Climate Change 2022: Don't Panic, 70 Degree Antarctic Temperature Swing No Big Deal

With the United States' climate initiatives hanging by a thread, the agencies that fall under the authority of the Cabinet and Environmental Protection Agency seem intent on shoring up the United Nations Climate Change goals, even if those goals are based on natural events that have exsisted for hundreds of years.  Using a tiny bit of accurate information that is stated as fact rather than explained in context, these scientific efforts mislead not only the general public but the leadership who relies on honest interpretation of the science.

Photo from The HIll Publication Website

The latest is news coming from the 70 or so internationally supported Antarctic weather stations which dot the continent.  In what appears to be a joint statement on which the United States Antarctic Program (www.usap.gov) likely had input, these groups used a twice-annual event to send panic through the climate change community at the same time as the UN was holding meetings on the topic of climate change. Claiming a 70 degree warmer temperature in Antarctica, the news was, of course, picked up by The Guardian, the Washington Post (see their article here ), and countless other radio, television and print editions.  Obviously, taking the information at face value, reporters sacrifice the credibility of their publication when the information is simple to check and found to be misleading.

Here's what these scientists neglected to explain about "extreme" weather changes that are now occuring at each of the poles. 

Temperature Extremes are Short Lived

Every year, twice a year, the Earth moves to a position so that half of the planet directly faces the sun at one time.  We call this the first day of Spring and the first day of Fall (aka. Equinox).  This means that every point on the Earth, from the poles to the Equator gets about 12 hours of sunshine and the sun's rays are hitting the Earth directly, not at an angle as they typically do.  For the poles, this means that the sun's rays are the strongest and warmest of the year. Just like the USA expects a week of warmer temperatures for Spring Break or Indian Summer in the Fall, the poles can see a high temperature spike that is predictable, normal and very, very temporary.     What no one wants to admit though, is that those high extremes are at least 20 degrees BELOW freezing and is a needed part of the cycle to keep the ice shelf viable and healthy. 

Ice Shelf Collapses

A followup story, has one ice shelves collapsing in satellite images (see photo above).  Again, this is good news, not a sign of impending doom.  All ice, even in a pond or lake during the winter, collects air pockets underneath.  This destabilizes the ice and causes it to crack.  When it cracks, especially during warm weather, the ice breaks  and briefly sinks below the surface just long enough air to escape and a new coating of water to fill in imperfections in the ice.  Within a few hours, if left alone, the ice refreezes and the ice shelf becomes stronger and thicker. This process happens at both poles as well as in any large glacier, lake or sea which experiences colder temperatures for a long periods of time.

USAP Website Used for Documentation

Information about the annual temperature difference (approximately 72 degrees annually) is posted on the USAP website.   clearly states the difference is between the summer and winter temperatures and that it occurs annually.

Trust Issues with Climate Experts

Another scenario pushed by a BBC reporter this week was the idea that these normal temperature flutuation were caused by soot from wildfires reaching the poles and causing the ice to melt (black absorbs heat, right?).  What the author nor apparently the unnamed scientists who promote such a concept realize is that 1) the air temperature is still below zero and as soon as the sun went down any melted ice would refreeze and 2) once the carbon soot caused melting it would sink into the ice and not absorb heat because of the ice's reflective qualities. These are the dangers or scientists who make predictions based on book knowledge and computer printouts rather than life experience.

This type of marketing for support rather than honest information is the greatest factor in solving the climate change issue.  Using annual events and geological cycles to describe apocalyptic futures serves no purpose but to waste money and divert attention from the human element in climate change. Fantasy science is more likely to be a cause of climate change than carbon-based gases and fossil fuels ever were. 

For more information about the climate change mythology that is promoted by the media, consider purchasing Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health. 

Climate Change 2022: How Daylight Savings Time Invalidates Global Warming Theory

**. As of April 1, the U.N. has given countries a three year pass to address greenhouse gas emissions. While still holding tight to the plan of a zero fossil fuel, plant-based diet world, this move may be the first step in walking back the agency's strong commitment to the questionable science of global warming.

Leave it to the United States Senate to unanimously agree to yet another environmental adaptation that is completely contrary to the natural order of things--all while spending millions of dollars on climate change initiatives that are equally at cross purposes with the environment.  With the shock of their decision comes the opportunity to explain how the Uniform Time Act of 1966 plays a part in the inaccurate data collection that we now culturally refer to as Global Warming.  

As the Supreme Court mulls over whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the constitutional authority to regulate the environment, it finally seems the time to point out how the short sighted actions of 535 members of Congress sent the country on a path of climate concern and anxiety.  Believing in its own immunity from unintended consequences, Congress must now come to terms with the false data and conclusions its decisions created over the last sixty years.

Why Daylight Savings Time?

The concept of time zones and Daylight Savings Time came about in the late 1800s and early 1900s during a prolonged period of scientific exploration that gave the World everything from modern appliances and the telephone to electric power and the automobile. When man realized he could travel faster than the earth did, some system had to be devised in order for global society to function.  The equator was divided into 24 sections and imaginary lines were drawn to the poles, each section represented a different hour in a day.  Daylight Savings time came about when the 4 am natural summer sunrises fell out of favor with modern society in northern climates. 

While it was only intended to be used during summer hours, different parts of the World began tweaking the concept.  Not only are there many different start and stop dates chosen by each individual country but the northern and southern hemispheres are opposite in how they adhere to DST.  In short, this lack of global consistency invalidates global warming data by breaking the one cardinal rule of experimentation--Control all variables.

Is Global Warming Theory Even Accurae?

To begin with, it needs to be repeated that all this concern is about a mere 3 degree F elevation in temperatures. Basing all of its recommendations on this small increase, the United Nations recommends converting to solar and wind power and eliminating all use of fossil fuels in the next thirty years.  Celebrity advocates such as Bill Gates, likewise, push to make similar changes which would cost trillions of dollars in infrastructure without any verifiable proof that such an increase is actually occurring.  With the prediction that this increase in overall temperature would  melt polar ice caps and glaciers, its easiest to show the true effect of such an increase by applying that scenario to the Antarctic.

The United States Antarctic Program (www.usap.gov) estimates the HIGH summer temperature on the Antarctic mainland to be 14 degrees F.  Even if the world's temperature increased by 3 degrees, the polar ice cap would still be well below freezing at 17 degrees F. On the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point is 32 degrees not zero as it is on the Celsius scale. 

What's Wrong with Global Warming Data?

The first rule of good scientific experimentation is consistency and controlling the variables of time, place, procedures and so on.  The second rule is have a specific idea of what you are trying to prove. As far as public information goes, no clear plan for data collection or a clear understanding of what global warming means seems to exist. The current definition of an increase of no more than 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius in not specific enough to fairly represent all location on Earth. 

Consider these observations before jumping to conclusions and end-of-the-World predictions. 

* Not all the World is hot or cold at the same time. A 100 degree day in the Mojave Desert (Western Hemisphere, US) is balanced by a 25 degree night in the Sahara Desert (Eastern Hemisphere, Africa)

*  A 60 degree difference between summer and winter daily highs occurs in many parts of the World particularly in the temperate locations of the World).  Example New York City reaches 100 degrees during the day in August but averages 40 degrees in February.  Antarctica also has such a temperature swing as documented on the USAP.org website.

* Two-thirds of the planet is covered by water but air temperatures on the ocean are rarely included in global warming data.  If they are included they use water temperature instead of air temperature which adds even more inconsistency to the study. 

*Population centers are used more often than any other location because of the ease of getting information. However, willingly avoiding rural and mountainous areas skews the results toward higher temperatures could be considered cherry-picking of information to make the data fit the conclusion. Statistical modeling can easily be manipulated to suit the purpose of the study. 

** To learn more about how government sanctioned studies have compromised the study of climate change, consider purchasing the authors book on the subject available at Barnes and Noble Book stores and other retailers. 

Climate Change 2022: EPA's New Mosquito Program Another Reason Why Supreme Court Needs To Intervene

****The Los Angeles Times recently pickup up news about the California shipment of mosquitoes that are waiting to be released.  They also have questions about the viability of this course of action. 

A world without mosquitoes!!  Sounds great from a human perspective but do people hate mosquitoes enough to risk creating a disconnect in the natural food chain that would see small species die out in as little as a few months?  The EPA thinks that potential benefits out weigh the risks but for those who respect Mother Nature's wrath, the concern is very real. 

In a press release recently sent to major news outlets (See version on USAToday here), the EPA is again flexing its regulatory muscles to bypass long standing species safeguards to enhance the current administration's virus eradication policies.  Using virus transmission by mosquitoes as justification (COVID-19 is NOT carried by mosquitoes, just to be clear), 2 billion genetically altered male mosquitoes are set to be released  into parts of Florida and California.  Like the administration's COVID-19 response, the agency is moving ahead against the advice of  those with experience in the field and using short-term, questionable findings as proof the program is safe.  Is it any wonder that the Supreme Court is considering the constitutional authority of this stand-alone agency that does a President's bidding.

Another Example of Faulty Science

 In the same way that COVID-19 vaccine data was skewed by its testing in lock down, this program has limited data taken during summertime in the Florida Keys.  As with any environmental issue, the network of factors that impact the number of these pesky flyers is impossible to gauge using computer modeling and simple numbers.  While it might be true the these males may compromise the reproductive potential in the lab, there is no proof that a reduction in mosquito populations was related only to the introduction of this Jurassic style experiment. 

To be clearer, mosquitoes only reproduce under specific conditions. It first has to be very wet but not stormy, then it has to be very hot and very dry for their life cycle to come full circle.  Any alteration in that weather pattern would disrupt the number of bugs during a season.  The regular passage of storms and hurricanes through the Keys during last summer would have churned up the waters and kept eggs and larva from reaching maturity.  This study's conclusion may have had nothing to do with the genetically altered males.  Other factors that could come into play are undocumented oil slicks, residents use of pesticides or environmentally friendly traps.  Add the potential for a larger number of small amphibians such as frogs and lizards as well as migratory birds (these species LOVE to catch mosquitoes in mid flight) and you have a fatally flawed study that cost tax payers big dollars and has the potential to starve out several small species that rely on mosquitoes for food. 

Bird Die Off Already a Reality

In the same way that the Jurassic Park franchise continues to bring horror and seemingly impossible events to the big screen (currently seven films), messing with the bottom of the food chain may have scarier results than screenwriters could ever imagine.  A single male blown off course during a hurricane or hitching a ride in the family SUV back from the Keys could potentially wipe out the mosquito population in any number of places up and down the East Coast impacting any number of species from fish to frogs to finches. 

The most shocking part of this sci-fi scenario is that the EPA likely did not notify any wildlife agency to be on the lookout for a sudden drop in mosquitoes or those species that rely on them so heavily.  The bottom line is that bugs, in abundance during the spring and summer months are essential foods for young, fledgling birds (young adults) who are making the transition between being cared for by their parents and being on their own. Unlike human society, the term "leave the nest" is more than just a location change but requires birds to be able to find and eat enough bugs over the summer to keep them alive until fall harvest when grass and weed seeds become available.  Seeds are great winter foods but do not always provide enough protein for young birds to survive. In the end, this project could cause a widespread die-off of this year's crop of young birds with no way to replace its needed protein.  Short-sighted, conclusion driven studies have ruined the environment and may cause more harm than good. 

Good Reasons to Back off

By now, science is beginning to emerge which questions many of the policies put forth by the EPA over the last fifty years. From a sulfur deficient atmosphere which also impacts wildlife's ability to produce protein for young animals and the widespread use of chemicals to kill off insects and plants in the environment, it is a wonder that mankind can feed itself.  This may be one mistake that it will take a decade or more to undo with the cost of millions to start it and more millions to undo its negative effects.  

FACT:  A mosquitoes life cycle is estimated at just 10 days long.  Sterilization of mosquitoes could mean a lack of food for millions of songbirds who are just emerging from their nests in May and June.  Starvation is a horrible way to die, especially when an agency that is tasked with the environment's protection is the guilty party.  

Can we afford to have the EPA protecting the environment any longer?

 

Climate Change: 10 Things to Know about the EPA - And Why the Supreme Court May Limit its Authority

&

West Virginia AG Morrisey - WTOV photo

Withy great pride, it is my pleasure to see the State of West Virginia push back against a one-size-fits-all national government and economy that has not been at all kind to the state and its people.  Having pressed for a higher penalty for opioid drug manufacturers, it now sets its sights for the Environmental Protection Agency and its regulations which have wrongly restricted some of the state's most valuable resources.  For me, it is also a chance to validate six month's research into what we call climate change and its effects on personal and public health.   Based on political payback more than science, the EPA has not been one of the US's finest initiatives. 

How I Came to Question the EPA

A year ago I was very literally in the middle of writing a book that I had no idea where it would take me.  It had started when memories of my high school chemistry and beginning Nutrition classes classed with a drug commercial for psoriatic arthritis. Logically, there was no reason that I could see that a skin condition and knee pain would be connected. EXCEPT - they were when you realize that a sulfur deficiency effects both the skin and the production of cartilage. Not surprising was that Sulfur was an important ingredient in the new and expensive drug. 

The problem was that as far as the dietary and medical communities were concerned, sulfur was a non-essential nutrient that was readily available in food--End of story.  EXCEPT that wasn't the end of the story.  To jump ahead to the important part, my research took an unexpected turn when the EPA's creation and actions coincided with the rise in sulfur deficient diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and respiratory illness.  To learn all that was compromised by the EPAs actions please refer to the resulting book which is available through Barnes and Noble and some digital platforms. 

Air Pollution's the Answer!: How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health

1.  The EPA was created at the request of President Richard M. Nixon (Rep) following a series of environmental disasters that harmed his home state of California and fouled beaches near his private home. The purpose was not to protect the environment but to hold companies accountable for the cost of clean up from such disasters. 
2. The total authority of the EPA is under the President's discretion. Regardless of their education level or scientific justification, all President's since Nixon have use the EPA to regulate the actions of industries and steer their operations into directions aligned with personal or political agendas. 
3. The EPA initially restricted six gases and fine particles of solid matter.  With the exception of Lead Oxide linked to lead additives in gasoline, there has been no definitive study done to prove the other five gases harm the environment in any way. 
4. The EPA supports research that supports its policies through grant funding. Several other federal agencies have also been known to do studies which support the direction of the agency.  Pre-1970 science tends to run against its conclusions.
   
5. Of the five elements restricted by the EPA (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Sulfur), all are found in every life form in significant amounts. If life does not exist without these elements, how can they be dangerous to the planet or life.
   
6. The EPA restricts the production of Ozone, a form of Oxygen, and its release into the atmosphere. it does however, allow oxygen to be extracted from the atmosphere and sold as a commodity for medical and other purposes.  The "hole" in the Ozone layer coincides with the technology that allowed gases to be bottled beginning in the mid-1960s. 
7. Nitrogen, which is not only a component in Opioid medicines but countless other medicines for mental health conditions, is too light a gaseous to stay near ground level. Only compounds such as nitrogen oxides (restricted by the EPA) are heavy enough to be absorbed by planets and animals. 
   
8. Sulfur is an immobile element. Unless it is in a gaseous form, neither plant nor animals can use it. Sulfur is a main ingredient in insulin production. Since the EPA restricted Sulfur the incidence of sulfur deficiency related diseases has increased dramatically. 
9. According to its own website and documentation, the  EPA met its recommended goal of reducing air pollution over 40 years ago. It has continued to cut emissions even thought its recommended levels are much higher than those used today.  
10. Finally, as all Star Trek fans know, life on planet Earth is based on Carbon. By restricting carbon based gases, the EPA would be restricting some form of life.  It is far more likely that changes in how ambient temperatures are gathered explains the 2 degree F difference that has so many computer geeks concerned.  Computer modeling is not actual science and needs to be put aside in order to answer the question of "Is climate change real or not?"
    

While the EPA is supposed to be regulate industrial contamination, it has also been used to force private citizens to adopt expensive and scientifically questionable measures such as the catalytic converter, whole house heat pumps, more efficient engines and electric vehicles. The cost to consumers has been higher insurance rates, repair costs and fuel which is now 15 times what it was in 1970. 

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will need to put aside the questionable science and focus solely on the EPA's history of rewarding some industries while penalizing others.  With any luck, this ruling will finally bring an end to the economically based false narratives of climate change theory.