The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide Posted on March 10th, 2010
by David Archivald, Watts Up With That?
The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.
But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration:
And this graphic of his shows carbon dioxide’s contribution to the whole greenhouse effect:
I recast Willis’ first graph as a bar chart to make the concept easier to understand to the layman:
Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).
Plant growth shuts down at 150 ppm, so the Earth was within 30 ppm of disaster. Terrestrial life came close to being wiped out by a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. If plants were doing climate science instead of us humans, they would have a different opinion about what is a dangerous carbon dioxide level.
Some of the IPCC climate models predict that temperature will rise up to 6° C as a consequence of the doubling of the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. So let’s add that to the graph above and see what it looks like:
The IPCC models water vapour-driven positive feedback as starting from the pre-industrial level. Somehow the carbon dioxide below the pre-industrial level does not cause this water vapour-driven positive feedback. If their water vapour feedback is a linear relationship with carbon dioxide, then we should have seen over 2° C of warming by now.
Seven Reasons Why HouseHold Products like Detergents Don’t Cut It (and what BEAT THEM) Posted on January 2nd, 2010
Detergents are not soaps. They are actually petrochemicals derived from crude oil. Less petrochemicals (blood and waste from slaughtered animals, herbicides, expired drugs, bio-chemicals from experimental vaccine) dumped into our fresh water supply means a cleaner environment. How much cleaner, what costs and whose expense?
1. Less petrochemicals being dumped into the environment means essential nutrients from topsoil do not get killed (this is very necessary as all vegetables, fruits and herbs rely on earth’s top 10 inches of earth – your topsoil – for nourishment).
2. 33% of the American population suffers from chemical sensitivities (allergies) alone – and this is not including those with food allergies, not including those from other parts of the world. Easily, chemical detergent residue gets embedded into clothes without you knowing. Many suffer skin and respiratory reactions from detergent invisibly embedded in their clothes. From perfumes to synthetic scents.
3. Accidents – many people will find relief if they use lesser chemical detergents. In fact, there’s lesser danger around the house should kids consume detergents by mistake.
4. Less petrochemicals being dumped into our fresh water supply means cleaner water is recycled back to our home.
5. Less petrochemicals being dumped into our water and into our air (fumes) means lesser animals die or mutate.
6. Invisible fumes or vapour from detergents (a handful of people use them with boiling hot water) can be cancer-causing.
7. Also, germs are also becoming more resistant to petrochemical detergents. (They are not very much unlike prescription antibiotics getting less effective against flu etc!)
In short, household products like chemical-dependent detergents are capable of these effects on us humans and all living pets, animals etc:
“Teratogenic” – causing birth defects;
“Carcinogenic” – causing cancer tumors;
“Neurotoxic” – causing damage to nervous system.
The freer your home is from toxins, the lesser chemicals you breathe in and have on your skin, the healthier you and your family will be. It goes without saying that good health is essential to perform well in practically any aspect of life (from studies to getting employed, to being a successful in work/business).
So how does one keep your home freer from toxins?
Read Kelly’s solution by clicking here.
What Is — and What Isn’t — Evidence of Global Warming Posted on December 2nd, 2009
“Climategate” has everybody rethinking global warming. Many are wondering — if leading scientists were tempted to finagle their data, is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought?
Actually, the evidence was never even evidence.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding — shared by nearly everybody about the nature of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) — over exactly what constitutes evidence for that theory and what does not.
Remember when we heard that the icebergs were melting, that polar bears were decreasing in number, that some places were drier than usual and that others were wetter, that the ocean was growing saltier here and fresher there, and that hurricanes were becoming more terrifying? Remember the hundreds of reports on what happens when it gets hot outside?
All of those observations might have been true, but absolutely none of them were evidence of AGW.
Diminishing glaciers did not prove AGW; they were instead a verification that ice melts when it gets hot. Fewer polar bears did not count in favor of AGW; it instead perhaps meant that maybe adult bears prefer a chill to get in the mood. People sidling up to microphones and trumpeting “It’s bad out there, worse than we thought!” was not evidence of AGW; it was evidence of how easily certain people could work themselves into a lather.
No observation of what happened to any particular thing when the air was warm was direct evidence of AGW. None of it.
Every breathless report you heard did nothing more than state the obvious: Some creatures and some geophysical processes act or behave differently when it is hot than when it is cold. Only this, and nothing more.
Can you recall where you were when you heard that global warming was going to cause an increase in kidney stones, more suicides in Italy, larger grape harvests in France, and smaller grape harvests in France? How about when you heard that people in one country would grow apathetic, that those in another would grow belligerent, and — my favorite — that prostitutes would be on the rise in the Philippines? That the world would come to a heated end, and that women and minorities would be hardest hit?
Not a single one of these predictions was ever evidence of AGW.
For years, it was as if there was a contest for the most outlandish claim of what mighthappen if AGW were true. But no statement of what might happen ifAGW is true is evidence for AGW. Those prognostications were only evidence of the capacity for fanciful speculation. Merely this and nothing more.
So if observations of what happens when it’s hot outside don’t verify AGW, and if predictions of what might happen given AGW were true do not verify AGW, what does? Why did people get so excited?
In the late 1990s, some places on Earth were hotter than they were in the late 1980s. These observations were indirect — and not direct — evidence of AGW. The Earth’s climate has never been static; temperatures sometimes rise and sometimes fall. So just because we see rising temperatures at one point does not prove AGW is true. After all, temperatures have been falling over the last decade, and AGW supporters still say their theory is true. Rising — or falling — temperatures are thus consistent with many theories of climate, not just AGW.
Climate scientists then built AGW models, incorporating the observed temperatures. They worked hard at fitting those models so that the models could reproduce the rising temperatures of the 1990s, while at the same time fitting the falling temperatures of the 1970s, etc. They had to twist and tweak — and with the CRU emails, it now appears they twiddled. They had to cram those observations into the models and, by God, make them fit, like a woman trying on her favorite jeans after Thanksgiving.
They then announced to the world that AGW was true — because their models said it was.
But a model fitting old data is not direct evidence that the theory behind the model is true. Many alternate models can fit that data equally well. It is a necessary requirement for any model, were it true, to fit the data, but because it happens to is not a proof that the model is valid.
For a model to be believable it must make skillful predictions of independent data. It must, that is, make accurate forecasts of the future. The AGW models have not yet done so. There is, therefore, no direct evidence for AGW.
The models predicted warmer temperatures, but it got cooler. One of the revealed CRU emails found one prominent gentlemen saying, “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
It is. But only if you were concerned that the AGW theory will be nevermore.
Naturopathy for the Common Cold or Flu Posted on October 17th, 2009
What Naturopathy prescribe:
Naturopathic doctors advise patients to drink plenty of water and eat plenty of steamed vegetables and freshly made vege soup. Soup cooked with garlic and ginger (not necessarily eaten) have antimicrobial and warming properties.
For non-diabetic people, fruit juice and herbal teas work in 2 ways – keep the respiratory tract from drying out and cleanse the human body of toxins.
Naturopathic doctors advise avoiding milk and cheese products, red meat and simple carbohydrates (eg. white bread).
Herbs for Cold/Flu
Herbalists prescribe the following for herbs/roots to be boiled and drunk as anti-flu and antiviral tea:
- andographis (not for pregnant) to be taken with ginger and astragalus – improves digestion and detoxifies the liver.
- licorice (not for longterm use as this may cause high blood pressure) – soothes inflammation and throat irritation.
- lemon balm – effective for restlessness, anxiety insomnia, stress-related headaches and even anti-flatulent!
- osha – excellent for respiratory infections and severe blocked nose.
- astralagus – the flavonoids, *saponins and ^polysaccharides in this herb enhance the body’s immunity naturally.
*Saponins normalize hypothalamic neuropeptides and serum biochemicals related to the control of weight gain. in short, it guards against excess weight-gain.
Unique ^polysaccharides is immune enhancing and are found in fibre of sea vegetable (eg. dulse, kelp, agar agar, etc). You can find more information on Polysaccharides and Sea Vegetable in a free PDF ebook SECRET SOURCES in Healing Foods and Medicines (choose the one that is FREE!!!)
Otherwise herbalists would educate patients how to treat colds and flu at home till full recovery (can be drunk for 1 to 3 weeks after onset of flu):
Pick chamomile tea and boil for several minutes with peppermint leaves and the eucalyptus leaves (abundant in Australia because it’s staple diet of the koala bears, very little of these leaves are needed; excess may be toxic).
Many who practise naturopathic medicine will add cayenne pepper (red “bell” peppers) to stimulate blood circulation. Some would even add cinammon for a gentle warming effect.
Grated ginger root boiled in the chamomile tea or even plain water induce perspiration. After perspiring, most patients find that their fever is gone. Unlike side-effects of prescription drugs, your drink will not kill the good germs you need to fight off flu bugs.
Some Good Herbs Directories: Emedicinal :: HerbsReference :: eNotes :: HerbAllegacy :: Naturalmedicine :: Rain-tree.com :: Florahealth (Know more? Please comment below!)
Supplements for Cold/Flu
- 25mg of zinc (lozenge) every 2 hours you’re awake.
- 500 to 1000 mg of Vitamin C every four hours.
- 250mg of bioflavonoids 4 times a day.
Bioflavonoids work synergistically with Vitamin C for immune-enhancing properties. [ Related Info: Why Bioflavonoids are Helpful ]
Aromatherapy for Cold/Flu
Aromatherapy as a flu treatment may come as a suprise for many of us new to Naturopathy. If you are fond of at-home face-steaming beauty pick-me-ups, this recipe is for you.
Choose ONLY certified-organic 100% pure essential oils of (a combination of any of the above oils will work to help loosen any thick mucus):
- Eucalyptus
- Lavendar
- Peppermint
- Pine
- Thyme (or Tea Tree oil)
Use between 5 to 10 drops of each oil. Add to a bowl boiled water (still vaporing).
Cover your head with a towel and position your head over the bowl and in such a way so that your face “catches” the steam/vapor. Inhale gently and slowly.
Mike Adams of the NaturalNews.com suggest two things to prevent cold/flu:
- Warm hands in a pail of warm water to boost natural immunity against cold. This can be once in a few days or weekly.
- Running salted water through nostrils (throwing water out via the mouth) to “disinfect” nose naturally. You can do this in the shower.
RELATED INFO
What Conventional Medicine usually Prescribe for Cold or Flu
Shocking Facts about Relenza
Shocking Facts about Tamiflu
Shocking Facts about FluMist
Chinese Traditional Medicine for Common Cold or Flu
Disclaimer: This blog entry is NOT a source of medical advice and is not liable for any accidental omissions. Any and all suggestions stem from personal opinion and experience. Any and all information you deem important should be presented to your TRUSTED medical practitioner/vet for evaluation and incorporation into YOUR personal situation.
How to Distinguish Unsafe Cookware Posted on October 1st, 2009
This is a follow-up to the entry at How Healthy: non-stick pans, skimmed-milk, olive-oils, apple-sauce, fruit-desserts? Thanks to Carole Parker for asking the questions that prompted this follow-up!
WHAT’s SAFE
When shopping for cookware, ask for non-reactive cookware (no chemicals), such as:
- lightweight ceramic,
- lead-free earthen ware (claypot) and
- bamboo steamware.
With non-reactive cookware, there’s no way to scratch the surface when cooking with metal utensils nor when scrubbing it with a steel wool.
You may wanna take a look at this cookware review in a blog: Greenfertility.blogspot.com
Cookware with silicone (plastic) handles are still safe to use.
WHAT’s UnSafe
Stainless steel cookware is NOT non-reactive, as it has alloy containing nickel, chromium, molybdenum, carbon, and other metals.
Avoid aluminium and anodized aluminum cookware as well (casual factor in Alzheimer’s disease).
Never use copper pots and pans either.
Never cook using Glassware if you’ve just taken it out from the freezer – it will crack! Happened to my mum once!!
