by review and reconsider
Wednesday, Mar. 07, 2007 at 10:23 AM
GLOBAL WARMING: THE TRUTH. AND WHAT THE TRUTH MEANS
GLOBAL WARMING: MYTH VS. REALITY
A few years ago, President Bill Clinton, addressing a group of meteorologists at the White House, said that "Global warming is a fact, and human activity is the cause."
It's bad enough that one of our past presidents believed in astrology, but to have another president make two totally false statements about science is a disgrace. Yes, TOTALLY false. Human activity is the least contributor of problems to the climate, and global warming, does not exist the way we have been led to believe.
This may be a harsh reality in light of all of the recent news stories, but quite frankly, any supposed warming of the atmosphere may be coming from the hot air of politicians and environmental groups that are feeding us misinformation.
First of all, what is global warming? According to science, it is a very gradual increase in the temperature of the planet of about ten degrees over a century of time. Has this happened? In the past hundred years, the temperature has gone up; to the tune of one half of a degree! This increase is within the Earth's natural variation of temperature. Yes, there have been warmer winters and summers, and the temperature in the large cities has increased slightly, but throughout the years, there has been no significant change in the Earth's temperature.
Keep in mind, that the variations in climate over the years is due to natural causes, more than human interaction. Changes in the Sun's energy output, rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth, and debris from comets, meteors, and asteroids, actually have an effect on the climate. Add to that, dust from earthquakes and volcanoes, and we have even bigger impact from natural events. One volcanic eruption for example, puts more pollution into the atmosphere than ten years worth of human activity.
And what about this so called "man-made" pollution? We have all heard about it. It is causing the Greenhouse Effect, creating global warming, and putting holes in the Ozone. Well, not quite.
Most of the so called "greenhouse gasses" have natural sources; volcanoes, animal and plant respiration, and the oceans. The proponents of this greenhouse effect tell us that carbon dioxide is the main problem, and we should be spending billions of dollars trying to cut back on emissions from cars, factories, etc. According to governmental agencies, to cut back these emissions of twenty percent in the next ten years, we would have to spend about 100 billion dollars a year. And that would still leave one of the biggest polluters untouched: trees. Yes, trees and plants only clean the air while they are growing. Once fully grown, they actually give off carbon dioxide!
Not to worry however, because carbon dioxide is not the main greenhouse gas that we have to worry about; water vapor is. But the environmentalists can't do anything about it since it occurs naturally from evaporation, so they tell us that carbon dioxide is the problem. Keep in mind, that if we didn't have the small natural greenhouse effect that the water vapor gives us, the temperature on the Earth would be like that on Mars, where a warm day would be zero degrees! And while we're on the topic of messing up the climate what about the man made Chlorofluorocarbons, otherwise known as CFC's. We have all read that they are putting a hole in the ozone layer, but again, this is not quite the truth.
The CFC fiasco has led companies to slant their advertising towards telling us to buy pump sprays instead of spray cans to save the environment; Nonsense! According to this scenario, CFC's from spray cans, air conditioning units, etc., migrate into the upper atmosphere and destroy the ozone. This is a surprise to most scientists, as CFC's are heavier than air and cannot get from the ground to the upper atmosphere, and also because scientists have found bacteria that naturally break down the man-made CFC's.
The thinning of the Ozone is due to natural causes. As winter begins in the Southern Hemisphere, polar winds prevent warm air from entering the region. As temperatures fall, clouds form from water vapor and nitrogen, and falling snow carries the nitrogen from the air, which in turn forms chlorine. When warmer temperatures return to the region, the clouds evaporate, and the chlorine thins out the Ozone. This cycle happens every June through November, and during the next six months, much of the Ozone fills back in again. This occurs in the Southern Hemisphere, as in the Northern Hemisphere, a more complex pattern of continents and oceans causes a less intense vortex of cold air, and hence hardly any thinning of the Ozone.
Like most people in the science field, I believe that the CFC theory of ozone destruction is another creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, to keep itself in business, similar to the Radon scare they have also created; more on that another time. There has never been any proof at all, that man made CFC's destroy ozone. Yet, it will cost this nation literally trillions of dollars to get rid of Freon, and use the new substitutes.
For example; If your car needs an air conditioning recharge where the refrigerant must be replaced, the entire refrigeration system must be replaced since R134, the Freon replacement will corrode the existing systems. The new units can cost as much as $1000,00. The household refrigeration industry is now doing a massive retooling that will cost around $300 Billion, making the cost of refrigerators higher for us. Each supermarket will spend upward of $100,000.00 to retrofit their refrigeration units, which will amount to higher food prices. When one combines all of the costs to replace or retrofit all of the refrigeration units in the United States to work with this new substance, the cost will run in the trillions of dollars; all for the replacement of a substance which has never been proven to effect the environment.
I could go on for ever, but here are the FACTS to keep in mind. The temperature of the Earth has not increased out of its natural variations. Water vapor and not carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas. Natural events have a greater impact on the climate than human events. CFC's have never been proven to destroy the ozone.
The whole thing in a nutshell, is that the Earth's environment and it's climate are very complex, and to really understand what is happening, we must weed out the political, environmental, and media propaganda, and examine the facts. It is very hard to solve a problem, when one does not exist, and as far as global warming and human cause goes, there is no problem to be found, therefore there is none to solve.
Until next time, "Look to the Skies!!!!"
GLOBAL WARMING: WHO TO BELIEVE?
About a month ago, I wrote a column about the myth of global warming, based upon facts from leading scientists in the field. Several weeks later, a reader from King Ferry wrote to the editor implying that I had misrepresented the facts, based upon information he received from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
I believe this is good. No one should immediately take as gospel, the writings of scientists, without researching the matter further. Scientific debate, keeps science healthy and true. All scientists now, and in the past, have had their followers and opponents. Even Galileo, Einstein, and Carl Sagan, were debated.
However, more important than the facts or opinions, is the source of the information. The Fox network on television for example, has tried to prove the existence of aliens with a tape called Alien Autopsy, which many school children and adults believed was real. They still show this tape, but conveniently forget to tell the viewers, that the two people who made up the whole thing in their basement, are now in jail for fraud. In the past, someone on the Internet started the rumor of the spaceship in the tail of Comet Hale-Bopp, and we all know what the result of that was.
For real science, we must go to real scientists, and that's where the Union of Concerned Scientists falls way short. The U C S was founded in 1969 by students and faculty members of The Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a club to save the environment. Keep in mind, that at that time, all schools were forming environmental clubs, with yours truly being the president of the one in my high school! Currently, their thirteen member board of directors consists of eight college professors, three executives of private corporations, and two lawyers. However, not one of those thirteen members has a degree in anything related to weather or climate!
Among the 70,000 plus members, are farmers, homemakers, poets, people with no scientific background, and people from the sciences; this from their own newsletter. In other words, a good portion of the U C S members have nothing to do with science. All you have to do, is donate at least twenty dollars, and you are a member. So weather you are a Ph D Chemist, or a seventeen year old who slings hamburgers at the local fast food place, you can become a member of the U C S. And where does that membership money go? For the people that print up all of the mis-information that the U C S sends out. In reality, the Union of Concerned Scientists is the Union of Concerned Non-Scientists.
Now, what do real scientists say about global warming? First of all, the temperature of the Earth last year was up by a tenth of a degree, not one degree according to U C S. Of all the Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, 51 percent is from plants and trees, 45 percent from the oceans, and only three percent from the burning of fossil fuels!
Surprisingly trees only clean the air when growing. The carbon is incorporated into carbohydrate compounds and stored in plant tissue. When the trees and forests are fully grown, the Carbon Dioxide is released back into the air. Also, fallen leaves and branches give off Carbon Dioxide. That "haze" that makes the Smokey Mountains such a beautiful sight, is composed of natural compounds of which much of it is Carbon Dioxide.
Surprisingly, this much maligned "Greenhouse Gas" accounts for only 0.035 percent of our atmosphere. The real problem 'Greenhouse Gas" is actually water vapor, which accounts for about two percent of our atmosphere. However, it occurs naturally in our atmosphere, due to ocean and water evaporation, and since the global warming folks can't stop it, they ignore it and pick on the Carbon Dioxide instead. According to scientists with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "Water Vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas, and plays a crucial role in the global climate system".
One must keep in mind, that temperatures on the Earth will rise, and fall, but are within the normal cycles of our planet's climate. According to scientists at the National Climactic Data Center, the weather and climate during the past 20 years has not been out of the ordinary. And further more, the study of tree rings and cores drilled in the ice caps, going back more than 100 years, has indicated no significant change in the climate. These studies have also indicated that the last big warm-up of the Earth was about 600 years ago, long before there was human interaction from factories, cars, and the burning of fossil fuels.
According to the Laboratory of Climateology in Arizona, " environmental disaster is nowhere imminent", and according to Richard S Lindzen from M I T, one of the nations leading experts on atmospheric science, "we don't have any evidence that global warming is a serious problem".
Fred Singer, the first director of the United States Satellite program has another view. IF, and he emphasizes IF, global warming takes place, it could be beneficial. According to him, fears about the rising sea levels are not necessary. New research indicates that increased ocean evaporation due to warming, would lead to more rain, and therefore to more ice accumulation in the polar regions. This in turn, would actually drop sea levels. Also, due to less temperature gradient between the Equator and the Poles, severe weather would be less frequent.
None the less, the whole thing in a nut shell, is that the Global warming myth has been created by self interest groups and the government. Keep in mind, if an organization creates a fake problem, then goes about fixing it, it's good for their publicity. As one scientist has said: "global warming is a political, rather than a scientific creation".
The public however has a right to research the facts, by reputable scientists, and not by "so called scientists". When all of the pro's and con's have been explored and studied, you will find out that the consensus of real meteorologists and climateologists is what I have been telling you faithful readers for years: Human interaction as the cause for Global Warming is a myth!
Until next time, "Look to the Skies!!!!"
"HOLE" IN OZONE NOT CAUSED BY FREON!
If you thought that the Global Warming scenario was a fiasco, wait till you find out about what is really happening to the Ozone, and the relationship to the "Non-hole" with Freon. Last Sunday a Citizen editorial said: "...the damage to reputations far outweighs the hypothetical wounding of the environment from minute releases of an antiquated refrigerant in Auburn". The Citizen has hit the nail on the head; the key word here being "hypothetical".
In science, there are two schools of thought. One is theory, and the other is fact. For example, although many Astronomers believe in Einstein's theory of relativity, it is still a theory until proven. Then it becomes fact. In the case of Freon and other Chlorofluorocarbons (also known as CFC's) putting a hole in the Ozone, this has NEVER, I repeat, NEVER been proven, but has been based upon theories and assumptions from experiments that have been done in laboratories. Read on, and find out what is really going on with the CFC fiasco.
First of all, here's how the CFC theory is supposed to work. Man made CFC's, such as Freon, escape from air conditioners, cars, compressors, etc., and migrate into the stratosphere, a layer of the atmosphere which lies about six miles up and continues to about thirty miles up. The CFC's are then broken down by sunlight and they form chlorine atoms. Each atom then destroys the molecules of Ozone, which in turn allows ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth, altering the ecology and creating an increase in the rate of skin Cancer.
There are several major flaws in the theory. First of all, man made CFC's are heavier than air, so there is no way for them to travel from air conditioners, compressors, or spray cans, and get six to thirty miles up into the atmosphere. Secondly, scientists have found bacteria that naturally break down CFC's. And third, the supporters of the CFC theory have ignored the almost three million tons of natural CFC's a year that are blasted into the atmosphere by volcanoes, as these natural phenomena have the capabilities of sending heavier than air particles into the stratosphere.
As far as skin cancer is concerned, the increase in the rate has been misleading. Yes, the actual number of skin cancer cases has gone up, but look at the reasons. The population of the Earth has increased dramatically over the past fifty years so there are more bodies around to get skin cancer. Also, during the past decades, more people have taken cruises, and have sunned themselves on beaches than ever before. And what about the swim wear? Back in the 1930's, bathing suits were full body from head to toe. Take a look at the bathing suits of today, and see how much more flesh we are showing, and in turn, how much more is exposed to the Sun. So while we have decided to show more of ourselves to the opposite sex, we have also been showing ourselves to more of the ultra-violet rays from the Sun; so don't blame the Freon!
The CFC theory of Ozone depletion is based upon computer models and laboratory experiments, whose results have not been confirmed in the real atmosphere. Yes, the Ozone is being depleted, mostly in the southern hemisphere, but here's why. Take a look at a globe of the Earth to understand this a bit more. Starting around June each year, as winter begins in the Southern Hemisphere, stratospheric winds in excess of 150 miles per hour blow around Antarctica creating a polar vortex. This blocks warmer outside air from entering the region. As the temperatures fall to about 100 degrees below zero in July and August, clouds form from nitric acid and water vapor, found naturally in the atmosphere. When the snow falls from the clouds, it carries nitrogen from the air, which helps to form Chlorine. When a good amount of sunlight return to the region around September, the temperatures begin to rise. The clouds evaporate, leaving chlorine atoms, which begin to destroy the Ozone. By October, with the temperatures beginning to rise, a THINNING, of the ozone is detected; NOT A HOLE, but a thinning. By November, this Ozone poor air spreads over portions of the Southern Hemisphere.
This thinning does not happen with any alarming rate in the Northern Hemisphere, as the North Polar region has land masses in the way that prevent a polar vortex from forming. The above ozone depletion scenario is not a theory, but fact. Also, this depletion is higher in years following large volcanic eruptions.
The CFC depletion supporters, assumed, with no facts, that as long as natural CFC's from volcanoes were thinning the Ozone, than according to their computer models, the CFC's from spray cans were doing the same. So in 1976, The United States banned the use of CFC's in spray cans, and in 1990, the Federal Clean Air Act called for a total phase-out of all CFC's by the year 2000. It was at this time, that Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency, to monitor the reduction of CFC's, and set the standard of all matters relating to air quality. At the same time, Congress imposed a tax on Freon and other CFC's at a rate of sixty cents a pound, which by 1994, was up to forty dollars a pound. And take a guess at which agency profited from the tax?
