Canadian Wildfires: Some Real Info to Consider

 ** Many journalists do not have a huge background in general knowledge because of our culture of expertise over broad based knowledge.  Here is a bit of a cheat sheet that can be used to put the current climate change hype in perspective. The library  is much better for research than Google. Trending is not a value of. Knowledge. This is also written by someone who is experiencing the effects of these wildfires as well as the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens.  

Agenda driven politicians and younger scientists take the position that wildfires like these are the result of climate change because natural cycles for the planet take longer than they can remember. That does not make them climate change related but part of a cycle most of us no longer understand. 

 Take these notes into consideration before spreading the hype.

1. Forests are nature's automatic lamd reclaimers. Forests do not need to be planted by humans. Any piece of vacant land, no matter how small, which is located in a place with adequate rainfall (more than 30 inches generally) will produce woody brush and young trees within five years. Burned land often reaches this stage faster because of nature's design (too complicated to explain here)

2. All forests have a life cycle.  Soft woods such as pines may mature in 30 years but hard woods like oaks and maples may not reach maturity for 80 years. The more mature a forest the more likely they are to succumb to wildfires--its nature's method of regeneration. 

3. Pre-electricity, forests were cleaned of downed trees and brush by people who needed the wood for building materials, cooking, heathing, smoke houses etc. Without this mutually beneficial relationship, forests are more likely to become hotter and more dangerous if they start. Interestingly, mature trees can generally survive a ground level wildfire IF and only IF the amount of leaves and debris is minimal.  

4.  By protecting our forests, we abandoned long standing methods of keeping wildfires in check.  That is not a climate change factor. That was allowing environmental emotion to over take good sense.  

 

Now for the Air Quality Issue and weather

1. Yes, heavy smoke is not good for people but the human body is much more resilent than our healthcare system chooses to believe.  Please remember the Air Quality Index goes from 0 to 500. These fires rated upwards of 400.  Generally Air Quality numbers in the States are less than 50 which means that yes the air is free of smoke particles but also free of ground level oxygen compounds which animal life (humans, pets, farm animals and wildlife) need to stay healthy and alive.  

2. Its particles in the air that are instrumental in helping to form clouds. As the Northeast deal with chilly  temperatures during this smoke event, it is clear that everyday clouds would do the same thing. Less Sun. Cooler temperature. No a complicated concept. 

3. Particles are also instrumental in acceptable levels of humity.  While healthcare makes a big deal about high humidity and the effect on the heart, low humidity is just as dangerous for the overall body.  Dry air dires out lund tissue which keeps it from absorbing oxygen as easily as needed.  High humidity at least keep lung tissue moist. 

Conclusion:  Removing components of the atmosphere based on occasional and naturally occuring inconvenience is just ridiculous. the United Nations is spreading hype and not science . 

Hope this helps. 

Climate Change 2022: Let's Review What Has Happened and Where We Now Stand (A FACS Teacher Explains)

   Original Text Posted May 12, 2022

Two weeks ago, there were signs that World leaders had learned the importance of restraint concerning climate change initiatives.  Now as Bill Gates, former Secretary John Kerry (now US Climate Change Envoy) and other hard line climate scientists attempt to whip the World into a climate-focused frenzy ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) in October, the dialogue is regrettably similar.  That leaves only one thing to do. As any good teacher does from time to time, it's time to review what we have learned and what we have not yet mastered.

Unlike other subjects which students forget as soon as they pass the test, Family and Consumer Science is about learning for a lifetime.  After all, life is one LONG test, is it not?

What Happened? 

1. In 2021, President Joe Biden proposed a HUGE spending package which would have implemented several infrastructure and social programs related to climate change. While the larger package failed in December, Biden has been busy putting some of his environmental programs into place by drawing from other departments.  While money was already budgeted to fund such military actions as those in Ukraine, Congress chose to use that event to pass a smaller spending package that not only funded $13 billion for Ukraine by also opened the door to additional climate change projects. In late May, Biden will restart 1970s era environmental guidelines for federally funded infrastructure projects. Those projects may now be required to adhere to unproven and, in most cases, impossible to measure carbon tracking methods. Clearly designed to look good on paper for the United Nations and our European allies these tracking methods do not appear to be in use by the Federal government for any of its own programs. Clearly expecting the American people to "do as I say, not as I do" these initiatives have the potential to add further fuel to the inflation fire.  Based on statements by Biden, himself, Kerry and Gates, the current concern is NOT the health or welfare of the global population but the status of its economy. Biden has repeatedly voiced expectations for Americans to pay the price for aid given to allies which are far more well-off than we are.   Mr. President, you are not JFK and for 60 years, the American people have stepped up to support those in need only to be expected to give more. 

2.  In early April, 2022, the U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres went off the rails in a statement claiming that World leaders were disregarding the eminent danger to the planet.  Again, the report he cited gives a conclusion but does not back up its statements with logical, verifiable fact. As a member of the U.N. Security Council, the US has an apparent obligation to go along with the report even if it is faulty and causes is own people to be harmed in the process.

3. Following the U.N.'s emotional stand approximately 1000 scientists of unknown background protested for climate change solutions.  In lock step with the narrow-focused carbon gas theory mindsets, these protesters resorted to emotional pleas instead of fact.  At the heart of the protest, one young person expressed the opinion that scientists deserve to be heeded on face value alone and not provide physical proof of their findings.  

4.  In March/April, several media outlets and government agencies sent out reports of catastrophic changes at the poles and along coast lines.  The reports were so erroneous that they were easily debunked by simple scientific explanation.  It appears that those working in the colder regions of the planet have difficulty recognizing what is and is not a freezing temperature on the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales.  Rest assured that at all times throughout the forty years of climate change concern, the polar ice caps have never been in danger of being above freezing.  In similar fashion, the  long history of measuring sea level by how far the tide comes in, was at the heart of this scientific folly. Scientists' use of computers for modeling could not compute the ever changing forces of gravity, hydraulics, erosion and planet rotation. What was reported as oceans rising was little more than the natural action of erosion on the beaches which varies greatly from place to place and day to day. 

5. Recently, The Atlantic and The Guardian have posted well written articles highlighting the weaknesses in the knowledge base of our scientific community and lack of basic understanding of how the environment works (so much for the impact of STEM funding) as well as the questionable use of closed research studies to gain status and funding for programs.  Both expressed important findings regarding the unreliable nature of the conclusions drawn in the climate change fight. Mainstream media has also become more cautious in how they report scientific data choosing to look at solutions rather than focus on cause. 

Where We Stand?

For all practical purposes, the World is in the same position it was a year ago. 

Regardless of the Iffy nature of current climate change information, the countries of the G7 still hold fast to the idea of carbon-gas being to blame for the apparent warming of the Earth. Very much focused on solutions that can be marketed, these countries ignore the climate studies that disagree with their assumptions. 

India, which has experienced extreme weather for some time, has developed studies which are contradictory to the findings of  the U.N. report.  While every one agrees that climate change exists, what causes or defines climate change is still up for debate. Like the author of Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromise the Plane and Public Health, India tends to side with other causes for the clear skies which now allow the sun to bake the country.  

Isn't it interesting that the countries which now have mild weather seem the most determined to remove CO2 gases from the atmosphere while others which have long endured periods of drought see clear skies and little rain as a far more concerning situation.

Unfortunately as long as industrialized nations are looking for a way to make money off of climate change, there will be no real solution for any of planet Earth's citizens.

Climate Change: U.N. Climate Study Predicts Increasing Wildfires--Good news for the Environment

United Nations Logo

Perhaps it is a type of Karma that is keeping the World from coming to a practical and science based (not computer-based) reason for the situation that is informally called "Climate Change".  It must be like the Jews lost for forty years or Buddha going in search of truth that is causing humanity to wait for some type of light-bulb moment when it all makes sense. It could also be the knowledge that climate change is heavily tied to our lifestyle, financial markets and belief that man knows what he is doing. Regardless of the reason for the delay, it doesn't look like true understanding is to be reached in the foreseeable future.  That is why this study is good news. Because it shows Nature will take care of this even if modern science will not. 

