To put simply, global warming is the theory that greenhouse gasses such as, carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane, and hydrocarbons are being released in the atmosphere due to human activity. These gasses allow solar radiation from the sun to enter the atmosphere but then traps the heat once inside and does not allow the re-radiation to exit back into space. This in effect causes global temperatures to rise, causing evaporation of water and drying out the earth, and eventually, scientists theorize that our own planet could look like Venus, which is currently the poster child of a "greenhouse planet."
This theory, however, is not without problems. The first being that in 800 A.D. the earth was thought to be as warm or warmer than it is today. There is evidence that the Vikings settled parts of Greenland that is uninhabitable today. The second problem is that the majority of the temperature stations responsible for collecting and putting forth data projections, once in rural regions, have now been urbanized, completely skewing any and all projections of temperatures coming in.
Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea, reveals that the ocean temperature is one Degree cooler than its maximum during the Medieval optimum between the years 1000 A.D. to 1500 A.D. In Fact, the surface temperature in the United States reached a maximum in the 1930's in direct correlation to a maximum in solar irradiance. Greenhouse gasses do not affect temperature, the sun does.
Carbon dioxide actually promotes plant growth. Most plants are divided into 2 groups, C3 plants and C4 plants. These basically distinguish between the 2 types of photosynthesis. C3 photosynthesis has a problem in that O2(oxygen) sometimes fills the role that Co2 is supposed to do and much of the energy that goes into photosynthesis is wasted. Plants in a high Co2 environments increase their plant mass by 20 to 25%. This is possibly due to the fact that high Co2 concentrations allow plants to better utilize H2O. This is because the passageways that allow Co2 in, restrict H2O coming out. I would be more concerned about Deforestation than I would be about Global Warming.
Even if temperatures on Earth did rise and cause more evaporation of water, this would only result in more condensation in the atmosphere. This would result in more cloud cover, which in turn would reflect more of the Sun's light back into space, thus cooling surface temperatures. In addition, the greater condensation would result in more precipitation, further cooling surface and air temperatures. Such has been the observable cycle for the last three thousand years.
On a more political note, there are now approximately 650 dissenting scientists to the IPCC report put forth by the U.N. There were 52 U.N. Scientists that perpetuated the report that the media and Al Gore literally cashed in on. Incidentally, Gore has yet to be correct on a single prediction, but I digress. 650 Scientists (and growing) include former NASA official, atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson who declared, "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires stressed, "The global warming scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
The report that the U.N. put foreword did not account for sunspots nor solar storms. Possibly the most telling quote comes from Richard Lindzen, of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, when he said, "In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and [computer] programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage." I believe that true science is things that we can observe, test, and repeat. And I think Professor Lindzen is right, we have traded true science for convenience. And perhaps we should not be shocked to find that the spokesperson for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore. Perhaps "true science," is just not convenient anymore. It certainly does not bring in as much money as alarmism does. And to that end, there is no argument here.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
The convenient truth about global warming is that it generates a lot of cash. Many people have gotten rich exploiting it. We've been hearing about global warming for 20 years and still have seen no effects. In fact only 49% of the American population believes the earth is getting warmer because of human influence. People are beginning to wake up and see they were fed a line of garbage. What happened to blaming climate changes on El Nino? I guess that wasn't profitable enough.
ReplyDeleteIn 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote that "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. Any instance of no evidence for global warming was stricken from the IPCC.