Science is distorted by progressive philosophy

Stanford Universities Paul Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Black Africans To Fight Climate Change

September 10, 2016April 3, 2018kaykiser

Stanford Universities Paul Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Black Africans To Fight Climate Change

Posted: April 24, 2016 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmists, Climate Change, Climatism, Green Agenda, Malthus, Population Control | Tags: ABC, Black Lives Matter, Climate Change, Ecofascism, Environmentalists, Global Warming, Malthus, Misanthropy, Paul Ehrlich, Population Control, QandA, Royal Society, Stanford University |2 Comments

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

•••

Stanford Universities population freak and climate catastrophist Paul Ehrlich recently featured as a guest on ABC Australia’s popular “Q and A” current affairs hour.

“Q and A’s” proud boast, popular with its majority Leftist audience, is being champions of equality, compassion and to strictly condemn, name and shame those who fit a predetermined racist bent. I.e conservatives.

That said, did any panel members or audience question Ehrlich about his preference to which colour should be eliminated first?

I thought “Black-Lives-Matter” or is that simply another victomhood slogan designed by the Left to divide and silence?

GST, Gonski, Population and Diversity | Q&A | ABC TV

•••

Stanford Universities Paul R. Ehrlich via Steve Goddard’s Real Science:

Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Africans In Order To Control His Own Neurosis

Posted on September 12, 2013 by stevengoddard

http://select.nytimes.com

The Evening News – Google News Archive Search

Notable comments from Climate Change / Global Warming fear-monger and population freak Paul Ehrlich :

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Malthusian, eco-alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992

“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” – Paul R. Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.” – Paul R. Ehrlich (Population Bomb 1960)

“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” – Paul R. Ehrlich (1969)

“By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” – Paul R. Ehrlich (1969)

“We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” – Paul R. Ehrlich. Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)

Alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich now works for The Royal Society, (to bolster their credibility /sarc) ~ “Nullius In Verba”

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/stanford-universities-paul-ehrlich-wanted-to-poison-black-africans-to-fight-climate-change/

Climatism

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

•••

Stanford Universities population freak and climate catastrophist Paul Ehrlich recently featured as a guest on ABC Australia’s popular “Q and A” current affairs hour.

“Q and A’s” proud boast, popular with its majority Leftist audience, is being champions of equality, compassion and to strictly condemn, name and shame those who fit a predetermined racist bent. I.e conservatives.

That said, did any panel members or audience question Ehrlich about his preference to which colour should be eliminated first?

I thought “Black-Lives-Matter” or is that simply another victomhood slogan designed by the Left to divide and silence?

GST, Gonski, Population and Diversity | Q&A | ABC TV

•••

Stanford Universities Paul R. Ehrlich via Steve Goddard’s Real Science:

Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Africans In Order To Control…

View original post 396 more words

AGW Claims vs Truth – Claim 8: The world is in danger of catastrophic consequences – sea level rise, polar ice and glaciers melting, growing deserts, worse storms, droughts and floods

September 5, 2016kaykiser

Claim 8: The world is in danger of catastrophic consequences of global warming such as sea level rise, polar ice and glaciers melting, growing deserts, worse storms, droughts and floods.

Truth: a.) Sea levels have been rising along with warming since the Little Ice Age at an average rate of 7 inches per century due to glacier melting and expansion of seawater with warming. This rate has not changed significantly in recent times. To claim that sea levels have risen, the IPCC used a tide gauge in Hong Kong that showed tide levels rising, not because of sea level rising, but because the land is sinking (subsiding). Those islands that were supposedly in danger of being swamped have had almost no net sea level rise in all the years since the early predictions. Globally, some land has been lost due to sea level rise and subsidence, but more land has been gained by other forces.

Source: “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”^{^[1]} Note that it is not correlated to fossil fuel consumption

b.) Polar ice caps have shrunk and grown in recent years but overall they have remained relatively unchanged since preindustrial times. The media hype is about a theory that the Larsen Ice Shelf (in the more northerly Western Antarctica peninsula) might break away from Antarctica, causing rapid sea level rise of 5 meters (16.4 ft.). Although a part broke away in 1995, most experts say rapid collapse will not happen and any collapse and sea level rise would occur over centuries^{^[2]}. Both sea ice and ice cover have grown even more in other, more southerly locations on the continent. This year northern polar sea ice was thicker than usual so that there was some concern that the polar bears might have a harder time finding seals to eat. By the way, polar bear populations have been increasing in recent years.

c.) Glaciers have been receding since the Little Ice Age at a relatively steady pace that, along with water expansion with warming, accounts for much of the sea level rise. Melting of floating sea ice doesn’t cause a rising sea level. It is already displacing its weight in saltwater. Ice expands as it freezes, so that melt water shrinks as it melts, resulting in the release of the same weight of water as was originally displaced. Only land-based glaciers will have any effect on sea level. While most glaciers are receding, there are some that are actually growing.

CO2 Increase since 1950 does not track Glacier Shortening

Source: “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”^{^[3]}

d.) Droughts have not increased in recent times. Some years are worse than others, but the overall picture has not changed.

Global drought monitoring - nature — Global drought monitoring

Global Drought: Fraction of the global land in D0 (abnormally dry), D1 (moderate), D2 (severe), D3 (extreme), and D4 (exceptional) drought condition (Data: Standardized Precipitation Index data derived from MERRA-Land)^{^[4]}

e.) Deserts are generally a result of geographic barriers and over grazing. Most of the Sahara Desert was once a grassy plain where livestock were grazed. It is a naturally dry area due to mountains to the west that block much of the moisture from the Atlantic Ocean. Overgrazing and loss of denuded top soil by winds had contributed to its expansion long before the industrial age. In most areas of the world, there has been no marked increase in the rate of desertification in recent times. Instead, deserts are greening as a result of higher CO2 levels that increase growth rates and make plants more tolerant of dry conditions by reducing the leaf pores. See previous post AGW Claims 2b The Benefits of Carbon Dioxide, answer c.

f.) Storms have not gotten worse. The dollar damages in some areas have increased due to increased urbanization, but not the severity of the storms themselves. The number of tornados has actually declined in the United States and their severity has not increased. The same is true of hurricanes and in recent years few have made landfall in the United States.

[1] Review Article: “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Climate Res. 13, 149-164, (1999)

[2] Quote: “More realistically, ice-shelf deterioration is likely to be a rather slow process, and even for a major and sustained warming trend ice-sheet collapse would take several hundred years, with most of the associated rise in sea level occurring during the final century.” From Nature 277, 355 – 358 (01 February 1979); doi:10.1038/277355a0 “Effect of climatic warming on the West Antarctic ice sheet Robert H. Thomas^1.), Timothy J. O. Sanderson^2.) & Keith E. Rose^3.) from^1.)Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine at Orono, Orono, Maine 04469, ^2.)British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK, ^3.)Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, UK Present address: Department of Geophysics, Royal School of Mines, Imperial College, London SW7, UK http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5695/abs/277355a0.html

[3] Reference: ”Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records,” J. Oerlemans, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, Netherlands. Science 29 April 2005: Vol. 308, 675-677, doi: 10.1126/science.1107046.

[4] “Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system,” Aengchao Hao, Amir AghaKouchak, Navid Nakhjiri, Alireza Farahmand, Nature, Scientific Data 1, Article number 140001 (2914), doi:10,1038/sdata.2014.1

AGW Claims vs. Truth – Claim 7. Temperatures have risen faster in recent years than ever before

August 31, 2016kaykiser

Average Global Temperatures vs Number of Reporting Stations

Truth: Remember that there is no such thing as a global temperature. It is the average of all of the reporting stations all over the world. For example, several years ago Ross McKitrick[1] using CRU data showed that the rapid rise in temperatures in the 1990s directly coincided with a decrease in the number of Siberian weather stations reporting due to the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Additionally, the “hottest year on record,” 1998, was an El Nino year so it was naturally hotter than the years just before and after. Another cause of rising average global temperatures is the urban heat island effect. Cities are hotter than rural areas.

