I was reading this article at WUWT:
Which lead me to this article:
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/hiatuses-in-the-rise-of-temperature/
To which I published this comment. We will see if it gets past moderation.
Begin Quote:
First off, the two “data sets” you use are not data. They are a processed adjusted product of computers. GIStemp in particular is one I’ve investigated in great depth (including running my own copies of it) and it is, IMHO, not ‘fit for purpose’ for many reasons.
Then, setting that aside, the whole thing is based on ‘average temperatures’ treated AS temperatures. They are not. Temperature is then treated as a proxy for heat. It isn’t. Doing calorimetry requires the mass, specific heats, heats of fusion and vaporization, and all phase changes be accounted. It isn’t. But since temperature is an intrinsic property, a ‘global average temperature’ is not a temperature. (And since GIStemp carries the temps AS temperatures through the calculations and averages and only makes the anomaly at the end, don’t launch that anomaly canard. It isn’t. Not till well after loads of averages of temperatures have been used…)
The simple fact is that the CHANGES in historical data done as ‘adjustments’ are the source of all the warming “trend”. The reality is shown by the cold and snow on the ground all over N. America and Asia with 100 year cold and snow records falling. It’s cold. Just look out the window. (Yes, it is weather. But if all that ‘hottest ever’ heat is running around, the weather would not be 100 year record cold and snow. Remember the ‘warmers’ prediction that snow would become a distant memory for children? It isn’t.) https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/
So aside from data diddling, not having enough data, doing things (averaging temps) not supported by physics, and treating temperature as heat content, not doing the things necessary to do proper calorimetry, and having claims not in touch with the reality on the ground, ‘nice job’…
BTW, the Pacific ocean has an 18 year lag in temperature patterns from equator to pole. (Presentation in Chicago a few years back), so the north edge of the Pacific ought to be reflecting about 1996 right now, with 1998 pattern at about 2/18ths of the way from N.pole to equator. No surprise it is warm. In a couple of more years it will follow the rest of the ocean to cooler. And no, averaging temperatures of equator to pole will NOT give a good result. See above about intrinsic properties…)
One final point: How is it that all that regularly added heat suddenly decides to run off into the oceans? Just now? Why didn’t it happen in the prior 50 years? Simply put, it didn’t. Both land and sea warmed in a natural cycle of about 60 years duration. The land turned cold first and fastest. The oceans lag with the longest lag being to the N. Pacific at 18 years. Otherwise you must explain why the land is now quite frozen, storing NO heat from the last 100 years, and it all got wadded up into the North Pacific… That’s a quite unphysical result that requires a quite unphysical process. What is it?
Musings from the Chiefio 
This entire issue has been a great fraud for grant money as the politicians are always looking for something new to tax. The facts are very simple:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
There is no possible “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover that traps heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces as required for greenhouses. Molecules have to be in contact, as in liquids and solids like water and glass, to form surfaces.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was the longest time, 500 years, of peace with great abundance for all.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That means temperature change is cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming concept.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” depending on who is raving, but it is not per the on-line absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Green vegans” blame cow flatulence for global warming in their war against eating meat.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Google “Two Minute Conservative,” and you will be applauded when you speak truth at your next dinner party, barbecue or church picnic.
An exceedingly evil, intelligent force expanded from the central Eurasian continent to engulf the entire globe after WWII.
That is why the integrity of science and constitutional limits on world governments evaporated, . . .
Fragmenting the unity of the laws of nuclear physics, thermodynamics and cosmology, . . .
With separate and irrational forms of consensus scientific explanations for increasing entropy, expansion of the universe, nuclear and atomic forces.
Dividing the wisdom acquired from spiritual and scientific practices into dogmatic, warring opponents that now threaten the survival of mankind.
A link will be added to document this interpretation of post-WWII history.
Adrian Vance:
Global warming caused by ‘green vegans’ ?
Are you trying to split the ‘greens’ into faction fighting each other. GO FOR IT!!!
E.M.S.
Nobody knows
where the missing heat goes,
when the lights go out at night.
But it oft has the notion
to bathe nude in the ocean,
a truly splendid sight.
P.S. great post. I shall force myself to read WUWT to see if it got posted.
The point of what I am saying in that paragraph is that methane is not a “greenhouse gas,” as there are none in the first case and on their own standard it does not qualify. This entire controversy is a fiction, fable and fraud wrapped in tissues of lies for money and power.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him think —– or something like that,
Good Job EM of summing up why AGW is nonsense.
And defenders of GISTemp, NOAA, HadCrut, and Best continue to defend these adjustments which appear to be 100% of the purported global temperature increases. Even if one assumes that the adjustments are valid, why are they made nearly every month? You’d think all those “giant brains” would get it right after a month or two.
Well, as of whatever time this is posted, your comment is still not up. That said, they seem to have allowed Mike Haselers’ posts through, and he could hardly be said to be supportive of van Oldenburgh’s opinion. The post says 23 comments, but if you count them, there is only 21, which probably means at least two have been deleted. So, just another member of the Big Lie Brigade.
The wriggling around by him over the hiatus puts doubts in my mind about the trustworthiness of the KNMI datasets, even though Bob Tisdale swears by and uses them extensively. Using Cowtan and Way as the basis for his post gives me even less confidence. It looks to me like yet another activist in sciency clothing. The desperation is palpable.
I doubt your well reasoned comment will ever see the light of day on climate-lab-book, the conclusion has one thing right, a very poor way to study climate indeed.
Such wilful blindness by the host there is amusing.
He speaks of long and short-term trends without cluing in to his own cherry picking..what is his longterm trend? 1970 -2005?
For decades the land surface temperature torqued into the average global temperature was their standard.Any heat wave was proof.
Now it, LST, fails to meet the needs of the ideology it must be discard for ocean subsurface temperatures.
Very “pythonish” soon these expert climatologists will be arguing black is white and that they always argued that natural effects dominate our climate.That on a water world such as ours, water vapour would dominate the greenhouse gas spectrum…insignificant plant food ? inconceivable that it could influence climate…We have always been at war with..
As predicted Climate Change has become GCD, not global climatic disruption/whatever but Glibbering Climb Down as the crazed ones are exposed for the fools and bandits they be.
I think the sentiment of long suffering taxpayers is slowly being felt, after these decades of lying, abuse and derision there is no soft landing for tax funded fools.
I am cranky, hostile to all tax fed parasites and deliberately restricting my contribution to the treasury.And I wait with full malice, as the cycle continues to turn cool I will be here to remind my local do-gooders and chicken littles what asinine twits they were and continue to be.
The post that WUWT has highlighted at Climate Lab is another attempt to change the channel, a pretty feeble waffling attempt at that.
I’m looking forward to the time that we are again warned of the dire consequences of burning fossil fuels, since it’s been shown that this increases the radiation of IR in the stratosphere and thus cools the planet. In order to avoid the coming Ice Age, therefore, we’ll need to stop whatever we’re doing.
One of the spin-offs from the coming mission to Mars is that we’ll need to learn how to make a small area of farm produce enough food to maintain the crew of the trip with everything recycled. This should lead to a better understanding of the requirements for farming on Earth, too. Currently, I’ve seen that extremely-intensive farming can support most of the needs of a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 kids) on 8m² by using under-growing and sequenced planting. With enough CO2 in the local atmosphere it seems possible that even more production could be achieved.
Looking at all the information Chiefio has published over the last few years I’ve been looking, my conclusion is that our effect on the temperatures is almost imperceptible compared to the natural cycles, though I suspect that mass changes of land-use can affect the distribution of rainfall. It does look like the effects of deforestation can change local climate, yet this effect seems to be ignored by the climate models and the high priests of climate change. If you change the irrigation practices on a large area of open land, then this will change the local temperatures and the moisture that is then carried downwind.
Instead of concentrating on temperatures, the climate scientists should be looking at energy transport by climatic processes. This surely is more fundamental to the climate we experience.
Here’s documentation of the devious path from WWII to Climategate
Click to access From_WWII_to_Climategate.pdf
Your analysis is very informative, and I am sure will be set aside by the “anomaly” crowd. BTW, I was reading a paper last week by several German scientists—they developed the underpinnings of current devices used by satellites to measure the earth’s temperature. The crux of the article was these devices did not “measure” actual temperature. The devices measured “brightness”–which included emissivity, background noise, reflectivity, and a few other physical variables. The main value or fact that I took from the article was the systemic error factors. Apparently, there is at least a .5K error factor in any one of the devices, and sometimes this elevates to 2.4K error. These systemic and other natural errors would lead any rational person to take any type of so called “natural data” from various organizations with a grain of salt. I am generally dismayed at the ongoing mental activity around this type of data.
@Simon,
Do you have a link to where you saw this intensive growing? I’m not challenging you, I got myself an allotment (more to build my fitness back up than anything else, but if I could try something novel, such as what you found, it would make it interesting as well.
