Climate Warming as Caused by Denudation of Soil

by Charles Weber, MS, isoptera at

I do not know with certainty what causes the warming of the climate at present. I do see no perfect correlation with atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the distant past though, or even perfectly so in the past half million years. Also see this site. The rise in temperature in SE Africa commenced 3000 years before the rise in carbon dioxide 20,000 years ago [Tierney]. The middle stone age ended there sometime after 30,000 years ago [Jacobs], so it is conceivable that direct or indirect affects of advanced humans on the soil cover was involved. While increased atmospheric carbon dioxide would probably increase temperature [Lacis], in early Permian the first major rise in carbon dioxide FOLLOWED a temperature rise. Carbon dioxide followed temperature between 1400 and 1800 AD as well [Cox]. I suspect that what happened back in the Permian was that a rise in temperature permitted cellulose digesting insects to move toward the poles, and thus increase release of carbon dioxide. When there was a drastic rise in carbon dioxide about 5 million years later, the temperature started its main rise about 2 or 3 million years after that [Montanez]. While the temperature rise was not caused by the carbon dioxide at first, I suspect that clearing the soil of mulch and vegetative cover by the insects (wood roaches and prototermites), which enabled higher soil temperatures, was a large part of it. Subsequent changes in carbon dioxide showed no close parallel to temperature either. The global and marine warming at the close of the Paleocene as correlated with release of carbon dioxide or methane was preceded by terrestrial warming in North America by 12 thousand years as determined by oxygen isotope in mammalian omnivorous tooth enamel [Secord].

In any case the dominant absorption of the sun’s radiation in the atmosphere, 50%, is determined by water vapor [Perkins 2010], while clouds have little affect [Arking]. Long wave absorption is absorbed by water vapor (59%) and clouds ((30%). Carbon dioxide only absorbs 20%. When the sun’s rays go down through a clear atmosphere very little energy of the 1,360.8 watts per square metre strking the top of the atmosphere [Perkins, second entry] is absorbed. When it strikes the soil almost all the energy is instantly converted into heat. What is not is reflected out into space in the form of visible light. Almost all of that energy is lost. The heated soil warms the deeper regions of the soil and the air a few inches above the surface. The atmosphere as a whole then is warmed by convection of the surface layer of air along with turbulence. Some of the heat from the soil surface is radiated out as infrared light. Some of that is absorbed by the carbon dioxide and methane in the air (as first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824 [Fourier] and experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 [Tyndall] and then glacial age effects were predicted by Arrhenius in 1895) , the methane being especially potent per amount of it. When there is cloud cover the energy budget is different from this but over vast areas and considerable periods it is just like this. However current climate models ignore climate forcing from land use. The biggest concern in low lying areas is coastal flooding by melting of terrestrial Arctic ice. However, it has been proposed that two thirds of this is from deposition of black carbon particles [Kintisch]. The largest areas are covered by ocean water. The bulk of the ocean is very cold, near freezing, So this should serve as a considerable buffer against rapid climate change in the near future, other than melting of Arctic Ocean ice, which will be ice free in less than ten years. Melting of ice floating on the ocean will have almost no affect in raising sea level beyond a tiny thermal expansion of surrounding water.

There is considerable concern about climate change. This is understandable, especially if it happens rapidly. It is usually assumed that it is from carbon dioxide increase. This is without a doubt some part of it. However, I suspect a considerable part of warming these days is the removal of vegetation to create annual farms, denuded land, roads, buildings, and desertification or over grazing (as over grazing currently in central Asia, for instance and in Tibet [Cui].) There was a surge up of burning between 1750 and almost 1900 followed by a dramatic decrease after 1900 [Wang et al]. That decrease was probably because most of the forested land outside of equatorial regions that could be put to farming was being utilized. You can easily confirm this phenomenon by touching a stone walk in full summer sun and adjacent grass or leaves of trees under full sun, and noting the dramatic difference in temperature. In an area in Oregon where fire bared the soil, there was a higher temperature in burned soil than in adjacent areas that rose to as much as 20 degrees centigrade [Running]. Streams running out of forests are cooler than those out of clear cut areas. Warming from increase of cities in southeast China has been noticed.Also leaves in warm climates have adaptations that lower leaf temperatures toward their optimum photosynthetic temperature [Brent], which should lower climate temperature. This can not be due to water evaporation alone because I have noted that leaves are cooler than adjacent bare dark wet soil. Some of the cooler temperatures of leaves may be due to the fluorescence of chlorophyll to longer wave lengths. Perkins suggests that climate warming will be about one half degree less in the future because extra carbon dioxide will cause greater leafiness on plants, which will in turn increase evaporation from transpiration [Perkins 2011]. Evaporation will more than likely be a part of muting global warming. Bounoua, et al, believe that evaporation will lower future temperature rise from carbon dioxide by 0.6 degrees C [Bounoua]. This should be only a small part of the net vegetation affect. However, it has been proposed that about half of the sun’s energy is used for plant evapotranspiration by virtue of 80-90 % of water evaporation through plant terrestrial evapotranspiration [Jasechko].

I suspect that the increase in agricultural annual farming in the early 20th century is responsible for a considerable part of the warming between 1920 and 1940 in the northern hemisphere. The amount of land for annual crops is especially large in the USA, eastern Russia, and India. Warming was no doubt considerably assisted by the cessation of volcanic activity after 1912, since dust from volcanoes cause considerable cooling, which would have muted the rise prior to 1912.

Mathews, and et al, say that deforestation results in a cooling due to snow albedo [Mathews] and Lee, et al shows that deforestation does cause cooling [Lee]. This is no doubt true in northern latitudes especially in winter. Increased shrub growth in the Arctic recently has cased a considerable rise in temperature there from a 41% increase of shrubs [Snyder]. In the tropics deforestation must result in considerable temperature increase. That must be true to a considerable extent in the subtropics also, at least in summer. Any warming from deforestation in north temperate regions may be minimal or even net cooling other than greenhouse gas release. However in summer time there must be a considerable warming from deforestation in temperate regions and southwards. Do not think that because the bare areas make up a small fraction of the Earth that the effect would be miniscule. A radiator in a room is only a tiny fraction of the room area, but it keeps the room warm, and a radiator operates at a lower temperature than most bare tropical and subtropical soils. I suspect the higher temperatures in the southwestern USA than in the southeast is because of this phenomenon. The creation of a dust bowl in the central USA in the 1930s was caused to a considerable extent by human agricultural activity [Cook] and created the worst environmental disaster the USA has ever suffered. This heating of bare soil is probably the reason why dry soil has more afternoon showers than wet soil in semiarid regions [Taylor]. This probably is because dry soils are warmer and thus cause more vigorous up drafts.

The arctic region would not be much affected by agricultural activity or city construction and lumbering should be rapidly replenished if not by trees, at least by shrubs. The Rocky Mountains cause America to be cooler than Europe because they deflect cold Arctic air south. Europe is warmer because the air deflected is warmed by an Atlantic ocean that has been warmed in summer time. The Gulf Stream itself plays only a minor role in actual transfer of heat.The absorption of sun light by the vast northern Atlantic Ocean dwarfs the heat brought north by the Gulf Stream, which itself is warmed by the sun light. You may see the current rate of deforestation, desertification, CO2 emissions, and oil depletion as it occurs globally here.

The situation is especially serious in South America because that continent straddles the equator and it is the most productive of carbon into vegetation of any continent [Bowman (fig. 2) ]. A drought there could cause wide spread forest fires. They would probably rage out of control over vast areas because the human population to fight them is sparse and the forests are almost continuous in many areas. The latest drought in 2010 was much more severe than the one in 2005 [Lewis]. The amount of biomass burning in the southern hemisphere has declined dramatically since the late 19th century or so [Prentice][Wang] as previously mentioned, perhaps because most of the forest that was to be burned to make way for cattle has been. It is ridiculous and stupid to allow our USA forests to burn out of control, let alone deliberately set fire to under brush, both of which is now often done. Not adequately protecting them with fire barriers is not much smarter. The fire hazard caused by under brush should be eliminated by harvesting brush for agricultural mulch for our farms or at least use it to supply our coal burning electric plants. It would be a lot safer than mining coal. It costs more to create electricity this way because of the fact that coal, oil and gas cost less currently than they are intrinsically worth. However if the great value of protecting our forests is factored in, the cost is much less. Also see this site for a technical analysis

There was a drastic increase of fire in Australia when aborigines first arrived 43,000 years ago. Rule, et al, attribute it to extinction of the mega fauna, which caused a large increase of under brush [Rule].We could solve the problem of forest destruction in some small areas by walling them off and introducing some mega fauna or other. An advantage of this would be that we would have a source of additional meat if a disaster should wreck our agriculture, such as Yellowstone erupting.

Any objections that preventing artificial fires would alter the natural ecology is not really true. There will always be natural caused fires. Even if it were, pristine ecologies could be preserved in walled off areas. Rather than allowing forest fires to rage out of control, fire breaks should be created using inexpensive wooden barriers fire proofed with sodium silicate. Forests are very valuable and protecting them would probably cost less than the funerals. Buildings in forests should be protected this way also. Worldwide it is estimated that forests would double in size if there were no fires [Bowman (in the conclusions)]. The recent fires in Colorado, Kenya, and elsewhere were unfortunate, lethal, and preventable.

The greatest change in climate from human affects is occurring between 45 degrees south latitude and 50 degrees north [Smith]. This heating of the soil affect may be the reason why Antarctica has not been affected much by global warming yet [Gillette], given that the greatest land mass is in the northern hemisphere. Also there is probably much less particulate carbon in Antarctica falling on the ice. This causes much of the loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean. Dust from the impact of a huge meteorite upon Australia 545 million years ago settling on the ice may have been the reason why the Earth covered with ice (so called snow ball Earth) warmed up and permitted the Cambrian explosion of life. Part of that explosion was no doubt from fertility increase when the dust fell or eroded into the oceans. However, recently Antarctica’s ice loss has speeded up in the last ten years [Alley] 75% to enough to raise sea levels half a millimeter or 0.02 inches per year. There will be considerable feed back from Arctic ice loss because ocean ice reflects much more energy than water does.

Denudation could be easily considerably reversed in North America by planting shade trees along roadways, substituting nut and fruit trees for annual crops, and growing vegetation on rooftops. This last would in addition cause considerable energy saving from air conditioning and heating costs [Hall]. The affect on climate would be minimal on the eastern seaboard, USA, because most of that land is covered by trees outside of the cities and the remainder is in grass or crops.

Also, pumping water with huge pumps out of rivers during catastrophic floods into clean gravel filled trenches [Schiermeier] large holes topped with coarse and than fine sand (the fine sand for the purpose of preventing clogging by sediment) to raise water tables under arid regions should be advantageous and help considerably to alleviate drought areas and to counter the recent decreased terrestrial evapotranspiration [Jung]. The reason for the gravel filling is to prevent the rock or soil strata from being clogged with sediment, which can be easily remove from the sand layer. There is a long, extensive history of USGS involvement in ground water recharge (with references). Usually recharge wells were used, which often proved to be impractical because of clogging.

Whole rivers are pumped into the ocean during flood stage in Rhode Island, so the pumps already exist. It would not be necessary to fill the holes with clean gravel covered with fine sand. If not filled it would be necessary to surround them with a fence in order to prevent children drowning and cover them with screening to prevent malarial mosquitoes. This technique would make miniature reservoirs out of the recharge pits, but would add considerably to the cost of cleaning sediments out of them.

There is a big difference between a ten foot well and a 100 foot well to a farmer, both in cost of construction and cost of operation. There is a VERY big difference if the water table disappears, This is not a trivial problem. 15% of India’s food is produced by irrigation and the ground water will soon be exhausted [Brown]. Half of India’s hand dug wells are dry and millions of tube wells causing some suicide of those affected [Brown]. India is the top water consuming country in the World [Gilbert]. In China the situation is also serious. China is the second largest consumer of water [Gilbert]. The upper water table is almost gone in the North China Plain, where half their wheat is produced. China has 21% of the world’s population. Every minute four children die for lack of clean water. The world’s ground water is being depleted and this is not sustainable. The USA is the third largest consumer of water [Gilbert] There will eventually be a serious problem in the USA also. You may see a very extensive article by David Pyne about dual purpose recharge (ASR) wells, that explores their history, geography, and numerous aspects. This procedure is already being used by the City of Wichita, Kansas, to prevent two plumes of salt water from contaminating their municipal wells.

On the Gulf coast of Texas near Aransas Pass, a main highway was constructed parallel to the coast and the el nino excess water was shunted into the bay with a drainage ditch. They could have used the water to recharge the lower water table or replace the live oak organic contaminated upper water table. As a result the shrimp harvest breeding area was ruined instead.

Using a clean stone base for roads instead of road stone (stone mixed with sand and silt) would also be helpful as would porous concrete where shoulders are not possible. The above procedures would be especially directly advantageous to increasing rainfall where the water table could be brought up to within a meter or two of the surface because of the increased transpiration, in addition to taking the edge off droughts to farms from easier well irrigation. A fringe benefit would be avoidance of destruction of down river farms and cities by floods. 28% of the world’s land is too dry for agriculture, which is twice as much land that is suitable. The situation is especially advantageous in North America because Canada has the third largest income of water, after Brazil and Russia.At the same time it is adjacent to a huge area of fertile dry soil in the USA, So there is plenty of room for improvement. I suspect procedures like those would take some of the misery out of the expanding current 7 billion population for 50 years (expanding one billion every 14 years, especially ominous a rise in Africa). After that birth control is the only option, because North America, India, and Argentina will no longer then be able to feed the world, because the USA population is rapidly rising, and there has been an explosive growth in the last couple of hundred years [Kelnan]. Indeed, they are not adequately feeding the world now. Northern South America would be able to supply some of the short fall for a little while if a sufficient source of phosphate can be discovered, necessary because present day world phosphorus economy peaked a couple of decades ago. There will be a rise in productivity from increased carbon dioxide on farms, but it will not be enough to postpone the disaster from rising population by much.

This procedure would not be useful where the ground water is high in fluoride, which is very poisonous. Biotite and muscovite micas probably furnish the most fluoride from the parent material sources, as much as 4 and 2 per cent in each respectively. There are 290 ppm average in 10 mile deep crustal rock. So fluoride must leach out of soils eventually. Formations of dolomite, bentonite, or volcanic ash produce dangerous concentrations of fluoride in ground water (from a currently unavailable study in Estonia). In areas where fluoride with its infinite life is foolishly added to municipal water the streams will contain extra fluoride and the ground water is being poisoned where septic fields are used.

The drought itself should be noticeably reduced if we manage our soils intelligently by increasing the depth, organic content, mulch cover, and design of our soils. There is no reason why we should allow rain water to surge almost instantly across the ground into the rivers and out to sea, ruining farms and cities on its way. Pumping it into reservoirs and ground water would have significant ameliorating climate affects as well as creating rain fall from the “lake effect” similar to that provided by the Great Lakes. There is no reason why moisture can not be trans located further inland by rain than it is currently, especially with increased tree cover. You say that this would require us to put time into the project? Since when is this a valid objection when everyone complains that our unemployment figures are too high? I can think of no better exercise for those lazy senior citizens with the attendant health increase as well. Of course this increased vegetation cover would probably have a slightly warming affect in the opposite direction as well because of reduced dust and increased humidity. It has been proposed that twenty times as much dust as today accentuated glacial cycles in the past. Mulitza et al suggest that the desertification of savanna soil south of the Sahara Desert may have been enhanced by increased irrigation farming causing dramatic increase in atmospheric dust during the last two centuries, which dust cooled the soil somewhat [Mulitza].

If not the above solutions, no problem, we will have plenty of room for the people of southern Florida and drought stricken areas on our Canadian and Siberian farms. The situation is much more serious over seas. For instance, more water flows into Egypt each year in the form of food, than flows down the Nile and Israelis have only enough water for 20% or less of their food [Barnaby]. The Jordan River flows only because of the sewage flowing into it [Watzman]. The Arabians are also hopelessly dependant on food imports in that dry kingdom, They will be totally dependant on food imports by 2013 because their water table is almost exhausted. They should initiate a crash program to reduce their population, because there is no river that could realistically supply them with water, and North America will only be able to feed them for another 100 years or so.

It has been proposed that changes in sunlight and in the number of cosmic rays reaching the earth is having affects on climate. This (except for the cosmic rays being deflected by the sun) is plausible and there is some evidence, especially correlations with the sun’s phenomena. It has also been proposed that a much lessened fog in Eastern Europe may be responsible for as much as 50% of the warming there as possibly resulting from a much reduced emission of sulfur dioxide and possibly 10-20% in western Europe [Vantard]. If so there will not be much additional warming from this cause in the future there. All other areas stayed the same or rose in aerosol [Wang].

There has been important changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth in summer as versus winter as formulated by Milankovitch because of the wobble of the earth’s axis of rotation (orbital forcing). This is hypothesized as determining the waxing and waning of continental glaciers during the Pleistocene. However this is unlikely to have much affect on current climate problems because the periods involved are enormously long.

Everyone is concerned about the atmosphere being increased in carbon dioxide and not without reason. However an answer to a question we have not been asking is; "We should not be using our carbon fuels for so trivial a purpose as to merely generate heat and therefore electricity or non aviation transportation in a world where every week the sun beams down enough energy on the state of Arizona alone to supply the whole world with non aviation transportation energy during that time". I65,000 square miles of solar cells would provide 90% of the USA’s energy, assuming only present efficiencies [Zweibel]. The primary problem is that the return on investment for photovoltaic is extremely low [Inman]. The best return on investment by a wide margin is from hydroelectric and wind power [Inman]. Those carbon fuels should be devoted to chemical stock and aviation, not heat and electricity. Burning carbon is something like burning your furniture to keep warm. Practical oil (reserves) will probably run out in 8 years in the USA and another fifty [Moyer] or hundred years or so worldwide and practical coal probably in another two hundred or so in the USA [Kerr] [Heinberg] or nineteen years in China [Heinberg]. China can double this by using Siberian coal if political problems can be solved [Heinberg]. Underground coal gasification will probably permit another 19 years or so in China [Heinberg]. China produces 40% of the world’s coal, most of it used internally [Heinberg]. If population continues to increase, world coal production will probably peak in 2011, and they will not be able to rely on USA coal because we use most of our coal [Heinberg]. What do we have planned for the remaining million years I hope these nations are scheduled to survive? There is not any chance at all that we will be able to manufacture elemental carbon from limestone at a price even fairly distant to the $34 per ton that it has been selling at for the last 50 years [Keith].

Oil reached a production cap of about 74 million barrels per day about the year 2005 and has leveled off since then [Murray]. There is a sharp upward trend in price as demand increases but production does not. This will cause a drastic sudden disruption in our economy shortly because we are putting very little effort into alternate sun light energy sources. It has already contributed significantly to the European financial crisis. Our constant drum beat in the USA about not being dependent on foreign oil is 180 degrees off. If we were really greedy we would use foreign oil as much as possible as long as they are kind enough to sell it for a price no more than a third or less of what it would cost to make it out of limestone. Cloete correctly shows we will probably be hooked on carbon fuels into the distant future because mining it is a small fraction of its intrinsic worth and very profitable (with graphs). You may see some interesting graphs by Gail Tverberg showing the economics of the interaction between coal and oil here. Our own (USA) reserves and resources (resources are total practical and impractical oil) are a miniscule fraction of the World’s. If a major war should loom after our oil runs out we will be left high and dry, and maybe defeated. If we were defeated by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or Osama Bin Laden it would make little difference whether the world was warm or cold outside because life would not be worth living any way.

I suspect that considerable energy could be derived from the difference in temperature between surface sea water in the subtropics and the temperature in the depths if an organic liquid could be found with the correct boiling point. This would have the added advantage of muting the force of hurricanes somewhat. Hurricane Sandy is evidence that this would probably be a significant advantage.

But if our coal and oil policy seems foolish, our atomic fuel policy must seem like insanity by comparison. At least the carbon will still be on the surface of the earth, extremely expensive to turn into lubricants and chemicals, but not impossible. Uranium once burned will be gone forever. Our progeny will curse us if they come across a very valuable use for uranium and it is gone. If that purpose were to be the only practical way to get rid of or deflect a meteor scheduled to wreck the earth, for instance, they will be cursing us with their dying breath. They will look back on our problems with those incompetent, vicious jerks in Afghanistan with fond nostalgia. The only possible saving circumstance may be an enormous amount of uranium said to be present in sea water [Fetter]. It will be desirable to use atomic power for awhile in the near future because it is much cleaner and less expensive than other methods, at least in the existing plants. It is also probably safer, provided the plants are not stupidly built in a tsunami zone. It is not inexpensive from future plants though, for the following reasons;
1. The high cost of liability insurance, currently largely underwritten by tax payers in the USA by the Price-Anderson Act which caps liability at a few hundred million dollars per plant [Farmer].
2. The cost of disposing of spent fuel. 12 billion dollars have been expended in the USA toward a solution, but with no resolution to the problem to date [Farmer].
3. Each 1000 megawatt nuclear plant loses 80 million liters of water per day from evaporation [Farmer], this in a world where many farmers are going bankrupt for lack of water.
4. The costs of easier nuclear atom bomb proliferation could be enormous. Each 1000 megawatt reactor generates about 30 atom bombs worth of plutonium each year [Farmer]. A terrorist placing an a-bomb in New York harbor could cause literally trillions of dollars worth of direct and indirect damage (indirect damage arising from New York’s position as a major rail, air, ocean, highway, and electronic transportation hub as well as a main repository for financial information.). The cost of funerals alone could easily come to several billion dollars.
5. The indirect costs of nuclear fuel depletion, which could prove to be enormous. An extremely important use for Uranium in the future that could only be solved that way could prove very expensive indeed if the Uranium was gone. The mining of uranium appears to be declining.
6. The cost of a nuclear plant is 8 to 10 billion dollars, which cost Wall Street refuses to finance. The return on investment is the lowest of any energy source [Inman].

The sooner we switch over to various solar methods, the better. What we should be shooting for is each household generating its own energy. I suspect this would be easy if we went to low voltage DC appliances as Edison suggested. Such a strategy would be almost immune to sabotage, a VERY important consideration during war time. It would also be almost immune to electric shock or fire, so homeowners could do their own installation and maintenance, a saving which would mitigate a considerable part of solar cells costs. Fire would still be a small problem from self installation, but this could be eliminated with sodium silicate treatment so far as catastrophe is concerned. [see this site again. ]

Nor would we have to be solely dependant on Arizona power for cars. Nickel-zinc battery carrying car trailers topped by solar panels would go a long way to solve energy for cars. It will probably be necessary to use battery carrying trailers because there probably is not enough lithium to make car carrying batteries.

Another procedure that we already have the technology for is hydrogen powered cars. This would be practical if pipe lines were built along the main roads with filling stations every ten or twenty miles.

Long distance travel would be no problem if we were to build wide gauge piggy back railroads to carry the cars and bikes.

And there is no reason why we can not design our roads around a healthy method such as bicycles or tricycles. In some city areas covered, raised bike paths would be actually quicker and safer commuting than automobile roads during rush hour and definitely healthier. I commuted across New Brunswick, N.J. 55 years ago or so on a bicycle and often arrived ahead of the cars tied up in grid lock. It seems as if this surgeon found a bike quicker once also. Bikes would not have to be difficult to operate. Wide wheels cushioned with steel springs should work very well or tricycles or even quadcycle mopeds. They need not be expensive or heavy if made of cardboard. They can even be an office on wheels themselves.

It is often said that we can not tap the sun’s energy without further expensive research. This is not so. We already know how to make linear parabolic mirrors and numerous effective ways to make heat generated vapor engines as well as photovoltaic cells. It is probably possible to generate electricity by photovoltaic and heat engines at the same time. Indeed, there are already many dozen photovoltaic manufacturers some selling cells as little as $1.50 per watt and one promising 30 cents per watt. Inexpensive thin film printed solar cells promise to go into full production shortly. It possibly would be possible to even power ocean transport using hydrogen balloons covered with photovoltaic cells [Piore]. There have been numerous methods of storing energy created. Even those crude wind generators are fairly practical (except to the birds). Only geothermal energy should possibly not be attempted. This would have the affect of cooling the lower geological formations with possibly the danger of triggering earthquakes, or worse yet, volcanic eruptions from the resulting contraction.

The only thing stopping us is oil selling for, probably, a quarter or less of what it would cost to manufacture it out of carbon dioxide or limestone, and recently as little as a sixth. Wald has written an excellent analysis of the pros and cons of each of the non carbon energy sources [Wald].

Producing alcohol from plants is hopeless since we need the land for food and will have no choice in the future as population rises. It is hopelessly uneconomic at present, of course. All the crops grown today, along with trees harvested for paper and wood, comes to only 20% of the World’s energy usage [Biello]. Below is by Richard Charles Antolinez.

“Food prices are soaring because corn is being used for ethanol production, and food riots are breaking out in many places. E10 or 90% gasoline 10% ethanol is supposed to only reduce fuel mileage by 2% to 3%. I don’t know how they came by their numbers, but I assume they simply deduced that ethanol has about 30% less British Thermal Units, and since it made up of 10% of E10, then about a 3% reduction in mileage could be expected. This is the way the morons in labs think, especially when their job depends on it. Many vehicles are seeing a 10% or more drop in fuel mileage. You see no vehicle is designed to run on E10, and it simply is out of tune for E10. So it is more than just the BTU difference between the E10 blend and straight gasoline. Many owners have clogged the internet with such complaints; fleet owners have reported as much as an 11.9% drop in mileage. Ethanol tends to act as a combustion inhibitor when mixed with gasoline. Did you know for every gallon of ethanol produced, the American taxpayer pays .55 cents to the producers? Plus the government has another gaggle of subsidies I won't get into. Sheer nonsense.

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production: Corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. Switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. Wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the alcohol fuel produced. These figures don't include the fact that ethanol has to be shipped by truck, because it is incompatible for current pipe-lines.”

People are addicted to growth in a way that is almost religious. It will not be possible to maintain this insane life style more than a few more decades of the 100,000 decades or more I hope people will last though. The Earth has become a much different place than the Earth of our ancestors [Baum].

In any case, before we continue to dump huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, it would be a good idea to find out what the actual affect on the climate will be, for instance with an experiment, say a silica glass greenhouse with varying amounts of carbon dioxide in it. It would be a good idea also to determine what the affect of less amounts of oxygen will be on some representative plant and animal species, as well as the affects of higher ocean carbon dioxide with actual experiments. There is no substitute for an experiment. Computer models just are not convincing enough alone. Robert Wood performed an experiment in 1909. Nasif Nable has performed a small scale experiment, which he claims proves the greenhouse affect is largely due to lack of convection in greenhouses, not infrared radiation effects.

REFERENCES see below


An organization called “Principia Scientific International” has been formed to attempt to determine the true cause of global warming. The spokes man is John O’Sullivan whose email is john at You may see an article that describes how the removal of vegetation by spread of wood roaches and termites at the close of the Permian may have caused a dramatic, even ruinous, rise in temperature in the Triassic in .

You may see a history of the development of the science of the carbon dioxide greenhouse affect here and the history of the development of the science of biotic affects (especially forests) on climate here. An article discussing geoengineering of climate with many climate change links may be seen here. You may see a site with many links discussing attributes of the atmosphere here, such as change of temperature with altitude. The future of permafrost with its implications of methane release may be seen on a permafrost map by 2100 and a current atmospheric rise graph. There are numerous climate and population statistics here. There are photos of ground water related effects here.

Interntional Association of Hydrogeologists, Worldwide Groundwater Organization, national chapters.

For a hypothesis that explains the large volcanoes of Mars and the bulges associated with them as the disruption from the antipode (opposite side of a sphere) of a huge meteorite or comet impact, see this site.
----It has been proposed that many lava flows on earth were from disruption of the crust at the antipode (opposite side of a sphere) of a huge meteorite impact. Shallow earthquakes under even the longest ridge/ridge transform faults is strong indication that the continents do not move.

There is a URL that has an incredible number of links to information supposedly for those interested in law as applying to environmental concerns However it lists main newspapers, news search engines, financial news sources, directories (telephone, email, lawyer, government, financial, congressional, business, corporate executives, zipcodes), online legal and ethics research, banking, trade associations, law reviews, bar associations, weather, airline tickets, and more that would be useful for other purposes as well. SOME HEALTH ARTICLES

You may see here how to obtain a very comprehensive book about potassium nutrition called “POTASSIUM NUTRITION - in Heart Disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Gout, Diabetes, Metabolic Shock, and High Blood Pressure”.

Electrolyte regulation (sodium and potassium) by steroids -- . Purpose of cortisol as an immune hormone (diarrhea) -- . Copper nutrition and physiology as related to aneurisms, stroke, high cholesterol, slipped spinal discs, hemorrhoids, and emphysema. -- Strategies for Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and fibromyalgia

There is an article discussing anacardics in cashew nuts to prevent cavities or cure a tooth abscess which might prove useful if you get a tooth ache from the usual gram positive bacteria.
There is also an article which proposes some speculation about diabetes, including a chili pepper cause.
There is evidence that cell phones can produce tumors. Using remote ear phones would seem to be a good idea.

Fluoride in city water will cause fluorosis discoloration of teeth, weakened bones, damage to the kidneys and immune system, bone cancer, and, worst of all, damage to the nerves resembling Alzheimer’s disease. It has an infinite life in sewer treated soil and ground water.

See this site for some links to health articles.

---- Alley RB Fahnestock M Joughin I 2008 Perspective climate change understanding glacier flow in changing times. Science 322; 1061-1062.
---- Arking A 1996 Absorption of Solar Energy in the Atmosphere: Discrepancy Between Model and Observations. Science 273; 779-782.
---- Barnaby W 2009 Do nations go to war over water? Nature 458; 282-283.
---- Baum RM 2010 Addicted to growth. Chemical and Engineering News 88; 3.
---- Biello D 2011 The false promise of biofuels. Scientific American 305; 58-65.
---- Bounoua, L., F. G. Hall, P. J. Sellers, A. Kumar, G. J. Collatz, C. J. Tucker, and M. L. Imhoff (2010), Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L23701, doi:10.1029/2010GL045338.
---- Bowman MJS, et al Fire in the earth system (a review) 2009 Science: 324; 481 – 484.
---- Brent R Helliker Richter SL 2008 Subtropical to boreal convergence of tree-leaf temperatures. Nature 454, 511-514.
---- Brown LR 2009 Could food shortages bring down civilization. Scientific American 300; 50-57.
---- Cook, B.I., R.L. Miller, and R. Seager, 2009: Amplification of the North American "Dust Bowl" drought through human induced land degradation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, 4997-5001.
---- Cox P Jones C 2008 Illuminating the modern dance of climate and CO2. Science 321; 1642-1644.
---- Cui X Graf H-F Langmann B Chen W Huang R 2006 Climate impacts of anthropogenic land use changes on the Tibetan Plateau. Global and Planetary Change. 54; 33-56.
---- Farmer JD 2010 Comment-A US nuclear future, counter point-not wanted, not needed. Nature 467; 391-393.
---- Fetter S 2009 Ask the experts. Scientific American 300; 84.
---- Fourier J 1824 Ann. Chemie Physique 27; 136.
---- Gilbert N 2012 Water under pressure. Nature 483; 256-257.
---- Gillette NP, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Gabriele C. Hegerl, Michael F. Wehner & Philip D. Jones 2008 Attribution of polar warming to human influence. Nature Geoscience 1; 750-754.
---- Hall DC 1997 Albedo and vegetation demand-side management options for warm climates. Ecological Economics 24; 31-45.
---- Heinberg R, Fridley D 2010 The end of cheap oil. Nature 468; 369-371.
---- Inman M 2013 The true cost of fossil fuels.Scientific American 308; 59-61.
---- Jacobs Z, et al 2008 Ages for the middle stone age of southern Africa: implications for human behavior and dispersal. Science 322; 733-735.
---- Jasechko S, et al 2013 Terrestrial water fluxes dominated by transpiration. Nature 496; 347-359.
---- Jung M et al 2010 Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply. Nature 467; 951-954.
---- Keith D Moreno-Cruz J 2011 Pitfalls of peak coal prediction Nature 469; 472
---- Kelnan A clark AG 2012 Recent explosive human population growth has resulted in an excess of rare genetic variants. Science 336; 740-743.
---- Kerr RA 2009 How much coal remains? Science 323; 1420-1421.
---- Kintisch E 2009 New push focuses on new ways to curb global warming. Science 324; 323.
---- Lacis AA Schmidt GA Rind D Ruedy RA 2010 Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature. Science 330; 356-359.
---- Lee X et al 2011 Observed increase in local cooling effect of deforestation at higher latitudes. Nature 479; 384-387.
---- Lewis SL et al 2011 The 2010 Amazondrought, Science 331; 354.
` ---- Mathews HD Weaver AJ Meissner KJ Gillett NP Eby M 2003 Natural and anthropogenic climate change incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics, and the global carbon cycle. Climate Dynamics 22; 461-479.
---- Montanez IP Tabor NJ Niemeier D DiMichelle WA Frank TD Fielding CR Isbell JL Birgenheier LP Rygel MC 2007 CO2-forced climate and vegetation instability during late Paleozoic deglaciation. Science 315; 87-91.
---- Moyer M 2010 How much is left? Scientific American 303; 74-81.
---- Mulitza S et al 2010 Increase in African dust flux at the onset of commercial agriculture in the Sahel region. Nature 466; 226-228.
---- Murray J King D 2012 Oil’s tipping point has passed. Nature 481; 433-435.
---- Perkins S 2010 Atmospheric science: Humidity holds the heat. Nature Climate Change, November.
---- Perkins S 2011 Plant leaf growth is boosted by carbon dioxide, but can, in turn, slow global warming. Nature Climate Change, 1030
---- Perkins S 2011 Atmospheric science: Sun’s energy output. Nature 1038-1039.
---- Piore A 2012 Patent watch. Scientific American 2; 23.
---- Prentice IC 2010 The burning issue. Science 330; 1636-1637.
---- Rule et al 2012 The aftermath of megafauna extinction: ecosystem transformation in Pleistocene Australia. Science 335; 1483-1486.
---- Running SW 2008 Ecosystem disturbance, carbon, and climate. Science 321; 652-653.
----Schiermeir Q 2014 Water on tap. Nature 510 , 326-327.
---- Secord R Gingerich PD Lohmann KC MacLeod KG 2010 Continental warming preceding the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. Nature 467; 955-962.
---- Smith HJ 2008 Editors’ choice climate science what have we done. Science 322; 167.
----Snyder PK 3013 Concerns over Arctic warming. Nature Climate Warming vol. 3, p539.
---- Stott PA 2003 Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophysical Research Letters 30; 1728.
---- Taylor CM et al 2012 Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils. Nature 489; 423 – 426.
---- Tierney JE et al 2008 Northern hemisphere controls on tropical southeast African climate during the past 60,000 years. Science 322; 252-255.
---- Tyndall J 1863 Philos. Mag. 25; 200.
---- Wald ML 2009 Scientific American 300; 56-61.
---- Wang K 2009 Clear sky visibility has decreased over land globally from 1973 to 2007. Science 323; 1468-1470.
---- Wang Z Chappellaz J Park K Mak JE 2010 Large Variations in Southern Hemisphere Biomass Burning During the Last 650 Years. Science 330;1663-1666 ---- Watzman H 2010 Palestinians and Israelis talk water. Nature 466; 820
---- Vantard R Yiou P van Oldebborgh GJ 2009 Decline of fog, mist and haze in Europe over the past 30 years. Nature Geoscience. Published online: 18 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo414.
---- Zweibel K Mason J Fthenakis V 2008 By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific American 298; 64-73.

Email to Charles Weber = isoptera at --or – 1 828 692 5816 (USA)

This page has been visited times

This article has been modified in April 2014.