UPDATED: One Hot Mess: Why Saving the Planet is Making it Hotter? (A FACS Teacher Explains)

**** NOAA (our country's national weather reporting agency) has recently released yet another hyped up global warming article that is equally short on details.  Claiming that this July is the third hottest on record anyone who is familiar with computer data understands the questionable accuracy of such a statement.  As mentioned many times before in this blog, there is no standardized method of reporting temperatures and the chance of human error in such reporting methods is high. Just failing to report temperatures from Montana or Alaska in a timely fashion could shift numbers to seeming much hotter than they actually are.  Add the preference for hotter, urban areas and the only way to describe such information is "skewed".  With a climate change bill waiting to be voted on this week in the House, it is not surprising that this agency would  slant information to tip the votes in favor of passage.  Remember: this climate change bill is not about reversing human caused climate change but designed to fund infrastructure which will only make the planet hotter and our tempers more frazzled. 

*** Biden’s one billion trees is more about supporting the housing industry than climate change. Wood fired power plants produce the same type of smoke as coal and oil. This is called gaslighting the public. 

We have all done it. 

You open up a cookbook, Do-It-Yourself manual or set of instructions for your child's new toy and follow them to the letter.  DISASTER!

Not to be undone, you try again. You follow the steps exactly, assemble your equipment before starting, have all the right materials and it seems to be going well. . . except the end result isn't anything like what it is supposed to be. Welcome to Climate Change Politics.

Now you know where leaders and climate scientists find themselves today--following all the rules and coming up with a crisis that is "one hot mess". 

Brain Over Computer

As a teacher of any subject will tell you, thinking for yourself is a very difficult concept to instill in even the smartest individual. Forty years of computer generated directions and automatic answers has indoctrinated civilized people to question everything BUT the directions.  The reality of any science is that the science doesn't change, only our understanding of it.   

The question today is . . .How bad is it going to get before these educated thinkers rely on their brains rather than their computers for answers?

As Biden tries to pull a climate change 'win' out of thin air, the problem isn't his leadership style or focus.  The problem is the THIN AIR. Biden simply isn't speaking Nature's language and until he does it is only going to get hotter.

 Speaking Nature's Language

 Until modern science decided Nature could be modified without repercussions, Nature's rules were pretty basic and easy to understand. As for air quality, there  was but one concept to remember. Plants clean the air and animals/humans dirtied it up. 

Why in the world would that be part of a Family and Consumer Science background? Because before whole house filtration systems most females from homemaker to high end interior designer knew growing plants kept rooms smelling fresh without extensive cleaning and artificial deodorizers. Pretty smart, huh?

So what does that have to do with today's climate change problem?  It's simple. Humans cleaned up the air instead of letting plants do it. The chain of command for Nature was broken and not there are consequences that went something like this. 

1. Clean air makes nature think animals and humans have died so plants stop producing food (after all, there isn't anything to eat it, right?)

2. Nature doesn't understand why there is plenty of CO2 but none of the other essential gases which would normally be given off by dead animals, feces, cook fires etc.  Naturally, it uses volcanoes and gas plumes to add those gases back into the atmosphere. 

3. Thin Air (clean air) has little ability to insulate the ground from the direct rays of the sun. So day time temperatures get warmer and the night time temperatures get cooler.
   

4. Clean air cannot form rain clouds so rain stops falling.  Plants have root systems and humidity to give them a drink.  Remember: Clean air only exists naturally in a plant only world.
   

5. Hurricanes, Nor'easters, and thunderstorms produce heavy rains to replenish ground water. 

6. When all else fails to bring the atmosphere back into balance, Nature takes to wildfires which use up excess oxygen and spread gases like nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.  Sound familiar?
   

 All this because humans thought they could do it better than Mother Nature. 

President Biden, Mother Nature doesn't need any more of this kind of help.  Go back to dirty air or pay the consequences.

Clarification: The Royal Family and Climate Change

Special Note:  As the UN Conference on Climate Change (Cop27) nears, this will be the first time in several years that King Charles III (Formerly Prince Charles) will NOT be in attendance.  A strong advocate of climate change remediation, the rumor is that he has been asked by new Prime Minister Liz Truss to keep a low profiled.  

The key to shifting the climate change discussion to something realistic has always been to debunk the popular belief that scientists of a hundred and fifty years ago proved that carbon dioxide warmed up the planet.  The main scientist, John Tyndall, resided in both Ireland and London.  Loyalty runs deep in the UK but perhaps through the new Ms. Truss the British will look a bit harder at the facts and not believe in climate change on national loyalty alone. 

 

Original Article:

From a writer's perspective, the unpredictable audience of the internet makes it very difficult to feel that these words will be used appropriately.  You hope, if you have readers at all, that they  can understand the technical concepts explained here. You hope the information will start a discussion not a feud. But there is always worry about the lack of integrity in the climate change industry and the leaders who support it.

Today, it might be Prince Harry who was the victim of climate change politics. Yet again, leaders like United Nations Secretary General António Guterres are not above using a well connected young man to promote a scientifically flawed position that cannot be justified by spreadsheets and computer data. (See speech here)  Sadly, the United Nations would rather hold on to 50 years of poor judgement than do what is best for the global environment and economy.  Here's where this blog may have come into the picture. 

 What Brits Should Know About Climate Change

A few weeks ago, during a particularly hot Royal Ascot, the article  What Brits Should Have Always Known: John Tyndall Knew Nothing about Climate appeared on this platform. (see original here)  The reason was start a discussion about whether John Tyndall was really a man who understood climate nor one who simple carried out several experiments which would later be mostly countermanded.  He did, however, explain the insulated properties of clouds quite perfectly.  Modern science just turned it into something else.

As a quick summary, the conclusion was that a history based difference in language caused young computers to link Tyndall and climate change.  The well-respected professor never studied climate or even considered it because the study had not been established until just before his death.  

Where do the Royals Come In?

Understanding that the USA and UN were locked into its illogical position of carbon-based gas theory, the article challenged Prince Charles and the Royal family to take a more political stand in helping the World understand differences in terms and how they can be destructive when misinterpreted by computers.  

Apparently, it was Prince Harry that was feed a diet of misinformation and then put on display for the World to see.  It doesn't seem to have gotten the desired response. If this blog was in any way used to encourage that, I am truly sorry. 

Manipulating data is a common occurrence for leaders. As this blog has stated before, all climate scientists have to do is prove their point without a computer and the world will listen.  Guilt, shame, fear and emotion are not the tools of real science.  

Dear AOC: Virginia has Spoken

Update: In what appears to be a press release sent out by AOC (11.19.2021), the young member of the House implies that her help and that of other Progressive would have tipped the scales in favor of former Governor Terry McAuliffe.  While that level of confidence in a young women is admirable, I must disagree with her assessment of the 2021 Virginia state election. From the beginning, McAuliffe was a flawed candidate, a problem that the Democratic party seems unable to understand.  A transplant to the state, McAuliffe skated into the office of Governor when voters reacted to the corruption charges of the previous governor and the good impression of then President Barrack Obama.  McAuliffe would also disappoint voters with mismanagement of funds and an FBI investigation into campaign finances. His temper and quick tongue also contributed to his demise.  The race was always Youngkin's to lose and a young, know-it-all Democrat would have only made Youngkin more attractive to moderate voters.  The party was right to distance itself from you and your policies. 

 

To House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and those known as "The Squad",

Virginia has spoken and the message is for you. 

Even before the election results are official (mail-in ballots will be accepted through Friday), nationally based columnists and main stream journalists are telling the world that Virginia voting has nothing to do with extreme mindsets and everything to do with a population that seems incapable of knowing what is good for them.  While both parties, Republicans and Democrats have taken the stand that "it's not us, it's them!" in recent years, these election results are a clear indication that the informed, moderate minority has the power to keep both parties in check. 

For far too long, elections in the United States have been playing to loyal followers who can predictably be taken for granted.  Both Democrats and Republicans see this as winning an annual game in which each side gets to change the rules without regard for the integrity or fairness of the competition.  The message to those, like "The Squad", who swing to extreme viewpoints is plain. Virginians on both sides of the aisle have no tolerance for elected officials who show favoritism, fail to compromise for the good of all and disrespect differing viewpoints that are labeled ignorant, prejudicial and stubborn.  Are you not just as ignorant and prejudicial about life in Virginia and haven't you stubbornly held on to your viewpoints while demanding all citizens welcome your viewpoints regardless of their validity?

The closeness of this race and the one in New Jersey mirrors the standoff with Biden's spending plan and infrastructure bill. While others see the President as weak and mindless, my instincts tell me this is the beginning of his presidency, not the end.  What better way to curtail the radical position of younger Democrats then to lump their ideas into a pot of political stew and see how well it is received.  There is no faster and better learning experience than total rejection of one's efforts. Now President Biden has the freedom to silence those who speak from a personal perspective when their job is to consider a wider audience.  Too many in Congress have forgotten they are responsible for the country, not just their party.  

For two years, Virginia's leadership, particularly young and inexperienced lawmakers, took media coverage and polls based in other states as a fair representation of where Virginia should go. They passed special interest legislation in record amounts telling themselves it was a better life for everyone.  The 2021 vote loudly speaks to the missteps of the last two years and should be a lesson to the Federal lawmakers.  Regardless of party affiliation, voters are tired of grandstanding politicians who pass laws that benefit a few and marginalize the many. It is not Virginia that is divided by the need to vote for leaders (state and national) who divide communities rather than bring them together.  Had Virginia Democrats been patient and stayed true to Virginia values, they might have remained in power.  Instead they put party before the Commonwealth and lost big. 

So, to "Squad" members, have you learned anything about being a leader today?  Have extreme Republicans realized it isn't enough to win the top spot if Congress and state houses are evenly divided.  Leadership is not just winning the race but being trained, coached and supported by others so that winning the race has something more than personal satisfaction.  

With November 2022 just one year away, it will be interesting to see if either party learns the lesson of moderation. In Virginia, it is always an election year and until there are elected officials who stand for something more than political affiliation and an electorate that votes without party preference, moderates will continue to cast the deciding vote in every election. 

Virginia Resident

Sarah Schrumpf-Deacon

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.