Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Bookstore Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home         wholesale store         used books         policies         features         contact

Global Warming Questions/Answers

The problem with a single dominant dogma, like that of CO2 and greenhouse-driven global warming, is that it shuts down alternative, or at the very least potentially complementary lines of research. Is there anything we KNOW?

1.  Is the Earth currently in a period of cooling?
Answer - The evidence strongly indicates that there is no temperature change for approximately the past 16 years, and the AGW alarmists have had to change their terminology to "climate change" and to focus on a few specific aspects such as polar ice melt.

2.  Are temperatures presently rising along with rising CO2 levels?
Answer - Maybe.

3.  During our last cooling phase, from 1940-75, should global warming have surged if caused by industrial CO2 emissions?
Answer - Yes.

4. Nine years after its release, can we judge whether Al Gore's presentation in An Inconvenient Truth was accurate?
Answer - This book makes an emotional and alarmist argument that has completely failed to be validated.

5.  Should CO2 be considered a major greenhouse gas, a minor greenhouse gas, or not a greenhouse gas at all?
There is enough CO2 already in the atmosphere to absorb the minor spectrum of radiation that it does, and any increase would have a negligible affect. There is no empirical reason to think that it has any significant effect in developing a greenhouse mechanism. Methane and water vapor are both double digit times better as absorbers.

6.  Should a modest increase in CO2 levels be considered harmful or beneficial?
Answer - Probably beneficial because it increases forest and plant growth.

7.  Do CO2 increases precede or follow global warming?
Answer - The data show that the increases follow global warming.

8. Might out-gassing by warming oceans be a major factor in rising CO2 levels?
Answer - No.

9. Have scientists ever successfully tested − by any means other than mathematical models − the mechanism by which CO2 allegedly causes the atmosphere to warm?
Answer - No.

10. Should the theory of a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus be taken as a warning of future catastrophe on Earth?
Answer - No, because there is another and unrelated reason for the metal-melting temperature on Venus, and the runaway greenhouse model doesn't apply to Venus either.

11. What are the implications of extreme cycles of warming in the past on Earth − some far greater than in modern times?
Answer - Firstly, that these have had nothing to do with the activities of Man.

12. Are arctic sea levels rising at the rates predicted by AGW proponents?
Answer - No.

13. Is glacial melting increasing, and if so, is it at the rate predicted by AGW proponents?
Answer - In some places, yes, and in others, no.

14. What if any connection might exist between cosmic rays and global warming?
Answer - This is being looked at right now by experiments at CERN, and the initial indication is that there is a connection.

15. Might the decrease in the influx of cosmic rays in the 20th century have been a factor in the warming during that period?
Answer - Possibly.

16. Is lowering atmospheric CO2 important?
Answer - During the last period of global cooling, 1940-1975 (which prompted Newsweek magazine to print its famous 28 April 1975 cover story about "The Coming Ice Age"), CO2 levels were higher than they are today. CO2 is a very small component (0.30 percent) of Earth's atmosphere.  It is not a major contributor to any greenhouse effect that may exist.  That role belongs to prevalent water vapor much more than to CO2.

"Global warming" (a.k.a. "Climate Change") is a political movement, not a scientific one.   It uses mass hysteria (The world is ending!) in an effort to gain political power by gaining control over energy sources.  Not long ago I attended a lecture called "The Long Emergency."  The speaker − who just happens to have written a novel of the same name−warned a frightened audience of about 200 gullible folks that we are rapidly running out of fossil fuels (this was before the discovery of gigantic deposits of natural gas in Louisiana) and must therefore be ready to deal with Mass starvation!  Disease!  Riots!  We'll have to huddle together in local communities, hoeing our gardens, riding bicycles and generally learning to cope with our return to a primitive economy.

For good reason this sort of thing is known as enviro-porn, and it's a very addictive pastime.   I often ask such addicts three questions:  why was the Earth warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is today?  Why did the Medieval Warm Period suddenly give way to the Little Ice Age?  Is it possible that periodic changes in global climate are a natural feature of life on planet Earth?

17. Are other emissions significant in global warming?
Answer - Except for soot, no other emission constituents are released in amounts considered to be significant in any greenhouse model.

18. Is soot, not GW, responsible for the polar ice melting?
Answer - Recently soot was shown to be about 50% responsible for the shrinking ice extent and loss of old ice. The most significant source of soot is, surprisingly, people burning wood in houses, especially in India. But unfiltered coal stacks produce heaps of soot, and much of China's coal stacks are unfiltered.

19. Could we get in or be in a stage of complete polar ice melt at present?
Answer - Something that deserves considerable more attention is that the Arctic ice is unstable because the overall albedo will continue to lessen as the old sea ice continues to melt.  The reason for this would be that the dark soot and dust don't evaporate (or sublimate) as does the ice. So as the water leaves, the accumulated dark material increases monotonically.  Such an effect may very well be catalytic.  Once begun, a tipping point could come into operation, making complete melting of the Arctic ice inevitable. It is too soon to say.

20. Is the sea level really rising?
Answer - Not to any alarming degree. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

21. What happens when economists meddle in climate science?
Answer - http://econ-environment.ca/

22. Can 31,000+ scientist be wrong?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

Global Climate Debate - www.cop15.dk/blogs

23. What is the role of the declining strength of Earth's magnetosphere in all of this?

From very straightforward measurements and methods, scientists have determined that the Earth's magnetic field has declined in strength by 33% in the last 2000 years. This is an alarmingly significant percentage and fast rate of decline, and yet the effect on climate change is unknown. 

24. What is the role of charged particles from the Sun pouring into the upper circumpolar atmosphere?
A few years ago, all geophysicists, solar physicists, and weather theorists insisted that electrical transactions between the Sun and the Earth could not occur, and yet they are now confirmed. Given the neutrality of space, they said, Earth's magnetosphere could not be penetrated by charged particles from the Sun, just "squeezed and buffeted" by the solar wind to generate the electrical effects of the auroras. This was, in fact, a major dispute separating such electrical pioneers as Birkeland, Alfvn, Dessler, and Peratt from mainstream astrophysicists, who continued to cling to Sydney Chapman's dogma on the subject long after the space age began to deliver evidence to the contrary. Now that the issue has been definitively settled by studies of the ionosphere, you'll not see astrophysicists admitting that the "old" idea (standard view until less than ten years ago) had to be dropped. So there's no real acknowledgement of the implications of this, and almost no one talking about global warming (on either side) has taken up the matter either. It's as if the uncomfortable shift in ideology never even occurred.

An additional word by Norm Kalmanovitch, Calgary, Canada:
from the CCNet 19 May 2009

"It is inconceivable that even after a decade since global warming ended and seven years into a cooling trend with no end of cooling in sight, that world leaders are unaware of these facts and are still pursuing initiatives to stop global warming. Something is terribly wrong with the official international science bodies such as the IPCC who have not come forward and properly informed the world leaders of current global temperatures.

Something is terribly wrong with the individual government science bodies who did not come forward and inform their own leaders when it was certain that global warming had ended, or when there was sufficient data to claim that we are now in a cooling trend.

It is not as though this is highly guarded secret data that can only be accessed by a limited group of people. The global temperature data is in fact readily available from several public sites and can be downloaded at no cost.

For the past year Friends of Science has been maintaining a graph of satellite temperature data and atmospheric CO2 concentration data on their website www.friendsofscience.org. This graph is updated every month as the new data becomes available. The cooling trend that started in 2002 is highlighted by a straight line best fit posted on this graph. The numerical value for this trend is 0.25C/decade of cooling!

By contrast the forcing parameter of the IPCC climate models would dictate that the effect of the 10ppmv increase in CO2 should cause a temperature increase of 0.15C/decade. 

If in fact there is any validity to the claims of CO2 increases causing warming; the fact that we are cooling at twice the rate that the climate models say we should be warming, is a clear indication that natural forces are about three times stronger than the maximum possible effects from CO2 increases.

Quantum physics clearly demonstrates that the effect of current increases in CO2 can have only a small and diminishing effect on global temperature with further increases in concentration.

Since the natural effects dominate, and physics dictates that the effect of increasing emissions is only a small fraction of the effect commonly accepted; it is clear that any initiatives aimed at reducing CO2 emissions for the purpose of reducing global warming are entirely without merit and serve no purpose whatsoever.
 
This is not a trivial issue because these initiatives to stop global warming have caused great suffering to the poorest people of the world. Biofuel initiatives have caused a global food crisis as food crops were forced to compete with biofuel crops driving the price of basic food staples beyond the means of the poor. The attempt to replace inexpensive coal fired power plants with very expensive and unreliable alternate energy sources such as wind power, has raised the cost of power not only affecting the poor, but also industry further reducing the ability to compete with countries using inexpensive power to manufacture products.
 
Unfortunately the AGW concept is so engrained in the public psyche through the graphic propaganda of the last several years that all verbal arguments against this ideology fall on deaf ears, and get shouted down by an indoctrinated and emotional crowd. While these people are deaf they are not blind, and no matter how loud the shouting, a graphic representation of increasing CO2 and decreasing global temperatures will be seen above the din."

 home              wholesale store              policies              features             contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665