The Most Serious Threat? Or Climate Science 101?

Share

The short article below was authored by Penny Teal, a UC Berkeley trained PhD (chemistry). Dr. Teal has outlined straightforward facts on which sound conclusions can and should be formed in regard to the current state of the climate. Penny has also spoken out about the first hand experiences she has had with universities and their power structure paid for agenda to program their students and thus society. 
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

 

The Most Serious Threat? Or Climate Science 101?

By Penny Teal, PhD, contributing writer for geoengineeringwatch.org

The POTUS (President of the United States, or perhaps Puppet of same) has made it clear, most recently in an address to the cadets at the Coast Guard base in New London, CT, that climate change (more appropriately called global heating, or global meltdown) poses a serious threat to the planet's security. He did not clarify, however, what he meant by "the planet's security". From this citizen's perspective it is very clear that global warming poses an existential threat to every living thing on the planet; the planet itself, however, seems likely to remain on course around its star for millennia to come.

How do we know that global warming is a problem? It's in the data, all of which is available on this website already. Just one example: fourteen of the fifteen hottest years on record are to be found in the new century (that is, somewhat shockingly, in the last 15 years); the fifteenth is 1998. Already 2015 is on track to be the hottest year ever. Okay, that was two examples.

Obviously, if we care about the planet, we need to reverse global warming. And since we humans have caused it, we can, at the very least, stop doing whatever led to the problem in the first place. There is no doubt that human activity, primarily the wanton burning of fossil fuels, is causing global temperatures to rise. If you meet a skeptic, here is a simple defense of that statement – that is to say, that fact.

A Tale of Three Planets

One need only look over the planet's shoulders, toward Venus and toward Mars, then to our own blue Earth, to see a perfect model of the Greenhouse Effect (GE) that keeps life thriving on the planet in the middle, while making it impossible for life to develop (life as we know it, at any rate) on the other two.

The GE is quite simple to explain to the skeptic. Sunlight, in the form of… well, light (electromagnetic radiation, if you want to be more precise, because there are non-visible wavelengths in addition to the light) arrives at a planet, warms its surface, and is radiated back upward as heat (or thermal energy – you have to choose the terms based on the look of understanding or confusion on the sceptic's face here).

This radiant heat energy (because it involves only long wavelengths) interacts differently with chemical gases in the atmosphere differently than does the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation from the sun. Specifically, gases like carbon dioxide, water, and methane will reflect some of the heat, sending it back downward like the roof of a greenhouse (hence the name for the… you get it). Just as in a greenhouse, the area under the atmospheric "roof" gets warmer.

Mars, for starters, has no atmosphere to speak of. No atmosphere means no gases, hence, no GE. Hence, a very cold and barren (but nicely red) planet. Venus, over the other shoulder, has a planet thick with greenhouse gases, thus is extremely hot; and Venus is incapable of sustaining life as well (and Venus would not be significantly warmer than Earth without those gases, even though it is closer to the sun).

In the middle is our Earth, with its mix of gases wherein CO2 used to be present at under 300 parts per million (ppm). However, our industrial age burning of fossil fuels has filled the atmosphere with increasing levels of CO2, up to and now over 400 ppm – and done so inevitably. This is a fact that cannot be wished or hand-waved away. Increasing the greenhouse gases increases the heat- retaining capacity of a planet – again, this happens inevitably.

These two facts alone are proof that human activity has caused the planet to warm, regardless of what may have been happening with sunspots, regardless of whatever trend (warming or cooling) the planet has otherwise been on. The planet has means of adapting, within limits, but it also has a need to maintain a balance. Increasing a greenhouse gas by over 33% is utterly disrespectful of that balance.

Putting more red dye in a pool will make make it redder; you can dilute the pool water all you want, or add to it from other sources, but the dye still has the effect of making the water redder than it was. That is all that need be said to refute the claim that humans have not contributed to global warming. It may not satisfy all sceptics, but some people think there is virtue in claiming to keep an open mind (an attitude they would drop in a heartbeat if you told them they were about to be run over from behind by a buffalo, when they finally heard it snorting a half-foot away from them… but alas, too late. Same story with global warming, unfortunately.)

At present, the warming caused by increasing CO2 is intense enough that it is causing the tundra in Arctic regions to melt, and ocean waters to warm dramatically, both of which are causing methane (an extremely potent greenhouse gas – more than 100 times as heat-trapping as CO2 in the short term) to be released into Earth's atmosphere.

The level of CO2 is now well above 400 ppm, although several years ago we were warned that 350 ppm represented a point of no return. The methane level could soon begin to rise exponentially (it could, in fact, be doing that now). Again, all the data and all the sordid truth is to be found, fully documented, on this website, including a discussion of Venus syndrome. A familiarity with the latter might be handy, since the planet is well on its way to becoming more like Venus than like Mars. More like Venus than like Earth as we once knew it, more to the point.

While the Earth's biosphere and adaptive abilities add more variables to the climate equation, those have nothing to do with the direct correlation between the GE, CO2 and humans. Climate change deniers like to say that human activity could have made things swing either way, but it hasn't. It has made things swing toward a rapidly overheating planet – one that will soon be uninhabitable, if we don't make some drastic changes without delay.

The Blue Planet Blues

So what's a species to do, when it knows it has spoiled the beautiful relationship it had enjoyed for eons with its home planet? Going to outer space and going underground are for the ultra-rich exclusively (and both are doomed to failure; we haveto stand by our planet no matter what). The POTUS approach involves, apparently, tough love: he did, after all, insist that this was an issue of a threat to our national security. I must confess, I'm still scratching my head over that one, as well as his predilection for making this climate change speech to military (and other Homeland Security) audiences. Are they going to shoot the heat out of the sky? Does he not understand that that isn't the function of heat-seaking missiles?

I was surprised to notice that the POTUS did not mention putting a halt to jet-produced contrails as a necessary measure. After all, if those strangely non-cloud colored trails filthening our skies really are, as all government officials claim, contrails, that means there is significantly more cloud cover in the atmosphere than there need be; as we all know (from watching the difference in temperature drop on a clear versus a cloudy night, for example – meteorologists used to love to point this out), clouds hold in heat, thus adding to the greenhouse effect.

Given that even with more primitive technology jets were, for decades, able to fly all around without producing those spreading, persistent, non-cloud colored (ahem) clouds, we certainly could and should immediately take the step of eliminating all (ahem) contrails.

Or could it be that all those conspiracy theorists are right that they aren't really contrails, and there is geoengineering running amuck even as you read this?

One consideration that springs to mind: would jet engines really have gotten so much worse as time went on? After all, even the aesthetic effect of those trails is good grounds for eliminating them; besides which, they block the sun and therefore negatively impact plant growth (which means less CO2 absorbers, which means more greenhouse gases to cause global warming). But the reality is obvious. They are not contrails; they are mixtures of metals and other materials being sprayed intentionally into the atmosphere. They are the most deadly component of geoengineering. Documentation: all over this website.

Still, it is encouraging that the ruling class finally seems committed to taking positive action (taking them at their word). All the right measures have already been discussed at length, but lets go through the most important one in condensed form.

The first step is to halt the activities that are causing runaway warming. Without question, the first to go is, and must be, the spraying of metal particulates into the sky, along with all other forms of geoengineering. Not only has research proven that the spraying only worsens global warming, though that is reason enough, even for the most wooden-headed puppet.

Perhaps more importantly, the planet cannot recover unless its healing mechanisms are intact, or at the very least salvageable. Among other problems, the metals being sprayed (among which certainly aluminum, barium and strontium, and possibly others) are killing whole forests and other forms of plant life by poisoning them, by killing off pollinators like bees, by causing them to stop absorbing the nutrients they need from the soil, by reducing sunlight, and (somewhat paradoxically) by increasing the wavelengths of sunlight that can kill them on contact. The only way to salvage what is left of Earth's self-healing abilities is to stop geoengineering immediately.

That bears repeating: the only way to salvage what is left of Earth's self-healing abilities is to stop geoengineering, immediately. And since a fair amount of geoengineering involves spraying from military aircraft, perhaps the POTUS has a point in addressing a speech about global warming to members of the military. If that is what he is thinking, I'll stop with the POTUS and start referring to him as President Obama.

7 Responses to The Most Serious Threat? Or Climate Science 101?

  1. Ana says:

     Very good article! I didn´t know about Mars atmosphere.I thought Mars had better conditions for humans to live there.Maybe Mars would have to be like living in bunkers or not even that?

     In my opinion i don´t believe that those in Power will ever tell us the truth .They would never tell a word about geoengeneering .And not only Obama or the next POTUS or any other world leaders .They either seem not aloud to speek (it´s not of their career interest also) ,everything they can do is to talk about climate change or global warming and finito .No blames of heatwaving or global warming  to geoengeneering .Aftherall geoengeneering is masking the far worst situation of the clima -is it that good to business ? as usual ,No! and business comes always first ,so nothing will change i´m afraid.

    Economic growth, the gas/oil/gold  resources (now every country wants their gold back which is not a good sign),the health of a financial system etc. is more important than the sacrifices of the peoples of all Nations.People are just numbers and the real "living things" seems to be the finances.

     I think those in Power or in position to talk about the Environmental problems  seems to just be worried about an agenda (agenda 21?) and seem to be preparing us for the hard Times to come .Those in power to speak or in position to give the first steps to change things that are wrong in the world ,will always only say the half truths (that we are used to hear)in very nice speeches cause in their daily lives they will continue as usual. If this people never truly got worried about  all the wars ,killings,depletion of resources ,exploitation and poverty in the world how can we believe that  they would make a change in things now  for the environment ? or how can we even believe they are truly worried about anything else besides their business as usual?To me when they talk about "national security" means their own security (those in positions of Power) and the need of control over the populations so i guess will be POTUS forever.The world leaders have an agenda in mind and everything they say usually doesn´t follow  the logic of our common sense .

    Have you seen the nice speech of the Pope about the environment (the encyclics)?(link down).All these speeches to me are a kind of preparation for the populations (but the populations don´t seem to get it) about what  can´t be hidden for much longer -the real dire situation of the Planet !With that maybe the geoengineering revelation will come sooner or later.I think many other speeches will follow the one of the Pope.I like particularly of the quote where the Pope says: "Many will be forced to leave their homes ,while the economically and politically powerful "mask"  the problems or respond with indifference"http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-francis-climate-technology-encyclical/

  2. Marc says:

    Let's just say for example that I was a garden-variety, unthinking, slumbering moron off the street. Someone for whom the term "geoengineering" is unintelligible and meaningless. I would STILL NOT FAIL TO HAVE NOTICED A WEIRD CHANGE IN THE SKIES, SUCH THAT THEY ARE ALMOST NEVER "BLUE" ANYMORE, ARE SLAUGHTERED WITH CLOUD FORMATIONS THAT DON'T LOOK RIGHT; THE SUN, EVEN BEHIND CLOUDS, FEELS HOTTER THAN IT EVER HAS ON MY FACE AND JET TRAILS ARE EVERYWHERE WHEN YEARS AGO WE NEVER SAW THEM. In otherwards, at least from my conversations with people, even many not "into" geoengineering are beginning to notice that somethin' ain't right.

      Can we even imagine what the f**k our skies are gonna look like 5 or 10 years out? Here in St. Louis, Mo. we almost never see sunlight like we once did, cloud cover is virtually perpetual. "Clear days" are a bad joke: weird silvery skies with very uncomfortable UV penetrating everything in sight.

       The difference between our skies NOW and say, 5-10 years ago should be obvious to all but the physically blind. And of course, the weather goes hand in hand with what we are seeing, meaning that EVERYTHING IS F**KING CHANGING, AND CHANGING FAST!!!!!

       Impossible to comprehend how anyone in this world with eyes to see and a brain to think might not 'get" that something is really wrong. So…….in steps the media……..and the President…….and guys like David Keith on Colbert……and Ken Caldeira turning up everywhere spreading lies and disinformation and/or seeding the conversation with hints that we just might need to "do something drastic" to address what we are all now becoming increasingly aware of happening in our skies and in our weather.

        I don't see this game, the complacency of the public, the vitriol of the deniers, the conflicting views in the media as lasting much longer. Yes, CO2, of which we are all guilty of generating with our need for cars and air conditioners and so forth, has undoubtedly initiated the greenhouse effect. But 60 years worth of systematically dumping incomprehensibly huge amounts of shit out of the ass end of airplanes to intentionally fill our skies with aerosols and God only knows what else, must point a finger at a select few, who must be held criminally accountable, be they scientist, engineer, chemist, or accountant. What's it gonna take, people? What's it gonna take to stop these motherf**kers? (sorry, I'm pissed off).

  3. Mark Hanson says:

    Very well presented Dr Teal!

    We have been trained to think 'horizontally' about atmosphere and why we stand upwind of smoke and just expect 'tomorrow' to be a refresh of today. Spring, summer fall, winter are linear and horizontal events and now we need to focus on the 'vertical'.

    The troposphere ( layer closest to earth) has a pretty low ceiling and represents 80% of the atmosphere. At the equator, the ceiling is only 17km / 28mi up and if we could walk there, it would only take about 9 hours. At the poles, it is much lower~7km / 12 mi and our walk would be complete in ~4 hours. The point being that so many folks think the atmosphere is much larger than it is as looking into the sky / space and its enormous scale can easily cause confusion. The atmosphere is remarkably 'finite' and for the same reasons one would not build a fire in a small cave, we need to be alot smarter about this. I'm heartened by DW's drive and all the contributions / observations that appear here and encouraged that these efforts will bring about constructive change.

  4. Ralph Ely says:

    Dr. Teal, thank you for clear and concise science in your comments and observations.  And thank you for referring to the creditability of the information and science to be found on this site.

    Your condensation of the cause, effect and solution should give everyone an additional platform from which to launch a new barrage of vocal and written notices to the Power Structure and the, as of yet, sleeping uninformed John Q. Public.      

  5. Chris says:

    I agree with what you are saying about the geoengineering. However I don't see any evidence that Obama is behind all of this as I see implied in many of these articles. Quite the contrary, he speaks out on climate change more than any other president I know.  Just last week he announce a $4 billion incentive program for renewable energy and education yet there was barely a mention of it in the main media. Let's give credit where credit is due or show me some concrete evidence that he supports this climate assault which has been going on for decades.  The industrial military complex funded by the giant corporations are responsible for this quagmire but how in the world do you deal with them?

    • Dane Wigington says:

      Hello Chris, first, the article in question was not authored by me. That being said, I don’t believe the author is singling out Obama, 65 years of administrations have been involved. Next, Obama, like all previous administrations, is not disclosing the climate engineering issue, this is a lie of omission. His name is brought up more often because he is the current president.

    • penny says:

      Chris, you are right that it is unfair to single out one President on this – originally I had included a paragraph on how all of them are following orders from elsewhere, thus virtually indistinguishable when it comes to policy (though the rhetoric varies).  Ultimately, I think we all have to take responsibility, and it is a source of constant disappointment to me here in "environmentally friendly" Norway to hear comments like, "We deserve to have our homes at 72 degrees in the winter, because we live in such a cold climate," and to see people driving SUV's and even the occasional Hummer.  The point of the article was to take a crack at the weak arguments of global-warming deniers, not at any individual.  But I thought I gave Obama a way out of ending his 2nd term in shame; all he has to do is utter the two words: Stop Geoengineering.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers