NAWAPA XXII Ice Age Alliance (iaa) 

Escape From Fiction to Freedom


Man-made Global Warming IMPOSSIBLE?


 

 Rolf Witzsche
researcher, author, producer, and publisher

Much of the world fears that human activities are creating cataclysmic climate change. It used to be called global warming. In some cases it still is. For example, the increasing global drought conditions that are creating a food crisis in much of the world, are blamed on man-made global warming. But is anthropogenic climate change really possible? What do you think?

Let me propose a quiz: What do you suppose is the CO2 portion of the TOTAL climate 'forcing?' Is it 30%, 10%, 3%, 1/2%, or 10 millionth of a percent?

If you selected one of the first 4 answers, you are way off the mark and need to watch my video, Man-made Global Warming Impossible. If you selected the 5th answer you probably guessed, and so you may need to watch the video also to discover why this answers comes closest to the real dynamics that are inherently variable.

The video: Man-made Global Warming IMPOSSIBLE? (90 min)
 

<< Click to play or right-click to download

Download the video (recommended)

Not available on YouTube

About playing the video

Transcripts: The subject is presented in 5 parts: 

Part 1: Climate and the CO2 portion

Part 2: The real climate forcing

Part 3: The paradox of Arctic Warming

Part 4: Priory assumptions choking science

Part 5: Ecological uplift, 10-fold CO2 

 

Transcript, Part 1: by frame: -  - text only: 

Transcript, Part 2: by frame: -  - text only: 

Transcript, Part 3: by frame: -  - text only: 

Transcript, Part 4: by frame: -  - text only: 

Transcript, Part 5: by frame: text only: 

 

Overview: The physical facts are rather simple. 

The evidence suggests that man-made Climate Change IMPOSSIBLE. It would be wonderful if it would be possible for humanity to develop the means to alter the climate on Earth. If it was possible it would save us the challenge imposed by the next Ice Age cycle to which the transition has already begun. Unfortunately, manmade global warming is impossible to achieve. The astrophysical dynamics that affect our climate are far too immense for us to be able to influence them, regardless of what our fictional dreaming asserts or causes us to fear, or causes us to destroy our economies in response to this fear.

The drought conditions that humanity should rightfully 'fear' are not man-made, but are instead the natural result of the changing astrophysical dynamics of the ongoing Ice Age transition that is already deeply affecting the climates on earth though the process has just begun, even while it is politically denied to even exist.

Contrary to all the global warming climate change hoopla that blames manmade carbon dioxide, also called CO2, as a climate villain, the scientific fact is that CO2 is NOT affecting the global climate, regardless of its concentration in the atmosphere. It never has affected the climate, and never will. Anthropogenic global warming is simply not possible. 

This means that the climate dynamics that are now unfolding are caused by forces beyond our control, and that these will continue in their trend regardless of what we do. If humanity did not exist, the drought conditions would be happening just the same, because CO2, which humanity is necessarily producing by its living,  is not a causative factor for anything in the climate dynamics. This means that our only possible response to the changing climate is to deal with the consequences that are now unfolding for which the cause is out of our hands in a big way. 

Let me illustrate why CO2 is not a causative climate factor.

The physical facts prove that manmade global warming is NOT possible by any means. The prove that the religion of manmade global warming is a fantasy of political fiction. Oh yes, humanity is easily vilified by political fiction in which science is turned upside down. CO2 is easily blamed, because all life is carbon based, including human living and human activities, so that scare stories can be created in great quantities that proclaim with fanfares blaring that humanity is 'living too much' and is emitting too much CO2 by the processes that it requires to live.

However, if one compares where CO2 really stands in the global greenhouse dynamics, a totally different picture comes to light. 

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The CO2 molecules in the air do absorb radiated heat energy. This physical quality makes CO2 a greenhouse gas. It is one of a number of greenhouse gases. The greenhouse itself is not a danger to human living and all life. The very existence of life on our planet is made possible by the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. Without it, enormous temperature fluctuations would occur that would make life impossible. This means that we really do depend on the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. It is one of the most- critical factors for life in that it moderates the climate fluctuations. The greenhouse effect of the atmosphere literally enables us all to exist. The greenhouse gases retain a portion of the Sun's energy, and the Earth's reflected energy, in the atmosphere. The thermal buffer that this creates around the Earth  makes the nights warmer and the days cooler.

The CO2 gas in the atmosphere plays a role in the greenhouse process, although an extremely minuscule role that's too small to have an effect on anything.

 It is a physical fact that not all greenhouse gases are equal in their heat-absorbing ability, or efficiency. If one compares the absorption coefficient of CO2 with that of the most important greenhouse gas, which is water vapor, a more-than ten-fold difference comes to light. CO2 has an absorption coefficient of roughly the value of 20 in its two narrow bands within the radiation spectrum of the Sun. Water vapor, in comparison, has an absorption coefficient of 200, ranging upwards to 600. In this comparison the energy absorption efficiency of water vapor is ten times greater than that of CO2. However, the CO2 is responsive in only two bands within the solar radiation spectrum, at the low-energy end of the spectrum, while water vapor is responsive in 7 bands, some of which are located in the high-energy end of the spectrum. (See example) This addition in the high-energy region renders water vapor absorption 50 times greater.

In addition to all that, water vapor is 100-fold more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2. The water vapor density in the atmosphere is typically 4%, while the density of CO2 is a mere 0.039% This raises the comparative difference to 5000. 

Let me illustrate what this difference means, extremely conservatively. 

Let me compare the CO2 effect to a cat, which stands roughly one foot tall. In this comparison, water vapor, which is the major greenhouse gas, is comparable to a building twice as tall as the World Trade towers in New York had stood. In this comparison a cat is so small that it cannot even be seen. If one was to over-feed the cat and make it 30% fatter, it still couldn't be seen. Indeed, if it was possible to over-feed the cat so much that it became 10 times bigger and grew up to the size of a horse, one still wouldn't be able to see it in the perspective of the visual comparison. It would remain minuscule no matter what.

Of course the comparison is incomplete. 

Water vapor and CO2 are not the only greenhouse gases. Oxygen and Ozone are also important greenhouse gases, especially considering that 21% of the atmosphere is oxygen. With oxygen being responsive in the high-energy region of the solar radiation spectrum. The total absorption ratio may be 100-times higher again, in comparison with CO2, for a resulting ratio of 500,000 to one. 

It also needs to be considered that slightly less than half the heat in the atmosphere is absorbed from solar radiation. Slightly more than half of the atmospheric heat budget is latent heat released by cloud formation. When a tea kettle is boiled dry, the water is transformed into vapor. The energy that is invested to do this, is retained in the vapor. It is released when the vapor is turned into liquid again. When clouds form, this energy being released keeps the clouds buoyant. CO2 has no affect on this process. When this factor is added, the CO2 absorption amounts to roughly one millionth of the atmospheric heat budget.

Of course, the climate on earth is not only affected by the greenhouse heat stored in the atmosphere. A large portion of the incoming solar energy is also reflected back into space by the reflective top surface of the clouds, which renders the global cloud coverage a critical climate factor. The energy that is reflected back into space is lost to us. This means that cloudiness is a rather large factor, as everyone has experienced on cloudy days that are colder. If one adds this factor to the comparison, the CO2 portion of the total climate effect will then likely be on the order of one ten-millionth.

 It takes a vast religious leap of faith for anyone to belief that humanity’s half of a percent increase of the 1 ten-millionth portion of the greenhouse effect will cook the earth and melt the polar ice caps. This has never happened, and never will happen, as it simply can't happen.

So, what causes the climate variations then that have been observed? The global warming doctrine is based on the assumption that CO2 is the only variable factor in the entire climate equation. This assumption is incorrect. One of the biggest variable factors is cloudiness. When cloudiness is increased, the Earth gets colder as more sunlight is reflected back into space. It's as simple as that. That cloudiness is a variable factor depending on the prevailing cosmic-ray flux density has been experimentally verified by the CLOUD project experiment at the CERN laboratories. NASA's Ulysses satellite has also confirmed with direct measurements that the cosmic-ray flux density is a variable factor depending on the strength of the solar activity, which affects the density of the solar heliosphere. Ulysses measured a 20% in Galactic Cosmic Ray flux coincident with a 30% drop in solar wind pressure, and a 30% drop in the strength of the underlying solar magnetic field. Thus the Ulysses mission proved that the Sun is not a constant factor either. In fact its output energy varies by a factor of twenty in the EUV band over the course of every 11-year solar cycle.

That the drop in solar strength, that Ulysses had measured, has a dramatic climate effect, was verified by on-the-ground temperature measurements at the Solar Terrestrial Institute in the mountains near Irkutsk in Siberia. The institute measured a 2 degree drop in annual average temperatures, coincident with the reduced solar measurements by Ulysses. These measurements disprove the very foundation of the manmade global warming doctrine that is built on the assumption that CO2 is the only variable factor and must therefore be responsible for all the climate changes that were observed and are observed, while in reality it is so minuscule in comparison that it is not a factor at all. The dynamically changing Sun is the big factor.

That the Sun is a huge variable factor was illustrated during the little Ice Age in the 1600s and 1700s. While we didn't have the capability in those days to directly measure the solar wind pressure (that we don't have anymore either since 2009 when Ulysses was terminated) we do have historic records that tell us that the Sun was significantly weaker. This is illustrated by the near total lack of sunspots for a long period of time. This period with no sunspots was such a cold periods that 10% of population of Europe dies of starvation as the result of the diminished agriculture. When the Sun recovered and the sunspots came back the Earth became warmer again as one would expect. CO2 had nothing to do with that. Nor had the industrial revolution that began near the end of the Little Ice Age any effect on the climate, since the warming of the Earth reflected the recovery of the Sun.

Throughout history enormous temperature fluctuations have occurred that dwarf the puny climate recovery from the Little Ice Age (See illustration).

The problem that climate science is choked with in the modern world, is that it is 'hired' to prove a priory assumption, the assumption that human living is destroying the ecological balance, which in real terms is not the case. Thus, science is no longer employed to discover the actual dynamics that control the global climate. Science has suffered this type of tragedy throughout the ages, as far back as Ptolemy.

Logical deductions proceeding from a priory platform invariably lead humanity into a trap that actually blocks the processes of discoveries, the processes of real science that takes us beyond the priory assumptions (see Deadly Destructive Logic). 

Today, the climate sciences are trapped by the same defect, the same 'logic.' Here the priory assumption is that the CO2 is a villain. This doctrine is one of the latest political doctrines of the long war of empire against humanity in which empire struggles to secure its dominance and its very existence, which is threatened by human development. 

In the real physical climate dynamics, CO2 is simply not a factor and never has been throughout the entire history of life on our planet.

During most of the last half-billion years of life on earth the CO2 concentration has been tens of times denser than it is today, even more than 50 times as dense as some researchers suggest. Ironically, in times when the CO2 concentration was extremely high, around 450 million years ago (see illustration), the Earth experienced one of its most devastating ice age periods that caused the second-largest mass extinctions of life in the oceans (see illustration). The point is that this gigantic CO2- concentration that existed in prehistoric times had no effect on the climate whatsoever. The extremely high CO2 concentration 450 million years ago should have cooked the Earth according to the modern CO2 doctrines. Instead the most devastating Ice Age had occurred. This immense glaciation that even destroyed life in the oceans, had occurred in spite of the Earth's extremely dense CO2 concentration at the time. And how could this have been any different, since CO2 doesn't affect the climate to any practically-significant extend?

The CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is currently so minuscule that in a comparison with Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain Earth, the total CO2 effect on the climate would be comparable to just a single grain of finely ground table salt. So, what do you think? Is it possible that placing another grain of salt on top of the mountain makes any practical difference, or even ten grains of salt, or 50 grains as in distant geologic history? The difference, in either case is nil.

All this means that the entire biofuels holocaust that is now being unleashed by the mass-burning of food in order to reduce humanity's CO2 emissions, which is killing more than 100 million people a year with induced starvation, has been for nothing. And even as this is known the murdering continues, and economies are destroyed with the choking effect of limiting the man-made carbon emissions. This choking effect is the most effective wrecking ball against the economies of human living that has ever been imposed.

This does not mean that CO2 is physically inconsequential for humanity. 

To the contrary. C02 is one of the most critical factors in the Earth's atmospheric dynamics, because the Earth's ecological environment is presently severely CO2 deficient. The global ecology is suffering from a critical CO2 starvation. 

As I had laid out before, during most of the history of life on our planet the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 10 to 50 times higher than it is today, but has been gradually declining towards today's starvation level of 300-400 parts per million (see illustration). Every plant needs CO2 to live. It breathes CO2; it breaks it down with the chlorophyll molecule powered by sunlight; it releases the oxygen and uses the carbon for its own construction. Greenhouse operators have found that when the CO2 concentration drops below 200 ppm, plant growth stops, and below 150 ppm the plans die. Glacial records show that during the last Ice Age the CO2 density had dropped to and below the 150 ppm level. The next Ice Age that is now before us promises to be more severe. This means that the ecological system of the Earth desperately needs a ten-fold uplift in CO2 density, or else the creeping CO2 starvation will collapse the entire ecological system during the coming Ice Age, and possibly collapse humanity with it. 
(see: Ten-fold CO2 Increase Needed )

A ten-fold CO2 increase is needed, towards the 4000 ppm level. This is the concentration that had enabled such a richly productive ecological system to develop that such giant creatures as the dinosaurs could emerge and be supported with enough food, with some weighing more than 200 tons. Greenhouse operators have found that when they merely double the CO2 concentration in their facilities, a 50% increase in plant growth results. While the entire global food crisis could be stopped in the short run by simply stopping the burning of food, the long-term food security will require an a dramatic increase of the global CO2 density, possibly ten-fold to app. 4000 ppm, and will also require large-scale irrigation infrastructures to be built to offset the increasing drought conditions that are now beginning as a part of the ongoing Ice Age transition dynamics (see: NAWAPA-22: Physics).

Of course the required infrastructures and processes won't be implemented for as long as the global warming dogma keeps a smothering global mental-blanket of pure fairy-tale fiction cast over the human landscape. That is where the real starvation lies that is choking humanity to death. Of course, this choking blanket can be lifted and humanity be set free to start living again.

That's what my NAWAPA-22 proposal represents. It is promoting the infinite option that is inherent in the nature of man. Technologically it is easy to uplift the global CO2 density ten-fold, because 98% of the global CO2 store exists dissolved in the oceans, from which it can be simply lifted out as needed. This can be done with a number of self-powering systems. It is easily done. But this is another subject altogether, the subject: Ten-fold CO2 Increase Needed

In closing let me make the point that humanity is an infinite, anti-entropic, and creative species with such great productive power that the entire biosphere ultimately depends on humanity for its very existence. The ecological system of the Earth really does depend on humanity for its physical survival. The ecology of the Earth depends on us human beings, because during the Ice Age cycles ahead, which promise to become increasingly more-severe over the next 3 million years, it requires a massive CO2 uplift that only humanity can provide. The Earth needs our services. If we open our eyes to the great power that our humanity embodies, we will invariably discover that the human horizon is immensely bright and boundless and beckons us to go for it. Then we will take the footsteps to realize our potential civilization of richly created abundance where we are truly at home as human beings.

Rolf Witzsche
researcher, author, producer, and publisher

My published books, research, novels, science, free online,

Please invest into the future - Thank You

Published by Cygni Communications Ltd. North Vancouver, BC, Canada - (C) in public domain - producer Rolf A. F. Witzsche

Agape Research

About Cygni

Webmaster Resources