see: The history of climate
The Truth About the Myth of Manmade Global Warming
Yes we have been in a long-term global warming trend, but this trend is not manmade, nor is it in any way exceptional as is illustrated in the graphic above. As can be seen the Earth has been recovering from that last Little Ice Age. The current warming trend began in the 1700s with the end of the last Little Ice Age, but we are presently still far below the medieval optimum and even farther below the much earlier warm periods of the interglacial optimum that occurred more than 5000 years ago.
Obviously it wasn't human activity that caused those enormous warm periods 5-7000 years ago, or even the breakout from the last Ice Age. All of these vast climate changes can be accounted for as variances in cosmic radiation that are largely affected by the activity cycles of our Sun and the cosmic cycles that affect our Sun. The huge re-warming from the last Ice Age 11,000 years ago that melted continental ice sheets thousands of feet thick certainly didn't result from human activities. By what logic then must we assume that all of a sudden the small changes that we see in modern times are manmade and not likewise the result of natural variations. Obviously a political agenda stands behind the manmade-global-warming doctrine.
Of course we are not told by the global warming activists that the extremely warm temperatures in earlier times in the current interglacial period weren't at all catastrophic in nature. We had so much moisture in the air then that we had rivers running in the Sahara around the time of the interglacial optimum 7000 years ago, when the Sahara was green. Of course this high-moisture pattern is not a part of the current, much colder, period, even during its tiny warming trend as is illustrated below, is it?
Even the medieval optimum (shown expanded below) was very much warmer than the current climate that is the center of the global warming hype.
The graphs show temperature measurements (in centigrade) found in ice core samples of a Greenland glacier.See paper by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, who has personally been involved in excavating ice out of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in his 50-year career PDF: The Ice Age is Coming - PDF page 7.
Ironically, drier climates result when increases in cosmic radiation increases the intensity of cloud formation that increases rainfall rather than water-vapor retention. Today, many areas are getting drier, which by itself suggests that a cooling trend has begun in recent years. The cooling trend that is thereby indicated has been confirmed by actual measurements at the Russian Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk. The temperature reversal was detected at the institute (measured on the ground there beginning in 1998), starting a trend that still continues.
The measured reversal coincides with a low point of Solar Geomagnetic averaged "p" index, which is presently (2009) at the lowest point in its record, following a sharp decline to a lower level in Oct. 2005 and in Dec. 2008.
It is likely that we may be facing another Ice Age in the not-so-distant future in the statistical sense, since the Earth has gone through twenty Ice Age cycles over the last two million years that were made up of long glaciation periods lasting close to 100,000 years each, interspersed with 'short' warm periods of app. 11,000 years each. We are presently in such an interglacial warm period, which is itself statistically near its end.
Since these enormous historic climate cycles that are known to have occurred throughout the last two million years, which give us the periodic Ice Age conditions interspersed with short periods of idyllic warm climates (as we have presently), the question presents itself as to what causes the huge glaciation cycles. Is the Sun changing in these long terms cycles as the above measurements suggest, as after all the sun gives us our warmth? Or is the relationship of the Earth to the Sun changing? Or are there still larger factors involved?
1. Yes, the Sun is changing
The Sun is constantly changing, but the changes are short in duration. The Sun is reversing is magnetic polarity on average every 11 years. During the strong parts of this cycle, between the magnetic reversal, the surface of the Sun is peppered with sunspots. The sunspots result in solar flairs that affect the climate on Earth. However, the solar activity isn't constant. During the start of the historic period of the last Little Ice Age (from the early 1600s to the end on the 1800s) few sunspots were detected. The phenomenon became known as the Maunder Minimum of solar activity, a 70-year period between 1645 and 1715. During this entire period only about 50 spots appeared on the face of the sun as opposed to the typical 40,000–50,000 spots for the same time frame in a high-activity (or 'normal') period. But what causes these large variances in solar activity?
2. What changes the Sun?
This question is hard to answer when the Sun is perceived as an isolated entity in space where it is regarded as a gravity activated nuclear fusion furnace. However, if the Sun is regarded as being electrically interconnected with the plasma flows that extend throughout our galaxy and the universe as a whole, whereby the Sun is recognized as externally powered, the great historic variations that have been observed can all be easily explained. In fact one would expect them. (see: The Electric Universe and The Electric Climate.)
Obviously, the same external factors that have caused the historic Little Ice Ice, can also be recognized to be the cause for the still larger 100,000-year Ice Age cycles that have persisted for the last two million years, called the Pleistocene Epoch. In this larger time frame the interglacial warm periods are actually the anomaly. Their short-duration cyclical recurrence every 100,000 years falls amazingly well within the electric-circuit cyclical time-frame of a galaxy that extends 100,000 light years across (50,000 light-years in radius from its active center). In a galaxy like ours that powers 400 billion stars or solar systems and which is constantly in motion minor electric 'shadows' must be expected, such as those that gave us the Little (micro) Ice Age within our current interglacial warm period, and also the hot spots within that period like the medieval optimum, or the global re-warming past the Little Ice Age that extended on and off for several hundred years into the late-1990s, but which has since then reversed itself again into a cooling trend.
Since sunspots are deemed to be the result of overload conditions in the heating of the sun, the intensity of sunspots cycles give us a measure for the electric flux density in the space environment (or space weather) surrounding the solar system. As such the changes of intensity of the sunspot cycles serve us well as an early-warning indicator that signals near-term climate changes, especially those that cause devastating crop failures like those experienced during the last Little Ice Age.
3. The changing orbital relationship between the Earth and the Sun
A cyclical shifting of the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit around the Sun has also been observed unfolds, occurring in 'synchronism' with the Ice Age Cycles, together with other cyclical variances that affect the exposure of the Earth to the Sun. These cycles have been extensively explored by Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian astronomer. He theorizes that the combined orbital changes are the cause of the Ice Age cycles. However, the mathematics don't quite add up, which means that they appear to be subsequent rather than causative.
One major problem with the Milankovitch theory is that no gravitational cause can be identified for the Earth's orbital shifting. The Earth is too far distant from the nearest solar system for gravitational interaction to occur that would explain the cyclical orbital variances. However, with the Earth being located in an ever-changing galactic electric flow pattern, with the resulting magnetic interaction affecting the Earth, the observed orbital shifting would logically follow the cyclical pattern of the changing electric intensity in the 'space weather.' In this case the Milankovitch cycles are subsequent to much larger phenomena.
It all boils down to the fact that the climate on Earth appears to be directly conditioned by the electric climate surrounding our solar system, over which we have absolutely no control. It would be great if mankind had the capability to cause global warming on demand so that we could end the Ice Age cycles once and for all. But this is mere dreaming at the present stage. It is unclear at this point if it will ever be possible to artificially compensate for the galactic variances that affect our Sun and the Earth. The best we seem to be able to do is to adjust our mode of living according to the conditions the universe presents to us, such as by creating large-scale infrastructures for indoor agriculture as a means for surviving the coming ice ages.
What about manmade global warming then?
Am I crazy talking about an Ice Age when the whole world is afraid of global warming? Well, the simple answer is that the Global Warming doctrine is one of the many lies that came out of the imperial cultural-warfare mill and still keep on gushing forth from it. Manmade global warming, as advertised, doesn't exist. All evidence shows that it has never existed and probably won't be possible in spite of our best efforts if we wanted to create it to avoid the cyclical return of the Ice Age. A great fear campaign has been built up over the global warming issue for which science has been twisted and abused to achieve the desired outcome. As one of the global warming activists has put it, by saying that one has to consider where the balance should lie between being truthful and being effective. When the desired outcome overrules the truth than the lie becomes the means to an end, by which truthful science appears to be as distant today as the rivers were in time that once flowed in the Sahara.
Sure we have seen evidence of global warming over the last 300 years. But shouldn't we expect that with the ending of the Little Ice Age, which was neither caused by manmade effects, nor ended by manmade effects. Also there was no CO2 increase detected by honest science during the period of re-warming.
The Little Ice Age was evidently caused by increased cosmic radiation that coincides with diminished solar activity, such as Sunspots and solar winds. The Little Ice Age coincides perfectly with the "Maunder minimum" in observed solar activity. As the Sunspot activity increased again after the observed minimum, the Earth was warming up in response. But this doesn't mean that we are facing a global warming crisis. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet around the edges, doesn't portend a crisis. It merely indicates a return to earlier times, the times when "Greenland" received its name for a reason. It was a green land. Those were the times when vineyards could be gown in Iceland and in the north of Scotland, and the Vikings sailed across the North Atlantic. Of course, with all the cries about the melting ice sheet, hardly anyone bothers to mention that the Greenland Ice Sheet is actually getting thicker again as observed by NASA, and that the ocean levels are not rising.
A recent a report issued by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reveals that almost all the ice allegedly lost in the Arctic has come back. The report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels (March 2008). Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual. Reading the NOAA report, one columnist pointed out: "If global warming gets any worse, we'll all freeze to death." (Source)
Also, the "global warming society" (a kind of flat-Earth society) observes a strict code of silence about such inconvenient truths as the lack of warming in the upper troposphere where the supposedly increased greenhouse effect should have caused increased temperatures there, which apparently have not been observed. Neither is it ever mentioned, or rarely, that the absorbing band (the range of the infrared frequency where CO2 absorbs energy) is extremely narrow while the absorbing band of water vapor is extremely wide. This means that if the CO2 concentration could be miraculously increased tenfold or even twenty-fold, the resulting impact would be rather small, nor would this huge increase prevent another Ice Age that would result if the water vapor content in the atmosphere was partially reduced. CO2 simply isn't a big player on the greenhouse spectrum.
The global warming dogma was 'invented' in the early 1970s when the scientific community became concerned about the necessary economic development that would be required to assure the survival of mankind in the dramatically changing world caused by the impending return of the Ice Age. Calls were raised to organize an international meeting to discuss what measures would be needed to meet the challenges of the coming Ice Age. This meeting never took place. The agenda was hijacked and turned upside down by imperial forces to pull the focus away from the near return of the Ice Age. The doctrine of global warming was 'invented' and put in place to accomplished that diversion in order to prevent at all cost a global economic renaissance that the private world empires would not survive.
Great scare stories were conjured up to get the counter-organizing momentum going, build on the basis of 'scientific' lies. One scientist of the group of the counter-organizers has put it this way: "Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest." (Quoted by the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray -- head of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 1972-1975 and governor of Washington 1977-1981, -- presented in an article, "Global Warming, Ozone Depletion--Where's the Evidence?" published in 21st Century Science and Technology special report, November 1997, page 80, based on an address by Dr. Ray to the Jefferson Energy Foundation in Washington D.C. on Oct. 15 1991)
While the lies continue, the Ice Age is coming closer.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explores in his paper whether mankind will be able to protect its biosphere against the returning Ice Age. He suggests that the answer depends on how much time we still have. He suggests that statistically the return of the Ice Age is already overdue by half a percent of the average ice age cycle (500 years), warning that the expected transition might be happening soon. He suggests that mankind won't be able to acquire the knowledge and the resources in the next 50 years to govern the climate of the world. He points out that even the most intense effort aimed at doubling the global CO2 levels (should this actually be possible) would be trifling. In other words, nothing that is in our power can prevent the Ice Age from recurring and its radically reduced global temperatures. We can only prevent the consequences by large-scale scientific, technological, and economic means.
The bottom line is that the only hope that mankind has to maintain the part of the biosphere that its very existence depends on, it to build the technological infrastructures that enable it to shift its food production into indoor facilities and away from the devastating cold climate. Technologically, such a feat is totally possible. The material and energy resources are available to do this. Also the intense economic development is possible that would enable mankind to build the needed vast infrastructures on a near global scale. But will mankind do it? Will we take the first steps in our time so that our children will live?
Considering what is at stake and the potential urgency of it, the scientific and economic development and the building processes should begin now. Tragically nothing is happening on this front. Out time is a dead zone of ideological devolution. Mankind's economic resources are being destroyed at an amazing rate and what is left is devoted to war. Nor will we see a reverse in this trend for as long as the return of the Ice Age continues to be hidden behind the mythical fairy tale of manmade global warming. Only the consequences on our food resources cannot be hidden.
Our global food resources seem to be far more vulnerable to global cooling even now than we care to acknowledge. The food supply infrastructure is far more deeply affected by the weak cooling trend that has already begun. A part of this vulnerability is amply visible in failing harvests, such as in the U.S. grain belt where dryer climates are beginning to develop. (See: Alpha Omega Newswire report, June 13, 2006.)
Will mankind make the needed breakthrough to protect its food resources from the coming Ice Age cooling, and live?
