WHAT THEY WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT GREENHOUSE GASES
There is a gas that can cause a serious blood disorder medically known as alkalosis, and if people inhale high concentrations of it for a long time, it can even cause death. It is very chemically active and highly corrosive. It can corrode the toughest of metals and turns them into dust. Imagine what it might do to the human body.
It is neither carbon dioxide nor hydrogen cyanide. It is oxygen.
Human-induced global warming advocates use the same above “scientific” approach in their description of the so-called greenhouse gases, because if one believes the news, he/she would be led to believe that greenhouse gases are categorically bad. This is because all the rhetoric about greenhouse gases is negative, and it is rare, if not impossible, to find a single good attribute given to them.
As a matter of fact, greenhouse gases are not any less important for life than oxygen. Without them, we would not have rain, we would not have plant life, and the global temperatures would fluctuate between very highs and lows, making it impossible for life to exist as we know it.
Earth’s atmosphere is mainly comprised oxygen and nitrogen. They tally up to 95-99%. The main other components are argon, solid particles, and the greenhouse gases.
The greenhouse gas that is most abundant is water vapour (moisture), but its percentage varies greatly depending on location and climate. In humid regions, the content can be as high as 3% or more, and in dry desert locations, it will go as low as 0.01% or less.
The thing with water is that it has a high “Specific Heat”. As a matter of fact, it has the highest Specific Heat of all naturally occurring substances under normal pressure. In other words, it takes a lot of heat to heat up water, and at the same time, water stores heat like no other substance. This is why swimming pools, sea water, and all massive water bodies resist temperature change and take a long time to cool down or warm up.
Greenhouse gases, mainly and primarily atmospheric moisture, regulate temperate on earth. Without them, earth would experience dramatic day/night temperature fluctuations, but having too much of them will cause heat to build up.
Now, we have been bombarded by theories about the alleged effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. This statement is far from the truth. It is atmospheric moisture that is the biggest and most significant greenhouse gas, and it is very easy for cynics to Google this statement.
Before we talk about carbon dioxide however, the other main greenhouse gases to take a look at are methane, nitrous oxide, CFC’s and ozone.
Most of methane in the atmosphere is the outcome of natural fermentations and volcanic activities. Some of it is produced as an industrial byproduct and many ill-informed global warming activists and alarmists blame cattle for methane emissions in their flatulence, but it doesn’t take much intelligence to compare the orifices of cows with volcanoes to figure out which is the major contributor.
Nitrous oxide is naturally produced both naturally and by some industries. Two thirds of it is produced naturally.
When it comes to ozone, if anything, human activity and the emission of CFC’s into the atmosphere are meant to be deplete the ozone layer, not enhance it.
This leaves us with carbon dioxide, and it has been the hot topic for at least a whole decade now and being blamed as the major culprit behind global warming. Activists, politicians, opportunists, “scientists” fearmongers and highly vocal people are all united in spewing endless on-going harangues about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming.
We are now inundated with lectures about carbon footprints, low-carb beer and carbon-neutral air travel, and mostly from people who do not even know what carbon is and cannot find it on the periodic table. The rhetoric is coming out of our ears and talks of such issues as carbon sequestration by people who have never heard the term until they heard it from businesspeople or politicians with vested interests, is rather offensive for anyone who is trying to make some scientific sense out of this so-called carbon debate.
As a greenhouse gas, it is a fact that carbon dioxide absorbs heat. However, it does not retain it like water vapour does. Instead, it reflects it back. This video represents what a carbon dioxide molecule does with heat it receives:
Climatologists argue that even though atmospheric moisture is the most abundant and most significant greenhouse gas, the much less abundant carbon dioxide plays a huge role in the so-called “positive feedback”. They define positive feedback as a loop process in which carbon dioxide traps heat, reflects it back at the atmospheric moisture, heating it up, and eventually producing more atmospheric moisture that will trap more heat. This is how they allege carbon dioxide is the main contributing factor to “global warming”. Greenhouse Gases And Water Vapor: When 'Positive Feedback' Is A Bad Thing | Science 2.0 (science20.com)
This theory is at best debatable. First of all, there are no studies that validate it. Secondly, if this theory is accurate, we must then expect a similar scenario to what happens in deserts.
In deserts, midday temperatures can go higher than fifty degrees Celsius but a few hours later, they can drop at night to freezing temperatures and below. This is because the atmospheres of deserts have very low moisture content. Atmospheric moisture is not any different than liquid water. It stores heat, and this is why regions of atmospheric moisture levels of that are much higher than deserts do not experience those massive day-night temperature fluctuations that deserts do.
The logic in this self-evident fact should also apply to regions in the world that are highest in carbon dioxide, right? If the “positive feedback” theory is accurate, atmospheric moisture accumulation and warming should be experienced mostly in and around big industrial cities, right? So why is it then that it is the glaciers in Antarctica that are melting? Why is it that the effect of low atmospheric moisture levels in deserts can be seen locally while the effect of high level of carbon dioxide production has to travel for thousands of kilometers to show its effects? And where are the positive-feedback-generated huge clouds that lurk around big cities?
Something is certainly amiss.
Carbon dioxide-induced global warming advocates often spew their anger, and often violently, on any counter argument yelling out “stop ignoring the evidence”. They are confusing the evidence of the melting of the glaciers of Antarctica with a theory that doesn’t have a single foot to stand on.
No one knows why Antarctica is melting. There has been a recent theory about a radioactive activity happening below Antarctica. Such an explanation would be more plausible, but it doesn’t seem to be gaining much attention probably because it doesn’t suit the agenda of the anti-carbon dioxide brigade. A Hidden, Radioactive Heat Source Seems to Be Melting East Antarctica From Below : ScienceAlert.
When “scientists” start telling half-truths, then they are in fact telling whole lies. When their “science” cannot be substantiated by the scientific process, it becomes a matter of opinion.
When politicians and groups with vested interest take on board such lies and opinions, as intelligent human beings, we must at least stop and ask questions. When the thought police stand in the way to stop us from asking questions, casting aspersions on anyone who doesn’t follow them like a sheep, we should become more determined to challenge their thoughts, ideology and real objectives.
When politicians and groups with vested interest take on board such lies and opinions, as intelligent human beings, we must at least stop and ask questions. When the thought police stand in the way to stop us from asking questions, casting aspersions on anyone who doesn’t follow them like a sheep, we should become more determined to challenge their thoughts, ideology and real objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment