We know methane’s the NZ farming villain — now let’s measure it

New Zealand’s first official space mission announces ‘mission control’

New Zealand’s first government funded space mission has taken a ‘giant leap’ with Auckland University’s Te Pūnaha Ātea-Auckland Space Institute announced as the permanent host of the New Zealand based mission control centre for a global methane tracking satellite.

“MethaneSAT is a really exciting opportunity to showcase New Zealand’s science and research expertise on the world stage, while making a significant contribution to climate change by mapping agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases. It’s great to see Auckland University, with the help of Rocket Lab, playing such a key role” says Research, Science and Innovation Minister Megan Woods.

Mission Operations Control Centre (MOCC) for the mission will be managed by Rocket Lab. Once it is running smoothly, it will be transferred to Te Pūnaha Ātea-Auckland Space Institute as the host.

“This international partnership will accelerate our capability in our rapidly growing space sector, increase our reputation for future space missions and provide vital data to support our own climate change policy,” Megan Woods said.

“The mission will see the New Zealand Space Agency partner with one of the world’s leading environmental NGOs, The Environmental Defense Fund, which will also include a team of leading New Zealand atmospheric science and remote sensing researchers led by NIWA’s Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher,” Megan Woods said.

In addition to its agricultural emissions research, the New Zealand science team will work with the US based science team that’s leading the mission’s science on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The US team is led by the University of Harvard in close partnership with The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.

read more here


This satellite project sounds very good. MethaneSAT will give us high-quality data on minuscule methane, the famous trace gas (at only 0.00041 of the atmosphere, less than a thousandth CORRECTION –H/T Rick– 2 May 2021 13:54 NZST: at only 0.0000017 of the atmosphere, just shy of two millionths). So let’s do the same with atmospheric water and its vapour, widely unacknowledged as the LEADING greenhouse gas (at around 2% of the atmosphere across ocean-girded NZ, 10,000 CORRECTION 2 May 2021 13:54 NZST: 11,700 times more abundant than methane).

In other words, let’s get excellent data on water so we can evaluate the true role played in warming behind water by the minor GHGs. Shame they couldn’t do this before declaring methane the farming villain, but now maybe we can introduce properly scientific, adult decision-making to replace the deeply-felt emotional propaganda erupting everywhere in connection with Net Zero Carbon. Love the Earth? Of course we do! — RT

Hits: 656

48 Thoughts on “We know methane’s the NZ farming villain — now let’s measure it

  1. Rick on 02/05/2021 at 11:15 am said:

    “(at only 0.00041 of the atmosphere, less than a thousandth)”

    I don’t know where you’ve got that figure from, Richard, but NASA’s Earth Factsheet says atmospheric Methane is currently at 1.7 ppm. That’s slightly less than 2 millionths of the atmosphere by volume!

    [See: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html ]

    • Richard Treadgold on 02/05/2021 at 1:27 pm said:

      Deep apologies. You’re right. I got it from the wall beside me, where it says 380 ppm = 0,038% CO2, which I replaced with a more recent figure of 410 ppmv, forgetting CO2 is not methane. I think I’ve got the zeroes in the corrected post accurately counted, but please check.

    • Rick on 03/05/2021 at 1:36 am said:

      No worries, Richard. Thanks for correcting it though. I thought I should mention it as it strengthens your point about methane’s abundance in the atmosphere being ‘miniscule’, from which I think we can infer that its contribution to the greenhouse effect will be correspondingly miniscule, in spite of all the alarmists’ hysteria about methane being more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and its atmospheric concentration having doubled since 1750 and so on and so on.

  2. Mack on 03/05/2021 at 12:27 am said:

    Here’s a good little reference to get the comparison of the atmospheric gases, RT…

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

    • Richard Treadgold on 22/05/2021 at 4:24 pm said:

      Mack [@3 May 12:27 am],

      Yes, that’s not bad, thanks.

  3. Andrew on 06/05/2021 at 10:50 am said:

    Measuring atmospheric methane is all very well & good, but the worry for me is that you can just about guarantee this Labour Govt (supported by Greens) will blame all of the atmospheric onto livestock agriculture – it is all the ruminants fault! However, there are many other sources of methane that contribute to the massive atmospheric amount of 1.7ppm & I sincerely hope this satellite can differentiate the source(s).
    Other sources include man-made or natural wetlands, landfills, volcanoes, natural gas exploration plus the oceans that surround us! Many of our natural lakes eg Te Kauwhata, Huntly, Wairarapa, Elsmere will be emitting large amounts of CH4 into our atmosphere which will be all blamed onto livestock or conveniently ignored just as pasture is ignored as a CO2 sink!
    Another large source of methane emissions is from rice agriculture (obviously not in NZ!). Paddy fields for rice production are effectively man-made wetlands. They have high moisture content, oxygen depleted and plenty of organic material which as it rots, creating a great environment for methane producing microbes that decompose the organic matter as do all wet-lands, man-made or natural.
    I hope this satellite will be able to differentiate between the multiple sources of CH4 because I do not want to pay for CH4 that wasn’t produced by my livestock. How will I know the CH4 on my property hasn’t wafted over from my 500 cow neighbour?
    As an aside, it would also be interesting to measure CH4 atmospheric % before and after a thunder storm – as I would be confident a decent % would be burnt up!

    • Juglans Nigra on 07/05/2021 at 5:22 pm said:

      Andrew: “it is all the ruminants fault!”

      Perhaps we can shove the blame onto the other worldwide success story: termites :
      http://www.pnas.org/content/91/12/5441.full.pdf
      Do cows produce the most methane?

      By weight, no cattle do not produce the most methane. Insects do. There are a variety of insects, that also have methanogens in their digestive tracts, that produce methane. (Methanogens are bacteria in the digestive tract that produce methane via fermentation also known as methanogenesis). Cockroaches, termites, centipedes and various arthropods all produce methane as noted in this study from 1994 “Methane production in terrestrial arthropods.
      ” Roughly 200 to 300 cockroaches emit as much methane as a head of cattle.
      http://www.quora.com › Do-termites-produce-more-methane-gas-than-cows
      http://www.ghgonline.org/methanerice.htm
      http://www.ghgonline.org/methanewetland.htm
      http://www.ghgonline.org › methanetermite
      https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13306

      Never mind, the pet chickens love a feed of termites, anytime I could find and break open a nest.
      W

    • bill treuren on 25/05/2021 at 10:09 pm said:

      It methane is burnt continuously in the atmosphere and has a residence time of something like 5 years.

      so just as the power station owners in the UK and Germany that burn wood chips do not pay for their CO2 residence time till the forest regrow, so should our farmers not pay for the residence time of the methane emitted then converted to CO2 and back to grass etc.

      The methane scam is simply a war on farming and our primary exporters.

  4. Andrew on 08/05/2021 at 9:20 am said:

    Thanks Juglans – I was not aware that termites & cockroaches emitted so much methane, but it makes sense given methane is produced from decaying debris such as wetlands or land fills!

    Cockroaches are endemic throughout NZ & given their numbers would certainly contribute to the 1.7ppm!! We have roughly 7m cattle in NZ – an equivalent CH4 output from roaches would require 2.1billion of the little critters based on your number – the mind boggles at the thought!!
    Some great references thanks

    cheers

  5. ross on 08/05/2021 at 10:15 am said:

    The greens IPCC/UN treat the lesser human emissions differently from natural emissions which shows their policies are anti human not anti emissions. Ed Berrys pre print 3 has a very good explanation of this.

  6. Graham Anderson on 09/05/2021 at 10:57 am said:

    Methane from natural sources can never be a problem to the world as all those processes are cycles.
    Enteric methane from famed livestock , rice paddies ,termites and the list goes on.
    All these processes have absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and the extremely small amount of methane released is broken down into water vapour and CO2 in 8 to 10 years in the upper atmosphere .
    Over any time span these processes cannot raise the levels of either CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere .
    The blame for rising world levels lies with coal mining and oil and gas extraction.
    The oil and gas wells and pipelines were improved 20 to 30 years ago and graphs of world methane levels show this as atmospheric methane levels flat lined from 1999 untill 2008 .
    There was no problem with methane as all methane that was emitted was broken down at the same rate.
    In 2008 world coal production was a steady 4.7 billion tonnes .Since then world coal production has soared to 8,2 billion tonnes in 2018 and methane levels have again started to rise .
    Blame the coal and not the cow .
    This is not rocket science and wasting time and money sending a rocket up with a satellite to measure methane over New Zealand proves that a these people in our universities have certainly got more money to waste than they should have .
    Targeting methane from livestock is a scam and it should never have been included in any countries GHG emission profile .
    This was introduced by activists at the Kyoto climate accord and I have been told by John Maunder who attended as our New Zealand representative the first two world climate meetings in Austria and
    Rio de Janeiro that methane from livestock was never mentioned at those early meetings .
    Our government seems hellbent on restricting out livestock industries and encouraging planting perpetual forests on a lot of our farmland ,
    Restrict farming and with our tourist industry on its knees what will generate overseas funds to buy all the consumables that we cannot produce economically here in New Zealand ?

  7. Charles on 09/05/2021 at 6:17 pm said:

    1. Increasing the emissions increases the level in the atmosphere. That’s the problem for NZ – increase since 1990. No increase in emissions means very little warming, so some improvement in farming practices can nullify it.

    2. The world is now getting to the point lowering the temperature is essential to avoid crossing tipping points. That is the rationale for drastically lowering methane emissions – the effect is immediate.

    Should have started decarbonisation 30 years ago.

    Oil billionaires and their useful idiots like Michael Kelly worked hard to stop mitigation and now we’re in the sh1t with no time to spare.

    More importantly, the matter is being taken out of our hands. We will be doing what China and the US demand. Make no mistake about it.

    • Graham Anderson on 16/05/2021 at 9:56 am said:

      Reply to Charles .
      Did you not comprehend what I wrote above ?
      Nothing New Zealand does to reduce enteric methane will ever be measurable as coal extraction and consumption moving from 4,7 billion tonnes to 8.2 billion tonnes swamps a few tonne that New Zealand farmers could reduce their livestock’s methane emissions .
      Are you not aware that a large tonnage of methane is released to the atmosphere during coal mining Have you never heard about Pike River coal mine explosion caused by a build up of methane ,
      Every tonne of coal combusted releases 2,7 tonnes of CO2 and some methane depending on the furnaces used and the grade of coal.
      All this methane and CO2 has been locked up beneath the earths surface for millions of years .
      As I stated above all enteric methane is cyclic and can not add one molecule of CO2 or CH4 to the atmosphere over any time span .
      All fodder absorbs CO2 ( an essential gas to life on earth ) to grow and the small amount of methane emitted during digestion due to methode microbes that consume the fibre ( cellulose ) .
      These microbes multiply rapidly and then move on through the animals four stomachs and are absorbed as the animals food .
      I would point out that horses do not have four stomachs and they are nowhere as efficient for converting roughage as cows and sheep .
      You can check every that I have written and come back if you can find any facts to the contrary .

  8. Graham Anderson on 09/05/2021 at 8:41 pm said:

    Charles who ever you are have been hoodwinked as there is no proof that the worlds temperature is controlled by rising levels of GHG.
    The effect of CO2 on the temperature is logarithmic and the atmosphere is saturated and very little if any warming from now on will be caused by further increases in CO2 and CH4.
    The world will never reach a tipping point as heat moves towards the poles and is emitted to space .
    The climatic cycles of this earth have been going on for millions of years and the world came out of an ice age just 12000 years ago .
    Since then there have been three climate optimums and they have all been warmer than present .
    If you are so concerned what steps have you taken to reduce or exit using fossil fuels ?
    Do you still drive a car ? Do you use any thing made of steel ? Do you buy any thing from overseas ? Do you buy any thing from the supermarket ?
    Of course you do .Fossil fuels are essential to feed and house the worlds billions .
    Any government who thinks that they can run a country with low levels of fossil fuel use ares dreaming.
    When I was at primary school New Zealands population was just over 2million and the worlds population was 2.5 billion.
    We now have over 5 million people here and close to 8 billion worldwide .
    Fossil fuels are essential to the well being of all modern countries and any country that attempts to restrict there use will be very much worse off unless they opt for nuclear power plants to replace the energy required.
    Wake up Charles and think what things would be like if automotive fuel suddenly dried up for whatever reason .
    How far would you walk or cycle and how would goods get to the supermarket ?
    Just think a little and you might realize that you are being hood winked with this absolute nonsensical talk of tipping points .They just cannot happen .

    • Charles on 10/05/2021 at 2:26 pm said:

      Saturated?

      Rubbish!

      The atmosphere is not enclosed. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

      How do you suppose Earth comes out of an ice age? It’s the increasing level of CO2 following slight increase in insolation.

      Why don’t you 1d1ots stop prattling like old women and learn some science…

  9. Mack on 09/05/2021 at 9:03 pm said:

    @ Charles,
    Are we correct in assuming that you might be Charles Moore ? as in Charles Moore here…
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07z278v
    If you are that Charles, then you’ve just called Micheal Kelly a “useful idiot”….. hardly the response of an impartial interviewer. … very different from how you treated him in those interviews.
    On the other hand, you might be just a stirring, activist imposter.

    • Mack on 10/05/2021 at 3:25 pm said:

      Well, it seems that “charles” is just an imposter

      “How do you suppose Earth comes out of an ice age ?”

      Yeah, well an ignorant loon like you would have us believe the Earth comes out of an ice age by means of the evil CO2 emitted by volcanoes, bugs and snow-mobiles.

    • Graham Anderson on 10/05/2021 at 7:22 pm said:

      Charles you are the one who should learn some science .
      The warming potential of CO2 is logarithmic .Do you know what logarithmic means ?
      Here is the science lesson so try to learn .The first 100 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere creates warming of about 3 degrees C.
      The next 100 parts per million warms the earth 1.5 degrees C.
      The next 100 pp million of CO2 may push up the temperature by .75 C a cumulative somewhere around 5 C and that was around 1900.
      Since then CO2 has risen another 100 p p million with a potential to warm .3 of a degree C.
      The next 100 pp million could only warm the earth .15 C point 0ne five of a degree Celsius .
      Nothing to worry about Charlie .
      This is what saturation means ,the warming effect gets less and less as the CO2 increases as it only reflects back the heat from the earths surface in narrow band widths and more CO2 does not mean more warming once those band widths are saturated .
      Of course the atmosphere is no enclosed .That is where excess heat goes out to space
      I know that I am wasting my time but you just might learn some thing here on this site Charles .
      I think you have a cheek accusing most of us being useful idiots .You had better look in the mirror Charles .
      Other wise you are just a drive by who has been hoodwinked by unscrupulous politicians and activists.

