The headline at Science Daily is that wildfires and other burns lead to climate change. The paper itself asks: “As such, particle burn-off of clouds may be a major underrecognized source of global warming.” For me what matters are the deaths in the here and now:
“We calculate that 5 to 10 percent of worldwide air pollution mortalities are due to biomass burning,” Jacobson said. “That means that it causes the premature deaths of about 250,000 people each year.”
This is similar to Indur Goklany’s conclusion in 2011:
Killing people with “concern”? Biofuels led to nearly 200,000 deaths (est) in 2010.
In a study published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Indur Goklany calculated the additional mortality burden of biofuels policies and found that nearly 200,000 people died in 2010 alone, because of efforts to use biofuels to reduce CO2 emissions.
Goklany (2011) estimated that the increase in the poverty headcount due to higher biofuel production between 2010 and 2004 implies 192,000 additional deaths and 6.7 million additional lost DALYs in 2010 alone.
He compared this death tally to the WHO figures for deaths attributed to global warming and finds that the biofuels policies are more deadly. (And he is not including any increase in poverty due to other anti-global warming practices).
What rather matters is how much of this is “wild” fire and how much is agricultural fire. Indur Goklany’s work looked specifically at biofuels, so related to man-made air pollution. From the actual Jacobsen paper it’s clear that this is mostly thought to be man-made fires:
Seiler and Crutzen [1980] further estimated that wildfires in temporal plus boreal forests comprised ~35.7% of all dry matter burned but pointed out that 70–90% of such wildfires were due to human activity (e.g., campfires, debris burning, cigarettes, etc.). Thus, of total world fire emissions today, ~7.1% (3.6%–10.7%) may be natural and the rest, anthropogenic. Houghton [2005] indicates that, in 1850, CO2 emissions from land use change may have been ~34% those in 2005. Thus, in 1850, BB [Burning Biomass] emissions were lower than those today. Such emissions may have been mostly anthropogenic [e.g., Marlon et al., 2008] although partly natural as well. Today, BB emissions are much higher with only a small percent natural.
Does black carbon change clouds?
The study goes on to say that black carbon effectively causes global warming too because it heats water droplets, melts clouds and ice, and reduces the thickness of cloud cover.
So any minute now I expect environmentalists around the world will start a “Boycott Biomass” campaign. Clearly any truly compassionate green could do nothing less since biomass is a net killer, and warms the planet too.
[Science Daily] “But Jacobson’s research also demonstrates that it isn’t just the CO2 from biomass burning that’s the problem. Black carbon and brown carbon maximize the thermal impacts of such fires. They essentially allow biomass burning to cause much more global warming per unit weight than other human-associated carbon sources.
Black and brown carbon particles increase atmospheric warming in three ways. First, they enter the minuscule water droplets that form clouds. At night, that’s not an issue. But during the day, sunlight scatters around within clouds, bathing them in luminescence.
When sunlight penetrates a water droplet containing black or brown carbon particles, Jacobson said, the carbon absorbs the light energy, creating heat and accelerating evaporation of the droplet. Carbon particles floating around in the spaces between the droplets also absorb scattered sunlight, converting it to heat.
“Heating the cloud reduces the relative humidity in the cloud,” Jacobson said.
This causes the cloud to dissipate. And because clouds reflect sunlight, cloud dissipation causes more sunlight to transfer to the ground and seas, ultimately resulting in warmer ground and air temperatures.
Finally, Jacobson said, carbon particles released from burning biomass settle on snow and ice, contributing to further warming.
“Ice and snow are white, and reflect sunlight very effectively,” Jacobson said. “But because carbon is dark it absorbs sunlight, causing snow and ice to melt at accelerated rates. That exposes dark soil and dark seas. And again, because those surfaces are dark, they absorb even more thermal energy from the sunlight, establishing an ongoing amplification process.”
Jacobson noted that some carbon particles — specifically white and gray carbon, the variants associated with some types of ash — can exert a cooling effect because they reflect sunlight. That must be weighed against the warming qualities of the black and brown carbon particles and CO2 emissions generated by biomass combustion to derive a net effect.
Jacobson said the sum of warming caused by all anthropogenic greenhouse gases — CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons and some others — plus the warming caused by black and brown carbon will yield a planetary warming effect of 2 degrees Celsius over the 20-year period simulated by the computer. But light-colored particles — white and gray particles primarily — reflect sunlight and enhance cloudiness, causing more light to reflect.”
How much warming does black carbon cause?
Biomass burning was calculated to cause 20 year global warming of ~0.4 K because CAE I (~32% of BB warming), CAE II, semidirect effects, AHFs (~7% of BB warming), AMFs, and tar balls from biomass burning together outweighed indirect effects, contrary to previous biomass burning studies that did not treat CAEs, AHFs, AMFs, or brown carbon. AHFs from all sources and AMF + AHF from power plants and electricity use each accounted for statistically significant +0.03 K global surface air temperature warming.
One-dimensional simulations helped to explain the strong effect on cloud burn-off of BB and BC from other sources. They showed that when absorbing aerosols exist in clouds, instantaneous direct radiative forcing (DRF) and surface temperature change are anticorrelated because when absorbing aerosol burns off a cloud, the aerosol DRF decreases due to a decrease in optical focusing, yet surface temperature escalates rapidly due to the pouring in of sunlight to the surface. As such, particle burn-off of clouds may be a major underrecognized source of global warming.
REFERENCE
Mark Z. Jacobson. Effects of biomass burning on climate, accounting for heat and moisture fluxes, black and brown carbon, and cloud absorption effects. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2014; DOI: 10.1002/2014JD021861
It seems that life causes death.
131
Can I be granted a 5+ year research grant for a blockbuster series of linear studies to determine:
i. Correlation
ii. Consensus of climate scientists on this hypothesis?
80
Sorry!!! I might have unwittingly deprived you of your grant.
The solution is very easy, force the world population to wear only pure white clothing. The world will then became the “white” planet!
40
Sorry, your hypothesis has more holes in it than the AGW hypothesis. (sorry, very cruel of me, I know)
White requires bleaches, orfully un-green, y’know.
all have to wear cloths knitted from reeds, hessian etc
(not cotton, uses way too much water which means dams)
(not animal skins…no, no, no !!!)
Now when did people last wear hessian sacks ?
40
Hemp is preferred.
20
Yes.
If only we had stasis, everything would be so much simpler.
70
But we have STASI which is much better. With enough enforcers anything is possible.
30
Another nonsense paper to support a University tenure and in pursuit of more grants.
200
Absolutely correct, that is the one 100% reliable constant in ‘climate science’.
Putting number one first and the science a distant second.
171
In 1850, BB [Blarney and Bulldust] emissions were lower than those today. Such emissions may have been mostly anthropogenic [e.g., Manne et al., 1998] although partly natural as well. Today, BB emissions are much higher with only a small percent natural. The rest is forced by commercial need with growing families, holiday homes and cash absorption effects. As climate scientists are growing both in size and number, the biomass is growing far faster in absolute terms and the total number of climate scientists may soon exceed the ability of the taxation system to supply the necessary support, leading to a mass extinction.
280
One can only live in hope…..
120
Tdef: “climate scientists are growing both in size and number …”
Are you suggesting that the was once a thin Manne?
30
A guy wrote a song about it once. It was about junk science.
http://youtu.be/YJrk1QTWPPM
20
Some years ago it was noted that during autopsies in america 90% of cases had carrot in their stomachs. A case can easily be made from this that eating carrots may be the leading cause of premature death in america. Thus they should be banned, carrots obviously being evil would then be linked to climate change and the EPA could have them eradicated or a carrot tax applied. sarc.
More people go blind or die of lung problems from cooking on open fire of dug. straw, wood and hunger all caused by biomass.
130
I hadn’t heard this one but am aware that diced carrot is always present in upchucks.
30
I used to wonder about that until someone told me that the “carrot” is actually your stomach lining!!
00
You know what greenies and lefties hate most?
It is: “The Law of Unintended Consequences.”
They argue because of A, therefore B. Always overlooking/ dismissing the fact that because of B, then C and D.
The policies of greenies and lefties are inevitably doomed to cause more harm than good, for the simple reason that the smug and self-righteous are incapable of an analysing the impact of their actions.
Biofuels are a case in point, only the most blinkered of individuals could have ever believed this was a good idea which benefitted mankind. Just one more thing I learned recently in this regard – there are so many of them – is that you cannot store biodiesel for very long as the bio part deteriorates much more rapidly than the non- bio part.
170
Peter,
I’m not sure what they’re adding to our fuels but there are downstream problems.
Just discovered that the latest diesel is swelling the drum bung seals.
Might have to do with the rash of diesel algae problems we’re running into.
Just had to use oxy tip cleaners on the carb jets to get a ulp Honda powered pump to run OK
All this costs time and filters etc and ain’t progress at my end of the telescope
70
The secret is to add whale oil to the fire. Neutralises the black smoke thing emanating because the basic fuel are mining truck tyres for my backyard fire pit generator.
On another note…I see the Green Army is soon to kick off. Might have had a bit of input into the structure. Real policy is not what we should do, it is how we should do.
I’m chuffed.
71
Good strategy by Abbott to soak up some of the young unemployed and I suspect he will increase the number of recruits going into the next election. In the medium to long term he’ll be seeking the Green vote, that is after they recognise CO2 was not responsible for the warming of late last century.
The other thing to woo them would be Japanese Maglevs and Chinese built fast rail to double the population by 2050.
51
The water droplets landing on my car in a heavy rain don’t have any problem bringing down many particles of dust and diesel carbon … per drop.
When the water dries off, the car really needs a bath. But the view is enhanced by clear clean air afterwards.
50
I don’t give much credence to this statement: “Jacobson said the sum of warming caused by all anthropogenic greenhouse gases — CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons and some others — plus the warming caused by black and brown carbon will yield a planetary warming effect of 2 degrees Celsius over the 20-year period simulated by the computer. But light-colored particles — white and gray particles primarily — reflect sunlight and enhance cloudiness, causing more light to reflect.” Oh yes, simulated by the computer – heard that one before. Let me get to the variables and algorithms in that model, and I’ll produce whatever result you’d like.
When we don’t have hard and fast data to work with, we rely on some common sense based on observations. Our health advisors have pointed out for many years that burning biomass for cooking within enclosed spaces, has serious health effects, including premature (and presumably painful) death. Do I need to count the current actual human misery, and weigh it against some increasingly unlikely prospect that the world will reach some unsupportable temperature by 2100 AD? No, not given the quite unscientific basis of such a prospect. Keeping the coal in the ground perpetutates that misery.
Those with an interest in agriculture recognise that burning a food resource (such as corn) to produce an alternative fuel, reduces the potential food available. So why do it? And what does it gain for us anyway, if food supply and distibution were not an issue?
80
So, we have had 0.9 degrees of warming over 150 years and somehow we are suddenly going to get another 2 degrees over 20 years.
Sure, right mate!
20
Got to give him one thing. His prediction is to happen in our lifetime, not our grand kids.
We can actually jeer at this bloke when his prediction fails.
20
for more insanity, read all of Christopher Booker’s latest:
2 Aug: UK Daily Mail: Christopher Booker: Lunacy on sea: As Ministers agree to the world’s biggest wind farm off Brighton, has Britain ever succumbed to a more catastrophic folly?
What should be our reaction to daft stories like the one recently reported in the Daily Mail about the 60ft wind turbine put up by the Welsh government outside its offices in Aberystwyth to proclaim to the world just how ‘green’ it is?
Erected at a cost of £50,000 to the taxpayer, it turned out that this turbine was so absurdly inefficient it was providing only £5 worth of electricity a month. It would take more than 750 years to make the money back…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2713830/Lunacy-sea-As-Ministers-agree-world-s-biggest-wind-farm-Brighton-Britain-succumbed-catastrophic-folly.html
120
If we could devise a system that the cost of such follies were only for the accounts of the ecoloons and not the taxpayers, the world would be a much better place.
The insane idea that expensive unreliable energy is good and cheap unreliable is bad would never have been adopted as official policy by far too many western governments.
70
Typo: second unreliable should be reliable. Sigh.
40
Pat @ Peter @ 9 & 9.1
Maybe this following discovery might help your understanding of the troubles we all suffer from the ruling clique of the times.
Governmentium has been Discovered!
The heaviest element yet known to science has been discovered.
The new element is Governmentium (Gv). It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other byproducts are produced.
70
Booker touches on another product of the market distortion produced by these policies. The priority use of “renewables” renders the operation of coal and particularly gas generation as uneconomic by forcing “intermittency” upon them. Thus it is now necessary to subsidise gas plants and STOR diesel generators to provide cover. These are mischaracterised as “fossil fuel” subsidies although they are actually hidden subsidies for renewables. The next logical process is “set aside” where subsidies are paid for non-production or non-consumption or both. In the UK this change has already taken place.
There is now a plausible scenario where both these payments could be made at the same time, when the intermittent renewables destabilise the grid beyond the capacity of the spinning reserve to balance.
In hand is the next stage. The installation of “smart meters” provides the technology for involuntary non – consumption without “compensation”. Power supply will have metamorphosed into a command economy as the grid need no longer be maintained. The “market” will have ceased to exist – but the market forces will not and will displace into other markets, such as burning biomass! Note what happened to the Greek forests when the people could no longer obtain power (through poverty).
All though is not lost. The recent abandonment of a huge project of the Welsh Coast and
the travails of German offshore generation reported by Pierre Gosselin on No Tricks Zone indicate that basically Offshore Wind is not sustainable – and therefore will not be sustained.
There must be a better role model than North Korea.
90
Hi Diogenes.
Here is a cut down version to a supplier about a domestic smart meter. Although it is a little O/T to Jo’s essay, it might serve as a template for those who object to the compulsory acquisition of goods (your cash).
………………….
I refer to your letter of 18th October 2013 about smart meters.
In your opening paragraph you thank me for providing you with the opportunity to address my concerns. This is your first error. I did not write to you to have concerns addressed. I wrote to you to commence the negotiation of an agreement before any smart meter (more fully “remotely read interval meter”) was installed. This is not a matter for soothing talk. It is a matter of which some specific courses of action are required of you.
Another of your errors was to assume that because an Order in Council was made by the Victorian Government, there are ancillary matters that might flow from the Order that you can impose as a bundle with the smart meter installation and operation. This is not the case. The Order is the Order and nothing more. For example, if a consequence of a smart meter installation is that power is given to you or others to curtail my power supply in certain new ways, and if that action is not explicitly covered by the said Order, you have no right to partake of it. If you wish to be able to regulate my supply of electricity to a greater extent than is possible with a manually read, quarterly read meter, then there is a charge and you will need to negotiate it.
If, as part of grid management, you interrupt electricity supply to me home, you can cause secondary effects. For example, you might cause refrigerated food spoilage. You might deny me air conditioning on a hot day and increase my risk of harm from hot weather, or you might curtail heating and increase my health risk from cold weather. If events such as this were to come to pass, I would need to have a prior agreement explicitly dealing with responsibility for loss, mechanisms for compensation, effects on domestic insurance costs and so on). There is a cost and you need to negotiate about it.
A specific example of ancillary matters not to be taken for granted comes from the Definitions in the Order, where “remotely read interval meter” is defined (in part) as “designed to transmit metering data to a remote location for data collection”. This does not empower you to use the data, only to collect it. If you wish to use the data, there is a charge and you will need to negotiate it.
By replacing an existing meter with a smart meter, you will have the capability to gain new interval energy data many times per day (as opposed to current intervals of about 3 months). Nothing says that I am to provide this free of charge. There is a charge and you will need to negotiate it.
Regarding my potential loss of security, there is a charge and you will need to negotiate it. It will include provisions for you to reimburse me for loss should envisioned losses become reality losses.
Another matter concerns fire risk. My present meter, of simple design, has not caused a fire. One cannot project into the future, but I do not anticipate a fire event from it. However, the installation of a new meter changes the emerging sense of security in the old meter and introduces a new risk. Such a risk is present on commencing use of any new equipment. There is a risk, so there is a charge and you will need to negotiate it.
…… I am asking you what price I am paying for the meter and what price you are paying for the meter. You might understand that I would have cause for complaint if your mark-up – on an allegedly compulsory item – was more than 5%. If you are going to install a smart meter at my expense, then we will need to negotiate a cost and any maintenance or replacement or escalation issues. There is a charge and you will need to negotiate it. Failure to do so would be, prima facie, an outlandish act of attempted profiteering.
As I have already indicated, you are not to install a smart meter into my domestic supply at the above address until we have concluded an agreement on the several points that I have noted above.
90
It’s important to distinguish between the use of the words Biomass and biofuel.
That said, the paper’s flaw is glaring.
Assuming the quote reflects the whole of the paper, it assumes that biomass burned by human beings would not be burned by nature. Whether the accumulated fuel load is set alight by cigarette or lightning strike really doesn’t matter.
60
“the WHO figures for deaths attributed to global warming ”
Eh? I thought the official figure for deaths attributed to (let alone actually proven to result from) global warming was an embarrassing zero.
90
All those climate refugees too.. where are they all ???
The ONE guy I heard of, had his case knocked back in a court of law.
70
‘… where are they all ???’
As sea level has stopped rising, there are a lot of economic emigrants deserting small islands for bigger ones like NZ and Oz.
50
Actually sea level hasn’t stopped rising, in reality ‘studies suggest that atoll islands will rise in step with a rising sea.’
40
“A toll island” ? I think that explains rather a lot.
10
“This causes the cloud to dissipate. And because clouds reflect sunlight, cloud dissipation causes more sunlight to transfer to the ground and seas, ultimately resulting in warmer ground and air temperatures”
ummmm? .. I wonder what caused this process to stop this century. ! ?
60
comma after ‘stop’?.. badly worded, This century hasn’t stopped. 🙂
50
Who says it stopped! It could just be the only thing between us and an ice age. If 99% of evey species that ever lived became extinct then mankind might be the only reason the rest does not die out this time around. Although it could be that our fire fighting methods have been defeating the destructiveness of lightning more this century.
The coulds, mights and maybees show that we do not know how exactly nature will destroy itself without our active prevention. The 99% shows that we know it would.
30
OK! I will have a say on the second point in Jo’s above post first. and that is has the burning of biomass contributed to global warming through black carbon and etc.
It seems carbon the very stuff of ALL life on this planet is a very nasty substance if you believe the alarmist warmers and science funding scammers.
And as is written in the extract above it is all our fault all over again;
Seiler and Crutzen [1980] further estimated that wildfires in temporal plus boreal forests comprised ~35.7% of all dry matter burned but pointed out that 70–90% of such wildfires were due to human activity (e.g., campfires, debris burning, cigarettes, etc.). Thus, of total world fire emissions today, ~7.1% (3.6%–10.7%) may be natural and the rest, anthropogenic. Houghton [2005] indicates that, in 1850, CO2 emissions from land use change may have been ~34% those in 2005. Thus, in 1850, BB [Burning Biomass] emissions were lower than those today. Such emissions may have been mostly anthropogenic [e.g., Marlon et al., 2008] although partly natural as well. Today, BB emissions are much higher with only a small percent natural.;
So to do a bit of pick through on that above statement to get an idea on where their evidence is from and how valid that evidence is for mankind’s contribution to that terrible carbon all over again.
“further estimated that wildfires_____
Thus, of total world fire emissions today, ~7.1% (3.6%–10.7%) may be natural and the rest, anthropogenic.
Houghton [2005] indicates that, in 1850, CO2 emissions from land use change may have been~34% those in 2005.
Thus, of total world fire emissions today, ~7.1% (3.6%–10.7%) may be natural and the rest, anthropogenic.
Houghton [2005] indicates that, in 1850, CO2 emissions from land use change may have been ~34% those in 2005.
Such emissions may have been mostly anthropogenic
_________________
Speculation mounted on speculation mounted on unsupported misplaced opinion.
The best that can be said of that particular passage above and therefore of the whole paper is that it is nothing more than a mass of uninformed peculation without any hard science to back it.
As such it conforms very closely to the standard of most alarmists papers
And that is being very polite.
But more .
The paper implies quite strongly that mankind, recent mankind is entirely responsible for the warming created by his burning of bio-mass and therefore upsetting the cloud processes with the carbon being a cloud contaminant.
All modelled by derivations of climate models of course as how else could they get that so definite cloud chemical chemical processes linked to burnt carbon.
Having been hanging around clouds for some 50 years now [ and having taught a guy to fly gliders who eventually got his degree in cloud physics ] and studying a heck of a lot on cloud physics to help with my gliding, I have never seen or come across any actual physical, measured cloud chemical analysis as detailed as this paper makes it out to be.
So guess what?
Climate models all over again used to base nothing more than appears to be speculation going by the verbiage used above and a good dose of unsupported opinion included.
Now mankind’s role in fires which we are supposedly responsible for most of and that only it seems in the last few decades when the claimed CAGW started and has since disappeared, just like a mirage that fools keeps chasing in the hope they will find something of substance when they catch that mirage., our role is supposedly a major one in lighting fires and therefore in complete line with the the green mantra that whatever happens that is against the green watermelon mantra, we humans must somehow be made to be seen to be responsible for and be made to feel guilty
It seems that mankind and his primitive ancestors were lighting fires and probably burning a large part of the whole joint out to catch game as in food for cooking, at least one million years ago and possibly / probably even at least 1.5 million years ago and a possibility exists that mankind lit and controlled fires back two million years ago
Archaeologists Find Earliest Evidence of Humans Cooking With Fire
“These clues turned up throughout the million-year-old layer of sediment, indicating that fires had burned repeatedly at the site”.
Then of course we have the great episodic dry and wet periods over every continent through paleo history, the exception possibly being Antarctica although plant life and dinosaur era animals lived down even near the polar regions according to recent fossil finds.
During those eras of a dry or drought driven climate over continental regions, fires of a truly incredible intensity must have swept over vast distances and sometimes burnt for years as the vast wet lands from the previous wet eras dried out and became burnable and flammable
So we have periods of horrendous, possibly part continent wide fire storms such as is postulated here
Raging bushfires started 60 million years ago
& from “Nature Communications”
[ quoted from the abstract ]
Here, we find a conserved phylogenetic relationship between post-fire resprouting (epicormic) anatomy and biome evolution, dating from 60 to 62 Ma, in the earliest Palaeogene. Thus, fire-dependent communities likely existed 50 million years earlier than previously thought. We predict that epicormic resprouting could make eucalypt forests and woodlands an excellent long-term carbon bank for reducing atmospheric CO2 compared with biomes with similar fire regimes in other continents.
Plus this below which was quite a while before much of much of Australia’s hinterllands were at all settled and therefore it makes it difficult to blame and use us modern humans as a fine source to accuse and blame for fires which altered [ ?? ] the climate with their “carbon” [ !! ] and made to feel guilty for some unproven, climate modeled non existent warming.
January 13th Black Friday 1839, disastrous bush fires ravaged Victoria from the Grampian Ranges to Gippsland taking 71 lives. The entire township of Noojee was destroyed.
Melbourne’s population approximately 3,500.
And this below is only from 1851 let alone the truly immense fires that must have swept through the great spaces of the Australian continent in the past eras.
Summary of Major Bush Fires in Australia Since 1851
6th of February, 1851 – “Black Thursday”
“The largest Australian bushfire in European recorded history that burnt an area of approximately 5 million ha. which covered a quarter of Victoria.
1st of February 1898 – “Red Tuesday”
Fires burnt 260,000 hectares in South Gippsland. Twelve lives and more than 2,000 buildings were destroyed.
Early 1900s
Destructive and widespread fires are reported to have occurred in 1905 and 1906. Fires extended from Gippsland to the Grampians in 1912. In 1914, fires burnt more than 100,000 hectares. In 1919 extensive fires occurred in the Otway Ranges.
This is only Australia but imagine the great Central Asian grassland steppes or the American Prairies after a few wet years and then a sustained drought.
Or the South American rain forests after a series of drought years.
The resulting fires must have been colossal and sometimes last for a couple or more years as they died down during the poor rainy seasons and then flared again when the dry season again arrived.
To blame it most of the fires over the eons of history, to assume that fires are somehow a very recent phenomena tied to the presence of mankind and the major factor in lighting fires that supposedly and without any proof except that of some computer modelling have significant supposed climate effects and to then to give the impression this is all a very recent development that is affecting the temperature of the earth is not science
It’s so bad it is not even wrong.
It is pure crap
And that is praise of the highest order for this level of climate science garbage.
130
Then I take it ROM that you do not agree with the premise of this post!
50
Oh ROM, do play along old boy, this is the proxy for the defunct Original Sin concept mate, we all need to carry our crucifix. Just give into your guilt, we’ll organize the Cat ‘o nine tails, so all you need to do is repent and confess your sins, and we’ll wood chip you with the other deniers on the list.
Love of Gaia be with you bro.
160
2 x 🙂
60
Would someone please remind me what ALL of the western world used for fuel before electricity came along !
110
well the answer is that your question needs to be recast. All of the “western” (care to define that for late 19th C?) world did not rely on one single thing. A different answer for London, Perth and Saskatoon and different socio economic groups within.
Maybe you can find out the answer yourself and report back instead of asking stupid rhetorical questions like you seem to do too often.
014
There are no stupid questions Gee Aye, only answers
140
Sorry your thought processes don’t extend that far.
But do keep trying. 🙂
50
Only a fool replies to a rhetorical question.
30
gee Aye,
If you knew the question was rhetorical, then why?
00
OK, I was attacking the premise of the rhetorical question. Rhetoric can be right, wrong and empty and is not immune from comment just because the writer does not mean it to be answered
00
Biofuel fraud…(see the australia connection too)…
Executive of Canadian renewable company pleads guilty in US to money laundering over renewable energy fraud in first Canadian-related renewable energy fraud case
http://www.antimoneylaunderinglaw.com/2014/07/executive-of-canadian-renewable-company-pleads-guilty-in-us-to-money-laundering-over-renewable-credit-energy-fraud.html
Executive of Canadian renewable company pleads guilty in US to money laundering over renewable energy fraud in first Canadian-related renewable energy fraud case
http://www.antimoneylaunderinglaw.com/2014/07/executive-of-canadian-renewable-company-pleads-guilty-in-us-to-money-laundering-over-renewable-credit-energy-fraud.html
Nathan Stoliar, a prominent Australian executive, has pleaded guilty in the US to several criminal charges including money laundering conspiracy, for selling fraudulent renewable energy credits, similar in some ways to carbon credits, from Canada to American companies.
Although the case was not prosecuted in Canada, it is the first Canadian instance of renewable energy fraud and money laundering that has been prosecuted.
According to American law enforcement, a Vancouver company controlled and operated by Stoliar, City Farm Biofuel, claimed to produce biofuel which was sold to a US company that was part of the scheme, Global E Marketing. It used the imports of non-existant biofuel products to generate and sell renewable identification numbers (RINs) to third parties so that the latter could comply with EPA renewable energy requirements. Stoliar’s Vancouver company allegedly made US$37 million from the environmental crime scheme. Stoliar is alleged to have created false records to conceal the production, importation, sale and fraudulent RIN generation and used Canadian bank accounts in Vancouver to launder the proceeds of crime…
…Stoliar was a foreign politically exposed person in the US and in Canada when he set up bank accounts in Vancouver and Nevada for, inter alia, City Farm Biofuel. According to the Australian media, he was a very close associate of Eddie Obeid, a prominent Australian politician who was Minister of Mineral Resources and Minister of Fisheries in Australia. Their close association is substantially detailed in the international media. According to Australian media, Obeid was recently found by an Australian corruption commission to have acted corruptly in relation to his position while a member of Parliament. Stoliar had other close associations and business associations that likewise made him politically exposed in respect of his dealings in Canada and the US.
According to the OECD and FATF, politically exposed persons are higher risk for money laundering and other financial crimes, particularly accepting and paying bribes because they can use their positions of power to influence economic decisions to their benefit, or to the benefit of close associates, and because they have access to facilitate the removal of state assets from states through gatekeepers or other facilitators…
…Growing Financial Crime Concern with Renewable Energy
Financial crime in renewable energy is a growing concern for law enforcement and is expected to explode as more businesses enter the lucrative renewable energy field. Over €15 billion was lost in the EU from financial crimes associated with carbon emissions trades including VAT fraud, money laundering and theft.
Our summary of an Interpol report on financial crime and renewable energy is here. Interpol noted that the lack of regulation and the legal complexity of renewable energy credits are contributors to the increase in financial crimes, particularly in respect of fake carbon and other renewable energy credits.
It is the fifth major biofuel criminal case in the US involving renewable energy. In December 2013, the US Department of Justice disallowed $33 million in renewable fuel credits sold by an Indiana company for biofuel it did not manufacture. Earlier in the year, federal prosecutors in the US charged two other US companies of selling millions of fraudulent renewable certificates.
90
More here…
EPA details the crimes–go to pages 7 & 8. I smell UPC. Global EMarketing ….Malone??
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-02/documents/envcrimesbulletin-01-12-14.pdf
30
Related:
Evelyn Katirina Pattison with Joseph Furando.
Evelyn Katirina Pattison and Joseph Furando pled guilty, today’s NJ biz news.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/guilty-plea-in-fuel-scam-1.1061233
CIMA comes up as involved same article-
http://www.northjersey.com/news/business/guilty-plea-in-fuel-scam-1.1061233
Note CIMA with subsidiary “UPC” in CIMA annual report 2004
http://www.cima.com.my/Annual_Report2004.pdf
Unipati Concrete Sdn Bhd (“UPC”)
Production and sale of ready mixed concrete
Google named who pled guity: Joseph Furando
http://doj.nh.gov/criminal/cold-case/victim-list/joseph-furando.htm
Joseph Furando
Joseph Furando Name: Joseph Furando
Year of Death or Disappearance: 1979
City/Town: Kensington
Status: Unsolved Homicide
Details: Joseph V. Furando, age 39, of Gilford, CT, was on a business trip in New Hampshire in May 1979. He was last seen in Newton, MA, on May 16, 1979 and had reservations at the Holiday Inn in Portsmouth, NH, for later that evening. Joseph’s body was found on Brewer Road just off of Route 150 in Kensington, NH, on May 17, 1979. He was lying approximately 20 feet from his vehicle. An autopsy revealed that he died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head.
Help us solve this case and bring justice to the family of this victim. Use our Tip Form.
30
Enter James Jariv: (from austrailia) who is also connected to one Brian Caffyn (UPC/UPC Solar/First Wind/IVPC/Zeehan Zinc/etc…
James Jariv…
The principal of Metro group, James Jariv, left Australia in 2004 leaving debts of more than $6 million. The companies in the group have been wound up.
The principal of Metro group, James …
http://www.ohpropertygroup.com, 24 Sept 2012 [cached]
The principal of Metro group, James Jariv, left Australia in 2004 leaving debts of more than $6 million. The companies in the group have been wound up.
…
Mr Jariv is now working in the biotech industry in Las Vegas.
================
Two Men Charged in Las Vegas with Biofuels Fraud Scheme
http://www.justice.gov › Briefing Room
United States Department of Justice
Jan 16, 2014 – The 57-count indictment against James Jariv, 63, of Las Vegas, and Nathan Stoliar, 64, of Australia, includes allegations of conspiracy, wire …
FBI — Las Vegas Telemarketers Arrested in Timeshare …
http://www.fbi.gov › … › Press Releases › 2012
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Nov 16, 2012 – HOUSTON—James Assi Jariv, 62, of Las Vegas, Nevada, has been charged, along with seven others, in a four-count indictment alleging …
Nathan “Nati” Stoliar indicted by a federal grand jury in the …
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/…/story-fni0cx12-1226...
The Daily Telegraph
Feb 1, 2014 – He and Las Vegas native James Jariv, 63, have been indicted on a charges under the Clean Air. Act, as well obstruction of justice and …
30
“…may be a major under recognized source of global warming.”
Aren’t these particles generally associated with a global cooling effect?
I’m no expert, but don’t the biomass particles cause an updraft of cold air that leads to more ice in the clouds?
So where does the Global Warming come in, Science Daily?
21
250,000 people dying is only a good start for the greens because the greens have no problem with people dying. To them we are a cancer on the planet. Ted Turner thinks the world population neeeds to be reduced to 250,000,000 people. I have seen other estimates of half to one billion in order to have a proper size environmental footprint.
This isn’t about global warming. It is about money, power and control. Global warming is the most effective Trojan Horse ever employed by the extreme left. Telling people, “Worker’s of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your lives!” obviously won’t work. But an appeal to pity based upon saving the world from CAGW has been a fairly effective means of propaganda.
If successful, the greens will control everything from the energy we use to the very air we breath.
Fortunately, man’s instinct for self preservation will be the deciding factor in this struggle. The question is: what will be the cost in lives and treasure before people catch on? People will probably become enlightened when they realize that their wallets are getting lighter.
It always gets down to the money!
81
And you can guarantee Eddy, that if it was deemed necessary to limit the global population to say just 250,000 souls instead of Ted’s 250,000,000, I would imagine that the Green alarmists and the extreme left would find it absolutely essential that they be among the chosen few to survive. Funny that.
40
I am sure they would keep a few “denialists” alive and on display in something akin to a zoo just to keep their useful idiots in line.
31
Eddy,
Don’t forget the guy that started this fiasco – Maurice Strong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
Now an honorary professor at Peking University and honorary chairman of its Environmental Foundation.
All this CAGW is working in China’s favor, eh?
10
And who among you skeptics and deniers ever doubted The Goracle?
20
I saw an article arguing that wild fire soot would cause Warming.
http://www.rgj.com/story/tech/environment/2014/07/18/dri-study-might-link-wildfire-soot-climate-change/12865807/
The article also has a picture of a soot particle blown up.
To me suggesting that a small particle in the atmosphere will warm it is humorous. If you pour beer in a glass or boil a pot of water in a clean glass carafe, you will see bubble of CO2 or bubbles of steam come from points on the container surface. These points are defects in the smoothness of the surface.
If one has the simple ability to see how different things are the same and how they are different then the obvious becomes apparent. In the pic in the article how smooth is that particle, how many points appear on it’s surface.
Solid have an emissivity orders of magnitude greater than even greenhouse gasses. Smooth solids have lower surface emissivity. Aluminum foil. Matte surfaces are the most emissive. Light colors less emmisive. Dark colores more emmisive. Soot is carbon black. A most emissive. The solids in the atmosphere radiate energy 24 hrs a day. They will have a net cooling effect. Even when in the sun they will capture heat, heat the air and thus allow less energy to reach the earth. All the while they will be radiating 50% of any heat captured back into space.
I guess ignorance is bliss.