Many of the reporting stations that were once in undeveloped rural areas have experienced either suburban or urban development, or the stations have been moved to more urban settings. It is well documented that some have been, seemingly intentionally, relocated near or at heat sources such as paved parking lots and air conditioners. One reason for relocation near buildings or other structures could be that new automatic-reporting equipment needs to be connected by cable. Rather than dig up parking lots or roads to install units in a grassy or protected area, many have opted to locate them where they can be directly connected without involving costly excavation, although such sites do not meet the stated requirements.

Urban Heat 5 — Rating system for locating weather stations

Instead of excluding data from stations that are poorly situated, a convoluted mathematical algorithm (scheme) is used to “correct” it to presumed pre-industrial levels. In spite of all this, it appears that there has been no net warming since the late 1990s and even a slight cooling since 2005. One other problem with the new equipment is that it has a faster response time that records brief, transient signals such as car or plane exhausts that were not picked up by the older equipment. Because the equipment is designed to report maximum and minimum temperatures, this can create a false result.

Urban Heat 8 — Plus Correction Algorithms

100_0070B — “equals” pristine natural setting

[1] Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada http://www.rossmckitrick.com

AGW Claims vs Truth – Claim 6. Temperatures are hotter than in the last 100,000 years

August 28, 2016kaykiser

Claim 6. Temperatures are hotter now than they have been in the last 100,000 years

Truth: This is clearly an unsubstantiated myth meant to scare people into compliance with drastic environmental regulations. The climate modelers have eliminated the Medieval Warm Period, which was hotter than it is today, and it was a time of prosperity. It was hotter in the 1930s than it is today. However, the American “Dust Bowl” of the 1930s was not due to warming. It was caused by opening up vast areas to farming that were poorly suited to it and a years-long severe drought. Based on historical accounts, ice cores and tree rings, modelers have dismissed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age by claiming that they were not global phenomena but were limited to Europe and North America. More recent and more detailed ice core studies, etc. have shown that both of these periods were indeed global. Over the last 100,000 years, temperatures have been far hotter and far colder than the present. Who can say what “normal” global temperature is when it is always changing? Should we attempt to freeze the present day conditions as the ideal, or should we take a more reasonable approach to an ever changing climate?

15 climate chart - 11K yrs vs CO2 — 11,000 year record of Temperatures vs. CO2

AGW Claims vs. Truth – 5. Developed countries are to blame for increased manmade carbon dioxide because they use most of the fossil fuels.

August 25, 2016kaykiser

Truth: This is partially true. Industrialization is steadily increasing in developed and developing countries such as China and India. While developed countries are putting restrictions on themselves, international agreements exempt developing countries from such restrictions. These increases more than offset any gains from restrictions on developed countries. However, see previous post AGW Claims vs. Truth – 2 & 2b for why we shouldn’t worry about increased CO₂

In addition to industrialization, increased cooking fires and subsistence agriculture to feed an increasing population are also significant contributing factors. CO₂ is CO₂. There is no escape clause for renewable sources. It doesn’t matter whether it is from fossil fuels or burning dung or wood. Increased population in developing countries means more slash and burn agriculture and more cooking and heating by burning organic material. The modelers assume that renewable sources are exempt as causes because it is a renewable source. This is faulty thinking. Slash and burn agriculture of one acre releases a tenth of the carbon dioxide as ten acres. Subsistence agriculture is harmful to the environment because it results in depletion of soils so that it is necessary to clear more forest lands.

Subsistence farming requires burning to release the nitrogen for crops. Modern agriculture releases far less carbon dioxide than subsistence farming, so keeping people in poverty makes no sense unless your aim is to control or reduce the population in developing countries. It would be better if we helped developing countries develop modern agriculture and industry so they can clean up their act. When people are worried about how to feed their families, there is little time or incentive to do anything about pollution or the environment. In many underdeveloped countries the tradition of having as many children as possible is mostly due to the high rate of mortality in infancy and childhood from unchecked diseases, poor diet, indoor air pollution and poverty. Without the incentive of high infant and childhood mortality, family size and populations could naturally stabilize.

