September 3, 2007

• Something a bit different… an editorial

  
  Thoughts on Global Warming – Science or Hoax

  Much ado is being made of something called “global warming” and that
  man is somehow responsible for it. One can read many articles
  testifying that man is destroying the planet to his own peril. Yet as
  we will see further down, the very proponents for “man-made global
  warming” have ignored the most obvious things about their data which
  have a devastating effect on their own argument. This post intends to
  get down to the reality of the matter and simply to point out both the
  possible truth and obvious error in this controversial topic. Is there
  a possibility of global warming? If not, we’ll dismiss it altogether.
  If so, then let’s find out the real reason for it and get on with life
  and do something appropriate if we can.

  We are going to do something very simple. We are going to think but we
  aren’t going to get detailed about this because the massive amounts of
  “data” available on this is only relevant if a certain outcome is true
  i.e. if man is responsible for “global warming”. If we show that the
  evidence indicates otherwise such data is moot. Even in such a case,
  other incidental facts found in the process of studying “global
  warming” may become important… and they will.  So we will use the
  principle of “behind every lie there are true statements designed to
  make the lie believable and convincing.”  So we do not have to be
  experts at climatology or anything else. We merely need to think
  logically and ask some important questions and toss out what doesn’t
  make sense.

  Now a disclaimer is appropriate here… as I relate time spans and other
  data, I am relating what these sources and current scientific dogma are
  saying, not necessarily what I believe about it. Anyway, as you will
  see, some EPA and NASA websites will be cited in case the reader is
  interested where the data comes from.

  So let’s look at the problem from a distance… and try to define what
  possible causes there could be and see if any of them make more sense
  than the others.

  For the earth’s climate to change temperature one way or another, there is more than one possibility for its cause:

  1.    Source induced changes (i.e. the sun and changes in the intensity of sunlight)
  2.    Recipient induced changes  (i.e. the earth and its atmospheric
  changes due to a variety of natural and  
         man-made sources) (the
  proponents’ opinion exclusively)
  3.    Sun/Earth relationship induced changes (i.e. distance based changes)
  4.    Non-solar/non-earth induced changes
  5.    Any combination of the above

  Let’s take a quick look at each one of these cases to see which might
  be more likely to cause global warming, if it were to occur…

  
  1. Sun induced changes – we have a working model of this happening
  right now, the Earth and Sun. The sun outputs a certain amount of
  energy and the earth receives a corresponding amount. If the sun’s
  output increases a little or decreases a little then the earth receives
  a corresponding amount from those changes. We are told that there has
  been a 0.5 deg F rise in average global temperatures over the last few
  decades. If we compare this to say a 77 deg F day, this change
  represents 0.65% change. Working backwards, the sun’s output would have
  to change 0.65%. If we consider that our reference is the sun’s
  photosphere (the surface) with its estimated temperature of 10,832 deg
  F, this 0.65% change would represent the sun’s surface increasing by …
  an unimpressive 70.4 deg F. If one were to boil water on that 77 deg F
  day, they would have to raise the water temperature much higher than
  this to get it to boil.  Now there are hotter places on the sun. The
  layer above the surface is the chromosphere and its temperature is
  right around 50,000 deg F and the layer just below the surface is the
  convection zone and reaches a whopping 3.6 million degrees. So it would
  only take a temperature rise of 70.4 deg F to create global warming?
  Yes. This assumes that the physics that brings energy to our planet
  hasn’t changed. A 70.4 deg F upward change in temperature at the sun’s
  surface creates a 0.5 degree change on Earth. The amount for the
  chromosphere and convection zone will be correspondingly higher and
  proportionate as well. If one is worried about a less linear response
  in this model remember the temperature movement is very small and
  should appear reasonably linear i.e. a proportional relationship. It’s
  a good thing our sun is remarkably stable or we’d be getting a lot more
  variation than we do.

  How about some evidence of sun induced changes that are shown elsewhere
  beside the sun or earth? Let’s take a look at Mars… from an article
  from the following site…

  http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/gallery/PIA04295.html

  the following quote was obtained:

  
  Four images are shown here, plus an animation at left presenting the
  four frames in sequence. The location is near 86.3 degrees south
  latitude, 49.4 degrees west longitude, and the images show the same
  portion of the south polar residual cap as it appeared in 1999, 2001,
  2003, and 2005. Comparing the images or viewing the animation makes it
  evident that the landscape of the south polar cap has been changing
  rapidly over the past four martian years.
  