Unfortunately, this is where the problem lies. The EPA, has kept themselves in business, by continuously "creating" an "Ozone problem", which doesn't exist. Think of it. If the EPA admitted that natural CFC's from volcanoes were depleting the Ozone, then they would not be able to fine cities and companies that don't follow the rules and laws of their Office of Air and Radiation Stratospheric Protection Division; yes, that's the real name! If a real problem doesn't exist, then the EPA is out of business.
Now here's something to really think about. The man made CFC's, such as Freon, which the EPA insists are destroying the Ozone were not invented until 1928, and were not in full production until the 1930's. Unknown to most of the public, is that the Ozone layer has been under study since 1881, and as early as 1926, scientists were talking about the thinning Ozone!
Now let me sum this whole thing up.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that municipalities should go against the EPA mandates and break the law by not going through the Freon removal process, but one must look at the reality of the whole picture. Freon removal equipment costs between one thousand and fifty thousand dollars. That does not include maintenance, filters, installation, or the cost of training and certifying the operators. Add to this, the cost of retooling the entire refrigeration industry since the Freon replacement gas will destroy the old systems. All of this amounts to a cost of almost six trillion dollars. And who is paying for all of this? You and me, with a higher price for frozen foods, refrigerators and freezers, and air conditioners in our homes and cars.
Not to mention, that the replacement gasses for Freon are toxic, flammable, corrosive, and in some cases, even carcinogenic.
All of this, because a government organization known as the EPA, has decided to take unproven theories, and pass them off to the public as scientific fact. All of this, just to keep the EPA in business, monitoring the problems that they themselves have created.
Scientific theory is good "food for thought" but should not be used to make laws and regulations. If, and when, theory turns to fact, then appropriate actions should be taken. Until that time however, scientific theory, is just that.
Until next time, "Look to the Skies!!!!"
Recent Statements About Global Warming From Scientists
"The climate has warmed in the last century, but this took place before 1940. ...we don't think it was human activity. Satellite records form of the temperatures from 3 miles up, do not show any warming at all. Heat Islands caused by urbanization have distorted thermometer temperatures." (Prof. Fred Singer-Atmospheric Physicist, University of Virginia, November 2000)
"40 years of ice accumulation would have buried the planes under 40 feet of ice." (the planes were under 268 feet of ice.) Why was there so much ice over the planes at a time when global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps were such big news?...Greenland has been cooling for the last 50 years... (Weatherwise Magazine, November 2000)
"We don't even know if man-made aerosols are warming or cooling the planet. Man-Made aerosols tend to be processed out of the atmosphere by clouds within a few weeks" (NASA Earth Observatory Internet Bulletin, January 2001)
"The Ozone hole waxes and wanes with the seasons. The behavior of this year's hole, both in record size and quick disappearance, can be largely attributed to the influence of an atmospheric phenomenon known as planetary-scale waves. Just because you see changes from year to year, or just because you see a deep ozone hole this year, that doesn't say anything about the long-term prognosis." (NASA Science News, January 2001)
"The coverage of ice in the Arctic has been virtually unchanged since 1979, while Ice in the Antarctic regions has actually increased." Temperatures over time, aligned themselves very well with the variations in the Solar Cycle, ...using temperatures form the 1880's to 1999." (WSI-Intellicast Meteorologists using data from NOAA and Goddard Space Flight Center. February 2001)
"NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming".(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005)
"In the lower stratosphere (between 10 and 18 km) ozone has recovered even better than changes in CFCs alone would predict. Something else must be affecting the trend at these lower altitudes. The "something else" could be atmospheric wind patterns. "Winds carry ozone from the equator where it is made to higher latitudes where it is destroyed. Changing wind patterns affect the balance of ozone and could be boosting the recovery below 18 km," says Newchurch." (NASA 2006)
"I'm saying that the sun has an effect. But I'm also saying it's uncertain how much global warming has to do with the sun and how much is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures are due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." (Danish National Space Center 2006)
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." (Letter to Canadian Prime Minister from 60 world leading climate Scientists 2006)
"You have these news events where people are taken to Glacier National Park or to Alaska, and they are shown a glacier that has been retreating," says Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The assumption is it's global warming. But then you look at the markers and you see that the retreat began around 1820. That's not due to global warming, at least not from man. In other words, these things happen."
"Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future." (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2006)
"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe." (ABC-TV Alabama affiliate weatherman James Spann, January, 2007)