Global Warming Fact Finder

As further proof that the global warming alarmists are making it up, an article in the LA Times on Sunday, April 18, 2010, said that “… cleaner air could speed global warming”.   Apparently their claims that the burning of fossil fuels that spew carbon, pollutants and CO² into the air isn’t working for them as much as they had hoped.  Now they are claiming that if we continue to clean the air, more sunlight is going to reach the earth and thereby warm it up. 

According to the article in the Times, “the world is running short on air pollution”.  Huh?  We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t – pollute the air that is.   They are now saying that if we continue to cut back and reduce the emissions from the industrial smoke stacks, the world is going to experience profound global warming.   So I guess it’s now going to be alright to drive my Hummer and pump exhaust into the air since this is what we need to cool the air.   We need to stuff the aerosol pollutants back up into the atmosphere to block sunlight from reaching the ground.   They say that the aerosol pollutants provided an “underappreciated impact” on us by actually cooling the globe down. 

I’m so confused.  Now I don’t know whether to drive to work in my Hummer or my electric car today.  Can somebody help me?

     I’m not sure what to think of this one. It sounds a little wacko – but on the other hand – what if it works? I just hope the government doesn’t think it’s a good idea and want to spend our money on it.

     According to one scientist from Maryland, we could conceivably regulate the temperature of the earth by spraying water into the air. Ron Ace says, “Spray giga tons of seawater into the air, mainly in the Northern Hemisphere, and let Mother Nature do the rest.” He goes on, “The evaporating water would cool the Earth in multiple ways: First, the sprayed droplets would transform into water vapor, a change that absorbs thermal energy near ground level; then the rising vapor would condense into sunlight-reflecting clouds and cooling rain, releasing much of the stored energy into space in the form of infrared radiation.”

     My question is who is going to pay for this? He says we need to spray “giga tons” of water into the atmosphere. The infrastructure to accomplish this would have to be enormous.

     Further, as we have noted before, water vapor contributes to global warming. In our article ”Rising Temperature Causes CO2 to Rise” we pointed out that water vapor composes the largest component of Greenhouse Gases at 96.9% of all of the Greenhouse gases. Other gases are miniscule by comparison.

     Water vapor in the atmosphere is the dominant green house gas effecting temperature on earth. This is most evident when you compare the night to day temperature changes in arid climates to humid climates. The night to day change of temperature in the dry, arid desert can vary as much as 40-50 degrees from night to day. However, the temperatures in humid locations will only vary 15-20 degrees from night to day. It can be further evidenced when you compare the drop in overnight temperature in an average climate area when it is cloudy versus when it is clear. Temperatures will drop to only 65 degrees when it is cloudy but will drop to 40 or 50 degrees when it is clear. Water vapor retains heat.

     At any one time water vapor accounts for 36 to 70 percent of the total greenhouse gas effects. If clouds are included, it jumps to 66 to 86 percent. Carbon Dioxide comes in a distant third for only 9 to 17 percent of the total greenhouse effect. And remember, man’s activities account for less than 3% of all of the carbon dioxide produced, so at the most, man is responsible for less than 1 percent of all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

     Therefore, I question whether pumping huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere is going to help or hinder the supposed Global Warming theory? What if it actually contributes to the warming of the planet? I do recognize that clouds to reflect the sun’s rays away from the earth. But they also trap heat close to the ground. So what would the effect be? Who knows? I just know I don’t want to pay for it through more taxes.

If you wish to read more on this click here. Also, don’t forget to check out the website at Global Warming Fact Finder.com

T. Boone Pickens Abandons His Plan for the Largest Wind Farm

     You may remember the commercials during the 2008 Presidential Campaign that featured Mr. T. Boone Pickens touting his plan to wean us off our dependency of foreign oil. His plan included developing natural gas resources and building more wind mill farms to generate electrical energy in lieu of more coal burning generation plants. One of the largest parts of his plan included building the worlds’ largest wind farms in the heart of Texas capable of generating as much as 1,000 megawatts of electricity. That is comparable to one nuclear energy generating plant.

     Well right from the beginning, there were snags. Financing was not as easy to come by as originally thought. With the current price on natural gas and electricity plunging, the numbers don’t seem to work as well. Plus, as it turns out, you need transmission lines near the wind mills to connect the electricity to the grid, and neither Pickens nor the State has been willing to step up and build those transmission lines. Transmission lines are expensive. According to Pickens, “It was a little more complicated than we thought.”

     While wind driven generators look like a logical alternative to fossil fuels, there are significant costs and tradeoffs that must be considered. For one thing, wind generators don’t necessarily blend into the landscape. They are actually a visual blight that detracts from the view of the land upon which they sit. How willing are people to have wind farms interrupting their view of the Sierras, Rockies, Great Plains or desserts (oh wait, we already have the latter). There was a time when power poles and lines were considered visual pollution. Where are environmentalists’ cries about the visual pollution? They are very vocal about the view of drilling platforms in the ocean, where they don’t even live.

     Wind farms require a great deal more land to produce the same amount of energy as a conventional generation plant. They pose a deadly risk to birds and bats in the area. The spinning blades can and do knock them out of the air.

     And when it comes to making money from the electricity generated, power companies don’t just automatically write you a check for the power you dump into the system. Prior agreement is required, and if the power is not needed they don’t pay for it. They have their own generation sources that they need to pay for first.

     T. Boone Pickens, an oil made multi-billionaire, is recommending that we wean ourselves off of the use of foreign oil - a lofty ideal for sure. But do not think for a minute that if he didn’t think he could make some serious money off of the alternatives, he would still be singing that song. But at least for now, faced with the realization of the costs involved in building wind farms, he is backing off that idea. His original idea to build the world’s largest wind farm, starting with a 1000 megawatt wind farm and expanding that to 4000 megawatts is being scaled way back. He is instead going to build 4 or 5 smaller projects.

     But you have to give him credit. At least he is doing something. Whereas, your normal environmentalist, global warming alarmist offers little more than lip service to their perceived problem – not that Pickens is necessarily one of these. Most environmental alarmists have never had to work at a serious job that requires their effort to produce a marketable product at any time in their lives. They have no idea of the lives they affect or livelihoods they destroy. Pickens though, has worked all of his life, and knows what it takes to do something productive. In spite of the problems before him, he will most likely find a way to succeed at his plan. We can only hope we will all be a little better off for his efforts.

By:  Greg Henss

As we have predicted, it is a slippery slope we are on when we allow activists to garner credibility with their doom and gloom predictions of global calamity.  When it is repeated long enough and loud enough, eventually others will begin to believe it, no matter how outlandish the claim.  And not long after that we will see laws and legislation that will cost us dearly to try and counteract the calamity.  This is what happens when people like Al Gore, touting ‘junk science’ are given encouragement.  And so it begins. 

With the election of a liberal president, and control of both the house and senate in the hands of the liberal democrats, there is little the conservative side of reason can do now to stop a ridiculous bill from being ram-roaded into law.  The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act just recently passed through the house.   This bill with more than 1500 pages has no less than 397 new government regulations, 1090 new economic mandates.  It sailed through with relatively little debate as debate was severely squelched by the Speaker Of The House, the lovely Nancy Pelosi.  All of the Republican suggested amendments were thrown out, save one.  And Representatives were given all of nine hours to read through the 1500 pages, ensuring that no one has a handle on everything that is in this huge bill. 

And if you think it won’t affect you, think again.  Also known as the ‘cap and trade’ bill, the ACES act will place taxes on electric generation, oil refineries and natural gas producers.  All of those new costs will be passed on to you, the consumer.  And according to those who have studied bill, the cap and trade taxes will be expensive and kill millions of jobs.  

By Greg Henss

How many of you remember the Global Cooling predictions of the 1970’s.  Scientists and climatologists, who started looking at average temperature declines over the past three decades, were actually predicting the possibility that we could be heading into a mini ice age.   Back then, just as now, they were afraid that politicians would not take them seriously enough to do anything about it.  Predictions of serious declines in food production, lack of rain, shifts in population centers, and the outbreak of devastating tornadoes, had pundits decrying the coming changes would change life as we know it, unless the government did something to try and stop it from coming.^[1]   And the government actually did try and do something about it. 

If you can believe this, the government actually sent bombers north, up to the polar ice cap region and cast soot out over the ice in an attempt to increase the amount of solar radiation the ice absorbed and thereby melt the ice.   Well of course, that didn’t work.  They also suddenly became concerned about what consequences it may have if it did work.  How might they have created problems far worse than those they solve?   What’s more, it wasn’t long after that the temperatures started cycling upward - naturally.  It is only recently that the average earth temperature has recovered to pre 1941 levels.  

And what is happening now?  The temperature averages are again showing signs of cycling downward.  Climate change has reversed - again.  Glaciers are growing^[2].  Polar ice is thicker than previous years, and growing seasons are again getting shorter.  This year, in June 2009, the average daily temperature is still not above freezing, marking the first time in fifty years of record keeping that has happened.^[3]

Does any of this sound familiar?  Wake up America.  Climate and global temperatures are cyclical.  And it is arrogant to believe that man could possibly have any control over it, either negatively or positively, in either direction.  In spite of evidence that shows the earth is cooling again, alarmists are still trying to convince us that we are heating up the planet by driving our cars and turning on an electric light bulb.  If politicians actually start passing legislation and taxation aimed at Global Warming, not only will they be wasting our money, but they could conceivably break our economy chasing a fix that will never work. 

But wait, they already have.  Just days ago, the United States House of Representatives led by the lovely Nancy Pelosi, passed, (or should I say ram rodded) a bill through that contains no less than 397 new government regulations and restrictions, and 1090 new economic mandates, in an effort to save us from ourselves and stop “Global Warming”.   This bill, the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act containing more than 1500 pages was narrowly passed 219 to 212, and I guarantee you that not one congressman has read the entire bill let alone understands it, especially since it was handed to them only nine hours before the vote. 

Ordinarily, voting for a huge tax on energy in the middle of a deep economic recession would be tantamount to political suicide.  But that didn’t seem to bother most of Speaker Pelosi’s Democratic flock of obedient sheep.   Although there were 44 of her flock who decided to vote their own mind and voted against it.   There probably would have been many more NO votes had the supreme leader Pelosi allowed debate on the bill to run its normal course.  But democrat leaders allowed only 3 hours of debate after which Rep. Henry Waxman (co-author) actually complained when it ran over that.   

We here at GlobalWarmingFactFinder.com are often asked, “what can we do to stop Global Warming?”  Frankly, as we see it, there isn’t anything you can do to stop it, as it appears to be a natural occurrence and cycle of the earth that is happening whether we like it or not.  But we do contribute a little bit to the CO2 that is created.   But saddly, there is little we can do about that also as we contribute less than 3% of the overall annual contribution to the atmosphere (see “Global Warming is Causing the Rise in CO2″).  But one thing that will help to scrub carbon dioxide from the air is vegetation and trees.  And we found someone who is helping on that front.

The Walt Disney Company recently announced a grant of $1.5 million to go to the Tree People to plant trees in the mountain areas around the Southern California area.   The grant which is to help reforest fire-ravaged areas around Southern California is being given to the TREE People which is a non profit organization dedicated to healing our cities and urban areas by promoting the planting of trees and educating people on their care and upkeep.  They also strive to educate and inform community leaders on the importance of trees and sustainable solutions to urban ecosystem problems.  This grant will go towards their Wildfire Restoration Initiative, making Disney their biggest financial supporter.

