Friday, August 25, 2006

Global Warming and Facts - Opposites

Yes, they are still banging on this issue. I realize that it pales in comparison to the WOT and national security, but if we don't pay attention they may be able to pull a fast one on us. These fanatics are constantly working to gain attention and money from congress. Since we each have a sizable stake in how our money is handled, we best not lose track of the little things.

Al Gore's movie has been a topic of discussion in many arenas. The part nobody seems to actually focus on is the quality of the information and how it compares to the actual observable facts. We instead hear various comparisons that basically state, "My scientist is better then your scientist." We hear so little discussion on meat and potato issues of global warming. Let's look at some of the basic issues.

Every time someone talks about global warming, we hear about green house gases. Yet, the only one we hear about is CO2. Let me point out H2O (water) as a significant part of these gases. Water as it evaporates and participates in our atmosphere often turns to clouds. Clouds by the nature of their color reflect heat energy away from the planet as well as trap energy from escaping. Much like insulation the clouds offer significant perfection from temperature shift. And like insulation they do slowly lose trapped heat or cold without adding additional energy to the package. Putting it simply, without clouds the planet would heat up quickly from solar radiation and then cool very quickly when the radiant energy is turned away. Let us also note that adding heat energy also increases evaporation, hence increasing clouds. This cloud increase reduces radiant energy from the sun and ultimately returns a net cooling. This cycle is repeated over and over again creating a basic balance that we enjoy. This natural balance keeps our planet livable and quite capable of dealing with subtle changes.

Pollution is another key issue that global warmers will point to as a key factor. Let me offer a couple of key points here. Air is a terrible insulator or conductor of heat. Microscopic airborne particles have a limited capacity to store radiant energy and in quantity may actually block real storage of heat from the planet. I would site the many major eruptions of volcano's that have been prov-en to drastically alter the temperature in their wind trajectory. This huge increase in particulate matter has caused major temperature reductions not increases as these global warmers would have you believe. Pollution would be a far better fact used by the global coolers.

Almost all of our heat comes from the sun. We do have core heat that demonstrates itself in eruptions but the sun is what makes our temperature livable. Would it not make more sense to look at the source of our heat? I can't tell you how many articles I have read about solar flares and sun spots. These intense storms and solar outbursts hurl immeasurable quantities of radiation out into space. Would it not make sense that the earth would sometimes receive large doses of this energy? Unfortunately, the scientist who propose the sun as the reason for global warming are often ridiculed and dismissed.

What about all the known Ice Ages? None of these global warmers seem to have any answers for the many ice ages that our planet has already experienced. Nor do they have answers for the warm up and recession of the ice afterward. Man and all his modern contrivances didn't exist when these major weather events occurred. I don't think a few thousand campfires by men in caves would have done it.

Lastly, the issue that drives me the craziest, is predicting future weather and temperature shifts when they can't figure out what will happen tomorrow. Unless you are in a pretty stagnate climate area, your weather forecaster is probably only right 70% of the time. Looking a week out, the odds drop to 60%. Looking a month out, the odds drop to around 50%. If it wasn't for past history they probably wouldn't get that close. I can't even imagine the chance of picking the weather 20 years out. I would probably stand a better chance of winning the power ball lottery.

If you don't see a post in a few weeks from today just assume I won and you need to start preparing for a serious heat wave.

Articles of interest:
Gore Sea Levels? By Dennis Avery
Ice Sheets (Greenland) -- Summary
Green Wealth: Funding the Enemy
Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow...By Joseph D'Aleo (Great Charts)

Labels: , ,


Blogger A Jacksonian said...

I see no reason to change my view on global warming, but then I do take the long view. No real correlation between global temps and carbon dioxide levels except at the very low end of those levels. We are at one of *those*, but that is not the whole story.

The one thing that none of the climatologists address is the loss of inland seas starting around 70 MYA and continuing to this day. Around about that time the plates of the Earth started to move faster and as they did that they rode higher on the mantle. Now, as continental material is less dense than ocean floor material, those plates ride higher in proportion. Hence, you get the removal of the cretaceous inland seas across the world. This means that there are no shallow, large, warm bodies of water to even out the temperature gradients. With relatively less heat absorbant crustal material now *dry land* more heat is lost via reflection instead of being absorbed by these shallow oceans. Further, the heat from the Earth goes directly outwards into space, too, instead of *its* being absorbed by water. Global temps start to fall quickly and erratically.

Mankind's cause of this? Zilch. We weren't around until the last couple of million years. The geological trend lines are clear and unmistakeable. Climatologists think going back a thousand years is a *long* time. Geologists have a term for that time frame: an instant.

So, until climatologists can get their models to reflect the geologic history of the planet, they can take a hike. I will worry about more immediate problems.

3:40 PM, August 26, 2006  
Blogger HeavyHanded said...


I just don't see how you can be a non-believer of global warming with such undisputable proof of global warming like polar bear shrinking genitalia. ROFL.

10:10 PM, August 26, 2006  
Blogger ablur said...

HH - You really got me there. Once I stopped laughing and managed to get up off the floor, I read the article.
What drives a person to start at the genitila of any spieces in order to prove a theory? These people are so insane they then had to chase and observe Polar Bears in -50 degree weather. When all is said and done, we are left with, "Who's penis is bigger and better?".

6:33 AM, August 27, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home