120
You get today’s Gold Star.
60
Quick comment as bedtime calls;
250,000 deaths from bio -mass pollution when cooking is flat wrong from the information I have.
Ref; [ and this is dated 2008 ] ; Health Effects of Indoor Air Pollution From Biomass Cooking Stoves
[ quoted ]
Close to 3 billion people, or nearly half of the world’s population, use biomass such as wood, dried leaves, dung, or hay as their main source of fuel for cooking and heating.[1] The majority of these people live in rural areas of developing nations.[2] In the poorest countries of the world, the number of people using biomass to heat cooking stoves amounts to over 80% of the population.[1]
Adverse Consequences of Indoor Air Pollution From Biomass Cooking Stoves
Typical indoor stoves do not burn biomass smoothly, making them low-efficiency sources of heat.[3] Additionally, the use of biomass as a source of heat for cooking has several harmful consequences. First, the demand for firewood for cooking contributes to deforestation, often in areas of developing countries suffering from other ecological stressors.[4]
Second, significant pollutants released by biomass combustion include greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming, such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane.[5] Additional pollutants include sulfur dioxide (a major component of acid rain), nitrogen oxides, dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and fine particulate matter.[6] Nearly 50% of the polynuclear organic material in our air is from residential wood burning.[7] VOCs are precursors of ground-level ozone, a major contributor to air pollution and asthma exacerbations. Dioxins and PAHs are known carcinogens.
There are over 200 different chemicals and organic compounds in wood smoke alone, nearly all of which are pollutants small enough to be inhaled by humans and other animals.[8] Levels of harmful pollutants released by indoor biomass burning are often 10-20 times higher than the recommended upper limits of exposure established by the World Health Organization (WHO).[4] The WHO has shown that patterns of exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass smoke make it a more significant threat to human health than outdoor air pollution.[4]
&
Exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass smoke interferes with macrophage activity, obstructs cellular membranes, and destroys epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract,[5] all of which increase the risk for pulmonary infections. Smoke can exacerbate symptoms of tuberculosis, and confined cooking quarters facilitate transmission of this deadly and increasingly multidrug-resistant infection.
Due to high concentrations of PAHs, the risk of developing lung cancer from indoor biomass smoke can be 12 times greater than the risk from exposure to similar amounts of environmental tobacco smoke.[12]
In total, biomass smoke exposure causes nearly 2 million deaths annually, the equivalent of 1 life lost every 20 seconds,[11] or nearly 3% of the global disease burden each year.[4]
[ end ]
All for the want of decent cheap reliable electrical power source, a fossil fueled source of reliable power to provide light and heat and power to those poorest of poor at aprice they can afford.
And at a price where they can start a business and trade and create something others will want and buy and thus begin the long climb to a better life for both themselves and their kids.
The money and skills to build small fossil fueled electrical generating plants are denied to those African people by a combination of fanatical anti human greens and politicians under their spell and control, allied with plain stupidity and a narrow callous selfishness from the warmers that others have to be denied what we have so the world does not suffer from some unproven climate modelled warming, which after 35 years of constant fear creation is barely to be found
61
It seems that some very influential people in the centres of world power are finally at long last, starting to listen and getting the message.
From the blog of a USA Senator. Senator Chris Coons
Legislation will support 50 million people receiving access to electricity for the first time in sub-Saharan Africa
50 million people and 20,000 Megawatts of electricity by 2020 is pitiful but at least it is a recognition of the problem and a small start towards creating a better life for these people.
Africa’s population; 1.111 billions [ 2013 ]
That still leaves another 550 millions plus in Africa alone still to get power plus the other two or three billions of humanity elsewhere in the world as well who have little or no access to the life changing electrical energy.
[quoted ]
WASHINGTON – Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Ranking Member Bob Corker (R-TN), along with Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), and Mike Johanns (R-NE) introduced the Energize Africa Act, a bill seeking to help contribute a meaningful role in providing nearly 600 million Africans with electricity. The legislation will make it US policy to help 50 million Africans with first-time access to electricity and add 20,000 megawatts of electricity to the grid by 2020.
11
Won’t you please, please think of the hundreds of thousands Bob?
20
I guess that nearly everything causes climate change. Pity because were distracted by it. 🙁
As for killing people — I don’t like that prospect any more than anyone else but I’ve gotten used to the indisputable fact that life is a fatal disease.
As for how many are killed by this or that — when you look at an individual case it’s not always easy to tell whether black carbon did it or something else. Moreover, the figures, if you look at where they come from, are always someone’s estimate. So then we need to look at the motivation or bias if you prefer, of the estimator. The figures may or may not be close to the truth. And even if they are we aren’t given enough information to make a good judgement. One question I want answered is the age at which victims of dirty air die. Haven’t found any stats on that.
I don’t like dirty air anymore than anyone else. But I’ve been a city dweller all my life, lived in some of the worst air pollution you can find anywhere and at 75 I’m still going strong. If you were to ask me, I’d say statistics like these are thrown out by someone with an agenda who wants to scare me into whatever they want me to do.
I’m skeptical of anything saying estimated or being so definite about the numbers. And if the truth be told, I’m tired of the statistics game being used to justify ripping money out of my pocket or trying to scare me.
There are real problems to solve but I wonder where black carbon lies on the priority list.
50
So what if burning biomass kills people. If it does, that’s good killing. It’s killing with good intentions, with one’s heart in the right place.
As opposed to bad killing, burning evil coal, which releases evil CO2, which does evil stuff.
It’s not about the outcome – it’s how you feel in your heart of hearts while you’re presiding over the killing that really matters (to a greenie)!
40
http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
Quote: “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER).”
10
They are telling us that Sydneysiders are choking on, among other things, pollution from coal fired power. Um, exactly which coal fired power station is close enough to Sydney to be of any significance?
30
If they had kept the electricity costs down , by not allowing all the ridiculous feed-in tariffs and other pseudo-renewables, people wouldn’t have to use wood stoves.
