “overriding driver of the climate.”

And meteorologist John Coleman said it’s time to get over it.

“There has not been any significant man-made global warming in the past, there is none now, and there is no reason to expect any in the future,” he said. “The computer models that predicted the warming have failed to verify. There has been no warming in 18 years. The ice at the poles is stable. The polar bears are increasing. The oceans are not rising.”

Mischa Popoff, institute policy adviser, said, “Here we are in 2014 and there has been no global warming for the past 18 years.”

Alan Caruba of the National Anxiety Center said that after 18 years of observing no increase in average global temperature, it’s bad enough that the IPCC and it’s defenders won’t concede they were wrong, and the media won’t report it.

“But the worst of this 18-year anniversary of the lack of warming is the fact we have a president, a secretary of state and others in the Obama administration who continue not only to proclaim warming – now called climate change – but suggesting that it is the greatest threat to the nation and the world,” he said. “The absurdity of this should hold them up to ridicule, but these pronouncements are published without criticism.”

He said the current cooling cycle Earth is experiencing will continue for many years to come.

The cause, he said, is “nothing more mysterious than our sun – which is, itself, in a natural cycle of lower radiation.”

“As always, nature, not man, will have the last word.”

Just days ago, WND columnist Lord Monckton wrote: “Worldwide, the liarists – growing ever more desperate as the Great Pause grows ever longer – are taking up the cry that The Models Were Right All Along But The Warming Has Gone Into Hiding, Really And Truly It Has, With Knobs On, Cross My Heart And Hope To Die, So There.

“Just one problem with that. The catastrophist clique no longer entirely controls the scientific journals. It tried to, but it didn’t get away with it. In addition to ‘The ocean ate my global warming,’ the scientific journals contain a host of recent papers giving between them no less than 25 – yes, 25 – mutually incompatible explanations of the Great Pause.”

One year ago, Cairo saw its first snow in 100 years. Oregon, like several other states, reached its coldest temperature in 40 years. Chicago saw its coldest days ever, and – as if to add finality to the trend – Antarctica reached the coldest temperature ever recorded anywhere on earth.

The holes in the theory have been documented. For example, London’s Independent newspaper declared at the turn of the millennium “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The report quoted David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, long considered an authoritative resource for global warming research, as saying snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he claimed at the time.

But the authoritative reputation of East Anglia was seriously downgraded in 2009 when leaked emails proved researchers there were engaged in a major scheme to manipulate and suppress evidence against global warming, misconduct London’s Telegraph newspaper called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”

The rhetoric and predictions of global warming acolytes have been every bit as confusing in the United States, with former vice president and carbon-credit entrepreneur Al Gore telling an audience in a 2009 speech that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” And his 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” famously predicted increasing temperatures would cause earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.

Well-known scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

They say, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plan and animal environments of the Earth.”

Robinson, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Cal Tech, where he served on the faculty, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute with Nobel-recipient Linus Pauling, where he was president and research professor. He later founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

He told WND that weather does change over time and that the global system goes through cycles, some slightly warmer and some slightly cooler than others.

Right now it’s cooler, he said.

Be Sociable, Share!

Canadian Nuclear Association claims wind energy isn’t green

By John Miner, The London Free Press

Samsung's South Kent wind farm seems to surround the 401 looking west from Kent Bridge Road. Mike Hensen/The London Free Press

Samsung’s South Kent wind farm seems to surround the 401 looking west from Kent Bridge Road.

I’m green and you’re not.

​The battle to be embraced as the best environmental choice for Ontario’s electricity supply is getting down and dirty.

Fed up with the wind farm sector enjoying what it considers an undeserved reputation as a pristine energy supplier, Canada’s nuclear industry has launched a public relations assault against wind.

“Wind power isn’t as clean as its supporters have claimed. It performs unreliably and needs backup from gas, which emits far more greenhouse gas than either wind or nuclear power,” said Dr. John Barrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, in an email to The Free Press.

The Canadian Nuclear Association hired Toronto-based Hatch Ltd., a global consulting an engineering firm, to compare wind farm and nuclear energy.

Hatch reviewed 246 studies, mostly from North America and Europe,.

Their 91- page report released last week concludes that wind energy over the life time of an installation produces slightly less green house gas than nuclear and both produce a lot less than gas-fired generating plants.

But Hatch says it is an entirely different picture when wind energy’s reliance on other generating sources is considered.

The engineering firm calculates wind turbines only generate 20% of their electrical capacity because of the times when the wind isn’t blowing.

When gas-fired generating stations are added into the equation to pick up the slack, nuclear produces much less green house gases, the Hatch study concludes.

Its analysis is for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced nuclear power emits 18.5 grams of greenhouse gases. Wind backed by natural gas produces more than 20 times more – 385 grams per kilowatt hour.

“We wanted a real-world, apples to apples comparison of how nuclear, wind and natural gas power plants generate greenhouse gases while producing electricity,” Barrett said.

The nuclear industry attack on wind might not be a welcome message for the Ontario Liberal government that has justified its multi-billion dollar investment in Southwestern Ontario wind farms on the basis it is providing green energy.

But it is a position that resonates with Ontario’s anti-wind farm movement.

“We share their concerns on this issue and have been speaking about this for years. We have taken advice from engineers in the power industry, who say that wind power cannot fulfill any of the environmental benefit promises made for it, because it needs fossil-fuel backup.,” said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario.

On the other side of the debate, the Canadian Wind Energy Association said it has had an opportunity to review the Hatch study.

It said there is no surprise that when wind and natural gas generation are paired that the mix creates more greenhouse gases than nuclear. But when wind is paired with other potential electricity suppliers the results are different.

“Realistic, alternative scenarios see wind energy partnered with hydroelectric power, varying mixes of emerging renewable energy sources like solar energy, and the use of energy storage and demand side management.

“Unfortunately, by choosing to focus on only one scenario, the study failed to consider a broad range of equally or more plausible scenarios for the evolution of Canada’s electricity grid.

CanWea also argues wind energy is cheaper than new nuclear, is cost competitive with new hydroelectric development and is not subjuect to the commodity and carbon price risks facing natural gas.

“We are confident that no potential source of new electricity generation in Canada better addresses these multiple objectives than wind energy,” CanWea said in a statement.

As for the natural gas industry, it points out that it is much better for the environment than burning coal or oil for power.

“It can substantially reduce Ontario’s carbon footprint and is the ideal complement to intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar for power generation,” says the Ontario Natural Gas Alliance.

Canadian Nuclear Association arguments against wind power

  • a wind turbine usually produces only 20 percent of its potential power. If a turbine can physically produce up to one megawatt (MW) of electricity, then it typically turns in one-fifth of that, or 200 kilowatts (kW).
  • because we don’t have big-enough batteries yet to store electricity from wind turbines, the power company needs to get the other 800 kW from somewhere else, like a gas plant.
  • in Ontario, power demand is highest during the day, and in the summer. But the wind blows mostly at night, and in the winter and spring. By its nature, wind power finds itself out of step with power demand

How Ontario’s electricity was produced by fuel type​

2013

Nuclear: 59.2%

Hydro: 23.4%

Gas: 11.1%

Wind: 3.4%

Coal: 2.1%

Other: 0.8%

Oct. 13, 2014 at 8 a.m.

Nuclear: 65.8%

Hydro: 24.6%

Wind: 5.9%

Gas: 2.7%​

john.miner@sunmedia.ca

Climate Fraud Exposed…..AGAIN!! These Fools Are Not Giving up Easily!

EPA Defrauding The Public About Alaskan Glaciers

The EPA has these images on their web site – claiming to show how global warming is causing the Muir Glacier to disappear.

ScreenHunter_22-Dec.-28-10.55

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/

What they forgot to mention is that most of the retreat pictured above occurred between 1941 and 1950.

ScreenHunter_235-Apr.-06-19.30

This August 1950 photo documents the significant changes that occurred during the 9 years between photographs A and B. Muir Glacier has retreated more than 2 miles, exposing Muir Inlet, and thinned 340 feet or more.

Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay National Monument 1950

And of course this retreat had been going on for centuries

ScreenHunter_236-Apr.-06-19.38

For nearly two centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating. In places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost.

USGS Multimedia Gallery: Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay National Monument 1941

http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif

ScreenHunter_638 Jun. 24 06.44

18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING GLACIERS SAID TO [?]

Global Warming….Global Cooling….Climate Change….Science is DEFINITELY NOT Settled

 NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea

Image: NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea(iStock)

Monday, 06 Oct 2014

The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency Monday.

Scientists have noticed that while greenhouse gases have continued to mount in the first part of the 21st century, global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising along with them, said NASA.

Some studies have suggested that heat is being absorbed temporarily by the deep seas, and that this so-called global warming hiatus is a temporary trend.

But latest data from satellite and direct ocean temperature measurements from 2005 to 2013 “found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably,” NASA said in a statement.

The findings present a new puzzle to scientists, but co-author Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) said the reality of climate change is not being thrown into doubt.

“The sea level is still rising,” said Willis.

“We’re just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details.”

A separate study in August in the journal Science said the apparent slowdown in the Earth’s surface warming in the last 15 years could be due to that heat being trapped in the deep Atlantic and Southern Ocean.

But the NASA researchers said their approach, described in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean.

“The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure,” said researcher William Llovel of NASA JPL.

“The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.comhttp://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Science-US-climate-oceans/2014/10/06/id/598864/#ixzz3FTZYhwTG
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

CO2 Enriched Air Used to Boost Medicinal Value of Endangered plant

The Climate Sceptics (TCS) Blog


CO2-Enriched Air Boosts Medicinal Value of an Endangered Plant

Posted: 04 Oct 2014 01:35 AM PDT

CO2 Science looks at a new Peer-reviewed paper published in Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 118: 87-99.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of forced ventilation and CO2 enrichment (360 or 720 μmol mol−1 CO2) on the in vitro growth and development of Pfaffia glomerata, an endangered medicinal species, under photomixotrophic or photoautotrophic conditions. P.glomerata nodal segments showed substantial differences in growth, relative water content and water loss from leaves, photosynthetic pigments, stomatal density, and leaf anatomical characteristics under these different treatments. CO2 enrichment led to increased photosynthetic pigments and reduced stomatal density of in vitro cultivated Pglomerata. A lack of sucrose in the culture medium increased 20-hydroxyecdysone levels, but the increase in CO2 levels did not further elevate the accumulation of 20-hydroxyecdysone. All growth increased in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. In addition, CO2 enrichment, with or without sucrose, gave a lower relative water loss from leaves. This finding indicates that either a photoautotrophic or photomixotrophic system in a CO2-enriched atmosphere may be suitable for large-scale propagation of this species.
Paper Reviewed

Saldanha, C.W., Otoni, C.G., Rocha, D.I., Cavatte, P.C., Detmann, K. da S.C.,, Tanaka, F.A.O., Dias, L.L.C., DaMatta, F.M. and Otoni, W.C. 2014. CO2-enriched atmosphere and supporting material impact the growth, morphophysiology and ultrastructure of in vitro Brazilian-ginseng [Pfaffia glomerata (Spreng.) Pedersen] plantlets. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 118: 87-99.
According to Saldanha et al. (2014), “Pfaffia glomerata (fafia, ginseng brasileiro), a medicinal plant that naturally grows in Brazil (Pott and Pott, 1994), has great economic importance due to the production of secondary metabolites such as ß-ecdysone (20E) (Festucci-Buselli et al. 2008),” as a result of its “anabolic, analgesic, anti-inflammatory, anti-mutigenic, aphrodisiac, sedative and muscle tonic properties,” which are described by Neto et al. (2005), Fernandes et al. (2005), Festucci-Buselli et al. (2008) and Mendes (2011). As a result of these facts, Saldanha et al. report that “many patents related to pharmacological and nutritional properties of genus Pfaffia have been published,” citing Shibuya et al. (2001), Bernard and Gautier (20005), Olalde (2008), Rangel (2008), Loizou (2009) and Higuchi (2011). Not surprisingly, therefore, Saldanha et al. further write that “because of its economic relevance, the propagation of P. glomerata plays an essential role in producing raw material for the pharmaceutical industry,” citing Saldanha et al. (2013). Against this backdrop, using two types of explant supports – either agar or Florialite (a mixture of vermiculite and cellulose) – the nine Brazilian scientists grew plantlets of P. glomerata in vitro within small acrylic chambers maintained at either 360 or 1,000 ppm CO2 for a period of 35 days, after which they assessed the plants’ aerial and root dry mass, as well as the accumulation of 20E in their leaves and stems.
Saldanah et al. report that the extra 640 ppm of CO2 increased the aerial dry mass of the plantlets by 246% in the agar treatment and by 219% in the Florialite treatment, while it increased the root dry mass by 100% and 443% in the agar and Florialite treatments, respectively. In addition, they say that “the plants with a higher biomass also produced higher amounts of 20E.” And in light of these findings Saldanah et al. state in the concluding sentence of their paper that their study highlights the fact that “a photoautotrophic system under CO2 enrichment may be attractive for the achievement of autotrophy by CO2, thus potentially being useful for the large-scale commercial production of Pfaffia seedlings or even for producing Pfaffia biomass containing high levels of ß-ecdysone.” And that would help the pharmaceutical industry to produce a lot more of the medicinal products derived from this plant.

Today marks 18 years, with NO Global Warming! (But plenty of CO2)

Happy Anniversary: 1 October Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming Trend

Via The GWPF Global Warming Pause Comes Of Age

The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. –Barbara Hollingsworth, CBS News, 30 September 2014

clip_image002

Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to August 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 11 months.

More on the “The pause” here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/04/global-temperature-update-no-global-warming-for-17-years-11-months

What will the Warming Pause do next? Get a job? Go on a gap year? Maybe go to college and rack up some proper student debt. Who knows, but it’s worth celebrating the good news that the planet’s temperatures are not accelerating to thermageddon. –Josh, Bishop Hill 1 October 2014

The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. –Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 5 July 2005

Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. -Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009

2014 will probably be in the top five warmest, but at the moment it will probably not turn out to be warmer than 2010. It is impossible for it to beat 2010 by a statistically significant margin, even if we define that as only one standard deviation above the decadal mean. Even if 2014 does beat 2010 it will only be by a statistically insignificant margin and well within the inter-annual error bars. In all probability 2014 will continue the global surface temperature standstill in a statistically perfect manner. When will the global surface annual temperature start to rise out of the error bars of the past 18 years? –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Forum, 28 September 2014

It’s fair to say that this pause is something of an embarrassment to many in the climate research community, since their computer models failed to indicate that any such thing could happen. Just how long the temperature pause must last before it would falsify the more catastrophic versions of man-made climate change obviously remains an open question for many researchers. For the time being, most are betting that it will get real hot real fast when the hiatus ends. –Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 9 September 2014

Former United Kingdom environment secretary Owen Paterson launched an attack against the “wicked green blob,” saying policies to stop global warming might do more harm than good. “There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years, some people say 26 years,” Paterson told an audience at the Conservative party conference over weekend. “So the pause is old enough to vote, the pause is old enough to join the army, the pause is old enough to pay its taxes.” –Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, 29 September 2014

Huge Congratulations to Marita Noon! Check this Out!

For immediate release: September 29, 2014.
Commentary by Marita Noon
Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.
Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org
Words: 1250

People’s Climate March Wants to Change the System, not the Weather
Americans are generous people. We want to believe the best in others. We’ve tried to accept the narrative out of the White House that Islam is a peaceful religion. There’s been talk of the good Muslims reining in the bad—before they ruin the reputation of all Muslims. But then, the Islamic extremists have posted videos of innocent Americans—even a Brit and a Frenchman—being beheaded.

It has now reached our homeland: Oklahoma. News reports show Alton Nolen, a recent convert to Islam, who, on Friday, beheaded a former coworker and stabbed another before his rampage was stopped when the company’s COO shot him.

American’s patience has worn thin as extremists have taken over. Mosques, fearing potential retaliatory violence, are taking extra security precautions to protect Muslims who gather there. Saad Mohammad, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said any anti-Muslim sentiments local residents might have could be heightened due to the beheadings and violence overseas by Islamic State militants.

Earlier this year, General Iyad Ameen Madani, Organization of Islamic Cooperation Secretary, in his address at the 25th Session of the Arab Summit, told the audience: “Extremist voices and groups have hijacked Islam and misappropriated the right to speak on its behalf.” He referenced the “discord and mutual killings which have gained ground in our ranks” as “a war where there is no victor but it will invite perils for all,” and defended “Islam with its established values and aspirations and with its advocacy of justice, equality, concord, coexistence and mutuality,” as totally unrelated to the extremists and to their “ideologies and what they call for.”

Much like Madani sees that his belief system has been hijacked by extremists, and is publically saying so, sincere lovers of nature need to speak up, as anti-eco sentiments are heightened by extremists, who have hijacked the environmental movement, as evidenced by the September 21 People’s Climate March in New York City and the subsequent UN Climate Summit. In HotAir.com, Noah Rothman states: “The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism.”

Much like Americans have wanted to believe the war on terrorism was over and that Al-Qaida was on the run, they’ve previously accepted the “green” narrative coming out of the White House. After all, everyone wants clean air and water. No one wants to be against a critter.

ISIS has shown that Islamic extremists are alive and well—and are a growing threat. The People’s Climate March revealed the true colors of eco-extremists—and their growing threat.

The People’s Climate March had little to do with the climate. The eco-extremists want to “change the system.”

While reported numbers vary, hundreds of thousands of people clogged (and littered) the streets of New York City. The parade had grand marshals like actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo and politicos Al Gore and Robert Kennedy Jr. But, it also had an astonishing assortment of anti-American, anti-capitalism, and anti-free marketeers, who showcased for all of America what the environmental movement has become. In Human Events, the menagerie was described this way: “If you’re in favor of totalitarian power, sympathetic to America’s enemies, dubious about representative democracy, hostile to free markets, or you just get turned on by fantasizing about violent revolution, there was a place for you at this march.”

Marchers carried a banner stating: “Capitalism is the disease, socialism is the cure.” Others: “Capitalism is killing the planet. Fight for a socialist future.”

Hydraulic fracturing—which is uniquely responsible for U.S. carbon dioxide emissions dropping to the lowest in 20 years—was victimized: “Make fracking a crime.” Marchers held signs saying: “Fracking = Climate Change. Ban fracking now.”

Speaking of crimes, Robert Kennedy, Jr., in an interview at the Climate March, told Climate Depot’s Marc Morano that he wishes there was a law to punish global warming skeptics. He’s previously called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s “should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

Interviews with participants in the March revealed sentiments such as: “corporations have to be reined in” and we’re “building a revolution for a whole new society—a new socialist society.”

A man in a cow costume carried a sign: “I fart. Therefore, I am the problem.” Bob Linden, the host of the nationally syndicated radio program Go Vegan, stated: “if 50 to 85 percent of us switch to veganism by 2020, scientists tell us we can save the planet from climate change.”

Unfortunately, you won’t see any of this in the mainstream media. The New York Times slide show of the event features a pictorial display of flower wreaths being strung, and of children and happy dancers.

In a piece titled: “Rockets Red Glare Distract Nation From UN Climate Summit and Import of Global Climate Protests,” the Huffington Post laments: “the critically important UN Climate Summit in New York has had to compete on mainstream media with the far more dramatic war coverage.” It continues: “the climate’s fate is far more important to the world even than the desperately needed military campaign by the U.S. and its allies to eradicate barbaric ISIL terrorists from Syria and Iraq.”

The Christian Science Monitor reported: “just as the climate movement has captured global attention, major leaders are shifting their attention elsewhere.” Regarding last week’s UN meeting that followed the Climate March, it stated: “The UN meeting is likely to be overshadowed by the new war on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.”

The new war in Iraq and Syria, waged by Islamic extremists, centers on hate for all things Western and a desire to change systems of government to an Islamic caliphate. The shocking displays of violence have sounded an alarm that has awakened Americans and exposed the inconsistency and inaccuracy of most messaging coming from the Obama Administration.

The People’s Climate March also centers on hate and a desire to change the government. One description of the March said: “These people are defined by what they hate, and a big part of what they hate is capitalism.” Another offered this explanation of the participants: “the aimless in search of personal meaning complement the ranks of a movement which promises personal purpose.”

During a panel discussion held in conjunction with the March, Naomi Klein, author of “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate,” was asked: “Even if the climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for the same structural changes.” Her answer: “Yeah.”

I know every Muslim isn’t a terrorist and every person who cares about the planet isn’t an eco-extremist, but as ISIS has changed American’s view—and Islamic leaders, such as, Madani, are unhappy that “Extremist voices and groups have hijacked Islam and misappropriated the right to speak on its behalf”—the Climate March made clear that extremist voices have hijacked the environmental movement. Our patience has worn thin, and we no longer trust Obama’s clean, green message.

National Geographic summed up the March this way: “Despite all the enthusiasm displayed in New York and elsewhere on a muggy September Sunday, public opinion polls consistently show that climate change is not a high priority for most Americans.”

Americans are smarter than the collection of anti-capitalism satellite groups think. They’ve seen through the rhetoric and realize, as the Climate March made clear: it is not about Climate Change, it is about system change.

These eco-extremists showed their true colors: green on the outside, red on the inside. Watermelons.

(A version of this content was originally published on Breitbart.com)

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

I am a bit tardy in getting you my column today as I was confirming the particulars with my editor (I’ve never had an “editor” before). He told me: “We basically run original, exclusive content, so there’s not a lot of precedent for sending out stuff that runs here first.” Here’s the deal. I wrote my usual, long, connect-the-dots style piece. He edited it, cutting it down by almost 50 percent. It’s good. I am happy with it. However, trimming it does remove some of the secondary messaging. Breitbart has agreed that I can send you both the full version and the version posted on Breitbart.com. In either case, please post the version you choose with the verbiage I’ve included. They ask that their version be posted with the first several paragraphs and then a link to Breitbart.com—which is how I am sending their version to you. If you choose the full version, please be sure to include “A version of this content was originally published on Breitbart.com”—and be sure to include the link. I trust that there will be refinements in the arrangements as the weeks go on.

With all that said, as always, the full version of People’s Climate March Wants to Change the System, not the Weather is attached and pasted-in-below. I’ve also attached the Breitbart version.

Thanks for your understanding. Please post, pass on, and/or personally enjoy whichever version of People’s Climate March Wants to Change the System, not the Weather works for you.

Marita Noon

Main Stream Media Refuses to Report the Truth About Climate Change.

The Obvious Failures of Climate Science That Mainstream Media Ignores

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale –

The National Science Foundation press release Cause of California drought linked to climate change found its way into the mainstream media, with science reporters around the globe adding their hype. That press release is based on the recently published study Swain et al. (2014) “The Extraordinary California Drought of 2013/2014: Character, Context and the Role of Climate Change”, which can be found in the Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS report)Vol. 95, No. 9, September 2014, Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 From A Climate Perspective.

I’ll publish a few comments about Swain et al. (2014) in a few days. But this post is not about that paper.

THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT – WHO’S TO BLAME FOR THE LACK OF PREPAREDNESS?

