NOAA says man-made CO2 is making the oceans more acidic and has lowered the pH of seawater from 8.1 to 7.7. This got wide media coverage. See for example the Seattle Times, July 31, 2010, "Acidification threatens wide swath of sea life."
Real scientists would say the oceans are becoming less alkaline or less basic. They know the oceans would not become acidic until the pH went below 7. Until then, oceans cannot become “more acidic,” and the horrors itemized would not transpire.
You might think that a ten percent increase in atmospheric CO2 could explain a five percent change in pH, but pH is a logarithmic scale, here representing a 150 percent acid change. Ten percent would be the maximum if the ocean had no other CO2 sources but the air.
But, the ocean has other sources, CO2 from increased underwater volcanic activity off our coast for one.
The change in the ocean will not track well with the gradual increase in atmospheric CO2. It is new as evidenced by the recent increase in algae off our coast. Algae thrive on CO2.
But, on dark days and at night, the algae respire huge amounts of CO2. I suspect NOAA’s measurements reflect the volcanic and algae activity and are not representative. By the way, the pH of seawater has always been 7.1 – 8.3. Would 7.7 be average?
NOAA’s “welling-up” scenario demonstrates the oceans are putting this CO2 into the atmosphere.
NOAA has become a propaganda tool for those who want to destroy our way of life and enslave us.
Here's a little extra. If all the ice is melting and the oceans are rising, wouldn't that dilute the alkalinity, thus lowering the pH? (In other words, acidity or increased acidity has nothing to do with it). How is the salinity changing? Problem for NOAA --- (in addition to the fact they don't want to mention this) this kind of change does not explain what is happening off the Washington/Oregon coast. But, why should they care? Make them care. Punish them.
I acquired a used book a while back, SpaceMathematics, a Resource for Secondary School Teachers. It was written by Bernice Kastner and apparently published in 1985. It has the support of NASA and is called "a curriculum project prepared by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics." All the proper pedigrees then.
Problem 3 in the chapter on exponential and logarithmic functions (page 89) discusses the atmosphere and how infrared (among other wavelengths) penetrate it and reach the earth. It states,
"However, gases such as oxygen, ozone, nitrogen, and water vapor absorb most of the infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, and shorter wavelengths."
Gee, I don't see carbon dioxide listed. Why not? Now, the fact that those items listed absorb the infrared is a good thing. Otherwise we would be cooked.
The operation is not just a 'one-way' action; they don't just block incoming radiation, they also absorb outgoing.
Ask yourself, "Is there more incoming infrared or outgoing? If there is more incoming, wouldn't more of these substances act to cool the earth?" Yes, ask yourself.
How was CO2 overlooked as one of the substances that play a significant role in 'trapping' infrared radiation? A better question would be, "How has it now become so important, especially to NASA and, more especially, to one charlatan employee thereof when a short time ago it was not worthy even of 'honorable mention' in NASA sanctioned material?"
For what it's worth.
There are many who are still unaware of e-mails 'purloined' from the Climate Research Unit, (CRU), at the University of East Anglia in England and what they imply concerning "global warming" and "climate change." In my opinion, they confirm what many have known for years; Al Gore and "global warming"/"climate change" are nothing but huge frauds. I leave it to you to investigate further and satisfy yourself. Beware the attempts to downplay the damage done by the revelations coming out of the e-mails. The CRU and the individuals corresponding with it are at the top of the pile of scum responsible for the deceit and the main source of material for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization used to shove the fraud down our throats).
For years I have been praying that this scam would unravel. I am encouraged. The demise cannot come soon enough. It is not a sure thing. We are in a war, a war between good and evil. That's right. If we don't act as if we are at war, we will lose. What are the 'Rules of Engagement?' I ask because we seem to always limit ourselves in real shooting type wars unnecessarily. We don't talk about victory enough. We drag things out and allow more damage. We need a Sherman, a Grant, a Patton, or perhaps even a MacArthur. If we are the kind of people who tie the hands of our own military, will we be strong enough to follow through with the "climategate" disclosures and deliver the fatal blow to this enormous lie, "global warming"/"climate change?" (If we weren't weak this environmental nonsense would never have lasted this long). In a war, it is immaterial how the information was obtained. If you believe otherwise, you don't know much about war, and you will also lose.
Some inquiries and investigations have begun. Please follow them closely. Don't permit them to be side-tracked or watered down. Ditto for our war on extreme Islamic terrorism. Remember, the attack on Fort Hood was an act of an extreme Islamic terrorist. Nothing less. Nothing else. Don't be fooled --- anymore.
Perhaps you have heard of a documentary recently released attacking "global warming" as not evil, just wrong. Yes, and that is the title. I have made no attempt to see it or even learn about it. (I try not to pay too much attention to the arguments against "global warming" or "climate change." I want to keep my mind clear to develop my own 'untainted' (hopefully) arguments. But, there is something here that troubles me.
Before I begin, let me quote John Bunyan. I assume it is from Pilgrim's Progress. I am again indebted to C. S. Lewis. The quote appears on the title page of his "The Abolition of Man" which can be found as Chapter Three of "The Abolition of Man", Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 1996, page 63. There was no other attribution.
"It came burning hot into my mind, whatever he said and however he flattered, when he got me to his house, he would sell me for a slave."
Not evil, eh? My problem is that if all this subterfuge surrounding the environment is not evil, then it is hard to imagine what is. What was the motive behind the choice of such a title for the documentary? Did the makers of the documentary actually explore what is evil? Did they tell why they made a determination of 'non-evil?' Without having seen it or researched it, you may think I have no basis for asking such questions. (Why should I be held to such a standard)?
Let me go out on a limb. It was just a catchy title. No one wants to consider whether we really have evil among us. Had the makers really evaluated the subject in the light of evil, it would have proved too much.
A little lie for the right reason may be just a wrong that we can live with. Large and many lies for the wrong reason tends not to be just wrong. What is the reason or reasons we have been exposed to many and very large lies about climate and the environment? What is the end game?
Could it be enslavement? Would that be evil?
[Additional thought: I don't recall seeing or hearing Al Gore and "global warming" portrayed as evil, at least not enough to warrant a counter argument that it is not evil. (Unless someone has been paying close attention to what I have been saying for years, that is). Could this documentary be an attempt to put Al and the boys in a better light? "Ah, shucks (now that the whole thing is coming undone, and we know it) we wuz just wrong. We didn't mean no harm. It was an honest mistake. We have no evil designs upon you or your childrenz. We didn't mean nothin'. Weez just good ole boyz." What do you think]?
Parts of Washington State have required "emissions testing" of vehicles for some thirty years. I no longer live in one of those areas and have not had my vehicles tested for many years. Elsewhere in these webpages I have related that my 1983 Honda Accord was tested and produced less than 0.01 percent carbon monoxide. (It could be zero percent, but the equipment cannot measure such low levels). For years I have argued that the change in emissions has been so successful that virtually no monoxide is being produced. Please see my more recent "Eco-Weaponry"
This state of affairs is a problem for the authorities. Carbon monoxide is still used as a reason to control us and is still blamed for health issues. I have predicted for some time that they would find a way to not show the monoxide levels on emissions tests. Well, it has happened. I don't know how long ago the change was made, but it has.
Actually, the deception surrounding "emissions tests" is even greater than this. It is still called "emissions testing" (there's a reason I used the quotation marks), but it is nothing of the sort. When the program was started, a device was actually placed into the exhaust pipe to sample the emissions. No longer! Instead, the testing equipment is connected to the vehicle's computer, and it tells if there is a problem.
This all came to my attention recently because someone I know failed the test. This person noticed the vehicle was not performing well, and the 'check engine' light was on. This person, on their own, determined that one spark plug wire had worked loose and a cylinder was not firing. The problem was fixed, but without knowing what fault code had caused the computer to turn on the 'check engine' light. I had told this person how to reset the computer to clear the code and that no harm would be done driving the vehicle with the code still displayed.
A little procrastination and an "emissions test" (which I did not know about) resulted in a big inconvenience. Had a wand been inserted into the tailpipe and the emissions actually been read, there would have been no difficulty. Emissions were fine. Instead, the history of a past problem that had been corrected was read by mindless machine because the vehicle's onboard computer had not been reset!
There was a positive result. I am able to document the deviousness of our Department of Ecology. There is no mention of the monoxide levels or unburned hydrocarbons, or even (horrors!) the very high enhanced carbon dioxide levels like the old tests disclosed.
Note: the report is now titled "Vehicle Inspection Report." Does Ecology know that it would be committing fraud to call it an "emissions report" like they used to? Still they refer to emissions testing on their website. What do they call the test sites?
Also, don't forget that we no longer have access to on-line carbon monoxide monitoring stations around Washington state. (see Carbon monoxide).
(12-7-09, can we call this 'OceanGate?' It's bigger than 'WaterGate!').
An Associated Press article, "Ocean has hottest 3 months on record," in our local newspaper today (Peninsula Daily News, September 17, 2009, page B4) and some other recent events are responsible for this piece.
The AP cites National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data released the previous day. I distrust NOAA just as much as I do the AP. Recently, my community was passed over by NOAA in its selection of a new West Coast site. We are lucky to not have them here. It is difficult enough dealing with all the liars without having their well-funded ones also among us.
Something curious appears in the figures offered by NOAA in the AP article. The water temperatures were combined with land temperatures in order to inform us that this was third warmest three-month period on record. To me, this is an obvious attempt to keep the 'global warming' freaks stirred up. The last two paragraphs support this conclusion:
"Climate change has been raising the planet's average temperature steadily in recent decades.
All of the 10 hottest years on record have occured since 1997."
Now, I don't know if this last is just the AP editorializing or if NOAA is responsible. I don't know if it is that 'combined' temperature or some other, but I believe others have shown these are lies, and there has been cooling.
Something else seems wrong. The combined land and water temperatures are lower than the water temperatures, therefor, the land temperatures must be even lower. Let me point out that it is only the "sea-surface" temperatures that are compared. We have no information on what that means or how "land" temperatures are measured.
For August, the 'combined' temperature was some 4.2 degrees cooler than the sea-surface temperature. Doesn't this imply that the land temperature was perhaps some 5 or 6 degrees cooler? We might expect something like this in parts of the Sourthern Hemisphere where the three months reported would be Winter time. Doesn't it require some suspension of reason to believe it would be true for the whole earth?
How does 'global warming' theory (trapping of heat in the air) explain water being warmer than land, on average, for the whole earth? It doesn't.
Then, there are 'other things' going on. Yesterday's paper (Peninsula Daily News, September 16, 2009, page A1) informed us about how plankton off our coast could be responsible for many dead sea birds, mostly white-winged and surf scoters. The author was a bit confused blaming, "... substance from plankton in a brown algae bloom ..." But, algae is plankton! Usually it is forbidden to use both terms in the same story. My observation is that 'algae' is used in 'scare stories'(Yes, I classify this as a 'scare story'). The author blew it. Plankton should not have been mentioned. However, as an exercise, let me point out that it would be more in keeping with their rules if the author had written, "... substance from a brown algae bloom in the plankton ..." That might have helped her avoid a serious reprimand had she not used 'plankton' elsewhere. Think about that. Don't believe me? Keep watching them.
Volcano activity off the coast and elsewhere could help make ocean water warmer than land, even in the Summer, I suppose. It could also provide the carbon dioxide that would make the algae flourish. Don't look to NOAA or the AP for the answers. They don't want you to know. How do I know? I've been watching them, and thinking, and writing (please see "More Acidic Oceans?". You might find NOAA mentioning the volcanoes, but I don't think they will mention either heat or CO2 in the same report as the volcanoes. Why not?
(I am forcing myself to do this in remembrance of '911.' There is no connection).
Recently, there have been letters in our local paper by people using one of the "general welfare" clauses in the Constitution (they used the Preamble one) as justification for President Obama's Health Care Plan. A full page ad with the names of many people in the community who were making the same argument also appeared.
I happen to know that this is a corruption of the intent of those words. I leave it to you to do the full research. There are many out there who can provide a much better historical and legal explanation. Permit me to attempt a different argument. A simple one.
How can anyone use the word 'general' to make an argument for a specific kind of welfare such as health care? By the very choice of the word 'general,' weren't specific 'welfare's' prohibited? Weren't the Founders saying, We don't want the government involved in any specifics, but helping to encourage an environment where everything good can flourish is allowed.
When you get into specifics, you make choices. One area of welfare must necessarily receive more resources than another, even more than national defense (the way things are headed). Why was the "general welfare" not listed before defense. Why was "general" not omitted altogether?
Take it down another level. Does "general welfare" imply everybody's welfare? But, wait a minute --- everyone doesn't need medical care! Does the Constitution allow for the favoring of specific individuals or even specific groups of people such as diabetics, cancer sufferers, etc.? Aren't we getting too specific, not general?
And, when it gets to the point where care must be rationed, and it will --- don't we have to get more specific? The "general welfare" that the proponents of a national health care system have in mind then gets a new definition --- it then becomes the 'Welfare of the State!" In order to protect the "general welfare," we must deny medical welfare to some, and specifically, not generally, allocate it to others. Of course, that will be those who contribute most to the state as defined by the state!
Our Founders knew where this could lead. That's is how and why they could devise such an amazing document. Don't be deceived.
In the Sunday issue of the Peninsula Daily News (May 31, 2009, page A7), we were treated to another article on Anderson Lake. It was almost identical to the previous one, even containing the exact same "But when the right conditions align ..." statement.
However, there was something of value. We learned that the study was a $45,000 one and is expected to be completed early next year. Wow! Why wait? If the compounds are present, they should show up in one or two tests. Why would they disappear and come back? It seems to be a static situation. Either high concentrations of phosphates, etc. are there, or they are not. Ditto for CO2. Should we consider the $45,000 as 'hush money.' "Keep quiet until next year, and by then we'll have some other excuse or payoff."
Who are these people? That's right, "who the hell are these people?" If you think I am being too harsh, try 'googling' aquarium test kits. Anyone who has a home aquarium and takes the care thereof seriously knows more about these issues than our authorities appear to understand. Are they that stupid, or are they hiding something? In any case, they deserve our scorn and worse.
There is again an abundance of articles in our local paper on toxins from algae in Anderson Lake. A recent one (Peninsula Daily News, May 24, 2009, page A7) again returned to blaming (sort of) one of the 'usual suspects.
"But when the right conditions align --- the water is calm, relatively warm and overly rich in phosphates, a chemical commonly found in lawn fertilizer --- it can bloom into high concentrations."
Several things seem noteworthy. First, for some reason, the main previous culprit, nitrates, are omitted and septic systems are not blamed. Second, other sources of phosphates are not mentioned. Have they been totally removed from laundry soap? Third, the accusation is not definite. Those things "can" contribute to a bloom, but so can many other things not mentioned. Have those things been definitely eliminated as the cause. Without telling us the actual or definite cause, we are being primed to believe in causes before the research is finished.
Now, how do I know the research has not been finished? Well, later in the article we learn that
"The county health department also is collecting samples for nutrient analyses and physical data to determine possible causes for the blue-green algae blooms."
So, why jump the gun and tell us what they did about what "can" cause them?
If you are beginning to get the idea that we are being 'jerked around,' let me solidify that notion.
The problem has been going on for years while blame has been casually asserted for the wrong things and the wrong parties. After many years then, why do we hear about them now (finally!) getting around to testing for the cause? If I recall first year chemistry correctly, learning to do a titration to determine the presence and quantity of phosphates in a solution is one of the first things taught. What has taken our geniuses, our professionals, so long?
Can we even assume they will be testing for phosphates? If tests are going to be performed, why not disclose what will be tested for? Why the secrecy? What tests, if any, will be done to determine the carbon dioxide level? (It is also a simple test). Is that the reason for the apparent secrecy? When will we be informed of the results?
Oh, but wait! In re-reading the article, I learned the results of the samples are " ... routinely released to the public on Fridays." You too can view them at www.jeffersoncountyhealth.org
Disappointment! Misled again. I could only find information about algae levels. Nothing regarding what chemicals were present. Something is amiss. What kind of officials do we have?
If you haven't yet visited our page on algae, please try it now. Thank you.
Our Governor Gregoire should be identified as the one person most responsible for forcing the people of Washington State to endure higher levels of carbon dioxide, CO2. That's right, check the history of her involvement. Today, she will be urging the EPA to "finalize a determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health."
What kind of madness has taken over? What is the primary so-called 'greenhouse gas?' When is the 'perp' given such status and credence? When is the 'perp' allowed to tamper with the evidence? What force of law should a "determination" by a regulatory agency have? (Ooh, ooh, a "determination!"). Where is a vote of the people?
Where is the public debate? I haven't seen anything but propaganda since carbon monoxide was first "demonized" some forty years ago, and since we were promised dioxide was good for us because it was "good for the trees."
It is very important to note that, according to the EPA, the gases do not directly threaten human health as I claim CO2 can, but it is the gases' phony responsibility for 'global warming' or 'climate change' (actually through the supposed increased global temperatures) that threatens health. (No one ever asks the question, "If it is warmer temperatures that cause the problem, and if 'global warming' has been played down in favor of 'climate change,' which allows cooling, why is there no contradiction?" There is of course, but no one seems to care, the 'media' most of all. We have grown a type of people in our society that are used to having things both ways. There is another type that just sit on their thumbs and permit it, even promote it. Such a society cannot long survive. How do our 'scientists' explain the contradiction? If they were real scientists, would we be told a different story)?
I urge you to study these web pages and note in your own research how local CO2 cannot be blamed and must be left out of most discussions. Why?
Please also think about my "What if?"
From the 'Rants & Raves' section of our local paper yesterday, I learned about another instance of 'enhanced carbon dioxide.' (Peninsula Daily News, page A11). The local retired scientists meet monthly in the Sequim library. The library was recently remodeled. According to the ranter,
"... the meeting room was full and the air so stale, four people near me kept falling asleep.
Before the upgrade, we could have the librarian turn on that room's fresh-air-intake fan.
I was told Thursday the feature had been removed."
It made me recall a few years back when the new Port Angeles library opened, and they had to put in a fan temporarily to remove the excess CO2. Adjustments were made to supposedly fix the problem, but I consider the indoor air still 'CO2 enhanced,' and unhealthy.
I wonder if the same architect and contractors did the work on the Sequim library? Well, I guess we can't really blame them anyway. They only build according to the rules passed by the Governor and the Legislature.
If people are falling asleep, can they pay attention? If they aren't paying attention, do they have an "attention deficit?" Where were these retired scientists when the so-called "sick building syndrome" became rampant, and A.D.D. and asthma became epidemic? Now they continue to collect their inflated retirement pay while kids suffer in 'oxygen challenged' classrooms where they are told the atmosphere and the environment are broken. That's gotta be a hard sale. Meanwhile, the authorities say that school should start later because the kids are too tired.
It seems the Sequim library had a problem before the remodel. They had a 'work-around,' the manually operated exhaust fan. Years ago, people weren't so gullible. They had family and friends who suffered from tuberculosis. They endured illnesses before penicillin was around to fight infection. If you attended a meeting, even in the dead of winter, someone (or several) would go around opening windows. Imagine, windows that would actually open! Also, back then, flowers were removed from the patients' rooms in hospitals at night because they produced CO2.
Yes, we have people who call themselves "scientists," but they are failures. After years and years, some are even ready to connect CO2 with illness, but there's a catch. It is not a direct relation, i.e., not the fact that bacteria and other wierd things thrive on CO2, but that CO2 leads to 'global warming,' and it is only the warming that allows more of these things to grow.
Nap time for the retired scientists in the library. Retired people do need their rest, so I don't imagine there will be any great concern. What about when CO2 fed diseases start reducing their herd?
An article on this subject appeared about a month ago in our local paper. It was one of those AP releases you can find anywhere. In it, I was introduced to John Holdren, President Obama's new science advisor.
Holdren and others believe that 'global warming' is so dire that we need to consider options such as "shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays." (Only as a last resort, of course)!
Here are some questions for Holdren:
These questions, even if not asked, should demonstrate that Holdren is no real scientist. It would be fun to watch him attempt them. He would then provide a source for many more, I am sure. Restore science to its rightful place? Under President Obama? No way!
Is the 'Swine Flu' outbreak just another exercise in 'scare mongering,' or is it a real threat?
I think I know how our officials should react if it is real, and they are not. Perhaps we would be justified in concluding that they do not believe this flu is serious. In that case, can we fault them for not doing more to stop the hysteria? Is this just another instance of "a crisis (even if phony) is a terrible thing to waste?"
It appeared that this was a very deadly outbreak. I am going to assume it appeared the same to our leaders. Yet, they took a 'cavalier' attitude, "hey, it is already here in the U.S., there is nothing we can do." No need to even tighten the border or screen airline arrivals. And, it seems to be policy not to close the border or stop air traffic even in the worst scenario. Why? (Has anyone asked, "Just when would it be appropriate?").
Misanthropy. I am serious. It appears the general consensus within the agencies that are supposed to protect us is that there are just too many of us, whoever 'us' is. Note the proximity to 'Earth Day.' Is this philosophy not prevalent/dominant among the 'earth-day' types?
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's Science Advisor, Nina Federoff, recently spoke about there being too many people. The Secretary has apparently not issued a correction, a reprimand, nor has she disassociated herself from Federoff's remarks. In Hillary's defense, Federoff was appointed in 2007. This nonsense has claimed both major political parties. There is nothing to make me believe that Bush tried to clean out the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, for example. Contemplate what it could mean to have that agency in the hands of misanthropes. There are indications that it is.
How should our leader respond to the 'swine flu?' What military commander, when one or a few of the enemy manage to get behind his lines, would tell his troops there is no reason to put up a struggle? None who are worth anything. They must fight even harder, buy time to regroup, bring up the reserves, etc..
Our leaders act like they are setting an ambush - - - let the enemy pour through our lines, then we will spring the trap, close behind them, and hit them from all directions! But, they have no trap, no teeth, and no plan. They lie down in the face of the enemy.
You may have seen a movie where the archers unleash a hail of arrows upon the advancing force. Would you rather rush an entrenchment that has two archers or two thousand? Think of flaming arrows or bomber aircraft dropping incendiary devices. Would you rather be under one or one thousand? Each is designed to start a larger fire. The aerial bombardment was designed to be large enough not only to start many fires but to start a 'firestorm.' What were our leaders hoping for with their hesitation in the face of the 'swine flu?'
Would there be a difference in the epidemic for us if only a few cases came instead of hundreds or thousands? Viruses and bacteria are not the same as firebombs, but I would rather take my chances against just a few initial sources. At least try to give more time to prepare and try to keep the demands upon the health care system as low and slow as possible. Why be overwhelmed if there is another way? Is there nothing to be learned by fighting even if you ultimately lose? Is that not the way we behave as Americans?So, who are these other people?
Copyright © 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Donald L. Beeman. All rights reserved.