When I hear the discussions about our need to guard the planet from CO2 gases because they are the cause of climate change, it makes me want to scream at the top of my lungs, HOW CAN ANYONE BE SO UNSCIENTIFIC. For that reason, I would like to give the true science for Climate Change to debunk all the lies that Politicians are speaking so they can get more control over the lives of innocent citizens and continue their quest for a global World Government which the Bible says will come one day after Christians have been raptured and the Devil (Lucifer) has taken the reigns of the world through the fake ANTI-CHRIST that will promise to bring peace at last to the world. Don’t let them fool you, CO2 is the least of the elements that can effect a true change in the climate. I have been reading the book The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. Today I was pleased to find that they have a very scholarly discussion of the true science for Climate Change and I will quote it all here:
Explanations of Climate Change
In either case, here again is a great difficulty for uniformitarian geology—how to account for such a remarkable state of things in terms of the present very non-uniform climates, with such extremes of heat and cold. As von Engeln and Caster say concerning the Jurassic system, for example: “This universal tropicality is difficult to explain.”
Theories of past climatic change, attempting to explain both the glacial periods and the periods of universal warmth, have been many and varied. Dr. C.E.P. Brooks lists some three dozen or more different theories that have propounded at one time or another. These theories have involved such things as the passage of the solar system through regions of space filled with cosmical dust or gas, the precession of the equinoxes, tidal variations, warm springs, wandering pols, drifting continents, orogenic phenomena, changing land-sea distributions, shifting ocean currents, changes in solar radiation, atmospheric carbon dioxide, volcanic dust in the atmosphere, changes in atmospheric circulation, change in the obliquity of the ecliptic, and numerous other factors.
There is obviously no need here to discuss all of these theories. Many of them attempt to explain glacial climates but do not account for the much more significant universal warm climate indicated by all the sedimentary strata. Some would explain how a certain region could experience alternating periods of heat and cold but do not account for the WORLDWIDE warm climate. Probably most authorities now favor either the concept of changing distributions of land and sea or that of changing quantities of solar radiation. Brooks favored the former:
“The conclusion to which we are brought, therefore, is that moderate changes in the land and sea distribution, such as have occurred frequently enough in geological times, are amply sufficient to bridge the gap between non-glacial and glacial climates, or between warm and cold geological periods, and that extraneous aids, such as variations of solar radiation or changes in the astronomical climate, while possible causes, are not necessary conditions.”
But obviously any calculations which attempt to deduce the warming effect of such hypothetical changes are necessarily highly speculative, and it is very difficult to see how the important latitudinal differences in quantity of effective incoming solar energy (which constitute the basic reason for our present range of terrestrial climates) could ever be offset merely by changed patterns of land and sea. Accordingly, most present-day climatologists believe the only really competent agent for worldwide climatic change must be worldwide change in available solar energy. (From the Sun)
For example, Dr. H.E. Landsberg, Director of the Office of Climatology of the U.S. Weather Bureau, in a recent review of these questions states:
“There is, of course, a much underrated relation between the oceanic heat (or cold) reservoir and the climatic fluctuations on land. However no QUANTITATIVE consideration has as yet demonstrated that these could account for the observed, and evidently recurring, phenomena of major ice epochs.”
And, by the same token, Landsberg implies that this type of mechanism is also inadequate to explain the worldwide warm climate preceding the Pleistocene.
Since solar radiation provides the energy, not only for heating the earth’s atmosphere but also for practically all the physical and biologic processes that go into the production of a regional climate, it would surely seem most reasonable to conclude that it must be the basic cause of any such worldwide phenomenon as the universal warm climate we have been describing. (They are talking about the world-wide tropical climate that existed during the age of dinosaurs and early man – Adam and Eve in the Bible). Thus, as Landsberg says:
“Sooner or later most considerations get back to the question of changes in the solar radiation. Some astrophysicists contend that there are simply none of the magnitude required for major climatic changes. Others equally stoutly maintain that nuclear refueling processes on the sun actually call for periodic substantial changes in solar energy output.”
It is occasionally argued that more solar radiation might actually lead to an ice age. But again quoting Landsberg:
“It is, however, more logical to assume that increases in radiation cause warmer conditions, such as once prevailed in the Tertiary, and that decreases in radiation produce ice ages of Pleistocene type.”
Similarly, Arkell, discussing the worldwide warm climate of the Jurassic, says:
“All things considered, therefore, the most probable explanation of the warm temperature of the Jurassic is that which depends on receipt of more solar radiation…”
Probably the most authoritative compendium of evidence and opinion on this subject currently available is found in a symposium edited by Harlow Shapley, bringing together studies of meteorologists, astronomers, anthropologists, geologists and other specialists interested in past climatic changes.
Dr. Kirtley Mather, reviewing the book summarizes:
“Their conclusions seem to indicate that meteorological conditions are secondary rather than primary causal factors; the real causes of difference in climate, as contrasted with changes in weather, must be found in the variations of output of solar radiation. Here the emphasis is placed upon the short-wave ultraviolet emission rather than variation of the effective black-body radiation of the sun.”
Thus are climatologists and others becoming more and more convinced that the only adequate way to explain worldwide climatic change must somehow be in terms of changes in the only factor which controls climate on a worldwide basis, namely solar radiation.
However, this apparently necessary conclusion still does not describe the cause of the necessary changes in solar radiation. In fact, there is no evidence for such variation at all. As the astronomer, Fred Hyyle says:
“There is neither theoretical nor observational evidence that changes take place in the radiation of the sun, however…in support of this it is certain that variations in the sun’s radiation from year to year are very small at the present time.”
The “Greenhouse Effect”
But of course it is not necessary for there to be an actual change in the sun’s output of radiant energy in order for there to be a significant change in the amount of solar energy utilized on the earth in the process of atmospheric heating and other physical processes. All that is necessary is for there to be a change in the heat-absorbing and reflecting qualities of that atmosphere, and this could be accomplished by relatively minor changes in its composition. This is because of the “greenhouse effect” of the atmosphere. Harold Blum gives a cogent description of the key factors in this effect:
“The principal of atmospheric absorber for the entrant of sunlight is WATER VAPOR, absorption by ozone being a minor factor qualitatively; the other gases are virtually transparent. Absorption of the outgoing radiation from the earth is again largely due to WATER VAPOR, with CO2 and ozone playing lesser roles….. The part absorbed tends to warm the atmosphere, and just as the warm glass of the greenhouse tends to raise the temperature of the interior, the WATER VAPOR tends to raise that of the earth’s surface below it. This surface, or any object on it, is constantly exchanging radiation with the WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere, so the temperature of the surface is closely dependent upon the amount and temperature of this VAPOR.”
These three constituents of the atmosphere—water vapor, ozone, and carbon dioxide—therefore, supply the blanketing effect whereby the sun’s radiation becomes effectively available for the maintenance of physical and biological processes on the earth. The MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE COMPONENTS, BY FAR, IS WATER VAPOR. Nevertheless, significant changes in the atmospheric proportion of any one or more of the three could produce significant changes in terrestrial climates. More attention has been given to possible variations in carbon dioxide content than either of the others since this proportion is presumably related to the amount of biologic activity on the earth’s surface and therefore is more subject to variation.
Dr. Gilbert Plass, of the Office of Advanced Research of Aeronutronic Systems, Inc., has studied the effect of carbon dioxide probably more intensively than any other individual. He says:
“Calculations show that a 50-PERCENT decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will lower the average temperature of the earth 6.9 degrees Fahrenheit. We can be reasonably sure that such a sharp drop in temperature would cause glaciers to spread across the earth.” (DID YOU SEE THAT. HE SAID A 50% DROP – IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN)
Plass also gives corresponding quantitative data for the effect of heavier concentrations of CO2 in producing warm climates; for example, he calculates that if the carbon dioxide content were quadrupled, and in balance with the carbonartes on the earth’s surface and in the oceans, then the earth’s average temperature would be 12.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than at present.
Of course, THIS IS ALL QUITE SPECULATIVE, but it is at least cognizant of the fact that worldwide climatic changes require changes in the effective solar radiation, and a change in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is a POSSIBLE MEANS of effecting such changes. With respect to ozone, on the other hand, it is hard to conceive of a means whereby the ozone content of the upper atmosphere could be substantially changed, since it is formed by the reactions of the incoming ultraviolet light with the oxygen in the upper air. Presumably, neither of these latter quantities is likely to change significantly, except for short times. (WHAT HE IS SAYING IS THAT OZONE AND CO2 WILL HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT IN MAJOR CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE. ANY PERCEIVED EFFECT AS CAN BE SEEN ABOVE ARE ONLY SPECULATIVE EXAGGERATIONS.)
Since WATER VAPOR is the most important of these three gases in producing the greenhouse effect, it would seem reasonable that any substantial change in the earth’s climate must somehow be related to CHANGES IN THE WATER VAPOR CONTENT of the atmosphere. More WATER VAPOR would create a warmer and more uniform climate; less vapor would cause a colder and more sharply zoned climate. Fred Hoyle, among other outstanding meteorologists and astronomers, has recognized this probability:
“Evidently then an ice-age would arise if the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere were destroyed or seriously weakened. This would happen if the concentrations of those gases of the atmosphere that are responsible for blocking the infra-red radiation were appreciably reduced. The gas of main importance in this respect is WATER VAPOR. The question therefore arises as to how the amount of WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere might be systematically reduced, especially the amount at the height of some 20,000 feet above the ground. In this may lie the answer to the riddle of the ice ages.”
. . . .Hoyle’s discussion was mainly concerned with trying to explain the ice ages, but it is clear that the same line of reasoning could lead to an explanation for the uniform warm climate. If a great mass of WATER VAPOR had once existed in the atmosphere at an altitude sufficiently high to inhibit condensation about atmospheric dust or salt particles, the greenhouse effect would obviously have been materially strengthened and a warm, substantially uniform climate would have been the result, all over the earth. (see the illustration at the beginning of this article.)
The antediluvian Vapor Blanket
The geophysical evidence thus leads us first to recognize that there must have been a worldwide warm climate in pre-Pleistocene times (that is, from our viewpoint, in antediluvian times), that this climate could only have been caused by an increase in the effective amount of solar radiation retained on the earth’s surface, but that this was most likely NOT due to an actual increase in radiation from the sun but rather to an increase in the radiation-absorption capacities of the atmosphere, and finally that the most likely means of accomplishing this result would have been through a substantial increase in the WATER VAPOR content of the upper atmosphere.
And this, of course, is exactly what we have seen the early chapters of Genesis to imply, in the references to the “waters above the firmament.” We feel warranted, therefore, in suggesting such a thermal vapor blanket around the earth in pre-Pleistocene times as at least a plausible working hypothesis, which seems to offer satisfactory explanation of quite a number of Biblical references and geophysical phenomena. The detailed physics of this inferred antediluvian atmosphere is bound to be uncertain as yet, especially in view of the fact that so little is known about even the present atmosphere, but there seems to be no inherent physical difficulty with the concept.
There is no question that a vapor blanket of indefinitely greate extent could be supported by the lower atmosphere, since water vapor weighs only 0.622 times as much as dry air for the same conditions. Furthermore, the amount of vapor that could be maintained in any given volume of space in the vapor blanket would not be significantly affected by the presence or absence of air or other gases in the region.
Practically speaking, the maximum amount of water vapor that can exist in any given space is a function of temperature and is independent of the coexistence of other gases. When a maximum amount of water vapor for a given temperature is contained in a given space, the space is said to be SATURATED. the more common expression “the air is saturated” is not strictly correct.
In the present atmosphere, the stratosphere is quite cold. However, above the stratosphere, the temperature becomes quite warm, well above even the boiling-point of water, so that it would be possible to sustain a tremendous amount of invisible water vapor in the region above the stratosphere, if it somehow were placed there. These high temperatures in the upper atmosphere remain high both day and night, so that there would be no possibility of vapor condensation at night.
“There appears to be no night-day effect in atmospheric temperatures, since the grenade-sound experiments were conducted at night while most of the telemetered pressure measurements were in daytime firing.”
Dr. Fred Whipple, the Harvard astronomer who wrote the above quotation, was referring to two independent sets of measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures, conducted by different investigators using different methods, one in the daytime and one at night, which he said gave “excellent agreement.”