  10. ross on 10/05/2021 at 8:38 am said:

    Is there a tipping point when one superpower stops using fossil fuels and another increases fossil fuels.

    • Andrew on 10/05/2021 at 3:55 pm said:

      Problem is Mack – these “imposters” are running our country disguised as politicians making up dumb legislation to satisfy the mindless idiots like Charles, Greta & all the other alarmists that promise the ‘end is nigh’!!

      I had to laugh today when someone on the radio said that the NZ cricketers were spending some time on the Maldives (enroute to the UK from India)- he made the comment, “i thought they were supposed to be under (sea) water by now!!”

  11. Mack on 10/05/2021 at 5:24 pm said:

    Quite right, Andrew.– the….”and now we’re in the sh1t with no time to spare” ..should have given it away to me as just another brainless bed wetter…..maybe it’s the future King of England.

  12. Richard Treadgold on 10/05/2021 at 5:46 pm said:

    Lads generally,

    Our recent reception of warmsters resembles the toxic responses we have complained about for 15 years and more. If you appreciate a cool climate for conversation for yourself you should consider providing one. I hope for a pretty rapid improvement in the intellectual climate of this discussion space, otherwise our complaints against contrary blogs like Hot Topic, RealClimate and the rest will be laughed at and I’ll be looking to pull the plug even on some of those who agree with me. Tone, gentlemen, is everything.

    Incidentally, I haven’t seen contributions at Hot Topic for four years. Nobody cares, of course, but does anyone know what’s happened to them?

    • Mack on 10/05/2021 at 9:16 pm said:

      The point where I dished out toxic responses to Charles was after…

      “Why don’t you idiots stop prattling like old women and learn some science ”

      In the face of that, it is hard to maintain some sort of tone of “cool climate for conversation”, gentlemanly decorum, RT.
      I’m trying my best….. could try harder?

  13. Richard Treadgold on 10/05/2021 at 9:36 pm said:

    @Mack 9:16 pm,

    Yes, it’s hard, that’s why it’s worth doing. Don’t think of the troublemakers, think of the onlookers. They’re listening closely, so while we address the troublemaker, the onlookers are the only ones worth talking to.

  14. Richard Treadgold on 11/05/2021 at 12:57 am said:

    @Charles 10/05/2021 at 2:26 pm,

    The word ‘saturation’ refers variously to the atmospheric concentration of a gas or the amount of energy absorbed from particular electromagnetic frequencies (absorption bands) by a greenhouse gas. It’s clear that little warming can be expected from further increases in CO2 because most of the warming (about 80%) occurs with the first 20 ppm and after about 130 ppm it’s adding less than 0.1 °C of warming for each increase of 20 ppm—minute amounts of warming by any standards.

    Check out Joanne Nova’s 2010 article showing two versions of a graph that David Archibald first calculated using the MODTRAN database. It’s a good read.

    A recent paper, Influence of Greenhouse Gases on Thermal Radiation from the Earth, September 2019, by W. A. van Wijngaarden (York University, Canada) and W. Happer (Princeton University, USA) discusses this with data on the relative strength of the greenhouse gases.

    Dr John McLean is producing a book, How the Atmosphere Works, that should be released any day now. He’s done a good job in making it accessible to the layman. I’ll write it up when it’s available.

    • Charles on 13/05/2021 at 6:41 pm said:

      Simple fact: Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes more warming.

      The “saturation” argument is total nonsense.

      Ask Michael Kelly.

    • Richard Treadgold on 22/05/2021 at 1:13 pm said:

      Charles [@ 13 May 6:41 pm],

      Physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden published a paper last year (pdf, 1,111 KB) on radiative effects of atmospheric gases. David Wojick wrote a most readable review last year at CFACT that includes a concise definition of ‘saturation’ as used in atmospheric science:

      Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules [of a certain gas] will not cause more warming.

      This is different from saying that the atmosphere can hold no more of that gas. I hope this helps to understand what is meant by saturation in this context. David goes on to say:

      In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.

      Which is great news that needs only distribution to make the whole world happy.

      I don’t understand your reference to Michael Kelly, though I suspect it’s not kind.

    • Rick on 14/05/2021 at 3:04 am said:

      “Simple fact: Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes more warming.”

      Is it? I can see that the idea would be a ‘simple fact’ if the Earth was simply a dry, rocky planet with a purely gaseous atmosphere.

      But the Earth is not a dry, rocky planet with a purely gaseous atmosphere and the water that covers 70% of its surface to an average depth of about 2½ miles and keeps the atmosphere partially filled with clouds that reflect away up to 90% of the incoming sunlight that falls upon them complicates the situation drastically and far beyond the ability of present-day ‘climate scientists’ to model it accurately and comprehensively and determine what the ultimate effect of adding more CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere really is.

      So, no, it doesn’t look like a ‘simple fact’ to me. Sorry.

    • Richard Treadgold on 22/05/2021 at 12:53 pm said:

      Rick [@14 May 03:04], (I’m late with this, but I’m catching up).

      To be clear, it was Charles who said this, not I.

  15. Esra Dral on 11/05/2021 at 9:17 am said:

    Hi Guys,

    Just an observation about the tone of some of the exchanges. Please remember that the global warmists are bombarded from all sides by climate change propaganda. The main stream media only deals in stories that support the narrative. So called legitimate scientific journals only peer review and publish the pro-warming papers and will argue that this is reasonable as any papers that question man made climate change are merely pseudoscientific babble. Those who question the established “science” are subject to cancel culture and, in so called scientific circles, are excommunicated for what amounts to heresy. Pro global warming propaganda is easily accessible and presented in a way that supports an established confirmation bias. It is readily available from so called “credible” resources such as NASA, NOAA, most universities, many government agencies around the world and, of course, the IPCC. I look at the website for my current electricity supplier and read how I am being gleefully fleeced through higher prices due to their commitment to lower their carbon footprint. It is easy to see how people get sucked in to this. After all, that is the aim of propaganda. Those who are less convinced by the man made warming argument have a number of issues to contend with. You have to go out of your way to find alternative information and some of the ideas and theories can be pretty “out there”, so careful consideration of the information is important. I would always suggest:

    Look for credible information from trusted resources. In spite of the global warmists going out of their way to debunk or de-platform these resources, there are out there.
    Research the information thoroughly and beware of confirmation bias. Yes, you are just as subject to this as the warmists. Just because the information appears to support your position does not mean it is true or will bear in depth scrutiny. Don’t fall in to the same trap.
    Look for the counter arguments so you are ready for them when they are inevitably pointed out.
    Stay calm and state facts. Don’t get drawn in to a slagging match. Remember, when the other party resorts to ad hominem attacks and name calling, they have run out of any logical or coherent arguments and you have won. So there is no need to stoop to their level. Merely by not being drawn in to the herd mentality you have shown you are better than that. Believe me, winning the argument with facts and dignity annoys them far more than telling them that, if they had another brain cell, it would be lonely.
    The baiters want you to react to the name calling. Don’t give them the satisfaction.

    Man made climate change is the gift that keeps on giving. The establishment is not going to give up this amazing resource without a fight. It is blamed for anything and everything happening to the planet. The latest theory I have read is that climate change is responsible for the shift of the Earth’s magnetic poles. I think there is something far more sinister behind this but that is probably worth exploring in another post.

    • Charles on 13/05/2021 at 6:48 pm said:

      Phooey. Look for the consensus of experts. The key word is expert.

      You wouldn’t ask a brain surgeon to do your heart surgery – likewise in science. Of course anyone can point out an error but it has to be real not just something floating in your head.

      A scientist can be totally wrong for all sorts of reasons but science corrects for error and bias.

    • Rick on 14/05/2021 at 4:27 am said:

      “You wouldn’t ask a brain surgeon to do your heart surgery – likewise in science.”

      I wouldn’t ask a brain surgeon to do my climate science either, so I’m not seeing the analogy.

      But on the subject of ‘climate experts’, how many of them really possess expert knowledge and understanding of the Earth’s incredibly complex and largely inscrutable climate system, whose recondite mysteries are still largely unknown and unfathomed by modern ‘climate science’, which is not a real science in any case since it does not follow the established scientific method but is essentially an imaginative mathematical game played on computers without any substantial reference to the actual behaviour of the real-world climate system. Would you entrust your life to one of its practitioners in the same way that you would entrust it to a suitably qualified heart surgeon who has acquired his expertise through years of rigorously disciplined study and practical experience and who has a good track record of successful similar operations behind him? I wouldn’t!

      “A scientist can be totally wrong for all sorts of reasons but science corrects for error and bias.”

      True science does, I agree. That is what the scientific method is designed to do. But IPCC ‘climate science’ is a sham and instead of correcting its errors it fights tooth and claw to protect and preserve them – and at terrible cost to the human race and the planet too.

  16. Charles on 14/05/2021 at 8:41 am said:

    @Rick

    Total nonsense. Impossible for there to be a conspiracy on the scale needed for climate science to be a sham. If you think the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the advancement of Science etc etc etc — all of which endorse the science — are all “collaborating” to defraud humanity you are insane.

    You don’t understand the analogy of choosing a brain surgeon for heart surgery? Are you an expert climate scientist? No? You are hardly in a position to contradict the experts. But if you see an error then publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Just claiming “wrong” doesn’t work in science.

    The know-alls who talk about CO2 saturation should read this:
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfe2b
    Accepted Manuscript online 5 May 2021 • IOP Publishing Ltd

    As I’ve explained earlier the atmosphere is not enclosed. The tropopause is rising.

    More CO2 causes more warming. It’s how Earth comes out of an ice age — changes in insolation with Milankovitch Cycles are not sufficient.

    Humanity is causing global warming/climate change. The basic science is irrefutable.

    • Rick on 16/05/2021 at 11:45 am said:

      @Charles
      On 14/05/2021 at 8:41 am you said:

      ‘@Rick

      Total nonsense. Impossible for there to be a conspiracy on the scale needed for climate science to be a sham….’

      Just to be clear, I never said that all climate science is a sham; only that IPCC ‘climate science’ is. The reason I said that is because IPCC ‘climate science’ is not real science. And I said that because IPCC ‘climate science’ does not satisfy the requirements of the standard scientific method. So as far as I can see it has to be fake science, pseudo-science, junk science, a fraud, a sham – call it what you will, but it is not science.

      ‘…If you think the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the advancement of Science etc etc etc — all of which endorse the science — are all “collaborating” to defraud humanity you are insane.’

      The facts speak for themselves here. Are any of these august institutions practising real science in regard to the climate? No, they are not, but are just presenting a superficial appearance of doing so instead. Beneath the surface their climate theories are cracked, their logic is flawed, their sums don’t add up, their models don’t work and nothing that they predict comes to pass. This is not science: it’s mumbo-jumbo with graphs and computer-simulations instead of incense-waving and the scrying of sheep’s entrails. It is just empty rituals with people going through the motions of doing science and producing no new information about the climate system whatsoever at the end of the day.

      So am I insane, or just being realistic? Those organisations you mentioned are run by human beings and are as corruptible as the human beings who run them. Therefore, I think it is perfectly possible for them to be collaborating to defraud humanity and the question of scale has no bearing on the matter.

      “Are you an expert climate scientist? No? You are hardly in a position to contradict the experts.”

      When I see so-called ‘climate experts’ making false public statements that are in conflict with well-tried and long-established scientific laws and principles, I think I am in a position to contradict them.

      ‘But if you see an error then publish in a peer-reviewed journal.’

      If I was to try to write a paper for every error I can see in IPCC ‘climate science’ and submit them all for publication in peer reviewed-journals, there are so many of them that I would die of old age long before I had finished writing them up and submitting them. Sorry, but that way is just not practical.

      ‘Just claiming “wrong” doesn’t work in science.’

      Agreed. But I’m not doing that.

  17. Juglans Nigra on 14/05/2021 at 3:12 pm said:

    @ Charles:
    “Impossible for there to be a conspiracy on the scale needed” ?
    Yet we have a worldwide understanding that the theory( hypothesis) of evolution explains all there is to know about pond-weed becoming philosophers…. through the magic wand of immense time lapsed.
    Full sarcasm intended.

    Sure, and I probably will eventually plod through the text of the linked paper on the tropopause……
    and expect to wonder where the principal GHG of water gets to be explained-away.
    At a rough guess: the tropopause expanded enough to reach a new balance point where extra energy input from the sun is exactly countered by a greater surface area to radiate the energy / heat back into ‘space’ .

    “You wouldn’t ask a brain surgeon to do your heart surgery”
    Actually, personally, I would be happy enough on that one; the brain surgeon probably started out and became totally competent on more basic surgery such as hernias, fistulae, hearts and lungs.
    What I would not do is ask a philosopher of heart poetry to do the surgery on a real heart.

    Cheers, the walnutter.

    • Charles on 14/05/2021 at 5:46 pm said:

      “principal GHG of water”

      Water vapour is not a forcing, it is never more than a feedback, whereas CO2 is both. CO2 causes warming causes more CO2 (oceans) causes more warming… WV only ever follows temperature and condenses out within 14 days.

      Brain surgeons have probably done heart surgery? Really?

      Evolution is a fact. You can observe it happening. Origin of life is a different matter.

    • Richard Treadgold on 14/05/2021 at 5:58 pm said:

      JN 14/05/2021 at 3:12 pm,

      For the last sentence alone, I must raise my pen to you!

  18. Esra Dral on 14/05/2021 at 5:36 pm said:

    Hi Charles,

    “A scientist can be totally wrong for all sorts of reasons but science corrects for error and bias.”

    Absolutely, but often it takes time to correct whilst the experts continue down the wrong track compounding the original error. Take the number of human chromosomes. It took over 30 years to correct Painter’s number, something so simple in comparison to the complexities of climate, yet the experts continued to get it wrong. There are even examples of text books with photographs clearly showing 23 pairs of chromosomes yet the text still stated 24 pairs, Painter’s number. No conspiracy needed, just bad science, but universally accepted. Read Barry Marshall’s account of how he was vilified about his idea that Helicobacter pylori was the main cause of stomach ulcers. Just talk to any of the scientists at the Gillies Mcindoe institute about how they were ridiculed about their theories that some cancers are caused by problems with differentiation and not mutation. Between 2010 and 2019 there were just over 700 scientific papers published that started to dismantle man made climate change. Then, in 2020 there were over 400 papers, each chipping away at the foundations of carbon dioxide driven climate premise. These would be the correction for error and bias that you alluded to. As Richard Feynman once stated, “Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts”. As he explained “Science is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence”. Yet, up until recently, the IPCC and allied bodies have refused to acknowledge these corrections. But I understand that even the IPCC, under the weight of new scientific research, has finally conceded that particle forcing actually plays a part in climate, something they have steadfastly refused to acknowledge until recently. This essentially is an admission that the science is far from settled, the climate models are incorrect and all previous UNIPCC climate reports are incomplete and invalid. This is the the type of correction you have referred to, but don’t seem to acknowledge. As in many such cases, there are those who will refuse to move forward and doggedly stick to the old narrative, particularly where reputations are at stake and funding is on the line.
    “Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. Thus, it is the mark of good science if a discipline has a growing list of superseded theories and, conversely, a lack of superseded theories indicates problems with following the scientific method.” In other words, the mantra of “settled science” is nothing to crow about but merely shows a field of research that has either stagnated, lost its way or has been hi-jacked for political purposes. As a result it totally lacks true scientific credibility.

  19. Charles on 14/05/2021 at 6:47 pm said:

    @Esra Dral (arsE larD?)

    So you described how science progresses — gets closer to the truth, better describes reality.

    But you stay locked in the past yourselves. It’s the climate deniers who haven’t kept up with developments in the science. Every year that goes by there’s more evidence that increases confidence in the science, but in your warped view it’s the opposite.

    You must think the scientific institutes and universities are full of halfwits.

    • Juglans Nigra on 15/05/2021 at 1:46 pm said:

      @ Charles: “Evolution is a fact. You can observe it happening. ”
      What I see happening is natural (and forced) selection of existing information leading to survival of the ‘fittest’, often with with consequent loss of information; Yes this can lead to enough difference to result in a new species; This ‘natural selection’ is (deliberately) called evolution .
      Where exactly is the repeatable evidence of ” pond-weed becoming philosophers” ? which requires a considerable increase of information ?

      “Water vapour is not a forcing, it is never more than a feedback, whereas CO2 is both. CO2 causes warming ”
      Now, where did I read recently of increasing CO2 levels leading to a cooling at the polar regions?
      probably some paper that has not made it past the peer review of climate philosophers.
      Try this one; a bit old news though.
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
      Geophysical Research Letters Volume42, Issue23
      16 December 2015 Pages 10,422-10,428
      Introduction: ……In our paper we first present two different model studies which show that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in the LW cooling in central Antarctica. Satellite observations presented demonstrate that over central Antarctica a negative greenhouse effect (see next chapter) occurs frequently and that Antarctica is the only place on Earth where the greenhouse effect is below zero on yearly average. Calculations with the ECMWF forecast model demonstrate that an increase in CO2 increases the LW cooling above the Antarctic Plateau.

      H2O “it is never more than a feedback,”
      quite likely; and primarily a negative feedback, although I read of hypotheses that when it condenses into ‘high’ clouds, they reflect more shortwave sunlight which leads to overall cooling at the ground surface, while ‘low’ clouds are an effective resistance to outgoing longwave (infra-red) for enough time (seconds ? ) to lead to overall warming. That would be until the extra energy lifts the clouds towards a higher-elevation point of equilibrium ; or the condensation rate into rain, hail, or snow has moved the energy still further away from the ground surface.

      About there the brain fade starts, and so today I am happy that some gentle rain has finally come to relieve the autumn drought on the walnut trees; the cycle continues and has not yet become catastrophic.
      Cheers, the walnutter.

    • Esra Dral on 15/05/2021 at 2:14 pm said:

