Few scientists today argue that global climate change has been affected by humans. But the politics and economics of the subject, combined with the media’s scare tactics, have skewed the actual cause of climate change.
We can follow the scientific framework set by the world’s top scientists to see overwhelming evidence that the global mean temperatures have risen from the dawn of the industrial age. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a world-wide network of scientists working on the problem to report it to politicians. This organization published the Physical Science Basis and coined the term global climate change in 2007 (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm). They found that climate change occurs on regional scales, which correlate with industrialized regions and cities. They also correlated rises in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. It is hard to argue with the world’s top scientists, but when dealing with statistical studies such as this, the first rule is association is not causation.
Even after this ongoing study by IPCC, there have been skeptics. A true skeptic is not a nonbeliever, but someone who must validate the data for themselves. And that’s exactly what Richard and Elizabeth Muller did with the Berkrley Earth Surface Temperature Project (http://berkeleyearth.org/). In 2011, their studies addressed problems identified with data points used in IPCC’s studies, and even went back further in temperature records. What they found was that not only is there a rise in mean global temperatures, but it statistically correlated to rising carbon dioxide levels. They also warn that it does not mean that carbon dioxide causes the temperature increase. They have recently released further papers on the subject, as they continue refining the global model (http://berkeleyearth.org/papers).
So this leaves us with global mean temperature rises and carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increases. This is where it all goes wrong. Carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, is a scapegoat. Blaming carbon dioxide takes the world’s attention away from the real culprit. But before we reveal this, let’s see why carbon dioxide is not the cause, but an association. First, the global warming potential of greenhouse gases must be considered. In Environmental Chemistry: A Global Perspective (Gary W vanLoon and Stephen J. Duffy), carbon dioxide is the lowest on the scale with a value of 1. Methane is 23 and nitrous oxide is 296. Freon ranges from 1,700 to 10,600. The scale goes up to 22,200, but carbon dioxide is 1. This means it does not have much effect on global temperatures compared to the other gases.
But there are additional arguments for carbon dioxide’s role in global temperatures. This involves determining which carbon dioxide molecules pay a role. By comparing carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios, the atmospheric carbon can be age dated. Atmospheric carbon dioxide from recent biological activity would show an age of zero in such tests. However, there were spikes of carbon which matched the age of dinosaurs starting in the 1850s! Therefore, not only is there a positive correlation of carbon dioxide and temperature, but the age exactly matches fossil fuel, starting at the beginning of the industrial age. Do we have a culprit? Almost.
First, forget everything you have heard about “global warming.” Forget the elaborate computer models predicting temperature increases based on concentrations of greenhouse gases. This approach may be over-simplifying the process, but NOBODY has made this one realization:
In freshman chemistry, the topics include six types of chemical reactions. One of these is combustion. The combustion reaction has fuel and oxygen, and produces heat and carbon dioxide. HEAT and carbon dioxide. Yes, the answer IS that simple. The real culprit isn’t the byproduct of combustion; it is the HEAT of combustion. Moreover, it is correlated to carbon aged from fossil fuels.
So, when you want to make a difference to help with global climate change, find ways to produce energy without burning fossil fuels, regardless of whether it is coal, oil, or natural gas. Technologies to clean exhaust are still a good idea for clean air to breathe, but essentially useless to combat the temperature increases. But as long as we burn fuel, we will produce heat. And that’s what nobody wants you to know, since our world’s economy and power runs on fuel.
What’s the alternative? Electric vehicles still use power from fossil fuel-burning power plants, unless charged with solar or wind power. Geothermal energy can be tapped in certain geographical areas instead of burning fuel. But the answer to our dilemma hasn’t been solved yet, except maybe by one person in the past. This involved a different understanding of magnetic energies than what is taught in schools today. Edward Leedskalnin (http://www.leedskalnin.com/LeedskalninsWritings.html) uncovered this secret, then died with it. He created magnetic devices which not only acted as perpetual motion machines, but effectively lightened heavy objects, allowing him to single-handedly build Rockgate Park in Miami, FL. Can this technology be used to create a new type of generator?
So to today’s youth, don’t take everything you are told as the ultimate truth. Anything proven can be unproven. Anything impossible can be possible. Look into yourselves to find the answers to today’s problems, and don’t let others stop you! Burning fuel is the problem and we CAN solve it!