Climate Change 2022: Meteorologist Know What Causes Global Warming And It Isn't CO2 Gas!

** Today my favorite weatherman clearly stated that the "heating of the day" was clearly the result of--well CLEAR skies and sunny conditions.  How is it then that the Biden administration is moving forward with plans to extort money from Wyoming coal producers and other utility companies using the myth of CO2 as an excuse.  Sadly, this extortion will then be paid for by average Americans while the money is given away to support Ukraine and NATO.    

*************************************

There! . . . Did you hear it? . . . That brief comment on the local weather report in hundreds of locations each and every day.  In simple words, it explains why some days are hotter than others yet never tracks or mentions CO2 levels. It goes something like this. 

"Today's temperatures will be more moderate due to the cloud cover that is expected in advance of the front. By now, you know that clouds protect us from the Sun's rays on clear days and insulate us on clear nights, Temperatures will remain more comfortable. This will also translate into a lower risk of extreme weather unlike those hot clear days with pop-up thunderstorms and threats of high winds, and tornadoes. Keep up with all things weather by using your local weather app or check out our website for more information about storm preparedness."

Gee, isn't that interesting? Not a single mention of carbon dioxide levels but a clear statement that clouds keep the Earth even tempered--clouds that some label air pollution when all they are is water vapor.  Why then do NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the NWS (National Weather Service), support climate change initiatives that are clearly in conflict with what they tell us everyday?

NOAA Does Not Track Carbon Gases

In looking through different weather apps and services, CO2 levels are absent.  Consider the following:

• NOAA does not track actual CO2 levels but uses a computer simulation program to ESTIMATE the CO2 produced by fossil fuels. Last published data was (I think) 2018.
  
• All CO2 molecules have the same structure. While NOAA tells the public it can track CO2 in difference places and from different sources, there is NO proof that it has that capability--especially since it does not appear to test for CO2 in the first place.
• NOAA does not include CO2 levels in factoring air quality which is also a computer generated formula that is not standardized but frequently outsourced to data creation services.  There is no indication that air quality is ever actually tested on an hour by hour basis in any location in the United States.
  
• NOAA has no Truth-In-Advertising requirement for such data unlike private businesses and individuals.  Based on the Supreme Court's recent position on the the President's ability to evaluate infrastructure for unspecified "social" climate change risk???, the Court has apparently said it is acceptable for the federal government to apply an arbitrary, and impossible to track, standard for private business to which it does not hold itself.
  

Also consider these interesting facts to see the CO2 myth for what it is. 

1. Underwater plants use CO2 just like ground level plants. It is normal to have CO2 in all bodies of water.  To remove it would cause these plants to die and seas creatures to die. Like land, the temperature of the water is related to the degree of direct sunlight, not the amount of CO2 in the water (Just like your swimming pool).

2. Plants give off CO2 when the sun goes down because they cannot continue to process CO2 without light. They continue to grow after the sun goes down by using oxygen in the same manner as animals.

3. If CO2 made the World warmer, Summer would be coolest season because fossil fuels are not needed to heat homes, there is less need for lights and better availability of solar and wind power.

4. After thirty years of growth, a mature tree will provide shade for approximately 700 sq.ft. of space (roughly the size of a one bedroom apartment. Clouds, which form continuously can shade hundreds of acres at a time included tall buildings and massive structures. Which makes more sense?

Shame on NOAA

It is with utter disappointment that American citizens are beginning to realize that their government has been the primary source of climate change misinformation for over forty years.  Perhaps, some of these mistakes can be chalked up to fear of one's job, ignorance of science and focus on data, along with cultural brainwashing that blamed a simple three atom molecule for human error.

Regardless of how this happened, it is time for our Commander-In-Chief, who voted on most of these measures since 1972, to act ethically and face up to the reality that everything he is currently doing to "help" the environment is likely causing more damage.  

If you can't explain it without a computer, then it isn't real Science, Mr. President.

The US Has Been Capturing Carbon Since 1975: Maybe That's the Problem

The year, 1970, was a momentous one for environmental actions on the national and global front. But as we herald Earth Day, its ultimate place in World History may be much different.  It may be remembered as the year when mankind almost destroyed the planet with laws and regulations based on public perception rather than comprehensive science.  

The speed with which the President and the European Community are charging forward on grand infrastructure plans should concern us. Feeling much more like the hard sell of a snake oil salesman, this seems more like old technology in a new package than a climate emergency.

Does President Biden truly not understand that the US has been capturing carbon since 1975 through the use of the catalytic converter and muffler system on nearly every gasoline and diesel powered engine?  As a member of the Senate when these provisions were put into place, Biden, certainly, should know what the contraption does. More importantly, he should also be aware that going electric will have limited effect on the environment but cost the average citizen big dollars as these new regulation go into effect. 

What is a Catalytic Converter?

As far back as the late 1940s, the oil industry recognized that they had a smoke problem. Much of commercial usage at that time was in old retrofitted coal and wood fired furnaces which were highly inefficient. Oil was cheap so waste was not an issue, but the smoke was.  Two engineers working with an America chemist, but apparently without the input of other scientific disciplines, designed the catalytic converter to remove the solid carbon from the exhaust and convert some gases to less noxious ones. 

Taxpayers, forced to pay for this expensive adaptation, have been the primary source of carbon capture since that time.  They were also put in the position of unwittingly being the  cause of an altered atmosphere that is the foundation of climate change.

 What would Einstein say?

Most people are aware of Einstein's take on repeating unproductive methods--something about the definition of insanity? Yet, here we are, doing the same thing over and over again and promising different results. Is there any wonder people think this is about greed and corruption rather than a concern for the planet?

Based on several google searches, the estimated efficiency of a catalytic converter is about 95 percent for the overall life of the component.  That means that only 5% of the carbon produced by current models escapes to the atmosphere. To go further, some form of catalytic converter has been required on all manner of operations which use oil and coal as a primary energy source. That leaves the only one major source of carbon emissions left. That source would be all creatures of the animal kingdom, including humans.

A Product of Incomplete Science

There was always going to be a time when the focus on specialization was going to come back to cause havoc. Being good at only one thing tends to make us lacking in so many others. This was one of those times. 

The catalytic converter is by EPA accounts a success. According to EPA's own figures It was so successful by the mid-80s, emissions had dropped by as much as 90%.  It has been at similar levels for 40 years even though the population and fossil fuel usage has grown. 

But with science, logic in one discipline can mean disaster in another. Without concern for anything more than reducing smoke, the result was cutting nature's essential minerals supply chain until only a trickle of these nutrients can now get through--in essence slowly starving all life on Planet Earth.

Warning: Carbon Capture Endangers Trees

In a good example of the climate advocacy right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, CO2 capture movements signature Tree Planting effort at risk. 

With the average life span of a growing tree at 80-100 years, each tree will increase its need for CO2 as it gets older.  Any CO2 capture operations placed near forests will compete with the trees and may cause slower growth or even death. What's more, large scale CO2 removal could cause the tree line in natural settings to drop drastically, exposing thousands of acres of mountain land to erosion and mudslides. 

In regard to the environment a bit of procrastination is more valuable than the regret of impulsiveness.