World Life Expectancy Map which tracks well with Poverty Rates

LifeExpectancy_GDPperCapita - wiki — Life Expectancy vs. GDP per capita, 2009, World Bank

New Book Now Available on Amazon and wnd.com

August 3, 2016August 8, 2016kaykiser1 Comment

In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including the theories of evolution, origin of life, cosmology, and quantum physics.

The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:

Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?
Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?
If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?
Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?

My book has just been published and is available at Amazon.com World Net Daily Books @wnd.com and other outlets. Soon to be available as an eBook.

http://superstore.wnd.com/Perverted-Truth-Exposed-How-Progressive-Philosophy-Has-Corrupted-Science-Paperback

AGW Claims vs. Truth – 4. Increased Fossil Fuel use and CO2 level

July 13, 2016kaykiser

Claim 4. Manmade CO₂ levels have been rising rapidly due to increased industrialization and populations since the 1950s.

Truth: CO₂ levels have been steadily rising along with warming since the Little Ice Age. Recent increases in industrialization and population appear to have contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO₂ since the 1950s when fossil fuel consumption began increasing. Rising temperatures have also contributed to increased CO₂ because it is less soluble in warmer ocean water and is thus released. it is unclear how much is from manmade sources and how much is from natural processes, but some estimate put it at 5%. However, if CO₂ is not responsible for global warming, (see previous posts) increased levels shouldn’t alarm anyone and in fact increased CO₂ should be celebrated as a plant growth promoter.

AGW Claims vs. Truth -3. Water Vapor Magnifies Warming from Carbon Dioxide

July 11, 2016July 11, 2016kaykiser

No hot spot - JoNova — Predicted hot spot from water vapor forcing is missing

Claim 3. Carbon dioxide is important because it has a forcing effect on other factors such as water vapor which magnify warming effects.

Truth: Since the atmospheric absorption of CO₂ is already near saturation, (see previous post), very little additional heating can take place due to increased CO₂. Contrary to AGW advocates, increased water vapor from warming doesn’t stay as vapor to trap heat near the surface. It forms low altitude clouds that strongly reflect solar heat back out into space, overwhelming any trapped re-radiation from the Earth and having an overall cooling effect. The models, which assume water vapor remains as vapor, predict an atmospheric “hot spot” at middle altitudes. Weather balloons and satellites have failed to find this assumed hot spot, which is the signature of atmospheric forcing of global warming in computer models. Due to low altitude clouds reflecting sunlight back into space, any feedback is negative (cooling), not positive (warming) as assumed in computer models. For earlier posts, go to http:realscienceblog.com

Source of Figure: “The Skeptic’s Handbook” at http://www.Joannenova.com.au

AGW Claims vs Truth – 2b Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

July 4, 2016kaykiser

Chart Source: Review Article: “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon (1), Sallie L. Baliunas(1), Arthur B. Robinson (2), Zachary W. Robinson (2) Climate Research. 13, 149-164, (1999) — CO2 Enhanced Plant Growth Rates – Chart Source: Review Article “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon (1), Sallie L. Baliunas(1), Arthur B. Robinson (2), Zachary W. Robinson (2) Climate Research. 13, 149-164, (1999)

a.) Animals exhale CO₂ and breathe in O₂, while plants use CO₂ for photosynthesis and “exhale” O₂. Professional greenhouses often add extra CO₂ to increase growth rates. Increased plant growth removes much of the CO₂ released into the atmosphere. Between pre-industrial and present times, studies show an average of 15 percent increase in plant growth rates, with some species increased many times that, e.g, young pine trees. Increased plant growth rates and wider distribution of arable (farmable) land due to warming as well as improved farming practices can solve the so-called overpopulation problem.

b.) Critics created the “progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis,” which assumes that increased growth rates of trees would deplete poor soils of nitrogen, thus mediating the positive effects of increased CO₂. This is a scenario based on an unproven hypothesis, not reality, which stubbornly refuses to support the hypothesis. Many studies^[1] show that, contrary to the hypothesis, although roots grow deeper and produce more fine hairs, soil and forest floor are enriched in nitrogen from biological sources, ie, increased root mass and leaf litter supporting beneficial microbes in the soil. Deeper roots with more fine hairs also make plants mean enhanced tolerance to dryer conditions. (also see next item)

c.) One benefit of increased CO₂ is that the stomata (openings) of leaves, which take in CO₂ and emit water vapor and oxygen, are reduced, leading to less water loss, enhanced water use and improved tolerance to dryer conditions. At elevated CO₂ levels, stomata do not need to be open as far to allow sufficient CO₂ in for photosynthesis and, as a result, less water is lost through transpiration^{^[2]}. In controlled studies, an additional benefit of reduced stomata openings is a reduction in ozone damage.

d.) The increased rate of growth of plants, from forests to sea algae, results in more of certain cooling aerosols being produced. These include Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) from soil and seas that become highly reflective sulfate in the stratosphere to reflect more solar radiation back into space; iodo-compounds[3] from sea algae that nucleate clouds to reflect more solar radiation back into space; and dimethyl sulfide (DMS), from seas that nucleates clouds as well as other aerosols such as isoprene from trees with similar effects.

The increase in carbon dioxide is greening many arid regions because of more efficient use of water and the increased growth rate. Sub-Saharan Africa is blooming, the Amazonian jungle is flourishing and global vegetative cover is increasing. The effect on ocean phytoplankton is equally as dramatic. Significant reduction of carbon dioxide levels as proposed by the various climate agreements would have a detrimental effect on plant growth and consequently food supplies. A concentration of 150 ppm is too low for photosynthesis to occur and plants die.

Hormesis Diagram with CO2 concentration on the horizontal axis vs plant growth rate

Hormesis is a phenomenon, commonly seen in medicine and nutrition, where a low or moderate concentration or dose results in a positive effect, but a larger dose results in damage. For instance, some salt and water are necessary to good health, but beyond a certain point, ingesting more can be harmful or fatal. The effect of CO₂ on plant life appears to be one such system. Increased CO₂ obviously benefits plant life, but it is uncertain at what level CO₂ might have a detrimental effect on growth. In professional greenhouses and experiments, even ten times the current level is still beneficial.

[1] Example: Phillips, R.P., Finzi, A.C. and Bernhardt, E.S. 2011. “Enhanced root exudation induces microbial feedbacks to N cycling in a pine forest under long-term CO₂ fumigation”. Ecology Letters 14: 187-194.

[2] See review article of research papers: “Responses of agricultural crops to free-air CO₂ enrichment” Kimball, B.A., Kobayashi, K. and Bindi, M., Advances in Agronomy 77: 293-368 2002.

[3] Iodo-compounds contain iodine derived from seaweed

AGW Claims vs. Truth – 2. Carbon Dioxide and Warming

June 30, 2016kaykiser

Atmospheric Transmission of Different Gases

AGW Claim 2. Manmade carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the main cause of global warming

Truth: a.) Carbon dioxide is a minor player in any further warming. It is uniformly distributed in the atmosphere but only absorbs infrared (heat) in a very narrow wavelength range. The CO₂ wavelength range is outside the range of most of the solar radiance that penetrates our atmosphere. It falls roughly inside the wavelength range of temperatures re-radiated when solar radiation heats the Earth’s surface.

The atmospheric CO₂ already absorbs almost all of the radiation that it can in that wavelength range. Most of the warming effect of CO₂ has already occurred in the past and is one of the reasons our planet is not a frozen wasteland. Any increase in CO₂ will have a very minor effect. With CO₂ absorption near saturation, almost all of the re-radiated heat in that wavelength range is already being trapped, so it can have little or no effect on future increases in temperature or supposed forcing of water vapor. (will be explained in claim 3 analysis in future posts.) With CO₂ essentially eliminated as a source, any increase in temperature must be from other sources.

This figure above requires a bit of explaining. The top spectrum shows the wavelengths at which the atmosphere transmits light and heat as well as the blackbody idealized curves for no absorption. It is a little misleading because the data is not based on actual solar and earth data. It is based on two experimental heat sources, one centered at 5525 K (5252^o C or 9485^o F), the approximate temperature of solar radiation, and one centered in the range of 210 to 310 K (-63^o C to 36.8^o C or -82^oF to 98^o F), the approximate temperature range of re-radiated heat from the earth. In reality, solar radiation power, (Watts/m²/micron), is six million times as strong as the power of re-radiated heat from the Earth.