It may also be possible that the vapor blanket could have been in the upper troposphere, below the stratosphere. The additional water vapor would have warmed not only the earth’s surface but also the atmosphere more uniformly.
“An increase of water vapor…..would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface…..and would increase the temperature of the air at a height of four or five miles or more than that at the surface, and so lessen the decrease of temperature with height.”
If the canopy were located at a high elevation in the lower atmosphere, not only would the increased temperatures at the level permit its maintenance but, as Fred Hoyle pointed out, condensation nuclei would not rise to that level. And regardless of temperature, water vapor cannot condense unless nuclei of condensation are available.
“Condensation does not begin until the water vapor has a suitable surface on which to condense. The surface of condensation is called a nucleus of condensation, and the process of introducing these surfaces into a vapor phase is called nucleation…..
“All evidence to date points to sea salt as being the principal nucleus of condensation, with sulfurous and nitrous acids playing a secondary role ”
As a matter of fact, it would seem that the vapor blanket could possibly be substantially lower than 20,000 feet without being precipitated. Since the atmospheric temperatures would be very much more uniform than at present, both vertically and latitudinally, there would be very little atmospheric turbulence. Consequently the higher levels of the troposphere would be virtually free of salt particles and be maintained indefinitely, until something happened to mix it with the cold gases of the stratosphere and to supply meteoric or other particles for nucleation.
When finally that “something” happened, whatever it was—possibly the passage of the earth through a meteorite swarm or the sudden extrusion of large amounts of volcanic dust into the air—the vapor blanket was condensed and precipitated. As the Scripture describes it, “the flood-gates of heaven were opened,” and torrents of rain fell all around the earth for forty days and forty nights.
In a later passage the whole myth of global warming is debunked by Dr. Gilbert Plass of Johns Hopkins University, whose work is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, and probably the greatest present authority on the subject. He says:
There is some interesting evidence which suggests that the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere was once much larger than at present. It is known that plants grow more luxuriantly and rapidly in an atmosphere that has from five to ten times the normal carbon dioxide amount. In fact, carbon dioxide is sometimes released in greenhouses in order to promote growth. Since plants are perfectly adapted to make maximum use of the spectral range and intensity of the light that reaches them from the sun for photosynthesis, it seems strange that they are not better adapted to the present carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. The simplest explanation of this fact is that the plants evolved at a time when the carbon dioxide concentration was considerably higher than it is today and that it has been at a higher level during most of the ensuing time. Higher temperatures than today during most of the earth’s history would have resulted from this higher carbon dioxide content. In fact the geological evidence shows that warmer climates than today have existed for at least nine-tenths of the time since the Cambrian period.
What we have been sharing here is quoting from the book The Genesis Flood by John C Whitcomb and Henry M Morris. What we have today in the political attempt to create a scare for the world about climate change stems from a desire in science to explain the ice ages of the past under an evolutionary theory which completely omits the evidence which is discussed here regarding the vapor canopy and the fact that it is water vapor that causes real climate change. Rather than a decrease in CO2 gases causing the ice age, it was really a collapse of the water vapor canopy that surrounded the earth as in the picture at the beginning of this article. Before that happened, the whole earth was warm with no polar ice caps and no great differences in climate between the equator or the north and south pole. This is because of the water vapor that surrounded the earth and a TRUE GREENHOUSE effect was produced and REAL CLIMATE CHANGE came about, not with making the earth warmer but colder. The collapse of the Vapor Blanket around the earth caused the ice age and subsequently the varying climate that we have today. Nothing that the modern day GLOBAL WARMING pseudo-scientists postulate will ever create the type of global warming that existed before the Deluge (the flood mentioned in the Bible) and their only true explanation of the science of climate change that makes sense is what is written in this book by Whitcomb and Morris. For more on the junk science of today called GLOBAL WARMING, visit this link:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
To purchase the book THE GENESIS FLOOD click HERE
The bottom line in the discussion of climate change in this great work of true scientists is that the major players in the changing of the climate if it ever happens is solar radiation and water. CO2 and Ozone have very little if any true effect. We are just being lied to by politicians in an attempt to create a one world order with citizens as pawns in their great scheme of things. It is time that we reject all of those junk scientists who care nothing about the truth.
Popularity: 1% [?]