      Hi Charles,

      An interesting observation. As we know, since the global warming scenario was originally proposed, it has relied on one core premise. The energy entering the Earth’s climate system is derived solely from Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). The theory goes that, as TSI varies very little from 1361 watts/sq m, that’s how we know the Sun cannot cause climate change. Therefore any variation to the climate must be caused by us. All the research is then conducted based on this core observation/theory that has not changed since the IPCC was formed in 1988. It was probably a reasonable theory back then. The problem is the rest of the science, especially solar physics, has moved on. They have discovered other sources of energy input to the earth’s climate system, but the IPCC has refused to acknowledge these advances. When you have spent more than 30 years screwing over tax payers from all over the world, no organization is going to hold up their hand and say “Sorry, we were wrong, but all the money has gone and we don’t know where.” Solar and Earth physics has uncovered the climate influence of such aspects as magnetic fields, electrical circuits, plasma flow and particle forcing. It seems that the IPCC might just have been dragged, kicking and screaming, in to the 21st century by at least acknowledging particle forcing. It is the so called “climate deniers” that have pointed out the error of their ways. These are the scientists who refused to follow dogma and go on to seek the truth. The scientists that refuse to build error upon error based on an unbending founding principle that has shown to be completely wrong. The Painter’s number of climate science. What I find really fascinating is that, having pointed out that it is the IPCC who, by their own admission, have been working with an old, incomplete theory, you still suggest that it is the “climate deniers” that are stuck in the past. Far from it. It is the “climate deniers” that have moved the science forward. It is the “SCIENCE DENIERS” who have lead us down into such a dark and unsavory pit of despair with their corruption of the scientific method. When it comes to climate, the mantra should not be “follow the science” but it should be “follow the dollar”. As for the universities, talk to Peter Ridd. He provides a prime example of the cancel culture of the climate zealots. I know a couple of atmospheric chemists working in New Zealand universities. Publicly, they support man made climate change. They have to, other wise they know their jobs are in jeopardy. Privately, they confess it is the biggest con ever.

  20. Gwan on 14/05/2021 at 9:18 pm said:

    Well are they not Charles ?

    • Mack on 18/05/2021 at 5:48 am said:

      Most of them have the intelligence of a genius, but the thinking ability of an iguana.

  21. Esra Dral on 17/05/2021 at 12:08 pm said:

    Hi Charles,
    Re-
    “The know-alls who talk about CO2 saturation should read this:
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfe2b
    Accepted Manuscript online 5 May 2021 • IOP Publishing Ltd”

    Interesting paper. However, these changes in the atmosphere were studied over 10 years ago and NASA showed that it was the Sun. The Thermosphere climate index closely follows the Sun cycles and Sun spots. It fell as low as 2.34 x 10 to the power of 10 watts in 2020 during the transition from solar cycle 24 to 25. As cycle 25 ramps up the current Thermosphere climate index has risen to 6.22 . The maximum ever recorded was 49.4 during the peak of solar cycle 19 back in 1959, the most active cycle of the last 120 years . Naturally, a cooler Thermosphere shrinks and a warmer one expands. So, where was any reference to solar activity in this paper. Nowhere. So where was any reference to clouds. Nowhere. This paper does not demonstrate an extremely high level of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, rather it assumes it and then extrapolates the results from this erroneous starting point. This paper is more like a bunch of bent coppers trying to fit up the usual suspect rather than looking for the real culprit. If you wanted any more proof of the corruption of climate science, you have just provided it.

  22. Brett Keane on 07/06/2021 at 11:31 am said:

    Esra, excellent synopsis above.
    I challenge Charles et alia to show the Proofs of CAGW as a useful Hypothesis let alone a Theory of Gas Physics.
    IPCC gave up after about three 4-year Reports. Ben Santer is known to have nocturnally added a false line to a following report while IPCC switched to Models. These can NEVER be scientific Proof because of inherent non-empirical uncertainty. They are now ridiculously far from reality.
    But UAH now shows us at the same GAST as c.1990. I expect more coolth from solar- planetary interaction, as NASA Langley’s Martin Mlynczak reports. Heliophysics is where it is at right now……….
    Long ago, Poisson’s Ideal Gas Laws and Maxwell’s Kinetics of Gases/ LOTD pre-destroyed your supposed sources, Charles. It is Power and Control your Green leaders seek, not Truth.

  23. John Sexton on 25/06/2021 at 10:55 am said:

     Methane is a trace gas. It is 0.00018% of the atmosphere. Ruminants produce just 14% of the planet’s total methane. NZ has 1% of the world’s ruminants. NZ’s methane emissions contribution to the 1degree C of temperature increase over the last 150 years is impossible to measure – it is so trivial
     There is growing scientific evidence that Methane is irrelevant as a warming Greenhouse Gas. Even the IPCC states Water Vapour is the dominant GHG, but it is not a “human emission” so it does not count. Water vapour is 5,000 to 8,000 times more prevalent in the atmosphere than methane.
     There is remarkable difference in opinions among scientists on how to measure methane relative to other greenhouse gases. Many scientists believe New Zealand’s methane emissions are overstated by at least 400%. We consider this difference is so significant it requires further discussion and resolution before penalising farmers.

  24. Brett Keane on 26/07/2021 at 12:54 pm said:

    Washing Methane Away. 2018 Paper via Ron Clutz. Read and understand. Another reason and route to destroy the greentards… Brett Keane. PS my email has been eaten so will be a while fixing….

  25. Andrew on 26/07/2021 at 5:13 pm said:

    The thunder & lightening across the Waikato this afternoon would have reduced the atmospheric content of methane by the necessary 10% or more. No need for farmers to reduce stock numbers or develop a methane vaccine, just leave it to old ma nature to sort!

    I wonder if the luddites in wellington would know that?

Leave a Reply to Esra Dral Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation