Pushing Muck Uphill… With A Rake.
There have been a few times that I’ve swum against the tide, and I’ve had my share of wins. I failed one time though, much to my regret… and now I’ve gone this far, I might as well explain. I was in charge of setting up logging operations on the forest, and the best bid for the contract was from the son of a neighbour. He was a raw recruit really, starting off in life, but he took the plunge and borrowed money to purchase the machinery needed. He bought an ancient, but efficient treble drum hauler, with more power than you could shake a stick at! He also bought a skidder and a digger with a grapple, and the crew of four performed well with a bit of direction-nudging from me. His contract was for a year and when the term was up, I was called to the big noise’s office to discuss the new contract. They didn’t want to renew my man’s contract, not that he’d done anything wrong, they just had another guy in mind… ‘from within the fold.’ I knew early on I didn’t have a shit show of getting them to award the contract to my man, there were five of them against me, but for integrity’s sake, I was prepared to put up a fight, which irritated the other five no end. They could have overridden me, but they needed me to agree ‘for the sake of form’. I put up worthy arguments but in the end they had their way. He had taken the risk to buy the gear required, and he had never let me or the sawmillers down, which allowed us to set up a good customer base. Added to that he was a local and we’d seen enough of locals being pushed aside in our small village with the primary school closing as well as the local store. The five didn’t give a hoot!
Anyway, because I don’t align with the consensus of carbon dioxide induced climate change, I find myself pushing shit uphill with a rake again! So here we go… I’ve already written a lot about climate change and my opinion hasn’t changed. Carbon dioxide and methane are touted to be ‘enemies of the state’, but for me, the over attention on greenhouse gases, with the associated mitigation policies has become more of an elephant in the room than the actual gases. Tunnel vision on greenhouse gases is dangerous because there’s far more to climate and the evidence before my eyes tells me there is no dramatic climate change happening. Many factors influence climate, the path of Earth around the Sun is elliptical rather than circular, so there are differing amounts of solar radiation over time. During my early ground surveys I found the magnetic declination varied over time, I used a prismatic compass and every two years the declination would move by half a line on the dial, which means the axis of the Earth is moving slightly, which again alters the amount of solar radiation, especially at the poles. There are indirect solar effects (sun spots, solar flares), long term ocean oscillations, le Nino and la Nina patterns, solar system gravitation and magnetic interactions. Land use impacts climate, towns and cities have similar impacts, yet all the science is focused on greenhouse gases… the only piece of the equation that can be manipulated. And oh yes governments have found a new revenue stream.
The greenhouse effect has little birds cheeping around my head as if I’ve been knocked on the head with a hammer! The term most often used is that there’s a blanket somewhere up in the atmosphere keeping us warm, which is what school kids are being taught! Well, for sure, it’s nothing you can touch, see, hear or smell and there isn’t a band of greenhouse gases anywhere either. There’s no defined height of a so-called greenhouse gas layer. The atmosphere is held in place by gravity and carbon dioxide is among the heavier gases… a carbon dioxide filled balloon can’t fly, on the other hand, there are clouds way up at 10 kilometres, but water vapour is heavier than carbon dioxide. The higher into the atmosphere, the less dense it is. I have five questions that nag at me. The Earth’s atmosphere is 10 000 kilometres deep, and airliners max out at about 13kilometres, so considering our atmosphere has a massive volume, how spread out is the 0.04% of carbon dioxide and how evenly is it distributed? Secondly, greenhouses are enclosed spaces, and the atmosphere clearly isn’t, so is ‘greenhouse’ the right terminology, or do climate scientists use metaphors? Thirdly, the outside temperature of airliners that I’ve flown in has been -50⁰C, so how does infrared heat get radiated back to warm Earth? Fourth, the hypothesis is, carbon dioxide reflects infrared energy back to Earth, as well, some of the incoming energy is reflected back into space by the atmosphere, clouds, carbon dioxide and methane. So wouldn’t any extra carbon dioxide and methane compensate by reflecting more infrared energy back into space before it breaks through the atmosphere? 96% of the atmosphere is a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen which is really our insulation. Fifth, four billion years ago, there was no atmosphere around Earth, so isn’t it logical that it would still be expanding? After all, it’s barely a hundred years since there’s been appropriate technology to study the atmosphere, so there have been no long term studies to tell us exactly what’s happening out there.
While were told that 97% of scientist believe in anthropogenic climate change, it turns out the number is nowhere near reality, it was just an off-the-hoof remark by Obama. It’s apparent though, that some scientists are adhering to a political agenda, and many sections of the media are pushing the same agenda… when did you last read a reporter suggesting that there’s more to climate change than just greenhouse gases? I’ve seen for myself how adding trees or removing them alters the microclimate, so does poor land management equate to anthropogenic climate change? If so, add me to the list! But no, they’re only talking about emissions. Politicians hope to control emissions… but they get fidgety when the populous are well educated and informed. Critical thinking only causes dissent and they don’t like their feathers ruffled… And politicians influence school curriculums, so I had a look at our national school curriculum on climate change, only to find myself disagreeing with some of it. Which may not be surprising, but it is loaded with misinformation. They start off by asserting that 97% of scientists share consensus in anthropogenic climate change… They go on, by the end of the century the planet will be 2 - 5⁰C hotter and this may lead to natural processes on Earth slowing down or stopping. This is known as the tipping point and something humans may not be able to reverse. Animals including humans may not be able to adapt. The change in climate is caused by greenhouse gases. That’s pretty scary stuff, presumably indicated by the climate models… which actually show temperatures significantly above actual measured data. I have no idea how much warming or cooling can happen, but I have more faith in nature than to suggest life in the natural world can’t adapt. That’s exactly what’s happened over millennia, it’s called evolution. And 2 – 5 degrees isn’t very specific.
The IPCC say that climate change is the biggest challenge of our time, affecting agriculture, native ecosystems, infrastructure, health and biodiversity. Later I’ll quote from some old newspapers, which show far worse conditions have happened than we are facing today. Nowadays, more food is being produced than ever before and there were some record crop yields last year. Death by famine has plummeted over the last 100 years (What are these people talking about?) Yes, weather events have destroyed a lot of property, but the real problem is, building infrastructure in known to be vulnerable areas has continued. Life expectancy is higher than at any time in history. More harm is done to native ecosystems and biodiversity by the acts of humans, rather than by any recent climate change.
Sea level rose 14 – 22 cm last century, studies suggest there is more flooding and drought. The oceans are one body of water which the law of physics says, finds its own level so 14 – 22 cm can only be either or if at all. Tectonic plate movement, subsidence and uplifting and underwater volcanoes all alter the appearance of sea levels… and some studies show there has been no true sea level rise. According to last year’s IPCC report, there has been no upward trend in flooding since1950.
New Zealand makes a small contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions, but per capita, we are one of the highest. 50% of our emissions comes from farming. There has been a steady anti-farming sentiment for years, a sentiment not well founded and now they’re apparently dirty too! Credit where credit’s due, our population is around five million, of which, a few farmers are producing and exporting enough food to feed forty million… emissions or not, nationally, we’re doing our bit for the planet.
I found this newspaper item when I was rehabilitating our house back in 1968. It’s dated November 3, 1892. When I read it, I thought it funny… now I find it to be typical of alarmism.
Civilisation and Climate
It is possible that man, by his inventions, is gradually changing the climate of the globe? It is an everyday remark that the climate of England seems to have permanently altered for the worse in the last fifty years, and we hear that in other thickly settled countries similar complaints are heard. Of course in some cases denudation of timber or the planting of trees may be accountable for the variations in climatic conditions but no such explanation can be put forward in the case of Great Britain and the larger part of Europe. Yet it seems there is real ground for the assertion that the climate is altering. An English contemporary says the meteorological observations, carefully made, and systematically recorded, in various parts of Europe go to prove that there has been a steady increase in the number of tempests annually occurring during the last half-century. In Belgium it has been as follows:- From 1833 to 1847, 97 storms; from 1848 to 1862, 250 storms; and from 1863 to 1877, 289 storms. In Saxony the number of buildings struck by lightning every year was 107 per million between 1859 and 1862; between 1863 and 1864 there were 318, and 621 per million this year. It has been suggested that these atmospheric disturbances are partly attributable to a disturbance of the earth’s magnetism, by millions upon millions of tons of iron and steel rails with which its surface is laced. It is very probable that there is something in this suggestion. If so, civilisation brings us another new terror, especially in thickly populated countries.
