Basic knowledge to navigate in millions of articles in climate change. Part 1

In my opinion, scientists of climate change did—and are doing right now—a huge job, and mostly not in science, but in political propaganda of their ideas. Their science is wrong, but they are so sure that they are right that every newspaper and magazine is publishing articles mentioning climate change almost every day. The United Nations, governments around the world, writers, scientists, movies, they are full of predictions about the extinction of animals and vegetation; about oceans rising, hunger in the world, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and many other disasters, which will face mankind in near future.
Reading them, I always have mixed feelings how they correct in descriptions of all these disasters, and how they are wrong in reasons. We need to ask questions like, “Why it will happen? What are the real reasons for climate change? What must we do to prevent or prepare for these changes?”
Science is not a dogma; scientists are not smarter than you are. Please, do not be afraid to question any scientist’s position. Scientists, of course, are more informed than anyone of us is, about a specific subject, but when they are writing about their ideas, we could check these ideas with our previous knowledge. We have advantages in taking a fresh look at their points. And even if they are right, our skeptical view will only help us to better understand their ideas. Please, be skeptical of everything that you are reading, including this. Please, do not be afraid to be skeptical of not only new knowledge, but also, even of what you think you know very well. If you are reading about the same subject again and again, you are missing some nuances because you made decisions in your mind about the topic long ago. I invite you to forget about what you read or heard about climate change and reevaluate your knowledge as if you were hearing about it for the first time.

                   SOME HISTORY

Nikita Khrushchev organized The Virgin Lands Campaign in the northern Kazakhstan and the Altay regions of Russia. There was 190,000 km² in tilled land in 1954 and an extra 140,000 km² in 1955. More than 300,000 people arrived in the Virgin Lands to begin new lives as farmers. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, students, and combine harvester operators joined them to help harvest. The first harvest in 1956 was a stunning success. The Soviet Union produced, per capita, twice as much wheat as the West. By the 1960s, the soil had been drained of all its nutrients beneficial to wheat. Nobody even tried to prevent erosion and very soon, soil was simply being blown away by the wind, leaving bare, useless steppe behind.an area of 68,000 square kilometers. The Aral Sea had been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet Union irrigation projects. By 2007, it had declined to 10% of its original size.
The Aral Sea was a lake that lay between Kazakhstan in the north and Karakalpakstan, an autonomous region of Uzbekistan, in the south. It was one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 square kilometers. The Aral Sea had been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet Union irrigation projects. By 2007, it had declined to 10% of its original size.
Let look at article: 12 Aug 2011“Drought-hit Zimbabwe farmers push Government to lift GMO ban.Trust.org/alertnet. Volatile climatic patterns in southern Zimbabwe’s Matebeleland, particularly in low-rainfall rural areas like Gwanda, south of Bulawayo, are seeing farmer livelihoods being destroyed with little they can do to mitigate their losses.” Farmers are trying to use genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in this case corn, to reduce the influence of drought. What was missed in this article is that between 1990 and 2005, Zimbabwe lost 21% of its forest cover to fields of corn. It was done for area, which has a history of drought.
A corn crop dries in a field on July 28, 2011 near Perriton, Texas...
From Wikipedia:“Sahel, This page was last modified on 11 April 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel.“The first instances of domestication of plants for agricultural purposes in Africa occurred in the Sahel region circa 5000 BC, when sorghum and African rice began to be cultivated. Around 4000 BC the climate of the Sahara and the Sahel started to become drier at an exceedingly fast pace. This climate change caused lakes and rivers to shrink rather significantly and caused increasing desertification. (O’Brien, Patrick K., ed (2005). Oxford Atlas of World History. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 22–23. It is interesting that 1000 years of domestication of sorghumand rice was enough to change the climate in Sahara and Sahel. If we suggest that the area for these plants grow was not as fast as with today’s machinery, 1000 years is not such a big time period.
By JOHN FLESHER updated 7/6/2011 7:30:27 PM ET2011-07-06T23:30:27 TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — Marauding insects have become a leading threat to the nation's forests over the past decade, a problem made worse by drought and a warming climate, a federal report says. Bark beetles, engraver beetles and gypsy moths are the primary culprits behind a threefold increase in forestland mortality caused by insect attacks between 2003 and 2007, according to a U.S. Forest Service report obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.  FROM OTHER SOURCES WE COULD FIND that killer beetles destroyed more than 100,000,000 acres of forests in USA and Canada till 2012.
HuffPost Social Reading Maya Collapse Tied To Drought, Deforestation Posted: 08/22/2012 11:28 am Updated: 08/22/2012 11:28 am, By: Wynne Parry, Live ScienceSenior Writer Published: 08/22/2012 09:56 AM EDT on LiveScience The city states of the ancient Mayan empire flourished in southern Mexico and northern Central America for about six centuries. Then, around A.D. 900 Mayan civilization disintegrated. Two new studies examine the reasons for the collapse of the Mayan culture, finding the Mayans themselves contributed to the downfall of the empire. Scientists have found that drought played a key role, but the Mayans appear to have exacerbated the problem by cutting down the jungle canopy to make way for cities and crops, according to researchers who used climate-model simulations to see how much deforestation aggravated the drought. "We're not saying deforestation explains the entire drought, but it does explain a substantial portion of the overall drying that is thought to have occurred," said the study's lead author Benjamin Cook, a climate modeler at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in a statement. [Dry and Dying: Images of Drought] Using climate-model simulations, he and his colleagues examined how much the switch from forest to crops, such as corn, would alter climate. Their results, detailed online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, suggested that when deforestation was at its maximum, it could account for up to 60 percent of the drying. (The switch from trees to corn reduces the amount of water transferred from the soil to the atmosphere, which reduces rainfall.)
 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=clearing-forests-may-transform-local-and-global-cli... Clearing Forests May Transform Local—and Global—Climate (Scientific American, March 4. 2013).
            Researchers are finding that massive deforestation may have a profound, and                      possibly catastrophic, impact on local weather
I am strongly recommend to everyone, who interested in climate change to read this #8 article.
WE COULD prolong these examples in history and around the world, which will show that reduction of evaporation from the soil by destroying forests, or wild vegetation for crop production.
These example are so impressive, that allow to question all today theory of climate change.

Let’s make an evaluation of two different points of view.

Today, the science of climate change is claiming the following:
Mankind’s activities increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide is GHG and because of that, the temperature is increased. In hot air, there will be more water vapor, which is also GHG, and because of that, the temperature
will increase more. Water vapor is playing positive feedback in climate change.

In opposition to the opinion of most scientists of climate
change, however, claims the following:
Properties of water are actually cooling the atmosphere, despite
water vapor being GHG.

We haven't problems to find support for today majority of scientists view. My goal to concentrate on facts, which support, that properties of water are cooling the atmosphere.
The better way to show that it is true will be providing discrepancies in views of scientists of climate change.

Cullen, Heidi 2010. The Weather of the Future.

Her position is very clear: “Carbon dioxide (like other heat-trapping gases, such as methane and water vapor) absorbs the infrared radiation (IR) and warm the
air, which in turn warms water below it” (page 20).
“Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927) Arrhenius calculated how much the temperature of the Earth would drop if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was halved; he also calculated the temperature increase to be expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere—arise of about 8º F.
More than a century later, the estimates from state-of-the-art climate models doing the same calculation to determine the increase in temperature due to a doubling of the CO2
concentration show that the calculation by Arrhenius was in the right ballpark. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesized the result from eighteen climate models used by group around the world to estimate climate sensitivity and its uncertainty. They estimate that a doubling of CO2 would lead to an increase in global average temperature of about 5.4º F, with an uncertainty spanning the range from about 3.6º F to 8.1º F (p. 25).
“(Charles David) Keeling (built the gas chromatograph)... and using his Mauna Loa measurements show that with each passing years CO2 levels were steadily moving upward” (p. 28). “Keeling’s record was the icing on the cake, and he rightly stands with Agassiz, Tyndall, and Arrhenius among the giants of climate science” (p. 29).
Of course, Agassiz and Tyndall did the best for their time for science, and neither one blamed GHG for climate change.
Arrhenius was the first scientist to use the data of Tyndall to try to calculate what would happen with climate if we double carbon dioxide in the air. He did not look at other
phenomena in nature and promote carbon dioxide as the “main reason for climate change.”
Keeling was so obsessed with the importance of carbon dioxide in nature, that he spent all his life on collecting data of the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It is wrong to use second century history of the science of climate change by using names of Agassiz and Tyndall. It is a mistake of Arrhenius to calculate what happened with climate by doubling the amount of carbon dioxide without looking at the behavior of other gases in nature in full scale of their properties.
If Keeling was obsessed with the ideas of Arrhenius it is his fault.
If many of today’s scientists of climate change—which are trying to repeat Arrhenius’s results with the power of computer calculations—it is their fault. They never analyzed what was wrong in Arrhenius’s suggestion and did very large jobs with results which they think are right.
It is the biggest mistake in the science of climate change, and no way it’s a giant’s job as suggest Heidi Cullen.
How smart are scientists with their models?
Eighteen climate models calculated what would happen if carbon dioxide, which trapped infrared radiation, doubled and received 2.25 times differences in their calculation, but in the same direction. Scientists with the same philosophy in mind, which had Arrhenius changed his hand calculations with the power of computers and received the same result in the same direction.
They confirmed only that Arrhenius knew arithmetic.
Is it enough to proclaim that the ideas of Arrhenius are right?  What would happen if they were to check their models with all properties of water in case of doubled water vapor?
Of course, they would receive the same result, at least in direction, because they would look only at one property of water-water vapor as GHG.
“Whereas Manabe’s 1967 model was simply one big grid square meant to cover (the) entire planet, today’s climate models have more than 1 million grid square that cover(s) the planet. Each grid square is about 70 miles by 70 miles, with twenty-six vertical layers in the atmosphere” (p. 42).
It is not so important how much smaller the grid will be in the future, it is more important what kind of data we will put in every intersection of the grid.
If we put temperature, humidity, pressure, direction and speed of wind, and lots of other data which influences weather conditions, we could receive tendency for climate change.
The question is this: Which line of these computations supports
ideas that carbon dioxide or other GHG are responsible for
that?
You will never find this line, or any combination of lines, in computation.
It is up to the scientist’s dogma that GHG are responsible for climate change.
When they put influence of increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in computer calculations by coefficient, they will receive the same result. But it is illogical to interpret changes in nature by increasing GHG with real changes, which could be by other reasons, but is proportional to the increase of GHG in the atmosphere.  Human activities depend on fossil fuel as their main source of energy. These activities not only changed the amount of GHG in the air, but the evaporation of water vapor and reflection of direct sun radiation from arable land as many other influential forces on climate. GHG in the air are only good indicators of these activities. If we change the directions of our activities, we will increase the amount of GHG in nature, but the results could be different. The most interesting thing that Heidi Cullen wrote about these different directions, that she remembered them, but did not pay enough attention on what another scientists told her. It is very strange that scientists, which peer-reviewed her book, somehow missed the opinions of scientists working on other directions.

She wrote about Sahel:
“A semiarid savanna stretching out over 2,400 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in the west and the Red Sea in the east.” (p. 63). “…seasonal rainfall forecasts for the Sahel have been issued since 1997, providing significant help in drought planning and food security...
But although the climate models rely on ocean surface temperature to forecast rainfall and temperature, Gianniny (is a climatologist) is quick to add that human activity does still influence the severity of the drought in Sahel”(Cullen, Heidi. 2010. The Weather of the Future, 72). Heidi Cullen wrote about another scientist’s opinion—remember it, and did not concentrate on Gianniny’s remark about human activities in the Sahel area like land use, deforestation, and overgrazing.
“Of course, there is another broader human influence that goes beyond the behavior of local population. Global warming...” p 72
Another scientist, Chris Reij, thinks that“human behavior can transform the regional ecology, restore biodiversity, and increase agricultural productivity. Reij thinks that such behavioral changes may even help bring rain in Sahel. “If you put a thermometer into barren, sandy soil you immediately get 120ºF. But just 1 meter away, where you
have some surface cover, the temperature immediately drop to 1 09ºF,”
says Reij. “And with a bit of luck, if you have vast area of regreening, the
question is: might that begin to have positive impact on local rainfall as well?” For Reij, this might be the perfect answer.” p 79.
Why in the distance of one meter could temperature in soil differ from 120ºF to 109ºF?
Is it really changes in the amount of GHG that are so crucial in this case?
Or is it the evaporation of water by vegetation, which covers or does not cover land in such a close distance?
What difference will it be if distances between covered and non-covered land will be 100 m, or 1000 m? Of course, Reij will lose fights to scientists of climate change.
Of course, changes by Reij in small areas in Niger’s Sahel can’t be useful if in millions of other areas in the world it will be the same as a cornfield in Texas, or Virgin Land in Altay, Kazakhstan area, or the Aral Sea. Of course, Heidi Cullen rejects Reij’s efforts and after mentioning them, returns to climate model forecasts for July 2015, November 2022, March 2030, January 2050 as the “perfect answer” from her side in the herd of majority.