With Donald Trump’s imminent return to the White House, a climate change denier is once more going to be in charge of the country that currently is the world’s leading oil and gas supplier and its second biggest greenhouse gas polluter. Trump has called anthropogenic climate change an expensive hoax, mythical, and nonexistent. When he was President in 2017, he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. He discounts evidence of sea level rise and criticizes wind turbines for killing birds and bats en masse. He has questioned the need for electric vehicles (EVs) although with Elon Musk now in his back pocket, that last item on his climate-denying list will likely go away.
The last time Trump bailed on the United Nations and its supervised global climate change efforts, he left a vacuum that China and the European Union had to fill. Now, the future of the COP annual meetings, where global climate change negotiations take place, is likely to take a back seat to any actions the U.S. takes or doesn’t regarding the climate file.
Trump has indicated he is no fan of the American Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) which has pushed the U.S. on a path to mitigate climate change through programs that accelerate electrification of the economy. The Act uses tax credits, deductions and rebates to cover carbon emissions capture. It provides vehicle credits for purchasing EVs. It includes incentives to develop clean fuel alternatives to gas and diesel, money for home energy audits, retrofit funds for windows, doors and improvements to building envelopes for energy conservation. It subsidizes upgrades to heat pumps and the purchase of solar panels and biomass stoves. It offers utilities money for grid modernization, and expansion of renewable energy capacity including solar, on and offshore wind, and battery storage. There are incentives for domestic sourcing and production of the critical minerals needed to support battery and renewable energy development. Funds are available for special climate programs where Americans have been affected by extreme weather events including federal assistance for climate resilience for indigenous people.
Will he try to roll back these federal programs considering that the money already invested has benefitted many states that voted for him? The IRA’s job impact is already noticeable having created several hundred thousand new jobs in 44 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. The projections show the Act will yield more than a million new jobs yearly in the years to follow. For Trump to kill the Act would be political suicide so I highly doubt he will do much more than play around the edges to shore up his climate change-denying credentials.
This week Trump announced his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is former congressman, Lee Zeldin, whose voting record in support of environmental issues has been weak. He is likely to have a mandate to roll back EPA policies that restrict fossil fuel expansion and use and may undo initiatives around carbon emissions capture and sequestration.
Trump likely will pull the U.S. out a second time from the Paris Climate Agreement which will put other countries on the hook to make up the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction differences that will be absent with the world’s second-largest polluter walking away. Trump may even go further and withdraw from the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change conventions agreed to by then-President George H. W. Bush and unanimously approved by the American Senate. That convention established the basis for the Paris Agreement in 2015 and the annual global COP meetings that are organized to tackle climate change.
The commitments to slash emissions by 50% in 2030 from 2005 levels made by President Biden will be ignored. The remaining American climate change program commitments will have to come from state and local governments. Fortunately, at the non-federal level, the U.S. has good coverage with 48 states and the District of Columbia having developed comprehensive climate change action plans. Hundreds of cities and towns also have climate action policies. An organization called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) throughout the U.S. provides support for local initiatives by providing technical assistance and tools.
In a PBS News segment, its headline reads: “Experts worry Trump’s second term will cripple efforts to stop climate change.” The article expresses concerns about an “emboldened Trump” and what it will mean to the limiting of warming of the planet. Trump’s return to the White House is happening just as mean atmospheric temperatures are approaching 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) the desired lower threshold target that Paris Climate Agreement attendees aspired to achieve. In the absence of U.S. climate leadership, however, unless the rest of the world steps up we are trending in the wrong direction.
At COP29 this week it was expected to achieve agreement on a global climate aid fund that is expected to grow to $1 trillion annually. Absent the U.S. contribution after Trump pulls out, the fund will likely not come close to the objective. At the same time as an international partner, the U.S. will lose with some stating that everyone knows the country doesn’t follow through on any agreements it signs. What an indictment.
Related Posts
When Dealing With Climate Change Winning Slowly is the Same as Losing
With COP 29 In Two Weeks A Reminder To Delegates – We Are On Pace For A 3.1 Celsius Rise In Atmospheric Temperatures
Italian-Swiss Border Change is the First of Many Geopolitical Adjustments Expected in the 21st Century
Sustainable Business Practices For A Changing World
One Thing Is Certain – When It Comes To Cosmology And The Universe Nothing Is Certain
Can Humans Direct The Weather? Ask Marjorie Taylor Greene
Is Global Warming Causing Groundwater Sources To Shrink?
Canada Celebrates The End Of War Each November 11th
The paper below was published in peer review in 2004 if my memory recalls. This is the scientific paper that got me blacklisted, and my scientific works taken out of Peer-revew 20 years ago, in only two weeks after it was published in Peer Review.