Clearly throughout history, and now, people have expected the climate to be stable and for humanity’s benefit, but wild unpredictable weather has always been part of climate. I have another article Hard Winters in Britain dated 20 March 1918. 1894-5 there were 70 days in a row when the temperature was 7⁰F lower than normal. In England, Christmas Day 1860, there was a 47⁰F frost! Winter 1814, the Thames was firmly frozen over. There is much more in the article.
The fear mongering the school curriculum, the IPCC, the UN, governments and media are pushing sometimes makes me think I’m not seeing what they’re seeing. They say that 2021 was the hottest year on record, but this article from October 1884 tells a different story.
A Record of Hot Summers.
In 627 the heat was so great in France and Germany that all the springs dried up; water became so scarce that many people died of thirst. In 879 work in the fields had to be given up, agricultural labourers persisting in their work were struck down in a few minutes, so powerful was the sun. In 993 the sun’s rays were so fierce that vegetation burnt up as under the action of fire. In 1000, rivers ran dry under the protracted heat, the fish were left dry in heaps and putrefied in a few hours. The stench that ensued produced the plague. Men and animals venturing in the sun in the summer of 1022 fell down dying; the throat parched to a tinder and the blood rushed to the brain. In 1132 not only did the rivers dry up, but the ground cracked on every side, and became baked to the hardness of stone. The Rhine in Alsace nearly dried out. Italy was visited with a terrific heat in 1139, vegetation and plants were burnt out. During the battle of Belah in 1260 there were more victims made by the sun than by weapons; men fell down sunstruck in regular rows. In 1303 and 1304 the Rhine, Loire and Seine ran dry. Scotland suffered particularly in 1625; men and beasts died in scores. The heat in several French departments during the summer of 1705 was equal to that in a glass furnace. Meat could be cooked by merely exposing it to the sun. Not a soul dare venture out between noon and 4pm. In 1718 many shops had to close; the theatres never opened their doors for several months. Not a drop of rain fell during six months. In 1753 the thermometer rose to 118 deg. In 1779 the heat in Bologna was so great that a number of people were stifled. There was not sufficient air for the breath, and people had to take refuge underground. In July 1793, the heat became intolerable. Vegetables burnt up, and fruit dried upon the trees. The furniture and woodwork in dwelling houses cracked and split up; meat went bad in an hour. The rivers ran dry in several provinces during 1811, expedients had to be devised for the grinding of corn. In 1822 a protracted heat was accompanied by storms and an earthquake; during the drought, legions of mice overran Lorraine and Alsace, committing incalculable damage. In 1832, the heat brought about cholera in France; 20,000 persons fell victim to the visitation in Paris alone. In 1846 the thermometer marked 125 deg. in the sun. That last number means nothing – no temperature should be taken in the sun, but as you see humanity and ecosystems have survived some pretty horrific weather conditions when greenhouse gases were insignificant.
The mitigation of climate change has so far been to use alternative forms of energy, that only work when conditions are ok… and line certain pockets. Electric vehicles are coming on line, but they use electricity that is otherwise committed. The mitigation is fluffing around the fringes of the real problems, we still have a throwaway economy and a growth one, we keep filling landfills and create more, we keep using natural resources that should be conserved, we keep polluting the land and oceans. But at COP26, governments have agreed to stop logging rainforests by 2025… Whoopee! A UN led ‘they’ should have stopped indigenous logging 50 years ago! But what will happen because of their announcement? Not hard to predict, logging will increase in the meantime and stored timber will one day become a goldmine! All of which tells me ‘they’ aren’t really serious.
I’ll continue to push the muck uphill with a rake, but I am heartened by the growing awareness that we all need to be taking better care of the planet. Only a few are doing so though.There’s so much more we could be doing! Perhaps it’s heresy to say so, but carbon dioxide is what nourishes us, if we tinker around with it, the world’s food security could well be compromised.
