View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Man-made Global Warming IMPOSSIBLE
Escape From Fiction to Freedom
Rolf Witzsche researcher, author, producer, and publisher
Much of the world fears that human activities are creating cataclysmic climate
change. It used to be called global warming. In some cases it still is. For example, the
increasing global drought conditions that are creating a food crisis in much of the
world, are blamed on man-made global warming. But is anthropogenic climate change
really possible? What do you think?
Let me propose a quiz: What do you suppose is the CO2 portion of the TOTAL
climate 'forcing?' Is it 30%, 10%, 3%, 1/2%, or 10 millionth of a percent?
If you selected one of the first 4 answers, you are way off the mark and need to
watch my video, Man-made Global Warming Impossible. If you selected the 5th
answer you probably guessed, and so you may need to watch the video also to
discover why this answers comes closest to the real dynamics that are inherently
variable.
Overview: The physical facts are rather simple.
The evidence suggests that man-made Climate Change IMPOSSIBLE. It would be
wonderful if it would be possible for humanity to develop the means to alter the
climate on Earth. If it was possible it would save us the challenge imposed by the
next Ice Age cycle to which the transition has already begun. Unfortunately,
manmade global warming is impossible to achieve. The astrophysical dynamics that
affect our climate are far too immense for us to be able to influence them,
regardless of what our fictional dreaming asserts or causes us to fear, or causes us
to destroy our economies in response to this fear.
The drought conditions that humanity should rightfully 'fear' are not man-made, but
are instead the natural result of the changing astrophysical dynamics of the ongoing
Ice Age transition that is already deeply affecting the climates on earth though the
process has just begun, even while it is politically denied to even exist.
Contrary to all the global warming climate change hoopla that blames manmade carbon
dioxide, also called CO2, as a climate villain, the scientific fact is that CO2 is NOT
affecting the global climate, regardless of its concentration in the atmosphere. It
never has affected the climate, and never will. Anthropogenic global warming is
simply not possible.
This means that the climate dynamics that are now unfolding are caused by forces
beyond our control, and that these will continue in their trend regardless of what we
do. If humanity did not exist, the drought conditions would be happening just the
same, because CO2, which humanity is necessarily producing by its living, is not a
causative factor for anything in the climate dynamics. This means that our only
possible response to the changing climate is to deal with the consequences that are
now unfolding for which the cause is out of our hands in a big way.
Let me illustrate why CO2 is not a causative climate factor.
The physical facts prove that manmade global warming is NOT possible by any
means. The prove that the religion of manmade global warming is a fantasy of
political fiction. Oh yes, humanity is easily vilified by political fiction in which science
is turned upside down. CO2 is easily blamed, because all life is carbon based, including
human living and human activities, so that scare stories can be created in great
quantities that proclaim with fanfares blaring that humanity is 'living too much' and
is emitting too much CO2 by the processes that it requires to live.
However, if one compares where CO2 really stands in the
global greenhouse dynamics, a totally different picture
comes to light.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The CO2 molecules in the air do absorb radiated heat
energy. This physical quality makes CO2 a greenhouse gas. It is one of a number of
greenhouse gases. The greenhouse itself is not a danger to human living and all life.
The very existence of life on our planet is made possible by the greenhouse effect of
the atmosphere. Without it, enormous temperature fluctuations would occur that
would make life impossible. This means that we really do depend on the greenhouse
effect of the atmosphere. It is one of the most- critical factors for life in that it
moderates the climate fluctuations. The greenhouse effect of the atmosphere
literally enables us all to exist. The greenhouse gases retain a portion of the Sun's
energy, and the Earth's reflected energy, in the atmosphere. The thermal buffer
that this creates around the Earth makes the nights warmer and the days cooler.
The CO2 gas in the atmosphere plays a role in the
greenhouse process, although an extremely minuscule role
that's too small to have an effect on anything.
It is a physical fact that not all greenhouse gases are equal in their heat-absorbing
ability, or efficiency. If one compares the absorption coefficient of CO2 with that of
the most important greenhouse gas, which is water vapor, a more-than ten-fold
difference comes to light. CO2 has an absorption coefficient of roughly the value of
20 in its two narrow bands within the radiation spectrum of the Sun. Water vapor, in
comparison, has an absorption coefficient of 200, ranging upwards to 600. In this
comparison the energy absorption efficiency of water vapor is ten times greater than
that of CO2. However, the CO2 is responsive in only two bands within the solar
radiation spectrum, at the low-energy end of the spectrum, while water vapor is
responsive in 7 bands, some of which are located in the high-energy end of the
spectrum. (See example) This addition in the high-energy region renders water vapor
absorption 50 times greater.
In addition to all that, water vapor is 100-fold more prevalent in the atmosphere
than CO2. The water vapor density in the atmosphere is typically 4%, while the
density of CO2 is a mere 0.039% This raises the comparative difference to 5000.
Let me illustrate what this difference means, extremely
conservatively.
Let me compare the CO2 effect to a cat, which stands roughly one foot tall. In this
comparison, water vapor, which is the major greenhouse gas, is comparable to a
building twice as tall as the World Trade towers in New York had stood. In this
comparison a cat is so small that it cannot even be seen. If one was to over-feed the
cat and make it 30% fatter, it still couldn't be seen. Indeed, if it was possible to
over-feed the cat so much that it became 10 times bigger and grew up to the size of
a horse, one still wouldn't be able to see it in the perspective of the visual
comparison. It would remain minuscule no matter what.
Of course the comparison is incomplete.
Water vapor and CO2 are not the only greenhouse gases. Oxygen and Ozone are also
important greenhouse gases, especially considering that 21% of the atmosphere is
oxygen. With oxygen being responsive in the high-energy region of the solar radiation
spectrum. The total absorption ratio may be 100-times higher again, in comparison
with CO2, for a resulting ratio of 500,000 to one.
It also needs to be considered that slightly less than half the heat in the atmosphere
is absorbed from solar radiation. Slightly more than half of the atmospheric heat
budget is latent heat released by cloud formation. When a tea kettle is boiled dry,
the water is transformed into vapor. The energy that is invested to do this, is
retained in the vapor. It is released when the vapor is turned into liquid again. When
clouds form, this energy being released keeps the clouds buoyant. CO2 has no affect
on this process. When this factor is added, the CO2 absorption amounts to roughly
one millionth of the atmospheric heat budget.
Of course, the climate on earth is not only affected by the greenhouse heat stored
in the atmosphere. A large portion of the incoming solar energy is also reflected back
into space by the reflective top surface of the clouds, which renders the global cloud
coverage a critical climate factor. The energy that is reflected back into space is
lost to us. This means that cloudiness is a rather large factor, as everyone has
experienced on cloudy days that are colder. If one adds this factor to the
comparison, the CO2 portion of the total climate effect will then likely be on the
order of one ten-millionth.
It takes a vast religious leap of faith for anyone to belief that humanity’s half of a
percent increase of the 1 ten-millionth portion of the greenhouse effect will cook the
earth and melt the polar ice caps. This has never happened, and never will happen, as
it simply can't happen.
So, what causes the climate variations then that have been observed? The global
warming doctrine is based on the assumption that CO2 is the only variable factor in
the entire climate equation. This assumption is incorrect. One of the biggest variable
factors is cloudiness. When cloudiness is increased, the Earth gets colder as more
sunlight is reflected back into space. It's as simple as that. That cloudiness is a
variable factor depending on the prevailing cosmic-ray flux density has been
experimentally verified by the CLOUD project experiment at the CERN laboratories.