Adrian Vance says:
29 November 2014 at 5:33 pm
You forgot to add that water covers 70% of the Earth’s surface and the back radiation in the LWIR just causes evaporation. It does not heat the oceans. So your .1% is actually .03%. There are other factors of course. But that is one of the bigger more obvious ones.
Paul Hanlon – IIRC it was a BBC program that followed this around a decade ago. I’ll do some searching and see what I can find and report back later. The underlying idea was to use multiple planting to utilise all the levels available, and also there was no fallow phase – something was growing all the time. This isn’t bio, but will require replacement of the nutrients taken out of the soil by the plants. In a spaceship closed-cycle there is of course a necessity to process the waste anyway, so that growing area would be backed up by the recycling area.
Paul Hanlon:
most likely a greenhouse hydroponics scheme. The hydroponics ensures optimal water and nutrients to the plant, and the greenhouse helps maintain the right temperature range. Add up to 1000 ppm CO2 for more plant growth (around 1400 p.p.m. but varies with plant species.
The original populariser of hydroponics in the late 1930’s (sorry, name escapes me) used a spray system for the nutrients to improve the air up-take by the plant roots. He grew tomato plants to 20 foot + height, and liked posing on a step ladder picking them. Basically the plants were suspended with the roots growing downwards into an airspace above a shallow pond of nutrients in water. This solution was sprayed as a fog into the space, keeping the roots exposed to 100% humidity and wet with nutrient solution. You need to monitor the nutrient composition and concentration, power for the spray, glasshouse temperature range, sunlight strength and hours etc. Usually systems use name airponics/ airoponics.
There are commercial systems available but most try building their own.
The alternative is to start with more conventional hydroponics systems. Some form of insulating the plants from the extremes of weather is advisable, but not knowing where you are I cannot suggest where you start. A well ventilated greenhouse helps (but don’t forget bug control).
You certainly can get very good yields from hydroponics, but it tends to be more expensive to set up and run that conventional gardening. Look into it and good luck.
Informative post as usual from the Chiefio. Thnx mate.
Regards the pause-hiatus-whatever, I often wondered how the ‘luke-warmers’ explain the pause-hiatus-whatever. (luke warmers being sceptics who accept the GHE hypothesis but don’t think temp rises will be big enough to worry about)
Alarmists reckon “natural variability” is masking the warming.
Luke warmers reckon……..
..
crickets
..
crickets
..
“Natural Variability?”
So there we have it. Sceptics can’t make any headway in this debate because they are arguing THE EXACT SAME THING AS THE ALARMISTS.
The public is going to believe who, the worlds scientific organizations + universities + etc etc or a bunch of self educated blogger climate experts?
We the REAL SCEPTICS don’t stand a chance when fellow sceptics agree with the UN fraud.
I liken it to the conservative parties around the Anglosphere who’ve abandoned their base to chase votes on the left of the political spectrum and who get clobbered time and time again without learning their lesson.
Likewise with the so called sceptics community.
Keep up the good work Chiefio
@Baa Humbug
Natural climate variability is reality for those who live at 1 AU from a pulsar-centered star.
See the following draft of an open message to those who tried to hide reality from the public:
To: Geo-Engineering Proponents
From: Oliver K. Manuel, Former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo Lunar Samples
Subject: Who Appointed You God?
On this 5th Anniversary of the release of information to the public in Climategate e-mails, I confidently conclude that:
Although society survived a torturous, sixty-four year journey from the end of WWII in 1945 to the start of Climategate in 2009 at the hands of those who abused their control of public information . . .
Click to access From_WWII_to_Climategate.pdf
those who successfully deceived the public in the past would be wise to now repent and help society accept the stormy, pulsar-centered Sun that controls Earth’s climate as well as the fate of every atom, life and world in the solar system – a volume of space greater than the combined volumes of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 Earth’s.
Please understand that this action would be in your best interest, . . .
and in the best interest of the society that you foolishly attempted to subjugate to your arrogant illusion of enlightenment.
With kind regards,
– Oliver K. Manuel
Paul Hanlon – a bit more looking and there’s a .pdf about Mel Bartholomew’s research at http://www2.ca.uky.edu/gogreen/displays/SquareFootGardeningDBH.pdf that was probably the basis for the BBC programme I saw, and there’s also some discussions at http://forums.permaculturenews.org/archive/index.php/t-2676.html that lead on to further information. Off-topic for this thread but I expect EM will also find it interesting and might do some digging too (but only when he’s found a new permanent home).
@Adrian:
Nice review of the history.
