The Unassailable Mathematics of Opposition
This photo is a typical illustration of how science claims carbon dioxide creates the greenhouse effect which in turn causes global warming and the future prediction of catastrophic climate change. The heat is shown with the yellow and red arrows; however, in a portion of this illustrated heat, the arrows colored in red reflect or retract the heat back to earth.
In these illustrations, scientists and activists make it appear as though carbon dioxide is a singular thick layer of gas in the upper atmosphere. The fact remains that carbon dioxide is fairly evenly distributed in the troposphere – or the first seven to 10 miles of the atmosphere. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, according to the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii is 423 parts per million (PPM) or .0423% of the entire atmosphere.
All human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, represent 5% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or .002% or, at most, 21 total parts per million. These values spread uniformly around the globe from ground level upward is what is claimed as the cause of global warming. Real Clear Science magazine has an interesting analogy when the CO2 level stood at 400 PPM, “Take 100 liters (26.42 US Gallons) of water in a nice large container – this is the total atmosphere. Pour out 99% of it and you are left with one liter. Then, pour out 99.6% of that single liter. What is left is 4 milliliters (less than a teaspoon full), now that is equivalent to the TOTAL amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - compared to the original 100 liters. Now from that 4 milliliters, pour out another 94.6% more. What is left is 0.2 milliliters, about the same as a single teardrop compared to that original 100 liters - and that is our human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere!
Not only is this infinitesimal value, a representative of all human CO2 activity, accused of generating a disastrous disturbance that will supposedly doom civilization, but the correlation between heat and CO2 has never been proven or validated.
Despite this, and the refutation of anthropogenic climate change by many esteemed climate scientists, physicists, and geologists, there remains a compromise to get past the illogicality. I write in several articles, including “Proof of Political Posturing”, the only viable energy source is nuclear – the wind, solar, and other natural renewable sourses cannot generate sufficient, constant energies for a growing world – not even in Al Gore’s wildest daydreams or Leonardo DiCaprio’s nightmares.
Naturally, the eco-politicians and activists carve a fictitious trench around the dangers of nuclear energy, but these false perils have been addressed many times. They will also talk about the imminent hazards of nuclear waste. In this matter, I leave it to James Meigs in a presentation he gave to Prager University. Naturally, as always, I recommend the use of thorium as the nuclear fuel, since, unlike uranium, it cannot be weaponized.
PS: Yesterday morning a renowned UN politician warned of the imminent danger from climate change, reporting a rapid rise in sea levels. In the afternoon he apologized and retracted his statement when the tide went out.