Man-made Global Warming IMPOSSIBLE

Escape From Fiction to Freedom

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.

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.

Full Presentation of the original Video

Click on the images for a larger view

This video is divided into 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

It is the purpose of this video:

1. To take a great weight off our shoulders

that has been needlessly placed on us all.

2. To help give hope and life to the countless millions

who are presently condemned to an agonizing death.

3. To introduce a new paradigm for a new future

towards the fulfillment of the common aims of mankind.

Great fear has been cultivated across the world that human activities are forcing

cataclysmic climate change. The fear is groundless.

Manmade global warming is not physically possible. This means that it is not

happening.

Since no evidence exists for any global warming happening, especially now that the

Antarctic sea ice is expanding again, the tune of the 'song' has been changed from,

manmade global warming, to man-made climate change. Of course, this too, is

impossible since the underlying physics remain the same. Neither has the doctrine

behind the scene changed.

Manmade Climate Change simply is not happening. It would be wonderful if it would be

possible for humanity to develop the means to alter the climate of the Earth. This

would save us the challenge of preparing our world for the next Ice Age cycle, to

which the transition has already begun.

Yes, the transition to the next Ice Age really has begun. The astrophysical dynamics

are huge that affect our climate, though the evidence is still weak and not where one

would expect to find it.

Nevertheless, though the Ice Age transition dynamics are still only minutely

expressed, they are already causing devastating drought conditions, flooding,

untimely frosts, and increased tornadoes and larger hurricanes which affect our

living, and most of all our agriculture.

These deep-reaching effects tell us that the Earth's climate is indeed changing, and

this in a big way. However it also means that the climate change is not manmade. The

physical reality that this is so is rather plain.

Climate dynamics in comparison with CO2 forcing.

While it is true that carbon dioxide, called CO2 in chemistry, is a greenhouse gas in

the atmosphere, and while it is also true that this gas is massively produced by

humanity in human living and human economics, it is also true that the climate effect

of this particular greenhouse gas is so minuscule that it is essentially non-existing,

regardless of what its concentration in the atmosphere is or may be in the future.

The scientific fact is that CO2 does NOT affect the global climate. It never had an

effect in the past, even when it was up to 50 times denser. And so it doesn't have an

effect now either, or in the future, especially when one considers that the present

CO2 level is so low that it has put the ecological system of the Earth into a CO2-

starved environment. All this simply means that anthropogenic global warming is

nothing more than a scary fairy tale, a well-crafted tale to terrorize children, but

one that is simply not possible to come true in the real world.

Manmade global warming IS a fairy tal indeed. Humanity is easily vilified with

political fiction in which such impossible tales are spun, in which science is turned

upside down so that CO2 can be blamed as a villain, because all life is carbon based,

including human living and human activities. Scare stories based on upside-down

science are easily imposed 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.

Who in society would counter the trusted oracles of science?

It is being said that by corrupted science that our living threatens to heat the

greenhouse of the earth so intensely that all the glaciers in the world will melt, and

the melt waters will raise the sea levels so high that many low-elevation lands will be

flooded.

However, if one compares where CO2 really stands in the global greenhouse

dynamics, a totally different picture comes to light. Let me illustrate why CO2 is not

a climate-forcing factor.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The CO2 molecules in the air do absorb radiated heat

energy. This physical quality renders CO2 a greenhouse gas; one of a number of

greenhouse gases.

The greenhouse too, is not a villain. It is essential to human living and to 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 radiated energy. They retain also

a portion of the Earth's reflected-back energy, though this portion is small. The

greenhouse also received a large portion of its thermal energy as latent heat

released by water-vapor condensation into clouds. These three sources all together

warm the atmosphere. The warmed atmosphere acts as a thermal buffer around the

Earth that makes the nights warmer and the days cooler.

Most of the incoming solar energy that penetrates through the atmosphere is used

up on the ground by vegetation and by water vaporization. Some of it also heats the

ground. The absorbed heat on the ground is radiated back into space at a much lower

temperature, which corresponds to a different radiation spectrum. Most of the

ground-radiated heat is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor. One of the

three absorption bands of CO2 falls into this region, but even there it is completely

masked by the wide absorption band of water vapor.

Also it should be noted that the ground-radiated energy, averaged globally, is

extremely minuscule in comparison with the incoming solar radiation that is 300,000

times stronger. If the ground radiation were to be drawn to scale, it would show up

as a flat line. Nevertheless, the ground radiation is a factor in the greenhouse

dynamics, small as this factor may be. In addition, the greenhouse itself is a heat-

radiating emitter.

While CO2 does play a role in absorbing the out-going radiated energy, the CO2

effect is there too masked by the absorbing effect of water vapor so that it remains

minuscule and of no practical significance whatsoever. Much of the out-going

radiation is re-absorbed anyway, so that the total effect is slow-acting and spread

out over days. The greenhouse is thereby maintained over long periods.

The 'long-term' heat retention is affected almost exclusively by water vapor. The

atmosphere contains 13,000 billion tons of water, and only 900 billion tons of CO2,

which itself has a 10-fold lower absorption coefficient than water.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The CO2 molecules in the air do absorb some of the

sun's radiated heat energy. This physical quality makes CO2 a greenhouse gas. It is

one of a number of greenhouse gases, and one of the most inefficient ones. The

molecular bonds between the oxygen and carbon atoms are strong. The strong bond

makes the molecule less responsive to external stimulation. In water vapor, the bond

between the hydrogen atoms of H2O is weaker, which makes the molecule more

responsive to external influences.

The molecular bond in water is so loose that the molecules can vibrate in 8 different

ways to resonate across a wide spectrum of external energy. This quality makes

water vapor a highly effective greenhouse gas with a 10 to 20 times greater

absorption coefficient than CO2. Just compare the values.

The greenhouse itself is not a danger to human living and life itself. 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 also the Earth's reflected energy, in the atmosphere. The greenhouse

forms a thermal buffer around the Earth that makes the nights warmer and the days

cooler.

The CO2 gas in the atmosphere does play a role in the greenhouse process, although

its role is extremely minuscule and 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

water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, a 10 to 20-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 10 to 30 times greater than that of

CO2, conservatively.

However, while the CO2 is responsive in only two bands within the solar radiation

spectrum, and this at the low-energy end of the spectrum, water vapor is responsive

in 7 bands, with some located in the high-energy end of the spectrum. This combined

addition renders water vapor absorption roughly 50 times greater.

In addition to all that, water vapor is 100-fold more prevalent in the atmosphere

than CO2 is. The water vapor density in the atmosphere is typically 4%, while the

density of CO2 is a mere 0.039% This added density factor raises the comparative

absorption difference to 5000, between water vapor and CO2.

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.

Still, 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 relative to CO2 is dramatically increased.

Further, at the high end of the solar radiation spectrum the energy absorption is

additionally increased by the Rayleigh Scattering effect. If it wasn't for this

scattering effect, the sky would be black all day long, and not only at night. The

scattering effect makes the sky appear luminous.

The absorption of solar radiation occurs in two groups, divided at the 600 nanometer

line. The right group, marked light blue, is dominated by water vapor absorption in

which CO2 plays a role but is overshadowed by water vapor 5000 to 1. In the left

group, marked in light green, the absorption is dominated by oxygen and scattering,

which together overshadow the right group roughly 100 to 1, for a resulting ratio of

the total absorption compared with CO2, of roughly 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 the cloud forming.

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 is being released.

The latent heat released in the clouds keeps the clouds buoyant, and enables the long

distance water transport, without which the Earth would be a barren desert. This

means that extremely large amounts of heat transfers are involved in this process

that operates such a grand dynamic system. Of course, CO2 has no effect on the

process.

When this additional factor is added to the comparison, the CO2 absorption amounts

to roughly one millionth of the atmosphere's heat budget.

Of course, the climate on earth is not only affected by the greenhouse heat stored

in the atmosphere. The climate is affected more powerfully by still other factors.

One of these factors is the reflective action of the clouds.

A large portion of the incoming solar energy is being reflected back into space by the

reflective top surface of the clouds. This effect renders the global cloud coverage a

critical climate factor. The energy that is reflected back into space is lost to us.

This means that the degree of cloudiness is a large factor in the climate dynamics.

The cooling effect of cloudiness is something that everyone has experienced. Cloudy

days are colder days. If one adds the heat reflection factor to the comparison,

comparing the CO2 heat absorption to the total climate dynamics, then the CO2

portion of it will likely be in the order of 1 ten-millionth of the total greenhouse

dynamics.

Global climate and the CO2 portion

ratio:

10,000,000 to 1

The science community has been fighting back against the global warming doctrine in

numerous protest and petition movements.

It takes a vast religious leap of faith for anyone to belief that humanity’s one half of

a percent increase of the 1 ten-millionth portion of the climate dynamics will cook the

earth and melt the polar ice caps. This has never happened, and never will happen, as

it simply can't happen. However, this doesn't mean that the climate isn't changing.

The climate is indeed changing. The change is forced by vastly greater factors than

humanity's puny addition to the global CO2 density.

Click on the images for a larger view

What causes the real climate forcing?

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 woefully incorrect to its very core. As

I said, one of the biggest variable factors that affects our climate on the Earth is

cloudiness. When cloudiness is increasing, the Earth gets colder as more sunlight is

reflected back into space. It's as simple as that.

Yes, cloudiness is a variable factor. The degree of cloudiness is determined to a large

extend by the prevailing cosmic-ray flux density.

While the interaction of cosmic rays with the Earth's atmosphere is complex, it

leads to high levels of ionization. Ionized atoms and molecules are 100 times more

attracted to water molecules that thereby cluster together into aerosol nuclei that

start the chain of forming cloud droplets.

The effectiveness of this process has been experimentally verified by the CLOUD

project experiment at the CERN laboratories. In the project artificial cosmic rays

were injected into a chamber of water vapor, and the results were recorded.

The CLOUD experiment was run in three stages. At first the natural nucleation was

observed, which increased somewhat, but slowly, as it is illustrated here in an LPAC

video.

In the second step of the experiment a static field was added, which exists naturally

in the atmosphere. A dramatic increase in nucleation was observed.

For the third step the artificial cosmic rays were injected, and the resulting

increased nucleation went straight up and off the chart. This proves the principle of

cosmic-ray induced cloud formation. Of course the experiment does not prove that

Galactic Cosmic Ray flux is a variable factor. This prove was produced by NASA's

Ulysses satellite.

NASA's Ulysses satellite has confirmed with direct measurements that the cosmic-

ray flux density is a variable factor, and that is factor varies with the strength of

the solar activity that affects the density of the solar heliosphere.

The Ulysses spacecraft was put into a polar orbit around the Sun. The orbit took it

outside of the ecliptic where its measurements would not be distorted by the

heliospheric current sheet.

Ulysses measured a 20% increase in Galactic Cosmic Ray flux, coincident with a 20%

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 itself is not a constant

factor either.

That the Sun is a constantly varying factor is dramatically evident when it is

observed in the EUV band. There the Sun's energy output varies by a factor of

twenty over the course of every 11-year solar cycle.

That the drop in solar strength, which Ulysses had measured, has a dramatic climate

effect on Earth was verified by on-the-ground temperature measurements at the

Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in the mountains near Irkutsk in Siberia. The

institute measured a 2 degree drop in annual average temperatures, starting in 1998,

coincident with the reduced solar measurements by Ulysses.

The on-the-ground measurements taken in this land far from big industries and big

cities disprove the foundation of the manmade global warming doctrine. They

disprove the core of the doctrine that is built on the assumption that CO2 is the only

variable factor affecting our climate, which is deemed therefore to be responsible

for all the climate changes in the world that were observed and are observed, while

in reality the CO2 effect is so minuscule in comparison with all the real climate

factors, that it is not a practical 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 back in the 1600s to directly measure the solar

wind pressure (which we don't have anymore either since 2009 when Ulysses was

terminated), we nevertheless do have historic records that tell us that the Sun was

significantly weaker during the Little Ice Age. This is illustrated by the near total

lack of sunspots in the 1600s for a long period of time.

The long period with no sunspots was such a cold period that 10% of the population of

Europe died 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. Of course, CO2 had nothing to do with that. Nor had the industrial revolution

any effect on the re-warming, which began near the end of the Little Ice Age. The

return of the sunspots tells us that the warming of the Earth simply reflected the

recovery of the Sun. CO2 played no role in that. The CO2 doesn't affect the Sun.

Inversely, the warming of the Earth causes the CO2 density to increase as more CO2

is released by the warmer oceans.

Throughout history enormous climate fluctuations have occurred on our planet that

dwarf the puny climate recovery from the Little Ice Age that has become the center

of the global warming scare. The climate on Earth has been warming and cooling in

giant steps many a time, and this long before humanity had any significant presence

on the Earth. Most of these big fluctuations were simply reflections of changing

solar dynamics. When the Sun is fluctuating, the climate is fluctuating with it. And

the Sun is capable of great fluctuations.

Once upon a time it was believed that the Sun is internally powered by a complex

atomic fusion process that fuses hydrogen atoms into helium atoms. In many

academic circles this is still being believed. But the overwhelming evidence stands

against such a belief.

The evidence tells us that the Sun is externally powered by interacting electric

plasma particles that are drawn to the Sun by its enormous gravity, which then

interact with the Sun at its surface and light it up.

The plasma attracting process renders the Sun a vast carpet of 'boiling' electric

currents, powered by plasma energy flowing into the Sun in an electric arc-type

fashion, from which the Sun gains its brilliance. One might regard the Sun as an

electric catalytic energy converter, and so, like any catalytic system does, its output

energy varies with the density of the energy that is feeding into it.

Nothing else can explain the enormous historic climate variations that we have

evidence for, especially that of the ice ages, and the huge climate oscillations that

occurred during the last Ice Age.

Attempts have been made to explain the ice age cycles from a mechanistic

standpoint, as the result of orbital variations called the Milankovitch cycles. But this

approach failed as the historic data doesn't match the expected computed results.

Of course this approach was doomed to fail as the orbital cycles only affect the

hemispheric and seasonal distribution of the solar radiation received on earth, while

the total solar radiation received in the Earth always remains the same.

The big ice ages that cover more than 30% of the landmass of the Earth with

gigantic ice sheets cannot be explained on any mechanistic basis, but when seen from

the standpoint of the variable Sun as an electric energy converter, these enormously

expansive ice-sheet phenomena are nothing more than the simple natural results of

cyclical variations of the electric plasma density in the space of the solar system and

in the external plasma streams feeding into it.

No mechanistic principle can explain the enormous Dansgaard Oeschger climate

oscillations that have been found in the ice core samples on Greenland. These are

gigantic and quick oscillations between deep glaciation climates, and sudden warm

climates near the interglacial level, spanning a few hundred years in duration, and

with transition periods between them measured in just decades. These enormous,

fast acting variations are a puzzling enigma from a mechanistic standpoint, but not so

in the electric universe.

