Monday, May 07, 2007

Global Warming Truth Part 2

Ok, so if our car and Rosey's breath is not causing Global Warming, what is?

Glad you ask. Mainly, the sun. The earth's temperature is constantly rising and falling, always has. No time in our history has it stayed steady for long. The major error with some scientist today is they see a rise and assume that it will continue to rise. In the 70's, we heard “Global Cooling”. If you bring this up, the Warming crowd will tell you that the scientist never said that and it was just media. Wrong. Some scientist were playing around with the idea of INCREASING CO2 and other gases to raise the temperature in a feeble attempt to “save the planet”. The reason is, around the late 1800's the temperature started to rise and continued till 1940. The early 1940's was a period of a booming industry, due to the war. Lots of new plants, spewing CO2 in the air. But, temperature took a southernly turn and we cooled slightly. This continued till the mid 70's. Scientist erred in assumed that it would continue to cool. It started to warm and has continued since. Now scientist, not all, but some, say that it will continue to warm. They are right. I think it will warm till around 2011 to 2022. More on this later.

The problem is computer models. We are relying on something that could be made to say anything, either by miscalculations or more devious reasons. There is an old computer acronym that is not used much anymore that fits well here. GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out.). Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader at NASA, said “Climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and they have hundred's of assumptions. All it takes is for one of these assumptions to be wrong, for the forecast to be way off.”

I think Dr. Spencer is being nice. I think some of these models are manipulated to say what the author wants. There was a computer model that measured the ice at in the polar regions that was recently revised because they discovered the findings to be off. The difference would seemingly support the global warming crowd, but what they really should be looking at is the computer model itself and note how unreliable they really are. You could literally make a computer model say we will burst into flames within the next week and freeze a week after that.

Now, to answer the “burning” question, “why are we heating up?” I was asked recently if I really thought that man had nothing to do with global warming. I wonder sometimes how people can go outside and look at something as powerful as the sun, then say we did something to change temperature. I have jested with some and blamed sun spots, except I was not really kidding. In the next few paragraphs, I will lay out what I believe makes the most sense as to what is warming our planet (as it is Mars and Venus, which we currently don't occupy, although I hear that there is plans for a Wal-Mart on Mars).

In the early 20th century, scientist discovered that the earth is constantly bombarded by sub atomic particles, or cosmic rays, originating from a distant super nova's demise.

Particles meet water vapor to make water droplets, which in turn, create clouds. When the sun is more active, “solar winds”, created by the sun's activity, make it harder for particles to get through. Therefore, fewer clouds are formed, and we are hotter. More clouds, the cooler we are. Less clouds, the hotter we are.

When you compare particle activity and temperature, you find that when there is more particles, creating more clouds, the temperature falls. When there is less particles, causing less clouds, the temperature goes up.

Climate is controlled by the clouds, clouds are controlled by the particles, or cosmic rays, cosmic rays are controlled by the sun.

This brings me to my 2011-2022 prediction. The good people at NOAA reported that around 2011, solar activity should decrease. If that is the case, then according to what I just stated, the global temperature should go down or start to decline by 2022 and level off as early as 2011. No doubt, the followers of the right reverend Al Gore, will claim that their efforts are finally paying off. Denial is not just another river Kerry wasn't in on Christmas '68.

They already changed the F scale for tornado's. What was an F3 is now an F5. We recently had an F5 on the new scale hit Greensburg, KS. Fox News reported that experts say the wind was around 205 mph. Now on the new scale, that is an F5, or properly reported, an EF5. It was bad, but where would it land on the old scale? Considering that there may be a margin of error on the method the “experts” used to calculate the speed is +/-5 mph, that puts the tornado a strong F3 or a weak F4, as it is right on the line. Meteorologist should include the 'E' but mark my word, someone will try to link these “F5's” to the “stronger” storms they have been promising because of Global Warming.


To be Continued.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous belched...

FYI, the F-scale designations are based on damage not wind speed estimates. The wind speed estimates on the old scale were just estimates based on the scale. Today, with the new scale, they try to estimate the top wind speeds where before they said "leveled home, clean foundation = F5". They don't really know the wind speeds although with better radar technology they have an idea of how strong these things can get and thus the new scale is a better attempt to link damage to actual wind speeds.

The Greensburg tornado almost certainly would have been an F5 on the old scale based on the damage. From what I have read a well built brick school was levelled and some homes were cleaned off their foundations which is classic damage worthy of the old F5 designation (although some have claimed it might have gotten a high end F4 in the old scale).

The key to point out, however, is that it has been eight years since an F5 (or EF-5 in this case) has hit the United States, one of the longest droughts in history. They tended in the past to happen every few years. Less so recently.

We won't really know until several years pass whether the systems judge tornadoes differently. My guess based on early returns is that they are similar enough to be comparable. Fact is, we document more tornadoes today than we ever have thanks to the chase culture. Everything is on film. 30 years ago that simply wasn't the case ...

Not that I would wish another Super Outbreak on the world but I would love to have known how many tornadoes would have been documented if we had what we have today back in 1974 when it happened. It would be easier then to say well we SEE 20% more tornadoes today. As it is better data today is yielding MORE and better results ... and that is a good thing and not from what I can tell politically motivated (although I have no doubt folks will twist the information for their own gain)

Peace

1:41 PM  
Blogger MeOfCourse77 belched...

Don't buy into the lie. Damage withstanding, this would have been a weak F4. Wind speed is what most people relate to. If wind speed does not govern the F#, then it should be based solely on damage, which would have made it an F5. I think NOAA is trying to trying to set a standard and it may need a little tweaking.

I am not against the change, I just fear that some will use it for political BS. As in your last point, much more needs to be studied before we jump to any conclusions.

1:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

[ View Guestbook ] [ Sign Guestbook ]
Get a FREE guestbook here!
+
Click Here