@Graeme No.3:
Ah, such poetry! ;-)
BTW, the comment was at the original site
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/hiatuses-in-the-rise-of-temperature/
Which as of now still says:
But maybe I have email waiting to which I must respond to show myself real before it gets processed… or they only approve comments on every other Thursday… or other similar thing.
@Larry:
I thought it was “You can lead a whore to culture but you can’t make her think.”…
In this case, Climate Catastrophe Money Whores…
@John Robertson:
Sounds about right. This ‘selling season’ has shown a weak start. More folks are holding back on spending. EU is headed for the tank. Japan is noted as on the rocks for monetary policy at a minimum. Russia has about 2 years until it hits the wall in a smackdown, and the crashing oil price is shortening that time daily. The OPEC states are mostly underwater on long term budgets with oil under $80 / bbl and are desperately funding anything to stop fracking in the West before they too hit the budget wall. Then O(usob)Bomma has gone and got himself saddled with an All Republican All The Time new congress and things pissing in their faces is the right way to handle it (not realizing the drips land on the folks who voted them in… and does not make them happy with his party). Add to that the fact that we are near the TOP of this solar cycle, and going down from 100 year cold records is, er, really cold…. Somehow I think the next 1/2 decade will be very interesting…
@OManuel:
Nicer way of handling your Hobby Horse… Subdued, yet available…
@CW:
Yeah. I’ve fought that battle regularly. Expect to do so again. The simple fact is that inside GIStemp it carries temperature data AS temperatures (with adjustments) until it gets to the end where it makes “grid cells” and fills them with “anomalies”. So what is the anomaly of an empty grid cell compared to the baseline empty grid cell? Hmmmm? Last I looked they had something like 8000 or 16000 grid cells the majority with no actual recorded temperature data at all… Just handwaving infilled homogenized averaged data-food-product… The “anomaly” is between one fantasy and another…
I’ve generally stayed away from the issue of the initial readings being a bit daft due to essentially no historical error range data. Figure that was more the turf for Anthony and similar. It also tends to just turn into a bog boring food fight over statistical manipulations. I’m more interested in the bits that are clear to the ‘average Joe’ (maybe with a bit of filtering out the junk ;-)
@Paul Hanlon:
A quick search on intensive hydroponic agriculture production: turned up:
Click to access August%202014%20Splash_0.pdf
from: http://ag.arizona.edu/ceac/hydroponic-greenhouse-crop-production-intensive
and a whole lot more.
Most ag is trying to produce the most profit, and that is the intersection of lowest costs with production. If you go for max production, the quantities per unit of land can be astounding. The System Of Rice Intensification, for example, has about 10x gain available.
http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/
Expect to do much more labor and use more fertilizers. Know your crops in great detail, do starts in a small greenhouse and only ‘plant out’ at the optimal size to keep the large area fully productive year round.
The French Intensive system is a related one:
http://www.learn2grow.com/gardeningguides/edibles/planting/FrenchLesson.aspx
More here:
and the short treatment of the Disney Land exhibit and hydroponics in:
(though they have since removed the giant space with trees in it and installed a ride… but the low flat greenhouse / fish tank areas remain).
I’ll leave the NASA space grow system for your own searches. They were working on 6 inch tall wheat and such that could be grown in a stack of about 9 inch spaces in trays with all artificial light. You can get a LOT of crop if you have a new layer of grow every 9 inches… Mostly they were growing saladings IIRC, with the grain as an experimental path. Also, with careful selection of types, you can get things like 45 day corn and beans. Add in tomatoes growing for a year or more with non-stop production and you can get astounding yields / area. Hydroponics and greenhouses are amazing things…
@M. Simon:
Oh, and don’t forget that something like 99% of IR is absorbed in the water vapor in the troposphere… It doesn’t actually get to the surface…
@Baa Humbug:
Thanks for the vote of appreciation!
IMHO, it all comes down to a principle driven life. IF you have principles and adhere to them, things are much more clear. Once you compromise your principles, you have none, and proceed to the negotiating the price phase… What price the election? What price the published article?
So I have a few very hard core principles. One is “Find The Truth”. I don’t give a fig what the result will be, who’s ox gets gored, what the fallout is, or even if it hurts. “The Truth Just Is. -E.M.Smith”.
