YEOMANS CONCEPTS.com

This Is How We End Climate Change

Who Is Allan Yeomans?

formatfactoryimg_0838Allan is the originator of the concept of soil carbon sequestration. His concept was first described in his 1989 paper "The Agricultural Solution To The Greenhouse Effect".

1

Link To Video/Photo Gallery

Allan-Yeomans-with-the-Yeomans-Carbon-Still-prototype  

2

LINK TO YEOMANS PLOW WEB SITE

For you, on the farm, on the property, on the ranch there is one thing that you can do much better than nature can. And you can do it in an instant. How? By gentle subsoil cultivation you can create the ideal soil environment for soil life to produce stable humus. And the all the carbon in that humus comes from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

3

Born After 1985 “The world is your oyster” “not bloody likely?”

2

Stopping Global Warming Tactics

Here we will summarise the actions you can do to make things happen. And why they are important. Each of us will have some unique ability to help twig the way we work and live, so that climate change stops. That’s the start of stabilizing and normalising our Earth’s weather and oceanic systems.  

5

Funding to stop Climate Change

Ending global warming and terminating climate change can be, near enough to a cost-free exercise.. We stop subsidizing the “bad guys” – fossil fuels and agrochemicals and start subsidizing the “good guys” – that’s organic type farming and biofuels. The money us, the world tax payers, fork out in subsidizing the sales of fossil fuels and agrochemicals is insane.  It just  guarantees that climates will get progressively worse for centuries, and we're paying for it .  

6

Carbon Still – Testing for Humus

YEOMANS CARBON STILL          using Loss On Ignition (LOI)  *Big 2,000 grams sample size *Dries sample in 30 minutes to 100°C *LOI Temperatures - 350°C to 550°C *Complete LOI in 60 to 90 minutes *Integral weighing in-situ at 100°C  *Accuracy  1/1000  *No laboratory needed. Farm shed OK With accurate infield sampling kit. Powered 4 inch auger. Powered mixer, Sampling sieves. 

7

Yeomans Methodology

The Yeomans Methodology is designed to encourage farmers to "have a go" at removing the carbon dioxide overload while keeping the people, or governments or organizations issuing the carbon credits totally confident that the CO2 is being removed as claimed by the farmer claims.  Any other requirements in a protocol inevitably becomes a restriction on invention and discovery.

8

Energy Systems and Nuclear

It’s easy, practical and economical to switch to biofuels for transport and it’s easy, practical and economical to switch to nuclear energy for industrial power. We must remind ourselves that so called “sustainable” energy or “renewable” energy are only sustainable and renewable because they’re nuclear based.  

9

How bad can it Get?

10

Fossil Fuels & Agrochemicals use fake News

Fossil fuels and agrochemicals are the prime causes of Global Warming. It’s logical to appreciate that Global warming cannot end if those organisations continue to exist. Those organisations know that. So, they use fake news, political lobbying and perception management to confuse the issue.

11

Volunteers – How you can make a difference and be involved.

 

12

Home Page – This is how we end Global Warming. Navigating around this site.

 First: You put the Cursor on one of the 13 numbered buttons. Second: The button turns yellow and the big square on the left side lights up with a summary of what you will find when you open the page. Third: Leave the Cursor arrow there and Left Click and you have opened the whole page. The lower part of the screen then comes up with all the information. Forth:Then scroll up or down to find what you want. Fifth: Click the WHITE HOUSE if you want to go back up to the top of the page.

13
3. LINK TO YEOMANS PLOW WEB SITE 4. Born After 1985 “The world is your oyster” “not bloody likely?” 5. Stopping Global Warming Tactics 6. Funding to stop Climate Change 7. Carbon Still – Testing for Humus 8. Yeomans Methodology 9. Energy Systems and Nuclear
2. Link To Video/Photo Gallery 1. Who Is Allan Yeomans? 13. Home Page – This is how we end Global Warming. Navigating around this site.

"The urgent problem is getting rid of the excess carbon dioxide that's already there. Soil can do that.

Emissions reductions must become zero, but that can be phased in over the next two to three decades."
Allan Yeomans. January 1998

Yeomans LOI Soil "Carbon Still"© test takes two hours. Accepts huge 2,000 gram test sample. 550°C

Plus - Yeomans Soil Test Protocol
(for info click Button 1)

10. How bad can it Get? 11. Fossil Fuels & Agrochemicals use fake News 12. Volunteers – How you can make a difference and be involved.

Modifying public opinion in ways that ensure sales of fossil fuels and agrochemicals is the one prime marketing imperative of the public   relations/ advertising organizations that are employed by the companies, countries and corporations that pump the products out.
They have billions of dollars available to make it happen, and making it happen, they do. They’re clever.

How do you beat that?
All we have on our side is worried and concerned and thoughtful citizens, and some smart kids. And those kids are seeing their future being destroyed.

But that’s what the fossil fuel and agrochemical people don’t have. They don’t have anybody, not one person concerned about the destabilization of the Earth’s biosphere.

Therefore, these realities must decide how we play our cards. Especially when we can’t afford to lose.

 

 

To stop Global Warming, to halt Climate change –
Here’s What We Must Do.
We have two prime objectives.

First, we get the excess CO2 out of the air.
Second, we stop them putting it back in. So-

   We — GET IT OUT     and We — KEEP IT OUT

               And we can!

As a guiding principle we must recognise that, the warming now happening in the biosphere is totally, or at the very least – primarily – caused by the excess carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere.

Also the damaging effects that are now becoming obvious are going to become really terrible. (see 10 How Bad Can It Get).
To solve any problem we must “First get understanding”.

But many organizations (mostly those funded by the bad guys) argue that there is “no absolute certainty” that any specific weather-related disaster is caused by global warming.
It is, however generally accepted that a high probability exists. that global warming is the cause. So let’s think of it as a “gamble”!

And if it is a gamble then surely any sane person would argue that taking such a gamble, that is ignoring the problem of global warming, is insane, when the ONLY win we could hope for is avoiding a possible slight increase in transport costs by the use of biofuels, plus, also avoiding the  hypothetical risk of slightly increased food prices by switching to more organic type food production.
That’s the “win”.  But the loose we are allowing “on the  table” is the stability of the world’s atmospheric and oceanic circulatory systems.

It seems stupid to take such a gamble, a gamble with such a small win against such a huge loss.

We must recognise that the majority of marketed solutions to climate change, we are constantly fed, have been concocted by, or are compliant with the wishes of the fossil fuel and agrochemical organizations. To them it’s just logical marketing. Just like Big Tobacco did.

So how do we go about fixing this excess carbon dioxide problem? Well we got to get it out and then we got to keep it out. Problem solved!

 First.    GET IT OUT

And only farmers can do this. And we pay them.
The problem has been measuring the changes in organic carbon levels, (that’s humus) in the soil, easily, accurately and cheaply. Now we can. Go to Red Button 7 to see the soil humus sample and testing procedure and equipment,  And to Red Button 8 to see the protocol for testing and paying. Our Australian farmers consider our procedures practical and workable. The Australian Department of the environment is irresponsibly obfuscating. We must get them to move.

The fundamentals are simply. Carbon dioxide is 27.27% carbon by weight and soil humus is approximately 58% carbon by weight . Getting it out of the air is all about turning  carbon dioxide into humus. And doing it “big time”.
it’s — “CO2  to HUMUS”.

It’s up to you to make it happen where you are, and then simultaneous working to make it happen all over the world.
It’s all about how we grow things like our food and fibre and wood but especially how we increase the humus content of our agricultural soils. That’s why our farmers are so important.

The fundamentals of the nature of soil; in a nut shell is this. All broken down rock material – ie “sub soil, can become humus rich topsoil very quickly, just with thoughtful management and a moderate and regular supply of water. We are talking months, to a few years, not centuries.

To illustrate the nature of soil: The rich black soils of the Darling Downs in Queensland becomes a mixture of reddish brown sand and choking bull dust, when its humus is all cooked off at anything over around 4000 C.

Whereas good management techniques – some maybe, we have yet to discover – can rapidly reverse the process and turn brown desert dirt, into rich and fertile, carbon charged, top soil.

And that carbon can only come from the air.

The mammals and grasses created the richest soils in the world.

And don’t think “trees”. Trees and forests are a pro-oil and pro-agrochemical marketing fiction. Only people that have not done their sums will believe it.

Stable tropical rain forest definitely do not absorb carbon dioxide and keep the carbon.

Get a shovel and have a look. A few thousand years ago, when the rain forest first grew and originally formed it would have been an absorbers of carbon dioxide. The quantities of carbon are about the same as in good fertile soil. Then the trees mature, and then die. So once formed and established, a rain forest totally ceases to be a net absorber of carbon dioxide. The marketing that claims that a rainforest is always absorbing more carbon from the air is an outright lie. If they did, then after a few thousand years the trees would have to be thousands of feet high. And if no thousand foot high trees exist there then the forest floor would have to be hundreds of feet deep in carbon, probably as humus. They’re not.

Rain forest soils are always extremely poor and very lacking in soil organic matter. Tropical rain forests generate the worst soils in the world. Almost as bad as deserts.

Jungles produce methane and it’s about 100 times worse  a green house gas  than carbon dioxide .  So stable tropical rain forests are net greenhouse gas producers. To combat global warming tropical rain forests are worse than useless.  

A stable rainforest breathes in CO2 by day, and breathes it out during the night. Decomposing forest floor litter also discharges carbon back into the air. It’s stable so “carbon in”, equals “carbon out”.   Unfortunately the “carbon in” is carbon dioxide but some of the “carbon out” is discharged as “marsh gas” from the rotting vegetation. Marsh gas is methane. Methane is one hundred  times more  powerful a greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide being absorbed. However, over the next a hundred years the methane being generated will ultimately decompose into the less dangerous CO2. But we don’t have a hundred years. And yet it’s constantly drummed into us, and our kids, that tropical “rain forests can save the World”. That’s worse than telling kids that cocaine won’t really hurt you. Again I say  “Do yourself a favour. Get the numbers. Get the facts and only then, decide what to believe.” And then have the courage of your convictions.

To stop mad greenhouse heating the absolut best thing to do with a tropical rain forest is fence a large piece off as a reserve or national park. Then having done that harvest all the good timber and use the rest as fuel. If that is done there is no increase in CO2 into the air.
Then grow biofuels and food.

 

 

 Second,     KEEP IT OUT 

     There are two energy systems we require. use.
First is self contained transportation energy
Second is stationary energy for industry and housing.

And any system that uses fossil carbon materials as the energy source must be phased out as soon as possible – no excuses.

Keeping it out is all about a big switch to nuclear energy for industrial and a big switch to biofuels (especially hybrid) for self contained transport.

So then in the cleared tropical rainforest just mentioned build up the humus levels in the very poor ex-rainforest soils. This cleared land should can then be used to grow food, if needed, but mainly to grow sugar cane and palm oil for biofuels. Building the soil’s humus levels to a reasonably high level will store about as much carbon as was in the original vegetation before being cleared. So the carbon balance is about the same but the land is now producing huge quantities of biofuels (and food). There is not much to eat in a tropical jungle and there is therefore very little bird and animal life. Lots of termites though

A big switch to nuclear energy was expected to happen rapidly about seventy years ago but the fossil fuel organizations and the oil countries decided to prevent it ever happening. They succeeded. Global warming is one of the consequences of their success.

The major campaign centered on creating an image of “nuclear waste” and its disposal. The other was weapons proliferation.  But as we have seen any country with a bit of money and a firm dictatorship in place can build nuclear bombs. And some have.

So now waste gets the big promotional support,

How long do they want to store it for? Will a billion years?

LET’S SUBDUCK FOR A BILLION YEARS

A subduction zone is where the ocean floor, near continents, dives down into the Earth’s upper mantle. It’s like a slow, up-side-down volcano. Anything that falls in is gone for a million, maybe a billion years. Never to be seen again. It’s gone forever. Mix the waste with concrete and drop the blocks into one. It’s not “polluting the oceans”, it’s dumped in the ocean’s own geological drain holes and it finally becomes part of the Earth’s molten interior.

They’re called “subduction zones” or “ocean trenches” . They are the deepest part of the Earth’s surface. Dump Mount Everest in some and it would be all under water.

The fossil fuel people managed to stop subduction zone disposal of nuclear waste from it ever happening by having it classed as “dumping at sea” in international treaties, just like household trash. And people fell for the “fake news”. And so the cheap, safe and simple subduction zone solution never saw the light of day.

Could you be a torch bearer and have people see the light? A quote I like is “Tyranny reigns when good men do nothing” 

A subduction zone is where the ocean floor, near continents, dives down into the Earth’s upper mantle. It’s like a slow, up-side-down volcano. Anything that falls in is gone for a million, maybe a billion years. Never to be seen again. It’s gone forever. Mix the waste with concrete and drop the blocks into one. It’s not “polluting the oceans”, it’s dumped in the ocean’s own geological drain holes and it finally becomes part of the Earth’s molten interior.

They’re called “subduction zones” or “ocean trenches” . They are the deepest part of the Earth’s surface. Dump Mount Everest in some and it would be all under water.

The fossil fuel people managed to stop subduction zone disposal of nuclear waste from it ever happening by having it classed as “dumping at sea” in international treaties, like household trash. And people fell for the “fake news”. The cheap, safe and simple subduction zone solution never saw the light of day.

The two most crucial things is to establish an easy way to pay farmers to  increase the humus content of their soils. {the fossil carbon marketing gurus have switched the use of the word “humus” to calling it “soil carbon”. Humus is good for growing food. “Soil Carbon” is confusing and sounds like soot???}
And the second thing is to undo the marketed concept that all things nuclear are bad.  Where as nuclear is super safe and super cheap so- let’s go nuclear and no carbon dioxide s produced.

 

 But as history shows, the agrochemical business and the fossil fuel business don’t intend to go out of business.

Neither do those in the illegal drug trade. But global warming is many times  worse than illegal drugs.

Their tactics of the fossil fuel people are predominately creating doubt and confusion in people’s minds. That’s done with advertising, image making, (now called “perception management”), influencing politicians and particularly civil servants that have control over writing the rules and putting in the “fine print”. Influencing news outlets and journals and magazines and radio and television commentators.

Politicians still have to get elected no matter how much funding they receive they are very cognisant of the ”whims”of the voters. So that’s what you do. You hound politicians. And remember ten good letters often has more fluence than a thousand signatures on a partition.

The late Margret Meed, highly respected  American biologist, statistician and philosopher once said –

“If You Ever Think You’re Too Small To Be Effective, You’ve Never Been In Bed With A Mosquito”

The  Dalai Lama agreed. His words were – “If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.”

 

The thing that gets the biggest media coverage are
       Organized Protests.

Protests are very effective as they can get a message across and the media invariably gives good coverage. What’s most important is that the right messages are on the banners. The bad guys all too often inveigle themselves into the protest organization so they can manipulate the wording of the banners. Never let that happen.
For protests to do any good the message on the banners has to summarise or encapsulate the action wanted.

 For example, I especially like-

CO2 to HUMUS

or if you like a steak then-
GOOD COW MANURE TRUMPS BAD COW FARTS

PAY FARMERS FOR HUMUS

ORGANIC FARMERS GROW HUMUS

FERTILIZERS F***K SOILS

TREES ARE THE FAKE ANSWER

     For nuclear waste disposal banners

WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE FITS ONE OIL TANKER
the total of all the world’s accumulated high-level nuclear waste is tiny. It would not fill one big oil tanker.

NUCLEAR IS WORLD SAFEST ENERGY

STARLIN’S CHERNOBYL 45 DEATHS TOTAL
And they were all fireman who went in to put out the fires. Later there were many unnecessary deaths from Thyroid Cancer. Radioactive iodine was produced in the explosion and children and adults and around the area were iodine deficient and so their bodies absorbed this iodine into their thyroid glands. If Starlin’s medical people had made iodine tablets available from their stores to the people near the Chernobyl site, the death toll probably would have been close to or even zero. Did Starlin care? No.

FUKUSHIMA REACTORS ZERO DEATHS
(technically there were two – one guy fell of a ladder and another had a heart attack). Some twenty eight thousand people died from that tsunami. So the safest place to be was in the reactor!)