NASA's Ulysses satellite has also confirmed with direct measurements that the
cosmic-ray flux density is a variable factor depending on the strength of the solar
activity, which affects the density of the solar heliosphere. Ulysses measured a 20%
in Galactic Cosmic Ray flux coincident with a 30% drop in solar wind pressure, and a
30% drop in the strength of the underlying solar magnetic field. Thus the Ulysses
mission proved that the Sun is not a constant factor either. In fact its output energy
varies by a factor of twenty in the EUV band over the course of every 11-year solar
cycle.
That the drop in solar strength, that Ulysses had measured, has a dramatic climate
effect, was verified by on-the-ground temperature measurements at the Solar
Terrestrial Institute in the mountains near Irkutsk in Siberia. The institute
measured a 2 degree drop in annual average temperatures, coincident with the
reduced solar measurements by Ulysses. These measurements disprove the very
foundation of the manmade global warming doctrine that is built on the assumption
that CO2 is the only variable factor and must therefore be responsible for all the
climate changes that were observed and are observed, while in reality it is so
minuscule in comparison that it is not a factor at all. The dynamically changing Sun is
the big factor.
That the Sun is a huge variable factor was illustrated during the little Ice Age in the
1600s and 1700s. While we didn't have the capability in those days to directly
measure the solar wind pressure (that we don't have anymore either since 2009 when
Ulysses was terminated) we do have historic records that tell us that the Sun was
significantly weaker. This is illustrated by the near total lack of sunspots for a long
period of time. This period with no sunspots was such a cold periods that 10% of
population of Europe dies of starvation as the result of the diminished agriculture.
When the Sun recovered and the sunspots came back the Earth became warmer again
as one would expect. CO2 had nothing to do with that. Nor had the industrial
revolution that began near the end of the Little Ice Age any effect on the climate,
since the warming of the Earth reflected the recovery of the Sun.
Throughout history enormous temperature fluctuations have occurred that dwarf
the puny climate recovery from the Little Ice Age (See illustration).
The problem that climate science is choked with in the modern world, is that it is
'hired' to prove a priory assumption, the assumption that human living is destroying
the ecological balance, which in real terms is not the case. Thus, science is no longer
employed to discover the actual dynamics that control the global climate. Science has
suffered this type of tragedy throughout the ages, as far back as Ptolemy.
Logical deductions proceeding from a priory platform invariably lead humanity into a
trap that actually blocks the processes of discoveries, the processes of real science
that takes us beyond the priory assumptions (see Deadly Destructive Logic).
Today, the climate sciences are trapped by the same defect, the same 'logic.' Here
the priory assumption is that the CO2 is a villain. This doctrine is one of the latest
political doctrines of the long war of empire against humanity in which empire
struggles to secure its dominance and its very existence, which is threatened by
human development.
In the real physical climate dynamics, CO2 is simply not a
factor and never has been throughout the entire history of
life on our planet.
During most of the last half-billion years of life on earth the CO2 concentration has
been tens of times denser than it is today, even more than 50 times as dense as some
researchers suggest. Ironically, in times when the CO2 concentration was extremely
high, around 450 million years ago (see illustration), the Earth experienced one of its
most devastating ice age periods that caused the second-largest mass extinctions of
life in the oceans (see illustration). The point is that this gigantic CO2- concentration
that existed in prehistoric times had no effect on the climate whatsoever. The
extremely high CO2 concentration 450 million years ago should have cooked the
Earth according to the modern CO2 doctrines. Instead the most devastating Ice Age
had occurred. This immense glaciation that even destroyed life in the oceans, had
occurred in spite of the Earth's extremely dense CO2 concentration at the time. And
how could this have been any different, since CO2 doesn't affect the climate to any
practically-significant extend?
The CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is currently so minuscule that in a
comparison with Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain Earth, the total CO2 effect on the
climate would be comparable to just a single grain of finely ground table salt. So,
what do you think? Is it possible that placing another grain of salt on top of the
mountain makes any practical difference, or even ten grains of salt, or 50 grains as in
distant geologic history? The difference, in either case is nil.
All this means that the entire biofuels holocaust that is now being unleashed by the
mass-burning of food in order to reduce humanity's CO2 emissions, which is killing
more than 100 million people a year with induced starvation, has been for nothing.
And even as this is known the murdering continues, and economies are destroyed with
the choking effect of limiting the man-made carbon emissions. This choking effect is
the most effective wrecking ball against the economies of human living that has ever
been imposed.
This does not mean that CO2 is physically inconsequential
for humanity.
To the contrary. C02 is one of the most critical factors in the Earth's atmospheric
dynamics, because the Earth's ecological environment is presently severely CO2
deficient. The global ecology is suffering from a critical CO2 starvation.
As I had laid out before, during most of the history of life on our planet the
atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 10 to 50 times higher than it is today, but
has been gradually declining towards today's starvation level of 300-400 parts per
million (see illustration). Every plant needs CO2 to live. It breathes CO2; it breaks it
down with the chlorophyll molecule powered by sunlight; it releases the oxygen and
uses the carbon for its own construction. Greenhouse operators have found that
when the CO2 concentration drops below 200 ppm, plant growth stops, and below 150
ppm the plans die. Glacial records show that during the last Ice Age the CO2 density
had dropped to and below the 150 ppm level. The next Ice Age that is now before us
promises to be more severe. This means that the ecological system of the Earth
desperately needs a ten-fold uplift in CO2 density, or else the creeping CO2
starvation will collapse the entire ecological system during the coming Ice Age, and
possibly collapse humanity with it.
(see: Ten-fold CO2 Increase Needed )
A ten-fold CO2 increase is needed, towards the 4000 ppm level. This is the
concentration that had enabled such a richly productive ecological system to develop
that such giant creatures as the dinosaurs could emerge and be supported with
enough food, with some weighing more than 200 tons. Greenhouse operators have
found that when they merely double the CO2 concentration in their facilities, a 50%
increase in plant growth results. While the entire global food crisis could be stopped
in the short run by simply stopping the burning of food, the long-term food security
will require an a dramatic increase of the global CO2 density, possibly ten-fold to
app. 4000 ppm, and will also require large-scale irrigation infrastructures to be built
to offset the increasing drought conditions that are now beginning as a part of the
ongoing Ice Age transition dynamics (see: NAWAPA-22: Physics).
Of course the required infrastructures and processes won't be implemented for as
long as the global warming dogma keeps a smothering global mental-blanket of pure
fairy-tale fiction cast over the human landscape. That is where the real starvation
lies that is choking humanity to death. Of course, this choking blanket can be lifted
and humanity be set free to start living again.
That's what my NAWAPA-22 proposal represents. It is promoting the infinite option
that is inherent in the nature of man. Technologically it is easy to uplift the global
CO2 density ten-fold, because 98% of the global CO2 store exists dissolved in the
oceans, from which it can be simply lifted out as needed. This can be done with a
number of self-powering systems. It is easily done. But this is another subject
altogether, the subject: Ten-fold CO2 Increase Needed.
In closing let me make the point that humanity is an infinite, anti-entropic, and
creative species with such great productive power that the entire biosphere
ultimately depends on humanity for its very existence. The ecological system of the
Earth really does depend on humanity for its physical survival. The ecology of the
Earth depends on us human beings, because during the Ice Age cycles ahead, which
promise to become increasingly more-severe over the next 3 million years, it requires
a massive CO2 uplift that only humanity can provide. The Earth needs our services. If
we open our eyes to the great power that our humanity embodies, we will invariably
discover that the human horizon is immensely bright and boundless and beckons us to
go for it. Then we will take the footsteps to realize our potential civilization of richly
created abundance where we are truly at home as human beings.
Full Presentation of the original Video
Click on the images for a larger view
This video is divided into 5 parts:
Part 1: Climate and the CO2 portion
Part 2: The real climate forcing
Part 3: The paradox of Arctic Warming
Part 4: Priory assumptions choking science
Part 5: Ecological uplift, 10-fold CO2
It is the purpose of this video:
1. To take a great weight off our shoulders
that has been needlessly placed on us all.
2. To help give hope and life to the countless millions
who are presently condemned to an agonizing death.
3. To introduce a new paradigm for a new future
towards the fulfillment of the common aims of mankind.
Great fear has been cultivated across the world that human activities are forcing
cataclysmic climate change. The fear is groundless.
Manmade global warming is not physically possible. This means that it is not
happening.
Since no evidence exists for any global warming happening, especially now that the
Antarctic sea ice is expanding again, the tune of the 'song' has been changed from,
manmade global warming, to man-made climate change. Of course, this too, is
impossible since the underlying physics remain the same. Neither has the doctrine
behind the scene changed.
Manmade Climate Change simply is not happening. It would be wonderful if it would be
possible for humanity to develop the means to alter the climate of the Earth. This
would save us the challenge of preparing our world for the next Ice Age cycle, to
which the transition has already begun.
Yes, the transition to the next Ice Age really has begun. The astrophysical dynamics
are huge that affect our climate, though the evidence is still weak and not where one
would expect to find it.
Nevertheless, though the Ice Age transition dynamics are still only minutely
expressed, they are already causing devastating drought conditions, flooding,
untimely frosts, and increased tornadoes and larger hurricanes which affect our
living, and most of all our agriculture.
These deep-reaching effects tell us that the Earth's climate is indeed changing, and
this in a big way. However it also means that the climate change is not manmade. The
physical reality that this is so is rather plain.
Climate dynamics in comparison with CO2 forcing.
While it is true that carbon dioxide, called CO2 in chemistry, is a greenhouse gas in
the atmosphere, and while it is also true that this gas is massively produced by
humanity in human living and human economics, it is also true that the climate effect
of this particular greenhouse gas is so minuscule that it is essentially non-existing,
regardless of what its concentration in the atmosphere is or may be in the future.
The scientific fact is that CO2 does NOT affect the global climate. It never had an
effect in the past, even when it was up to 50 times denser. And so it doesn't have an
effect now either, or in the future, especially when one considers that the present
CO2 level is so low that it has put the ecological system of the Earth into a CO2-
starved environment. All this simply means that anthropogenic global warming is
nothing more than a scary fairy tale, a well-crafted tale to terrorize children, but
one that is simply not possible to come true in the real world.
Manmade global warming IS a fairy tal indeed. Humanity is easily vilified with
political fiction in which such impossible tales are spun, in which science is turned
upside down so that CO2 can be blamed as a villain, because all life is carbon based,
including human living and human activities. Scare stories based on upside-down
science are easily imposed that proclaim with fanfares blaring that humanity is 'living
too much' and is emitting too much CO2 by the processes that it requires to live.
Who in society would counter the trusted oracles of science?
It is being said that by corrupted science that our living threatens to heat the
greenhouse of the earth so intensely that all the glaciers in the world will melt, and
the melt waters will raise the sea levels so high that many low-elevation lands will be
flooded.
However, if one compares where CO2 really stands in the global greenhouse
dynamics, a totally different picture comes to light. Let me illustrate why CO2 is not
a climate-forcing factor.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The CO2 molecules in the air do absorb radiated heat
energy. This physical quality renders CO2 a greenhouse gas; one of a number of
greenhouse gases.
The greenhouse too, is not a villain. It is essential to human living and to all life. The
very existence of life on our planet is made possible by the greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere. Without it, enormous temperature fluctuations would occur that would
make life impossible. This means that we really do depend on the greenhouse effect
of the atmosphere. It is one of the most-critical factors for life, in that it
moderates the climate fluctuations. The greenhouse effect of the atmosphere
literally enables us all to exist.
The greenhouse gases retain a portion of the Sun's radiated energy. They retain also
a portion of the Earth's reflected-back energy, though this portion is small. The
greenhouse also received a large portion of its thermal energy as latent heat
released by water-vapor condensation into clouds. These three sources all together
warm the atmosphere. The warmed atmosphere acts as a thermal buffer around the
Earth that makes the nights warmer and the days cooler.
Most of the incoming solar energy that penetrates through the atmosphere is used
up on the ground by vegetation and by water vaporization. Some of it also heats the
ground. The absorbed heat on the ground is radiated back into space at a much lower
temperature, which corresponds to a different radiation spectrum. Most of the
ground-radiated heat is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor. One of the
three absorption bands of CO2 falls into this region, but even there it is completely
masked by the wide absorption band of water vapor.
Also it should be noted that the ground-radiated energy, averaged globally, is
extremely minuscule in comparison with the incoming solar radiation that is 300,000
times stronger. If the ground radiation were to be drawn to scale, it would show up
as a flat line. Nevertheless, the ground radiation is a factor in the greenhouse
dynamics, small as this factor may be. In addition, the greenhouse itself is a heat-
radiating emitter.
While CO2 does play a role in absorbing the out-going radiated energy, the CO2
effect is there too masked by the absorbing effect of water vapor so that it remains
minuscule and of no practical significance whatsoever. Much of the out-going
radiation is re-absorbed anyway, so that the total effect is slow-acting and spread
out over days. The greenhouse is thereby maintained over long periods.
The 'long-term' heat retention is affected almost exclusively by water vapor. The
atmosphere contains 13,000 billion tons of water, and only 900 billion tons of CO2,
which itself has a 10-fold lower absorption coefficient than water.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The CO2 molecules in the air do absorb some of the
sun's radiated heat energy. This physical quality makes CO2 a greenhouse gas. It is
one of a number of greenhouse gases, and one of the most inefficient ones. The
molecular bonds between the oxygen and carbon atoms are strong. The strong bond
makes the molecule less responsive to external stimulation. In water vapor, the bond
between the hydrogen atoms of H2O is weaker, which makes the molecule more
responsive to external influences.
The molecular bond in water is so loose that the molecules can vibrate in 8 different
ways to resonate across a wide spectrum of external energy. This quality makes
water vapor a highly effective greenhouse gas with a 10 to 20 times greater
absorption coefficient than CO2. Just compare the values.
The greenhouse itself is not a danger to human living and life itself. The very
existence of life on our planet is made possible by the greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere. Without it, enormous temperature fluctuations would occur that would
make life impossible. This means that we really do depend on the greenhouse effect
of the atmosphere. It is one of the most- critical factors for life in that it
moderates the climate fluctuations. The greenhouse effect of the atmosphere
literally enables us all to exist. The greenhouse gases retain a portion of the Sun's
energy, and also the Earth's reflected energy, in the atmosphere. The greenhouse
forms a thermal buffer around the Earth that makes the nights warmer and the days
cooler.
The CO2 gas in the atmosphere does play a role in the greenhouse process, although
its role is extremely minuscule and too small to have an effect on anything.
It is a physical fact that not all greenhouse gases are equal in their heat-absorbing
ability, or efficiency. If one compares the absorption coefficient of CO2 with that of
water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, a 10 to 20-fold difference comes to
light. CO2 has an absorption coefficient of roughly the value of 20 in its two narrow
bands within the radiation spectrum of the Sun. Water vapor, in comparison, has an
absorption coefficient of 200, ranging upwards to 600. In this comparison, the
energy absorption efficiency of water vapor is 10 to 30 times greater than that of
CO2, conservatively.