Another mindless green thought bubble pops, with negative consequences.
61
The whole idea is that we ‘rich’ guilty Westerners will provide because it’s all our fault. Or some such balony like that.
30
Vales Point is probably the closest, and it certainly isn’t going to affect Sydney’s air in any possible way.
Eraring is a bit further north, and I think there may have been a tiddler down near Wollongong (probably closed now of old age).
Wiki has a reasonable page on some of this data.
10
maybe the one out at Portland is a bit closer than Vales Point.. looks like much of a muchness.
Either way, whoever wrote that article obviously has not got the slightest clue what they are talking about.
10
The Wang was closed recently, but Piper is still working.
http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/2187882/lights-out-at-wallerawang-power-station/
00
At that link provided above by Griss, scroll down a little and look at the power plants listed under Biomass Combustion. All of those plants are at sugar mills, and they use the waste cane trash, Bagasse, as the fuel. Note that while the maximum capacity is listed there, these plants only run during the sugar cane season, and mainly to supply the electrical needs of the sugar mill itself, with very little returned to surrounding grids.
The same situation applies here in Queensland as well, and this link shows those Queensland plants, and again, they only operate during the refining season. While you see 21 power plants here, the total Nameplate is only 320MW.
While visiting the Bundy Rum complex, I noticed the small 5MW plant there, (Milaquin Sugar Mill) out of the way from prying eyes, but we were with a local who was showing us around and we went down a couple of back streets as we were shown the extent of the Mill. A filthier dirtier site I have never seen in my life. Black and horrible.
Tony.
20
They should just compost that waste and burn coal. More environmentally sound if you were to be picky about it.
10
Some observation about this research –
“Black and brown carbon particles increase atmospheric warming in three ways. First, they enter the minuscule water droplets that form clouds. At night, that’s not an issue. …
…Carbon particles floating around in the spaces between the droplets also absorb scattered sunlight, converting it to heat. “
1. During the period late 1960s to the 1980s many industrialized countries recognized that particulates in the atmosphere (this included carbon soot) was causing cooling of the atmosphere. The outcome of this was that in the US, Europe, and many other countries around the world, enacted ‘clean air’ laws. Ten years later the skys were clearer and the climate warmed.
2. If these particles heat the water droplets then the particles themselves loose heat. The energized water vapor expands and rises and will condensate at at different level in the atmosphere (higher).
3. What measurement have been done on carbon soot in a moist atmosphere to measure all of its parameters at different concentrations, humidity, light and IR level. Or has all this just been modeled (again).
40
A tiny bit OT. but its all about the fudging of data..
It seems the “adjustments” of the data from USHCN are almost an EXACT CORRELATION to CO2 rise.
Amazing correlation factor !!!!!!!
51
And of course any critism of the official CO2 measurement are not allowed.
Some have tried before http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
20
Black Soot?
Or Global Warming?
In their own words:
indigenous people from Canada, Finland, the US, Guatemala and Peru tell their climate stories
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/08/01/indigenous-people-climate-change-is-killing-our-mother-earth/
~ ~ ~
Where to start?
Finland.
Tomas Aslak Juuso
Sami, Finland
“We are reindeer herders and we are seeing the reindeer change their migration patterns … This has changed our livelihoods. We now have rain falling steadily for long periods in the middle of winter.”
Reindeer dying –
December 2, 2004
Source: University Of Washington
sciencedaily.com
Say Goodbye To Rudolph, Other Reindeer If Global Warming Continues
Reindeer Thriving-
July 19, 2014. National Geographic:
“On the remote Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard (map), reindeer are bucking the trend followed by other animals affected by global warming:
The population of reindeer is growing—even thriving—according to new research.”
Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990
. . .
25 years of carbon(sic) action.
Where is the evidence a tax/direct action stops freezing global warming?
30
hmmm!
3 Aug: New Zealand Herald: Tuvalu climate change family win NZ residency appeal
A Tuvalu family has been granted New Zealand residency after claiming it would be affected by climate change if it returned home.
It is the first successful application for residency on humanitarian grounds in which climate change has featured, but the Immigration and Protection Tribunal said the family had strong ties to New Zealand.
Environmental law expert Vernon Rive said the tribunal would be keen to avoid opening the floodgates to other climate change refugee claims…
Immigration lawyer Trevor Zohs, who represented the family with Carole Curtis, told the Herald on Sunday the effects of climate change should be recognised.
“A lot of people are affected by illness when they go back, they get sick from drinking polluted water. The island is porous so even when the water is not flooding, it penetrates the rocks under the land.”…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11303331
31
elsewhere, it’s a differenty story!
3 Aug NewsTalk: Tuvalu family’s residency not standard for climate refugees
The granting of residency to a Tuvalu family who claimed to be affected by climate change won’t pave the way for climate refugees.
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal took the family’s strong ties to New Zealand into account, when accepting their residency application.
But the residency was granted on humanitarian grounds – not because of climate change or refugee status…
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbnat/220236564-tuvalu-family-s-residency-not-standard-for-climate-refugees
40
Makes us look like fools. Geographic isolation is the only thing in our favour. There cause was more PC than the unfortunate Fijian sent home to die because of the cost of his dialysis.
20
Make that ‘their cause’. My old English teacher would have fits.
00
My English teacher would have just put another big red cross through it.!
10
Sorry Griss, I suspect the full stop comes after… no fuggit.
00
Its alright, I got very used to big red crosses through my English. 🙂
00
And now you’re battling with cross reds!!.
01
PERHAPS Biomass burning kills 250,000 Per year. What is the GOREBull population growth per year?
What message are you trying to promote? Please!
01
If black carbon causes water droplets in clouds to warm then presumably the water vapour, now being warmer will rise much higher in the atmosphere. Was this commented on in the research ? The higher up clouds are the extra heat they carry is able to be radiated outwards away from earth ….. isn’t it ?
01
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/#more-37464 […]
00