  
  
  Each year that Mars Global Surveyor has been in orbit, the landforms of
  the south polar residual cap have gotten smaller, and the carbon
  dioxide removed from the cap has not been re-deposited. The implication
  is that Mars presently has a warm (and possibly warming) climate, with
  new carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere every year. The other
  implication is that, at some time in the not-too-distant past, the
  planet had a colder climate, so that the layers of carbon dioxide could
  be deposited in the first place. If one takes the rate of scarp retreat
  and projects it backwards to fill in all of the pits and troughs with
  the carbon dioxide that has been removed from them, one finds that the
  colder climate might only have occurred a few centuries to a few tens
  of thousands of years ago. This kind of time scale is not unlike that
  of the climate changes that have been recorded on Earth, including the
  Ice Ages and the smaller fluctuations that have occurred since the last
  Ice Age (e.g., the "Little Ice Age" of the mid-14th through mid-19th
  centuries).

  Perhaps our neighboring planet, Mars, is telling us the truth. There is
  “global warming” there and its not because man has put greenhouse
  gasses into its environment.  The sun itself is getting warmer

  
  2. Earth induced changes –
  There are a variety of reasons claimed for “global warming” some of
  which are volcanic eruptions (aerosol emissions and CO2 (carbon
  dioxide) emissions). The EPA website

  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

  says there is no
  doubt as to the cooling effect of the particles that block sunlight
  (citing the “year without summer” dropping worldwide temperatures in
  1816 by 5 deg F that followed the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in
  Indonesia the year before), yet they fail to explain why visible air
  pollution doesn’t do the same thing. In addition, the effect of CO2
  emissions from volcanoes is dismissed simply because it is believed
  that humans produce something like 150 times the amount volcanoes do.
  Now one has to ask, do they really measure all these volcanoes
  constantly or is this citation an off-the-cuff estimate?

  There is an interesting chart (Figure 1) which shows an interestingly
  neat pattern of a global warming episodes every 100,000 years. We’ll
  need to remember this number for later. While these folks claim that
  the world’s normal level for atmospheric CO2 is something like 280 ppm
  and today we’ve got 382 ppm. BTW, they get this from Antarctic ice core
  samples. Yet they don’t consider that gasses tend to want to exit from
  materials over time, a very common process called “outgassing”, and
  such “outgassing” is accelerated in times of rising temperatures
  depending on the amount of temperature increase. This would mean that
  over 100,000 years the ice lost 100ppm of CO2 concentration which is
  not unreasonable.  Ultimately, this would mean that 382 ppm or higher
  may be entirely normal for a “scheduled global warming episode”. Yet it
  is the assumption that there is no “outgassing” process taking place
  that should be very troubling to those who are inclined to think about
  these matters. And ultimately the CO2 that was captured in the ice to
  begin with had to already be in the atmosphere so it could be absorbed
  and frozen to be released later.

  Beyond this, we should note that our scientists really don’t have a
  good idea what the “ideal levels of atmospheric CO2” should be. They
  have neither tested nor measured the real atmospheric levels of 100,000
  years ago so this must derived indirectly from other artifacts which
  they assume agree with their idea of how things work. I don’t want to
  make such work totally unusable but indeed we must admit the fact that
  they weren’t there to measure the real thing and that isn’t the same as
  making a guess, even an educated one about what was supposed to be
  real. To say it simply, science wants the world to buy into the same
  mental process that has brought us “evolutionary theory” which is still
  revising its “truth” about the matter.

  Given these issues, the proponents of the science of “man-made global
  warming” have a lot yet to prove. At this point, however, with so
  little proof, we have to consider this position to be “faith in the
  man-made global warming religion” and not fact.

  
  3. Sun/Earth Relationship Induced Changes –
  Now it shouldn’t be strange to humans that the earth’s position (and
  any point on its surface) is not constant with relation to the sun. We
  know this because this is what causes our seasonal temperature
  variation, changes in weather over the year, day and night, etc.

  It is also no surprise to science that the earth does not return to the
  exact same spot one year later when it has made one full revolution
  around the sun nor does it return to the same position each time it
  rotates on its axis every day.  It has been accurately described that
  the earth “wobbles” much like a spinning toy top as it slows down. Now
  the Earth itself does this ever so slightly over a very long period of
  time. There are three major ways this happens:

  1) earth’s orbital eccentricity  – the entire cycle is around 100,000
  years (the earth’s orbit changes from an nearly perfect circle to an
  oval shape over time)
  2) earth’s rotational tilt – the entire cycle is around 41,000 years
  (the earth’s tilt varies between 22 and 24 degrees over time)
  3) precession. – the entire cycle varies around 19,000 to 23,000 years
  (our north pole star “Polaris” wasn’t always our pole star because of
  this)

  This following link from NASA explains a lot of this…

  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/

  Now just as our seasons vary and the range of temperature extremes we
  experience far exceed the reported miniscule 0.5 degree F change over
  the last several decades, with high temperatures coming in around 100
  deg F to well below freezing (32 deg F and much lower), representing at
  least a 68 degree F temperature swing for most of the places here in
  the U.S. Given this, it is fully believable that these three effects
  could have a major effect that could cause cycles of “global warming”
  and “global cooling”.

  Yet it is here where we need to stop and note what we just read.
  Remember what was found earlier in this post? The earth’s orbital
  eccentricity cycle is 100,000 years. Didn’t we note that the last
  glacial meltdown was 100,000 years ago?  It is not hard to see how
  these two numbers might interrelate and makes a much better story than
  blaming biological processes or man’s industrial activity on the
  matter.  Indeed, this is important and tells us clearly that if this is
  the cause, there is no amount of man’s effort that will correct this.
  We’ll have to ride it through the “naturally occurring global warming
  process” and adjust. Now while I jest in saying that there have not
  been any SUVs found in the fossil records or any industrial production
  plants found in the rock strata and because CO2 and methane are
  “greenhouse gasses”..., if we were to accept our “greenie”
  friends’ stories about this, we all should blame the last episode of
  global warming on dinosaur respiration and flatulence. However, I
  digress. So if a warming period has been a historical pattern,
  shouldn’t we be expecting one about right now, man-made CO2 or not? Why
  tell the world a lie to cover up the fact?

  
  4. Non-solar / non-earth induced changes – to this point, no
  extra-solar sources of energy are known to affect earth’s climate
  significantly. This possibility is left open since that area of science
  has not been fully developed.

  Now there is one final nail to put in the coffin of “man-made global
  warming”, it is the testimony of the NASA quote found above on Mars’
  southern polar cap. If one reads carefully, we find that “global
  warming” produces the CO2, not CO2 being the cause of “global
  warming”.  This would say that as the natural events of the Earth’s
  eccentric orbit around the sun, its tilt that caused more sunlight to
  hit the polar caps longer, etc. reached the appropriate point and with
  some slight contribution from the sun as well, we would see that the
  glacier meltdown would release the entrapped CO2 into the atmosphere
  just as everyone is measuring. We also know that increasing the
  temperature on Earth creates not only respiratory increase in animals
  but causes other biological & chemical processes to accelerate as
  well.

  So, the conclusion is that “global warming” (and cooling) episodes have
  occurred in the past and we have been able to establish a regular
  pattern of these events. None of these events required man’s
  participation in any form. We also noted, based on these sources, the
  Earth is due for another major one right about now without man’s help
  with “greenhouse gasses.” We have also been able to discover vastly
  more plausible reasons for some sort of global warming based on natural
  phenomena rather than greenhouse gas production by man.

  Now a “global warming” story doesn’t have to be bleak… We have history
  of the Norse settling in Greenland just prior to the year 1000, the top
  of a warming peak that occurred and melted off the glaciers is shown in
  Figure 2 of the EPA page listed above and history also records that the
  Norse population of Greenland disappears right about the time of the
  beginning of the “little ice age” in the late 1400’s. The period lasted
  a bit longer than 500 years and made a land that was covered with
  glaciers usable for a while.

  http://www.greenland-guide.gl/leif2000/history.htm
  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

  What is abundantly clear is that proponents of “man-made global
  warming” are gambling.  There is a mad rush to make money, attain power, etc. on something
  that occurs naturally by becoming  “carbon credit czars” and such
  things. Politicians want to make it part of their campaigns to do
  something about global warming and it’s the perfect scam because they
  won’t have to lift a finger because there’s nothing for them to do.
  This seems to be all too much like a “geo-political operation” given
  larger political bodies are participating as well. Perhaps the most
  dangerous thing about man-made global warming is the people who intend it to
  deceive and use it to acquire wealth and power from it.

  So the answer is before us. There is some potential truth to “global
  warming” yet it is also a hoax depending on what you are looking at. 
  Mr.Vee

  • 12:23 am
  • 5 Comments