One of the things that I have never seen is global warming via carbon dioxide. Mankind’s emmissions are far, far too small to cause any changes in the atmosphere to cause global warming on the scale that the alarmists put forth. In fact carbon dioxide has been over 20 times as high as it is now, and that only saw global temps at 10 degrees centigrade higher than now. Unfortunately that was not due, by and large, to carbon dioxide alone, but to the configuration of the tectonic plates and the abundance of life in a highly oxygenated atmosphere. The era of the great forests that laid down coal beds and oil supplies we see today is directly related to that era and the dropping of global carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even larger amounts were taken out as calcium carbonate forming limestone, which serves as a permanent carbon sink for the planet, locking carbon away in relatively stable rock.

When looking at Earth’s history, in fact, that seems to be the upper limit of global mean temperature as measured via stable isotope ratios and types of life and climate seen in the geologic record. Any decent model of the atmosphere would have to give a good demonstration of what happens during times of major volcanic activity and times of relatively quiescent periods during pangea eras. In all we can’t even create basic models to tell us why the last few decades did what they did: take the basic data, put the models to work and they come up with highly variable answers. Atmospheric and oceanic transfer models are still in their infancy, as well as rainfall and runoff models.

As I’ve said before: the climate of planet Earth is not only sun driven, but then changes due to plate tectonic activity, oceanic depth due to that, volcanic activity and a host of other phenomena. At least 10,000 years more of data will be needed to see if mankind has any lasting impact on the planetary scale, and by they we will have either shifted to off-planet economics or be gone as a species because the next extinction event has our name on it. The Earth is a nice ‘starter home’, but, really, we need better and more permanent and adaptable living quarters elsewhere. And not one of these ‘fixer uppers’ like Mars until we really get a good grasp on the basic science behind climate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The science here is still so new and developing that it’s unconscionable for Gore or anyone else to deliberately twist the unknowns into this alarmist prescription for a total makeover of Western, primarily the U.S. lifestyle and economies.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is perhaps the best presentation I have seen debunking Gore’s film. It should be required viewing wherever Gore’s film is being forcefed to gullible school children.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sun can play a huge factor with only a slight deviation.

An increase in solar winds increases the friction on our atmosphere and as you know, friction causes heat.

Only about a billionth (http://www.rutledgecapital.com/Articles/20070403_asia_energy_3.html) of the sun’s energy hits the Earth (with about 30% reflected back), but it’s enough energy to create hurricanes that can generate the energy of a hydrogen bomb every 8 minutes. A solar panel that’s just 100 square miles in size can absorb the same amount of energy the U.S. uses a day. An increase or a decrease brighness (a spotlight sends out more energy than a flashlight) in the sun caused by the amount of sunspots at any given time. There is a hypothesis that ice ages on Earth were caused by the sun’s brightness slightly dimming from an increase in sunspot activity. Add in a parallel event like extra volcanic activity shooting up dust in the atmosphere (or an increase of cloud cover) to reflect the light and you can imagine the weather impact it would have on Earth. For global warming, decrease the amount of sunspots and cloud cover.

Like or Dislike: 0  0