In fact, nothing can logically explain the 11-year solar cycles either, in the fusion-sun

theory that defines the Sun as an invariable constant. But in the electric universe

the 11-year solar activity cycles are nothing more than the natural result of an

electric resonance within the space of the heliosphere that matches the cycle time

just nicely. The same principle applies to the ice age cycles on a larger scale.

The much longer Ice Age cycles are totally beyond the fusion-sun theory to explain,

but in the electric universe they are nothing more than larger electric resonance

discharge cycles, with a cycle time that reflects the larger size of the galactic

scale.

Nearly all electric systems, including plasma-electric systems in space, have built-in

resonance features that reflect the principles of electrodynamics, as for example

the pulsing of a quasar. It takes an extreme stretch of the imagination to explain

this fast pulsing phenomenon on a mechanistic basis, but not so, on a high-powered

electrodynamic resonance basis.

Even the very-long climate cycles that are evident in sediment records, with cycle

times of 60-65 million years and 140-150 million years, are nothing more than electric

resonance cycles in intergalactic electric systems.

They are definitely not caused by the mythical concept of our solar system orbiting

the galactic center, which Johannes Kepler would give our moderns science a failing

grade for, because no physical principle exists for such orbiting to be possible, as

Kepler has laid out in his laws for orbital motions.

All observed stellar movements are nothing more than the typical rotating

movements of electric Birkeland currents of plasma electricity flowing within the

galactic spiral arms. The observed motions of speed versus distance from the

galactic center reflect the opposite of Kepler's laws, but are consistent with motions

observed in plasma flows. This recognition goes back to the mid-1900s, pioneered by

the celebrated plasma physicist and Nobel Laureate of 1970, Hannes Alfven, who

considered mechanistic astrophysics to be mythical scientific concepts extrapolated

from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than being

discoveries extrapolated from known observable phenomena.

According to research done by plasma physics scientists at the Los Alamos National

Laboratory, 99.999% of the mass of the universe exists as electric plasma, most of

it existing in free-flowing form in intergalactic space, primarily in long distance

networks of plasma currents that interconnect the galaxies like beads on a string.

The multi-million-year cycles that are observed in Earth's history, are nothing more

than electric resonance cycles in the Milky Way's long intergalactic connections

spanning distances of several millions of light years.

The intergalactic plasma flows operate as extremely large systems that carry

immense flows of electric mass with them, which, when it becomes converted to

electromagnetic thermal energy by our Sun, enables life on our planet to exist. When

the immense intergalactic energy streams that power our galaxy like any other

galaxy, are modulated with minor resonance fluctuations, the result has major long-

terms effects on every sun in the galaxy, including our sun, which has secondary

effects on the Earth's climate.

The combination of the two, long multi-million-year cycles, in the 'recent' period of

the last 50 million years, have caused Antarctica to become glaciated, then to thaw

out, and to become re-glaciated once more.

It evidently takes a long period of enormous cooling for Antarctica to be covered

with miles-deep layers of ice, and after that, long periods of enormous warming to

cause these ice sheets to be melted. The Earth's puny little CO2 greenhouse gas

evidently played no role whatsoever in the gigantic events that have occurred, while

intergalactic electric resonance phenomena do have the power to cause such large

climate fluctuations. And they still do play this role. They are the deeply underlying

operating forces that determine our climate trends in the very long time frames.

The combined low of the long multi-million-year cycles has brought the Earth once

more into a deep ice age zone.

In the current deep ice age zone, miles-deep ice sheets form periodically across

large areas of the northern hemisphere, where the great landmasses are located.

They form in roughly 100,000 years cycles of glaciation that is interrupted by brief

interglacial intervals, in the order of 12,000 years, like the current one that is in the

process of ending.

We are in a transition zone. The current global cooling that began in 1998 will likely

render the Earth 5 times colder than the Little Ice Age had been, over the next 50

years or so. A deep cooling trend appears to have begun that no one can accurately

predict the outcome of, except to say that the next glaciation cycle is on the

horizon.

Click on the images for a larger view

The paradox of Arctic Warming

But why are the arctic regions warming when global cooling is in progress? The

warming has become so strong in the North that the Arctic Ocean may soon become

navigable for commercial shipping between Atlantic Europe and Asia, and a tunnel will

likely be built to connect the Eurasian and American continents.

The warming that is experienced is short term only. Three factors are involved at

the present that cause a significant Arctic warming to occur. CO2 does not play a

role in either of the three factors.

The biggest factor appears to be the reduced greenhouse effect that we are now

experiencing. The reduced greenhouse effect is the result of increased cloudiness,

which in turns is caused by increased cosmic-ray flux. The increased cloud forming

reduces the water vapor density in the atmosphere and thereby reduces the

greenhouse effect.

The reduced greenhouse effect has a dramatic warming effect in the arctic during

the summer. Because of the tilted spin axis of the Earth, the arctic gets sunshine

almost all day long in the summer.

This means that the reduced greenhouse, caused by increased Galactic Cosmic Ray

flux, enables a dramatic increase in solar energy penetrating to the ground in the

arctic during the summer. Arctic warming is one of the natural side effects of our

weaker Sun in the ongoing transition process towards the next Ice Age.

The weaker greenhouse moderation also causes deeper cold periods in the arctic

winter, especially in the high elevation where the jet streams flow.

In the winter the jet streams are pushed southward by the 'heavy' cold air that is

propelled towards the equator by the centrifugal force that results from the

rotation of the Earth. The atmospheric jet streams form when the cold air masses

flowing out of the north run into the warm air masses of the South. The warm air

gets pushed upwards by the cold and overlays it. Some of the warm air mingles with

the circulation in the polar cell and is carried northward.

The resulting upwards motion, by the Coriolis effect, causes jet streams to flow

laterally along the dividing line of the warm and cold air masses.

The jet streams typically reach speeds of 100 Km per hour. They provide an

important climate distribution service, both laterally and longitudinally.

In the summer, however, when the temperature difference is small, the polar jet

streams form in the high latitude region, typically above the 60 degree line and

remain extremely weak. In normal winters, though, when large cold air masses form in

the high altitudes and get pushed south, the jet streams get pushed south with them

to near the 30 degree latitude.

But now that the Earth is getting colder, the jet streams get pushed much farther

to the south to near the 20 degree latitude where they pick up large volumes of

thermal energy from the deep southern climates that gets circulated into the North.

This transfer mechanism warms the polar regions in the winter. Of course, CO2 has

nothing to do with that either, though it is blamed for the arctic warming.

The warming is deceptive, because every winter when the cold period begins in the

polar areas, with the cooling now becoming more extensive, the jet streams are

pushed deeper and deeper into the lower latitudes. This means that the now much

larger Polar Cell can now pick up warmth from as far south as Hawaii.

The third mechanism that brings warm air into the north is the mobile polar

anticyclone circulation system. This system is set into motion when colder air masses

near to the ground over the continents are forced southward by the centrifugal

force of the rotation of the Earth, which, when the air warms up in the South and

becomes thereby lighter, flows back into the north, bringing its warmth with it.

For the North American anticyclone the warmed return air circulates back along the

coasts of Greenland, causing some melting there along the edges of the great ice

sheets. Of course, the colder the North American continent becomes, especially at

the latitude where the centrifugal effect is the strongest, the more vigorously does

the anticyclone system operate, which transports warm air into the North.

The stronger flowing anticyclone circulation contributes to the now rapid weakening

of the arctic sea ice.

This means that the Greenland ice sheet is indeed melting around the edges as the

result of an astrophysical process that causes global cooling, which also, at the same

time, causes the high-altitude ice on Greenland to become thicker at the same time.

The CO2 concentration, no matter what it is or may be in the future, has evidently no

affect on this process that changes the global thermal distribution. The process is

driven by astrophysical variations that cause the weakening of the Sun that in turn

weakens the solar heliosphere, which in turn increases the Galactic Cosmic Ray flux

that increases cloudiness and with it weakens the greenhouse effect of the

atmosphere. CO2 has no effect on this process and its outcome. It definitely will not

cause the big continental ice sheets to melt.

Antarctica will remain frozen for another 15 to 30 million years, until the long 60-

million-year cycle that is presently nearing its low point is going to peak again,

whereby we get back to the astrophysical conditions that prevailed before

Antarctica froze over.

For the coming few million years we will also remain stuck in the Pleistocene Ice Age

environment that began roughly two million years ago with deep glaciation cycles

across the northern hemisphere where the big landmasses are located and where

much of the world's food is being grown. This is what we need to be concerned with,

instead of the melting of Greenland and Antarctica. But this critically real factor is

hidden under the CO2 terror-doctrine fairy tales.

Click on the images for a larger view

Priory assumptions choking science

Doctrines devoid of truth

Blocking civilization

Neither do all the other greenhouse gases that human living has added to, such as

nitrous oxide, have any effect on the climate processes that are totally controlled by

astrophysical conditions. The N2O molecule, for example, is dragged into the arena

of the global warming scare stories, because its heat absorption efficiency is many

times larger than that of CO2, because of its weak atomic bonding, but it is rarely

ever mentioned that nitrous oxide is a thousand times less dense in the atmosphere

than CO2, which affects nothing either. However, its dramatically higher absorption

coefficient, for which it is called a powerful greenhouse gas, makes it an easy subject

to pin global warming scare stories on.

The problem with the so-called modern climate science is, that it is 'hired' to prove a

priory assumption, the assumption that human living is destroying the climate balance.

While this is far from being the case, the prevailing climate science is hired to hide

the actual physical facts and support instead the tune of a fairy tale that is

politically desired for numerous objectives, such as for profit, and to maintain

imperial dominance, and also to enable depopulation and so on.

Today's dominance of doctrines overshadowing science poses the same type of

tragedy that science has suffered throughout the ages, as far back as Ptolemy, the

astronomer who became famous for his use of epicycles to conform with doctrines

that were false and could only be supported with magical concepts, like the doctrines

of orbiting stars in circular paths, as today the Big Bang Universe, and manmade

climate change. The doctrine that had choked astronomy for almost two millennia

demanded that orbits must follow the path of perfect circles. We sing similar tunes

today on many fronts of science.

One of these tunes is the Nuclear Fusion Power doctrine. A nuclear fusion-powered

sun is impossible since no real physical principles exist to support the theory. Nuclear

fusion is an energy consuming process, not an energy creating process. Large amounts

of energy are required to bind an electron to a proton to create an atom, or to bind

protons to each other by overpowering the electric repulsive force, one of the strong

forces of the universe. All this is deemed to be caused the action of the weakest of

the universal forces, the force of gravity.

In a nuclear-fusion bomb explosion no energy is created. The bomb's energy is latent

energy that was previously invested into two types of over-built hydrogen atoms. The

overbuilt isotopes fission off a part of their structure, that becomes unbound and

releases the latent energy that had been previously invested in the process of

binding a proton to an overbuilt nucleus. No energy is created in this process. Nuclear

fusion power is a contradiction, a nice dream, but it remains an epicycle that doesn't

stand up in the real world.

Logical deductions proceeding from a priory platform invariably lead humanity into a

trap that blocks the processes of real discoveries, which are the processes of real

science that take us beyond priory assumptions. Today, the climate sciences are

trapped by the same defective logic that Astronomy had been trapped in for nearly

two millennia, from Ptolemy all the way to Kepler, who broke out of this trap, and who

thereby raised the platform of science from its grounding in doctrine to its

discovery of the truth.

By remaining trapped into epicycles, humanity denies itself the discovery of the anti-

entropic energy system that powers the Sun electrically, and thereby denies itself

its potential utilization of the near-infinite cosmic electric power system to power its

rather modest needs. It also denies itself its potential awakening to the already

unfolding Ice Age transition dynamics, that would inspire the relocation of the

endangered agriculture while there is still time left to do so. And it also denies itself

the chance to break out of the manmade global warming doctrine by which it has

become mentally incarcerated,

The doctrine that CO2 is a climate villain, was imposed in 1974 at the U.N. world

population conference in Bucharest. The conference was focused on overpopulation,

and the cure, depopulation. On this wider scene the CO2 doctrine emerged as one of

the latest political doctrines that play a destructive role in the long war of empire

against humanity in which empire struggles to secure its dominance and its very

existence that is always threatened by human development.

Depopulation is a policy of the masters of empire. It has been that for a long time.

The CO2 doctrine is deployed on this front as one of the weapons that were wielded

by the masters of empire for their long-term objective. Their often repeated goal

has become to reduce the number of people living on our planet from the present

world population of 7 billion people, down towards a minuscule, impotent, and

impoverished society of less than one billion.

Would you like to join the ranks of the depopulated? You may not have a choice from

a certain point on. The CO2 doctrine that society protects is used for genocidal

projects to eliminate six billion people by burning their food. Your name may already

be on the list of those to be eliminated.

Once CO2 is defined as a villain, and is accepted so by society, then whatever

produces CO2, such as the industries that support human living, and transportation,

etc., even humanity itself, can thereby be demanded to be torn down.

For this purpose the biofuels have been invented under the clean-air flag, as a

renewable fuel. In real terms they double the CO2 emissions while they consume vast

amounts of food for their production, in a system that produces almost no energy

advantage in the end when all the input energy is counted. The only effect that

biofuels are producing efficiently, is large-scale genocide by starvation.

There was a time in some cultures that death by starvation was enforced as a form

of capital punishment. Now 1 billion people are treated to this fate, though only a few

hundred million die of it every year.

At the current U.S. production level of 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol per year, which

is essentially corn liquor, the amount of feedstock in corn that is required every year

for the production of it would all by itself provide 1,200 calories of nourishment for

1 billion people for an entire year. Many of the victims are simply left to die.

If the worldwide production of ethanol is considered, the amount of food being burnt

is roughly double. In a world in which a billion people are living in chronic starvation,

shutting down the biofuels madness would go a long way towards building a human

world without hunger. But this goal is being blocked. The food burning is protected,

and the mythical manmade global warming doctrine is one of the reasons cited for it.

And in the shadow of it all, real energy production is also being prevented.

If one adds up all the food resources that are being burned worldwide, a manmade

tragedy comes to light of unimaginable proportions that probably claims

conservatively 100 to 200 million victims every year, or 3 to 6 people every second,

of every hour, of every day and night. The imposed silent death toll on this scale is

the equivalent of starving 3 to 6 times the entire population of Canada out of

existence, every year, in far off places spread around the world.

The biofuels were originally invented under the CO2 doctrine, to reduce carbon

emission and thereby to reduce global warming, while in reality the carbon emissions

are doubled by the biofuels energy cycle. Nor can the biofuels be called an energy

resource, as they are claimed to be, because they require nearly as much energy

input for the production process than they give back as a fuel. As I said, they are

only efficient for producing genocide, and they do this on a scale that pales the Nazi

holocaust into insignificance.

Some people claim that biofuels have been invented as an alternate energy resource

under the peak-oil scare on the basis of the doctrine that the world is running out of

energy resources. But this too is just a doctrine. The doctrine is the intended to

prevent real energy development.

The world should be way past the stage of using oil as an energy resource, and much

less so food. The world should be powered by nuclear energy and hydrogen fuels.

Burning oil is as archaic as burning wood. Both resources are inadequate, and so they

do become. But before they do so, new resources should have taken their place. We

can still do this. The USA has all by itself 900,000 gigawatt-years of thorium fuel

sitting unused on the ground. And even this too, the cleanest, safest, and most

efficient nuclear energy option, should have been already superseded by us tapping

into the cosmic electric energy grid.

Peak oil means that real meaningful energy development has been prevented and is

not being allowed. An energy-starved world is good for profit, and a society living in

poverty is more easily controlled. That's how peak oil ties into the reality scene. CO2

and biofuels have nothing to do with that.

It is more likely the case that the peak-oil scare was invented to justify the biofuels

genocide to fulfill the depopulation doctrine, and that the CO2 doctrine was invented

for the snake-oil salesmen to sell the sacrifices. With the ongoing Ice Age transition

dynamics now causing evermore drought and other climate disasters, you will soon

find yourself being sacrificed too, when food becomes increasingly less-available for

eating, even to you, or is driven up in price so that it becomes way beyond your means

to pay for it. Then my friend, you too will be depopulated, even while you hail the

name of CO2 with your last breath and commit yourself to reducing the human CO2

emissions.

Click on the images for a larger view

CO2 increase needed: 10-fold

As I had demonstrated earlier, in the real physical climate dynamics, CO2 is not a

climate factor and never has been that, throughout the entire history of life on our

planet. This does no mean that CO2 is not critical for human existence.

During most of the last half-billion years of life on earth the atmospheric CO2

concentration had been enormously greater than it is today, even more than 50 times

greater as some researchers suggest it may have been in very early times.

Ironically, in those early times when the CO2 concentration was extremely high,

around 450 million years ago, the Earth experienced one of its most devastating ice

age periods ever, that caused the second-largest mass extinctions of life in the

oceans. The point is that this gigantic CO2 concentration that existed in prehistoric

times had no effect on the climate whatsoever. The hugely greater CO2

concentration in the air then, should have cooked the Earth according to the modern

CO2 doctrine. Instead the most devastating Ice Age had occurred. The resulting

immense glaciation had destroyed almost all life, even in the oceans, the only place

were life existed then. The point is that CO2 had no effect then whatsoever at this

time. And how could it have had, since CO2 doesn't affect the climate to any

practically-significant extend?

The CO2 portion of the global greenhouse effect, for which we murder more than

100 million people a year to reduce it, 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, has been for

nothing. And even as this is known, or is knowable as a fundamental fact, the

murdering continues, and the destruction of the economies continues that are being

destroyed by the choking effect that is caused by limiting man-made carbon

emissions that have no effect on the climate at all. This choking effect, apart from

being murderous, has become the most effective economic wrecking ball of all times,

against the economies of human living. This does not mean that CO2 is physically

inconsequential for humanity. Far from it.

CO2 is a life engine. Without it almost no life would exist. This is its prime purpose,

rather than being a greenhouse gas. This purpose makes CO2 one of the most critical

gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Here the atmospheric concentration of CO2

becomes significant, because the Earth's ecological environment is presently severely

CO2 deficient. Yes, the global ecology is suffering from a critical CO2 starvation.

There is not enough of it in the atmosphere to adequately nourish the plants.

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 greater than it is today, but

has been gradually declining towards today's starvation level of 300-400 parts per

million. It is no secret in our age that every plant needs CO2 to live. It breathes

CO2; it breaks it down with its chlorophyll molecules, 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, the plant-growth stops, and below 150 ppm the plans die. Glacial records show

that during the last Ice Age the CO2 density had dropped down to and below the 200

ppm level. The next Ice Age that is now before us promises to be more severe as the

Pleistocene cooling has not yet bottomed out. This means that the ecological system

of the Earth desperately needs our help to cause at the very least a ten-fold uplift in

CO2 density. Without humanity coming to the rescue, the creeping CO2 starvation

may indeed collapse the entire ecological system during the Ice Age ahead, and of

course will then collapse humanity with it.

The ten-fold CO2 increase is very much needed then, towards the 4000 ppm level.

This is the concentration that had enabled such a richly productive ecological system

to develop that giant creatures like 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 that we dramatically increase the global CO2 density, possibly up

to ten-fold, to the 4000 ppm level, and that we will also create large-scale irrigation

infrastructures to offset the increasing drought conditions that are now beginning to

take their toll as a part of the ongoing Ice Age transition dynamics

Ultimately we will also need to relocate most of the northern agriculture into the

tropics where the ice age cooling cannot impair it. Since there is not enough land in

the tropics, we need to make our own, placing agriculture afloat onto the equatorial

seas, linked to intercontinental floating bridges, built with floating cities along them

for the new breed of farmers. This kind of building is easily possible with automated

industrial production methods. Even the materials and energy resources are readily

on hand.

However, the required infrastructures and processes won't be created for as long as

the global warming dogma keeps a smothering mental-blanket of pure fairy-tale

fiction cast over the human landscape. This is where the real starvation lies that is

choking humanity to death. Of course, this choking blanket of fiction in politics, in

the sciences, and in ideology in the form of the depopulation policy, can be lifted with

the appropriate effort 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. When the dissolved CO2 is brought nearer to the

surface, it gasifies, and thereby makes the upwelling column lighter, which makes the

entire CO2 out-gassing system self-powering. Such a system is easily implemented

technologically, but to do it is another big subject by itself.

The Ice Age challenge introduces a New Paradigm that is critical to life itself on

many fronts. In the face of it monetarist economics will simply vanish as the new

paradigm becomes recognized. Also, if the challenge that it presents to us is fully

accepted, and the means to meet the challenge are fully developed, the New

Paradigm will leave all of today's disabling fictions, including the CO2 doctrine,

behind in the dust of history. And so, 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's technological

intervention for its very continued existence.

The ecological system of the Earth lacks the power to maintain itself against the

coming Ice Age forces, which we are just beginning to understand and have so far

made no effort at all in adjusting our living to them. Consequently the ecological

system of the Earth really does depend on humanity for its very survival. The ecology

of the Earth depends on us little human beings, and this evermore so, because during

the Ice Age cycles ahead, which promise to become increasingly more-severe over

the next 3 million years, the ecological system will definitely require a massive CO2

uplift that only humanity with its boundless creativity can provide sufficiently

rapidly.

The CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to only 2% of the global CO2, most of which is

contained in the oceans, through which the atmospheric CO2 is constantly recycled

and redistributed globally by the great ocean conveyor belt. CO2 dissolves more

readily in the cold waters of the polar seas. Much of it is conveyed from there to the

warm pacific and the Indian Ocean where it cannot remain dissolved. This means that

in the cold periods of the Ice Age more of the CO2 is retained than is released,

resulting in a lower balance. The conveyor belt operates slowly. It takes typically 800

years to flow from Antarctica to the area in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean where

the transported CO2 is released.

Ice core samples tell us that the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows in lock step

with the temperature variations during the ice ages, lagging by roughly 800 years.

The two trends are almost perfectly synchronized, with the CO2 following the

temperature.

The 800-year lag time may suggest that the current upswing in CO2 levels could

reflect the elevated biology of the Medieval Warming period.

Unfortunately the ice core data represents only the conditions that existed in

Antarctica, where the ice accumulated. The CO2 levels might have been radically

higher in Antarctica during the deep cold periods. CO2 freezes into dry ice below

minus 78 degrees Celsius. On Mars, for example, a third of the planet's atmosphere

sits frozen on the ground in the form of CO2 ice. On Earth, during deep ice age

conditions in Antarctica, frozen CO2, falling onto the ground, might well have

enriched the ice content of it beyond what actually existed in the air.

This means that for the rest of the world the CO2 levels may have been much lower

than what had been preserved in the ice in Antarctica.

What comes to light here suggests that wide-spread ecological starvation and dying

had likely occurred during the ice ages for the lack of CO2. This might have been the

reason why only a few million people survived through the last Ice Age, living of fish,

since the oceans would not have been affected by the CO2 starvation in the

atmosphere. During the Ice Age, when the ocean levels were 200 to 400 feet lower,

with the water being laid up on land as ice, many of today's shallow seas at the edge

of the continents would have been dry land. It is known that civilizations had existed

on those low lands around India. And they probably were living of fish.

We won't be able to go this route with a 7 billion world population living of fish. We

depend on agriculture, and on it operating efficiently.

With the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere being presently near the biological

starvation level, the potential exists that the CO2 concentration may become

depleted way below the starvation level in the coming Ice Age ahead.

While we still have time to prevent this potential catastrophe for us, by artificially

enriching the global atmosphere with CO2, it will take a vast increase in scientific

honesty for such an uplift to even be considered, even while knowing that the

continuity of our agriculture depends on this being done, and with it our own

continuity as a living species .

This means that the Earth needs our services as much as we need the Earth. We, the

human beings, are not the pest on the Earth that the CO2 doctrine makes us out to

be. We are its savior. We support it. We have enabled it to become productive. The

potential exists that we have not seen anything yet along the line of protecting and

enhancing the biosphere, which becomes critical during ice age environments. It may

well be that this is our mission on Earth for which we came into being. Indeed, if we

open our eyes to the great power that our humanity embodies, we will invariably

discover that the human horizon is immensely bright if we follow our star, and this

includes all aspects of life that we are a part of. On this platform our future is

boundless. It beckons us to go for it. Why then wouldn't we take the footsteps

needed to realize our grand potential for building a civilization of richly created

abundance for life where we are truly at home as human beings?

Appendix

The video version:

Man-made Global Warming IMPOSSIBLE? (90 min)

View the video on-line

Download the video

For theater quality high resolution downloads, click here

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:

See more associated explorations

Home Page