World War II Holds the Key to Understanding Global Warming and the Challenges Facing Science and Society

Abstract

At about the same time that Russian President declared that “We are really witnessing global warming, the reasons, however, remain obscure....”, I published the first of six scientific articles disclosing the evidence and basis for understanding that particulate pollution, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases, is the main cause of global warming. The global warming that occurred during World War II, but which quickly subsided after hostilities ceased, was key to that understanding. The disquieting parallel of scientific behaviour during World War II and at present is key to understanding the challenges humanity faces today concerning science and society.

Full text

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: E-mail: mherndon@san.rr.com;
Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science
International
23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
ISSN: 2454-7352
World War II Holds the Key to Understanding
Global Warming and the Challenges
Facing Science and Society
J. Marvin Herndon
1*
1
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive San Diego, CA 92131 USA.
Author’s contribution
The sole author designed, analysed, interpreted and prepared the manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/JGEESI/2019/v23i430181
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, Professor, Department of Soil, Environmental and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri,
Columbia, USA.
(2)
Dr. Masum A. Patwary, Academic Ambassador at Large, Geography and Environmental Science, Begum Rokeya
University, Bangladesh.
Reviewers:
(1) Cornelius Okello, Machakos University, Kenya.
(2)
Ionac Nicoleta, University of Bucharest, Romania.
(3)
Era Upadhyay, Amity University, India.
(4)
Breno Barra, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil.
(5) Yung Yau, City University of Hong Kong, China.
Complete Peer review History:
http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/52513
Received 05 October 2019
Accepted 09 December 2019
Published 23 December 2019
ABSTRACT
At about the same time that Russian President Putin declared that “We are really witnessing global
warming, the reasons, however, remain obscure....”, I published the first of six scientific articles
disclosing the evidence and basis for understanding that particulate pollution, not anthropogenic
greenhouse gases, is the main cause of global warming. The global warming that occurred during
World War II, but which quickly subsided after hostilities ceased, was key to that understanding.
The disquieting parallel of scientific behaviour during World War II and at present is key to
understanding the challenges humanity faces today concerning science and society.
Keywords: Aerosol particulate heating; aerosol particulates; geoengineering; climate change;
atmospheric convection; particulate pollution.
Policy Article

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently stated
[1]: “We are really witnessing global warming, the
reasons, however, remain obscure....” President
Putin’s remark should humble the vast number of
climate scientists, especially Americans and
Europeans, who accept the unproven assertion
that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause
global warming, and who, as a result, also
express willingness to geoengineer Earth’s
atmosphere to compensate [2,3].
The Western climate-science community is
divided into two main schools of thought: (1)
anthropogenic greenhouse gases (mainly carbon
dioxide) cause global warming by trapping heat
that otherwise should be radiated into space
[2,4,5]; and, (2) no unnatural global warming
exists [6,7].
At about the same time President Putin made the
statement quoted above, I published the first of
six scientific articles showing that neither of the
two main schools of climate science’s
understanding of global warming is correct [8].
Human activity is indeed causing global warming,
but not primarily due to anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions [8-12].
New evidence suggests, instead, that particulate
pollution emissions are the main cause of
ongoing global warming [8-12].
Here I briefly review this new evidence to show
that President Putin is correct in saying, “we are
really witnessing global warming” and to
encourage a new era of international scientific
objectivity, free from politically-driven motivations
and consensus conformity, so scientists are free
to investigate the true causes of global warming
and its concomitant harm to the biosphere.
2. WORLD WAR II EVIDENCE
World War II (WW2) holds the key to
understanding global warming. The trail of
discovery began with a global surface
temperature image printed on the front page of
January 19, 2017, New York Times [8].
Gottschalk [13,14] noticed a thermal peak
coincident with WW2 in that surface temperature
presentation. By applying sophisticated curve-
fitting techniques, Gottschalk [13,14]
demonstrated that the WW2 peak is a robust
feature evident in eight independent global
temperature datasets from the U. S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Gottschalk [13] concluded that the
thermal peak “is a consequence of human
activity during WW2.”
Inspired by Gottschalk's work, I realized that two
WW2 consequences, particulate pollution and
carbon dioxide, were capable of altering the sun-
earth radiation balance to cause the abrupt
global warming during WW2 [8].
Fig. 1, from [13] is a copy of Gottschalk’s figure
to which I added three relative-value proxies
which represent major activities that produce
particulate pollution [8]. The proxies are: Global
coal production [15,16]; global crude oil
production [16,17]; and, global aviation fuel
consumption [16]. Each proxy dataset was
normalized to its value at the date 1986 and each
relative-value curve was then anchored at 1986
to Gottschalk’s boldface, weighted average,
relative global warming curve. The particulate-
proxies track well with the eight NOAA global
datasets used by Gottschalk [8].
During WW2, a great spike in air pollution
inevitably occurred from maximized industrial
production, from smoke and coal fly ash spewing
forth from the smokestacks of industries, utilities,
and locomotive engines, from greatly increased
marine and aeronautical transport, and from
extensive military activities that polluted the air
with aircraft, ship, and vehicle exhaust and with
the consequences of vast numbers of munition
detonations, including the demolition of entire
cities, and their resulting debris and smoke. The
implication is that global warming during WW2
was caused by the aerosolized pollution
particulates that trapped heat that otherwise
should have been returned to space, and thus
altered Earth’s delicate thermal balance [8].
The wartime activities that cause particulate
pollution also produce carbon dioxide. WW2
global warming, however, was not produced by
atmospheric CO
2
for the following reasons [18]:
Ice core data during the period 1936-1952 show
no significant increase in CO
2
during the war
years, 1939-1945 [19]. Moreover, the extremely-
long atmospheric residence time of carbon
dioxide (decades or longer) [2] eliminates it as
the principal cause of WW2 global warming
because after WW2 the global temperature
abruptly plummeted. Rapid cessation of WW2
global warming is understandable because
tropospheric pollution-particulates typically fall to
the ground in days to weeks [20], while CO
2
remains in the atmosphere for decades [2,3].

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
3
Fig. 1. From [8]. Copy of Gottschalk’s fitted curves for eight NOAA data sets showing relative
temperature profiles over time [13] to which are added proxies for particulate pollution
As the aerosolized particulates settled to the
ground after the war, Earth radiated its excess
trapped heat, and global warming abruptly
subsided. But only for a brief time, as particulate
pollution began to rise again from ramped-up
post-WW2 industrial growth, initially in Europe
and Japan, and later in China, India, and the rest
of Asia, dramatically increasing worldwide
aerosol particulate pollution [21]. Consequently,
even though tropospheric pollution-particulates
typically fall to the ground in days to weeks [20],
their concentration in the troposphere is
maintained or increased by the ramped-up post-
WW2 industrial particulate-pollution release, as
well as by the combination of tropospheric
geoengineering and natural processes, such as
forest fires [22].
3. AEROSOL PARTICULATES SUPPRESS
ATMOSPHERIC CONVECTION
As noted previously [18], the effects of particulate
pollution have been misunderstood by many
scientists. The climate science community,
including the United Nations’ Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in particular,
has promulgated the false idea that aerosol
particulates cause global cooling by blocking
sunlight [2,23-25]. However, it has recently
become clear that aerosol particles are efficient
absorbers of solar radiation, either separately as
large particles or as assemblages of small
particles which rapidly transfer that heat to the
surrounding atmospheric gases [10,26-29].
Atmospheric heating by particulate matter has
been said to cause “changes in the atmospheric
temperature structure” [30] without mentioning
the consequences on atmospheric convection
and the concomitant surface-heat-transfer
reduction that results from such changes.
Geophysical models of atmospheric convection
are generally complex [31,32], typically involving
the solution of hydrodynamic equations of motion
coupled with various assumptions [33,34]. Use of
parameterization makes the calculation-results
especially opaque [35]. Consequently, critical
details of the actual physical process of
convection may be obscured, details necessary
to make substantive advances in
scientific understanding, and to correct
misperceptions.

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
4
Chandrasekhar described convection in the
following, easy-to-understand way [36]: The
simplest example of thermally induced
convection arises when a horizontal layer of fluid
is heated from below and an adverse
temperature gradient is maintained. The
adjective 'adverse' is used to qualify the
prevailing temperature gradient, since, on
account of thermal expansion, the fluid at the
bottom becomes lighter than the fluid at the top;
and this is a top-heavy arrangement which is
potentially unstable. Under these circumstances,
the fluid will try to redistribute itself to redress this
weakness in its arrangement. This is how
thermal convection originates: It represents the
efforts of the fluid to restore to itself some degree
of stability.
Atmospheric convection calculations relating to
the consequences of adverse temperature
gradients are necessarily complex and may not
be possible without ad hoc assumptions and
simplifications. The consequences of adverse
temperature gradient are rarely, if ever, explicitly
considered in geophysical convection
calculations [2]. Nevertheless, a simple
classroom-demonstration experiment can serve
as guidance for our understanding [11].
The convection classroom-demonstration
experiment was conducted using a 4-litre
beaked-beaker, nearly filled with distilled water,
and heated on a regulated hot plate. As an
indicator of convection, celery seeds were added
to be dragged along by convective motions in the
water. After stable convection was obtained, a
ceramic tile was placed atop the beaker to retard
heat loss, increasing the temperature at the top
relative to that at the bottom, thus decreasing the
adverse temperature gradient. The reduction of
the number of celery seeds in motion
indicated the reduction in convection, which was
recorded photographically [37].
Fig. 2, from [11], shows a dramatic reduction in
convection after placing the tile atop the beaker
[37], that reduced heat-loss from the surface,
raising the temperature at the top of the solution
relative to that of the bottom, which reduced the
adverse temperature gradient. In just one minute
the number of celery seeds in motion, driven by
convection, decreased markedly, demonstrating
the principle that reducing the adverse
temperature gradient decreases convection. This
reduction in convection is reasonable,
considering zero adverse temperature gradient is
by definition zero thermal convection.
Fig. 2. From [11]. A beaker of water on a regulated hot plate with celery seeds pulled
along by the fluid convection motions [37]. Placing a ceramic tile atop the beaker a
moment after T=0 reduced heat-loss, effectively warming the upper solution’s
temperature, thus lowering the adverse temperature gradient, and reducing
convection, indicated by the decreased number of celery seeds in motion after just
one minute

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
5
One primary consequence of heating the upper
troposphere through heat-absorbing particulate
matter can be directly inferred from the
experimental observations presented here.
Particles in the troposphere, heated by solar
radiation and by radiation from Earth’s surface,
do not simply re-radiate that energy as infrared
(heat) radiation but transfer some of that heat to
the surrounding atmosphere by molecular
collisions. The upper tropospheric air-
temperature is thus raised by the molecular-
transported heat relative to the air-temperature at
Earth’s surface. In other words, the adverse
temperature gradient between the upper
troposphere and the surface is diminished, which
reduces atmospheric convection, and
concomitantly reduces convection-driven surface
heat loss and thereby causes increased global
warming.
Anyone who has spent time in a desert
environment will recall that on cloudy days and
nights, the temperature is usually cooler in the
day and warmer at night than on cloudless days
and nights. That should be understandable from
the above discussion as cloud droplets are also
particulates. The effect of particulates on
suppressing atmospheric convection and,
concomitantly, inhibiting surface heat-loss is
supported by the following lines of evidence
described in Sections 3.1 to 3.4.
3.1 Diurnal Temperature Range Evidence
As previously described [12,18], reduction in
convection-driven heat loss, rather than
radiation-driven heat loss as usually assumed,
makes the seemingly inexplicable diurnal
temperature range (DTR), the daily high
temperature minus nightly low temperature,
understandable and, indeed, evidentiary.
Diurnal temperature range (DTR) data are
usually presented as averages over a large
geographic area and averaged over suitable
increments of time. These data represent a
model-independent measure of climate change.
Fig. 3 from Qu et al. [38] presents yearly mean
DTR values, as well as the corresponding high
temperature (TMAX) and low temperature
(TMIN), mean values over the continental
USA.
Note in Fig. 3 that the yearly mean DTR, the
upper graph, decreases, as indicated by the
regression line. The reason is that even though
the yearly mean TMAX increases, the yearly
mean TMIN increases at a faster rate so that the
difference (DTR) decreases over time. This
behaviour is indicated in many [39-42], but, for
unknown reasons, not in all DTR presentations
[43].
Fig. 3. From [9]. Yearly mean DTR, TMAX, and TMIN over the continental USA. The red lines are
linear regressions. Original publication: [38], (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/3.0/)

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
6
In the typical radiation-balance-based climate
considerations, the decrease in TMAX can be
explained by particulate matter blocking solar
radiation from reaching Earth’s surface.
However, the increase in TMIN is inexplicable
because radiation heat-loss from Earth’s surface
is greater during the day than during the night, a
consequence of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation
law.
The increase in TMIN, however, is an
understandable consequence of the reduction in
convection-driven heat loss caused by particulate
matter heating the upper troposphere and
decreasing atmospheric convection.
3.2 Mount St. Helens Evidence
As previously noted [12,18], data from the Mt. St.
Helens 1980 volcanic eruption in Washington
State (USA) [44] demonstrated that a short-term
reduction in the atmospheric adverse
temperature gradient increased the night-time
minimum temperature of diurnal temperature
range data [45]. As the volcanic plume passed
overhead in the troposphere, daytime
temperatures dropped as the sunlight was
absorbed and scattered by the particulates;
nighttime temperatures, however, increased, and
for a few days thereafter remained elevated
presumably due to aerosol dust that persisted for
a few days before falling to ground [45]. The
diurnal temperature range was significantly
lessened by the plume, but almost completely
recovered within two days [45].
These observations are consistent with the Mt.
St. Helens aerosol particulates in the plume
absorbing long-wave radiation and becoming
heated, transferring that heat to the surrounding
atmosphere by molecular collisions, which
lowered the atmospheric adverse temperature
gradient relative to the Earth’s surface, thus
reducing atmospheric convection, and
concomitantly reducing convection-driven
surface heat loss that is evident by the increase
in the night-time minimum temperature. These
observations support the concept that natural
and/or anthropogenic particulate pollution, not
anthropogenic carbon dioxide, is the principal
cause of global warming [8-12].
3.3 Radiosonde and Aethalometer
Evidence
As previously noted [18], the long-duration series
of radiosonde and aethalometer investigations
undertaken by Talukdar et al. [46] provide further
support for the idea that tropospheric particulate
heating reduces atmospheric convection. Their
investigations showed that higher amounts of
tropospheric black carbon (BC) aerosols can
disturb the normal upward movement of moist air
by heating the atmosphere, resulting in a
decrease in the atmospheric convection
parameters in association with the increase in
the concentration of BC aerosols.
Convection occurs throughout the troposphere,
with differing degrees of the scale, both
geographically and altitudinally, and with various
modifications caused by atmospheric circulation
and lateral flow. Convection-efficiency in all
instances is a function of the prevailing adverse
temperature gradient. Aerosolized particulates,
heated by solar radiation and/or terrestrial
radiation, rapidly transfer that heat to the
surrounding atmosphere, which reduces the
adverse temperature gradient relative to the
surface and, concomitantly, reduces surface heat
loss and thereby over time causes increased
surface warming [11]. The same particulate-
pollution-driven process operates locally, as in
the case of urban heat islands [47-51], regionally,
and globally, which further supports the concept
that particulate pollution, not anthropogenic
carbon dioxide, is the principal cause of global
warming [8-12].
3.4 Saharan-blown Dust Evidence
As previously noted [18], during summer months
Saharan-blown dust covers an area over the
tropical ocean between Africa and the Caribbean
about the size of the continental United States
[52-54]. The dust-layer extends to an altitude of
5-6 km; measurements indicate greater dust
density and associated haziness at 3 km than at
the surface [54]. The warmth of the upper portion
of the Saharan-blown dust layer initially is a
consequence of its origin over the Sahara, but
the warmth is maintained by the absorption of
solar radiation by the dust [53], which is known to
contain radiation-absorbing iron oxide [55,56]. As
noted by Prospero and Carlson [54]: “ ... the
warmth of the Saharan air has a strong
suppressive influence on cumulus convection ....”
Dunion and Velden [53] further note: “... the SAL
[Saharan air layer] may play a major role in
suppressing TC [tropical cyclone] activity in the
North Atlantic.” Wong and Dessler [57] also
recognized the suppression of convection over
the tropical North Atlantic by the Saharan air
layer.

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
7
4. CHASING THE WRONG CULPRIT
As described previously [9], science progresses
by replacing less-precise understanding with
more-precise understanding, a process that
necessitates the constant questioning of current
ideas [58]. The climate science community,
however, has failed to question the thoroughly
publicized belief that anthropogenic carbon
dioxide is the principal causal agent of global
warming. No one seems to have asked the basic
scientific question, “What could be wrong with
this picture?”
Global warming unquestioningly warms the
Earth’s oceans, its main reservoir of CO
2
.
Warming the oceans by reducing surface heat-
loss and by Earth’s internally produced heat [59]
not only lowers the solubility of CO
2
but also
releases dissolved CO
2
into the atmosphere
[9,60]. The increasing levels of atmospheric CO
2
,
rather than necessarily causing global warming,
are symptomatic of entirely different causes of
global warming, which is apparent from the ice-
core data shown in Fig. 4. It appears that the
climate-science community took at face value the
erroneous assertion that particulates cool the
atmosphere [2,23-25].
The good news is that a drastic reduction in
particulate-pollutant emissions will likely be
quickly followed by a drastic reduction in global
warming, as indicated by Gottschalk’s curve-
fitted World War II heat bump. As tropospheric
pollution-particulates typically fall to the ground in
days to weeks [20], the atmospheric adverse
temperature gradient relative to the surface
increases, thus increasing convective-driven heat
loss from the surface and concomitantly reducing
global warming. And, the additional benefit of
reducing particulate-pollution will lessen the
world’s greatest environmental health-threat,
potentially saving millions of lives and reducing
the suffering of many more [64].
The bad news is that the advances described
above [8-11] will almost certainly be ignored by
climate scientists. Allowing scientist-competitors
to evaluate each other’s funding-proposals
anonymously [65], as done in the West for
almost seven decades, has led to a consensus
mentality within the broad scientific community.
The consequences include widespread failure to
acknowledge contradictory ideas, false belief by
the popular press that consensus means
scientific correctness, and the inability to resist
being co-opted into politically-motivated scientific
activities.
Fig. 4. From [9]. Temperature and carbon dioxide data from the Vostok ice-core [61-63]. Note
that temperature rises before carbon dioxide, not vice versa. This figure shows compelling
evidence that temperature rise results in a subsequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
content, in striking contradiction to the IPCC model-driven assumption that CO
2
causes global
temperature increases. The rise or fall of CO
2
follows the increase or decline of Earth’s
variable heat, absorbed from above and produced from below

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
8
5. DANGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL
WARFARE
Anthropogenic CO
2
-caused climate change has
been fully politicized for 25 years [66] and is
driving political, commercial, and science-
research agendas. These agendas include the
deliberate inundation of the atmosphere with
particulate-aerosols (geoengineering), as shown
in Fig. 5 which, not only causes global warming
and polar melting but is devastating to live on
Earth [12,22,67-79].
There have been concerted efforts to deceive
people into believing that particulate trails, such
as shown in Fig. 5 are ice-crystal 'contrails' from
the moisture vapour in jet exhaust [80,81]. There
are also systematic efforts to coerce editors and
publishers to retract, without due process, peer-
reviewed and published public health papers
warning of the health risks of the jet-sprayed
aerial particulate-pollution trails [82].
Fig. 6 shows both the typically white trails, like
those in Fig. 5, which are consistent with coal fly
ash [22,68,70,71] and show much-scattered light,
and black trails, likely produced by carbon black
which absorbs light much more efficiently with far
less scatter. Ice crystal contrails are never black.
I recently witnessed white trails beneath the
cloud cover over Frankfurt, Germany, and black
trails above the clouds, presumably to be out of
sight. The use of carbon black is for heating the
atmosphere [12].
Fig. 5. From [12]. Geoengineering particulate trails with photographers’ permission. Clockwise
from upper left: Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, USA (David Tulis); Reiat, Switzerland (Rogerio
Camboim SA); Warrington, Cheshire, UK (Catherine Singleton); Alderney, UK looking toward
France (Neil Howard); Luxembourg (Paul Berg); New York, New York, USA (Mementosis)

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
9
Fig. 6. From [12]. Both white and black particulate trails above Danby, Vermont, an impossible
combination for alleged ice-crystal ‘contrails’
World War II holds the key to understanding the
challenges facing science and society. Waging
war requires a readily discernible enemy. The
Nazis utilized the very-flawed "scientific"
justification of "race hygiene" [83] as a basis to
propagandize and to indoctrinate the German
population to wage war against “genetically
inferior” enemy people, races, and nations, as
well as to enact laws legitimizing atrocities such
as forced sterilization against “genetically
inferior” Germans [84,85].
In discomforting parallel, Western nations are
presently utilizing the consensus-driven, flawed
“scientific” justification of “anthropogenic CO
2
-
caused global warming” as a basis to
propagandize, to indoctrinate, and to incite
humanity to wage global geoengineering warfare
on our own planet [3], the consequences of
which would be devastating [86-88]. The danger
is clear, present, and deeply-entrenched.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Who would have believed beforehand that the
Germany of Wolfgang von Goethe and Friedrich
Schiller would endeavour to exterminate entire
populations deemed "genetically inferior"?
Beneath the veneer of our civilization and our
humanity lurks a dark side of human nature.
There are those willing to propagandize and
deceive human populations willingly to
participate in or to turn a blind eye to atrocities.
That was the case in Hitler’s Germany, and it is
the case today. The ongoing global
geoengineering is exacerbating global warming,
causing climate chaos, and harming human and
environmental health, but the adverse
consequences are incorrectly being blamed on
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Neither the
scientific community nor governmental entities,
including the United Nations, acknowledges the
very-obvious jet-emplacement of tropospheric
particulates which cause global warming.
Instead, there are calls to initiate massive
stratospheric particulate geoengineering, an
activity certain to cause additional planetary
harm. The perpetrators and their motives must
be revealed, and their practices stopped before
our planet becomes unable to sustain human
existence.
Russian President Putin’s remarks, quoted
above, represent a courageous stand against
that very-flawed “anthropogenic carbon dioxide
global warming” scientific consensus. Perhaps
President Putin and U. S. President Donald
Trump could explore ways to end the consensus

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
10
nonsense that plagues science generally, and is
especially deplorable in climate science. The
successful consequence of such a scientific
collaboration could forge an alliance built upon a
shared pursuit of scientific truth about global
warming and make the world a healthier and
safer place for humankind.
The author holds that technical, scientific,
medical, and public health representations made
in the scientific literature in general, including this
particular journal, should be and are truthful and
accurate to the greatest extent possible, and
should serve to the highest degree possible to
protect the health and well-being of humanity and
Earth’s natural environment.
DISCLAIMER
The products used for this research are
commonly and predominantly use products in our
area of research and country. There is no conflict
of interest between the author and producers of
the products because we do not intend to use
these products as an avenue for any litigation but
the advancement of knowledge. Also, the
research was not funded by the producing
company rather it was funded by the personal
efforts of the author.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Author has declared that no competing interests
exist.
REFERENCES
1. Available:https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=_D4baJkYtHc
[Accessed October 19, 2019]
2. Stocker T, Qin D, Plattner G, Tignor M,
Allen S, Boschung J, et al. IPCC, 2013:
Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 1535 pp. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, UK, and New York; 2013.
3. Urpelainen J. Geoengineering and global
warming: A strategic perspective.
International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law and Economics. 2012;12(4):
375-89.
4. Lashof DA, Ahuja DR. Relative
contributions of greenhouse gas emissions
to global warming. Nature. 1990;
344(6266):529.
5. Oreskes N. The scientific consensus on
climate change. Science. 2004;306(5702):
1686.
6. Bell L. Climate of corruption: Politics and
power behind the global warming hoax.
Greenleaf Book Group; 2011.
7. Morano M. The politically incorrect guide
to climate change. Regnery Publishing;
2018.
8. Herndon JM. Air pollution, not greenhouse
gases: The principal cause of global
warming. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn.
2018;17(2):1-8.
9. Herndon JM. Science misrepresentation
and the climate-science cartel. J Geog
Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;18(2):1-13.
10. Herndon JM. Fundamental climate science
error: Concomitant harm to humanity and
the environment J Geog Environ Earth Sci
Intn. 2018;18(3):1-12.
11. Herndon JM. Role of atmospheric
convection in global warming. J Geog
Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2019;19(4):1-8.
12. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Further
evidence that particulate pollution is the
principal cause of global warming:
Humanitarian considerations. Journal of
Geography, Environment and Earth
Science International. 2019;21(1):1-11.
13. Gottschalk B. Global surface temperature
trends and the effect of World War II: A
parametric analysis (long version).
arXiv:170306511.
14. Gottschalk B. Global surface temperature
trends and the effect of World War II.
arXiv:170309281.
15. Rutledge D. Estimating long-term world
coal production with logit and probit
transforms. International Journal of Coal
Geology. 2011;85(1):23-33.
16. Available:https://www.indexmundi.com/ene
rgy/
[Accessed October 19, 2019]
17. Maggio G, Cacciola G. When will oil,
natural gas, and coal peak? Fuel. 2012;98:
111-23.
18. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Geophysical
consequences of tropospheric particulate
heating: Further evidence that
anthropogenic global warming is principally
caused by particulate pollution. Journal of
Geography, Environment and Earth
Science International. 2019;22(4):1-23.
19. Bastos A, Ciais P, Barichivich J, Bopp L,
Brovkin V, Gasser T, et al. Re-evaluating
the 1940s CO2 plateau. Biogeosciences.
2016;13:4877-97.

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
11
20. Müller J. Atmospheric residence time of
carbonaceous particles and particulate
PAH-compounds. Science of the Total
Environment. 1984;36:339-46.
21. McNeill JR. Something new under the sun:
An environmental history of the twentieth-
century world (the global century series):
WW Norton & Company; 2001.
22. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. California
wildfires: Role of undisclosed atmospheric
manipulation and geoengineering. J Geog
Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;17(3):1-18.
23. Letcher TM. Why do we have global
warming? Managing Global Warming:
Elsevier. 2019;3-15.
24. Summerhayes CP, Zalasiewicz J. Global
warming and the Anthropocene. Geology
Today. 2018;34(5):194-200.
25. Andreae MO, Jones CD, Cox PM. Strong
present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot
future. Nature. 2005;435(7046):1187.
26. Moteki N, Adachi K, Ohata S, Yoshida A,
Harigaya T, Koike M, et al. Anthropogenic
iron oxide aerosols enhance atmospheric
heating. Nature Communications. 2017;8:
15329.
27. Stier P, Seinfeld JH, Kinne S, Boucher O.
Aerosol absorption and radiative forcing.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
2007;7(19):5237-61.
28. Ito A, Lin G, Penner JE. Radiative forcing
by light-absorbing aerosols of pyrogenetic
iron oxides. Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):
7347.
29. Matsui H, Mahowald NM, Moteki N,
Hamilton DS, Ohata S, Yoshida A, et al.
Anthropogenic combustion iron as a
complex climate forcer. Nature
Communications. 2018;9(1):1593.
30. Ramanathan V, Crutzen P, Kiehl J,
Rosenfeld D. Aerosols, climate, and the
hydrological cycle. Science. 2001;
294(5549):2119-24.
31. Emanuel KA, Živković-Rothman M.
Development and evaluation of a
convection scheme for use in climate
models. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences. 1999;56(11):1766-82.
32. Guilyardi E, Wittenberg A, Fedorov A,
Collins M, Wang C, Capotondi A, et al.
Understanding El Niño in ocean–
atmosphere general circulation models:
Progress and challenges. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society. 2009;
90(3):325-40.
33. Ogura Y. The evolution of a moist
convective element in a shallow,
conditionally unstable atmosphere: A
numerical calculation. Journal of the
Atmospheric Sciences. 1963;20(5):407-24.
34. Herring JR. Investigation of problems in
thermal convection: Rigid boundaries.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.
1964;21(3):277-90.
35. Chollet J-P, Lesieur M. Parameterization of
small scales of three-dimensional isotropic
turbulence utilizing spectral closures.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.
1981;38(12):2747-57.
36. Chandrasekhar S. Thermal convection.
Proc Amer Acad Arts Sci. 1957;86(4):323-
39.
37. Available:https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=gFD6VoL3F_s
[Accessed October 19, 2019]
38. Qu M, Wan J, Hao X. Analysis of diurnal
air temperature range change in the
continental United States. Weather and
Climate Extremes. 2014;4:86-95.
39. Roderick ML, Farquhar GD. The cause of
decreased pan evaporation over the past
50 years. Science. 2002;298(5597):1410-
1.
40. Easterling DR, Horton B, Jones PD,
Peterson TC, Karl TR, Parker DE, et al.
Maximum and minimum temperature
trends for the globe. Science. 1997;
277(5324):364-7.
41. Dai A, Trenberth KE, Karl TR. Effects of
clouds, soil moisture, precipitation, and
water vapor on diurnal temperature range.
Journal of Climate. 1999;12(8):2451-73.
42. Roy SS, Balling RC. Analysis of trends in
maximum and minimum temperature,
diurnal temperature range, and cloud cover
over India. Geophysical Research Letters.
2005;32(12).
43. Englehart PJ, Douglas AV. Changing
behavior in the diurnal range of surface air
temperatures over Mexico. Geophysical
Research Letters. 2005;32(1).
44. Fehler M, Chouet B. Operation of a digital
seismic network on Mount St. Helens
volcano and observations of long period
seismic events that originate under the
volcano. Geophysical Research Letters.
1982;9(9):1017-20.
45. Mass C, Robock A. The short-term
influence of the Mount St. Helens volcanic
eruption on surface temperature in the
Northwest United States. Monthly Weather
Review. 1982;110(6):614-22.
46. Talukdar S, Venkat Ratnam M, Ravikiran
V, Chakraborty R. Influence of black

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
12
carbon aerosol on the atmospheric
instability. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres.
47. Landsberg HE. The Urban Climate,
Volume 28. Academic Press; 1981.
48. Roth M, Oke T, Emery W. Satellite-derived
urban heat islands from three coastal cities
and the utilization of such data in urban
climatology. International Journal of
Remote Sensing. 1989;10(11):1699-720.
49. Scortichini M, De Sario M, de’Donato F,
Davoli M, Michelozzi P, Stafoggia M.
Short-term effects of heat on mortality and
effect modification by air pollution in 25
Italian Cities. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public
Health. 2018;15(8):1771.
50. Hua L, Ma Z, Guo W. The impact of
urbanization on air temperature across
China. Theoretical and Applied
Climatology. 2008;93(3-4):179-94.
51. Alcoforado MJ, Andrade H. Global
warming and the urban heat island. Urban
Ecology: Springer. 2008;249-62.
52. Carlson TN, Benjamin SG. Radiative
heating rates for Saharan dust. Journal of
the Atmospheric Sciences. 1980;37(1):
193-213.
53. Dunion JP, Velden CS. The impact of the
Saharan air layer on Atlantic tropical
cyclone activity. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society. 2004;85(3):353-
66.
54. Prospero JM, Carlson TN. Vertical and
areal distribution of Saharan dust over the
western equatorial North Atlantic Ocean.
Journal of Geophysical Research. 1972;
77(27):5255-65.
55. Liu D, Taylor JW, Crosier J, Marsden N,
Bower KN, Lloyd G, et al. Aircraft and
ground measurements of dust aerosols
over the west African coast in summer
2015 during ICE-D and AER-D.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
2018;18(5):3817-38.
56. Alfaro S, Lafon S, Rajot J, Formenti P,
Gaudichet A, Maille M. Iron oxides and
light absorption by pure desert dust: An
experimental study. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres. 2004;109(D8).
57. Wong S, Dessler AE. Suppression of deep
convection over the tropical North Atlantic
by the Saharan air layer. Geophysical
Research Letters. 2005;32(9).
58. Herndon JM. Some reflections on science
and discovery. Curr Sci. 2015;108(11):
1967-8.
59. Herndon JM. Evidence of variable Earth-
heat production, global non-anthropogenic
climate change, and geoengineered global
warming and polar melting. J Geog
Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2017;10(1):16.
60. Stallinga P, Khmelinskii I. Analysis of
temporal signals of climate. Natural
Science. 2018;10(10):393.
61. Petit J-R, Jouzel J, Raynaud D, Barkov NI,
Barnola J-M, Basile I, et al. Climate and
atmospheric history of the past 420,000
years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.
Nature. 1999;399(6735):429.
62. Available:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_
core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
[Accessed November 9, 2019]
63. Available:https://commons.wikimedia.org/w
iki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
[Accessed November 9, 2019]
64. Carrington D, Taylor M. Air pollution is the
‘new tobacco’, warns WHO head. The
Guardian; 2018.
65. Herndon JM. Corruption of Science in
America. The Dot Connector; 2011.
66. Lewin B. Searching for the Catastrophe
signal: The origins of the
intergovernmental panel on climate
change. London: The Global Warming
Policy Foundation; 2017.
67. Herndon JM. Aluminum poisoning of
humanity and Earth's biota by clandestine
geoengineering activity: Implications for
India. Curr Sci. 2015;108(12):2173-7.
68. Herndon JM. Adverse agricultural
consequences of weather modification.
AGRIVITA Journal of Agricultural Science.
2016;38(3):213-21.
69. Herndon JM. An open letter to members of
AGU, EGU, and IPCC alleging promotion
of fake science at the expense of human
and environmental health and comments
on AGU draft geoengineering position
statement. New Concepts in Global
Tectonics Journal. 2017;5(3):413-6.
70. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Further
evidence of coal fly ash utilization in
tropospheric geoengineering: Implications
on human and environmental health. J
Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2017;9(1):1-
8.
71. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Contamination
of the biosphere with mercury: Another
potential consequence of on-going climate
manipulation using aerosolized coal fly
ash. J Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn.
2017;13(1):1-11.

Herndon; JGEESI, 23(4): 1-13, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.52513
13
72. Herndon JM, Whiteside M.
Geoengineering: The deadly new global
“Miasma”. Journal of Advances in Medicine
and Medical Research. 2019;29(12):1-8.
73. Herndon JM, Whiteside M, Baldwin I. Fifty
years after how to wreck the environment:
Anthropogenic extinction of life on earth. J
Geog Environ Earth Sci Intn. 2018;16(3):1-
15.
74. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Coal fly ash
aerosol: Risk factor for lung cancer.
Journal of Advances in Medicine and
Medical Research. 2018;25(4):1-10.
75. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Aerosolized
coal fly ash: Risk factor for
neurodegenerative disease. Journal of
Advances in Medicine and Medical
Research. 2018;25(10):1-11.
76. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Aerosolized
coal fly ash: Risk factor for COPD and
respiratory disease. Journal of Advances in
Medicine and Medical Research. 2018;
26(7):1-13.
77. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Previously
unacknowledged potential factors in
catastrophic bee and insect die-off arising
from coal fly ash geoengineering. Asian J
Biol. 2018;6(4):1-13.
78. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Aerosolized
coal fly ash: A previously unrecognized
primary factor in the catastrophic global
demise of bird populations and species.
Asian J Biol. 2018;6(4):1-13.
79. Whiteside M, Herndon JM. Role of
aerosolized coal fly ash in the global
plankton imbalance: Case of Florida's toxic
algae crisis. Asian Journal of Biology.
2019;8(2):1-24.
80. Shearer C, West M, Caldeira K, Davis SJ.
Quantifying expert consensus against the
existence of a secret large-scale
atmospheric spraying program. Environ
Res Lett. 2016;11(8):084011.
81. Available:http://www.nuclearplanet.com/U
SAF.pdf
[Accessed October 19, 2019]
82. Available:http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ex
plainretractions.pdf
[Accessed October 19, 2019]
83. Baur E, Fischer E, Lenz F. Grundriß der
menschlichen Erblehre und
Rassenhygiene (Outline of Human
Genetics and Racial Hygiene). Munich:
Julius Friedrich Lehmann; 1921.
84. Friedlander H. The origins of Nazi
Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final
Solution Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA:
University of North Carolina Press;
1995.
85. Proctor RN. Racial hygiene: Medicine
under the nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; 1988.
86. Virgoe J. International governance of a
possible geoengineering intervention to
combat climate change. Climatic Change.
2009;95(1-2):103-19.
87. MacMartin DG, Irvine PJ, Kravitz B, Horton
JB. Technical characteristics of a solar
geoengineering deployment and
implications for governance. Climate
Policy. 2019;19(10):1325-39.
88. MacMartin DG, Kravitz B. Mission-driven
research for stratospheric aerosol
geoengineering. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 2019;
116(4):1089-94.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2019 Herndon; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/52513