I haven't written about the so-called "climate crisis" lately, but Mark Adams at the American Thinker brings up some good points in his post entitled The fables about greehouse gases, especially methane. It should be noted that the prinicple greenhouse gas is water vapor. You can feel its effect if you go out in the morning when the air is particularly muggy. The day is already hot, having not lost much heat from the day before, and will only get hotter. We experience this a lot here in North Carolina. On the other hand, when the humidity is low, you go out in the morning and it is cooler, or even cold. This frequently happens in the desert.
Carbon dioxide, on a per-molecule basis, is six times as effective an absorber as water is. However, that’s offset by the fact that carbon dioxide is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere (400 parts per million). This means that, overall, it’s much less important than water vapor in terms of its ability to warm the atmosphere.
And then there’s methane. Pound-for-pound methane can trap 25 times more heat than carbon dioxide. However, there are two reasons why scientists say it will never significantly contribute to global warming. Primarily, it is by far the rarest of the green house gases.
But there is another reason why we will probably never have to worry about methane being a major contributor to global warming: Methane’s narrow absorption bands, at 3.3 microns and 7.5 microns , perfectly match…water’s! Did you catch that? It’s worth emphasizing: “The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of methane are completely masked by water.”
As an aside, I should point out that while the idea of greenhouse gases is a perhaps useful analogy, it can easily be taken too far. The fact is that the atmosphere is not a greenhouse. While it has numerous microclimates that make Earth interesting and supports all sorts of life, over all it is pretty much a steady state, with heat entering from the Sun, and re-radiating into space, after warming things up enough for us to live and thrive.
Nor is methane a cow problem that humans can remediate by going meatless. Instead, wetlands and termites are the real methane producers: “When it comes to methane, another greenhouse gas, termites are responsible for 11 percent of the world’s production from natural sources. Seventy-six percent comes from wetlands…”
Gentle readers should read the entire post, which isn't long. In addition, I would urge you to also read the Washington Times article which cites a similarly supposed "scientifically proven" idea called "eugenics." That "settled science" was eventually practiced at scale in the Nazi death camps. It is too bad it took that death toll to shut people up about it, but obviously they didn't change their minds.
One must ask, “How in the world did university researchers come to conclusions that defended this outrageous affront to society?” A look back at the research concluded that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This is not unusual. It is very easy to believe that the settled science regarding climate change is just as suspicious, and indeed may be another example of pseudo-science capturing the imagination of politicians, actors and the media elite who have a desperate need to embrace some “science” which may force us to change the way we live our lives. H. L. Mencken once wrote, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.” We see pictures of huge blocks of ice crashing into the sea from the Antarctic Peninsula, which comprises about 2 percent of the continent. The fact that the remaining 98 percent of Antarctica is growing by 26.8 gigatons of ice per year is ignored.
It is the same impulse, the desire to rule, that now drives the "science" of climate change. What these people propose will kill millions, if not billions of people over time from starvation, exposure, diseases, and injury due to having to substitute muscle power for machine power. Oh, of course the "elites" will not dirty themselves with outright killing people, but they will have blood on their hands nonetheless. You can write to your congressman, but you will not turn aside this juggernaught. Too many very powerful people are too invested in it.
Wouldn’t it be nice if a little science got through to the policy-makers behind so-called “climate science”?
Yes, wouldn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment