TaN: If greenhouse gases are responsible for the sun’s heat from escaping back into space after a day of heating up the planet surface, how did or is it that they, the gases, are able to permit the heat from penetrating the gas cover and heating up the planet?
Shouldn’t it be that if the sun’s heat can pass through the gas cover, it should be able to pass back out into space? Unless the gas cover was not present during the heating and moves in when it is time for the heat to be radiated back into outer space.
However, should the latter be the case, according to Wikipedia (URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cover, as of June 10, 2017 when I last accessed the web page), global cloud cover ranges from 0.68 percent and usually does not exceed 1 percent. Taking this at face value and assuming that the information is still accurate (when I last referenced it), I just cannot imagine how greenhouse gases (GHGs) present in the atmosphere — and I assume that these GHGs are not present in the atmosphere independent of the clouds but form part of it — can be responsible for restricting the escape of solar radiant energy back into the cosmos.
Cloud cover is the most frequent and significant culprit as to why solar or heat radiation, as the sun “sets”, is prevented from escaping or returning back to the vastness of empty space. [I realize and understand that just because there is no visible thing that blocks the inflow and outflow of solar radiation does not necessarily mean that other invisible gases does or cannot be responsible for heat retention.]
The increasing global surface temperature, annually, is more due to the continued and irresponsible and unsustainable harvest of trees — more than anything else. Moreover, this, coupled with increasing and rapid spread of urban jungles, creates a double whammy global environment where surface temperature rise will be long and wide-reaching.
Without greenery to absorb solar radiation (and use to produce (their own) food), the heat is left to be absorbed and stored on naked surfaces such as concrete (roads and building outer walls), asphalt (roads and flat building roofs), glass (windows), metal (roofs), et al, the stored heat is later released back into the surroundings.
Add to this the fact that hard flat surfaces, especially the smooth and shiny ones, multiply the intensity the heat as it bounces back and forth off other surfaces like echo chambers. It is for this reason that large sprawls of urbanized and concretized expanses have higher temperatures than the surrounding areas. Take the case of the New Manila district where it has been recorded repeatedly that, because large shady decades- and even centuries-old trees are planted not only along both sides of the streets inside many of the houses, the ambient temperature 2 to 3 degrees cooler.
Finally, still on the matter of greenery and greenhouse gases, since carbon dioxide is considered one of those responsible for global warming and climate change — just for the sake of argument — and the fact that carbon dioxide is vital to greenery and readily absorb it to produce their food, the carbon dioxide is eagerly absorbed as they are produced by our breaths and by fossil fuel combustion (in our daily, commercial, and industrial activities). Having greenery, especially trees help a lot in mitigating global warming. [Btw, have you ever noticed trees planted along streets and roads tend to lean inward. They are taking advantage of the carbon dioxide from people and motor vehicles that ply the route.]
TaN: In today’s (June 3) article on NaturalNews.com (titled “Hyperbaric oxygen therapy cures woman of stage-4 cancer” — URL: http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-06-02-hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy-cures-woman-of-stage-4-cancer.html), it dawned on me the discuss the merits of the story and the reasons why or how they are successful but also fail.
In doing a meta-analysis of all cases involving claimed successes (and failures or recurrences or re-emergence) in curing or reversing cancer — in both natural and allopathic medicine — a commonality arises. My hypothesis is that the secret is the direct exposure of cancer cells to high concentrations of oxygen. Unless and until something else comes along, I will stick to my inference.
Looking at all the cases: (1) those who become physically very active, with aerobic activities, especially after leading a sedentary lifestyle; (2) those undergoing hyperbaric therapy; (3) those increase their consumption of RAW green leafy oxygen-rich vegetables; and, (4) those laugh a lot and have (adopted) a cheerful and positive attitude towards life…just to name a few.
(1) Those who become physically very active — The increased physical activity causes increased respiration or breathing in and out which, in turn, raises heart beat and blood circulation through the lungs and bringing it to the rest of the body and which ups the level of oxygen in the blood;
(2) Those undergoing hyperbaric therapy — The isolation in a sealed or air-tight chamber filled with increased amounts of oxygen means there is more oxygen, as the person respires, to be absorbed into the blood as it circulates in the lungs which means a higher concentration of oxygen in the body;
(3) Those increasing consumption of RAW green leafy vegetables — Digestive enzymes have a secondary function, which is to hunt down and destroy or disable cancer cells, and there are higher levels in raw foods because the enzymes are sensitive to and easily chemically broken down or rendered non-functional when exposed to high heat (i.e., temperatures exceeding or above the tolerable threshold); and,
(4) Those laughing more and have positive outlook in life — Laughing causes an increase rate of inflow and outflow of air in the lungs which means that there is a greater degree of exchange of gases (carbon dioxide with oxygen) to increase the presence of oxygen in the body. Moreover, studies have even shown that just pretending to laugh — i.e., mimicking the mechanism of laughing — is enough to reap increase-blood-oxygen benefits because the whole point is to increase the rate of oxygen intake and laughter, even merely pretending, increases the rate of inflow and outflow of air which translates into greater amounts of oxygen in the lungs within a given time frame as compared with normal or shallow breathing.
However, there are many instances where cancer returned or re-emergence (and, frequently, with a vengeance). This, likewise, has a commonality — the continued erroneous and unhealthy lifestyle which led to cancer in the first place.
Such failures or re-emergence are commonly attributed to continuing with the wrong (and unhealthy) lifestyle and eating incorrectly prepared foods. It is not a matter of eating the right foods — and certainly not super foods (because there are no such things as super foods) — but preparing the food properly and eating them appropriately — i.e., there are foods that are intended to be consumed only during times or seasons or under certain conditions.
One of my frequent arguments with respect to the eating properly-prepared foods as against just eating the correct or specific foods is the case of the traditional diets of Okinawans and the Inuits.
In the case of the Okinawans, they seem to be among the healthiest group of people and it cannot be due to the gene pool because Okinawans who leave (mostly the youth and the upwardly mobile) and go to highly Westernized places, they “loose” that healthy disposition and acquire the same lifestyle diseases as their Western counterparts because they adopted the Western diet and lifestyle (not to mention the toxic atmosphere that goes with Western living). If the gene pool were the key to their healthy, then adapting a Western lifestyle should not have any (negative) impact on their health.
Whereas for the Inuits, so-called health experts warn us of consuming too much meat and, especially, too much fat. However, it may not be familiar to many but the traditional Inuit diet consists of 60 to 70 percent animal fat or blubber (of walruses, seals, and whales) while the rest is red meat. Their traditional diet leaves no room for plant food — primarily because there are no plants in the surroundings; it is all ice and snow. But Inuits who eat the traditional diet (and live the traditional lifestyle) are shown to be in perfect health — how is that possible? Could it be that all those so-called experts are wrong?
In truth, the Okinawans and the Inuits share, despite their very different diets and lifestyles (attributable to the very different environment or geographical location), a commonality. Both peoples maintain a high percentage — for Okinawans, it is 70 to 80 percent whereas, for Inuits, it is total or 100 percent — of raw foods in their diet and a relatively (bad) stress-free lifestyle. [Btw, stress is a fact of life and it takes two forms: good or beneficial and bad or detrimental. Good stress are those that keep our bodies in top and full alert condition while bad stress weakens the immune system and assaults the biological processes of our body. But this is for another TaN.]
So, even though Inuits consume nothing but pure fat and red meat in their traditional diet, they remain healthy because both are consumed either raw or with no heating — how could they, there is no wood for burning although the oil from the blubber can be used but it is more useful consumed rather than burned.
Moreover, this coincides with that of animals where they (i.e., those in the wild and not those kept by man as pets or zoological exhibits and the like) rarely get sick — aside from the fact that they do not have physicians in the wild and most of them do not enjoy a long life expectancy. It is because, like the Inuits, animals likewise do not heat their food — and aside from the fact that they eat fresh, as in at once and not some days or weeks or even months later.
Finally and in addition, those who live in remote regions, isolated from the modern world (mostly not by choice), likewise rarely get sick, especially with lifestyle diseases — lifestyle diseases which have been the trend in the civilized world since almost half a century ago. Furthermore, the fact that they do not enjoy our modern conveniences (which likewise contribute significantly to the rise in lifestyle diseases, such as obesity, hypertension, osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, autism, cognitive failure, emphysema and COPD or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression and suicidal tendencies, and many more new and exotic ones emerging) increase their chances of avoiding (modern) lifestyle diseases because “convenience” (which, in reality, is actually laziness and not to be confused with real convenience which should only be available to people with physical disabilities and deformities) is one of the most significant factors that contribute to the development and rise of lifestyle diseases.
TaN: In today’s (Jun 8) The Philippine STAR article titled “NBI to run after fake news purveyors” (by a certain Edu Punay on the front page of the hard copy), it would imply that anyone responsible of manufacturing and/or spreading incorrect or untruthful news will be a target, especially those who have great influence (like those in media or in government). Then, in page 6, there is the article by the same reporter titled “DoJ chief tags opposition in Marawi destab, backtracks“.
It would appear that when you say backtrack, it means that the initial information made public is untruthful or wrong. The question arises: Will the NBI (National Bureau of Investigation), which is under the DoJ (Department of Justice), investigate and go after their boss? After all, he has publicly admitted to have made an unverified and untruthful statement, which is fake news.
So, how about it Mr NBI director? Will you put your money — or, in this case, your job, your reputation or public image, and your credibility — where your mouth is? Care to take the dare or are you going to weasel out and try to justify your inaction by some technicality, semantic, or alibi?