As I was reading Anthony Watts excellent post about Swain et al. (2014), Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change – not one mention of ENSO or El Niño, a number of reoccurring thoughts replayed, thoughts that have struck me numerous times as the Western States drought unfolded last year and intensified this year.

Was California prepared for a drought?

Obviously, California was not prepared for a drought this intense, and the impacts of that lack of preparedness on California residents will grow much worse if the drought continues.

Why wasn’t California prepared for a short-term (multiyear) drought this intense?

The realistic blame should be the focus of climate science in general under the direction of the IPCC. In the opening paragraph of the IPCC’s History webpage, they state (my boldface and caps):

Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant tounderstanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The fact that the IPCC has focused all of their efforts on “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” is very important. The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century. For decades, they’ve worn blinders that blocked their views of everything other than the possible impacts of carbon dioxide. The role of the IPCC has always been to prepare reports that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, that’s where all of the research money goes. The decision to only study human-induced global warming is a political choice, not a scientific one. In efforts to justify agendas, politicians around the world jumped on the climate change stump and funded computer model-based studies of human-induced global warming…to the tune of billions of dollars annually.

Because of that political agenda, the latest and greatest climate models still cannot simulate the basic underlying processes that govern the naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes like ENSO (El Niños and La Niñas), like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation…processes that have strong influences on temperature and precipitation in west coast states. So there is no possible way climate models, as they exist today, could forecast what precipitation might be like in the future there. And that basic problem will persist until there is a redirection of climate-research funding. Yes, funding. Research follows the money.

What value do climate model-based studies provide?

None.

The paper Pierce et al. (2013) The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California provides an overview of why the climate models have no value when it comes to forecasts like California drought. In their abstract Pierce et al. write (my boldface and caps):

Of the 25 downscaled model projections examined here, 21 agree that precipitation frequency will DECREASE by the 2060s, with a mean reduction of 6–14 days yr−1. This reduces California’s mean annual precipitation by about 5.7%. Partly offsetting this, 16 of the 25 projections agree that daily precipitation intensity will INCREASE, which accounts for a model average 5.3% increase in annual precipitation. Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter.

[Hat tip to blogger “Jimbo” on the WUWT thread Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change – not one mention of ENSO or El Niño.]

So some climate models say that daily precipitation intensity will increase and others say it will decrease. In other words, the climate science community is clueless about what the future might bring for west coast precipitation.

Some might say that climatologists for the State of California and other west coast states have been hampered by climate science. It’s tough to make recommendations to state and local governments for long-term planning when the climate science community provides them with nothing to work with.

Is California prepared for a drought that lasts multiple decades or even centuries?

Anthony Watts’s post included a graph from a paleoclimatological study of West Coast drought that showed past droughts have lasted for hundreds of years. For the original graph and discussion, see Figure 10 of Cook et al. (2007) North American drought: Reconstructions, causes, and consequences. (Note: That’s not the John Cook from SkepticalScience.)

Now I hate to make you think about bad news. But if it’s happened in the past, can it happen again?

Why are mainstream media simply parroting press releases?

Climate-change news reports have become echo chambers of the press releases put out by colleges, universities and government research agencies. Individual reporters might provide a more in-depth report by asking the scientist-authors for a few extra word of wisdom.

But why aren’t the media asking the tough questions, like:

  • Why weren’t west-coast residents warned 10 or 15 years ago that a severe drought is just a weather anomaly away?
  • Why aren’t there enough desalinization plants in place to supplement rainfall deficits?
  • Why are the people of the west coast protesting for, and why are state governments funding, more wind farms and solar arrays when they need something more basic to maintain life there, water?

Seems to me we may very soon be seeing a reversal of Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, with vast flocks of California residents migrating back to the Midwest, which also is subject to periodic droughts.

Poor planning on the parts of a few—based on politically motivated, unsound science—may make for emergencies for millions.

Don’t Follow Germany’s Green Path…..They’re Lost! Epic Fail!

Germany’s Green Energy Failure

  • Date: 29/09/14
  • Doug L Hoffman, The Resilient Earth

The first grand experiment in renewable energy is a catastrophe. The vast scale of the failure has only started to become clear over the past year or so.