Now, once you have the truth, IFF you chose to ignore it for a necessary effect, at least you know exactly what you are doing, how you will be exposed, and what the cost will be. Choosing to be a “Money Whore” is best done fully informed, IMHO. ( I’m not politically naive. Several times I’ve said to folks “The truth is FOO and BAR. IF you want to me shut up about that and to FuBar, the price is $….” (in effect… I was their employee and informing them that I’d do the job as contracted for the agreed price, but it was FuBar and truth was elsewhere.) Then shut up and do as the client requested. So I’m willing to be a Money Whore (anyone who is a contractor for a living does it at some time or other) but I demand of myself that I know the truth, face it, and make sure the client knows it too; and then take orders. But it is an informed decision with exactly what principle is being compromised clear and the decision validated. So someone says “we need to hit the check box that this hardware was installed.”, I install the hardware. That the software is not going to work is “not my problem and not in my contract” – but I know I’ve informed the manger who is about to hit the check box… One of my principles is that once you agree to the contract, you perform the service purchased. You have, at that point, agreed to be a Money Whore; so be the best one you can… but “To thine own self be true”… know the truth, and be honest about it.
So, back to your point:
The lukewarmers are way down in the weeds of tech details, but bought into a load of non-truth to get there. I keep digging for the truth…
One particularly interesting bit is that the troposphere is NOT radiative. By Definition. It is the place where radiation is so ineffective that convection, condensation, evaporation, mass flow all dominate. The whole radiative physics model is quite likely correct, but ONLY above the tropopause. It works in the stratosphere where CO2 is a cooling agent… That is one example of a truth that the warmers (of any degree) do not hear…
This just is NOT a radiative dominated surface.
@Simon:
I actually have 3 large pots and a half dozen small ones with stuff growing in them… just can’t help it. (Compulsion of a sort…) Lemon, Lime, both for shots ;-0 Then there is the parsley and sage. Thyme doing not so well, but trying. Chives. Basil in season. Rosemary doing very well.
So it goes… You can garden even in a few square feet and without any real dirt of your own ;-)
EMS:
You are too kind, I classified it as doggerel.
I wish I could emulate the Great Circling Poets of Arium, who persuaded the useless and gullible to leave Golgafrincham for another planet. I have a list of those suitable, but lack their talent.
And, yes, I did pick up the original link, but after pressing the Post button. The Moving Finger posts; and, having posted, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line
I was originally trying to do a play on words to the original version (lead a horse to water) but on reflection, I think your reference to whores is more appropriate. Both points have their merit.
Just because you point out that the “data” and I use that term very loosely, is not really data and is an artificial construct of the models not real measurements of real conditions, in no way guarantees that they will internalize that minor little detail.
Regarding your comment on the lack of effective radiation transport in the troposphere, it is interesting that the “effective radiation surface” altitude is about 1/2 way to the tropopause, at around 14,000 ft elevation (ie the summit height of the Rockies) where effective mechanical mixing due to wind flow over terrain ceases to be a means to mix the atmosphere and above that only strong convection from thunderstorms the jet stream and major storm systems mix the atmosphere and move heat.
The minor detail that convection and advection driven turbulent mixing completely dominates in the lower atmosphere for energy transport is ignored. They may understand that fact intellectually but in a classic case of beliefs which are incompatible, when working on calculations they suppress that recognition and focus entirely on their pet theory of transport.
IR capture and re-emission must by necessity only be significant when all other modes of transport go away. That necessarily means that IR radiation transport is only important above the troposphere and into the upper reaches of the atmosphere above Hadley cell circulation, average jet stream altitude and convective storm updrafts where large mass flows of the atmosphere become insignificant mechanisms of heat transport.
@ E.M. and Larry Ledwick:
Are you two playing with us with your ” lead a . . .” ? Lead a horse to water, etc. is a proverb, while Lead a whore to culture . . . was Dorothy Parker’s ( American writer famous from about 1920 for her caustic wit ) response to someone who asked her to use the word horticulture in a sentence.
You knew that, didn’t you? ;-)
Lead a whore to culture is also the very bad punch line of what is supposed to be a pun on lead a horse to water. I had a friend who told me the joke, and never could understand why the pun didn’t work.
Another type of high intensity farming is called “permaculture”, which uses carefully considered rotation of crops and inter-planting and carefully designed growth beds of very high quality soil to achieve extraordinary production from limited land plots.
