NOTE: I don’t necessarily agree with this [at all], but I thought it worth exposing – Anthony
In a recent article in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, Transdyne Corporation geoscientist J. Marvin Herndon makes the startling claim that climate scientists, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have been chasing the wrong culprit for global warming and climate change.
“Time series of global surface temperature presentations often exhibit a bump coincident with World War II (WW2),” the Herndon article explains, “as did one such image on the front page of the January 19, 2017 New York Times.” Intrigued by the front-page New York Times graph, “Bernie Gottschalk of Harvard University applied sophisticated curve-fitting techniques and demonstrated that the bump,” which shows a global burst in Earth temperature during WW2, “is a robust feature showing up in eight independent NOAA databases, four land and four ocean.”
Inspired by Gottschalk’s data, Herndon considered “the broader activities of WW2,” especially those capable of “altering Earth’s delicate energy balance by particulate aerosols.” Herndon then “generalized [these] to post-WW2 global warming.” The geoscientist used relative-values of pollution-causing proxies to demonstrate “the reasonableness of the proposition that increases in aerosolized particulates over time is principally responsible for the concomitant global warming increases.”
These proxies for global particulate pollution – increasing global coal and crude oil production, as well as aviation fuel consumption – rise in strikingly parallel fashion to the rise in global temperature as shown in the accompanying figure.
“The World War II wartime particulate-pollution,” the Herndon article asserts, “had the same global-warming consequence as the subsequent ever-increasing global aerosol particulate-pollution from (1) increases in aircraft and vehicular traffic, and the industrialization of China and India with their smoke stacks spewing out smoke and coal fly ash,” as well as from recently documented studies that show “(2) coal fly ash [is being] covertly jet-sprayed into the region where clouds form on a near-daily, near-global basis.”
Herndon’s article further notes that “the integrity of [IPCC] models and assessments is compromised,” because of their “systematic failure to take into account the aerosolized pollution particulates that have been intentionally and covertly sprayed into the atmosphere for decades in the region where clouds form ….”
“Currently, air pollution is the leading environmental cause of disease and death worldwide, and…is increasing at an alarming rate,” according to Herndon, who cites a 2016 World Health Organization study. Emplacing airborne aerosols in the atmosphere to influence the weather and climate, or to enhance military communication systems, has huge adverse effects on the economy – notably on health, insurance, solar energy, energy consumption, agriculture, and forestry.
As stated: “Spraying coal fly ash into the atmosphere not only causes global warming by altering Earth’s delicate thermal balance, but it is a major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and neurodegenerative disease, as well as being involved in the global catastrophic bee and insect die-off and in forest die-offs worldwide, poisoning the biosphere with mercury, and destroying atmospheric ozone that protects us from the sun’s deadly ultraviolet radiation.”
The article contains numerous scientific references for the above statements.
Herndon concludes his article by warning that the “continued deliberate pollution of our atmosphere with aerosolized coal fly ash will inevitably cripple our ability to produce food crops and may cause untold death and destruction, for example, by altering Monsoon weather patterns and by exacerbating wildfires. Unless…halted, we [will] drive ever-forward toward the first anthropogenic mass extinction of life on Earth.”
###
Reference: Air Pollution, Not Greenhouse Gases: The Principal Cause of Global Warming. J. Geography Environ. Earth Sci. Int. 17(2) 1-8; Article no.JGEESI.44290
Freely download pdf: http://nuclearplanet.com/apmh.pdf
Source: /PRNewswire/
UPDATE: I’ve decided this fellow is not credible, this is why. From the paper:
The IPCC-condoned climate computermodels not only suffer from the uncertainties associated with those complexities, but the integrity of their models and assessments is compromised [10] by the universal, systematic failure to take into account the aerosolized pollution particulates that have been intentionally and covertly sprayed into the atmosphere for decades in the region where clouds form [11,12]. The covert aerial spraying is obvious to those
who are aware of their natural surroundings, and millions of people have expressed concern [13,14].
Another chemtrails conspiracy theorist.
See this article on chemtrails to see why the theory is a load of bunk. While the figure shown in the press release does in fact show a correlation between jet fuel consumption and modern day warming, adding the chemtrail theory into the study kills any credibility it may have had. – Anthony
Re: Contrails & weather
Impact of unusually clear weather on United States daily temperature range following 9/11/2001
Adam J. Kalkstein*, Robert C. Balling Jr
Examination of diurnal temperature range at coterminous U.S. stations during Sept. 8–17, 2001
W. A. van Wijngaarden, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, July 2012, Volume 109, Issue 1–2, pp 1–5
Ryan, A.C., MacKenzie, A.R., Watkins, S. and Timmis, R., 2012. World War II contrails: a case study of aviation‐induced cloudiness. International Journal of Climatology, 32(11), pp.1745-1753.
The Contrail-Effect – PBS NOVA April 18, 2006
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/contrail-effect/
Re: Chemtrails vs Contrails
AIRCRAFT CLOUDS: FROM CHEMTRAIL PSEUDOSCIENCE TO THE SCIENCE OF CONTRAILS
Jordi Mazon, Marcel Costa and David Pino
https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/116190/95-aircraft%20cloudsSD.pdf
Abstract
What warming?
The UAH global anomaly 12/78 through 8/18, 40 years, shows Δ1.1 C, 5/99 thru 4/15 essentially flat.
More bickering over data minutia and ignoring the root cause.
World wide distribution of the following and still no takers. Surface BB upwelling – yes or no?
I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong – or not.
Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):
1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
But how, exactly is that supposed to work?
2) There is a 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that absorbs/”traps”/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. – Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
And where does this magical GHG energy loop first get that energy?
3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible.
No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.
Demonstrations/experiments in the classical style:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Air pollution is localized and short lived. Wind-greenbelts have a major impact on removing air pollution. It has no direct impact on global warming but create the scene for urban-heat-island effect if temperature inversion is formed.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Electrosmog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqMCjEs9oxE
Air pollution was supposed to be the cause of cooling.
Real air pollutants have dropped 40~99% (depending on pollutant) just since 1980:
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary
Most clueless Leftists think air quality is getting worse and worse because of the propaganda they’re taught in school, and see and read in the MSM…
Aggressive Leftist ignorance and Socialism kills far more people around the world than air pollution ever has…
Sorry, moderator.. posted on the wrong article..
Dr. Ben Livingston : The Father Of Weaponized Weather (Full-Length HQ)
It is all make believe, i.e. nonsense dressed up with fossil fuel and mining industry sourced lipstick and makeup.
There is zero proof, offered.
Every one of their claims is based on eyeballing a modified graph with a temperature graph, then assigning causation where association is not demonstrated. Article propaganda promotes false associations to correlations and then into causation.
I’ll lay odds that the populations of lemmings and chickens would be just as alarming in their made up graph.
Similar appearing to escalate upward graph lines can be collected from a multitude of sources; e.g. human dwellings, plastic straws or pigeons.
Oh geez! It really is humans! DOH!
White tail deer are causing global warming. Since the late 1940s. The population of White Tail deer have increased dramatically. IN Pennsylvania in the late 1940s these deer were rarely observed, likely because rural poverty stricken people dined upon them during the depression. Every year since then shows double digit increases in the White Tailed Deer population to the point where the population often exceeds 50 deer per rural acre. This upward graphical curve supports the hypothesis that increases in the population of White Tailed Deer cause global warming.
Isn’t this as scientific as Air Pollution, Not Greenhouse Gases, Is the Main Cause of Global Warming?
You will not have to watch the full length video (about 3hrs) to understand to subject. It is just a weather balloon going into the stratosphere, nothing else, no agenda. You might notice however a distinct haze layer somewhere up there at the beginning. The balloon approaches this layer at about the 1hr mark. One might assume it is exactly the altitude for air travel, which gets strong support by the noise of fly-by aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxvS9XFJnE
I think this is very impressive evidence of how strongly air travel is modifying our skies, and furthermore one just has to wonder what the impact on climate will be. The “official” position would be high altitude clouds had a warming effect, which makes the question mark even bigger.
Clearly an odd job selling a belief, however much some of the statements are of interest, and may have merit.
BTW, anything that causes clouds through increased nucleation creates compensating feedback warming by reduced evaporation heat transfer and cloud formation from the oceans as they cool, including the reduction in cloud albedo. The effect is 140W/m^2 currently, which can vary to maintain the current interglacial planetary equilibrium. ANy smallchanges are easilly offset by this dominant control. Including 1.6W/M§2 of AGW, if GHE science is real. JC Maxwell didn’t think so, and debunked Kelvin/Lord Thompson’s lapse rate theory, never proven. And he was much cleverer than me.
If you spill light oil on a water surface the surface will be smoothed (see Benjamin Franklin, Clapham Pond). This lowers its albedo. An oil smoothed surface will be resistant to engagement by the wind: this reduces stirring and thus nutrient flow to phytoplankton. Starved phytoplankton populations move, on average, from C3 to C4 or C4-like metabolism, both of which discriminate less against heavy isotopes of carbon, _proportionately_ pulling down more C13 which leaves a light carbon ‘signal’ in the atmosphere.
A smoothed surface will resist wave breaking — personal observation suggests that whitecaps do not appear until approximately Force 4. Fewer breaking waves, less salt aerosol load, fewer clouds, more insolation, warmer oceans. A smoothed surface will evaporate less and thus cool less. Warming.
Now, let’s think. Why the blip?
JF
When will they ever learn –
The Siege of Leningrad – Historylearningsite.co.uk
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-and-eastern-europe/the-siege-of-leningrad/
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad
hell was frozen over in WWII.