Low nuclear radiation is good for you. Life evolved on Earth when radiation levels were much higher than now. Uranium 235 concentrations were high enough to run power stations. Today we would call such uranium “enriched” If it’s around and it’s plentiful, then – if it’s at all possible – life will evolve so as to use that source.

LOW DOSE NUCLEAR RADIATION IS GOOD FOR YOU
(Up to about five times the world’s background levels)

WIND AND SOLAR ARE NUCLEAR

 

Some biofuel banners for   KEEP IT OUT.

Fuel for to replace petrol is basically ethanol. Fuel to replace diesel is biodiesel. Mix ethanol and palm oil (any vegetable oil will work) with a little caustic soda, maybe in a 200-litre drum. Wait a couple of days for the chemical reaction to cease and it settles into two layers, one is biodiesel and the other is glycol. Glycol is a good raw material for several plastics.

MY V8 LIKES BIOFUEL

OIL PALMS ARE TREES TOO

“TREE LOVERS” ARE SUCKERS

WOOD IS GOD’S PLASTIC

JUNGLES ARE CARBON NEUTRAL

RAIN FORESTS ARE ALREADY FULL

STOP SUBSIDIZES TO BIG OIL

 Other things we must do

    Lobby Political Contacts
    Write Letters to Newspapers
 Hound Talk Back Radio & TV commentators.
Write them letters or email them

 

 

 INFORMATION THAT’S NICE TO HAVE IF YOU’RE NOT BELIEVED  

Every year we buy and burn approximately —
3    billion tonnes  of  gas
4    billion tonnes  of  oil
9    billion tonnes  of  coal
        That burning produces
50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide
********************
 
 Money available to buy: — Public Opinion, Advertising, Political Influence, Perception Management, Bribes, etc.  At say a tiny 1% of sales for coal and gas, plus say US $2 a barrel for oil, and we get ——-  $84 billion per year, that’s over $1.5 billion a week to convince people  — not to rock the boat , and not to worry, and it’s being fixed, or there’s  nothing to fix, and new discoveries are just around the corner, and a hotter world will be better, and anyway scientists are not all sure, etc, etc. etc.    
                                            

Below is the rubbish the money pays for, and in turn is fed to us. All to keep the fossil fuel and agrochemical organizations in business and thriving.  

       It’s a deliberately confusing mountain of lies, exaggerations and minimizations, and to make their spruiking a little believable  they throw in a smidgen of truth ———-

Some examples:

It’s all happened before :-   Yes, true, but barring an asteroid impact on an incredible geological upheaval it’s always taken longer than one human life time, more like millions of human life times.  Over the last billion years continents have drifted slowly around the planet. Sea levels have varied by hundred of metres. At one time the whole planet was covered in ice and snow. It was a period called “Snowball Earth.
  All these things happened, but the changes happened over millions of years. If life existed at the time it had time to evolve to suit.
One time it didn’t was 65,000,000 years ago when a fourteen kilometre size asteroid hit the planet and wiped out the few hundred million year reign of the dinosaurs.  So it did actually happened before.

It’s All Natural cycles:-   Over the last million years or so, every hundred thousand years an “Ice Age” would become established and then, due to very tiny perturbations in the Earth’s wobbles and its solar orbits the ice age would slowly dissolve into an Inter Glacial Period of around 20 thousand years. All human civilisations that have ever existed have occurred in our current interglacial period. The Earth’s biosphere should now be very slowly cooling. Blaming our current warming on natural cycles is a marketed fiction.  

They don’t mention that:- Sun light is now weaker than it has been for decades.    It’s all because the Sun is putting out more heat is another fossil fuel created and supported marketing fiction. The realty is the Sun is putting out less heat than it has for decades.

350 ppm – 400 ppm and we can’t stop it rising:-   I remember when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm. Then they started to rise and the tame fossil fuel scientists assured us that there would be no significant changes in weather factors at 300 ppm. Then we passed 300 ppm. Then 350 ppm became a safe figure, then 400, and maybe even 450 ppm when that starts to come up etc .etc.  

They promoted 1.5°C as OK. Now the pitch is 2°C is probably ok. They just keep upping the “don’t worry” temperature rise .   Average temperatures have been slowly rising . The warming is happening.  Remember a couple of years ago when the highly paid, very tame scientists consulting to the fossil fuel industries, told us that world temperatures has stabilize. Temperatures were no longer climbing and we could therefore all relax.
      Now the public relations machinery are forced to admit that temperatures are actually going up like crazy. But we’ll all be OK if we keep it below a 1.5°C.
         They begrudgingly tell us now, that because world temperature are going up, we “will possibly have to adjust to come changes in weather phenomena, in some parts of the world”.
It’s now promoted that it’s only really dangerous if temperatures get to 2°C  above the 1950 biosphere temperatures.

       It’s sad, but every lie, every promoted fiction, put out by the fossil fuel agrochemical industries is believed by some or other group of people. And that’s their aim.

Protecting biodiversity is hammered. Stopping the heating is carefully ignored.    It pays the fossil fuel and chemical industries to actively and financially support the protection of biodiversity. Not in general but it’s made specifically on some species that catches our attention, There are an enormous number of people especially in advanced Western Society that are now seriously concerned about the world’s environment. If we don’t get rid of the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we will all lose, and we then  relegate to extinct, somewhere around 50 percent of all species currently living on planet Earth. Some argue it might be “only” 20 percent to 30 percent that we will lose.

         Reality is that:- There are thousands of species that will be lost as the biosphere heats up. If each individual environmental movement can be coerced into spending all their efforts and interests on some rare cuddly creature or some specific breed of whales, bull nosed dolphins, bilbies, polar bears, or king penguins, or whatever the fossil fuel public relations machine can dream up that could be “threatened”, they use it. They then feed the organizations money to save the polar bears or whatever, or to travel the world and carry out some essential research, and all becomes lovely, and the species will be “saved” and all will be well.  The “minor” stipulation is only that the money is for the, polar bear/whatever, and only for the polar bears, and global warming issues are not ever to be on the “Polar Bear/Whatever agenda of the particular organization.  

    The influence of the fossil fuel – agrochemical lobby is frighteng and extreamily dangerious  Their management of public opinion and understanding is sickenly  successful.  Consider this: The IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, calls itself and is promoted as, “the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it”.
It is a union or all the major conservation organizations in the world. It’s the body that advises the United Nations on environmental issues. Google them and look up the membership list. But somehow, for some reason (you figure) the IUCN has no meaningful interest in stopping, preventing or even minimizing global warming. Their pitch is how to save the wild life and live with the heating! That certainly and coincidently? and serendipitdly suits the marketing plans of the fossil fuel/agrochemical machine.

BELOW ARE MORE KEY MESSAGES.  (THE FOLLOW UP EXPLANATIONS I’LL ADD OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS BUT THEY ARE ALL ALONG THE SAME LINES)  

The fiction that trees help when actually they’re worse than useless. (“trees burn, humus don’t burn” That’s one reason) 

The concept of umbrellas in the sky to lower the sun’s heat, things like dumping sodium particles in the stratosphere could lower temperatures but the world’s oceans continue to become destructively acidic.

Remember “peak oil”. It was a giant fiction. But the message seemed to be that global warming couldn’t last as oil would run out. (But — the US, for example has enough for 800 years at current oil consumption rates)

“Capture and storage” is a giant “feel good” fiction. One ton of easy to mine fossil carbon fuel becomes 3 tonnes of CO2, and that’s over 2,000 cubic metres of expensive to capture and expensive to bury CO2.

Energy conservation is promoted for fossil fuels, but that’s utterly pointless. All it means is that we run out a few years later.  

Energy conservation with nuclear energy is also utterly pointless. Humanity could never run out of nuclear energy.

Energy efficiency:  Same comments apply as with Energy conservation. It’s a “feel good” public relations gimmick.

Solar cars are an oil industry, public relations programme. They fund the solar car races. The reality is that energy from solar cells on a motor vehicle cannot power a normal car’s air conditioner.

 

Hot rock technology is promoted as having great promise but reality is that it has too many expensive and probably unsolvable problems.    

Photovoltaic is massively subsidized, but cannot handle one single rainy week.

Solar cells efficiency are not yet as efficient as a car engine running on ethanol

Battery breakthroughs get a lot of publicity but can never really be an economical system for more than one day’s power consumption.