Southern California has be ravaged by wildfires over the last few years that have wiped out large areas of mature trees and forests in the mountains that surround Southern California.  Trees play a major roll in keeping our air clean by scrubbing CO2 out of the air through the natural process of photosynthesis.  It is nature’s way of dealing with Carbon Dioxide, a gas now being blamed for Global Warming.  By replanting large areas of forests that have been damaged by wildfires, we can do more to offset the rise in Carbon Dioxide than with any man made mechanical or artificial solution.

Initiatives like this make sense because is represents something that we can all participate in by either planting trees or helping in the care and nurturing of trees in the areas where we live.   It should be our mission, as it is for the Tree People, to  inspire, engage and support people to take personal responsibility for the urban environment, making it safe, healthy, fun and sustainable and to share the results as a model for the world, rather than whine an complain about the changes that occur in our environment.  By taking personal action we can each do something to contribute to overall objective.  It is ultimately up to us to achieve the changes we need to ensure that our world remains a sustainable, renewable resource.

If you truly want to do something about the CO2 in the atmosphere, plant trees, lawns, shrubs and all nature of flora.  Let photosynthesis do the work.

You can find more information on Global Warming at GlobalWarmingFactFinder.com

By:  Greg Henss

Global Warming researcher and primary advisor on Global Warming to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is reluctantly admitting that trying to stop Global Warming is useless and not worth the money or effort. Realizing that the entire notion that Man is creating the entire Global Warming phenomenon is a patently false hypothesis, Professor Ross Garnaut conceded last week that, “… it is cheaper for Australians (and other industrialized nations)to do nothing about global warming”.

Professor Garnaut is one of the primary authorities upon whom the Rudd government has based most of its policy on Global Warming issues. But realizing that Man’s contribution to carbon dioxide as a Greenhouse gas is infinitesimal, Professor Garnaut went on to admit that “…there’s no point spending big money to “stop” this warming when it won’t make a blind bit of difference.”

Currently the Rudd Government is not commenting on the revelations made by Professor Garnaut, perhaps hoping that no journalists will notice or care what Garnaut has just admitted. But as a result of his admissions, much of the argument in favor of the Government’s grand plan to slash emissions by 2010 has just been destroyed.

According to Piers Akerman, writer for The Daily Telegraph, “NO SINGLE issue better illustrates the Rudd Government’s gross incompetence than its blindly ideological approach to the question of climate change.” What is at stake her is billions of dollars that are to be foolishly spent and wasted on trying to reduce our CO2 emissions, when it will make absolutely no difference at all.

We in the United States of course have Al Gore to contend with. And we at the Global Warming Fact Finder have pointed out several inaccuracies and flawed reports in Gore’s farce of a movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Environmentalists and liberal alarmists jumped on this movie as the ‘tell all, end all’ to the whole premise of anthropogenic Global Warming claiming that human action is causing the Global Warming phenomenon when in fact it is not so.

The facts show that it is actually temperature rise that is causing the rise in CO2 levels through natural earth processes, not humans. Further, many scientists are saying that we are actually going into a cooling period on earth and have been since 2002. North America, including Alaska, Canada, northern United States and Siberia just recently recorded one of the coldest winters in centuries. Ice returned to the north areas with a vengeance adding an additional 15 to 30 centimeters to the average thickness. And debunking yet another myth, we have shown that human contribution to the overall new production of carbon dioxide is less than 1%. The natural processes of the earth’s soil, oceanic activity and vegetation produces over 99% of the overall annual contribution to CO2 levels into the atmosphere.

It is important that the U.S. Government realizes that to start following a flawed ideological premise promulgated by liberal extremists will be irresponsible and devastating to the American economy. We can only hope the next administration doesn’t fall into trap of wanting to look like it is doing something, at the expense of the American people.