However, while the CO2 is responsive in only two bands within the solar radiation
spectrum, and this at the low-energy end of the spectrum, water vapor is responsive
in 7 bands, with some located in the high-energy end of the spectrum. This combined
addition renders water vapor absorption roughly 50 times greater.
In addition to all that, water vapor is 100-fold more prevalent in the atmosphere
than CO2 is. The water vapor density in the atmosphere is typically 4%, while the
density of CO2 is a mere 0.039% This added density factor raises the comparative
absorption difference to 5000, between water vapor and CO2.
Let me illustrate what this difference means, extremely conservatively.
Let me compare the CO2 effect to a cat, which stands roughly one foot tall. In this
comparison, water vapor, which is the major greenhouse gas, is comparable to a
building twice as tall as the World Trade towers in New York had stood. In this
comparison a cat is so small that it cannot even be seen. If one was to over-feed the
cat and make it 30% fatter, it still couldn't be seen. Indeed, if it was possible to
over-feed the cat so much that it became 10 times bigger and grew up to the size of
a horse, one still wouldn't be able to see it in the perspective of the visual
comparison. It would remain minuscule no matter what.
Still, the comparison is incomplete.
Water vapor and CO2 are not the only greenhouse gases. Oxygen and Ozone are also
important greenhouse gases, especially considering that 21% of the atmosphere is
oxygen. With oxygen being responsive in the high-energy region of the solar radiation
spectrum, the total absorption ratio relative to CO2 is dramatically increased.
Further, at the high end of the solar radiation spectrum the energy absorption is
additionally increased by the Rayleigh Scattering effect. If it wasn't for this
scattering effect, the sky would be black all day long, and not only at night. The
scattering effect makes the sky appear luminous.
The absorption of solar radiation occurs in two groups, divided at the 600 nanometer
line. The right group, marked light blue, is dominated by water vapor absorption in
which CO2 plays a role but is overshadowed by water vapor 5000 to 1. In the left
group, marked in light green, the absorption is dominated by oxygen and scattering,
which together overshadow the right group roughly 100 to 1, for a resulting ratio of
the total absorption compared with CO2, of roughly 500,000 to one.
It also needs to be considered that slightly less than half the heat in the atmosphere
is absorbed from solar radiation. Slightly more than half of the atmospheric heat
budget is latent heat released by the cloud forming.
When a tea kettle is boiled dry, the water is transformed into vapor. The energy
that is invested to do this, is retained in the vapor. It is released when the vapor is
turned into liquid again. When clouds form, this energy is being released.
The latent heat released in the clouds keeps the clouds buoyant, and enables the long
distance water transport, without which the Earth would be a barren desert. This
means that extremely large amounts of heat transfers are involved in this process
that operates such a grand dynamic system. Of course, CO2 has no effect on the
process.
When this additional factor is added to the comparison, the CO2 absorption amounts
to roughly one millionth of the atmosphere's heat budget.
Of course, the climate on earth is not only affected by the greenhouse heat stored
in the atmosphere. The climate is affected more powerfully by still other factors.
One of these factors is the reflective action of the clouds.
A large portion of the incoming solar energy is being reflected back into space by the
reflective top surface of the clouds. This effect renders the global cloud coverage a
critical climate factor. The energy that is reflected back into space is lost to us.
This means that the degree of cloudiness is a large factor in the climate dynamics.
The cooling effect of cloudiness is something that everyone has experienced. Cloudy
days are colder days. If one adds the heat reflection factor to the comparison,
comparing the CO2 heat absorption to the total climate dynamics, then the CO2
portion of it will likely be in the order of 1 ten-millionth of the total greenhouse
dynamics.
Global climate and the CO2 portion
ratio:
10,000,000 to 1
The science community has been fighting back against the global warming doctrine in
numerous protest and petition movements.
It takes a vast religious leap of faith for anyone to belief that humanity’s one half of
a percent increase of the 1 ten-millionth portion of the climate dynamics will cook the
earth and melt the polar ice caps. This has never happened, and never will happen, as
it simply can't happen. However, this doesn't mean that the climate isn't changing.
The climate is indeed changing. The change is forced by vastly greater factors than
humanity's puny addition to the global CO2 density.
Click on the images for a larger view
What causes the real climate forcing?
So, what causes the climate variations then that have been observed? The global
warming doctrine is based on the assumption that CO2 is the only variable factor in
the entire climate equation. This assumption is woefully incorrect to its very core. As
I said, one of the biggest variable factors that affects our climate on the Earth is
cloudiness. When cloudiness is increasing, the Earth gets colder as more sunlight is
reflected back into space. It's as simple as that.
Yes, cloudiness is a variable factor. The degree of cloudiness is determined to a large
extend by the prevailing cosmic-ray flux density.
While the interaction of cosmic rays with the Earth's atmosphere is complex, it
leads to high levels of ionization. Ionized atoms and molecules are 100 times more
attracted to water molecules that thereby cluster together into aerosol nuclei that
start the chain of forming cloud droplets.
The effectiveness of this process has been experimentally verified by the CLOUD
project experiment at the CERN laboratories. In the project artificial cosmic rays
were injected into a chamber of water vapor, and the results were recorded.
The CLOUD experiment was run in three stages. At first the natural nucleation was
observed, which increased somewhat, but slowly, as it is illustrated here in an LPAC
video.
In the second step of the experiment a static field was added, which exists naturally
in the atmosphere. A dramatic increase in nucleation was observed.
For the third step the artificial cosmic rays were injected, and the resulting
increased nucleation went straight up and off the chart. This proves the principle of
cosmic-ray induced cloud formation. Of course the experiment does not prove that
Galactic Cosmic Ray flux is a variable factor. This prove was produced by NASA's
Ulysses satellite.
NASA's Ulysses satellite has confirmed with direct measurements that the cosmic-
ray flux density is a variable factor, and that is factor varies with the strength of
the solar activity that affects the density of the solar heliosphere.
The Ulysses spacecraft was put into a polar orbit around the Sun. The orbit took it
outside of the ecliptic where its measurements would not be distorted by the
heliospheric current sheet.
Ulysses measured a 20% increase in Galactic Cosmic Ray flux, coincident with a 20%
drop in solar wind 'pressure', and a 30% drop in the strength of the underlying solar
magnetic field. Thus the Ulysses mission proved that the Sun itself is not a constant
factor either.
That the Sun is a constantly varying factor is dramatically evident when it is
observed in the EUV band. There the Sun's energy output varies by a factor of
twenty over the course of every 11-year solar cycle.
That the drop in solar strength, which Ulysses had measured, has a dramatic climate
effect on Earth was verified by on-the-ground temperature measurements at the
Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in the mountains near Irkutsk in Siberia. The
institute measured a 2 degree drop in annual average temperatures, starting in 1998,
coincident with the reduced solar measurements by Ulysses.
The on-the-ground measurements taken in this land far from big industries and big
cities disprove the foundation of the manmade global warming doctrine. They
disprove the core of the doctrine that is built on the assumption that CO2 is the only
variable factor affecting our climate, which is deemed therefore to be responsible
for all the climate changes in the world that were observed and are observed, while
in reality the CO2 effect is so minuscule in comparison with all the real climate
factors, that it is not a practical factor at all.
The dynamically changing Sun is the big factor.
That the Sun is a huge variable factor was illustrated during the little Ice Age in the
1600s and 1700s.
