, , , ,

Buried deep in the archives of The New York Times is an article about termites. And the green house gases they produce.

A fundamental law is that nothing is ever destroyed. When termites consume wood and vegetation, they turn it into energy, heat, and gaseous byproducts like carbon dioxide and methane. Both are dreaded greenhouse gases.

They are by definition some of the biggest polluters on the planet.

The following is from a 1982 New York Times article “Termite Gas Exceeds Smokestack Pollution”:

“For several years scientists have been warning that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by increased burning of fuel is likely to alter world climates, like a greenhouse, by inhibiting the escape of heat into outer space.

“Now researchers report that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world’s smokestacks.

“Termite gas production has become particularly high, the researchers say, because widespread clearing of land has offered them abundant food in the debris of felled forests. By digesting this debris, they are adding not only carbon dioxide but also methane to the atmosphere. Other researchers have found that methane in the atmosphere is increasing 2 percent a year.

“The high level of termite gas production is reported in the Nov. 5 issue of the journal Science. The authors measured termite gas production inside laboratory jars. In Guatemala forests, they enclosed a huge arboreal termite nest in a Teflon bag to confirm that the insects were prolific producers of methane.”

“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.” — Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of its first three reports.

According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

Termite “polluters” are only one source of such gases. Every living creature emits carbon dioxide and methane — even humans. Then there are the cows that are constantly belching and passing gas.

The Jounrnal of Science archive can be found here:  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563.full.pdf

The New York times article is found here: http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html

Some cows are now wearing back packs — “fartpacks” — to capture their emissions.

Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?) Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant.

Let’s not forget volcanoes. Volcanoes emit hundreds of times more. In fact, our atmosphere’s composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we’re living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity.

Another author of the report, Patrick R. Zimmerman of the atmospheric center in Boulder, said that plant respiration and decay added 10 to 15 times as much carbon dioxide to the air as termites.

During the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide levels were 300–500% greater than today. Five hundred million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 15–20 times what it is today. Yet the catastrophic water-vapor amplification of carbon dioxide warming never occurred.

Today we’re told catastrophic warming will result if carbon dioxide doubles. But during the Ordovician Period, the carbon dioxide level was 12 times what it is today, and the earth was in an Ice Age. That’s exactly opposite to the “runaway” warming that computer models predict should occur. Clearly the models are wrong; they depend upon an assumption of amplification that is contrary to the climate record of millions of years.

There is no reason to trust the computer predictions — or base public policies on them. Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, has stated, “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
There are other examples where the computer models fail to agree with reality. According to the greenhouse hypothesis, the warming should occur equally during day and night. But most of the warming that has been observed has occurred at night, thus falsifying the models.

All of the models agree — for sound theoretical reasons — that warming from a greenhouse effect must be 2–3 times greater in the lower atmosphere than at the earth’s surface. This is not happening. Both satellites and weather balloons show slightly greater warming at the surface. These atmospheric temperature measurements furnish direct, unequivocal evidence that whatever warming has occurred is not from the greenhouse effect.

Everyone knows the sun heats the earth, but the public is generally unaware that the sun’s heat is not uniform. Solar radiation is affected by disturbances on the surface of the sun, called “sunspots,” which correspond to the sun’s 11-year magnetic cycle. There are also several solar cycles of longer duration. Superimposed, these cycles might augment or cancel each other. There are also periods when sunspots “crash,” or almost disappear, which can lead to dramatic cooling of the earth for several decades. This is what happened 400 years ago during the Maunder Minimum, which was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. During one 30-year period during the Maunder Minimum only about 50 sunspots were observed, compared to a typical 40–50 thousand. Sunspots have now virtually vanished. You can check out pictures of the sun day after day after day for the last few years.

Let’s not let the EPA find this 32-year article. It might get them thinking on how much more they can regulate our world into oblivion.