Permaculture is a “hippy” favorite and so it has developed a lot of mystique and an aura of being “sustainable” and eco friendly. In that sense it is “non-controversial” on wiki and the article there goes over it at a high level and makes it a bit more complex than really necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
It is the type of sustainable agriculture close to the heart of publications like Mother Earth News.
http://crmpi.org/CRMPI/What_is_Permaculture.html
The sort of garden small homesteads built 100 years ago with the added benefit of modern scientific understanding of steps like quick composting to turn crop waste into high quality soil very rapidly (about 14-21 days).
http://www.compost-info-guide.com/fastcompost.htm
If you strip away all that ecofriendly dogma it is just good sound farming practice taken to its extreme, planting in carefully designed high density beds of very rich productive soil, using the natural variability of different plants to their advantage. For example using inter-planting to plant two crops on the same soil parcel but that mature at different times and compliment each other such as the taller growing plant providing shade at the right time to benefit the growth cycle of the low growing plant and allow it to make maximum use of available sun without getting burned up from too much sun exposure.
I first ran into information about if from the writings of David Blume as I was researching fuel ethanol production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blume
http://www.permaculture.com/node/141
Reference David Blume’s comment on caffeine in the last link (note 1984 date):
@Simon, Graeme No.3, Chiefio, Larry Ledwick,
Many thanks guys, for the links. I have my reading material for a while. I wouldn’t be allowed a greenhouse on an allotment, so that and hydroponics are out. My brother (sadly not with us anymore) was very big into permaculture (in fact he passed away while working on a voluntary permaculture project ), and was an avid green, which used to make for “interesting” conversations between us. I got the basics from him, but those links should fill out the details.
I basically have 80m², and I’m setting it out into about twelve beds with a border bed surrounding them on three sides. The open side faces south, so I was thinking of putting the taller stuff, tomatoes, beans, raspberries etc around the edges, where I can tie them back to the fence. The raspberries are already there, else I wouldn’t have planted them. The inner beds will be mostly root vegetables, plus rhubarb (I do like my rhubarb).
The main reason for taking it on is the exercise, but once you have something, you want to make the best of it, especially when you’re paying for the use of the land. Thanks again, guys.
@Paul
Regarding the green house, you might want to check into local regulations for buildings. Where I live, a temporary structure greenhouse is not considered a “building” and by building that way you can side step some building regulations and zoning. I briefly worked at a green house in the 1990’s between real jobs and they would build large (100′ long) simple green house structures from very simple materials.
Drive short lengths of reinforcing bar into the earth, bend arch hoops from simple electrical conduit, bolt a 1×6 inch board horizontally along the bottom edge with U bolts, then stretch sheet plastic over the top, clamp it in place by sandwiching it between the fixed 1×6 base board and a second 1×2 board (you need some help here from a couple friends) pull the plastic tight then use an electric drill screw driver to screw the second board onto the fixed base board trapping the sheet plastic in between.
They would build them every spring and tear them down every fall. Used them to start flats of flowers before it warmed up enough to plant them in the open, or move them into the real green house as they grew or sold the sprouted flats in the spring.
Construction was similar to the link below:
http://chiotsrun.com/2010/04/17/building-hoop-houses-out-of-electrical-conduit/
did not use a conduit bender built one large wooden form and the workers would just manually bend the conduit over the form, just took minutes to bend up 10-20 hoops.
Paul Hanlon:
Simon Derricutt:
Possible that your source is “One Magic Square” by Lolo Houbein, a local Adelaide Hills gardener. She appeared on ABC TV several times, and it may have gone to the BBC. Definitely knows what she is talking about, and she advised use of 8 squares for a family, although she has 35 in her garden, not counting the hen yard with fruit trees. (Supplies others, e.g. retirement home).
The other source if from the BBC might be the series The Victorian Kitchen Garden from, I think, late 1980’s but since released in the UK on DVD. They took over a derelict walled garden and a retired head gardener, Harry Dodson, restored it with all the old methods and varieties, which he had learnt about from old gardeners who had worked when Queen Victoria was alive. An engaging character, so much so that there were sequels by popular demand. If you can get it, I recommend the series.
P.S. forget horse manure, it brings weeds. If you can find a source of composted pig manure, look for it. After about 18 months outdoors it looses practically all its smell, and will not burn plants like fresh stuff, or poultry manure.
Reference: Larry Ledwick; if you use ground coffee beans. save the residue to make rings around seedlings. It deters slugs, snails etc. and act as a (surprisingly rich) slow release fertiliser.
When I was growing up I was in a small town that was just transitioning from a small farm town to a suburban carpet of new homes (1955). Our home was one of the first built as a show home on land right next to the small farm stead of the man who had formerly owned the land.The other small farm across the street had about 30 geese and about 10 sheep and a couple acres of alfalfa hay. A short walk down the road I walked to go to school there were some more sheep a few horses, and a couple head of cattle. My neighbor also raised Pheasants and a few chickens. He also grew sun flowers (to help feed the Pheasants and chickens I believe). He sold pasture grazing rights to some one on the other side of his home, who had a couple burros, so at a very young age I got a brief look at the world my grandmother and mother grew up in during the early years of the 20th century.
