Global Warming? I think rather Global BS

Oppsie!!

 

There is an interview in the latest Discover Magazine with a dude who says that the Sun has a lot to do with the Earth's climate.

Something about the Gamma Rays and how they affect the Earth's production of clouds. The less clouds produced, which is in correlation to more gamma rays the Sun spits out, the warmer the Earth will be.

Less gamma rays means the ability for the Earth to generate more clouds, hence a reduction in the overall mean temperature.

I think Global Warming has yet to have found one single culprit. But I'm betting Mother Nature has more to do with it than mere humans. We may be a contributor, but my guess is, Mother Nature considers us the "peanut gallery".

My two nuts worth. Don't seem big, until you think about them.

 

To add to this...

Extend your arms out parallel to the ground. Have another human run a finger nail file down the most extended finger (more than likely the middle finger) once.

Your arms outstretched represents the life of Earth.

When you run the file down the nail of the finger only once, you have completely obliterated ALL human history on Earth.

Now, consider that.....think about that.

Yea, we may contribute to some global warming, but to Earth it doesn't matter. Earth doesn't care if we are here or not.

We have evidence of Ice Ages and such, so I'm sure there were Heat Ages.

Most everything has a balance. At times it goes from one extreme to another, but comes back to the average.

Are you aware that the Magnetic Field is now in a transition that sometime later the North Pole, by a compass, will become the South Pole?

It has been proven that the Magnetic Field switches over time...North becomes South, then switches, then switches....

Funny how humans think they are so great that they will actually change the Earth. We may eliminate OURSELVES, but the Earth will still be turning when we are gone, and other life forms will remain.

Get over the thoughts that humans are THE life form above all others. We are not. Mother Nature will see to that. That is a guarantee.

Just ask the dinosaurs....oh, wait.....

 

If you ask me, "global warming" is misleading and about the most horrible way to describe the problem. We have a nasty habit of generalizing things that really need more explanation. Over the past 5 years, it seems things are getting colder. The warm season has lasted about as late as it has in the year, but it's staying colder later into the new year then years past.

A fella over at AccuWeather named Joe Bastardi posted his thoughts about global warming. He sums my feelings up very well. Since this is behind a login at AccuWeather, I'll copy/paste his post here.


---------------------
Consider the volumes of research coming out on what could be considered obvious, the stronger the radiation from the sun, the more the effect on anything that receives its radiation.

I will state my point right off. People are concerned that 50 years from now it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it's cold and getting colder. Interestingly enough, in the realm of energy, the end game may be the same; it's worth our while to make sure we are energy sufficient, since in my world, it's cold enough for much greater demand than now.

So right off the bat, you can see I am not anti-environment, or for that matter anti-message as far as energy dependance, okay.

But let's just suppose the sun is, if not the big driver, a big player. Not so hard to imagine, is it?

Each one of Bill Gray's warming cycles, which he was talking about when people were ice aging us (like I am now, except it's warm and I am trying to be the herald of colder times and climes) was met by a cooling cycle, an adjustment, before it resumed again. The earth would fight back, establish a new equilibrium, then resume the upward turn. The human-induced global warming idea is that it is human activity that causes this. Since there seems to be a relationship, that is certainly a plausible theory; however, the pulsing of the sun has never been stronger than we have measured it in the means over the last 50 years, and the increase in the amount of incoming radiation to the black body that is Earth has to have some effect.

The interesting thing is that newer, more sophisticated ways of measuring such things render previous measurements not so much useless, but different enough that one cannot say we have enough of the same database to make conclusions. So it's dueling theories. The problem with my theory is that it is in a way more frightening. You see the warmer it gets, the tougher it is to get warmer. There will always be a certain set point in a system and unless the amounts of water and land change, it will try to get back to that set point. The oscillations of water temperatures can distort feedback from the earth as I believe we are seeing now and the dance between the tropics and non-tropical areas as far as the weather goes is something that one can see in the 30s through the 50s, but at least to me disappears in the 60s through the 80s, or when the Pacific is in its warmer cycle, the Atlantic cooler.

But here is why I am concerned. The extremes of the weather we are seeing now, biased warm worldwide, but still memorable for extremes in the cold (example, while winter slept in Jan. of '06 here it was nasty in Asia, which is a far larger continent) are not evidence that there is global cooling, but that there is a fight taking place. It's not a rout. The Earth is trying to adjust and fight back.

Now suppose, as Bill Gray shows in his work, and many others do, we have a downturn occuring out of this cycle. If that downturn occurs and as some of the scientists that make their careers out of studying solar activity think, the suns pulse weakens, then you have a real problem. Think of it this way. Suppose Vince Young did not play in the national championship game a couple of years ago. I doubt the result would have been the same. Take out the major player, and the rout goes the other way. So the adjustment starts the global temperature down in a way that if there is a decrease in radiation, it continues down, and the warming cycle that would occur is a bump in the road.

Now, I want you to know the weakness in this argument is the same one that I am critical of for many in their assigning one reason and one cause for the recent (in terms of the earth's history) developments. But one has to understand that the force feeding of any idea with so many variables in a system is counter to methods long established to prove or disprove theories. Even more substantial, we have seen examples in nonscientific realms of what kind of agony and chaos this can lead to.

Remember though, in the end, the goal may be the same, for if this idea is right, it would still force our hand as far as developing ways of being self-dependent for energy. This is one thing I absolutely have in common with the goals in the longer term. The other thing I have in common: well many of the bold pronouncements today by people who are trying to push the other argument will come to term when these people are no longer here. I suspect it's my kids and their kids who will know if I was right or wrong about this. It is something that like the study of nature requires finite minds searching to explain the infinite, an inherently impossible task, but as Browning has said, involves "A man's reach exceeding his grasp."

Or what's a heaven for, right?