Climate Change: Methane is NOT the Monster Here

Since the very beginning of life itself, methane has been a part of the atmosphere. How can someone like me know this with certainty?  Simple.  You see, methane is a natural by-product of anything that is or was alive and if methane were as toxic as those attending the Cop26 climate conference believe, the World would have problems far greater than a degree or two of global warming.

As part of the atmosphere, methane is a versatile  gas that has both a practical use and destructive powers.  If captured, it can be used as a very efficient fuel for heating and power generation. When it accumulates in poorly ventilated pockets, it can be a quick and silent killer. In well ventilated areas, it is hardly noticeable and causes not damage.  However, its far greater purpose for the environment is to act as a filler in extremely high altitudes so that our atmosphere remains thick and healthy.  

Generally, methane forms when plants and animals alike have too many  carbon and hydrogen atoms left over from the growth or healing process. For animals particularly, this is common since all foods contain carbon and hydrogen. Similar to how carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, four excess hydrogen atoms join up with one carbon atom to make methane.  The main difference between the two is that methane is lighter-than-air and quietly floats away from ground level while carbon dioxide stays close to the surface where plants use it during photosynthesis.  

Forbes Photo

Does it not seem a bit ironic that the great scientists and leaders of the World have created a wealth of data condemning the two gases that they themselves produce on a daily basis?  Funny isn't it.  Only a computer would be able to come to such an illogical conclusion  but itis computer modeling that has kept the World in a climate change frenzy for over five decades.  

The reality is that preventing methane from entering the atmosphere is, like most climate change provisions, impossible to do and unlikely to keep climate change from occurring.  

As world leaders and so-called experts stand before the 8 billion residents of Earth and proclaim methane to be a toxic, planet-endangering gas, all one can do is wonder whether they are making up the science or just trying to gaslight a fearful public.

Cop26, the United Nations  annual global conference on climate change, was never going to be about proven physical science.  For now, leaders have backed themselves into a corner by making major economic decisions based on computer models and flimsy, out-of-context greenhouse gas science.  Not realizing they are promoting climate change rather than fixing it, the whole experience is beginning to resemble the climactic scene just before Toto pulls back the curtain to revel a scared and uncertain Wizard of Oz trying to be something he isn't.  For now, all that can be done is to continue to question these wild theories until there is no longer any doubt that climate change is not caused by carbon-based gases, such as methane.

Why is Greenhouse Gas Theory Wrong?

John Tyndall, who is credited with discovering greenhouse gas theory, certainly designed equipment to measure the heat absorbed from solar radiation for three different gases--carbon dioxide, water vapor and oxygen. But his end conclusion does not jive with today's scientific knowledge to the point that even amateur scientists can poke holes in his theories.  Only computer generated "false" science supports Tyndall's conclusions.  Think about this situation from a viewpoint that a computer cannot consider.

• Science now knows that all matter, not just gases, absorbs heat from solar radiation. It is why skin burns and why the pavement gets too hot to walk across barefooted. Tyndall assumed that, like the heat rising from a warm fire, something in the air kept the planet warm.  As logical as the thought process was, the conclusion was fundamentally flawed.
  
• Tyndall lived in the United Kingdom, where overcast skies and moderate temperatures are the norm. Even today most parts of the British Isles get less than half of the sunshine most US cities receive in a year. With his studies predating the science of meteorology, it is likely that he was unaware of the insulative qualities of clouds.
  
• As for why carbon dioxide tested 'warmer' than other gases, it is well documented that the heavier a substance (the greater the mass) the longer an item holds heat.  With its heavier atomic weight, Tyndall logically concluded that carbon dioxide was the gas which keeps the planet warm.  Every scientist makes similar mistakes when they are looking for a plausible conclusion for an unknown phenomenon.
  
• Even if all the carbon based gases in the atmosphere were removed, the surface of the planet would continue to absorb solar radiation and produce heat in equal or even greater amounts than it does now. Computers cannot match the ability of the human brain to factor in the simple along with the complicated.  If it were not for computers perpetuating future projections of planetary doom, scientists would have easily figured out climate change decades ago.
  

What is Causing  Climate Change?  

Like Tyndall, climatologists, environmentalists and leaders around the world are missing one huge factor in the rising ambient temperature across the planet.  Tyndall missed the impact cloud cover has on the day to day temperature and current scientists have done the same. 

Culturally, we want a world with clear skies.  Leaders put environment policies in place that did just that. In a simple case of "be careful what you wish for", those policies reduced the amount of cloud cover worldwide.  By preferring the sun to clouds mankind unintentionally caused climate change.  The sun may be where all energy comes from but clouds regulate that energy so that all species can live well.  

For more information on how Clean Air Policies compromised the environment, please consider purchasing a copy of the book Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.  It is available at online bookstores and in an e-Edition as well.  

Climate Change: Looking at an Elephant Through a Magnifying Glass

** Please support this author's efforts by purchasing her book at  online retailers.  This blog receives no support from advertisers or political parties--just one retired teacher trying to educate the public. Your support is appreciated.

Before it even starts, Cop26, the United Nations conference to address climate change, has experts demand concessions based on their own narrow and futuristic perspectives.  As reported by major news outlets, unnamed "experts" demand (and I believe that is an appropriate term to use) that World leaders agree to a maximum 1.5 degree Celsius historic increase in the overall temperature of the Earth. Do they really think computer generated predictions based on faulty and inconsistent data constitutes "real science"? Sir Francis Bacon, perfecter of the now standard Scientific Method, would question not only their process but the conclusions made using such flimsy experiments. 

Shutterstock Photo

With a good high school and college science education to bank on, I found myself researching and writing a book during the pandemic that ended up being about climate change (Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policies Compromised the Planet and Public Health).  It was not hard to see that Bacon's specific, detailed and unbiased method that had been the foundation of truly significant scientific discoveries had become little more than a framework for dissertations and grant funded papers that were used as public relations vehicles.  In the book, I refer to the trend as Looking at an Elephant through a Magnifying Glass.  Bacon's first principle in scientific inquiry for centuries was to remove all bias and prejudice. As experts, these scientists are automatically prejudice in a way that narrows the vision so that the big picture, or elephant, is not even considered.

Ridiculous Guidelines

Based solely on mathematical projections and not on definitive physical experiment, the temperature data is more conjecture than predictable science. It is simply impossible to accurately and fairly assess the temperatur of every location on the planet. First the guidelines refer to conditions during a time when atmospheric composition was not measured. Second, they only consider greenhouse gases as the culprit even though carbon dioxide, water vapor and ozone are by-products of all life forms. Viewed out of context, new age scientists see any study and any publication as one of fact not the record of the effort. Third, these findings fail to recognize the world-wide move toward heat retaining building materials, roadways and climate control systems which expel heat in the summer and artificially warm spaces during the colder months. This failure to acknowledge other factors is called experiment prejudice and makes the conclusions invalid according to Bacon's Scientific Method.

False Narrative, False Pledges

Beyond narrow interpretation of unproven science, the pledges themselves are nothing more than political ramblings. Like a pinky promise by young children, the compliance is based on faith and trust not hard line science.  How does one measure a drop in the temperature of the planet Earth?  Adding a few colder tlocations and dropping large cities could skew the average temperature by far more than the targeted 1.5 degree Celsius (Approximately 3 degrees Fahrenheit). Sadly, these well educated scientists are either too naive or too focused on success to grasp how easily it would be to manipulate data.  

How will Climate Change End?

There is every indication that Climate Change is a multi-faceted problem resulting from a collection of poor decisions by industrialized countries. Mining the atmosphere of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide for economic gain seemed innocuous enough at the time but it was then followed up by regulating smoke and emissions that simply looked and smelled bad.  Without dust, higher elevation clouds could not form to shield the sun's radiation and bring rain to all areas of the globe.  Gases. thought to be a nuisance or danger, instead carried essential nutrients for wildlife, plants and mankind. When these emission were reduced, industrialized countries turned it in a way to make a profit.  Supplementation with sulfur, magnesium and nitrogen are now required in agriculture and healthcare to keep people healthy.  Poor countries which have no such resources lose their citizens to wealthy countries and make the divide greater. 

Climate change will end when the World's "scientific experts" see computerized data for the biased and inconsistent data it is. Then and only then will leaders be free to roll back their own poor decisions and management of the Earth. 

Climate Change: Knowledge vs. Wisdom vs Philosophy

 

**Please consider supporting this blog and its information. Like Wikipedia, the pressure to turn information into revenue is ever present for a writer with limited resources. Your support of this blog would be greatly appreciated in any amount. 

Recently, I was tagged in a post by a fellow FCS (Family and Consumer Science) teacher (see picture).  I remember the common struggle of my students to understand the difference between knowledge, wisdom and philosophy or opinion. As you might imagine from the photographic post, when the three were used interchangeably, it led to all sorts of interesting outcomes in the kitchen.

As climate change becomes the focus of the news cycle for the next two weeks, there is no doubt that experts and World leaders will come armed with huge volumes of data to support their positions. In this global difference of opinion about who, what, when, how and why climate change happened, will leaders use knowledge, wisdom or philosophy to make their decisions and if they choose poorly, what further difficulties might the World see in the near future?

Personally, I am tired of being chastised by billionaire celebrities, child advocates without a high school education and extremist politicians with an economic agenda. I was thankful for the comments of the UK's Prince William highlighting America's split priorities (We need some of the world’s greatest brains and minds fixed on trying to repair this planet, not trying to find the next place to go and live.)  In like fashion, Queen Elizabeth II has expressed similar frustration about how people talk about climate change but do nothing. With all due respect to these Royals, as leaders converge on Glasgow, Scotland for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (Cop26), the World must also acknowledge that scientific minds must not be shackled by a political philosophy that often runs counter to actual science. 

 What is Known About Climate Change?

The sad but all too human reality is that today's scientific knowledge is largely based on mathematical speculation rather than actual physical conditions. Talking points focus on extremes which do not fairly represent real world conditions. Is a day the hottest because the temperaure peaks for a few minutes then drops rapidly to a much cooler temperature or is the hottest day one that has the highest per minute average temperature for 24 hours. The quick and easy "high temp" version misrepresents environmental conditions and should not be labeled "scientific knowledge". Real knowledge is consistent and predictable without excuses or questions.  It is easily seen and can be replicated by anyone time and time again. The tomato is scientifically classified as a fruit only because it meets the same physcial criteria as an apple or grape. How it is used is not a factor--only the sum of its visible and verifiable characteristics count.

Even though this planet has survived thousands of years using fossil fuels and without global intervention, mankind continues to blame the environment for "changing".  Modern society looks for an easy and quick explanation that absolves it of wrongdoing. In greenhouse gas theory, it found a principle so obscure that even fellow scientists would not understand it, industrialized countries found the "facts" they needed to create a philosophy that was both plausible and impossible at the same time.  Rather than look for wisdom in the hundreds of reputable and detailed scientific studies and historical events that speak to the climate change phenomenon, society chose to adopt philosophy as knowledge while squandering any chance to gain wisdom.

Is Climate Change Wisdom Possible?

Achieving wisdom is not just about learning from mistakes but being mature enough to think critically about information. Real science follows its own rules.  It cannot be made into what people want and does not occur without cause.  Blaming fossil fuels, commercial farming, large families, or immoral living serves no purpose except to divert study from what could be a simple answer.  At the same time, dismissing that which is uncomfortable to admit only keeps this planet in a state of upheavel. 

Until leaders put economics and reputations aside for the good of the planet, this cycle of disinformation and arbitrary regulations will only serve to compound climate change.  Wisdom requires an understanding that being right and doing right are two fundamentally different action. Needing to BE right comes from a place of immature thought while doing what is RIGHT comes from a place of knowledge and wisdom. 

Is Solving Climate Change Possible?

It is certainly possible to solve climate change but only with a shift away from philosophy and toward knowledge and wisdom To put it simply, environmentalists need see nature as a tomato and not as an ingredient in a Bloody Mary.  These well-meaning individuals have encouraged leaders to take drastic and unproven steps to 'clean up' the environment when the environment was working efficiently on its own.  Clean air and clean water might be beautiful to look at but they rob wildlife of essential minerals which are otherwise unavailable in the real world.

Sadly, environmentalists tend to come from wealthy countries. They do not experience the consequences of their beliefs because healthcare and agriculture have monetized environmental dysfunction. The very fossil fuels which are declared harmful to the environment are turned into fertilizers that produce health foods and medicines which keep populations healthy.  Poorer countries must suffer without such improvements and wildlife is left to die out because those who want to protect it do not understand basic chemistry well enough to realize they have caused this heartbreaking situation.  

Its time for environmentalist to see nature for what it is, an imperfect tomato that does not taste good in a fruit salad and stop trying to make it into a Bloody Mary that only people can enjoy.

Climate Change: The Coral Reef Conundrum and Solution

** Please support this blog by purchasing the book  Air Pollution's the Answer!. . .  available through Barnes and Noble and Target.  This blog receives no funding from advertising for political support.  Your support is appreciated. 

UPDATE: As world leaders differ about how to solve climate change at Cop26, studies that promote the value of volcanic ash in healing the environment are coming back around. Started nearly ten years ago, the studies mention its use as a carbon gas neutralizer of sorts. While this author questions the validity of that conclusion, volcanic ash has the potential to provide marine life with a rich source of sulfur and other minerals. Healthier sea life means higher metabolic rates. Plants would use more dissolved CO2 and release greater volumes of oxygen into the water.  That conclusion is based on basic biochemistry.  It seems nature knew what it was doing all along when it put active volcanoes so close to the ocean. 

For many with some years on us, the 1970s news of dying coral reefs was the first indication of some sudden and unexpected environmental change--a change that scientists could neither explain nor remediate.  As World leaders congregate in Glasgow for the U.N. Climate Change Conference (October 31-November 12), this lowly resident of Earth wonders if the attendees will continue to grumble about carbon gases and fossil fuel controls or finally come together to re-evaluate their own actions in what has brought the World to this point in time. Personally, I hope for the coral reefs and other forms of wildlife, it is the latter.  

National Geographic Photo    

Until the stunning and informative documentaries of The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau in the 1970s, sea exploration was nearly unheard of.  And yet, just a few years into its exploration, science was making alarming predictions about the role coral reefs played in the ecosystem.  Before even learning to walk in this new science and without looking at the big environmental picture, scientists ran to blame everything from farming to industrial waste for the demise of this small and seemingly insignificant creatures. 

Instead of approaching the problem from a fact-based physical evidence standpoint, observation and speculation became the basis for large scale decision-making.  As a result, science squandered its first opportunity to repair climate change before it had really started.  Now, forty years latter the science has become so corrupted by computer models and economic interests that countries are locked in a false narrative of what climate change is and how it should be reversed.

What is Coral?

While this may be an over simplification, coral are small basic lifeforms that act a bit like nature's water filtration system.  Still, they are animals and are subject to the same nutritional (biochemical if you want a big word) rules as all animals. Herein lies the misconception that all environment studies have failed to recognize.

Coming at environmental science from a position of something toxic impacting coral, science has never considered that there is something missing from the environment and that this substance(s) was removed suddenly in the years prior to coral reefs dying. 

Was there a light bulb that just went off in the minds of readers everywhere? There should be.

Wrong Science, REALLY?

Like the belief that the World is flat, science has assumed human intervention is needed to keep climate variations in check.  Who is to say this assumption isn't along the same misguided observation-based notion as a flat Earth?  Is climate change the result of random change in a system that has been in place for millions of years or is it that man has become a bit too confident in his ability to adapt the environment to his own preferences? Will the presenters in Glasgow finally scratch their heads and say "Oops, we made a mistake"? Not likely.  

Something is Environmentally Missing?

As mentioned previously, biochemical processes (aka dietary needs) are similar across all living organisms. In simple terms, the absence of a vitamin or mineral that makes humans sick will also make coral succumb as well. The big difference is that humans have disguised these mineral and vitamin deficiencies through modern healthcare and pharmaceuticals. Wildlife has no such method of attaining the nutrients needed to live healthy and relies heavily on an unadulterated ecosystem. 

But what is it that could be missing in the environment that would make the whole planet sick? That is the question everyone is trying to answer with little success.

Looking Back to Find an Answer

Unfortunately, history can be an unforgiving teacher when it comes to reminding mankind of its faults and in this case, the reality may be hard to swallow.  

In the 1960s and early 1970s, man's excess had caught up with him. Large cities were choking on the fumes of modern convenience.  Instead of pinpointing historically recognized toxins like lead and asbestos that could quickly contaminate air and water, leaders chose to take a full-tilt approach to the pinball game that has become environmental science. With little research to back up decisions, industrialized countries regulated a handful of ugly, smelly gases.  Still holding fast to their decisions and looking to carbon dioxide as the next culprit, the restriction of these gases has compromised an environmental cycle that had been in place for thousands of years. In the atmosphere, these breathable nutrients would help all life forms self-regulate body functions even in cases of food shortages. Without them, the result is declining populations and possible extinction.

What is Missing?

Ironically, the five elements that make up restricted gases are the same five elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur) that form the majority of the World's foods and medicines.  Sugar is made of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen while chicken is made of all five elements. All life forms, coral, plants and humans alike, require sulfur for common life functions each and every day. Had these gases remained in the atmosphere, rain would have latched on to them and deposited them into the soil and sea where all life could have benefited. This basic concept of renewal has been known for much longer than most experts wish to acknowledge.

Coral's Relationship with Sulfur

Regardless of where life forms live--bacteria in ice near Antarctic, elephants on the Savanna, or coral under the sea--all life forms are subject to the same rules of cell composition.  This interconnection makes individual species interchangeable up and down the food chain. As a food, coral is at the bottom and eaten by a great number of species. If it is deficient in minerals, then so is the species that eats it.  Each successive meal perpetuates the mineral deficiency until the who World struggles to find good health.

Sulfur is known to impact growth rates, injury repair and reproductive capabilities for all life forms. Without sufficient sulfur in the water, what scientists interpreted as a dying coral reef may have been one that simply could not reproduce itself as fast as it was consumed. There was never anything to blame other than an urban population that wanted to live large without environmental accountability.

What All this Means?

There is only one conclusion and course of action that makes sense if one believes the science as it is reported here.  The rush to judgement by those who lived in unsustainable environmental conditions (cities) solved their problem by stripping the atmosphere of essential gases which made the land incapable of producing food and reduced the ability of wildlife to sustain themselves in a natural setting. Rather than acknowledge their missteps early on, the World's leadership built a massive healthcare system to treat human illness and created additives to foods and soils to make them viable.  Poor countries were left to become dependent on others and starvation became a worldwide problem. 

If one takes a good hard look at the role sulfur plays in every part of the environment, it becomes very easy to see that Clean Air policies did more harm than good and should be rolled back.  Fossil fuels are not the enemy here. Man's own ego is.