While we didn't have the capability back in the 1600s to directly measure the solar
wind pressure (which we don't have anymore either since 2009 when Ulysses was
terminated), we nevertheless do have historic records that tell us that the Sun was
significantly weaker during the Little Ice Age. This is illustrated by the near total
lack of sunspots in the 1600s for a long period of time.
The long period with no sunspots was such a cold period that 10% of the population of
Europe died of starvation as the result of the diminished agriculture. When the Sun
recovered and the sunspots came back, the Earth became warmer again as one would
expect. Of course, CO2 had nothing to do with that. Nor had the industrial revolution
any effect on the re-warming, which began near the end of the Little Ice Age. The
return of the sunspots tells us that the warming of the Earth simply reflected the
recovery of the Sun. CO2 played no role in that. The CO2 doesn't affect the Sun.
Inversely, the warming of the Earth causes the CO2 density to increase as more CO2
is released by the warmer oceans.
Throughout history enormous climate fluctuations have occurred on our planet that
dwarf the puny climate recovery from the Little Ice Age that has become the center
of the global warming scare. The climate on Earth has been warming and cooling in
giant steps many a time, and this long before humanity had any significant presence
on the Earth. Most of these big fluctuations were simply reflections of changing
solar dynamics. When the Sun is fluctuating, the climate is fluctuating with it. And
the Sun is capable of great fluctuations.
Once upon a time it was believed that the Sun is internally powered by a complex
atomic fusion process that fuses hydrogen atoms into helium atoms. In many
academic circles this is still being believed. But the overwhelming evidence stands
against such a belief.
The evidence tells us that the Sun is externally powered by interacting electric
plasma particles that are drawn to the Sun by its enormous gravity, which then
interact with the Sun at its surface and light it up.
The plasma attracting process renders the Sun a vast carpet of 'boiling' electric
currents, powered by plasma energy flowing into the Sun in an electric arc-type
fashion, from which the Sun gains its brilliance. One might regard the Sun as an
electric catalytic energy converter, and so, like any catalytic system does, its output
energy varies with the density of the energy that is feeding into it.
Nothing else can explain the enormous historic climate variations that we have
evidence for, especially that of the ice ages, and the huge climate oscillations that
occurred during the last Ice Age.
Attempts have been made to explain the ice age cycles from a mechanistic
standpoint, as the result of orbital variations called the Milankovitch cycles. But this
approach failed as the historic data doesn't match the expected computed results.
Of course this approach was doomed to fail as the orbital cycles only affect the
hemispheric and seasonal distribution of the solar radiation received on earth, while
the total solar radiation received in the Earth always remains the same.
The big ice ages that cover more than 30% of the landmass of the Earth with
gigantic ice sheets cannot be explained on any mechanistic basis, but when seen from
the standpoint of the variable Sun as an electric energy converter, these enormously
expansive ice-sheet phenomena are nothing more than the simple natural results of
cyclical variations of the electric plasma density in the space of the solar system and
in the external plasma streams feeding into it.
No mechanistic principle can explain the enormous Dansgaard Oeschger climate
oscillations that have been found in the ice core samples on Greenland. These are
gigantic and quick oscillations between deep glaciation climates, and sudden warm
climates near the interglacial level, spanning a few hundred years in duration, and
with transition periods between them measured in just decades. These enormous,
fast acting variations are a puzzling enigma from a mechanistic standpoint, but not so
in the electric universe.
In fact, nothing can logically explain the 11-year solar cycles either, in the fusion-sun
theory that defines the Sun as an invariable constant. But in the electric universe
the 11-year solar activity cycles are nothing more than the natural result of an
electric resonance within the space of the heliosphere that matches the cycle time
just nicely. The same principle applies to the ice age cycles on a larger scale.
The much longer Ice Age cycles are totally beyond the fusion-sun theory to explain,
but in the electric universe they are nothing more than larger electric resonance
discharge cycles, with a cycle time that reflects the larger size of the galactic
scale.
Nearly all electric systems, including plasma-electric systems in space, have built-in
resonance features that reflect the principles of electrodynamics, as for example
the pulsing of a quasar. It takes an extreme stretch of the imagination to explain
this fast pulsing phenomenon on a mechanistic basis, but not so, on a high-powered
electrodynamic resonance basis.
Even the very-long climate cycles that are evident in sediment records, with cycle
times of 60-65 million years and 140-150 million years, are nothing more than electric
resonance cycles in intergalactic electric systems.
They are definitely not caused by the mythical concept of our solar system orbiting
the galactic center, which Johannes Kepler would give our moderns science a failing
grade for, because no physical principle exists for such orbiting to be possible, as
Kepler has laid out in his laws for orbital motions.
All observed stellar movements are nothing more than the typical rotating
movements of electric Birkeland currents of plasma electricity flowing within the
galactic spiral arms. The observed motions of speed versus distance from the
galactic center reflect the opposite of Kepler's laws, but are consistent with motions
observed in plasma flows. This recognition goes back to the mid-1900s, pioneered by
the celebrated plasma physicist and Nobel Laureate of 1970, Hannes Alfven, who
considered mechanistic astrophysics to be mythical scientific concepts extrapolated
from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than being
discoveries extrapolated from known observable phenomena.
According to research done by plasma physics scientists at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, 99.999% of the mass of the universe exists as electric plasma, most of
it existing in free-flowing form in intergalactic space, primarily in long distance
networks of plasma currents that interconnect the galaxies like beads on a string.
The multi-million-year cycles that are observed in Earth's history, are nothing more
than electric resonance cycles in the Milky Way's long intergalactic connections
spanning distances of several millions of light years.
The intergalactic plasma flows operate as extremely large systems that carry
immense flows of electric mass with them, which, when it becomes converted to
electromagnetic thermal energy by our Sun, enables life on our planet to exist. When
the immense intergalactic energy streams that power our galaxy like any other
galaxy, are modulated with minor resonance fluctuations, the result has major long-
terms effects on every sun in the galaxy, including our sun, which has secondary
effects on the Earth's climate.
The combination of the two, long multi-million-year cycles, in the 'recent' period of
the last 50 million years, have caused Antarctica to become glaciated, then to thaw
out, and to become re-glaciated once more.
It evidently takes a long period of enormous cooling for Antarctica to be covered
with miles-deep layers of ice, and after that, long periods of enormous warming to
cause these ice sheets to be melted. The Earth's puny little CO2 greenhouse gas
evidently played no role whatsoever in the gigantic events that have occurred, while
intergalactic electric resonance phenomena do have the power to cause such large
climate fluctuations. And they still do play this role. They are the deeply underlying
operating forces that determine our climate trends in the very long time frames.
The combined low of the long multi-million-year cycles has brought the Earth once
more into a deep ice age zone.
In the current deep ice age zone, miles-deep ice sheets form periodically across
large areas of the northern hemisphere, where the great landmasses are located.
They form in roughly 100,000 years cycles of glaciation that is interrupted by brief
interglacial intervals, in the order of 12,000 years, like the current one that is in the
process of ending.
We are in a transition zone. The current global cooling that began in 1998 will likely
render the Earth 5 times colder than the Little Ice Age had been, over the next 50
years or so. A deep cooling trend appears to have begun that no one can accurately
predict the outcome of, except to say that the next glaciation cycle is on the
horizon.
Click on the images for a larger view
The paradox of Arctic Warming
But why are the arctic regions warming when global cooling is in progress? The
warming has become so strong in the North that the Arctic Ocean may soon become
navigable for commercial shipping between Atlantic Europe and Asia, and a tunnel will
likely be built to connect the Eurasian and American continents.
The warming that is experienced is short term only. Three factors are involved at
the present that cause a significant Arctic warming to occur. CO2 does not play a
role in either of the three factors.
The biggest factor appears to be the reduced greenhouse effect that we are now
experiencing. The reduced greenhouse effect is the result of increased cloudiness,
which in turns is caused by increased cosmic-ray flux. The increased cloud forming
reduces the water vapor density in the atmosphere and thereby reduces the
greenhouse effect.
The reduced greenhouse effect has a dramatic warming effect in the arctic during
the summer. Because of the tilted spin axis of the Earth, the arctic gets sunshine
almost all day long in the summer.
This means that the reduced greenhouse, caused by increased Galactic Cosmic Ray
flux, enables a dramatic increase in solar energy penetrating to the ground in the
arctic during the summer. Arctic warming is one of the natural side effects of our
weaker Sun in the ongoing transition process towards the next Ice Age.
The weaker greenhouse moderation also causes deeper cold periods in the arctic
winter, especially in the high elevation where the jet streams flow.
In the winter the jet streams are pushed southward by the 'heavy' cold air that is
propelled towards the equator by the centrifugal force that results from the
rotation of the Earth. The atmospheric jet streams form when the cold air masses
flowing out of the north run into the warm air masses of the South. The warm air
gets pushed upwards by the cold and overlays it. Some of the warm air mingles with
the circulation in the polar cell and is carried northward.
The resulting upwards motion, by the Coriolis effect, causes jet streams to flow
laterally along the dividing line of the warm and cold air masses.
The jet streams typically reach speeds of 100 Km per hour. They provide an
important climate distribution service, both laterally and longitudinally.
In the summer, however, when the temperature difference is small, the polar jet
streams form in the high latitude region, typically above the 60 degree line and
remain extremely weak. In normal winters, though, when large cold air masses form in
the high altitudes and get pushed south, the jet streams get pushed south with them
to near the 30 degree latitude.
But now that the Earth is getting colder, the jet streams get pushed much farther
to the south to near the 20 degree latitude where they pick up large volumes of
thermal energy from the deep southern climates that gets circulated into the North.
This transfer mechanism warms the polar regions in the winter. Of course, CO2 has
nothing to do with that either, though it is blamed for the arctic warming.
The warming is deceptive, because every winter when the cold period begins in the
polar areas, with the cooling now becoming more extensive, the jet streams are
pushed deeper and deeper into the lower latitudes. This means that the now much
larger Polar Cell can now pick up warmth from as far south as Hawaii.
The third mechanism that brings warm air into the north is the mobile polar
anticyclone circulation system. This system is set into motion when colder air masses
near to the ground over the continents are forced southward by the centrifugal
force of the rotation of the Earth, which, when the air warms up in the South and
becomes thereby lighter, flows back into the north, bringing its warmth with it.
For the North American anticyclone the warmed return air circulates back along the
coasts of Greenland, causing some melting there along the edges of the great ice
sheets. Of course, the colder the North American continent becomes, especially at
the latitude where the centrifugal effect is the strongest, the more vigorously does
the anticyclone system operate, which transports warm air into the North.
The stronger flowing anticyclone circulation contributes to the now rapid weakening
of the arctic sea ice.
This means that the Greenland ice sheet is indeed melting around the edges as the
result of an astrophysical process that causes global cooling, which also, at the same
time, causes the high-altitude ice on Greenland to become thicker at the same time.
The CO2 concentration, no matter what it is or may be in the future, has evidently no
affect on this process that changes the global thermal distribution. The process is
driven by astrophysical variations that cause the weakening of the Sun that in turn
weakens the solar heliosphere, which in turn increases the Galactic Cosmic Ray flux
that increases cloudiness and with it weakens the greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere. CO2 has no effect on this process and its outcome. It definitely will not
cause the big continental ice sheets to melt.
Antarctica will remain frozen for another 15 to 30 million years, until the long 60-
million-year cycle that is presently nearing its low point is going to peak again,
whereby we get back to the astrophysical conditions that prevailed before
Antarctica froze over.
For the coming few million years we will also remain stuck in the Pleistocene Ice Age
environment that began roughly two million years ago with deep glaciation cycles
across the northern hemisphere where the big landmasses are located and where
much of the world's food is being grown. This is what we need to be concerned with,
instead of the melting of Greenland and Antarctica. But this critically real factor is
hidden under the CO2 terror-doctrine fairy tales.
Click on the images for a larger view
Priory assumptions choking science
Doctrines devoid of truth
Blocking civilization
Neither do all the other greenhouse gases that human living has added to, such as
nitrous oxide, have any effect on the climate processes that are totally controlled by
astrophysical conditions. The N2O molecule, for example, is dragged into the arena
of the global warming scare stories, because its heat absorption efficiency is many
times larger than that of CO2, because of its weak atomic bonding, but it is rarely
ever mentioned that nitrous oxide is a thousand times less dense in the atmosphere
than CO2, which affects nothing either. However, its dramatically higher absorption
coefficient, for which it is called a powerful greenhouse gas, makes it an easy subject
to pin global warming scare stories on.
The problem with the so-called modern climate science is, that it is 'hired' to prove a
priory assumption, the assumption that human living is destroying the climate balance.
While this is far from being the case, the prevailing climate science is hired to hide
the actual physical facts and support instead the tune of a fairy tale that is
politically desired for numerous objectives, such as for profit, and to maintain
imperial dominance, and also to enable depopulation and so on.
Today's dominance of doctrines overshadowing science poses the same type of
tragedy that science has suffered throughout the ages, as far back as Ptolemy, the
astronomer who became famous for his use of epicycles to conform with doctrines
that were false and could only be supported with magical concepts, like the doctrines
of orbiting stars in circular paths, as today the Big Bang Universe, and manmade
climate change. The doctrine that had choked astronomy for almost two millennia
demanded that orbits must follow the path of perfect circles. We sing similar tunes
today on many fronts of science.
One of these tunes is the Nuclear Fusion Power doctrine. A nuclear fusion-powered
sun is impossible since no real physical principles exist to support the theory. Nuclear
fusion is an energy consuming process, not an energy creating process. Large amounts
of energy are required to bind an electron to a proton to create an atom, or to bind
protons to each other by overpowering the electric repulsive force, one of the strong
forces of the universe. All this is deemed to be caused the action of the weakest of
the universal forces, the force of gravity.
In a nuclear-fusion bomb explosion no energy is created. The bomb's energy is latent
energy that was previously invested into two types of over-built hydrogen atoms. The
overbuilt isotopes fission off a part of their structure, that becomes unbound and
releases the latent energy that had been previously invested in the process of
binding a proton to an overbuilt nucleus. No energy is created in this process. Nuclear
fusion power is a contradiction, a nice dream, but it remains an epicycle that doesn't
stand up in the real world.
Logical deductions proceeding from a priory platform invariably lead humanity into a
trap that blocks the processes of real discoveries, which are the processes of real
science that take us beyond priory assumptions. Today, the climate sciences are
trapped by the same defective logic that Astronomy had been trapped in for nearly
two millennia, from Ptolemy all the way to Kepler, who broke out of this trap, and who
thereby raised the platform of science from its grounding in doctrine to its
discovery of the truth.