In any case, some climate scientists believe the length of past solar cycles points to a cool phase in this century. Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, believes a slow decline in temperatures will begin as early as 2012–15 and will lead to a deep freeze in 2050–60 that will last about 50 years.

Climatologist Tim Patterson thinks that by 2020 the sun will be starting its weakest 11-year sunspot cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. He says, “If we’re to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than ‘global warming’ would have had.”

The global warming advocates make all sorts of false claims about dire consequences of global warming. They claim it will result in the spread of malaria, food shortages, more human deaths, more violent weather, and a loss of biological diversity through the extinction of species. All untrue. The largest number of species — the greatest biological diversity — is in the tropics. As you move away from the equator, you find fewer and fewer species, until you reach the earth’s poles, where there is zero diversity because nothing can live there.

Agricultural productivity is also reduced by cold climate, not a warmer one. That’s why Siberia and Alaska are not noted for agricultural abundance. A warmer climate would mean longer growing seasons and would make agriculture possible in areas where it isn’t today. And there are at least 300 studies showing plants and forests grow faster and more luxuriantly under conditions of increased carbon dioxide.

The science of scaring people into action is false science and bad science.

For a start, “Rapid climate change” is currently not happening worldwide, and hasn’t for at least the past 15 years. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the reduced rate of warming in its latest report: “The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05°C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 °C per decade).”

Curiously, while alarmists warn about the horrors of returning to the climate of millions of years ago, paleoclimatologists tell a different story. They more often see our earlier planet as a “paradise,” even “paradise lost.” Paradise lost? Yup things were better back then. That study is found here: http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=239#more-239

Blatant lies by the global change alarmists are coming full circle and after a decade and a half of lie after lie and false science the truth is beginning to leak out.

Among many deceptions—too many to deal with here—one is particularly blatant. For more than a decade, the public has been bombarded by claims that the planet was not just warming but experiencing “accelerated”, “unequivocal,” “unprecedented” and “dangerous” warming. Yet the actual temperature record shows that during the past decade, on average, there has been little or no warming.

Only recently, faced with a gap between the climate reality  and alarmist theory that was too great to ignore, has official climate science begun to admit the facts to the public.

And so, in June, the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a peer-reviewed article that began: “Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008. Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008.”

Early in August, a press release from the British Meteorological Office admitted there had been no warming—the Met delicately called it “a pause in the warming”—in the upper 700 metres of the world’s oceans since, get this, 2003. Yet, for the past eight years, the Met has warned the public about a dangerous heating up of the oceans.

A scientist is never certain. It’s give and take, it’s fact and figures. The best science provides ALL data used and not limited data that supports your opinion. The Climate change alarmists have destroyed data so their results can’t be contradicted. This is as far from real science as one can get. The claim that scientists agree is another falsehood. The debate on the real science is alive and well.

In the 2002 Scientific American while trying to attack a “denier” the publication included this little tide bit. “I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. … uncertainties are so endemic in these complex problems that suffer from missing data, incomplete theory and nonlinear interactions.”

Missing data, incomplete theory? But isn’t the science “settled”? PS: The only data “missing” is from the original “settled” science. Who cares that every model has been false, every prediction false and yet when presented with real science they say oh you’re a denier and don’t you know this is settled..

The problem with believing the science “settled” is so many times in the history of science these same “settled” debates have ended poorly for the “consensus”. Flat earth, Sun revolves around the earth, the continents can’t “drift,” that Newton’s laws were immutable, and hundreds if not thousands of others. All believed to be “settled” science in their time and day.

Science progresses by the overturning of theories once thought “certain.” And so, Carl Sagan has written: “Even a succession of professional scientists—including famous astronomers who had made other discoveries that are confirmed and now justly celebrated—can make serious, even profound errors in pattern recognition.”

So can we finally abandon the false science behind “global warming and Global climate change” and move on to the real science of taking better care of our planet so we can pass a better world to our children? Can we move from scare people into action to teaching them to be better care takers of our world?

God I hope so! Yes I’m a denier.