Monday, June 18, 2007

Confused Science may be colder then Global Warming

( 6.18.07) About two weeks ago the head of NASA expressed doubts that Global Warming is a significant problem. His statement was based on the thirty or so years that NASA has been monitoring the temperatures in earth’s upper atmosphere, which have shown little or no change. Although he did point out that the surface temperatures have shown a steady increase.

I will also note that last week he announced that he regretted his statement, but he did not retract it.

The point is if the head of NASA, likely the world’s most important research organization is uncertain, then modern science is obviously confused, which maybe costing all of us time we don’t have to burn.

On Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, a NASA press release of composite images taken of earth’s polar ice caps from 1979-2003 showed that they have melted about 50% over two decades, and the effect appears to be accelerating. Here is a link to their release:


Scientific confusion invites those radio talk ‘Know It All, Guys’ to claim Global Warming is just another “normal” climatic phase. The thing NASA should be pointing out is that no normal climatic shift could ever melt half of earth’s ice in 20 years. This is extremely abnormal.

A meltdown this rapid would be the result of a climatic disaster, such as a massive volcano, a jumbo jet sized meteor or maybe something like the removal of earth’s thick thermal insulation which also according to NASA, covered over 80% more of earth’s land surface, 200 years ago, then today.

Not only can children prove at least 8 very powerful cooling effects that earth has just lost, but vegetation eats the CO2 that many theory scientists are solely blaming for global warming.

The carbon taken directly from CO2 is one of the two main ingredients plants use to make their food. According to, the web’s interactive encyclopedia, the average tree removes 26 pounds of CO2 from the air every year, and earth just lost billions and billions of these CO2 eaters.

I’m not saying the burning of organic compounds is not a big problem, but today’s levels of CO2 could still be mathematically balanced with enough new atmospheric photosynthesis occurring, which may still need to be 36% more then was occurring 200 years ago.

There may be a few ways to actually get that much vegetation growing long before we could ever launch a space umbrella. And unlike the umbrella these methods would make a lot of money for a lot of companies and pay a lot of workers, they could also produce millions of tons of food and construction materials, create typical vacation paradises and greatly reduce other pollutants from earth’s air, while also cooling it.

They could even help lower earth’s raising sea levels, and replenish endangered species.

Out of the 8 other cooling factors that I could design experiments simple enough for third graders, several lost ones seem to add far more cooling then today’s 36% higher CO2 levels can physically hold of additional heat.

The massive expansion of oxygen gas released from water during atmospheric photosynthesis has not been accounted for in global warming theories, and some people calling themselves scientists even deny it happens. Yet only a few denied that oxygen gas was released from a dense liquid that was already 82% oxygen. (H2O has 2 H atoms for each O but one O is many times heaver then 1 H atom).

I am a manufacture and I work with other engineers that see this as clearly as the things we build. This is because they only use real science, no time to make up theories, and the thermal effects of expansion and contraction are a very large part of many engineer’s daily work lives.

Land plants mix the carbon they get from the CO2 with the other main ingredient of their plant food, hydrogen, to create ‘carbohydrates’. They then convert these into sugars, for use and storage. Our bodies also convert carbohydrates into sugars. Somebody called me an idiot, saying “plants convert carbohydrates into glucose, not sugar”. Save your email, simply speaking they are the same thing.

Plants do not use the oxygen left over after removing the H2, from the H2O, nor do they combine it with another dense compound, nor do they store it, nor do they burn it, they just release it into the atmosphere to provide earth’s animals with fresh new oxygen gas to breath. Any encyclopedia will verify that Photosynthesis is responsible for at least 99% of the oxygen in earth’s atmosphere.

Mathematically this expansion is so massive it would have been canceling out a tremendous amount of heat right above earth’s surface, if we had not have just removed 80% of earth’s thickest vegetation.

This is because ‘Expansion’ is nature’s only one step supper cooling method.

Unlike the similar cooling effect from evaporation (called ‘transpiration’ in plants) the O2 gas will never condense back into a liquid at earth temps, as all of the evaporated water eventually will.

This means that the expansion of O from photosynthesis is 100% efficient at cooling the air near earth’s surface (where the problem is) as water vapors eventually re-compress its heat when it condenses.

The bigger difference is that most of the Atmospheric Photosynthesis is now gone, and the rate of evaporation appears to be up, do to higher temps and more storms, if the Weather Channel is correct.

This roughly 800 time expansion of O from H20 makes brand new atmosphere which contains only enough heat to balance its mass (to surrounding temps ) when compressed 800 times, so this newly released gas instantly draws radiant heat from the hot air, right above earth’s surface, to re-warm it.

I have had many denials that this expansion even occurs, or that expansion even cools, but none were similar or provided any evidence beyond their words. Not one offered a simple way to demonstrate how a dense matter, without being consumed, attached or used, converts to a very sparse state, of the same mass, without expansion, no matter what they call the process.

For matter to go from a very dense state to a very sparse one without expansion, alteration, reattachment or consumption, would mean that science has discovered ‘completely vanishing matter’.

If you want to ask someone else about this, find a clever engineer, or science loving sharp third grader, but don’t ask a science theory writer, this effect is about as basic as effects can be, and they missed it.

Go to and read about many other lost cooling effects that theory science has not accounted for or apparently even noticed. If I can’t back my words with real experiments and or natural examples that are simple enough for children to verify, do not believe me.

I also list over a dozen ways we can start cooling earth back down, right now, not in maybe 30 years if we are lucky enough that the solar winds don’t blow the Space Umbrella out of the solar system.

They are part of the article “Space Umbrella vs. Desert Irrigation” at

©2007 Steven Craig

Space Shade Umbrella or Desert Irrigation

Which do you think would put more heat into earth’s atmosphere, all of the fossil fuels that humans have ever burnt combined, or one hour of sunshine?

The answer does not matter, but the point is that the sun provides thousands, maybe millions of times more heat, so it may be far more effective, faster and easier to reduce the solar heat that radiates into our atmosphere by 1%, then to reduce the heat humans generate by 50-90%.

About a month ago I began pointing out that theory scientists have missed a very efficient atmospheric cooling process that earth just lost. If you know where a piece of a forest still is, on the next real hot day go into it and notice how much cooler it feels.

If a great deal of growing is going on (damp ground, plenty of sun) it may even feel air conditioned. Crop dusters and helicopter pilots have often noticed how much cooler forests can be to fly over then near by farms, roads cities are even bodies of water.

But words do not contain substance so before we get started don’t believe anything I say if I can’t provide simple experiments to prove it.

I was called many names by people claiming advanced scientific knowledge for suggesting that the removal of over 80% of earth’s thermally protective surface would have naturally brought on Global Warming, even if we had never burnt fossil fuels. Not that they are not a big problem.

So I decided to point out many other earth cooling effects I also found in forests, but this time with simple experiments that third graders can verify, or prove me wrong. Read on, they’re included.

It is not a good idea to believe me because one supposed scientist said that my “Bad Science” is the most dangerous kind of science because “other” simple minds would actually believe it. He might be correct but the way I see it is that constantly repeating natural actions are constantly verifiable.

Everyday I see how little humanity actually knows about our universe and its processes, which proves that I am actually quite stupid. In turn this bit of absolute awareness keeps me asking stupid questions without minding if people think I’m stupid, I am what I am.

Let’s start with a cooling method that is just too obvious for anyone to deny because science is already suggesting a “giant space shade umbrella” and almost everyone has cooled down some in shade.

The shade of forests helps cool the atmosphere in several obvious ways. First the air under the canopy, (top of trees catching direct sun) is where much of the sun’s heat energy is blocked. So a large mass of air is kept from solar heating, so as a hot breeze blows through it would mix and cool it some.

If the forests disappear, then correct me if this is not 100% obvious, that warmer air would not have that cooler air to cool it down some.

Next, the shade in a forest would also prevent the ground under it from absorbing solar heat, therefore as apposed to ground that is not well shaded it would not become warm from direct sun thus not radiating heat into the atmosphere. Is this also obvious? If not you can use a thermometer to verify it.

We may assume that the canopy is where the solar heat absorbs and then radiates into the atmosphere. Which sounds logical, but a very simple test third graders can easily do may prove this assumption to be even more stupid then I.

Experiment 1: Place artificial plants beside similar real plants in the same sunny places on hot days and start taking the temperatures of the leaves. A laser thermometer may be helpful. I read lower temps of up to 30 degrees on the living plants, but being stupid I may make mistakes, so let some third graders redo this experiment, since it is their world that might be roasting away.

The point of it is that healthy green growing vegetation consumes the solar energy so it can “cook” the plant food it needs to grow instead of letting it radiate the heat into the atmosphere. I bet they will hate this description but scientific word descriptions may not be any better, and can be far more confusing.

The closest example by scientific name, photosynthesis, I could argue my camera also performs.

Because thick vegetation converts solar energy into other things, like food, that might explain why the air above forests would also be cooler then the air over a nearby farm, field, road or town.

But don’t believe anything I say, and I’m not sure if I trust those crop dusters either.

Real science needs clear minds to verify real experiments:

Experiment 2: Is simultaneously monitoring the temperatures at even distances above a farm nearby forest, parking lot, body of water, and any other surface. Using those battery powered transmitters that most department stores now sell to read the outside temps, inside, can be helpful.

They could be hung from multiply tethered helium balloons anchored at 10 to 15 feet above those different surfaces. Repeat this experiment on several days and then average out the readings.

The difference over healthy thick vegetation may be more substantial a day or two after drenching rains, and calm winds. The difference will not be as substantial in real dry or windy conditions.

It is not necessary or simple to prove exact amounts, just verify consistent differences. Some science guys may also hate that statement but the level of precision sometimes requested on a detail in a theory is not worth spending much time on when there are obviously so many unaccounted for factors.

By substantiating a consistently cooler average temperature over, in and on the ground in forests would make it obvious that they do have a natural cooling effect on the atmosphere.

Reflected Solar Heat

It is obvious that light color things on earth’s surface stay cooler in the sun? This is obviously because light colors reflect far more solar heat. But I noticed this is not a consistent fact, when you look at a forest, its leaves are rather dark, so they would not be reflecting very much solar energy either, yet the dark healthy plants will even feel cooler then far lighter colors right beside them so third graders can easily design their own tests to prove me wrong, or right.

I have had several people claiming to be scientists call me a fool for questioning the contention that most reflected heat radiates into space, simply because the ozone layer, according to NASA, blocks 97% of the sun’s heat from penetrating. I often hear weatherman say that the heat radiates away from the planet, but the very limited things I have noticed may make me as dangerous as I am stupid.

Yet they make me suspect that a great deal, if not most of this reflected heat actually does get trapped.

Here is what I do see: NASA web sites claim that if earth’s ozone layer did not block out most solar heat earth would reach several hundred degrees (f) each afternoon and several hundred degrees below zero every night. So for it to be blocking 97% means it is a strong wall that blocks out very some serious heat. I remember reading that it blocks heat much as a 14 foot thick wall of concrete would.

I can’t imagine a 14 foot thick wall of concrete that only blocks heat one way, and science even calls this “greenhouse effect”. It is obvious that greenhouses and other clear sealing containers trap solar heat. I have never seen a clear container that won’t trap it. I have never seen a bottle made of ozone either, but I have seen more then enough to question the scientific belief that most surface reflected heat leaves our planet.

In May NASA reported that the temperatures in the upper atmosphere have not shown any significant change since they began monitoring them, they were only rising on the surface.

If I am wrong and most reflected solar heat does pass right through and leave we won’t need a space umbrella or any of my irrigation ideas, all we’ll need to do is cover the hottest deserts with highly reflective colors, that prevent heat absorption on the ground.

The ozone layer makes earth a huge terrarium

Just because nature runs perfectly consistent processes I know a glass terrarium would always overheat with too much sunshine. I would also bet that the average CO2 level in the average greenhouse or terrarium is lower then the air just outside it.

That indicates that CO2 has almost nothing to do with the greenhouse effect that heats greenhouses so much under the same hot sun. If it is a different effect they should not call it the greenhouse effect. The point I’m making is the natural comparisons in nature consistently indicate that the solar heat that is reflected off of even white concrete still ends up heating up the planet. I can offer many experiments to back this, I haven’t seen on to the contrary. I believe nature before smart sounding words.

However there is evidence that a great deal of reflected heat is being absorbed by today’s much higher CO2 levels. And because CO2 is a heavier gas it would be holding this extra heat next to the earth’s surface, where it would do the most rapid damage, and also helping to explain higher surface temps.

Experiment: Place CO2 monitors at even height increments, in various settings. The longer you run your test the more accurate it would be. If they conclude the CO2 is most common just above the surface this could be a factor in vegetation height and strong evidence of how the surface is warming.

Quick Review

Before we look for obvious CO2 things lets review of the cooling effects that we have covered so far.

1. Shaded air stays cooler to mix with and thus cool down warmer air.

2. Shaded ground stays much cooler then exposed ground, which holds in more coolness and moisture.

3. The dark canopy over a forest does not get nearly as hot as non living matter of similar color and weight, therefore the top of the forest are not radiating nearly as much heat into the environment.

4. Because leaves are dark they don’t reflect heat into the atmosphere that at least reduces the warming of the CO2 above. That alone would be another cooling factor of vegetation. That covers 4 cooling effects that earth may have recently lost more then 80%. Now let’s look for some more involving CO2, since so many scientists are blaming it for Global Warming.

Questing CO2

Green houses obviously trap heat because they get very warm under strong sun. However the plants don’t produce CO2, they consume it. So if green houses, bottles and car interiors trapped the light, would not they glow more brightly instead of heating up so much? I realize they may be glowing because our eyes only see a fraction of the spectrum of light, but we all can feel the heat.

I could be wrong, I know I’m stupid, and just like theory writers I don’t have all of the facts either.

Fossil fuels are made from carbon based life so after burning them the carbon is released in an assortment of gasses, like CO2., the internet’s interactive encyclopedia says CO2 holds in more heat, they also say that the average tree eats 26 pounds of CO2 a year.

Being a heaver gas CO2 contains more substance so it seems obvious that it would hold in more heat for a longer time, and that it would absorb more solar heat, so if this is true, would not the reduction of 80% of earth’s natural CO2 eating machines be an obvious reason for at least a significant percentage of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?

So would a loss of 80% of earth’s thickest vegetation that eats CO2 cause much higher levels of it?

Did you just verify yet another cooling effect earth lost with out even needing an experiment?

The only test I found on the web that cleverly verified increased levels of CO2 do hold more heat, actually failed to prove that greatly increased levels CO2 held higher levels of heat then moderately increased levels. It is at\Carbon D.htm / .

Because C02 is a heaver gas it would seem (almost obviously) to spread its extra heat just above earth’s surface, where it could drift around, instead of upward, thus helping to melt polar ice. This makes sense when you realize that all atmospheric also plants absorb their massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, right near the earth’s surface.

You realize that today only a 20% of earth’s forested lands from two centuries ago still exist?

I am not downplaying the amount of devices that spew out huge amounts of CO2, like our cars and trucks, I’m just making the point that without a thick layer of vegetation that lives to eat CO2, in the same place where most of it hangs around, just blaming the fuels alone may be like blaming a dog for an elephant sized footprint.

Hydrogen gas, is the most basic and common element in the universe. It also has the lightest atomic weight. So it makes sense that it would not be commonly found in the heaviest atmosphere, just as lighter oil floats above water.

I graduated with a horticultural degree. Any real agricultural school will verify that plants mix the carbon they get from the CO2 with the hydrogen they separate from ground water to produce the carbohydrates that they convert into sugars (sap). Carbo = Carbon and hydrate = Hydrogen.

The second sentence under “Photosynthesis”, at, states that plants release the oxygen they separate from water. It also verifies that all of the oxygen gas in earth’s atmosphere got their by photosynthesis in plant life separating the oxygen from water. Plants only burn or use a very tiny amount of oxygen so they would naturally release it, like our bodies release CO2.

If something goes from a dense state to a sparse one, without loosing mass, did expansion have to occur?

For pointing out that the oxygen released by Photosynthesis, must also massively expand upon release, resulted in about a hundred new names for me that did not come from my mother.

I also received 30 or so explanations of how this massive expansion could not even occur. However no two were even similar beyond three stated that this expansion would not happen because Photosynthesis is a ‘chemical reaction’, so the oxygen would not expand.

First if something called Photosynthesis is a ‘chemical reaction’ science is about as vague as confused can be. It is called ‘Photosynthesis’ because chemicals are reacting to solar energy, it is not a reaction from simply combining chemicals. So calling photosynthesis a ‘chemical reaction’ makes both terms so vague they become nearly meaningless.

Now for more obvious stuff: Water is over 82% oxygen, even though it has twice as many hydrogen atoms. This is because the atomic weight of an oxygen atom is many times heaver then a hydrogen atom. And at sea level water is about 800 times denser and heavier then the air just above it.

So I estimate that the oxygen that plants release from water has to undergo an expansion of at least 688 times (if into the atmosphere) compared to the total water volume (800 times minus 18%).

I was most viciously attacked for stating that science has missed the massive cooling effect that has been lost from this massive expansion that has been enormously reduced in earth’s atmosphere.

Even if the release of O from H2O is a ‘chemical reaction’ the plants do not consume or burn the oxygen, they just release it in its gas form, which at earth temperatures is always a gas, unless contained by great pressure.

So without the plants burning or consuming the oxygen after they remove the H, it has to expand into the atmosphere because its amount of atoms was not changed, nor was its atomic weight but its volume goes from a very dense liquid state to very sparse gas one. So if someone wants to call this my ‘loony tune method’, then provide one experiment to show how this obvious expansion does not happen. I’ll bet my farm they can’t.

The last time I checked only science fiction writers have ‘completely vanishing matter’, without a black hole handy, which is what has to be occurring if a dense matter is converted into a sparse one without its volume massively expanding.

I may be wrong, but does not this also seem undeniably obvious?

It amazed me that so many people claiming to be modern scientists know nothing about the most basic thermal principles that manufacturing engineers apply every day:

‘The thermal effects of expansion and contraction’

I love engineering science because it has to work, engineers don’t get paid to waste time arguing over science fiction, they must produce real stuff. However from an assumption standpoint ‘Expansion’ is deceiving because we almost always associate it with immense heat, not cooling.

This likely explains why I had many people claiming to be scientists say that expansion has nothing to even do with cooling, and others said it actually “causes heat”. But it is very easy for third graders to prove that expansion is nature’s only one step super-cooling process.

You know how man made science keeps changing, remember Pluto? So I went to to ask them to verify if something I learned in physics 101 was still true.

I asked them if physics still teaches that heat always comes from a heat source and cold is simply the absents of heat. They verified that this is still basic physics but it is now worded differently: “If no heat sources are present temperature would be absolute zero”. They said that the words ‘cold and hot’ are too conceptual for classes, same difference.

We naturally associate expansion with heat, not cooling, because expansion is often triggered by high temperatures, more heat is not the result of expansion it is often the cause of it. Because many if not most materials expand when heated, expansion is an obvious natural way materials react to heat, not generate it.

So is it obvious that the amount of heat a substance needs to match its surrounding temperatures will have to increase if the same amount of matter suddenly occupies more space?

The heat in the O at its compressed liquid size was just enough to balance its temperature to its environment, thus as expanded, the O would instantly mega-chill, thus rapidly drawling heat out of the environment in order to warm it back up to environmental temps.

Here are 4 examples and experiments of expansion

1. In the first .0001 of a second after a firecracker ignites the center may reach 3000 degrees (f), but before that second ends no part of it may even be over 300 degrees (f). Certainly a massive cool down, yet still hot enough to burn our skin, so we would still associate heat with expansion.

2. Sweat is a perfect example of the cooling power of expansion, especially for this report. As the water evaporates it expands just above the skin thus cooling it down.

3. All major manufactures use engineers to help control expansion and contraction of their products. If a molded product is allowed to expand to fast it can cool too fast and crack. If it is compressed too much it may not cool fast enough. I have not seen this constant thermal engineering struggle as part of any theory on global warming, yet it is obviously nature’s primary counterbalancing reaction to either overheating or overcooling.

4. Expansion Experiment: Here is an experiment for a third grade teacher to do in front of his or her students to prove the powerful cooling effect of expansion. Maintain a pot of water at 100º degrees (f). Put a small full can of shaving cream in the pot. Maintain the temperature for long enough to be sure that the can and its contents are also about 100º degrees, an hour should be far more then enough. Remove the can shake and rapidly spray all the cream in a big pile in a box, then rapidly insert a thermometer into the center of the cream.

I used a hot tub set at 105º and the cream was 71º. Expansion super cools things, it is consistent and simple to verify. The reason I used a box to empted the entire can in was to gauge how many times the foam expands. I estimated the pile of cream was 10-15 times larger the size of the can.

However the oxygen released by photosynthesis must expand roughly 800 times minus the 18% for the removed Hydrogen, so I crudely use ‘688’ times O expansion from water to gas.

Expansions 50 times greater then the cream should be cold enough to crack bones if they weren’t delivered one molecule one at a time, spread out over the entire surface of green vegetation.

Thus this may be the most powerful cooling method that earth lost most of because their massive coolness would also sink downward, cooling the surface area that the CO2 is warming.
Is that obvious?

So even if the vegetation did not eat all the CO2, it has other factors that still cool it. Also the loss of so much shade would also expose far more CO2 on the surface to direct solar heat energy, exposing yet two more cooling effects earth lost by the removal of most of its thick vegetation. Is this obvious?

When you realize that these cooling effects, and maybe many others from thick vegetation, have recently been reduced by 80% on earth’s surface, is it obvious that earth will continue to warm until it gets it thermal insulation back?

CO2 is an obvious contributor to Global Warming, but there are obviously many others, so I am not surprised that just last week the head of NASA implied that science is so confused on Global Warming, he cannot see what they are saying (my condensed version).

His report said that satellites are showing that earth’s atmosphere has not shown noticeable increases of temperature. So he even downplayed that G W is a problem. Yet he did note that the surface temperatures have steadily increased. Unfortunately he must have forgotten the pictures NASA crafts took of earth’s ice caps from 1979-2003:

On Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, NASA released composite images which show the 50% retreat of the arctic ice cap over just two decades, in a press release titled RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE.”

Here are two other cooling effects that were thrown into my face, as far more important then this O expansion: First “evaporation”

I want to point out that water vapor, the product of evaporation, is still 82% oxygen. I say this because no one seems to doubt that when water evaporates it massively expands into water vapor, and it massively cools down.

Evaporation (also called (2) ‘transpiration’ when it happens through vegetation) is obviously more commonly occurring then photosynthesis, so from expansion alone is has to create more cooling effect then photosynthesis. However there is an enormous difference in their cooling efficiency.

The oxygen released by Photosynthesis will not condense back into a liquid form until it reaches 297.3 degrees below zero (f), therefore all of the coolness generated by the massive expansion of O into our atmosphere would be entirely warmed by taking heat from it, thus reducing surface temps.

I was called an idiot for not blaming the coolness of plants on transpiration, but at least this person realized the coolness in plants is actually even there.

I have no doubt that transpiration helps cool plants, but whatever you want to call evaporation it still releases the same water vapor which will eventually re-condense at any normal earth temperature with high enough humidity, so the cooling effect of evaporation and or transpiration expansion is constantly counteracted by the concentration of heat as the water vapor condenses, which would be a reduction of it’s volume of about the same 800 times it had expanded.

If the frequency of severe storms has shown an increase, as is being reported by the Weather Channel, so the loss of expanded water vapor generated by transpiration expansion may not be a major factor in earth’s surface temp change.

It seems logical that as earth’s temperatures increase, the rate of evaporation from its oceans would also increase. If the atmosphere now has enough moisture to generate more rainfall, the loss of humidity from transpiration in plants, has switched to increased evaporation from oceans.

However every atom of lost oxygen expansion would have had near 100% cooling efficiency if released high enough in the atmosphere to completely mix with warmer air, simply because the oxygen gas will not condense back to liquid at any normal atmospheric temp on earth.

I had one guy tell me that most of earth’s oxygen comes from photosynthesis in the oceans, I was also trained this in school. However water does something very interesting with oxygen that is somewhat contrary to that statement. You would think that as submerged plants release O would float up to the surface and then expand into the atmosphere. That is not what happens.

Do you realize that the animal life that stays submerged in the seas still breathes oxygen?

This is because pure O released by Photosynthesis under water suspends because it is still compressed by its 800 time greater weight. To super support this into an obvious fact is that these creatures have systems, like gills on fish that scrape these O2 molecules off while flushing out the H2O.

Because the pressure under water would compress the O it would not undergo its great expansion thus not cooling down anything.

Science teaches that most of the O from the seas comes from algae, which floats on top of the water. It would release O into the atmosphere. But we haven’t removed 80% of the algae.

I have seen little to indicate that a significant change in the amount of oceanic photosynthesis has happened over the last few centuries, but a massive drop (easily over 50%) of atmospheric Photosynthesis has recently and undoubtedly happened on land, through deforestation.

What would happen with Global Warming, if we stopped burning Fossil Fuels today?

I have repeatedly heard scientists on television say that there is no strong evidence that even a total abandonment of petroleum based fuels would reverse global warming, at least for many years.

Would not this be exactly the case if CO2 is simply one factor in a full circle of them?

So it may make more sense to make as many changes as possible that require the fewest sacrifices. The more natural cooling effects we identify the faster we can reverse what, if NASA is correct, is a rapid warming of earth’s surface temps. There is now doubt that reducing the burning of these fuels will help, but that and a space umbrella alone look like a pair of very long shots.

Every third grade science class can prove, in at least 8 ways that increasing the amount of photosynthesis in earth’s atmosphere would start cooling the surface temps as soon as these new leaves sprout. But this approach is truly an “amount” thing. We may need 36% more vegetation then earth had in 1800 just to counteract today’s excesses, along with smartly reducing burning carbon based (organic) fuels. I took the next few sentences from NOAA reports posted at

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 up 36%

“Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased. Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm, at it did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.

NOAA is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and it is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and providing environmental stewardship of the nation’s coastal and marine resources.”

So compared to growing as much thick vegetation as possible on earth’s lands the space umbrella seems like to little to late to be an efficient remedy. Its technology is something for the future as humans have been planting seeds for at least 20,000 years, and irrigating for at least 6000. So even if the umbrella would work, how does that fix the high CO2 levels? Clean the air? (I also found seven ways vegetation cleans the air) add many jobs? Or make usable lands inhabitable for our exploding populations?

Would a space umbrella also help the thousands of creatures we put on our endangered species lists?

Would helping nature grow thick vegetation of earth’s wastelands help those species?

I’m not saying do not develop the space umbrella, I’m just saying cover earth with as much thick vegetation as possible as soon as possible so the lands can start eating up far more of the sun’s heat, and far more of the high CO2 levels, and it is nature’s beautiful balance that does both of those things just too spit out super cold fresh oxygen. Is it obvious yet what we need to do?

All that may be needed are seeds, wastelands, water, workers, farmers, constructors and lots of companies, making lots of money.

Obviously the water is the biggest problem. But it does not have to be. First identify all lightly used damp lands that we just keep clearing and plant them with as fast growing trees or as thick vegetation as possible. Beside the drainage ditches along many highways would be a perfect place to start. Not only would they make cold oxygen and eat up heat they would provide some shade to help keep the road from radiating as much heat, and they would gobble up their CO2 right where cars and trucks spew it out.

Desalinization is one way to tap an endless supply of sea water to spark far more atmospheric photosynthesis. But nature is showing two things that could produce massive amounts of atmospheric photosynthesis, maybe enough to completely reverse Global Warming.

First, many of earth’s hottest, most sun drenches lands also happen to be dry deserts at or under sea level, supporting very little life. Secondly earth’s largest rivers dump billions of gallons of fresh water into the salty seas every day.

I agree the statement at the end of this paragraph is oversimplified, but not in principle. By diverting maybe 1/2 of this wasted fresh water before it mixes with the salty seas it could be used to irrigate and thus cool down these areas of earth that radiate massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere year around. Because many of these areas are lower then sea level the siphon effect could even deliver the water, through real long, very strong hoses.

Now before all of you folks start screaming about what this would do to the natural life in these sparse deserts, I want to make one point very clear about this:

“I am not saying flood any deserts, I am just saying “water them!” they’ll come alive and eat the sun’s heat with water, instead of radiate it.”

You may believe that earth’s deserts occur naturally but maybe some exist because science has not learned what happened in Oklahoma in the early part of the last century.

There is also no debate that when the great pyramids were built in Egypt, they were constructed in a very dense rain forest, which was likely cut down to get the wood to build their ramps and scaffolding. Now the pyramids sit in the scorching hot Sarah desert. Science says the Sahara turned into desert because of the end of the last ice age. Could have the removal of so much thick thermal insulation from such a sun baked land possibly triggered, or contributed too, the end of that ice age? I see plenty of evidence.

Ask skeptics claiming that this is just another normal climate change this one question:

Name any other ‘normal change’ ever discovered that also melted half of earth’s ice in 20 years? Because that is not normal, it is very abnormal. That rapid of a change would take a huge disaster like a strong meteor impact, major eruption or maybe the removal of most earth’s most efficient cooling processes, like atmospheric photosynthesis.

I did one other simple test that I will not share the results of because people would accuse me of scare tactics, so let the third graders test it, it’s their world:

Experiment: On a hot very sunny afternoon place glass of ice tea on a table in direct sun, start it loaded with cubes. Check its temperature every five minutes, in its center about a half inch under the surface. Also note another thermometer just above the table, about the same height as the one in the glass, in the same direct sun.

Use the first table temp as a baseline. Note the first time the temp is taken after the ice melts. Then continue to take the readings until you have doubled that amount of time.

Use the table readings to take out the effects of air temp changes. For instance if the outside temp goes up 3 degrees, in a third column subtract the 3 degrees from the iced tea’s temp, if it goes down, add it to the ice tea’s temp.

The point of this test is to determine the difference in how fast the surface of the tea warms, before and after its ice melts away. I will tell you I was shocked.

From this simple test I may have discovered that earth’s ice caps just might be the reason we have not baked yet. Our ice caps may be taking the first big brunt of this heat giving us a small window of time to start cooling things. At the currant rate the Ice caps are melting they will be gone in 15 more years.

Now that I know that I am stupid I waste no time on scientific maybes, there are just too many obvious things I would have never noticed back when I assumed I was intelligent.

Steven Craig

©2007 Steven Craig

Friday, June 1, 2007

Using Atmospheric Photosynthesis to turn off Global Warming

With a thousand theories rolling around about global warning, I noticed something that science had long ago revealed but they must have never noticed, and is so bone cracking cold and huge it will drastically change our understanding of Global Warming.

I justify that statement because I have not heard a single theory about Global Warming, that also accounts the rapid disappearance of the natural method earth uses to adjust its surface temperatures.

For maybe 100 years science has known that the oxygen in our air gets there through plants photosynthesizing water with solar energy. Plants need to do this to separate the hydrogen from the water to mix it with carbon to make their carbohydrates, (plant food).

They also know that plants get their carbon from CO2 in our air. Co2 is a waste product of our bodies and everything else that also burns organic fuels.

They also know that plants use very little of the oxygen left over after removing the H from H2O so they just release it into our atmosphere.

Engineers and manufactures know that ‘Expansion’ is a natural one step rapid cooling process, but they must not have told theory scientists.

I have not seen a scientific explanation of global warming that accounts for the fact that every atom of oxygen released into earth's atmosphere also expands about 800 times, which is roughly the difference in weight between water and air at sea level.

This is very important because the amount of this cold expansion occurring in the atmosphere has been drastically reduced, as it has not been drastically changed in the oceans.

I'm amazed how many people doubt that this massive expansion even occurs because the oxygen plants release was tightly compressed water molecules until the hydrogen was removed.

I want to hear a theory scientist explain to a practical engineer how any plant can prevent the instantaneous expansion of oxygen gas, considering it was released from being compressed into about 800 times less space.
Or how it is possible for the same amount of heat energy to maintain the same temperature of mass that suddenly expands 800 times in volume.

To deny this massive cooling effect, is to either argue that heat does not need a source, or that oxygen generates stout enough friction against itself (during expansion,) to counteract the cooling effect.

If they know of a plant that can keep oxygen in liquid form, then I'll be real impressed. That would be 297.3 degrees below zero (f). I'll bet that plant would still feel cold, and super cool down the air that moves around it. The physics are undeniable gas that comes from liquid expands.

We don't notice it because it happens over vast organic surfaces one molecule at a time, instead of being sprayed out from the nozzle of a can.

A thousand expanded molecules of oxygen could still hide under the tip of a pin. But an average leaf could host billions of these expansions a minute under very fast growing conditions.

Most theory scientists seem to be blaming today's high levels of C02 for holding far more heat in the atmosphere, so it seems almost logical that fossil fuels have be the cause. They can be measured coming from auto and truck exhaust and who loves the oil industry, especially some of their suppliers, so it is popular incentive to convict fossil fuels.

I don't work for them and powering cars with them is grossly inefficient, overpriced and polluting. But over the last hundred and fifty or so years, according to NASA web sites, humans have mowed down around 80% of earth’s heaviest atmospheric vegetation, so it is no longer around to eat up nearly as much C02, as it did a hundred years ago, so naturally the levels Co2 will greatly increase, with or without the burning of fossil fuels.

The fuels certainly make things worse, but this might help you understand why they can't be the cause.

Consider how much solar heat energy slams into our planet compared to every BTU of heat ever generated from us humans burning organic fuels. Do you really believe our fuels equal more then an hour or two? Even if it was a week, it is not competing with the sun.

Earth's natural method of inhaling that pollutant C02 has been massively reduced by our constant mowing down of earth's thickest vegetation.

Now combine my bone cracking cold observation about what plants exhale, with what they inhale and it becomes obvious that earth would naturally heat up like an iced tea sitting on a picnic table in the hot sun.

We humans have just cut down earth's natural air cooling and cleaning systems.

The cause of Global Warming is as obvious as this simple question: What would happen to the temperatures in our buildings on a hot summer day if we took away their air conditioners?

Third Graders can verify every aspect of this so no more theories are needed.

Many scientists are going to say “Its more complicated then that”, since that saves them from explaining how they could have missed the fact that every atom of oxygen naturally released into our atmosphere is bone cracking cold, and that the constant mowing down of earth's vegetation has reduced it's natural cold making machine by at least 50%.

It is standard procedure for theory science to deny the obvious things they miss.

For 50 after some Europeans discovered that infections were caused by contamination, the American Medical Society refused to believe that American surgeons also needed to wash their hands before surgery, but afterward was a good idea.

The AMS would have looked very stupid for not realizing something so basic first, had they just agreed.

Science is debating if a huge space shade umbrella is possible in the next thirty or so years, when all we have to do to cool things is to irrigate earth’s hottest deserts with the fresh water our large rivers just dump into our salty oceans.

We need to also use desalinization, and trap the fresh water just melting from huge ice bergs into the salty seas.

If mankind can already pipe huge amounts of crude oil thousands of miles across frozen mountains and tundra, irrigating hot deserts that are already under seal level should be a peace of cake. We could even use real long hoses and the natural siphon effect.

Turning even some of earth’s hottest spots into cooler paradises would not only be much faster and cheaper then a space umbrella, it would provide the world with an economic bonanza, millions of tons of food, new inhabitable lands for exploding populations and much more.

Planting seeds is about a 40,000 year old technology, we don't even know if that space umbrella can stay stable in the solar winds.

I won’t even start on how wonderful reclaiming earth's wastelands would be for all those species we have endangered or how it would help to lower our ocean's rapidly raising tides.

Steven Craig © 2007 Steven Craig

Cold Science for a Hot Planet

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The Rest of The Story

Scientific explanations can sound so complicated that the student could memorize the lesson, ace the test, and still be totally clueless about the process. I know I did this and I'll bet most of you have too.

Many PHDs still argue scientific theory, although real science is as precise as DNA, numbers, manufacturing and atoms. I see nothing else in nature that also argues the science it applies, yet everything else still uses it.

I recently heard Paul Harvey tell one of his "Rest of the Story"s where for 40 years the American Medical Society refused to recommend that surgeons should also wash their hands before surgery, and this was after European doctors verified that infections are the result of contamination.

I also heard him tell the story of an American nurse who for 38 years prevented polio from crippling 87% of people she treated, with a most naturally obvious treatment. Even with a stream of people telling the AMS how it works they would still not acknowledge her most simple natural method, which only required hot water, cloth and some assistance.

My requests for Mr. Harvey' transcripts went unanswered so if anyone has them or notices anything I miss quoted about them please email me and I will post the adjustment.

If back in grade school I tried to argue with a science teacher that Pluto was not a planet, I would have been sent to the principals office for being a disruption. Oh yes I went there many times.

Five hundred years ago the people in charge of science wanted to keep Newton away from pens and paper, and Galileo was incarcerated for just stating that the world was not at the center of the universe.

It even took Edison almost 30 years to get light bulbs in homes, and by the way I learned in school that he invented them, but it turns out they were patented in 1851 by another. Edison lost his patent on them. I am not putting myself with guys like these but I have a sense for what they must have felt.

I don't want to sound radical, I just don't trust modern science to be accurate on statements they say that they can't plainly substantiate. So I am going to explain science the same way I plainly see it.

I think up as many simple sounding (I mean even stupid) questions as I can ask myself about something I want to understand. Then I only use the answers that would always be the same under the same conditions, so anyone else asking the same question would also see the same answer.

Unfortunately most go unanswered, but sometimes they can harvest a wealth of information.

I found this forces the mind to register the stuff that is so obvious we go through life assuming we already know, but we never learned it. Assumptions are not measurable so if they are used as a factor to draw a conclusion, that would be about as accurate as math problem, that was at least partially guessed instead of calculated.

Is not a theory still just a guess? When science can't substantiate their claims, yet still make them, they will deny obvious things, as if they just can't be wrong.

Should we not first learn all the obvious stuff before we write The Rest of the Story? (I don't mean Paul)

If every aspect can be naturally verified, what is there to argue over?

So for the next few months I am going to take you through a simple look at Global Warming through my stupid questions, in a way that most sharp third graders should be able to verify.

I will not use scientific theories that I cannot see how they were substantiated. I may mention them if they make a lot of sense, but we won't use them on this quest to find and fix Earth's climate control system.

I expect to hook your interest by now reveling a major discovery (I believe) I made while questioning the earth's natural cooling system.

I'll tell you now because if I'm correct, we don't have 40 years for denial from those who have already stated their theories:

Science already knows that the Oxygen released by Photosynthesis comes from water, but they forget to also realize that every atom of new oxygen gas our planet gets comes in bone cracking cold!

This is because it expands about 800 times into our atmosphere. I intend to see if kids can prove this in many ways, but science has already proven this for us without even realizing it.

Engineers know that 'Expansion' is nature's only (known) one step rapid supercooling process, scientists have long stated that Photosynthesis releases oxygen from water, and NASA has measured that that deforestation has just removed over 80% of the world's most efficient form of atmospheric photosynthesis, its forests.

By combining their already verified knowledge with a few thermometers and a little third grade math the answer to what is causing Global Warming is the deforestation of earth, all dots connected. And folks, I'm not a tree hugger I prefer the ladies.

A couple years ago a very old dude at SCORE told me to take advantage of these simple observations. So I just filed for patent protection on a few devices that make cool air from water and sunshine, and a few other bonuses before I told the world.

I also noticed several other ways to rapidly cool things down which we will be verifying over the next few months.

I also want you to hear now that It appears to my stupid questions that the most powerful way rapidly cool earth would be the irrigation of some of it's hottest deserts.

For instance filling death valley with thick vegetation could greatly reduce the hot dry Santa Anna Winds that cook southern Calif, also greatly reducing forest fires. Not to mention all of the food the extremely intense solar energy could grow on them, instead of baking the planet, by just adding water.

Death Valley, like much of earth's deserts just happen to be about 300 ft under sea level, so even the siphon effect could power the flow. This should also work much faster and much cheaper, and produce real products, then trying to stabilize a space shade umbrella from the solar winds.

Well, all this is if I made no mistakes, which is why it will be your job to re-ask my questions to prove me wrong or right.

You may think I think I am smart, but everyday I show myself how stupid I really am. I found that keeps me asking myself those stupid questions, thus discovering far more.
Every time I ever thought I was smart I stopped learning.

I want you to tare into my reports, I don't want you to believe a word, I want you to prove them right or wrong. If I am right you kids won't have 40 years for scientific denial of adult egos, if I'm wrong at least I got you to ask a bunch of really stupid questions!
I'll be happy either way.

See you next month as you go on a quest to find Earth's natural climate control system.
(c) 2007 Steven Craig

Sunday, May 27, 2007

How Earth’s Natural Air Conditioner Works

Finding Earth's Cooling System

I majored in Horticulture. I n school I learned that earth has had many climate changes throughout the ages, but that gave me the impression that earth's climate is unstable.

If earth has had 100 major climate changes over the last 50 million years that is remarkably stable considering it has supported some species for more then 65 million years.

To realize this is to also realize that earth must have a natural method to cool itself when something unusual overheats it. I don’t think nature ever intended Woolly Mammoths to launch space shade umbrellas.

If earth did not have a perfectly engineered climate control system to counterbalance strong temporary heat sources, how could it have remained the constant home of life for 3 billion or more years?

Satellite photos over the last twenty years prove that earth’s icecaps have recently began melting about as fast as ice cubes in a glass of tea sitting in the hot sun, it is obvious earth is now rapidly warming up, as if it did not even have a climate control system.

So after I go and comment on how excellently engineered earth’s natural air condition system must be, why are the Polar Bears suddenly droning?

Before we can answer that question we would have to understand how earth must cool itself. I know how an air conditioner works, so let’s first see if we can find comparable natural components.

What do we look for?

Well just the obvious for starters. To cool a whole planet, earth’s A/C units would need massive capacity, so they are likely to be very large. So what large thing (s) should we look for?

Almost all of the air conditioners in buildings and cars use fans to force warm air through cooler coils. So let’s look at how and what large things earth has that could do these things.

The fan was easy to find, earth’s rotation steadily forces air from the west to the east. But what could filter the atmosphere with similar resistance as the coils on an A/C unit?

Well, it would not be mountains because the air moves around them. The only large natural thing on earth that would put up stiff wind resistance while still allowing the air to move through are forests.

But trees look rather puny when you look in the sky above them, so how could they also be earth's cooling coils?

Because we can see straight into outer space we don’t see anything that indicates we would suffocate (without pressurization) from the lack of air at less then the average altitude that jet liners cruise. So something must be pulling earth’s air tightly down to its surface?

I did not even need to say ‘gravity’, because you learned that in first grade. Even though the Ozone layer averages about twenty miles in height most of earth’s air is much closer to the surface.

To see this another way, if earth was the size of a basketball, it's atmosphere (including the ozone layer) would be about as thick as a coat of paint. So the air around you is not nearly as plentiful as our eyes lead us to assume.

But even an 80’ tall forest compared to a few miles is still small. I could just say that the amount of ductwork in a home is also small compared to the volume of air in it, but that is a wimpy answer, that does not explain anything. Instead let’s see if something naturally forces the atmosphere through this green living ductwork.

As an air mass would move over a forest, its bottom would fight stiff aerodynamic resistance (drag), that the rest of it would not experience, thus slowing down its bottom, but not its top.

So its top would move faster which would cause its upper front ridge to fall into the lower pressure created from its bottom dragging behind. This could be a continuous downward roll from the top front of the air mass, so if the forest is large enough it could filter all of the air above it.

The coils of an air conditioner must also make plenty of contact to efficiently allow their coolness to rub off. Have you even seen how well a the leaves of a large tree contact wind?
We should soon see improvements on the coils and filters of our AC units based on figuring out which trees have the most efficient filtering leaves.

Well, we just found what could be earth's fan and cooling coils but what about the stuff that makes them cool?

I could not find a cold maker in forests, but my dumb questions found four powerful natural cooling factors and methods, and there may be another huge one that I could not verify yet.

First it is important to realize that the solar energy that gets through the ozone layer, (only about 3% NASA) does one of three things when it reaches the earth’s surface, it gets reflected, absorbed or consumed.

It is easy to assume that the solar heat that reflects off of snow or white concrete is not a problem for Global Warming, however just as the ozone layer only allows a tiny percentage of solar heat into the atmosphere, it only allows a tiny percentage to leave.

A constant natural factor that is helpful to realize is that heat, always comes from a heat source, and cold is always the lack of heat. Even though we say a home air conditioner makes cold air, it actually does not, they remove some of the heat from warmer air, thus making it colder.

But the heat still exists because we have not yet designed air conditioners that consume the heat instead of separating it. Remember this fact because nature is still a far better machine maker and designer then people, so it is far more efficient.

Earth is also a terrarium much like the ones sealed up in big bottles. And just as a bottle sitting in the sun gets very hot, (the same effect in greenhouses and closed cars), earth gets warmed up by the reflected solar energy that is trapped inside its ozone layer. This means that your white concrete may feel cool on your toes, but it does not help cool down the planet.

Next you have certainly noticed how hot dark things can get sitting in direct sun. But heat raises, so if those things do not consume the heat, it radiates upward into our atmosphere. Therefore both reflected and absorbed heat, do add to our global warming.

But ‘consumed’, is hungry to gobble up sunshine, to make other things from it, so its warmth is converted into food. Now is that cooling?

Earth only has one major solar heat eater, “photosynthesis”, and guess where it just happens to most efficiently cool down the atmosphere? You got it “tree leaves”, and because cold falls, trees are naturally engineered as far more efficient air coolers then bushes, meadows or grasses.

Now the four obvious ways forests cool the atmosphere. The first one covers two:

Because leaves are dark super solar absorbing machines, dense forest lands will not reflect much solar heat into the atmosphere. Many helicopter pilots and crop dusters know that the air over forests is often cooler, as farmers notice how much cooler walking in a forest can be, then their nearby farm.