By remaining trapped into epicycles, humanity denies itself the discovery of the anti-
entropic energy system that powers the Sun electrically, and thereby denies itself
its potential utilization of the near-infinite cosmic electric power system to power its
rather modest needs. It also denies itself its potential awakening to the already
unfolding Ice Age transition dynamics, that would inspire the relocation of the
endangered agriculture while there is still time left to do so. And it also denies itself
the chance to break out of the manmade global warming doctrine by which it has
become mentally incarcerated,
The doctrine that CO2 is a climate villain, was imposed in 1974 at the U.N. world
population conference in Bucharest. The conference was focused on overpopulation,
and the cure, depopulation. On this wider scene the CO2 doctrine emerged as one of
the latest political doctrines that play a destructive role in the long war of empire
against humanity in which empire struggles to secure its dominance and its very
existence that is always threatened by human development.
Depopulation is a policy of the masters of empire. It has been that for a long time.
The CO2 doctrine is deployed on this front as one of the weapons that were wielded
by the masters of empire for their long-term objective. Their often repeated goal
has become to reduce the number of people living on our planet from the present
world population of 7 billion people, down towards a minuscule, impotent, and
impoverished society of less than one billion.
Would you like to join the ranks of the depopulated? You may not have a choice from
a certain point on. The CO2 doctrine that society protects is used for genocidal
projects to eliminate six billion people by burning their food. Your name may already
be on the list of those to be eliminated.
Once CO2 is defined as a villain, and is accepted so by society, then whatever
produces CO2, such as the industries that support human living, and transportation,
etc., even humanity itself, can thereby be demanded to be torn down.
For this purpose the biofuels have been invented under the clean-air flag, as a
renewable fuel. In real terms they double the CO2 emissions while they consume vast
amounts of food for their production, in a system that produces almost no energy
advantage in the end when all the input energy is counted. The only effect that
biofuels are producing efficiently, is large-scale genocide by starvation.
There was a time in some cultures that death by starvation was enforced as a form
of capital punishment. Now 1 billion people are treated to this fate, though only a few
hundred million die of it every year.
At the current U.S. production level of 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol per year, which
is essentially corn liquor, the amount of feedstock in corn that is required every year
for the production of it would all by itself provide 1,200 calories of nourishment for
1 billion people for an entire year. Many of the victims are simply left to die.
If the worldwide production of ethanol is considered, the amount of food being burnt
is roughly double. In a world in which a billion people are living in chronic starvation,
shutting down the biofuels madness would go a long way towards building a human
world without hunger. But this goal is being blocked. The food burning is protected,
and the mythical manmade global warming doctrine is one of the reasons cited for it.
And in the shadow of it all, real energy production is also being prevented.
If one adds up all the food resources that are being burned worldwide, a manmade
tragedy comes to light of unimaginable proportions that probably claims
conservatively 100 to 200 million victims every year, or 3 to 6 people every second,
of every hour, of every day and night. The imposed silent death toll on this scale is
the equivalent of starving 3 to 6 times the entire population of Canada out of
existence, every year, in far off places spread around the world.
The biofuels were originally invented under the CO2 doctrine, to reduce carbon
emission and thereby to reduce global warming, while in reality the carbon emissions
are doubled by the biofuels energy cycle. Nor can the biofuels be called an energy
resource, as they are claimed to be, because they require nearly as much energy
input for the production process than they give back as a fuel. As I said, they are
only efficient for producing genocide, and they do this on a scale that pales the Nazi
holocaust into insignificance.
Some people claim that biofuels have been invented as an alternate energy resource
under the peak-oil scare on the basis of the doctrine that the world is running out of
energy resources. But this too is just a doctrine. The doctrine is the intended to
prevent real energy development.
The world should be way past the stage of using oil as an energy resource, and much
less so food. The world should be powered by nuclear energy and hydrogen fuels.
Burning oil is as archaic as burning wood. Both resources are inadequate, and so they
do become. But before they do so, new resources should have taken their place. We
can still do this. The USA has all by itself 900,000 gigawatt-years of thorium fuel
sitting unused on the ground. And even this too, the cleanest, safest, and most
efficient nuclear energy option, should have been already superseded by us tapping
into the cosmic electric energy grid.
Peak oil means that real meaningful energy development has been prevented and is
not being allowed. An energy-starved world is good for profit, and a society living in
poverty is more easily controlled. That's how peak oil ties into the reality scene. CO2
and biofuels have nothing to do with that.
It is more likely the case that the peak-oil scare was invented to justify the biofuels
genocide to fulfill the depopulation doctrine, and that the CO2 doctrine was invented
for the snake-oil salesmen to sell the sacrifices. With the ongoing Ice Age transition
dynamics now causing evermore drought and other climate disasters, you will soon
find yourself being sacrificed too, when food becomes increasingly less-available for
eating, even to you, or is driven up in price so that it becomes way beyond your means
to pay for it. Then my friend, you too will be depopulated, even while you hail the
name of CO2 with your last breath and commit yourself to reducing the human CO2
emissions.
Click on the images for a larger view
CO2 increase needed: 10-fold
As I had demonstrated earlier, in the real physical climate dynamics, CO2 is not a
climate factor and never has been that, throughout the entire history of life on our
planet. This does no mean that CO2 is not critical for human existence.
During most of the last half-billion years of life on earth the atmospheric CO2
concentration had been enormously greater than it is today, even more than 50 times
greater as some researchers suggest it may have been in very early times.
Ironically, in those early times when the CO2 concentration was extremely high,
around 450 million years ago, the Earth experienced one of its most devastating ice
age periods ever, that caused the second-largest mass extinctions of life in the
oceans. The point is that this gigantic CO2 concentration that existed in prehistoric
times had no effect on the climate whatsoever. The hugely greater CO2
concentration in the air then, should have cooked the Earth according to the modern
CO2 doctrine. Instead the most devastating Ice Age had occurred. The resulting
immense glaciation had destroyed almost all life, even in the oceans, the only place
were life existed then. The point is that CO2 had no effect then whatsoever at this
time. And how could it have had, since CO2 doesn't affect the climate to any
practically-significant extend?
The CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect, for which we murder more than
100 million people a year to reduce it, is currently so minuscule that in a comparison
with Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain Earth, the total CO2 effect on the climate
would be comparable to just a single grain of finely ground table salt. So, what do you
think? Is it possible that placing another grain of salt on top of the mountain makes
any practical difference, or even ten grains of salt, or 50 grains as in distant geologic
history? The difference, in either case is nil.
All this means that the entire biofuels holocaust that is now being unleashed by the
mass-burning of food in order to reduce humanity's CO2 emissions, has been for
nothing. And even as this is known, or is knowable as a fundamental fact, the
murdering continues, and the destruction of the economies continues that are being
destroyed by the choking effect that is caused by limiting man-made carbon
emissions that have no effect on the climate at all. This choking effect, apart from
being murderous, has become the most effective economic wrecking ball of all times,
against the economies of human living. This does not mean that CO2 is physically
inconsequential for humanity. Far from it.
CO2 is a life engine. Without it almost no life would exist. This is its prime purpose,
rather than being a greenhouse gas. This purpose makes CO2 one of the most critical
gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Here the atmospheric concentration of CO2
becomes significant, because the Earth's ecological environment is presently severely
CO2 deficient. Yes, the global ecology is suffering from a critical CO2 starvation.
There is not enough of it in the atmosphere to adequately nourish the plants.
As I had laid out before, during most of the history of life on our planet the
atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 10 to 50 times greater than it is today, but
has been gradually declining towards today's starvation level of 300-400 parts per
million. It is no secret in our age that every plant needs CO2 to live. It breathes
CO2; it breaks it down with its chlorophyll molecules, powered by sunlight; it releases
the oxygen and uses the carbon for its own construction.
Greenhouse operators have found that when the CO2 concentration drops below 200
ppm, the plant-growth stops, and below 150 ppm the plans die. Glacial records show
that during the last Ice Age the CO2 density had dropped down to and below the 200
ppm level. The next Ice Age that is now before us promises to be more severe as the
Pleistocene cooling has not yet bottomed out. This means that the ecological system
of the Earth desperately needs our help to cause at the very least a ten-fold uplift in
CO2 density. Without humanity coming to the rescue, the creeping CO2 starvation
may indeed collapse the entire ecological system during the Ice Age ahead, and of
course will then collapse humanity with it.
The ten-fold CO2 increase is very much needed then, towards the 4000 ppm level.
This is the concentration that had enabled such a richly productive ecological system
to develop that giant creatures like the dinosaurs could emerge and be supported
with enough food, with some weighing more than 200 tons. Greenhouse operators
have found that when they merely double the CO2 concentration in their facilities, a
50% increase in plant growth results. While the entire global food crisis could be
stopped in the short run by simply stopping the burning of food, the long-term food
security will require that we dramatically increase the global CO2 density, possibly up
to ten-fold, to the 4000 ppm level, and that we will also create large-scale irrigation
infrastructures to offset the increasing drought conditions that are now beginning to
take their toll as a part of the ongoing Ice Age transition dynamics
Ultimately we will also need to relocate most of the northern agriculture into the
tropics where the ice age cooling cannot impair it. Since there is not enough land in
the tropics, we need to make our own, placing agriculture afloat onto the equatorial
seas, linked to intercontinental floating bridges, built with floating cities along them
for the new breed of farmers. This kind of building is easily possible with automated
industrial production methods. Even the materials and energy resources are readily
on hand.
However, the required infrastructures and processes won't be created for as long as
the global warming dogma keeps a smothering mental-blanket of pure fairy-tale
fiction cast over the human landscape. This is where the real starvation lies that is
choking humanity to death. Of course, this choking blanket of fiction in politics, in
the sciences, and in ideology in the form of the depopulation policy, can be lifted with
the appropriate effort and humanity be set free to start living again.
That's what my NAWAPA-22 proposal represents. It is promoting the infinite option
that is inherent in the nature of man. Technologically it is easy to uplift the global
CO2 density ten-fold, because 98% of the global CO2 store exists dissolved in the
oceans, from which it can be simply lifted out as needed. This can be done with a
number of self-powering systems. When the dissolved CO2 is brought nearer to the
surface, it gasifies, and thereby makes the upwelling column lighter, which makes the
entire CO2 out-gassing system self-powering. Such a system is easily implemented
technologically, but to do it is another big subject by itself.
The Ice Age challenge introduces a New Paradigm that is critical to life itself on
many fronts. In the face of it monetarist economics will simply vanish as the new
paradigm becomes recognized. Also, if the challenge that it presents to us is fully
accepted, and the means to meet the challenge are fully developed, the New
Paradigm will leave all of today's disabling fictions, including the CO2 doctrine,
behind in the dust of history. And so, in closing, let me make the point that humanity
is an infinite, anti-entropic, and creative species with such great productive power
that the entire biosphere ultimately depends on humanity's technological
intervention for its very continued existence.
The ecological system of the Earth lacks the power to maintain itself against the
coming Ice Age forces, which we are just beginning to understand and have so far
made no effort at all in adjusting our living to them. Consequently the ecological
system of the Earth really does depend on humanity for its very survival. The ecology
of the Earth depends on us little human beings, and this evermore so, because during
the Ice Age cycles ahead, which promise to become increasingly more-severe over
the next 3 million years, the ecological system will definitely require a massive CO2
uplift that only humanity with its boundless creativity can provide sufficiently
rapidly.
The CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to only 2% of the global CO2, most of which is
contained in the oceans, through which the atmospheric CO2 is constantly recycled
and redistributed globally by the great ocean conveyor belt. CO2 dissolves more
readily in the cold waters of the polar seas. Much of it is conveyed from there to the
warm pacific and the Indian Ocean where it cannot remain dissolved. This means that
in the cold periods of the Ice Age more of the CO2 is retained than is released,
resulting in a lower balance. The conveyor belt operates slowly. It takes typically 800
years to flow from Antarctica to the area in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean where
the transported CO2 is released.
Ice core samples tell us that the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows in lock step
with the temperature variations during the ice ages, lagging by roughly 800 years.
The two trends are almost perfectly synchronized, with the CO2 following the
temperature.
The 800-year lag time may suggest that the current upswing in CO2 levels could
reflect the elevated biology of the Medieval Warming period.
Unfortunately the ice core data represents only the conditions that existed in
Antarctica, where the ice accumulated. The CO2 levels might have been radically
higher in Antarctica during the deep cold periods. CO2 freezes into dry ice below
minus 78 degrees Celsius. On Mars, for example, a third of the planet's atmosphere
sits frozen on the ground in the form of CO2 ice. On Earth, during deep ice age
conditions in Antarctica, frozen CO2, falling onto the ground, might well have
enriched the ice content of it beyond what actually existed in the air.
This means that for the rest of the world the CO2 levels may have been much lower
than what had been preserved in the ice in Antarctica.
What comes to light here suggests that wide-spread ecological starvation and dying
had likely occurred during the ice ages for the lack of CO2. This might have been the
reason why only a few million people survived through the last Ice Age, living of fish,
since the oceans would not have been affected by the CO2 starvation in the
atmosphere. During the Ice Age, when the ocean levels were 200 to 400 feet lower,
with the water being laid up on land as ice, many of today's shallow seas at the edge
of the continents would have been dry land. It is known that civilizations had existed
on those low lands around India. And they probably were living of fish.
We won't be able to go this route with a 7 billion world population living of fish. We
depend on agriculture, and on it operating efficiently.
With the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere being presently near the biological
starvation level, the potential exists that the CO2 concentration may become
depleted way below the starvation level in the coming Ice Age ahead.
While we still have time to prevent this potential catastrophe for us, by artificially
enriching the global atmosphere with CO2, it will take a vast increase in scientific
honesty for such an uplift to even be considered, even while knowing that the
continuity of our agriculture depends on this being done, and with it our own
continuity as a living species .
This means that the Earth needs our services as much as we need the Earth. We, the
human beings, are not the pest on the Earth that the CO2 doctrine makes us out to
be. We are its savior. We support it. We have enabled it to become productive. The
potential exists that we have not seen anything yet along the line of protecting and
enhancing the biosphere, which becomes critical during ice age environments. It may
well be that this is our mission on Earth for which we came into being. Indeed, if we
open our eyes to the great power that our humanity embodies, we will invariably
discover that the human horizon is immensely bright if we follow our star, and this
includes all aspects of life that we are a part of. On this platform our future is
boundless. It beckons us to go for it. Why then wouldn't we take the footsteps
needed to realize our grand potential for building a civilization of richly created
abundance for life where we are truly at home as human beings?
Appendix
The video version:
Man-made Global Warming IMPOSSIBLE? (90 min)
View the video on-line
Download the video
For theater quality high resolution downloads, click here
The subject is presented in 5 parts:
Part 1: Climate and the CO2 portion
Part 2: The real climate forcing
Part 3: The paradox of Arctic Warming
Part 4: Priory assumptions choking science
Part 5: Ecological uplift, 10-fold CO2
Transcript, Part 1: by frame: - - text only:
Transcript, Part 2: by frame: - - text only:
Transcript, Part 3: by frame: - - text only:
Transcript, Part 4: by frame: - - text only:
Transcript, Part 5: by frame: - - text only:
See more associated explorations
Home Page
Recommended