Book: Thermophobia — Curing the fear of Global Warming

Thermophobia cover
Cover of my new book, Thermophobia: Shining a Light on Global Warming. Click on the cover image to find out more.

What is the book about? It’s about the simplicity of science and the complexity of climate. It’s also about the politics of humans and how marketing can be made to sell even the most outlandish ideas.

Take for instance the notion that Global Warming is bad. An amazing number of people have bought into this. Likely they never knew that Global Warming made civilization possible 12,000 years ago. They don’t realize that Global Warming helps to reduce the amount of CO2 in the oceans. And Global Warming helps to expand the range of life on planet Earth.

Some Warming Alarmists think that Global Warming will burn up the lower latitudes if it gets comfortable at higher latitudes. This is entirely wrong. The reason is simple. Earth has a temperature regulator called water. Warm it up and more of it evaporates. This creates evaporative cooling. What’s that? Lick the back of your hand and blow on it. Feel the coolness? But with all that water vapor in the atmosphere, clouds form, creating shading to help cool things off even more.

So, Global Warming is safe. But what about rising sea levels? Yes, that’s a major inconvenience, but that’s all it is—a nuisance. The other alternative is death. Okay, so take your pick: Move or die. Which choice sounds more appealing? Let me explain.

With Global Cooling we could end up in the next glacial period of the current Ice Age. That could end up killing 7 billion people and trillions of land animals. If you don’t believe it, just remember that massive Global Warming—raising global average temperatures as much as +12 °C—12,000 years ago, made civilization possible.

With Global Warming we would have the benefits of more rain, smaller deserts, fewer droughts, weaker storms, and usable land all the way to the poles. Yes, coastal residents will have to move or to build dikes to protect their coastlines. But that’s been a problem throughout human history.

Really, the choice is pretty clear—warm the planet and move, or cool the planet and die. Some choice. And too many people don’t understand they are opting for death. Oops!

 If you’d like to learn more about the book, check out the Thermophobia page at the publisher.

This article was originally published 2016:0831 on RodMartinJr.com


2 thoughts on “Book: Thermophobia — Curing the fear of Global Warming

  1. I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong – or not.

    Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):

    1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
    But how, exactly is that supposed to work?

    2) There is a 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that traps/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. – Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
    And where does this magical GHG energy loop first get that energy?

    3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible.

    No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.

    Got science? Bring it!!

    Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78, CO PE 22774

    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6443501424587395072

    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6369927560008212481

    1. Nick, thanks for the comment. I was a big fan of the GHE from the mid-70s to earlier this year. What changed? The idea that something else could explain the 33C difference between effective temperature calculations and actual ground temperature.

      The fact that CO2 and temperature show virtually no correlation on all time scales but one, is a compelling reason to question the greenhouse hypothesis. And the one time scale where there is a strong correlation, it’s temperature driving CO2 into and out of the oceans.

      So, what could be giving us the boost in temperature? From your comment, it seems we’re in agreement — atmospheric heat capacity. The atmosphere acts as a reservoir for heat energy, and the lapse rate determines how that heat energy is distributed throughout the atmosphere. That’s why it can be so hot at the bottom of a deep mine shaft. That has nothing to do with greenhouse anything. And this perfectly explains Venus. That bone-crushing pressure delivers a massive heat capacity which greatly offsets the powerful albedo elimination of the sun’s radiant energy. If Venus had the same albedo and Earth’s thin atmosphere, the surface temperature would be sub-freezing.

      My Venus vs. Earth video was done before my new understanding, https://youtube.com/watch?v=SO1M8GEDyYk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s