He had a very well seasoned compost pile in his back yard near the coops. Every morning he would dump the breakfast egg shells and used coffee grounds on the pile and you could literally stand there and watch the worms rise to the surface, after he stirred them into the pile. They LOVED those coffee grounds.It was full of a couple cubic yards of intensely black high grade garden soil that he used as an amendment to his small garden of corn, squash etc.
Cheap temporary green houses, a little table size one for seedlings and cuttings, made from salad containers, as well as a small 12x20ft, hoophouse made from plastic pipe. He He temporary! I’ve been using it for over a dozen years,
http://pgtruspace.wordpress.com/category/farming/
Use greenhouse covering and not cheap clear poly plastic. The poly ethylene covering will die after one summer, the poly vinyl will last several years and has much better transmittance of solar energy. pg
Thank you for the reply above EMS. One never feels left out on this blog.
Speaking of greenhouses.
They warm up inside because the glass lets solar radiation in and then prevents convection.
Consider the atmosphere, in which air cools adiabatically as it rises and then warms adiabatically as it descends.
That adiabatically warmed descending air becomes largely transparent because it causes clouds to dissipate which is why surface high pressure cells are usually cloud free.
That adiabatically warmed descending air reduces the lapse rate slope and often reverses it in so called inversions and that inhibits or even blocks convection.
Convection being reduced or prevented, the solar heated surface is then able to rise 33K above S-B on Earth.
The term ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is a perfectly accurate description of the surface warming effect from descending adiabatically warmed air.
That must have been the original thought behind the first use of the term and it applies to up and down transport of mass within the atmosphere and not radiative fluxes.
The term ‘Greenhouse Effect’ has been hijacked by the radiative physics crowd and applied to an entirely different scenario. Enhanced radiation at the surface increases convection rather than reducing it so the term is wholly inappropriate for a radiative scenario.
Hence all the confusion.
E.M., you may wish to respond to this response to your post here. I guess you were “emotional”
Well, a check of the “hiatuses” post shows that my comment is no longer “awaiting moderation”, it has disappeared entirely… Guess it was over the top to point out the serious failings of the whole way “global temperature” is fabricated…
@David A.:
I probably won’t bother. That thread is now a few days old, has over 100 comments, and it is unlikely to add much to the thing to have me come back and say “no, I’m not”… The reality is, though, that “emotion is in the mind of the reader”. When talking about code, I’m generally bloodlessly cold. It’s a kind professional ethic of sorts from decades of code reviews. Even if it isn’t a group code review, one reviews their own code. You just have to shut down emotional parts of the brain and think code…
Now, add to that the notion that “recursive” and “re-entrant” are called “swear words”, and how do you argue with that irrationality? Recursive just means that the same procedure can call itself to do the same function on a partial work product. While not strictly a recursive subroutine, GIStemp does, in fact, repeatedly apply the 1200 km “in fill” method to data that has already had that in fill method applied. At least three times. And this after NCDC has done what in creating the original data food product fed to it. I can think of no better word to describe that than a recursive application of the method. So undoubtedly that “justification” would end in a semantic quibble over “recursive” not being used sensu stricto as limited to just one subroutine. (Never mind that any object oriented code used has a certain inherent recursive nature do to methods being subject to inheritance and…)
Then we would move on to “re-entrant”. That just means you can interrupt a running object and then execute another copy of it, later returning to where you are and picking up OK. There’s a lot of re-entrant code all over the place in most large systems. Again, though, I’m not using it ‘sensu stricto’ and more using it as shorthand for “the output of one pass is the input to the next pass as the model eats it’s own cooking”. The code is reentered to run again on the now modified state from the last pass. That will end up again in a semantic quibble about a loose use of re-entrant instead of saying something like “loop structure with iterations” that would be meaningless to non-programmers (where re-entrant will carry some sense of that for them).
So why waste my time nit picking semantics with someone who added their own “emotional baggage” to what I said?
@Larry:
You got it!
BTW, StarBucks saves their coffee grounds and you can get several pounds of it just by asking. I’ve added about 5 pounds worth to the cheap “potting soil” (that I mixed 50:50 with the Florida “all sand all the time ‘soil'”) and got a nice grow mix.
@Baa Humbug:
Well, I try to at least read every comment and respond to most (as long as I have something to say…) Besides, it is often the comment / response that gives me the most interesting stuff to think about ;-)
@Stephen:
A very nice description of the reality. One nit to harvest… You say “Consider the atmosphere, in which air cools adiabatically as it rises and then warms adiabatically as it descends.” Well…
By Definition: Adiabatic air movements are without the addition or removal of heat. While “warming” usually means the addition of heat (though English is a bit conflicted on that and ‘warming’ can be increasing temperature not heat; and “warming” ice as it melts does not increase the temperature so we usually say ‘melting the ice’ not ‘warming the ice’…)
So to avoid the pedants tossing rocks at you over that, it might be clearer to say:
‘Consider the atmosphere, in which air decreases in temperature adiabatically as it rises and then increases in temperature adiabatically as it descends.’
English is horridly imprecise on temperature vs heat and their changes. I really wish the language had internalized “temperature is not heat” and used different words for their changes…
Then again, at the top of this comment I defended my use of hard core jargon in a looser since to talk more to the Average Joe, and here I am pointing out you are using Average Joe definitions for “warming” and “cooling” and quibbling over not using it sensu stricto as in physics… So maybe it’s not that important ;-)
Thanks E.M.
Your suggested rewording might be useful to some but not others. If anyone bothers to check out adiabatic processes then they should see that the warming and cooling comes from changing KE to PE and vice versa rather than by adding or removing heat.
Just recently Hockeyschtick has come up with a fine series of articles on the subject confirming my view that the mass induced greenhouse effect is proved by the usefulness of the Standard Atmosphere as per details here:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/why-us-standard-atmosphere-model.html
The vast amount of empirical data in the 1976 document should raise serious questions for the radiative theory of gases.
E.M.
Any idea if Bob Tisdale incorporates that 18 year Pacific temperature lag in his el Nino work?
@Another Ian:
Don’t know. I doubt it is directly incorporated. It was given as a “peek preview” at the Chicago presentation as a short subject between main presentations, so unless you were there you didn’t really see it. It was an animation of the data and showed bands of hotter / colder drifting from equator to pole over an 18 year period. It will take a while for that to reach the formally published stage.
I feel it is interesting that some geologists ( James E Kamis, Geology Idaho State University, in reviewing work by Kessler et al ) believe that the El Nino effect has more to do with underwater volcanoes and tectonic activity than solar heating of the ocean.
The review is here –
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/PDFs/kamis-antarctica.pdf page 5.
I did a study of the CRN top rated US surface stations. Most remarkable about them is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources. 35% (8 of 23) of the stations reported cooling over the century. Indeed, if we remove the 8 warmest records, the rate flips from +0.16°C to -0.14°C. –
In order to respect the intrinsic quality of temperatures, I calculated monthly slopes for each station, and combined them for station trends.
See more at:
http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/20/analysis-of-23-top-qualty-us-surface-stations-shows-insignificant-warming-only-0-16c-rise-per-century/#sthash.NqWG4SbF.dpuf
@Another Ian:
Had time for a bit of digging in the history pile. More details on the ocean time lags here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/sea-temperature-time-delay/ and a link in it to another article about no ocean warming for 17 years by Bob Tisdale.
Also has a link back to:
where I noted:
I wish I had paid closer attention, but when at such conferences, it is often the case that you don’t know what’s going to be important until after it’s over, and by then it can be a bit late to ‘catch the name’ of someone…
Hopefully this is enough ‘pointers’ for others to ‘dig here’ and see what came of it.
@TomOMason:
It’s a coupled system, so saying winds do it, but volcanic changes don’t do anything, seems a bit hard to swallow for me. And vice versa…
@RonC:
Nice… That’s one of the things that gets me torqued too. There’s 2000 stations, some are warming, some are cooling, some are cycling. Average, smooth, warp, in-fill, and do what-all and get an ‘trend’ way outside the 1 F error band in the US data and then call that significant? Just crap. Oh, and swap 6000+ original thermometers for 1200 different ones later and claim it doesn’t matter? Someone needs to put ALL “climate scientists” through Chem 1A and have them do real calorimetry… complete with mass, specific heats, heats of fusion / vaporization, conduction, convection, ….
Somewhat off topic, but there is a new paper by Miskolczi with the equations showing the lack of CO2 warming in the atmosphere. No punches pulled:
“In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S. Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R. Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (2014), simply does not exist.”
Pingback: Comment on “Hiatuses” in the rise of temperatures | Follow The Money