Who can answer that? It appears that the answer depends on what we do in the present time, and specifically what we do individually to assure that the breakthrough will happen. The question is, do we have enough love for our children and their children and for one-another across the world, and for our humanity, that we will make the 100-year effort to prepare ourselves and our world for the coming Ice Age before the transition begins? Some glacial evidence from southern Greenland suggests that the last transition began with sharp, short-term temperature fluctuations in the order of decades before the climate change-over settled down.
If the transition to the next Ice Age begins with mankind being unprepared to protect its food resources in indoor facilities, even for a few decades, the collapsing agriculture would likely reduce the global population to very small numbers. Mankind came out of the last Ice Age with only 1-10 million people, for the lack of food resources. We won't do much better this time around. Mankind might be able to support a 100 million people maximum (1% of the expected population in a hundred years time) and bring that remnant through the next 90,000-year cold spell. This might be the best that mankind can do if the Ice Age resumes without the world being prepared for it with indoor agriculture. However, should we, today, choose to take steps to protect the global food resources from the expected 'near' return of the Ice Age, we would have to start soon, because time may be running out. It will likely take mankind at least 100 years to develop the technologies, power systems, financial resources, and a high-powered economy that can build the infrastructures. A hundred years might be all that we've got left (if we are lucky).
Are we willing to go this route and protect our future?
That's the question we need to answer urgently. Dreaming about global warming won't allow us to even consider that question. That's the great danger that we face with the global warming doctrine. The future survival of 99% of humanity is at stake. The outcome will most likely be determined by how we answer that question in our time. Right now the world is still crying Global Warming, even with the evidence to the contrary. (See: The Nonsense of Global Warming)
There is a lot of political hype being promoted about the observed loss of glaciation in the high arctic, though hardly anybody cares to mention that this is more likely the effect of global cooling. The high arctic is a part of the "polar mobile anticyclone," an airflow system in which colder air (being heavier) is forced southward by centrifugal force. In North America the anticyclone flow extents all the way into the Gulf of Mexico from where it returns as warm air across the Atlantic flowing back to the Arctic to complete the cycle. The colder the northern parts of the continent become, the stronger the flow will be, and correspondingly more more warmth becomes drawn up over the Atlantic into the Arctic. The observed phenomenon appears to coincide perfectly with the dramatically lower annual average temperatures that have been measured at the Russian Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk after 1997.
Another part of the manmade global warming hype is centered on increased ocean temperatures and surface water acidity. While both these phenomena are real, they do not prove the case of manmade global warming. They too, more likely prove the opposite.
With the Earth getting colder again in the higher layers as measured by the Russian institute, and the cooling being caused by a reduced greenhouse effect resulting from weaker solar activity cycles, one would expect increased ocean temperatures. The greenhouse effect is caused by the troposphere absorbing some of the long-wavelength heat that comes from the Sun, as well as that which is reflected back from the Earth. When this greenhouse shield is diminished, more of the long-wavelength heat from the Sun gets through, which is promptly trapped by the dark surface of the oceans, causing the oceans to gradually heat up even while the world in general is getting colder.
Is manmade CO2 really killing the world, chemically, and as a greenhouse gas, as the IPCC administrators claim?
The increased ocean acidity is not so easily explained. The global warming activists cite the phenomenon as proof that increased atmospheric CO2 from manmade sources exists, and that this increase is directly responsible for the increased acidity in the oceans. They fail to mention that the manmade increase in the global CO2 budget amounts to a mere 3% in comparison with natural sources, a large portion of which comes from the oceans themselves. I fail to see how the 3% increase that mankind is responsible for should endanger the oceans that contribute large amounts to the atmospheric CO2 in the first place. It appears more likely that the changes in acidity reflects variations of the intensity in the normally ongoing chemical reaction in the oceans. Chemical reactions typically intensify with increased temperatures. While those have been recorded, it cannot be said that mankind is responsible for them. Nevertheless the hype is on, blaming mankind's economic activity in this case as in all other cases.
When seen from an honest scientific standpoint the manmade-global-warming doctrine is full of holes. The recent film, The Inconvenient Truth, for example shows a direct historic relationship between global temperature and global CO2 levels, but it isn't mentioned that the warming of the planet happens first and that the corresponding increase in the CO2 concentration follows as a consequence 800 years later from increased biological activity.
Another falsification that is paraded before the eyes of mankind is reflected in the way ice core samples are measured an interpreted. We are told that mankind's evil activity has injected 500 billion tones of CO2 in total into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. We are told that this huge increase is visible in the ice core samples, as one might expect. We are told that according to the ice core samples there was only half as much CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution, compared to now. But it is conveniently omitted that it is understood in scientific circles that those measurements are faulty, because the ice-trapped gases become become liquefied under increasing pressure as the ice builds up over the deeper layers that correspond to the pre-industrial era. Then when the ice samples are drilled out of the glaciers, by which the pressure is removed, the trapped gases expand again and fracture the ice, and thereby escape through the micro fissures. It is well understood that this is how the low figures are derived at for earlier ages, which are falsely cited as proof that industrialization has increased the greenhouse effect. Professor Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski calls this falsification of the truth about the measurements of CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF)
Jaworowski proved his point by citing alternate methods for determining historic CO2 levels, which proved that the exact same CO2 concentrations existed before the industrial revolution as we find them today. While it is true that human activities have injected large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, no one cares to mention that human agricultural activity and forestry practices have dramatically increased the biotic consumption of CO2. Juvenile forests and lush agriculture are far more potent CO2 sinks than old growth forests or sparse grasslands are. Also the dynamic interaction between the biotic CO2 sinks and levels of CO2 concentration is far too little understood. Slightly greater local concentrations appear to be offset with greater consumption levels, whereby the net-effect of any increase is cancelled out. Some researchers even suggest that the efficiency of the sinks for CO2 removal is greater than what the supply side can keep up with. This trend is confirmed in long term geologic history where the CO2 concentrations have been constantly decreasing over time towards a potentially dangerous deficiency.
The Russian atmospheric scientist, Mikhail Budyko, the man who wrote the book on climate science, landed a bombshell in 1982 when he suggested that the Earth might be dangerously CO2-deficient. He pointed out that the Earth's long-term trend in a growing CO2 deficiency, if the trend continues, might cause the entire planet to freeze over, including the oceans, during one of the future Ice Ages, as apparently has happened 700 million years ago. None of the hyped up climate activists who cry about manmade CO2 ever bother to mention that in the current warm climate of the Earth, 97% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, with the CO2 effect being masked by it. However, in an extreme Ice Age environment when the water vapor content is dramatically lower so that CO2 remains as the only "player on the block," then the CO2 component becomes highly important as the last resort for maintaining a minimal greenhouse effect. If this last-resort component is too low during a critical ice age stage, the entire planet might become a snowball and remain frozen for 10 million years as it is believed once happened in Precambrian time. Evidence for the Precambrian Snowball-Earth theory exists, though it is disputed.
Global warming and nuclear power
With all evidence considered one can only conclude that the manmade global warming hype is a political project build on lies to achieve an imperial political agenda, an agenda of the war of empire versus mankind, the private war of the slime mold that claims no name, that is only known by its effects: the slime mold New World Order. The evidence for this background becomes apparent by considering the funding sources for the political global warming project. The near exclusive imperial funding, and the imperial motives behind it, seem to coincide perfectly with the entire manmade global warming story.
A notable element of evidence that the global warming doctrine is a political project is found in the vehement opposition of the "slime mold" oligarchy and its agencies to nuclear power, which has long been a feature that pervades the global warming camp. If there was any honesty behind the CO2 global warming cries the great demand in this camp for mankind to dramatically reduce its fossil fuel power consumption (which presently powers the global economy) would have lead to the promoting of nuclear power as an alternate resource as it doesn't produce CO2. But we don't see this happening. We see the promotion of windmills and solar cells instead -- the most inefficient, unreliable, and the weakest possible power generating systems that one can think of. In the background of this insanity one hears cries for depopulation, the murdering of society to reduce the human presence. Thus, the real goal is genocide, indirectly admitted.
Indeed, it is exactly the coveted kind of mass-population-collapse that would result without large-scale power production that the global economy depends on. Civilization would disintegrate without its large scale power systems, resulting in a wave of genocide never before seen on this planet. But even while the demand is made to scrap the existing power systems the path is vehemently blocked to the only available alternate power source. It is being blocked by every possible means. On in recent years has the opposition relented, and brought nuclear power back to the table as an energy option. But this concession is always linked to the CO2 hoax, to promote the CO2 hoax further for which the biofuels have been invented to carry the genocidal torch.
This glaring hypocrisy indicates that the motive behind the global warming lie is not to save mankind and the planet from dire consequences, but to wreck the economies of mankind and to cause genocide with unimaginable consequences. If there ever was the slightest concern in the global warming camp for the future of mankind, then nuclear power would be intensely promoted instead of being blocked, and it would be promoted for its vast economic potential instead of being linked to a hoax. Concerned scientists warm that nuclear power must be developed for its vast benefit alone as the safest and richest energy resource presently available, and must not be seen in conjunction with the genocidal manmade global warming hoax. (See: Open Letter to the American Nuclear Society: Nuclear Energy and the CO2 Fiction by Zbigniew Jaworowski)
Indeed, mankind should have stepped away from burning fossil fuels ages ago. It is insane to burn these precious resources and suffer suffer for it the consequences of chemical pollution in terms of respiratory diseases. Even at the most optimistic estimates, the global oil/gas/coal resource will likely be exhausted in several hundred years at the present global rate of depletion. Then what? Mankind has a potential future on this planet for at least another 2 billion years and possibly much longer. We should have a longer energy outlook than 200 years (possibly 60 years for oil). Nuclear fission power with uranium and thorium as fuel recycled in breeder reactors provides a power resource large enough to last us through the next 10,000 years, with nuclear fusion coming on line in parallel. Nevertheless, in spite of this vast potential for abundant clean energy, stinky and polluting coal fired power plants are still being built all over the world, because they are deemed to be a few pennies cheaper than nuclear power plants that are at the same time being blocked, especially the thorium fuel cycle, the most efficient nuclear fuel, is being blocked.
Windmills are promoted with a near religious devotion to insanity as if one could power a modern economy with windmills. Bio-fuels are also promoted. But isn't it totally insane to take food products from an already starving society and distil them into alcohol to burn the food in cars, when the energy input for the production cycle of the alcohol fuel requires a greater amount of fossil fuel burning than the finished product gives back in usable power? Bio-fuels are a net energy drain. Actually the term fossil fuel is incorrect as the link between oil and ancient fossils has not been proven.
The entire hyped-up CO2-global-warming thing is a lie on every account, and a cruel and murderous one on top of the insanity involved.
So who is thinking about mankind's future in the global warming camp? The evidence suggests that all the hyped up concern in the global warming camp is nothing more than a big lie or a gigantic delusion at the very best.
Those who promote the manmade-global-warming lie, or who believe in it, have to face the inconvenient truth that a lie remains a lie no matter how often it is repeated. Nothing can change that. No matter how badly people might wish for manmade global warming to be possible, even in order that we might prevent the impending cyclical return of the Ice Age, the inconvenient truth is that we simply don't have the capacity to affect the global climate on that scale, and won't likely have that capacity for a long time to come.
We simply have no choice at the present time, for the above reason, but to create the technological resources that enable a large world population. such as we presently have, to live through the coming Ice Age. That's the real "inconvenient truth" for the imperial powers, because the need for deriving mankind's global food resources from protected indoor agriculture poses not a small challenge. It poses a challenge that requires mankind to create itself a global renaissance on a vast scale that no empire would survive. And it may be in that where we find the real reason for the global warming hype.
Herein lies the greater challenge that we face, in addition to the technological challenge, which is to overcome the impediment of empire -- to end the war of empire versus civilization by ending the rule of empire on this planet. Failing to reach this goal would mean that empire and its lies would prevent mankind from tackling the greatest existential challenge in its entire history, which is the modern Ice Age Challenge.
The end of manmade global warming
Since the issue of manmade global warming is a perceptional one, rather than a physical one, and the perception is kept alive by a song of 'scientific' lies that serve the rulers of empire in maintaining their illegitimate existence, the global warming song will likely continue to be heard for as long as empires rule, and the imposed economic consequences will continue to be suffered by society. The song of lies won't be allowed to fade. Too much has been built on it. And it will be maintained apparently with ease. For as long as the payola of empire plays the tune scientists and politicians will eagerly dance to the tune. While the scientific community appears less willing than the political community to prostitute itself to the biddings of empire, it is unreasonable to assume that the desired scientific "coalition of the willing" won't be enticed into the service of empire to facilitate any predetermined objective.
The end of the global warming song is therefore tied to the end of empire itself. Until this end is reached, we will likely hear the song being performed evermore vigorously and loudly. Latest movie version of the song has already been awarded an Oscar. Its political front man has been awarded the Nobel Price. Soon there will be another U.N. sponsored international conference convened, like the Bali Conference in December 2007, designed to impose even more draconian measures than the Kyoto Accord has, though the Kyoto is widely regarded as an economic death sentence when fully implemented. It is also being said that the opposition to the global warming song is fading. This may be true, as the music of the payola that accompanies the song is getting lauder. Thus the world becomes increasingly enslaved by the payola that increasingly rules in the war of empire versus civilization.
The resulting tragic scene reflects the ongoing bottom line in American history. The people who once stood up as a beacon for truth and liberty stand tall no more, and likely won't stand so again until the whole of mankind stands on that higher platform with them, above the war of empire versus civilization. When this day dawns we will see its light reflected in a New Treaty of Westphalia, built on still higher ground than the one in 1648 that nevertheless set up a 'constitution' for a world of sovereign nation-states bound by shared universal principles, like the recognition that peace requires that each must work for the benefit of the other. When a New Treaty of Westphalia raises that platform to also include such spiritual values as truthfulness, integrity, honor, humanity, and love, then the music of the payola will be heard no more and the song of manmade global warming will fade into the silence of the graveyard of buried lies.
There might be a bright side to the song of manmade global warming with a benefit for mankind along the way.
There is a faint light on the horizon. As the expanding multitudes that have been duped into singing the empire's song of manmade global warming, are demanding evermore strongly the needed measures to wean the world off its primitive energy source, which is coal, gas, and oil, the advocates that are fighting for a secure future are indirectly fighting for the new and more efficient kind of energy resource that we really cannot exist without, that is cleaner, more efficient, more powerful, and more universally available. Since this more efficient energy regime begins with the development of nuclear power and nuclear produced hydrogen fuels for transportation, the singers of the song of manmade global warming are indirectly fighting for nuclear power development and for the advancing steps beyond that, since no other options exist.
The current regime of nuclear power is presently the most minimal option that mankind has, which offers the same and greater power density and abundance in supply than coal, gas, and oil, and offers vastly greater resources of supply. In the short run, this is mankind's only option until nuclear fusion and the harvesting of cosmic plasma energy as the next steps forward become available for commercial production.
If the mythological song of manmade global warming would inspire society to spearhead the development of these more efficient energy resources, an immense benefit for mankind's future would be won. And this may yet happen. The resulting benefit would in fact help society to negate many of the effects that the changing global climate is imposing, which we cannot avoid no matter what we do. In addition, the development of the higher level resources would require a new environment in scientific honesty in which the truth would actually matter, which would all by itself shut down the song of manmade global warming on the path of exploring the truth.
Sometimes a long detour towards a certain goal is the shortest practical path when no other path exists or all other paths are blocked. The critical element here is that the current resources are not scrapped before the new resources take their place, otherwise civilization would collapse and mankind with it. An efficient civilization cannot be maintained without large-scale energy use. Without that the physical support structures for human existence cannot be maintained. While the genocidal collapse that would result in an energy-deprived world is the very key element in the platform of empire versus civilization, proclaimed by the empire itself, it appears that this tragedy can be avoided as mankind is not suicidal in nature, but is developmental in nature like the universe is as a whole.
end of overview
So what is the truth that debunks the global-warming lies?
While it is true that the global greenhouse effect determines our climate, it is also true that ninety-eight-percent of this effect is produced by water vapor. Only the remaining two-percent of the total greenhouse effect is produced by the rest of the so-called greenhouse gases. While it is true that the major contributor in this 2% category is carbon dioxide (CO2), it is also true that the man-made portion of this minuscule amount, is roughly 2% again. This means that the manmade influence on the global greenhouse effect adds up to roughly 4/100th of a percent (0.04%) of the total. This simple fact tells us that if the entire world made an enormous effort to double its burning of oil, gas, coal, and wood, for long periods of time, the resulting effect on the world's climate would still amount to almost nothing compared to the huge effect that water vapor has on the climate, while the water-vapor-effect on the climate is hugely influenced by the intensity of cosmic radiation that effects the intensity of cloud formation. Large variances have been measured for the cosmic effects on the global climate over long periods of time, including the variances that have become the Ice Age cycles. Manmade CO2 has no impact on these variances at all.
In comparison to these large natural variances, the increase in the greenhouse effect that mankind's entire history of burning fossil fuels has contributed still amounts to less than one-tens of a percent or three-one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. Without the greenhouse warming the average Earth's temperature would be -18 degrees Celsius instead of +15 degrees, for a 33 degree warming. The manmade portion is 1/1000th of that (0.1%) for a grand total of 3/100th of a degree of warming for the entire history of mankind's effect on the global climate. It is obvious that this tiny amount is minuscule compared to the 6 to 9 degrees of 'natural' cooling during the Ice Ages. It is even minuscule in comparison with the three degree variances that have been observed during interglacial period. The Global Warming doctrine falsely (if not fraudulently) attributes these natural variances to manmade effects, especially the global warming that has been occurring since the 1700s as the Earth has been recovering from the last Little Ice Age that began in the 1400s.
The bottom line is. It's the water vapor that controls the climate, which is in turn determined by whatever effects cloud formation. Huge variances of these natural factors have been observed with dramatic effects on the climate of the Earth. They are all caused by processes far away from our planet, resulting in Ice Age cycles, and interglacial warm periods, and Mini Ice Ages overlaying the warm periods, and interglacial optimum periods, seven thousand years ago, during which the Earth was two degrees warmer than today without any human influence causing anything.
According to what we know about the period of the Climatic Optimum of seven thousand years ago, the Sahara dessert was green. It had major rivers running in it, and cities and civilizations flourishing there where hardly no one exists there today. Even during the Medieval Optimum period when the Earth was somewhat cooler then the earlier optimum, we had vineyards growing in Britain and Greenland and Norse navigation across the Atlantic. Since this warm period was our climate before the Little Ice Age began around the 16th Century, and we are still in the process of recovering from it, we will likely get back to the Medieval Optimum level over the next hundred years unless the real Ice Age intervenes sooner. In fact, the cooling process may have already started. The current Sunspot cycle is weaker than the previous one. According to the Russian physicists Bashkirtsev and Mashnich of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk the next cycles will likely be even weaker (between 2021 and 2026). The suggestion has been made that the shift to the cold climates has already started.
Measured temperatures in Irkutsk (in the mountains north of Mongolia) the highest surface air temperature reading were recorded in 1997 (+2.3 degree C.), which began to drop to +1,2 degrees in 1998, +0,7 degrees in 1999, and +0.4 degrees in 2000.
The Irkutsk observations support the findings of World Glacier Monitoring Group in Zurich, which monitors 625 glaciers. The group reports that until 1960 up to 95% of the glaciers were in retreat, but that since 1980 a new trend was beginning as 55% of the monitored mountain glaciers were advancing again.
It appears that the recovery phase from the last Little Ice Age may be already over, and that we are heading back into another Little Ice Age, if not the big one. The precise timing of the big one cannot be determined. It might be still 150 years away. All that we can predict with certainty, is that it will pose greater challenges than any event in history, and if preparations are not made to meet these challenges, the Ice Age may lead to the near extinction of mankind as the major food-growing processes become inoperable, which depend on the present warm interglacial climate. The Global Warming doctrine appears to have been designed to assure that this calamity will happen by hiding the coming Ice Age behind the cloak of a myth.
The one thing we don't have to be concerned about in the foreseeable future, is manmade global warming. However we should be very much concerned about the indented economic destruction resulting from the global warming hoax.
In real terms, manmade global warming does not exist. This does not mean that large temperatures variations have been experienced caused by natural effects.
Large Historic temperature swings have been experienced throughout the entire (current) interglacial time frame.
For a simplified illustration that also includes the
significantly warmer interglacial optimum of 5000-7000 years ago (when
mankind's presence was minuscule on the planet) see:
See page 58 (8 of 15) of the report for the large temperature swings that occurred throughout the present interglacial time frame in which the current global warming following the end of the last Little Ice Age is but a blip that has no significance in comparison with the much warmer historic temperatures. And all of those mayor events of global warming happened long before there was anything manmade in the atmosphere except smoke from few camp fires.
The point is that the planet has been warming and cooling by natural means that are way beyond our ability to alter or prevent. Even the current warming tend, which began in the mid-1600s, began long before manmade greenhouse gases were created by industrial activity that is currently blamed for global warming in one of the most deeply reaching political projects in history, which is obviously designed to hide the impending return of the Ice Age.
The sad fact is:
We such great uncertainty at the very root of the climate physics, how can we claim to accurately understand what affects our climate? One theory suggests that the sun id heated by a nuclear furnace from deep with it. This theory is increasingly disputed as a wide range of available evidence doesn't support this model, but supports another model which defines the sun as a surface-heated electric arc furnace powered by large currents flowing in galactic plasma that is an inherent part of the dynamics of a galaxy and is subject to countless influences. See: The Electric Climate. The Electric Universe Theory is presently the most advanced in interpreting the observed astrophysical phenomena. However, much opposition stands in the way of it, especially from the imperial side that aims to prevent scientific advances. Hence the Big Bang Cosmology still rules as king on the official scene, even if the cosmologists have to conjure up a whole lot of imaginary constructs to make the theory match the facts similar to the constructs of epicycles that Ptolemy and Copernicus used make the universe fit the theory dictated by religious perception that the planetary orbits MUST be based on perfect circles.
And so, in view of the differences that bring advanced concepts to light for which a flood of evidence exists, the vast arrays of galactic influences that affect the entire complex solar-system with enormous power, it is sheer insanity to single out our puny manmade effects as the key determinant of the global climate. In fact no one ever imagined such an insanity until the masters of empire turned the legitimate Ice Age concern upside down around 1974 with a flood of sophistry and a lot of cash in order to prevent a global renaissance that mankind urgently needs in preparation for the next ice age. Thus the masters of empire invented "global warming" as weapon for its war against mankind. The empire needs such a weapon to deter the normal development of human culture that has historically threatened the very existence of empire whenever a rich human culture was allowed to flourish. Thus, it should come to no one's surprise to see the masters of empire flood the world with their sophistry of manmade global warming to the n'th degree -- a childish game, but a deadly one for mankind in its consequences. An example of it can be found in the current (March 2009) British thrust to impose a global carbon tax and the resulting lucrative carbon credit trading (by consensus) on all the nations of the world during the announced April G-20 Summit in London. While this may not be accepted by the nations, the thrust indicates the hysterical efforts that are presently being made to used the "global warming" myth as a sledge hammer to force the nations under the thumb of imperial rule with plans for economic genocide attached. And this thrust will not likely change, even if the G20 project should fail,
To enforce the global warming myth, its assumptions are based on FALSE CO2 measurements.
In a statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - March 2004 - Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski warns the U.S. legislature that the current global warming doctrine is based on the assumption that manmade greenhouse gases have been rapidly accumulating in the global atmosphere during the last hundred years. Indeed, measurements from ice core samples are cited to prove the escalating trend. He warns that this proof is apparent based on a fundamental 'errors' since it is known in the scientific community that gases trapped in glacial ice are compressed and dissolved, or crystallized under the enormous pressures of the accumulating ice masses. It is known that when the deep ice core samples are drilled out and brought to the surface the confining pressure is removed. The gases expand and fracture the ice, by which a portion escapes through the micro fractures. He points out that the result is that the deeper layers yield fewer such gases, since a portion has has escaped through the micro fractures. He warns that the resulting false result is cited as proof that there were fewer such gases historically. This false result can be disproved by various types of historic biological measurements. The biological measurements, not surprisingly, indicate that the CO2 contents in the atmosphere was roughly the same in the mid-1600s when the current warming trend began, than they are today.
However, the ice core samples are useful for long-term comparative studies, and the results are even more devastating for the global warming doctrine. When the long-term CO2 trends are compared with the long-term temperature trends it becomes strikingly obvious that the CO2 trends lag the temperature trends by 800 years. In other words, the temperature changes happen first, and then by a delayed effect some 800 years later the CO2 trends follow. The delayed effect completely debunks the global warming doctrine that CO2 drives the global temperature changes. The reality is in the opposite.
For more details please refer to the statement by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. on CO2 measurements - written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation - March 2004. (Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski is a world-renowned atmospheric scientist and mountaineer, who has excavated ice of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in his over 50-year career.)
100 years of direct chemical measurements contradict the foundation for the global warming theory
Over 90,000 direct chemical measurements have been carried out between 1857 and 1957, which indicate that the natural fluctuation in atmospheric CO2 are far greater than the small changes that the global warming prediction is based on. Nor does any evidence exist that these natural fluctuations had any effect on global average temperatures.
This vast body of evidence is conveniently ignored by those who cry out about global warming and demand the deindustrialization of the world to save the world from global warming. The above graph is based on some of the 90,000 direct chemical measurements. (see: True CO2 Record Buried Under Gore)
It proves the historic ice core measurements to be fundamentally flawed and totally unreliable. (see: Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Increase) With enough imagination one might see a faint similarity between the CO2 trend and the temperature trend. One would expect to see such a correlation because variations in general temperature would naturally be reflected in corresponding variations in biological activity, which is reflected in CO2 levels. Warmer climates intensify the biological processes that produce CO2. It would be surprising if there was no correlation at all between the two. What is likewise not surprising in the CO2 graph above, is the complete lack of correlation between the CO2 levels and industrial activity. This lack of correlation is generally acknowledged by those concerned with the actual climate truth. (see example of American Conservative Union Foundation)
Compare the two graphs above for the postwar period (1945 to the 1960s). In the postwar period when the massive re-industrialization began to rebuild the shattered world economy the CO2 concentration dropped to very low levels, showing that there is no relationship between industrial activity and CO2 levels. Also the so-called temperature measurements that are used to promote the global warming hoax are based on a lot of fakery with measuring devices being placed near known heat sources as shown in several pictures in the above mentioned article True CO2 Record Buried Under Gore.The CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is minuscule.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski also points out in his paper "The Ice Age Is Coming" that the supposedly "dangerous" increase in global CO2 gases (the non-existing 30% increase) was dwarfed in historic times by CO2 levels that were 1800% greater during the Ordovician Period 440 million years ago when glaciers expanded in both hemispheres of the planet and resulted in an a Ice Age that led to the second-most extensive extinction of life in geologic history.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski further points out in his paper that the CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect is minuscule in comparison with greenhouse effect of water vapour which is responsible for up to 97% of the total greenhouse effect. He suggests that whatever affects the water vapour content in the atmosphere, which is hugely affected by astrophysical factors, thereby affects up to 97% of the total greenhouse mechanism, and with it the global climate. (see page 4 of 15) And that puts CO2 out of the picture entirely.
Cycles, not CO2, determine our climate
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski points to the well-known fact that the water vapor content in the atmosphere is to a large measure affected by the ionization that occurs in the troposphere under the influence of cosmic radiation. Ionized particles are many times more attractive to water vapour than non-ionized particles. By this effect the intensity of cosmic radiation is major factor for the intensity of cloud formation and the corresponding inverse intensity of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
The process of ionization is well described in a series of articles on the ionization process in the ionosphere (high above the troposphere). See: About the Ionosphere. In the very thin atmosphere of the ionosphere high energy solar radiation is absorbed, which protects the Earth surface from incoming solar radiation. Ionization occurs in the process of absorbing this radiation.
Cosmic radiation is similar, but is of a type that
largely gets through the ionosphere and through the stratosphere below
it, so that it interacts with the much more densely packed air of the
troposphere where the weather is made. It has been shown that cosmic
rays (which are not actually rays, but high-energy particles, primarily
protons, originating from countless sources within our galaxy) have a
catalytic effect on the nucleation of cloud droplets in the troposphere
of our planet. The effect is similar to that observed in a cloud chamber
that one finds commonly on display in a science museum. The difference
is that this effect is active on a global scale where the Earth's
atmosphere is the cloud chamber and the cosmic rays continuously
catalyze the production of ionized nuclei for cloud condensation. Actually
the process is much more complex, but in essence a
strong link exists between cosmic-radiation intensity and cloud
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski points out that cloudiness and water vapour are nearly a hundred times more influential on global temperature variations than all the rest of the greenhouse gases combined. He suggests for example, that if it were actually possible with extreme efforts to double the global atmospheric CO2 concentration, the effect could be cancelled out by a 1% increase in cloudiness. In other words, it is the Earth's cloudiness, controlled by cosmic radiation, affected by solar cycles, which determines our climate.
The Earth is affectionately known as the "blue planet" and is often rendered richly blue by many an artist, but in real terms the Earth appears more white than blue, a planet of extensive cloudiness. The cloudiness, influenced by large astrophysical factors, reflects a substantial portion of the incoming solar energy back into space and thereby determines the energy balance on the surface, resulting in cycles of global warming and cycles of ice ages.
The image below is a photographic image of the Earth, a rare NASA photograph of the Earth taken by the crew of Apollo 11 from a distance of 158,000 km (98,000 miles) during the translunar injection on July 16, 1969 for the mankind's historic first landing on the moon. (NASA photo ID AS11-36-5355)
It is known that large swings in the intensity of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth is not unusual, and that the intensity of that radiation is greatly influenced by the intensity of solar cycles in the form of solar winds and magnetic storms, which shield the Earth to some degree from cosmic radiation. If the solar activity shat is shielding the Earth is strong, less cosmic radiation reaches the planet, causing less cloud formation, a greater greenhouse effect, and a warmer Earth. If the solar activity gets weaker, the Earth gets cooler. If one compares the changes in solar activity with the changes in our global temperature, the two trends coincide exactly, both in the short term and in the long term. In other words, changes in the intensity of solar activity are determining the temperature changes on Earth, and not our feeble industrial development that is too minuscule in comparison to affect anything at all.
According to Zbigniew Jaworowski's presentation, the CO2 contribution to the global greenhouse effect amounts to roughly 3%, and he adds that of that minuscule amount the manmade portion is less than 3% again (a grand total of 9/100th of a percent). This minuscule amount is so small that it has no measurable effect on global temperature variations. The doctrine that is spun around the tale of manmade global warming is thereby revealed as a total scam, a politically motivated fraud that is designed to create an energy-lean world for the imperial purpose of scaling back human development that threatens the existence of empires as it always has throughout history.
The bottom line is that the intensity of cosmic radiation, effecting cloud formation and thereby our climate, is governed by solar cycles and not by any manmade effects. In real terms the global warming and global cooling cycles are definitely not caused by manmade variances of CO2 or any other manmade gases in the atmosphere. In other words, of all the dangers that mankind is facing, the physical global warming of the Earth is one of the few things we don't have to be worried about. However, we should all be terribly afraid of the political objectives of the powers driving the global warming doctrine with lies, hysteria, and murderous demands that are already causing millions of unnecessary deaths around the world each single year. And that's just the beginning.
Some powerful forces are playing games with the very future of mankind, and ultimately with mankind's very survival on this planet when the Ice Age cycle resumes as it has for the last 2 million years and decimates the global food production. Extinction of the human species may occur if mankind is prevented by the unfolding imperial games from developing the needed global infrastructures for indoor agriculture that may be necessary for maintaining a 10-billion world population in an Ice Age world. And for that, time might be running out.
Since the time for the next Ice Age transition might not be far off, what is happening in our current time frame could prove to be critical for human survival. Some say that the cyclical return of the Ice Age could be delayed by a thousand years, while others say that it it might only be fifty years distant, or might have already begun. But is it morally justifiable to gamble with the very existence of mankind by betting on the most ideal scenario, such as that the transition won't happen for another thousand years? How can we take such risks when so much is at stake? We are already in the boundary zone. The current interglacial warm period has already exceeded the average duration by 5%. Who wants to gamble on another 10% extension?
The current global warming trend appears to be coming to an end.
above is an example of the scientific evidence for the Orgon Petition
Project by the scientific community against the manmade global warming
In real terms the manmade global warming doctrine is a
myth conjured up for political objectives that have nothing to do with
anything real in the physical universe. It is designed to hide the
return of the Ice Age and the urgency for a response. It's a political
fraud in defiance of reality. The truth no longer means anything, which
it rarely does in political games. Not surprisingly, the more the truth
is coming to the surface, the greater becomes the hysteria that drives
the global warming mythology contrary to the observable facts. As
one commentator put it, "There's no time left for a debate, they
tell us - we don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't
want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions
increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's (during the postwar
industrial boom), we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows
no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about Sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want
to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature
increase (by 800 years, not leading it) - because global warming is our
justification to do anything and we are going to do it whether you like
it or not!"
In long-range historic terms, the global warming that we have experienced while the Earth is recovering from the last Little Ice Age is not an extraordinary event, nor is it really extraordinary in terms of the actual warming that took place. We are currently far from catching up with the medieval optimum climate, and beyond that we have even further to go to get catch up with the interglacial (Holocene) optimum between 7000-5000 years ago when the Earth was so warm that we had rivers running in the Sahara that is now a dessert. None of these vast historic changes were manmade, obviously, since the human presence was minuscule in those times. The current recovering from the last Little Ice Age is minuscule itself in that comparison, and even this minuscule warming has already ended and given way to a new cooling trend. The Earth has been in a cooling trend for 4 decades between the 1940s and 1980s, followed by a warming trend till 1997, after which a new cooling trend has been recorded.
In real terms global cooling has begun.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski cites a Russian report from the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk that presents on-the-ground physical measurements which show that the most recent global warming trend from the 1980s on is already reversing again. That's not based on any theory, but reflects physical measurements recorded in Irkutsk in the mountains north of the Mongolian dessert. The average annual temperature that has been measured at the institute there had peaked in 1997 at 2.3 degrees C. and then had dropped annually down to 0.4 degrees in the year 2000 (a huge drop for an annual average temperature). After 2000 the decline levelled off towards the current minus 0.1 degrees C. (in 2006).
The institute at Irkutsk has also measured corresponding variances in Sunspot cycles that typically precede global air temperature changes by three years. Scientists at the institute tell us that the current 11-year Sunspot cycle is weaker and that they expect the foreseeable next two cycles to be weaker still, going into the mid-2020s. And even they were conservative. The 24th cycle that should have started in 2006 is not only weaker, it hasn't even started yet. As a consequence the resulting global cooling has wiped out 100 years of global warming in a single year. And the end isn't in sight. The global cooling will likely continue through 2008. This does not mean that a new Ice Age has started. It does indicate however that global temperature is directly related to solar activity changes and that there is no causative correlation (at the present as it has been historically) between temperature and CO2 levels. (see article)
yes, global cooling can give us isolated warmer temperatures
The current summer heat wave in some parts of the world that is widely attributed to global warming is actually consistent with global cooling.
A new Ice Age is on the horizon. It is caused by the diminishing intensity of the Sun's Sunspot cycles. The diminished solar activity in turn allows more cosmic radiation to reach the Earth, thereby increasing cloudiness with the corresponding decrease in water vapour in the atmosphere which provides 96-97% of the greenhouse effect that makes the Earth warm and liveable. In short, the Earth's greenhouse mantle is slowly diminishing towards the coming new Ice Age. But why would this trend give us warmer temperatures?
The answer lies in the nature of the greenhouse effect. The Sun is our heat source. Its energy comes to the surface of the Earth in the form of short-wavelength radiation that cuts right through the greenhouse mantle and heats up the land and the oceans. But the heat that is so created on the surface, the 'dark-body' heat of the Earth, is reflected back into the atmosphere in the form of long-wavelength radiation. A portion of that heat is absorbed there and reflected back to Earth, retaining it, similar to the way that heat is retained in a greenhouse. When the greenhouse effect becomes diminished, less heat is reflected back, whereby the Earth becomes colder. However, the Sun also emits heat in the form of long-wavelength radiation. When the greenhouse effect is strong much of this incoming heat is reflected back into space, but when the greenhouse effect is weak, less is reflected back into space and more is reaching the Earth. The result is that the climate tends to get hotter during the clear summer days, even while it gets colder in general. Moscow reports 40-below deep-freeze temperatures in the winter and 40-above steam oven temperatures in the summer. The effect of greenhouse mantle is to moderate these harsh differences. As the greenhouse diminishes, the moderation also diminishes, creating stronger heat waves and cold periods. The resulting lack of moderation is especially noticeable in the oceans, which are thereby are getting warmer since the oceans retain their heat better than land does. The great forests are similarly effected by the more intense heat penetration, even though the climate is getting colder overall.
It is easy to cry "global warming" when the heat waves are scorching the Earth. Unfortunately the resulting hoopla is taking us in the wrong direction leading to incorrect responses. Society goes into fear and destroys its economies to lower CO2 greenhouse gases to fight manmade global warming, without ever realizing that there is no such thing as manmade global warming and CO2 is not a factor when 97% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapour. The bottom line is that the entire CO2-based manmade global-warming hoopla is built on a lie. No facet of it concurs with real history. And why should we be surprised at this, since it has become morally acceptable to lie to society on a grand scale (In Lies We Trust!) in the name of political objectives, and in the name imperial 'business' objectives?
Shouldn't we be more concerned with understanding what is really affecting our climate?
Other Global Warming and Ice Age Links
The Ice Age Phenomenon - the history of climate
"The Ice Age Is Coming" by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. (pdf format)
Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
Global Warming, Because No Global Climate
the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’
Ice Sheet Growing: What Makes an Ice Age?
The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF)
What Really Causes Climate Change? PDF