By:  Greg Henss

Yet another liberal claim is being blown up as propaganda. Man is not responsible for Global Warming after all. As it turns out, the natural rise in earth temperature is what is causing the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It is not the other way around the way the doom and gloom liberal alarmists would have you believe.

If you were to watch the Al Gore farce of a movie “An Inconvenient Truth” you might walk away with the idea that we as humans on earth, living in the glow of the great technological luxuries that the creativity of man has provided, are causing Global Warming as a whole. Scientists are now looking at the information becoming available, that carbon dioxide, which it has been claimed is the big culprit, is indeed increasing. But the data is showing … read more …>

By: Greg Henss

The Ski Area at Snowmass, Colorado, has decided that it wants to do its part and try to go “Green”, and reduce Global Warming by installing wind turbines on top of the mountain to generate electricity for the Ski area operations. But as it turns out, it may have an ‘unintended consequence’ as they may be a hazard for bats.

Wind generator turbines are required to have identifying lights on them for aircraft to see at night, when the turbines get up above a certain height. Being that the turbines will be on top of the mountain, and are 200 feet tall, these qualify for navigation lighting. That now makes it a problem for the bats in the area since the lights will likely attract insects which will in turn attract bats. With a concentration of insects, there is likely to be a concentration of bats which could then be ‘batted’ out of the sky by the spinning blades of the turbine.

The Aspen Skiing Company and the Forest Service are considering placing three tall wind turbines atop the ski mountain in a effort to generate electricity and reduce the “carbon footprint” of the ski area operation. Aspen Skiing Company figures that by placing three turbines into their system they can reduce their electrical draw by two-thirds. But in so doing, the blades of the three turbines may become deadly for the bats if navigation lights are required on the turbines.

The Forest Service first became aware of the potential problem during a preliminary study of the potential environmental and visual effects that the towers may create. Such impacts will need to be more fully investigated and studied before the project can move forward. Results of the environmental impact reports will also need to be reviewed by the federal government.

Another hurdle that must be overcome is wind speeds will need to be studied to determine the viability of using wind turbines. In an effort to conduct that study, the Forest Service and Ski Company have decided to place a temporary wind turbine tower to test the wind speed, since a temporary tower does not need approvals and studies because of its ‘temporary’ nature. However, during their effort to hoist the tower into place, the tower fell to the ground as it was being winched up, damaging the tower. They hope to have the tower in place in the next week or so.

Officials are also concerned about possible opposition from people who object to the visual impact of the 200 foot tall towers atop their mountain. But the same officials discounted the potential for opposition stating that, “I think that five years ago you wouldn’t have been able to suggest this project. But I think today people understand the scale of climate change”, according to Jim Stark, winter recreation supervisor for the White River National Forest.

This is one of the consequences that I predicted when I warned how liberals will continue to promote propaganda and false science to further their agenda. The more people hear the flawed arguments, the more they begin to accept them, and allow costly attempts at mitigation of the purported problem. It is a slippery slope we are on as liberals begin to get their agendas accepted with incremental advances. It doesn’t matter how outlandish the claim, if they repeat it enough times, they begin to garner favor.

Don’t get me wrong. I am in favor of doing what we can do that is within reason to limit our use of fossil fuels and reduce our impact on the earth. But each and every attempt at that mitigation comes with a cost. In this case, we may have to loose a few hundred bats and we’ll have to put up with the visual of the towers on top of a picturesque mountain in Colorado. Environmentalists used to complain about electrical transmission towers, poles and lines calling them visual polution. How is a spinning wind turbine not visual pollution?

What is more, if three turbines will eliminate two-thirds of their electrical energy use, why stop there? Why not put in five, or ten towers? Once you have a few unsightly towers up there, people will get used to them and won’t mind a bunch more. I mean you should see our desert around the Palm Springs area in Southern California. There are so many wind mills that you can hardly see the desert any more. It’s just incredible.

Get more information on Global Warming at GlobalWarmingFactFinder.com