The Nonsense That Is Global Warming
Some years ago a British newspaper arranged a square-off between a meteorologist, an astrologer and a woman with corns, to see who could best predict the weather. The woman with corns won.
In almost every newspaper around the world, and at least once a week, some report surfaces suggesting we stay worried in the light of latest figures and analyses. Not only is Global Warming occurring, we are assured, but it is now accelerating at some alarming rate and pretty soon the poles will have all melted, the sea levels will have risen and all low-lying atolls and seaside villages will be covered over with this calamitous rising tide. And apparently this gigantic catastrophe is due to human behaviour.
We are informed that if our wicked CFC and CO2-producing ways continue, we will be doomed as a civilisation. Today we are so buffeted by what is put forth as irrefutable evidential science as to the nature of the so-called problem that we don't even think to question it on any basic level. What is still essentially viewpoints and nothing more, based on tiny sample data, and extrapolated, is now promoted as scientific fact, regardless of the lack of real evidence. The voices of the many diligent scientists calling for real hard evidence are drowned out by those who have the ear of a worldwide media hungry for sensational and emotive headlines.
The Misleading Picture
The result is that the picture many now have is of the Earth heating up and hotter now than it has ever been. But... 1999 was cooler than the year before and since 1998 the world has been cooling. The hottest day in all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922. There was warming from the 1880s to the 1940s, then a cooling for the next 40 years. Some of the hottest years were in the 1930s, when builders in Britain began putting pipes on the outside of buildings because frosts were only a memory. Then the thermometers turned around and from 1940 right up to 1980, global mean temperatures fell by about 0.3degC. All those houses in Britain started getting burst pipes.
Some over-reacted and called it the start of a new Ice Age, due to global warming. Er..pardon? Yes, a heating up OR cooling down now was, apparently, because of global warming. The 40 year downturn in temperature was in spite of supposed rising CO2 levels due to the new industrialisation after the war, showing then that rising CO2 does NOT fit into the scenario of Greenhouse gases.
Look outside. Do you see any global catastrophe? Point to an ocean that is rising. Point to a methane cloud. Demonstrate in any lab how CO2 could rise or significantly increase in the atmosphere and therefore be harmful.
Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that. 99.9% of the world's CO2 is at ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans.
Fact: Like CO and N2O, CO2 is heavier than air. By how much? The molecular weight of air is 29, that of CO2 is 44, nearly double. CFCs have a MW of 100. It is therefore utterly impossible for these super-heavy gases to rise to form a 'greenhouse cover.' Wind and diffusion can transport gases but that is to do with mother nature, not man. And the warmers are claiming a rising of gases is taking place due purely to humans and quite apart from wind, thermals, tornadoes and whatever else the processes of nature will do. Our question is, what can possibly make heavier than air gases rise 20 miles to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increase the constant water-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover that enables life to continue to thrive at an average temperature of 13-15degC on the surface of this planet?
CO2 does not rise. If it did, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. A party balloon blown up with the breath would fly straight upwards as if it was filled with helium. Moreover CO2 dissolves in seawater. More CO2 produced just means more is going to dissolve. Scientists are still trying to find out the finer points of how it gets from the sea to the trees. They know of the great cycle in which land goes under other land, heats and spews out as volcanoes. CO2 is thrown out and drifts with rain to ground, gets into trees as CO2 and into rocks as CO3, than finds its way back to the sea, then into chalk, which is compressed plankton, and then to the seafloor which becomes part of the continental drift which produces volcanoes at its extremities. CO2 is kept aloft by upper level turbulence. Otherwise it is always drifting down, not up. CO2 is found in centuries-old ice in Antarctica, way before any industrialisation on Earth. It is a natural part of the atmosphere and as such has a stable cycle of its own.
Fact: The atmosphere on the planet Venus is 100% CO2, produced entirely from volcanoes. Because it is closer to the Sun, its atmosphere is in turmoil all the time. On the other hand Mars, also with a CO2 atmosphere is so frigid its polar caps are solid CO2, which we call dry ice. The coldness comes purely because Mars is further from the Sun. If CO2 alone heated planets up, Mars would be much warmer than it is.
Fact: More CO2 is absorbed by young plants than by grown-up trees. If all we are worried about is CO2 absorption, it would make more sense to cut down the rain forests and plant saplings or even leave it as grass, both of which would absorb far more CO2 than mature trees do. It is hard to imagine environmentalists advocating the cutting down of the rain forests.
Fact: Many scientists argue correctly that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. But the Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence. According to satellite data, air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the past 20 years. Satellite data from NASA says the Earth has only heated by 0.04 of one degree in the last century - which would be expected from natural fluctuation causes. This data conflicts with that of land-based thermometers and so is not released widely. But land-based measurements are less accurate because they are taken from cities, which are getting warmer all the time due to their expansion and replacing of trees and grasslands with asphalt.
Satellite data gives more of a global picture. 75% of the earth is covered by oceans. Of the rest, nearly 3% is covered by ice and of the remaining 24% less than 2% is habitable, when you take out swamps, deserts, lakes, ranges etc. In fact we live only on 1.4% of the surface of the Earth, hardly representative of the planet. According to National Geographic, all of Earth's metropolitan areas would only fit into an area less than the size of Spain. It is only a human vanity to imagine that our relatively small inhabited percentage of global surface has the ability to alter the climate of the whole planet. If we only occupy 1.8%, that means 98.6% of Earth is uninhabited.
Nearer to the truth is that the climate has always had its ups and downs. In 1100 AD the Earth enjoyed a much warmer environment than it does now - closer to a Mediterranean climate in the north of England. Around 549AD it appears a fireball may have swept through much of Europe, melting the fascias of some castles. For many years the Vikings wandered around in their shirtsleeves. The Great Fire of London in 1666 came in a year of tremendous drought. This century just gone saw higher temperatures and heavy droughts around particular recurring years. Each drought in the past was described as the worst in living memory. But there is a simple mathematical pattern here.
The Pattern is Lunar
As far as Earth’s climate is concerned, the lunar movement is a major influence. To understand it better, imagine a settling pot-lid as it is spun on its flat side on a table top. It wobbles around and around. Imagine a point on the rim. As the lid settles, the point will wobble around in an ever-flattening sine curve. That’s what the Moon does around the Earth’s ecliptic (plane of orbit around the Sun). As it moves it drags more or less of the atmosphere with it, spreading the atmosphere further over the Earth’s surface at the high end of the cycle and confining the atmosphere to a narrow band within the tropics at the lower end. The warming effect is that of milder summers and warmer winters, and at the moment we are well past the midpoint. Global-warming ‘experts’ will point to the higher temperatures and claim that they were right all along. But up till now they haven't wanted to look to the Moon. After the last high end in 1987, temperatures did start descending especially around 1991/2, but most failed to notice.
Through its considerable gravitational force the Moon moves the atmosphere two and a half times more than does the Sun. Scientists agree that the Moon's gravity is greater on us than is that coming from the Sun, to the extent that the Moon moves sea tides with very small contribution from the Sun, but a dwindling few still claim that the Sun causes the weather. Whatever the Sun does, the Moon does two and a half times as much.
The atmosphere is both our protection from the searing heat of the sun and the freezing cold of space. Without this protection we would all die under 180degF heat or freeze under -222deg cold.
If it wasn’t mixed and distributed by the Moon daily, more of the atmosphere would end up on the Sun’s side because the Sun would be the only body in space with any gravitational pull. There would probably be one giant cloud always on the Sun's side, just as there is on Venus, which is why Venus always looks so bright. We would therefore never see the Sun for the constant cloud. Moreover, trees, which need direct sun's rays, would not photosynthesize, therefore not produce oxygen which is so essential to life and our existence. So without the Moon there could be no life as we know it on Earth. When we are looking in space for evidence of life on other planets, scientists sometimes miss the fact that we should be looking for a planet our size and speed around its sun; that has a Moon just like ours in size and distance and orbital speed, and a Sun just like ours exactly the same distance away and size. Otherwise we are not looking for life as we know it. And if we're not, then it's not life, it's something else. Because life is life as we know it.
With good reason then, in lunar cultures the Moon has always been the symbol of life itself. Strong reason for it to have been universally revered as the god of fertility and growth. In their all-out zeal to rewrite our universe so history would be more palatable, 17th century theologians made as much distance as they could between Christian society and that symbol of everything pagan; the Moon. There was no room for the Christian god in the old Moon-oriented science, which dictated that climate and weather were cyclically predictable. The 'hand of God' was a non-issue. Now, only God was allowed to know what was going to happen. All predictions and prophecies were heresy.
It is this legacy that has led to one of the most appalling gaffs of modern day science: to factor the Moon out of every weather computer-model. Yet the atmosphere has a high and a low tide, which causes weather, and which, just like the sea-tide, is pulled around by the gravitational force of the Moon. Not only is the atmosphere our protection; it is also our blanket. By retaining the heat of the sun it redistributes this heat wherever it moves to. By shifting the atmosphere, the Moon is directly responsible for Earth's climate.
But Why Invent Global Warming?
Answer: to get the research funds which have been made available. The Australian government recently granted $7.8 million to the CSIRO to investigate Greenhouse Gases. Some gases are sure to be found. In the 1960s geophysicists believed that with enough resources they could predict earthquakes, lobbied hard, and in 1966 the Japanese government funded a $270million per year program. In 1997, after wasting $2.7 billion dollars on no results, the program was axed. A research team is presently in Antarctica to study ice depth. They envisage this to be a 10 year project. In 2004 $4.3 billion was earned by the global warming industry. Most was invested in research and development, but media fed at the trough too, while various governments instituted new beaurcratic and taxed emissions industries.
Fear is bankable. If a population can be convinced that global warming is occurring, there is money to be made. What started off as a small group now has thousands of employees drawing wages.
In the 1980s the term "Greenhouse Effect" came into our vocabulary to try to explain the high temperatures the world was experiencing. The fact that in the following early 1990s we were in a below average period which saw cooler temperatures, particularly during the winter months in both hemispheres, went unreported and unnoticed by those now firmly entrenched on the GW bandwagon. By now other 'problems' found research funds that were being willingly provided. Ozone-depletion, first written up in 1974 and immediately laughed at by the world of science, suddenly became an area of serious study, as did CO2, El Nino/La Nina and just recently, methane, as funds again started to flow into researchers' pockets.
Do we seriously believe that the farts of cows can alter the world's climate? NZ was once teeming with farting birdlife. They're nearly all gone. The US was covered with farting buffalo, Canada with farting caribou. Europe had the farting mammoth and mastodon. All now gone. In India and Africa wildlife has been hunted almost to extinction. There are LESS animals and so less farters, honkers, snorters and burpers now than there have EVER been on this planet, which is why we have the notion of endangered species. One only has to walk behind one duck for 10 minutes to see what emerges from the blunt end of a walking methane factory. Also, methane is inflammable which means it will be destroyed by the next whiff of lightning. There are over 2000 electrical storms happening around the globe every second. What is not broken down in this way is attacked by hydroxyls (called "nature's detergents") in upper air layers. Methane has actually been decreasing for the last 17 years.
So what about the land-based ice?
Land-based ice only represents 1.5% of the Earth's surface at the South Pole. (Roughly 3% of the total Earth's surface is polar. So 1.5% is Southern polar. Roughly half of that is land-based making it around 0.7%) A recent report from the University of Tasmania Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre states "The Antarctic ice-sheet's effective volume is equivalent to 55 meters of global sea level. It is NOT expected that it would melt as a result of a warming of two or three degrees. This is because temperatures in most of Antarctica are well below the melting point of ice.." Down at the South Pole, temperatures cool to under -80deg in winter, so 2 or 3 deg won't even dent it.
In fact, Antarctica has been recorded at -90degC in winter. So for the poles to melt and stay melted all year around, they have to go up in temperature by at least 90deg. And even that only gets them up to zero. If the poles rise by 90deg you can barely imagine what the temperature of the middle latitudes will become. Let's assume the poles might one day reach this horrendous temperature. So what will happen to the oceans? Well, 90deg is nearly the boiling point of water. The oceans will not rise. They will all have evaporated.
Rising Sea Levels
When you pin a global warming ‘expert’ down, he/she will say the oceans are expected to rise between 10cms and 1m over the next century due to them being warmed. 10cms is only four and a half inches a century? That's nothing to an incoming and outgoing tide. 1m's a bit more, to be sure, but why do they always quote the upper end? So, depending on who you listen to, they seem to have an error of between 10cms and 55m, or roughly 5000%. And if they're so unsure, how are they so certain the sea levels are rising at all?? And what is making the seas warmer? To warm a pot of water you have to have heat from below. Has anyone found a big heater yet under the sea that wasn't there before?
Then there's the question of the 2 or 3 degrees supposed rise over the last century. In most places on Earth 10C variation occurs during every day, but no one seems too put out. In actual fact, the sea levels are decreasing around the top half of New Zealand’s North Island, increasing around the bottom half of the South Island, falling in the top half of the UK and rising in the south of the UK. It is the land which is rising or falling, giving only a virtual sea level change. So how can we tell which is rising - land or sea when both are measured against each other?
Another thing that is a bit weird is that the Pacific atolls are supposed to be submerging, while the high-water mark on most New Zealand’s beaches remains the same. Sea level is supposed to be the same everywhere. That's why it's used so much as a universal standard. No one is bothering to point out that Pacific atolls are very volcanic and are rising and falling all the time. Just by the way, New Zealand is also extremely tectonically active.
A Sydney University study, commissioned by the late Prime Minister of Tuvalu two years ago, reported that sea levels around that news-grabbing atoll were actually reducing; but this report did not make sensational headlines and, not surprisingly, went largely unreported.
In comparing sea level days, when do they make their comparisons? It's not good just looking at the tide high water mark and saying it looks higher than when I was a boy. Different lunar factors make for a higher or lower tide level - New or Full Moons, perigees, the 18.613 cycle, declination, the Moon crossing the equator twice a month going in opposite directions, wind forces, wind direction and high pressure zones which lower the sea level or low pressure zones which tend to raise it. All of these factors are on the move all of the time and there is no one date which brings them all together so that they can be safely compared to another date.
Some scientists are sometimes outrageously wrong. In March 1998 they declared that a 2km wide asteroid called 1997 XF11 was on a near collision course with Earth. It was later discovered that the asteroid would miss the earth by at least a million kilometres.
Halley’s Comet was another fizzer. After all the hype, you needed high powered binoculars to even see it. There has been a recent call to look at the possibility of future meteor strikes and what to do if they presented a threat to mankind. Then there's volcanoes, earthquakes, comets, gamma rays - someone only has to suggest something no one else has thought of to worry over for a while for it to hit the big headlines.
During the Gulf War there was the fear of a permanent oil shortage, and everyone installed LPG in their vehicles. Before that, the threat of nuclear war, and lots of people had bunkers built in their gardens. Then in Auckland, the water scare, and everyone put in their own water tanks. Then there was Y2K, which had those with a PC panicking for a while. But these pass and things return to normal.
Perhaps another threat is surely coming to a neighborhood near you. Someone will be asking for research grants, paid for by you, the taxpayer. Recently the then NZ Associate Minister for the Environment said global warming is "inextricably related to climate instability and poses one of the biggest threats to our economy". New Zealand's current Energy Minister has said the science of global warming is undeniable. But perhaps there is a bigger and more direct economic threat to every country's economy; the creaming off of massive funds to study non-existent dangers.
There are other arguments against any possibility that runaway global warming could be occurring. Let us for one moment assume that the world IS heating up. Firstly, the evaporation cycle would increase due to the heat. This would also happen if the sea levels rose, because of the greater surface of water available for that evaporation. A greater evaporation cycle means more rain will form and fall back on Earth and, as rain is not selective, there be more to fall on the poles too, creating more ice and snow there.
The clouds are white which makes them efficient heat-reflectors. That is why a cloudy day is mild in temperature - clouds hold the heat in. But they also hold heat out, because the top of the clouds reflect 50% of the sun’s heat back into space. Clouds are second only to snow (85%) in heat reflection. With less heat coming in due to reflection off the top surface of the clouds and back into space, the result should be less heat getting to earth so the Earth should cool. Because clouds hold heat in, any measuring equipment set up to measure global warming would give wrong results every time clouds were overhead. Measuring apparatus do not have eyes to see clouds. Actually scientists know this and build in an error called ‘average cloudiness'. The trouble is, ‘average cloudiness’ is not an annual constant. Clouds are never stationary, so cannot be pinned to a measuring location. Average Cloudiness has NOT been proven.
As a long range weather forecast organisation, we calculate lunar orbits to plot weather for many years ahead. ALL of our calculations would be awry if there was global warming because we are basing our predictions on weather that occurred three and four moon cycles ago, from several virtual moon-positions in differing time-zones, that all occurred well before industrialisation, pollutants and global warming were ever thought of. If you find there is some truth in the forecasts put out on our website (predictweather.com) a month or more ahead then a reasonable conclusion could be that there can be no global warming, other than what the Moon causes - which is embedded automatically into all the calculations.
It seems we have forgotten the moral of the Emperor’s Clothes.
*Written by Ken Ring of www.predictweather.com - the home of long range forecasting.