Solar power can’t work without a full power grid connection that is rarely used but must always be on “stand by”. An unused base line power supply that’s rarely used is a huge, but carefully  hidden cost.

Fusion energy is considered by the nuclear industry to always be available “50 year in the future”. We don’t have time to gamble on vague possibilities.

Gas, as an intermediary is a marketing fiction. Natural gas power generation produces around double coals greenhouse gas production      

Agrochemicals do not produce more food than chemically free organic type agriculture. And on farm food production costs are negligibly different (see Rodale Institute organic food cost comparisons).

 

  View the early Yeomans Methodology Here 
(
version dated 30 June 2017 now October 2019)
It’s the version originally sent to the Department.
For the current updated version hover over Red Button 8 then “click” it. 
The current Yeomans Methodology now includes a quick and accurate calibration procedure that gives absolute values for changes in soil humus and soil organic matter content. The system is now covered by patent applications.

 

   Below is your problem – if you live in Australia. The Department of the Environment and Energy here in Australia is clearly not prepared to take the concept of removing carbon dioxide from the air seriously. That’s ridiculous. However it is absolutely imperative that we start removing the huge CO2 overload right now.  

What’s happened? Soil carbon sequestration is now touted to be official Australian policy. But they sit on it. The policy is spelt out in Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011. It sounds like it’s saying that if a farmer improves the fertility of his soil, in some suitable manner, and measures the resulting increase in soil carbon he will be awarded a number of Australian Carbon Credits. The Act says the farmer must follow an “agreed protocol” for both measuring soil carbon changes and for managing the soil. A protocol is called a “Determination Methodology”.(usually revered to simply as a “Methodology”)

But it’s not happening. Unfortunately, Department of Environment employees structured the requirement for managing the farm and the measurement procedures to be compiled with in a manner that systematically prevents Soil Carbon Sequestration ever happening in Australia. Additionally, it was then decreed that only Departmental personnel can devise and create Methodologies.  The Minister for the Environment then approves the proposed methodology. That’s the procedure. (Technically the Minister himself can propose a methodology. Fat chance. )

For soil carbon, Departmental officers created two methodologies. Both have proved to be absolute failures as not one single one of our 150,000 Australian farmers have considered them sane and workable and taken up their offers to sequester carbon out of the air. Read the incredible Departmental requirements in these methodologies and you’ll see why not one Australian farmer has taken them seriously. Here are the links to the complete methodologies. The first one is called —     Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Sequestering Carbon in Soils in Grazing Systems) Methodology Determination 2014 To see what a farmer has to totally understand and then do, have a look at the methodology. Hold control and click on, or just click   — https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014L00987 As there was no takers for this methodology next year they came out with a another. It’s called —  Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Facilities) Methodology Determination 2015 Again no takers. To see what a farmer has to do on this new “simplified” methodology —  control and click on    — (Currently you will have to type in this address to get there  The “click” thing doesn’t work yet Oct 21 2017) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01163 They now have composed a third “soil methodology” (two more years). It was opened for comment in the period between 4 September 2017 to 2 October 2017. Sadly, having looked at it myself I expect it too will be totally rejected by the Australian farming community. It was rejected,- wholesale. I maintain, justifiable so and on the grounds that it too will be also seen as “impractical and unworkable”. It’s called –     Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative- Measurement of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Systems) Methodology Determination 2017 to see it, control and click on – Measurement of soil carbon sequestration in agricultural systems draft Determination (PDF – 411.37 KB) It’s impossible to follow. Same as the other ones. For an example – Go to the link then scroll down to pages – 36 and 37. They’re typical of the mathematics a farmer is expected to be able to follow and use.

Because these Departmental methodologies are so unworkable and because of the now dangerous state of our atmosphere and the resultant destabilization of world weather systems, is why I created the Yeomans Methodology. My methodology is designed to significantly encourage farmers to increase the basic fertility of their own soils (which is what we want), while still managing to comply with the dictates of the Carbon Farming Initiative Act sufficiently so it could qualify for Australian Carbon Credits.

The fundamentals of the nature of soil; in a nut shell. All broken down rock material – that is sub soil – becomes humus rich top soil quickly, just with thoughtful management and a moderate and regular supply of water. To illustrate the nature of soil: The rich black soils of the Darling Downs becomes a mixture of reddish brown sand and bull dust, when its humus is all cooked off at 5000 C. Good management techniques – some we have yet to discover – can rapidly reverse the process and turn brown desert dirt, into rich and fertile, carbon charged, top soil. Our Australian Department of the Environment people seem to know nothing about the rapid creation of soil fertility. Nor apparently are they interested. Yet they author the “Methodologies” and also pass or fail other opinions on how it should all be done.

I originated the whole concept of soil carbon sequestration to combat global warming back in the late 1980s. I wrote and lectured on my concept both in the US and later back here in Australia. From there the concept took off. Yet they’ve never asked me a thing.

Farmers have told me they could use and work within my methodology and make soil carbon sequestration happen on their farm; but absolutely no way could they use and work with the methodologies dreamed up by the people in our Australian Department of the Environment.

Unfortunately, along with all our hopes, dreams and efforts to effectively combat climate change by soil fertility enhancement – by the creation of humus, we must never forget the elephant in the room is the rich and powerful agrochemical industry.

Are strings being pulled? I submitted my methodology to the Department both directly and indirectly through the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee. It was emailed to them on 7 July 2017. I was received an email back from the Department on 5 September. I was informed that my submission, and the principals behind it are to be ignored by the Department. They list the reasons and conclude by saying — “Accordingly, the Department does not intend to further develop your proposal at this stage”. The link above go to a copy of my Methodology which they propose to ignored. And below that is a complete copy of that final Departmental rejection email to me and wherein which they state their “reasoning” behind their total rejection of my whole methodology of encouraging the developing large scale soil carbon sequestration to beat climate change. For comparison, make sure you have a look at the methodologies the Department dreamed up which have been totally rejected by every single farmer in Australia then :     View the Yeomans Methodology Here  And this is the email where they rejected our methodology — rejection_1 RejectionThe raising temperature in the Earth’s biosphere is too serious a phenomena to allow such an official and significant Department of Environment letter such as this one, to go uncorrected and uncriticised . So let’s go through it.
On the first page it reported on apparent advice from the Soil Technical Working Group relating to a protocol I suggested prior to the construction of the current “Yeomans Methodology“.  That surly appears somewhat incompetent. It also asks for “further data” but doesn’t say on what! They then suggest that the one gram sample size used in LECO in their Loss on Ignition test machine is “practical” when testing large areas of agricultural land, and a sample 2,000 times bigger might be impractical . This has to be nonsense.
Additionally it says our sample sizes are 4,000 grams, a size not mentioned anywhere in any of our literature. Actually 4,000 grams is also beyond the capacity of our loss on ignition test equipment. “The likelihood of instrument error” suggested might occur is much more likely in a one gram test sample than in a 2 kilogram. The logic escapes me.
If our test equipment was used it would of course require Australian Soil and Plant Analyse Council calibration approval. Which we will do when our methodology is accepted.
Finally, if they had read the Yeomans Methodology they would see that the standard LECO manufactured test machine is acceptable for soil sampling.
They note seven more objections to the Yeomans Methodology in their letter. One would suspect from these objections that the Department dismissed the methodology deliberately without any diligent consideration. In some ways it  actually seems that it was not even read. “Permanence obligation” is in fact covered in the Methodology. “Defining what activities are eligible” before farmers have worked out the best way to improve the fertility of their soil is extremely counter productive.
The requirement effectively hamstrings and knobbles the development of techniques of rapid soil fertility enhancement on any farm in the nation. Their email (which came with a note saying a hard copy would be posted which after two weeks has not been received) has  to says there is insufficient defining of the methodology’s “greenhouse gas assessment boundary”. Departmental literature says “a greenhouse gas assessment boundary is all greenhouse gas emissions and reductions directly affected by the activity”.
The scope for obfuscation is thus unlimited. Part 5 of our proposed methodology suggests an approach that is workable and usable in practice. At  least, so farmers say. The other “objections” are already covered clearly in the Methodology. So their email / letter is confusing. The email clearly is used to remind us that the Emission Reduction Fund “does not support research and development”. What does that really mean? I would take “support” to mean actual financial support. Surely “does not support” should not be interpreted by the relevant Departmental personal to mean the Department should actively discourag research and development by others. If that is case then the Departmental people should cease interpreting it that way. It’s now political.
Nothing will happen unless you start chasing your local Federal Member or Senator to get the Minister for the Environment and Energy, that’s the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP  to get his Department people to get our Methodology approved. His contact numbers at his web site are 03 9882 3677. The fax number is 03 9882 3773 and the number in Canberra is 02 6277 7920. It’s not up to me now, nor those in the Department, it’s up to you.