A new analysis answers the question “should other nations follow Germany’s lead on promoting solar Power?” That question was asked on Quora and answered by Ryan Carlyle, BSChE, and a Subsea Hydraulics Engineer. His detailed and well reasoned answer is the most forceful possible NO. According to Carlyle Germany’s program has the “absurd distinction” of hitting the trifecta of bad energy policy: bad for consumers, bad for industry, and bad for the environment. So while misguided greens point to Germany as a solar success, a rising tide of opposition and resentment is growing among the German public.

Along with all the other troubles besetting the world, Germany has watched its economy, the so called “engine of Europe,” stumble. This is mostly attributable to the horribly botched shift to a renewable energy economy. In Carlyle’s own words:

I was shocked to find out how useless, costly, and counter-productive their world-renowned energy policy has turned out. This is a serious problem for Germany, but an even greater problem for the rest of the world, who hope to follow in their footsteps. The first grand experiment in renewable energy is a catastrophe! The vast scale of the failure has only started to become clear over the past year or so. So I can forgive renewables advocates for not realizing it yet — but it’s time for the green movement to do a 180 on this.

Pretty strong stuff, but as good skeptics we should demand evidence to back up these statements. Fortunately, the author provides data to back up his claims. Here are some of Carlyle’s “awful statistics”:

Germany is widely considered the global leader in solar power, with over a third of the world’s nameplate (peak) solar power capacity. Germany has over twice as much solar capacity per capita as sunny, subsidy-rich, high-energy-cost California. (That doesn’t sound bad, but keep going.)

Germany’s residential electricity cost is about $0.34/kWh, one of the highest rates in the world. About $0.07/kWh goes directly to subsidizing renewables, which is actually higher than the wholesale electricity price in Europe. (This means they could simply buy zero-carbon power from France and Denmark for less than they spend to subsidize their own.) More than 300,000 households per year are seeing their electricity shut off because they cannot afford the bills. Many people are blaming high residential prices on business exemptions, but eliminating them would save households less than 1 euro per month on average. Billing rates are predicted by the government to rise another 40% by 2020.

Germany’s utilities and taxpayers are losing vast sums of money due to excessive feed-in tariffs and grid management problems. The environment minister says the cost will be one trillion euros (~$1.35 trillion) over the next two decades if the program is not radically scaled back. This doesn’t even include the hundreds of billions it has already cost to date. Siemens, a major supplier of renewable energy equipment, estimated in 2011 that the direct lifetime cost of Energiewende through 2050 will be $4.5 trillion, which means it will cost about 2.5% of Germany’s GDP for 50 years straight. That doesn’t include economic damage from high energy prices, which is difficult to quantify but appears to be significant.

Here’s the truly dismaying part: the latest numbers show Germany’s carbon output and global warming impact is actually increasing despite flat economic output and declining population, because of ill-planned “renewables first” market mechanisms. This regime is paradoxically forcing the growth of dirty coal power. Photovoltaic solar has a fundamental flaw for large-scale generation in the absence of electricity storage — it only works for about 5-10 hours a day. Electricity must be produced at the exact same time it’s used. The more daytime summer solar capacity Germany builds, the more coal power they need for nights and winters as cleaner power sources are forced offline. This happens because excessive daytime solar power production makes base-load nuclear plants impossible to operate, and makes load-following natural gas plants uneconomical to run. Large-scale PV solar power is unmanageable without equally-large-scale grid storage, but even pumped-storage hydroelectricity facilities are being driven out of business by the severe grid fluctuations. They can’t run steadily enough to operate at a profit. Coal is the only non-subsidized power source that doesn’t hemorrhage money now. The result is that utilities must choose between coal, blackouts, or bankruptcy. Which means much more pollution.

The emphasized passages are the author’s from the original posting.

Full post

– See more at: http://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-green-energy-failure/#sthash.fFTAlKrn.dpuf