Every fact in it is easily verified with any computer that has a link to the web, and I encourage you to verify everything in it. Don’t take it for the truth prove it yourself.
The essential truth of the paper is that those scientist who established Carbon Dioxide Climate Change did not have the means to scientifically test their hypothesis’ basic assumptions. Important among those assumptions was their false belief that the Sun largely only produced visible light, and visible light is what warmed the Earth. What little heat the Sun did produce they felt, was already blaocked out by the natural levels of Carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air already. Adding more Carbon Dioxide would not decrease the downward flux of energy from the Sun but it would keep in more outgoing heat from the Earth. Thus they held that there was a “Heart Imballance” more heat was leaving than arriving. Wrong! NASA satellites confirm that the outgoing and incoming heat are identical. There is no Heat Imballance, therefore Carbon Dioxide warming is impossible.
A NEEDED REINTERPRETATION OF CO2 CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY AND 19TH CENTURY EXPERIMENTS IN LIGHT OF MODERN EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
By
William A. Masters, II
This article is based in part on the author’s book:
The Science Against Human Caused Caron-Dioxide Warming.
ABSTRACT
It has been 69 years since Gilbert Plass, the father of CO2 climate change, wrote his paper THE CARBON DIOXIDE THEORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE. However, in 1955 there was no satellite date to confirm his theory. There are now reams of new data that contradict his findings on the role of CO2 in climate change. As such, science must reevaluate all past holdings as new data directly affects those beliefs and proves that Carbon Dioxide does not warm the Earth.
______________________________________________________________________________
The Early Understanding of Climate Theory finds its Roots in Ancient Beliefs.
Ancient People knew the Sun both warmed and illuminated the Earth. However, they believed that the Sun’s visible light illuminated and warmed the Earth, they did not know of invisible Infrared (IR) heat.
In 1800 Sir William Herschel discovered invisible IR. His measurements showed that most of the Sun’s heat was in the IR, but people continued to hold that visible light warmed the Earth.
Scientific Philosophers were constrained by 3 widely held consensuses:
1. Visible light warmed the earth.
2. The IR band was small and visible light made up the great majority of the Sun’s radiation.
3. The sun emitted so little IR, that it was already all but eliminated by the CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere naturally. Therefore, additional man-made CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels did not change the downward flux of heat from the Sun, it only changed the upward flux from the Earth, creating a “Heat Imbalance” which warmed the Earth with added CO2.
Today we know all three consensuses are incorrect. IR is the dominant radiation given off by the Sun.
Only 70% of the Sun’s heat is blocked out by the atmosphere. Added man-made CO2 does reduce the downward flux from the sun cooling the Earth and reducing the greenhouse effect. There is no Heat imbalance, NASA satellites and ground stations confirm the heat leaving the Earth is identical to that arriving from the Sun.
These 3 false beliefs dominate Savante Arrhenius’s work ON THE INFLUENCE OF AQUEOUS VAPOUR AND CARBONIC ACID IN THE AIR UPON THE TEMPERATURE OF THE GROUND, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Vol. 41, April 1896, Pgs. 237-276.
Arrhenius did the experimentation needed to determine the proportion by which CO2 and water vapor decreased the intensity of heat. He writes:
“The intensity of radiation for any group of rays should always diminish with increasing quantity of aqueous vapor or carbonic acid traversed. If a ray of heat, corresponding to the angle of deviation 39 degrees 45 minutes passes through the unit of carbonic acid, it decreases in intensity in the proportion 1: 0.934 (log = -0.0296), the corresponding value for the unit of water-vapour is 1: 0.775 (log= -0.11105).”
As he believed most of the IR was already blocked by the current levels of CO2 and water vapor, any increase in CO2 would change very little, Arrhenius writes:
“The influence of this absorption is comparatively small on the heat from the sun, but must be of great importance in the transmission of rays from the earth.”
In 1906, Karl Schwarzchild formalized this effect with his Equation for Radiant Transfer which is:
Schwarzchild’s Equation allows you to calculate the decrease in the intensity of heat radiation as it passes through a non-scattering medium at thermal equilibrium.
It reads thusly:
“dI” The decrease in the Intensity of
“λ” (lambda), the wavelength of the ray being calculated.
Lambda is constant in this formula, as you may only calculate for one wavelength at a time.
“=” is equal to,
“n” The number of molecules with
“σλ” (Sigma), the specific absorption cross-section for that wavelength.
“Bλ” Times the Plank function for Temperature for that wavelength.
“ds” Over the distance traveled through the absorbing gas molecules.
“-“ minus
“n” then number of molecules
“σλ” (Sigma), with the specific absorption cross-section for -that wavelength.
“Iλ” Times the Intensity of that wavelength when it enters the absorbing gas.
“ds” Over the distance.
These two sections can be combined into the third section of the formula to make it shorter. This third part does not change it but restates the first two parts.
What this formula means is the intensity of the Sun’s heat at the surface of the Earth is proportional to the number of absorbing molecules in the atmosphere that the heat ray must pass through. Double the number of absorbing molecules and they absorb twice as much of the Sun’s heat. Each molecule added blocks out more entering Sun heat cooling the Earth. A cooler Earth will give off less heat reducing, not increasing the Greenhouse Effect.
In short, the greater the “n”, the more Sun heat will be absorbed, and less heat will transact the gas.
This does not change Arrhenius’s proportion, it merely formalizes it.
In the 50 years after Arrhenius and Schwarzchild, Gilbert Plass, Kondrat’ev, Kaplan, Sasamori, Yamamoto, and Fritz Moller all built experimental apparatus to test this formula. Their results are in Table 1 of Moller’s work “On the Influence of Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth’s Surface and on the Climate”. Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 31, July 1, 1963.
They all found that less sun heat passed through their test chambers with higher levels of carbon dioxide gas in the chamber, while more heat passed through with lower levels of carbon dioxide gas in the chamber. Thus, carbon dioxide gas acts like a gaseous parasol that absorbs the Sun’s heat radiation and blocks it out.
Enter Gilbert Plass, the father of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change.
Plass is a physicist at Johns Hopkins University and like Arrhenius, holds to the 3 false consensuses of 19th Century climate science to be true, except for #1.
In Plass’s time, more accurate measurements of the Sun’s energy at the ground told Plass that IR constitutes 52% of the Sun’s rays hitting the Earth, so he knows that Consensus 1 is wrong, and so, #2 is probably also wrong. But Plass needs satellite data from above the Earth’s atmosphere to tell for sure. Plass knows that the atmosphere is filtering out the Sun’s rays, but to prove that consensus #2 and #3 are correct or wrong, he needs pure data from above the atmosphere.
The first sentience of the Abstract to his work THE CARBON DIOXIDE THEORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE, Tellus, Vol. VIII, Pgs. 140-154, August 1955, reads:
“The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15-micron CO2 band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6 degrees C if the C02 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled and decreases 3.8 degrees C if the CO2, amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influences the radiation balance.” (emphasis mine).
He further writes:
“It is assumed that nothing else changes that affect the radiation balance when the CO2, amount varie.”
Thus, he notes that IF increased levels of CO2 do not change the downward flux from the Sun, THEN the Earth should get an increase in temperature with an increase in CO2, and a decrease in temperature if you decrease CO2. But we know that it does change the downward flux.
Above the atmosphere the Sun’s heat is 250F degrees average temperature, reaching a high of 265F degrees. Below the atmosphere, the Earth’s average temperature is only 76F degrees, 174 degrees colder.
Since Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin returned from his spacewalk, we have known that it is incredibly hot above the Earth’s atmosphere.
Contrary to Consensus #3, 30% of the Sun’s heat energy arrives at the surface of the Earth constituting 52% of all Solar energy reaching the surface. This makes IR the dominant radiation, not visible light!
Further, since 30% of the sun’s heat gets in, added CO2 will block out significant amounts of Sun heat cooing the Earth and reversing the Greenhouse effect even more.
The blocking of Sun heat by added CO2 is also proven by NASA measurements of the Troposphere. As CO2 has risen, the Troposphere’s temperature has risen at pace with CO2
The increasing temperature of the Troposphere means that the Troposphere is blocking out more Sun heat than it did in the past when it had less CO2, and so it is cooling the Earth below, and reversing the greenhouse effect.
Here is a chart showing the Opacity of the Earth’s atmosphere to the Sun’s radiation.
Nearly all of the Sun’s radiation is blocked out by the atmosphere. Only Visible light, some Near-IR, most of the Mid-IR, and all of the Radio waves make it past the atmosphere.
That more CO2 added to the atmosphere will reduce incoming Sun heat and cause a drop in radiated heat off the surface is a scientific fact. Yet all supporter of Climate Change Theory denies this reality.
Thanks to the technology we now have that gives us pure and complete data on the Sun’s emissions. We now have a complete understanding of the role of IR in Earth’s Climate. However, there is more to tell, for as CERN Laboratory has taught us, the Universe’s Cosmic Radiation plays a major role in Earth’s climate as well.
CERN Lab’s CLOUD Project has been called the “Final nail in the coffin of CO2 Climate Change Theory”.
In the First edition of the United Nations Report on Climate Change by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the report espouses the belief that the 1.4watts per meter squared (wpm2) of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age which could not then be explained by science was caused by CO2 added to the Atmosphere by mankind via the burning of fossil fuels. CERN’s CLOUD Project has found that Cosmic Radiation has caused 1.2 wpm2 of that 1.4 wpm2 not CO2. Thus only 0.2wpm2 is left unexplained.
The Sun’s magnetosphere protects the Earth from the cosmic radiation that baths the Universe. It is everywhere, seemingly coming from every direction. When cosmic radiation enters the Earth’s atmosphere it creates rarified plasmas that act as seedlings for clouds. This process also creates isotopes of Beryllium 10 (Be-10), which get trapped in the ice layers, and isotopes of Carbon-14 (C-14), which get trapped in trees. These isotopes leave a map of past levels of Cosmic Radiation going back 1.2 million years.
By the 1960s researchers saw that during Solar Minimums, like the Little Ice Age, when the Sun’s magnetosphere was weak, there were large quantities of Be-10 and C-14. Conversely, during Solar Maximums, like the Medieval Warming Period, when the Sun’s magnetosphere was very strong, there were far fewer of these isotopes present. This gave birth to an idea that cosmic radiation may be creating rarified plasmas in the upper atmosphere, and that these plasmas could be cloud seedlings creating more clouds when the Sun’s magnetosphere was weak and fewer clouds when it was strong leading to far greater swings in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface over time.
This thought struck the mind of Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark, the Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen Denmark. Svensmark was fascinated by this idea of cosmic radiation creating rarefied plasmas and did the basic math. Svensmark saw that cosmic ray cloud seeding provided a solution to the mystery of how to reconcile the Sun’s influence on climate, with the small 0.1% variations in the solar irradiance over its solar cycle.
Svensmark devised an experiment to prove that Cosmic radiation could create seedlings for clouds and approached CERN Labs for financial support. CERN’s Directors did not want to wade into the pool that was man-made global warming and denied his request for funds because if right, he would prove that carbon dioxide was not the driver of Earth’s temperatures.
The “consensus” at that time was that mankind was making the Earth warmer, and Svensmark’s experiment if it proved to be true, would question that consensus, if not blow it out of the water. As such Svensmark found no backers.
Svensmark returned to his lab and worked on his own to prove that these plasmas existed and could act as cloud seeds. The result of his work was announced at the 1996 COSPAR Space Science Meeting in Birmingham England. It was published the following year in the JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS, Volume 61, Issue 11, p. 795-797 (1997), under the title: VARIATION OF COSMIC-RAY FLUX AND GLOBAL CLOUD COVERAGE-A MISSING LINK IN SOLAR-CLIMATE, by H. Svensmark and Eigil Friss-Christensen.
This report caught the attention of Director Jasper Kirkby, at CERN. Kirby approached CERN with an experiment to establish the cloud cosmic ray hypothesis, based upon the ionization Svensmark’s experiment proved was happening in the upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation, but again, CERN was not interested in getting into the discussion of man-made climate change and denied funding.
Soon after his second rejection by CERN, Svensmark realized that a recent discovery that low-level clouds were particularly sensitive to cosmic-ray variations suggested that a simple, and affordable experiment could be done at sea level. He called his experiment SKY.
Svensmark set up his experiment in the basement of the Danish National Space Center, and by 2005 Svensmark had found the causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds! His experiment showed that electrons released in the air by cosmic rays, act as catalysts significantly accelerating the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules, which are the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei. Svensmark created huge numbers of microscopic droplets in his reaction chamber. The speed, and efficiency with which the electrons did the work of stitching molecular clusters together took Svensmark completely by surprise.
Svensmark had discovered a climatologic mechanism that was previously unknown in meteorology. One which brought the cosmos and cosmic rays into climate studies with a bang!
Kirkby went back to CERNs directors with the new data and won them over, and the CLOUD Project began.
CLOUD is based at the Proton Synchrotron (PS) at CERN. The CLOUD project is the first time a high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and climate science.
During its first 5 years in service, CERN’s CLOUD Project identified the vapors responsible for aerosol particle formation in the atmosphere. Cloud droplets cannot form without these aerosol particles, so understanding what they are, how they are made, and how they work is vital to understanding cloud formation in the atmosphere. These vapors include Sulfuric Acid, Ammonia, Amines, and brand new to the discussion Biogenic Vapors from Trees (BVTs)!
The BVTs were a big discovery and a total surprise. They had never even been discussed before as a possible method of seed production, yet experiments showed they play a major role in cloud formation.
It was long held that sulfur dioxide was necessary for aerosol particle formation, and because most sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere today comes from the burning of carbon fuels, computer climate models held that there were fewer clouds in the pre-industrial world as there was no significant industrialization to produce the sulfur dioxide needed for aerosol particle formation. CLOUD has shown that that belief is incorrect. While most aerosols do require sulfuric acid, purely biogenic vapors from trees can also cause aerosol particle formation by themselves, without any sulfur dioxide being present. More dramatic than that was the CLOUD Project has shown that their formation rate is enhanced 100 times by cosmic rays!
This went against all past climate models. These BVTs have been shown by the CLOUD Project to dominate particle growth in unpolluted environments. More dramatic was the CLOUD Project showed that as these particles increase in size they grow even more rapidly under cosmic ray bombardment, creating whiter, and fuller clouds which makes these clouds super-efficient at absorbing and blocking out sun heat from reaching the Earth’s surface.
CERN’s discoveries mean that there were a lot more clouds in Earth’s history than believed and that all the past climate models are wrong. They have far too few clouds factored into their calculations and must be tossed out. Those models hold that Sulfur-Dioxide Nucleation was the process by which cloud-seeding particles were made, which we now know is wrong.
Low-level clouds cover almost a quarter of the sky and exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. The 2% change in low cloud cover seen during the sun’s 11-year solar cycle will vary the heat reaching the earth by an average of 1.2wpm2. Given that the IPCC believes that added CO2 has increased warming by 1.4wpm2 since the 1850s, the 1.2wpm2 change due to cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere shows Cosmic Rays dominate climate change, not CO2 variance. A meager 0.2wpm2 of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age remains unexplained, but we know that it is not caused by CO2.
Measurements throughout the 20th century show that the Sun’s magnetosphere has more than doubled in strength during the 20th Century, blocking out more Cosmic radiation. This has caused a drop in cloud production and is reflected by fewer isotopes of Be-10 and C-14 found in ice cores and tree rings over this time, and higher temperatures on Earth.
With the Discovery of the role of cosmic radiation in Earth’s climate, more eyes have turned skyward. Cosmo-climatology has provided two new explanations for past Earth’s climate that have long puzzled scientists.
Researchers have spotted a 32-million-year cyclic cooling pattern in the Earth’s history that matches up with the two great cold periods in Earth’s climate history occurring 2.3 billion and 700 million years ago. These cold periods match up with the Earth’s passage across the Mid-Plane of the Milky Way where cosmic rays are locally more intense. This would lead to many more clouds blocking out solar heat greatly cooling the Earth.
Cosmo-climatology also explains the great mystery of the young Earth’s heat.
4 billion years ago, when the Sun was young, it is estimated that it was only 25% as hot as today, yet sediments from that time show a wet world with liquid water. According to climate models based only on solar irradiance, the Earth should have been a snowball covered in ice and snow. Revised solar models based on modern data and Cosmo-climatology show a near absence of cosmic rays then. Thus, the Earth had little to no clouds as the young sun’s vigorous solar wind would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays to a small fraction of the present rate leaving the Earth without cloud cover to cool it. This easily explains how the Earth maintained a temperature able to accommodate liquid water in spite of the young sun’s lower temperature.
Conclusion.
What we now know is, it is not just how warm the sun is, it’s about how much of that heat can get past the atmosphere and reach the earth that matters. Cosmo-climatology can help to tell us how much heat is getting in.
The Earth’s Climate is a balance between the strength of the sun’s rays, its magnetosphere, and the total amount of cosmic radiation entering our upper atmosphere. A stronger magnetosphere blocks out cosmic rays and creates fewer clouds leading to a hotter Earth. A weaker magnetosphere blocks out less cosmic radiation which leads to bigger, whiter, and more fluffy cloud cover and a cooler Earth.
Cosmo-climatology tells us that when the sun is strong, not only does the Earth get more sun, but it also sees fewer clouds giving it an extra boost of heat. While, when the sun gets weak and sends out less heat, the atmosphere makes more clouds making the Earth even colder.
Modern Satellite Data and CERNs CLOUD Project have proven CO2 climate change theory is wrong. Added CO2 blocks out more Sun heat cooling the Earth and reverses the Greenhouse Effect. While Cosmic Radiation and the solar magnetosphere together lead climate not CO2.
Satellite measurements show as more CO2 collects in the Troposphere its temperature is rising. This means that added CO2 in the Troposphere is blocking out more incoming Sun heat than it did in the past with less CO2. This proves Arrhenius’s calculations showing greater blocking of Sun heat with higher levels of CO2.