By now, it has been well publicize that industrialized countries blame carbon-based gases for everything from hurricanes to pandemics. As governments look to solve this issue with cleaner air, Nature seems determined to dirty it up in any way possible. It might be time to step back and ask ourselves "WHY?"

The Article

The article itself (UN-backed report warns of rising wildfire threat ) is one of the better posts in its original form. It lays out several solid, science based reasons for its conclusion and attempts to explain why it is important for the world to address environmental changes in the near future.  While computer modeling tends to take on the prejudices of the study focus, the science used here is relatively basic and well within accepted ranges.  Like most climate change studies it is based on 150 year old data that is no longer relevant because --to put it bluntly-- things have changed. If you want the whole story please read

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

Starting at the Beginning

The 1800s were a time of rapid scientific exploration. A cure for boredom for the rich, great advances in knowledge and inventions were made or financed by well-off individuals. The first greenhouse, mountain top exploration, the origins of life and the ability to create such seemingly magical products as the light bulb, the telephone and yes, electricity were all initiated during this time period. 

What history fails to record is that not all of these "discoveries" proved to be good for civilization.  One example is John Tyndall's assumption that carbon-dioxide kept the planet warm because it absorbed the sun's radiation. Within forty years of publishing his theory (and a few years after his death), his beginning experiments morphed into the study of thermodynamics--all because other scientists found that all forms of matter absorbed the sun's radiation -- not just gases.  

The point is that there is no scientific basis for the belief that carbon-based gases contribute to global warming. Why apparently smart people like Barrack Obama, Prince Charles and Bill Gates as well as Inger Andersen (UNEP Director) and Greta Thunberg promote such misinformation has to be based on pop-culture peer pressure or political aspirations.

Here is the REAL Problem

The atmosphere is the delivery system that circulates and recycles the five basic elements that are essential to all forms of life (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Sulfur along with small dirt particles).  There are two primary ways to change what was alive into gases which can travel easily across thousands of miles.  Burning is one and decomposition or rotting is the other.  Since the mid 1800s, mankind has tried its best to do away with both of them.  

With the discovery of King Tut's tomb, embalming became popular which robbed the atmosphere of gases given off by the dead.  But it is electricity that has done far more to tie the hands of the environment when it comes to essential gases. As long as electricity was produced using organic fuels (oil, coal, wood, gas and others), the environment managed. But it is the EPA's restriction of the same five elements that has forced Nature's hand to bring drought, wildfires and poor health.  Without these natural methods releasing thousands of cubic feet of smoke and ash into the atmosphere, this situation would be much worse.  Until our global leadership recognizes this situation, Nature will need to increase the level of destruction to counter mankind's obsession with clean air and blue skies.  Remember the only places on Earth that have blue skies every day are those we call "deserts".

Why this matters? 

Left to its own devices, the atmosphere will provide a steady supply of life supporting elements that allows all organisms to self regulate everything from growth and reproduction to disease prevention. All people need to do is release moderate levels of these biological friendly gases rather than remove them.  Interestingly, the EPA has forced this country to maintain considerably lower levels of these gases than recommended for over 40 years.  This is how it all works. 

Dust and dirt particles are a necessity to stabilize water vapor so that larger amounts of rain are carried from the oceans to lands (in other words, prevent drought). Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen are the foundation of all our plant based foods from apples to zucchini.  Nitrogen, along with the previous three, is the definitive component of protein that builds muscle. It also is a vital part of such mental health hormones as melatonin, seratonin, and dopamine.  Adding Sulfur increases insulin production and repairs liver damage while preventing respiratory disease and fungal infections.  The list of benefits to wildlife and natural settings is just as vital to its health.

Isn't it interesting that these five elements, restricted by law for the last fifty years, are the basis of nearly all vitamins, supplements and medicines currently on the market.  In new studies looking at the ability of such "old" remedies as these, there are new links to virus and cancer prevention.  

Why it matters is that without concern for the people that live here, quick reactions by uneducated and poorly advised leaders have caused the World's health to decline, its farmland to become barren and its society to chase mental and financial health that was once just a breath away.  That seems important. 

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.