Now this part is real cool, you will soon be checking it out. Healthy growing tree leaves (with a fine steady source of water) won’t get hot in the sun, even though they are dark. You can verify this by just grabbing growing tree leaves, even though most of the cold oxygen would have sprayed out. So it is obvious that they would cool the warmer air that comes in contact with them.

If much Photosynthesis is cooking they will feel from cold to cool, (if not too breezy), but as long as they are healthy and not dried out they will never feel as warm as artificial leaves, the same color, in the same sunny spot.

So it is obvious that forests help keep the air cool by preventing their lands from reflecting and or radiating solar energy into the atmosphere, which takes care of two of those four cooling methods.

Now for some cold science dot connecting, for some cool new understanding of Photosynthesis.

As just about every student is taught that photosynthesis is the process that plants make their food from solar heat energy. That is true, but more specifically it cooks molecules of ground water so the leaves can trap hydrogen to use as the main ingredient for their plant food, (carbohydrate).

The other main ingredient is carbon, which the leaves get from breathing in the air pollutant Carbon Dioxide, which is a gas waste product of all animals.

Science has connected the high levels of CO2 to deforestation and they do theorize that it ads to global warming by holding more heat in the atmosphere. However the plants have little use for the oxygen that is left over from the water, so they release it into the atmosphere.

Right here is the super cold fact that science has not yet noticed: That every atom of this new oxygen gas sprays into our world, bone cracking cold.

Nature only has one single step rapid cooling process: ‘Expansion’.

We don’t relate expansion to cold temperatures, because almost all expansions we notice are from explosions started with massive heat. In the first ten thousandth of a second after a firecracker ignites it may be 3500 degrees, but before that second ends it may be down to 300 degrees. Because it is still hot enough to burn we would not realize that just cooled down so many, many times in a second.

To feel expansion another way those cans of compressed gas that we use to clean keyboards can expand a spray that can frost bite your hand, after expanding several hundred times. Our air is about 800 times lighter then water, so the oxygen expanded by photosynthesis sprays out of the bottoms of leaves at a similar scale, which would be amazingly cold.

But these sprays are one molecule at a time so they will never frost bite your tree monkey’s tiny fingers. Science already knows that earth's fresh new oxygen gas comes from its water on photosynthesis. I recently reread all of the internet's major explanations, so they all know it expands from water, but they never connect the temperature dots.

There is a more common form of expansion that occurs over nearly every square inch of earth’s surface, evaporation, (they call it transpiration when water evaporates through plants). These actions are also highly cooling, as sweat cools down your skin as it expands from evaporation.

However the reason that Photosynthesis is far more important as a thermostat adjusting earth’s overall temperatures because the water vapor that expands during evaporation, eventually condenses back to water, which concentrates its heat, thus canceling out much of the coolness it originally added.

Once photosynthesis expands oxygen, (unlike water vapor that can condense at any temperature under boiling), it would have to get all the way down to -297.3 (F) degrees below zero to condense.

Because our planet never gets that cold, the coolness added to our environment by oxygen expanding from liquid never cancels itself back out, that takes a different heat source, which this coolness also reduces. So this is likely the most adjustable cooling effect earth has.

But there is still another cooling effect forests have that you have already considered, “shade”

Shade is what has been hiding the cold truth of photosynthesis because as we walk into that cool forest or under that cool shade tree, we just assume it is cool just because of the shade.

The shade helps by keeping the ground under and the air inside the forest from solar heating rays, thus helping to keep forests cool as the warm winds move through. Shade also keeps the moisture on the ground from evaporating rapidly so more water can be dedicated to photosynthesis.

Now you have four ways that forests cool the air that passes through them, you have identified their cooling coils and fan. So the next question is “What would happen to earth’s atmosphere if 70-90% of its forests (It's Natural Air Conditioners) were removed?”

Would not that be a comparable question to asking what would happen to the air in our buildings if 70-90% of their air conditioners suddenly vanished?

A fifth Super Cooling Effect from forests?

I'm leaving the a question mark on this one, even though it is likely the factor that scientists report on the most.

They seem to agree that today's very high levels of CO2 hold far more of the solar heat in our atmosphere. They attribute much of, if not most of this to the burning of fossil fuel.

I have no doubt that burning things raises CO2 levels, as our muscles also burn organic fuel and also release CO2.

However the two main ingredients in the food photosynthesis helps plants produce is the hydrogen they steal from water, and the carbon they take from the CO2 in the atmosphere.

So if earth had not just not lost most of its thickest vegetation, much of, if not most of the additional CO2 now present in our atmosphere would have become plant food instead of another heat source.

Since I have not found simple questions that would the typical third grade science class to verify CO2 as a massive heat source I will leave a question mark by it. But if what science says about CO2 holding enormous amounts of heat is true, then this is defiantly another supercooling effect of forests.

There is no doubt that increasing earth's photosynthesis production would decrease CO2, because we can clearly see where the stuff goes.

So now how does earth adjust it average surface temperatures, and why is this not working?

This is an easy one, as the planet gets warmer far more water would evaporate from the oceans thus casing more storms, thus feeding more photosynthesis to balance out the extra heat.

But this time it is not working because we humans keep cutting down most of the thick vegetation as nature tries to grow it back, so it is us, but not our fuels, that have caused Global Warming.

By cutting down earth’s breathing machines we are actually suffocating our planet, as well as ourselves.

Forests are not only earth’s air conditioners they are also earth’s air cleaners because they also remove air pollution in at least three very powerful ways.

As they (1) draw in air to remove the CO2 to make food, other pollutants (2) get stuck to the damp membranes inside the leaves and in the microscopic air valves under them called stomas. Most leaves fall off in less then a year thus permanently trapping these pollutants to the ground.

But there is yet another very cool scientific way that they filter the air.

Molecules are held partially together by the electrons of their atoms, so when Photosynthesis helps plants remove hydrogen from the H2O some of these electrons are knocked loose. Atoms with a normal number of electrons are neutral in charge, but if they are missing, their charge becomes negative making them magnetic thus attracting them to other matter in an attempt to get their lost electrons back. The scientific name for these atoms and molecules is “ions”.

These oxygen ions attach to the first material that they reach, which is typically the material that feels like air filters on the bottoms of leaves. Then just like an ion air cleaner in your home, they attract air pollution, to the bottoms of tree leaves.

This explains why many trees would turn their leaves over during storms. The rain washes the pollution off of their filters to the ground where it gets absorbed into the mud of time, just like you might wash a filter from a home air cleaner.

So not only did we find all of necessary components of earth’s natural air conditioners, we also found the pieces to its air cleaners. There may still be more, but we found two complete systems.

So just one obvious question in closing:

What happens to an iced tea, sitting in the hot sun, after its ice melts?

PS. I am posting many very cool ways to cool the planet at

© 2007 Steven Craig

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Cool Earth

We are next door at
Click to find