Remember what the American philosopher, Margret Meed and the Dalai Lama , both decided —
“If You Ever Think You’re Too Small To Be Effective, You’ve Never Been In Bed With A Mosquito”

 

View the Yeomans Methodology Here (It’s a slightly updated version of the one I sent to the Department)     (at 30 June 2017 now October 2019)

 

The Government is your problem
– if you live in Australia.

The Department of the Environment and Energy here in Australia is clearly not prepared to take the concept of removing carbon dioxide from the air seriously. But it is absolutely imperative that we start removing the huge CO2 overload right now.  

Soil carbon sequestration is now touted to be official Australian policy. But they sit on it. The policy is spelt out in Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011. It says that if a farmer improves the fertility of his soil, in some suitable manner, and measures the resulting increase in soil carbon he will be awarded Australian Carbon Credits. The Act says the farmer must follow an agreed protocol for both measuring soil carbon changes and for managing the soil. A protocol is called a “Determination Methodology”.(usually revered to simply as “Methodologies”) But it’s not happening. Unfortunately Department of Environment employees structured the requirement for managing the farm and the measurement procedures to be compiled with in a manner that systematically prevents Soil Carbon Sequestration ever happening in Australia. Additionally, it is now been decreed that only Departmental personnel can devise and create Methodologies.  The Minister for the Environment then approves the proposed methodology. That’s the procedure. (Technically the Minister himself can propose a methodology.) For soil carbon, Departmental officers have created two methodologies. Both have proved to be absolute failures as not one single one of our 135,000 Australian farmers have considered them sane and workable and taken up their offers to sequester carbon out of the air. Read the incredible Departmental requirements in these methodologies and you’ll see why not one Australian farmer has taken them seriously. Here are the links to the complete methodologies. The first one is called —     Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Sequestering Carbon in Soils in Grazing Systems) Methodology Determination 2014 To see what a farmer has to totally understand and then do, have a look at the methodology. Hold control and click on, or just click   — https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014L00987 As there was no takers for this methodology next year they came out with a another. It’s called —  Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Facilities) Methodology Determination 2015 Again no takers. To see what a farmer has to do on this new “simplified” methodology —  control and click on    — (Currently you will have to type in this address to get there  The “click” thing doesn’t work yet Oct 21 2017) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01163 They now have composed a third “soil methodology” (two more years). It was opened for comment in the period between 4 September 2017 to 2 October 2017. Sadly, having looked at it myself I expect it too will be totally rejected by the Australian farming community. I maintain, justifiable so and on the grounds that it too will be seen as “impractical and unworkable”. It’s called –     Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative- Measurement of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Systems) Methodology Determination 2017 to see it, control and click on – Measurement of soil carbon sequestration in agricultural systems draft Determination (PDF – 411.37 KB) It’s impossible to follow. Same as the other ones. For an example – Go to the link then scroll down to pages – 36 and 37. They’re typical of the mathematics a farmer is expected to be able to follow and use.

So I had to create a practical Methodology, but copy, more or less, copy the Australian Government format. 

It was necessary to create a methodology because the Departmental Methodologies are so unworkable and because of the now dangerous state of our atmosphere and the resultant destabilization of world weather systems.

My methodology is designed to significantly encourage farmers to increase the basic fertility of their own soils (which is what we want), while complying with the dictates of the Carbon Farming Initiative Act sufficiently to qualify for Australian Carbon Credits.

The fundamentals of the nature of soil; in a nut shell.
All broken down rock material – that is sub soil – becomes humus rich top soil quickly, just with thoughtful management and a moderate and regular supply of water. To illustrate the nature of soil: The rich black soils of the Darling Downs becomes a mixture of reddish brown sand and bull dust, when its humus is all cooked off at 4000 C.

Good management techniques – some we have yet to discover – can rapidly reverse the process and turn brown desert dirt, into rich and fertile, carbon charged, top soil. Our Australian Department of the Environment people seem to know nothing about the rapid creation of soil fertility. Nor apparently are they interested. Yet they author the “Methodologies” on how it should all be done.

I originated the whole concept of soil carbon sequestration to combat global warming back in the late 1980s. I wrote and lectured on my concept both in the US and later back here in Australia. From there the concept took off. Yet our Australian Government has asked me a thing about how creating humus can remove the atmosphere’s CO2 excess.

Farmers have told me they could use and work within my methodology and make soil carbon sequestration happen on their farm; but absolutely no way could they work with the methodologies dreamed up by the people in our Australian Department of the Environment.

Unfortunately, along with all our hopes, dreams and efforts to effectively combat climate change by soil fertility enhancement, we must never forget the elephant in the room is the rich and powerful agrochemical industry. Are strings being pulled? I submitted my methodology to the Department both directly and indirectly through the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee. It was emailed to them on 7 July 2017. I was received an email back from the Department mail on 5 September. I was informed that my submission and the principals behind it are to be ignored by the Department. They list the reasons and conclude by saying — “Accordingly, the Department does not intend to further develop your proposal at this stage”.

Below is a copy of my methodology which they propose to ignored. And below that is a complete copy of that final Departmental rejection email to me and wherein which they state their reasoning behind their total rejection of my whole methodology of encouraging the developing large scale soil carbon sequestration to beat climate change. For comparison, make sure you have a look at the methodologies the Department dreamed up which have been totally rejected by every single farmer in Australia.

Weight of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950 was approximately two trillion tonnes. It has climbed to three trillion tonnes.

We have actually added two trillion tonnes (two thousand billion tonnes) since 1950. But half that has been absorbed into the oceans. So the quantity now in the atmosphere is three trillion tonnes.  The one trillion tonnes in the oceans will form calcium carbonate deposits and also stable silt deposits on the ocean floors, but not fast enough. If left alone and if we cease adding geological carbon to the biosphere it would take from centuries to many millennia to clean the CO2 overload out.  Unfortunately CO2 in water exists as carbonic acid (soda water) and is beginning to hinder the outer exoskeleton of  crustaceans, from prawns to krill.

MORE INFORMATION YOU MIGHT LIKE TO HAVE AT YOUR FINGER TIPS

Fossil fuel use and “climate change” now kills
5 million people per year.

(Air pollution from fossil fuels kills 4,800,000 people and the UN says
Global Warming effects kill 400,000 people Per Year)

  400,000 people are dying every year from Global Warming weather related disasters. That figure was at 2012 and severe weather events have increased. So 400,000 is a minimum.  Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the deaths of at least 4.5 million people a year. Click to the report in the Guardian-https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy

The use of fracking to mine oil and gas has  destabilized geological structures.   This seems to happen to at least the depth the process is being used. And very likely, but hard to determine, to much greater depths.

USGS (United States  Geological Survey) reports that between the years 1973–2008, there was an average of 21 earthquakes of Magnitude Three (M3) and larger in the Central and Eastern United States. This rate has ballooned to over 600 M3+ earthquakes in 2014 and over 1000 in 2015. Through to August 2016, over 500 M3+ earthquakes were occurred.

The United States Geological Survey is a scientific agency of the United States government. The scientists of the USGS study the landscape of the United States, its natural resources, and the natural hazards that threaten it.

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) on US costs
(This particular report does not factor in soil carbon sequestration)

They report:-   “Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country around the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions that will be needed to lead international action to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs — will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s US dollars) by 2100.

We know how to avert most of these damages through strong national and international action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But we must act now. The longer we wait, the more painful—and expensive —the consequences will be.”

I say, if the US spent just half $1.9 trillion on paying farmers to increase their soil’s humus levels, every year for ten years, then all the excess CO2 in the world would be gone from the atmosphere.

For the full report go to —–

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf

Commercial jet transport (planes which are hard to replace) get a lot of blame. That’s deliberate as oil interests know that it’s a really big deal to re-design and test the new engines.  So it won’t  and can’t happen any time soon. So oil sales are unaffected.  Reality is, jets use 0.230 billion tonnes per year, that’s about a quarter of a billion tonnes, that’s  a just 5.8% of the world’s total oil use.

We could live with that 5.8%. Motor vehicles, diesel power generation, and big merchant ships are the problem, and they are easy to change.

Each of us on Earth “owns” 0.6 hectares of useable land on which to grow our food, graze our animals, and to sequence the atmosphere’s excess carbon dioxide into the soil.

World total area 51.5 billion hectares…World population is now 7.13 billion…One third is land. We live on, build roads and houses and things on just over a third of the land…So each of us “owns” 0.8 hectares or 2 acres of land. Take out roads and houses etc which leaves us with the 0.6 hectares.
Homo sapien sapien, that’s us, have existed for 100,000 years.

Hominid are extinct bipedal primates. “sapiens” means wise.  “Sapien sapien” is extra wise. Homo sapiens, that’s Neanderthals and a few others have existed for around 200,000 years.
For more than a million years carbon dioxide (CO2 or CO2) levels have hovered around 275 ppm. Since the late 1940s they have climbed to 400 ppm. (up date, at May 2019 414.7 ppm) 

275 ppm means 275 parts per million by volume (0.0275%). By weight it’s a different number. Air’s average molecular weight is just over 28. Carbon dioxide’s molecular weight is 44. So 400 ppm becomes 432 ppm by weight and so air is 0.0432% CO2 by weight. Go To —    https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/a-timeline-of-earths-average- temperature-in-comic-form

Both the surface of the Sun and the centre of the Earth are  around 6,000° C. However the temperature at the centre of the Sun is 15 million degrees. The temperature on the surface determines the amount of radiant energy emitted, and its frequency.

All bodies radiate electromagnetic energy. . The Sun at 6,000° C. radiates white light, that’s normal visible light.  Things at Earth’s surface temperatures radiate infrared radiation. We can feel infrared as warmth but we cant see it. When any electromagnetic radiation hits and object its absorbed or reflected off in varying degrees.       Oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide are near transparent to the visible light from the Sun but infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface has trouble getting through the “mist” of carbon dioxide, throughout the atmospheres, and can’t so easily get back out into Space. So with more carbon dioxide in the air, the Earth’s surfaces have to be hotter to radiate enough energy to balance the incoming sunlight. That’s how global warming happens.

 

The conclusions of the Paris Summit on Climate Change of December 2015  to try to limit temperatures to below 1.5° C, and not to worry too much unless it got to near a  2° C rise, was utterly beyond stupidity.

refer to caption

Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2015, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5 year “running mean”   Source: NASA GISS.
The mean line they use here is 1880 to 2015 but that’s a mix of before global warming started and well into it . The big carbon dioxide influx into the atmosphere really started with WW2. To me the important starting line on NASA’s graph is the period ending at the start of WW2. From then until 2015 world temperatures have risen approximately 1.0° C .
That  1.0° C  is all that it took to create the incredible weather instability we are now constantly experiencing all around the world.
 Paris Summit on Climate Change of December 2015, effectively a total waste of time. (but certainly suited the fossil fuel and agrochemical people)
This astute quote from the Economist points out the utter pointlessness of the and how they decided things.
 
 “The two-degree maximum appeared initially in papers written by the Yale economist William Nordhaus in the mid-1970s. As “a first approximation” he suggested the world should not warm more than it had in the past 100,000 years or so—the period for which ice-core data were available. Given how little was known about the costs and damages of global warming at that time, Dr Nordhaus admitted that the estimate was “deeply unsatisfactory”. Nevertheless, European scientists discussed the two-degree limit during the next decade or so; in 1990 the Swedish Environment Institute produced a report that argued that, on the basis of “the vulnerability of ecosystems to historical temperature changes,” warming above just 1°C was not advisable. The authors knew it was too late to keep within this level, and so suggested 2°C instead. From thence the maximum was adopted by the European Union’s Council of Ministers in 1996; the G8 picked it up in 2009. During the chaos of the UNFCCC talks in Copenhagen that year, the two-degree limit emerged in glory, forming part of the deal made there between the world’s biggest polluters. In 2010 it was enshrined within UN policy.”

Sea levels rise because the water  expands slightly as it gets warmer. Plus glaciers melt and the released water flows into the sea.  Then there are various location effects.

Location effects. Prevailing winds can heap water up more on one side of an ocean than the other. That’s a location effect. Around three million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were also 400 ppm and that resulted in temperatures settling out at between 2°C and 3°C higher than they are now. Those sustained temperatures produced sea levels 25 metres higher than now. And even back then, there was still plenty of ice at the poles ready to melt if temperatures got higher.
Storms, cyclones and tornados automatically get more violent with higher CO2 levels. So does the size of hail stones.

By trapping the heat we get higher temperatures in the lower atmosphere and lower temperatures in the higher atmosphere. (called the lower stratosphere).

Upward air velocity in storms is a big determinant in their destructivity capabilities. As a hot air bubble rises, it simultaneously cools. The higher altitude it can rise to, the higher the upward air velocity gets. Finally when the surrounding air is warmer than the bubble it stops rising. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels traps extra heat energy in the lower troposphere (ground level to around 35,000 feet). This, plus lower ozone levels lowers the temperature of the lower stratosphere (35,000 feet to around 160,000 feet) so the rising bubble goes higher and so continues to get faster.These heating variations are the main reason for the phenomenal increase in the  intensity and severity and the destructive results of storms, typhoons, cyclones and tornados all across the World.
Tropical cyclones, as a rule only form when the sea surface temperatures get above approximately 28° C. (83° F)

We are now getting those sea surface temperatures at the latitudes of the Tropical Jet Streams.
And that’s a deadly mix. We can confidently expect to see more frequent and more violent tropical cyclones in the months and years ahead.

Every 1° C rise in ocean surface water temperatures means the tropical cyclone belt spreads 300 kilometres further north and south from the equator.

Google these words —    “If you thought 2015 was hot, just wait”

Would cutting all CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow fix climate change? No. No way. Without removing the excess CO2 that’s now there runaway continuing biospheric  heating is an absolute certainty. 

Without some form of massive sequestration, eliminating all CO2 emissions won’t do the job; levels would stay at 400 ppm for centuries. Ocean water temperatures would slowly rise to catch up to air temperatures. With zero emissions starting tomorrow morning,  biospheric temperatures would rise by an estimated minimum of 0.6°C. This effect is referred to as “committed warming”.

With this committed warming, the frighteningly unstable West Antarctic Ice Sheet would continue to melt, along with most other ice sheets on the planet. What’s not included in that 0.6°C rise estimate is that the world’s permafrosts would continue to thaw and release their trapped methane. Methane is 100 times worse a green house gas than CO2.

Arguing that just cutting emissions, by itself, might fix the “climate change” problem is a giant well marketed lie designed to placate the unthinking masses.  Do yourself a favour: get the facts. Read published papers by qualified meteorologists, not news paper journalism.

World temperatures once changed slowly,  a single 1° C temperature change could easily take several thousand years.   Now it’s around a thousand times faster.

For 20,000 years, since the middle of the last ice age, world temperatures have moved within a 4.5°C range.. But temperatures are now changing up to possibly a thousand times faster. Most of Earth’s species cannot cope with that.  This link is a good illustration:   https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/a-timeline-of-earths-average-temperature-in-comic-form

Also a recent study, published in the scientific journal Nature, uses some sixty  ocean sediment cores to develop a record of Earth’s global average surface temperature dating back 2 million years. The study found that —-

If all greenhouse gas emissions were to cease today, the climate would still warm by about 5 degrees Celsius, or 9 degrees Fahrenheit, during the next several centuries.

Producing electricity from burning coal seam gas is at least, twice as bad as that produced from burning coal.

Coal seam gas is almost pure methane. Shale gas is much the same. Burning either for energy does produce less carbon dioxide than burning coal. But that is only half the story. There is a big problem with  methane. In the whole process from mining and collecting the gas to where it is finally delivered and burnt there is typically a 5% minimum leak, or escape factor of the gas to the atmosphere. A 10% loss is not at all uncommon. Some gas mining operations have losses as high as 20%.

They’ve called  it “Fugitive” gas, which somehow suggests the methane escape was “not really their fault”. Great PR. In some cases Fugitive Gas volumes can be as high as 20% of total production. It’s seems to be never below 2.5%.

The marketing is clever but the numbers aren’t so pretty.
Consider it this way. Burning 100 tons of good quality coal produces  around 280 tons of carbon dioxide.
So let’s look at burning 100 tones of methane.. This produces only 275 tonnes of carbon dioxide. But the Fugitive gas leak into the air at 5%, is 5 tonnes. And 5 tonnes of methane is as bad as 500 tonnes of carbon dioxide. So burning the methane produces 275 tonnes of CO2 plus the 500 tonnes of CO2 equivalent from the “Fugitive methane”.  So it’s 280 tonnes of CO2 from burning the coal   And 775 tonnes from burning the, supposedly benign, good for the environment, coal seam gas.

But methane gas does have one upside. Weight for weight methane does produces almost twice the energy per kilogram than does coal.  For equal energy, the ratio with a low 5% Fugitive Gas loss is therefore closer to 280 tonnes CO2 from coal and to 387 tonnes of CO2-e from methane. So at its very best methane is “only” 37% worse than coal. Fugitive losses would have to be an impossibly tiny 1% for methane to be no worse than coal. And that’s near impossible. Much higher than 5% seems to be very common. It’s actually very difficult to get Fugitive gas losses in any operation less than 5%.

So burning coal seam gas is never ever better than burning coal, And is often many times worse. But that’s certainly not what the coal seam gas, natural gas, shale gas  PR people encouraged us to believe.

Google —- “Opinion Dirty Little Secret About Natural-Gas Fracking: Fugitive Methane Emissions”
Or go direct to ——-https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/gas-is-dirty-energy http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/15/07/07/opinion-fracking-and-natural-gas-s-dirty-little-secret-fugitive-methane-emissions/ .

If it doesn’t come up look at the top of your screen. Click it if it’s there.

Nuclear energy is a totally sustainable energy system and we must always acknowledge it as so. It must always go on any list of “sustainable fuels”.
Not to is a “lie by omission”.

The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion (fusion is joining little atoms together; The Hydrogen Bomb was a fusion device )

Nuclear fusion inside the Sun produces the heat that generates the light that is the “sustainable” energy source that powers solar cells. The same energy evaporates ocean water to make rain to produce “sustainable” hydro electric power.

Earth’s deep interior is hot because of the nuclear fission of natural uranium. (fission is pulling big atoms apart:  Atoms Bombs are fission devices )

The interior of the Earth contains small quantities of uranium U235 mixed up with a lot of U238. Uranium 235 is a fuel used in many nuclear reactors. Deep inside the Earth, U235 fissions as it does in any uranium reactor and the process produces heat. That is the energy that drives “sustainable” geothermal power stations. So geothermal is nuclear.

The reality is that Tidal Energy is the only non-nuclear “sustainable” energy source on our planet

Here’s why. The Moon revolving around the Earth produces tides in the ocean. No nuclear energy is involved. Tidal energy, therefore is the only energy source that isn’t nuclear based. Tidal energy does causes the Moon to slowly slow down.

Life’s history – All life on Earth evolved in a world full of low level nuclear materials so we are used to it and it’s good for us. Levels were three or four times what background radiation levels are now. We’re actually undernourished on radiation

Gamma, X Ray, infrared, ultra violet, radio waves, and visible light are all electromagnetic radiation. Alpha and Beta radiations are particles. Alpha particles are the core of helium atoms. Beta particles are electrons whizzing around and not attached to anything. Electrons, flowing down a wire is electricity. Neutrons make up the numbers in a nucleus and loose ones can be fast or slow. They can get absorbed by an atom and that atom will become another and different material. Neutrons penetrate solid materials and are best stopped by the hydrogen in water. We need to have a good shield to protect us from loose neutrons. Wikipedia is good for neutron information.

 Everything can kill you and everything is totally harmless; it just depends on the dose and how it gets into your body.
Sunshine and nuclear radiation are good for you; and again it depends on the dose. Typically nuclear workers that receive increased radiation are healthier than their fellow workers that don’t. The coal, oil and gas industries of the world will go out of business if the amazing safety of the nuclear energy industry becomes well known. And especially if the health enhancing benefits of getting regular doses of nuclear radiation becomes widely known.

In the US on May 14,  1945 Albert Stevens, a house painter,  was injected with a huge dose of plutonium (the world’s biggest ever) to cure his terminal cancer and prevent his very certain pending death. Big mistake. Albert Stevens didn’t have cancer. The injection gave him, in effect a permanent dose of 1,000 mSv per year for the rest of his life. ( mSv is milli-serverts. it’s a measure of radiation dose.)  He died just before he turned 80. Mr. Stevens was also a heavy smoker. See Wikipedia and Albert Stevens.
Currently and for the last several hundred million years  the worlds average background radiation level sits at 2.75 mSv.

Also for some history on the antinuclear propaganda campaign go to —https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html

 Australia’s known uranium resources are the world’s largest – almost one-third of the world total.

In 2015-16 Australia produce 8000 tonnes of uranium oxide (8206 tonnes).  From that we could produce  7000 tonnes of uranium metal (6941 tonnes) . Australia is the world’s third-ranking producer, behind Kazakhstan and Canada. All production is exported.

 

How big is the claimed “waste problem?
In your whole life you will produce a billion litres of CO2, or going nuclear, an egg cup full of nuclear waste

The fossil fuel organizations have a huge, unsolved waste disposal problem. Their solution is to convince the gullible public that there is no problem, and additionally, convincing us that using the atmosphere as a waste dump is perfectly safe.

It’s the principal of the “Big Lie”. Tell a lie loud enough and often enough and it becomes the “truth”.
A person living in any Western society powered by coal, oil, and gas is responsible for discharging into the atmosphere around one billion litres of carbon dioxide throughout his life. The same person in a totally nuclear powered society would produce about one egg cup full of high level nuclear waste. (In conventional nuclear power station design they’re more conservative and allow for a volume of two hen’s eggs.)

Nuclear waste into deep ocean subduction  zones is the absolutely perfect, and political correct solution . And it’s OK for a quarter of a billion years.       

 So the fossil fuel interests got the UN to declare that nuclear waste had to be stay on land and not “pollute the oceans”.  A subduction  zone is like and upside down volcano. It’s where the oceanic plates dive down under the continental plates. They also form the deepest ocean trenches in the world. Mount Everest would fit in some of them, and you wouldn’t see its peak. The subducted materials gets mixed with the molten outer mantle of the Earth’s crust. The round trip, that’s before any individual atom resurfaces, can be a quarter of a billion years. Cast the waste into concrete blocks and drop them into the trenches. It’s so ridiculously simple and easy and incredibly cheap and incredibly safe.

 Alternatively use abandoned mines for unused nuclear material storage .

There are plenty a kilometre or so deep. The geology at some of them has been stable for hundreds of millions of years. Back fill with a dozen or a few truck loads of concrete. It would sit there, until some dim distant, future, advanced, civilization, decided to study how ancient humans lived, and decided to dig it up.

 

All the high level nuclear waste in the world adds up to just under 240 thousand tonnes. The whole lot would fit in any one of the current world’s bigger oil tankers.
The Earth’s crust contains approximately 40,000 billion tonnes of Uranium
The current estimated Plutonium content of the Earth is 6 million tonnes

Cost of nuclear energy same as coal     

       And that’s because we allow coal fired power stations to dump their waste into the air, which we have now seen, hinders sunlight energy radiating out. But we insist nuclear energy producers lock up their “waste” for a thousand years: But even so: coal energy still, most definitely,  not cheaper than nuclear energy. US costs comparisons show this clearly.
Nuclear power stations are the cheapest and safest way of producing electricity.

France is 100% nuclear. The fossil fuel lobby promote the belief that it’s “only 75%”

What’s right? Well consider. France produces enough nuclear energy to totally supply all its electricity needs. It also produces a lot of hydro power. So it produces something like 115% of its need. It sells the rest. France is the world’s biggest exporter of electricity. However in the world’s fossil fuel compliant media France is always portrayed as being only 75% nuclear, not 100% nuclear. The inference being that it must make up the difference somehow. Maybe with fossil fuels? It’s called “perception management”. And the French aren’t silly. France is  not giving away its electricity. It’s selling it for a profit and waste disposal is definitely factored into their costing.

 Biofuels and batteries can run self contained transport   

     There are two major biofuels, ethanol and bio-diesel.  Ethanol can replace petrol in spark ignition type engines. And biodiesel in diesel engines. Almost all the major automobile manufacturers in the World manufacture engines that run on pure ethanol or often on any blend through from pure ethanol to pure petrol.

Aircraft engines are now made to run on pure ethanol. In Brazil most agricultural aircraft use these engines. They have been making cars in Brazil for years that can run on pure ethanol, pure petrol, or any blend between.
Biodiesel is produced when you mix palm oil with ethanol with a little bit of caustic soda to catalyze the bonding chemical reaction. Virtually all diesel engines run equally as well on biodiesel as they do on petroleum diesel. Most run better with less problems as biodiesel doesn’t vary from where you get it.        Ethanol is made by the bulk fermentation of sugar from sugar cane, or the fermentation of any of the grains. Sugar cane makes the most economical sense as you’re fermenting the sap whereas with grain you’re fermenting only the plants seeds.
When the world price for oil was above US$100 a barrel ethanol was cheaper than petrol.

Sugar cane and oil palms grow best in the wet tropics and unlike tropical rain forests, no methane is produced to discharge into the air, and we know that  methane is over 100 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

In a modern two car family it would be nice if one car at least was battery powered, provided the electricity was not produced by fossil carbon fuels. Of course the perfect combination is a hybrid vehicle with a biofuel compatible engine.

Fossil fuel producers’ PR people often promote nuclear energy as non-renewable and non-sustainable.      (That’s hog wash)

What is promoted as “sustainable energy” ,we know, is derived ultimately from nuclear fission in the Earth interior or nuclear fusion in the Sun’s interior. Then the pro-fossil fuel, anti-nuclear lobby creates an incredible piece of “double think”. They promote the image that power station nuclear energy doesn’t qualify as “sustainable energy”.
The reality is that there is enough easily and cheaply mined uranium and thorium in the world to last our civilization many thousands of years.

There is also enough uranium in the world’s ocean, and, with a little development it would be reasonably easy to extract. So Uranium alone could easily power human society for multiple, multiple, millions of years. And, as has been noted, there is enough waste disposal systems to last us a few billion years.

Nuclear energy is a totally sustainable energy system and we must always acknowledge it, as so. It must always go on any list of super safe “sustainable fuels”.

savannah

The World,s first nuclear merchant ship.
NS Savannah passing under the Golden Gate Bridge in 1962
[thank you Wikipedia]

savannah2

Abridged link to Wikipedia — Nuclear Ships of the World    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=nuclear+ships+of+the+world& pkD18dnKbgQU0%3D&dpr=1&ved=0ahUKEwjc_eO0-world

 

 

 

    View the Yeomans Methodology Here  And this is the email where they rejected our methodology — rejection_1 RejectionThe raising temperature in the Earth’s biosphere is too serious a phenomena to allow such an official and significant Department of Environment letter such as this one, to go uncorrected and uncriticised . So let’s go through it. On the first page it reported on apparent advice from the Soil Technical Working Group relating to a protocol I suggested prior to the construction of the current “Yeomans Methodology“.  That surly appears somewhat incompetent. It also asks for “further data” but doesn’t say on what! They then suggest that the one gram sample size used in LECO in their Loss on Ignition test machine is “practical” when testing large areas of agricultural land, and a sample 2,000 times bigger might be impractical . This has to be nonsense. Additionally it says our sample sizes are 4,000 grams, a size not mentioned anywhere in any of our literature. Actually 4,000 grams is also beyond the capacity of our loss on ignition test equipment. “The likelihood of instrument error” suggested might occur is much more likely in a one gram test sample than in a 2 kilogram. The logic escapes me. If our test equipment was used it would of course require Australian Soil and Plant Analyse Council calibration approval. Which we will do when our methodology is accepted. Finally, if they had read the Yeomans Methodology they would see that the standard LECO manufactured test machine is acceptable for soil sampling. They note seven more objections to the Yeomans Methodology in their letter. One would suspect from these objections that the Department dismissed the methodology deliberately without any diligent consideration. In some ways it  actually seems that it was not even read. “Permanence obligation” is in fact covered in the Methodology. “Defining what activities are eligible” before farmers have worked out the best way to improve the fertility of their soil is extremely counter productive. The requirement effectively hamstrings and knobbles the development of techniques of rapid soil fertility enhancement on any farm in the nation. Their email (which came with a note saying a hard copy would be posted which after two weeks has not been received) has  to says there is insufficient defining of the methodology’s “greenhouse gas assessment boundary”. Departmental literature says “a greenhouse gas assessment boundary is all greenhouse gas emissions and reductions directly affected by the activity”. The scope for obfuscation is thus unlimited. Part 5 of our proposed methodology suggests an approach that is workable and usable in practice. At  least, so farmers say. The other “objections” are already covered clearly in the Methodology. So their email / letter is confusing. The email clearly is used to remind us that the Emission Reduction Fund “does not support research and development”. What does that really mean? I would take “support” to mean actual financial support. Surely “does not support” should not be interpreted by the relevant Departmental personal to mean the Department should actively discourag research and development by others. If that is case then the Departmental people should cease interpreting it that way. It’s now political.  Nothing will happen unless you start chasing your local Federal Member or Senator to get the Minister for the Environment and Energy, that’s the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP  to get his Department people to get our Methodology approved. His contact numbers at his web site are 03 9882 3677. The fax number is 03 9882 3773 and the number in Canberra is 02 6277 7920. It’s not up to me now, nor those in the Department, it’s up to you.

Remember what the American philosopher, Margret Meed and the Dalai Lama , both decided —
“If You Ever Think You’re Too Small To Be Effective, You’ve Never Been In Bed With A Mosquito”

#  We shouldn’t forget — that solar energy comes from the constant nuclear fusion reaction in the Sun.
#  And geothermal energy derives from the constant fission of uranium within the Earth.

 

Nuclear fission reactors are going to be the main electric power producers for all industrial societies in a few years and biofuels and batteries will power our self-contained transport systems. Wind and solar power systems may supply a small but significant proportion of the total if we continue to pour money down those drain holes. Fusion power is an incredibly expensive pipe dream and too far away to be of relevance to global warming.

Every developed country should be like France and be totally self sufficient in safe cheap nuclear generated electric power. China is gearing up to build some 400 nuclear power stations. That’s more than enough to power both the US and Canada. Wholesale price of that power would be about 3 cents. Same as, or cheaper than coal.

The alternative is nations will be constantly at war to grab usable un-flooded land or to keep their usable un-flooded land. That’s war.

The standard of living of all societies, especially Western Societies will drop dramatically and stay down for a very long time.

There are only two serious threats to the fossil fuel countries and corporations. And they are nuclear energy and biofuels. Biofuels are okay at around a consistent $100 a barrel.

Our current “relatively safe” systems of using and handling the fossil fuel power production kills at least a thousand times more people than does nuclear electric power system when generating the same power, and that includes the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Imagine the death toll you could attribute to fossil fuels, especially oil if we included the war deaths resulting from conventional explosion weapons, bullets, bombs, torpedos, napalm, etc. the list is endless.

Perception Management is incredibly effective.

So despite nuclei’s almost ridiculously safe history we all “know” dip within us that it’s all somehow very dangerous. We all “know” deep down and irrationally that “nuclear waste disposal is a huge problem that will last for thousands of years”, and of course we all “know” that even the tiniest dose of nuclear radiation could trigger a deadly cancer. It is often surprisingly difficult to even doubt these ingrained “truths”.

Let’s call them “ingrained lies”. It’s more accurate.

 

 

BELOW HAS BEEN MOVED TO RED BUTTON 9 ON ENERGY, BUT HAS STILL TO BE DELETED FROM HERE NOVEMBER 13 2019

 

 

 

 

To be inserted in the Red Button 5   — Tactics to Stop Global Warming