The other spectra are absorption^{^[1]} spectra. The first one shows the relative percent absorption by total atmospheric gases at various wavelengths, (note that this spectrum is practically the inverse of the transmission spectrum above it), and the spectra below that show the absorption wavelength ranges of individual atmospheric gases, (but not the relative strength of that absorption in reality). As experimental, not real atmospheric, data they can only tell us the wavelength ranges of the absorption, not their relative strengths in the atmosphere.

Note that CO₂ absorbs in the 15 micron range^{^[2]}, which is within both the range of re-radiated heat and the strong absorption by water vapor, of which the CO₂ peak forms a mere shoulder. CO₂, in the atmosphere is evenly distributed and is near-saturation level at this wavelength. That means that little if any re-radiated heat can escape through the blanket of CO₂, which is why our earth is not a frozen wasteland. This also mean that adding more CO₂ will have little effect on future temperatures. Lesser CO₂ peaks in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron ranges only contribute in a minor way. The first is completely covered by a water vapor absorption peak and the second forms a shoulder in another water vapor peak. These minor peaks occur in a region where both solar radiation and re-radiation are minimized. Methane and nitrous oxide are also shown to be minor players, having narrow absorption ranges and are at low concentrations in the atmosphere. Note too that ozone blocks most of the ultraviolet light from the sun.

b.) Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas/liquid in the form of vapor, high and low altitude clouds, rain and snow, which both absorb and reflect in-coming sunlight and re-radiated heat from the surface. Water vapor is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, being concentrated near the earth, it strongly absorbs heat in a wide range of wavelengths. More heat means more water vapor evaporating from the oceans. Sounds pretty scary, doesn’t it? Contrary to what is assumed by climate modelers, who use this to claim forcing by CO₂, the extra vapor doesn’t remain as vapor. It quickly forms low altitude clouds that strongly reflect in-coming sunlight and heat into space. Any re-radiated heat from the surface that may be trapped by clouds is a small fraction compared to the in-coming solar radiation, so blocking solar radiation has a net cooling effect that overwhelms any increases in trapped re-radiation. High altitude clouds tend to trap heat from being re-radiated into space, but have little effect because the increases in cloud cover due to warming are mostly in low altitude clouds.

c.) Methane, like CO₂, only absorbs heat in narrow wavelength ranges far from most of solar heat radiance, so that water, with its broad absorbance spectrum, trumps all other greenhouse gases. Like CO₂, methane is at or near its absorbance saturation point in the atmosphere so that increases would have little effect. While it is true that continued warming could result in release of methane from melting permafrost, it would have a relatively minor effect on global temperatures. Methane is derived mostly from decaying organic material and from natural seeps on the land and under the sea, as well as termites and ruminant flatulence. Methane absorbs 29 times as much heat per volume as carbon dioxide but at 1.8 ppbv^{^[3]}, (.00000018 percent), compared to CO₂ at 380 ppmv^{^[4]}, (0.038 percent), it is recognized as a minor player in greenhouse warming along with Ozone (O₃) and Nitrous Oxide (N₂O).

d.) Manmade carbon dioxide is estimated to be about 5 percent (1/20^th) of the total CO₂ emitted. Animals and man are relatively minor contributors. Decaying organic matter is the major source, followed by volcanic activity and release from warmer oceans. Warmer water releases more CO₂ than cooler water due to decreased solubility of CO₂ with rising temperature. Many studies show that atmospheric CO₂ concentration rises AFTER warming, not before. So which is the cause and which is the effect?

See next post for the beneficial effects of CO₂ on plant life.

[1] Transmission and Absorption are inversely related by the formula A = 1/log T.

[2] The horizontal axis is a log scale in microns so that the 1 to 10 range is in units of 1 and the 10 to 70 range is in tens.

[3] Ppbv stands for parts per billion by volume.

[4] Ppmv stands for parts per million by volume.

Stanford Universities Paul Ehrlich Wanted To Poison Black Africans To Fight Climate Change

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: