Throwing Cold Water (Droplets) on Climate Change

Recently, the scientists at the prestigious CERN labs -- The European Organization for Nuclear Research -- were able to determine that cloud formations are highly influenced by cosmic radiation hitting the Earth in a process called ion-induced nucleation. Somewhat creatively named, they called their research project the CLOUD experiment or the "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" experiment (Click here to See Story: CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised').

What's really shocking about their results is that their research blows a rather big hole in the theory of Anthropogenic (man induced) Global Warming. That's because it clearly puts the blame for the Earth's current global warming on the increased amount of "solar" cosmic radiation that bombards Earth at varying levels; every day. In doing so, it strengthens a long-held and well understood fact that water vapor, in the form of clouds, is the most powerful greenhouse gas in our atmosphere; and, not that "trace" gas known as CO2. In fact, ion-induced nucleation might be responsible for at least half, or perhaps all, of the global warming activity in the last 100 years. It also better explains why global temperatures have leveled off for that last decade-and-a-half; despite increasing levels of CO2 during that same period.

Unfortunately, the CERN's Cloud experiment results are already being suppressed. You've got too many liberal politicians and media, and too many research scientists who are highly dependent on pushing the CO2-caused global warming theory. For the liberal politicians and media, it's all about the redistribution of wealth and about pushing an environmental war against oil, gas, and coal. For the climate change scientists, it's all about saving their lucrative paychecks; despite what Al Gore seems to think. But, CERN's results are real science by a highly reputable group of scientists and their research can't be ignored. To do so, just proves that Climate Change is less about real science and more about politicized science. After all, the leading spokesman for Climate Change/Global Warming, Al Gore, only majored in government and was admittedly terrible at both math and science. Still, like the old E.F. Hutton commercials (Click to See a Typical TV Commercial) used to say: When Gore speaks, the Climate Change believers blindly listen (no matter how damn wrong he is).

Toxic CO2?

If you listen to the Gore-ites of the world, the 3/100's of a percent of our total atmosphere that is comprised of carbon dioxide (CO2) is literally choking the planet. The EPA, under Obama, now considers it a "toxic gas" subject to stringent controls. However, increasingly, the world's peoples are not buying into all this horse-cart litter regarding the supposed toxicity of CO2; simply, because the earth isn't really getting any hotter. Yet, the world's liberal governments are still pressing on to control it.

I, for one, believe that higher levels of CO2 will result in increased plant activity; thus, reducing those high levels of atmospheric CO2 down to normal levels. This is the basis of the Gaia theory (or hypothesis) that was first suggested by James Lovelock of NASA in 1960.

Now, we have this very interesting YouTube video that seems to support the Gaia theory with a real-life, side-by-side example of two plants; one getting nearly three times the level of CO2 over the other. The results are amazing:

Why the Greenhouse Effect And Global Warming Make No Sense

The whole concept of global warming and climate change is based on the fact that CO2 and some other gases, trapped in our upper atmosphere, act as a reflective blanket and radiate heat back to the earth in much the same way as a glass enclosed greenhouse maintains warm temperatures for plants; even in the depths of winter. But, anyone who actually owns a greenhouse also knows that the greenhouse effect only works during the day and, at night, the lack of the sun's radiant heat must be offset with some form of gas or electric heat.

So, with this simple concept in mind, it seems obvious that the sun is what truly drives the greenhouse effect.

If we are to assume -- as the global warmists would have us all believe -- that CO2 reflects thermal energy, we must also assume that it is also capable of reflecting or blocking the sun's thermal energy from reaching the earth. Therefore, it is only logical that some of the sun's energy won't be able to warm the earth as the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases rise in our atmosphere. So, at the very least, the warming effect of increased CO2 is probably being more than offset by the amount of the sun's thermal energy that is being blocked.

Another reason that the greenhouse effect doesn't make any sense has to do with simple thermal dynamics. At the heart of this concept is the fact that space is a lot colder than the earth is warm. In fact, in the depths of space, the temperature is 2.7 degrees kelvin or about -455 degrees Fahrenheit. At best, the warmest parts of the earth can only reach 130 degrees Fahrenheit. So, in essence, the tendency of the earth is to cool rather than to heat up. Most of its warmth is at the surface. The farther away from the surface you go, the colder it gets. You only have to look to the ice caps on the world's mountain tops to know this to be true. Therefore, by the time that earth's radiated heat makes it to the CO2 layer that is trapped in the earth's upper atmosphere, that heat has been cooled to freezing temperatures. So, therefore, what amount of real thermal energy is actually being reflected?

Furthermore, because space is so cold, the likelihood of one extra degree of the earth's radiated warmth being reflected back to the surface is highly improbable. It is more logical to believe that, thermally, the earth is less likely to warm space than space is to cool the earth.

What the Warmists don't want to talk about is the fact that most of the heat that is trapped at the earth's surface is the result of the amount of water vapor that is present in our atmosphere --- both in terms of clouds and humidity. Water vapor is the true greenhouse gas and it is the reason that we aren't just some big snowball in space. Water vapor makes up 95% of the earth's atmosphere. By contrast, CO2 only makes up less than 4 tenths of one percent of it. Even the smallest changes in the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere will have a substantial effect on the overall temperature of our environment. And, no amount of tree ring data and ice cores can tell us how much water vapor was present at any particular time in the history of the earth. Because of this lack of data, the computer models that are predicting future temps are totally deficient and not at all reliable. That is why, I believe, the current global warming scientists are so perplexed by the more than decade long flat-lining of world temperatures. Their models just don't work.

Through simple observation, anyone can easily understand how important humidity and clouds are to temperature. If you live in area of the country were the temperatures are capable of plunging below zero, you know that the coldest days -- the days when jet liners flying overhead actually create a "crackling" sound --- are those days that are totally cloudless and the humidity levels are so low that everything you touch gives you a static electricity shock. Those living in desert areas know that cloudy days will keep the the night from cooling off to the more comfortable temperatures that would otherwise be seen on cloudless nights.

There is just so much about the effect of CO2 on global warming that makes absolutely no sense. In most cases, simple logic trumps what we are being told. To me, the science will be settled when the majority of scientists -- and not just those whose theories are being tainted by fat government grants --- are in concert about the cause of global warming. Until then, I will remain one of those evil skeptics.

Ask Your Philodendron If CO2 is Dangerous

Probably, the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life is the EPA's decision this week to call CO2 a "dangerous gas". Even school children know that plants won't survive without CO2. We,and all the other animals on earth, expel it all day long as a byproduct of producing the energy that we need for us to live, grow, and be active. I guess, for that matter, water, too, is dangerous. Even though you absolutely have to have it to survive, you could drown in it too! So, let's classify water as dangerous!

To me, this kind of insanity doesn't make the Climate Change argument any more valid. It just makes a joke out of the whole process. Are we now going to force people (akin to the treatment of cigarette smokers) to take their dangerous breathing outside? I can just see a new line of self-help books being released like: "How to survive without breathing anymore!" Then, too, the New York Times best seller might be something like: "Waiting to Exhale: The Green Story." My guess is that sometime shortly, Kathleen Sibelius of Health and Human Services will have to declare a "carbon dioxide pandemic". Maybe she will do a show-and-tell on how to avoid expelling your breath on others who might be nearby. Expect the see the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to start reporting how widespread carbon dioxide poisoning is each week.

But, while it may seem like the EPA decision is just a joke, there may actually be a more sinister and intentional side to that decision. One that is the intentional arming of all those militants who are at war with carbon footprinting.

When you really think about it, by classifying CO2 as a dangerous gas, the EPA could shut down almost anything that emits CO2. And, because of this insane decision, every environmentalist was just handed the hammer that they needed to clear the decks of every CO2 producing activity that they don't like.

Make no mistake about it, the EPA just opened the door to a whole new world of lawsuits. Cap and Trade is now completely immaterial to the process of controlling carbon dioxide. The battle, now, will be fought in the courts and by groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. If the EPA doesn't take action to shut down your local cement manufacturer or coal-fired power plant or steel mill, the environmentalists with go to court and force the law to shut them down -- using the EPA's ruling as the basis of their legal action. This is perfect for the environmentalists. Previously they had tried and failed to get polar bears defined as an endangered species so that they could sue, and used that as a basis to shutting down carbon producing manufacturing operations. This will be just like ACORN using the Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to give out unqualified home loans; but, this time, environmentalists will have their heyday and the consequences will be much more disastrous for society.

What the EPA did this week -- like most of Obama's thugs -- was done without any thought as to the far reaching consequences. From the closure of Gitmo to the prosecution of CIA personnel to the trying terrorists in a civilian court, this Administration is just insane. They are totally driven by ideology. And, they don't care what happens to the country and society in the wake of their decisions.

The Hypocrisy Of the Copenhagen Fly-In

In just a few days, between 12 & 15 thousand attendees will descend on Copenhagen(Click to See Full Story: "Road to COP15 in Copenhagen") to participate in the 15th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Representatives from more than 180 countries will attend. These will include government heads of state and delegates, scientists, environmentalists, and -- oh yes -- "green advocating" celebrities from Hollywood and around the world.

To get there, these thousands of people will fly in on, primarily, private jets, government aircraft, chartered jets, and -- I suppose -- some will actually use commercial airlines. Each government contingent will have an entourage of, probably, two, three, or even a half dozen vehicles that have been bullet-proofed and won't get your average fuel economy. President Obama will be there too. Prior to his trip, several secret service agents will fly in and scour the area to insure the President's safety. Additionally, a fleet of bullet-proofed Presidential and presidential escort vehicles will be airlifted into Copenhagen on heavy transport planes.

Now, it might be a bit presumptuous of me; but, isn't this fly-in and the amount of carbon being thrown into the atmosphere a wee bit hypocritical? After all, these are the people who are getting together to save the planet from all that man-produced carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide that is produced by carbon-based fuels such as jet fuel and gasoline. Haven't any of these people heard of streaming video technology and video conferencing that could eliminate or minimize this kind of "meet-me-in-Copenhagen" carbon explosion? Does everyone have to go? This just shows how hypocritical the "climate change/global warming" movement is. They all want to save the planet -- but, they don't want to have to actually do any of that saving themselves.

Obama's Carbon Cap And Trade Folly

In Europe, they've had a "Carbon Cap and Trade" system in place for the last four years in order to try and lower carbon emissions. Rather than have each individual government that makes up the European Union mandate carbon output levels, the "Cap and Trade" system attempts to achieve carbon reductions through a sort of a "Carrot and Stick" system.

In its purest form, "Cap and Trade" dictates that a government set a ceiling or limit for all carbon dioxide producing activities within its borders. For example, a coal-fired power plant would be one such a carbon dioxide producing activity. Another might be a cement factory. Another, being a steel smelter or foundry, and so on.

Typically, these activities receive a mandate from the government that their carbon output is being "capped" at some predetermined level. Usually that level is at their current level of carbon dioxide output or at their seasonal highs. If they exceed that level, they then have three options: (1) buy carbon credits through a "Trade" system in the open market to offset their excess carbon output; or, (2) pay a fine; or, (3) be completely shutdown by the government. This is the "stick" portion of "Cap and Trade".

Additionally, the "Cap and Trade System" will specify new, lower cap levels as time goes on in order to keep forcing down the overall production of CO2.

As I had mentioned before, if a company exceeds its carbon output, it can "buy" offsetting carbon credits in the open market place. Credits are created by those activities or companies that fall short of their "caps" buy replacing their un-green output with things like solar power. This is the "carrot" portion of the "Cap and Trade" system. In theory, the punitive impact of having to buy credits and the financial benefit of selling of these credits should be enough of an incentive for companies to go green. In theory!

Typically, "Cap and Trade" will cause energy prices to rise. That's because energy producers, such as those with coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, will be forced to ignore any excess capacity they might have in their current power plant operations. To use any of that excess capacity, as its customer base grows or as demand increases, they will be forced to buy credits or face fines. The cost of credits or fines is at a premium to the normally small incremental costs that would have been incurred in simply using up the excess capacity. As usual, you and I will pay that cost; not the company or utility.

Furthermore, "Cap and Trade" automatically puts those energy producers who are unfortunate enough to be based in either solar deficient or wind deficient areas of the country, at a financial disadvantage in meeting their "caps." For these power producers, installing solar or wind means that they do so at very high inefficiency rates and, as a consequence, at very high costs. Certainly, the operational efficiently of a square yard of solar panels is going to be greater in Arizona where there is 99% daily sunshine rate than it would be if installed in, say, Seattle that has an average 227 days of rain and clouds per year.

To counteract the above, the government has no other choice but to start building exclusions into the "Cap and Trade" laws. But, just like our federal income tax system and all the ins and outs that have been built in, in order to favor certain voting blocks, you can expect the lawmakers in Congress to play with "Cap and Trade" to buy votes from their constituents. This can only result in a complete dilution of the effectiveness of "Cap and Trade."

Lastly, the belief that wind or solar will completely replace coal and gas is just folly. Anyone who boats for a living or for recreation knows that the winds pick up in the late morning, as the sun comes up and, then, usually subside as dusk nears. That's because all the wind production in this world is as a result of the sun's uneven cooling and heating of the earth. Further, solar panels work great on sunny days and when the sun is at its apex. But in the evening hours, when most of America is watching prime time television and has the lights on, solar and wind are highly inefficient and naturally unreliable. Because of these inconsistencies, the entire network of green energy production must be overbuilt to accommodate the total and consistent energy needs of a country. Further, coal and gas production must be used to supplement the night time hours that lack solar or wind activity. Additionally, the electrical grid has to be beefed up so that solar power from the Southwest or wind power from west Texas can be delivered to both Pacific Northwest and residents in the Northeast. And, as anyone knows, whenever you are forced to build redundancy or excess capacity into a system, the costs can tend skyrocket.

What "Cap and Trade" will do is try to force highly inefficient and costly energy systems into our overall energy production. Redundancy will be rampant and you and I will pay the cost; all to save the planet from what might just be a political scam called "Global Warming."

The Mars Paradox

Let's say we had two men. One had a million dollars and the other had only $385 dollars. Both had spending habits at a rate of $40,000 a year. The guy with a million dollars could live for 25 years at that rate. The guy will only $385 could only live a little over 3 days.

The reason for this example is to put into perspective the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that we have here on earth. As part of our overall atmosphere, carbon dioxide is only 385 parts-per-million (ppm) or, about four-one hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere. The bulk of our atmosphere is nitrogen at 78%. Oxygen makes up about 21% of our total atmosphere. (See Full Story)

Clearly, carbon dioxide, that supposed greenhouse gas, is a very minute gas here on Earth. In fact, it is only called a "trace" gas. According to the dictionary, the term "trace" is defined as: "a barely discernible indication or evidence of some quantity, quality, characteristic, or expression." Now, granted, it has risen from 215 ppm to today's 385 ppm in the last 100 years; but, it still remains a minutely insignificant part of our atmosphere. Isn't it a little hard to believe that such a small element of our atmosphere is capable of warming this planet to the possible extinction of mankind?

On Mars, CO2 is the majority gas in that atmosphere. Mars is 95 percent carbon dioxide (See Full Story). Yet, the temps on that planet dip down to a frigid -200 degrees Fahrenheit. That's pretty damn cold. In fact, the highest ever "observed" temperature on Mars is what could easily be considered a Martian skinny-dipping temperature of 65 degrees. In comparison, here on earth, the coldest temps in Antarctica dip to a balmy (relative to Mars) temperature of -130 degrees.

So, here's the paradox. With so much CO2 in Mars' atmosphere, why "isn't" Mars burning up with Global Warming? After all, a greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas; whether it be on Mars or here on Earth. Further, as much as we can tell, there are no humans running around on that planet in SUV's; no flat screen TV's being run by coal-fired power plants; and, there are no Martian cows whose tailpipes are expelling significant amounts of CO2 (and other gases). Yet, Mars, like us, is going through a warming period (See Full Story). A climatologist might explain away Mars' cold temps by saying it is due to its proximity to our sun and its very thin atmosphere. OK? But, why is there warming without mankind?

Just maybe, it might NOT be CO2 that's responsible for warming climate conditions here on earth or on Mars. Ya think? Could Mars' current warming and ours be based on something that our Sun is doing? Na. What fun would that be? I guess I'll stick with the Gore hypothesis and just stop breathing to save our planet!

Sometimes People Agree With Me

Just yesterday, I wrote a piece in this blog about Global Warming (See Full Story). In that commentary, I wrote about the Gaia Hypothesis and the fact that increased CO2 in our atmosphere might actually create a more robust plant activity with higher outputs of oxygen; thus, negating Global Warming.

Well, it didn't take long for someone else to agree with me. In fact, only a day after writing that entry, this news story came out: "Higher CO2 levels may be good for plants: German scientists" (Click to See Story). To me, this is just logical. It is consistent with the concept that every action has equal and opposing reaction. Something that the Global Warming devotees don't seem to understand.