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.