Saturday, April 08, 2006

So much for Kyoto Treaty logic....

Air trends 'amplifying' warming
By Richard Black, Environment Correspondent, BBC News

Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.

Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface.

Other studies show that increased water vapour in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

DOH! Now just what does all this new scientific bunk say about the Kyoto Treaty that has been shoved down the US's throat for years? That scientists truly know not of what they speak. Hey.... these research results provide a better case for increased air pollution as protection! Now don't that just rattle trees everywhere.

Then again, just as they could have jumped to the wrong conclusions as the foundation for Kyoto, this little ditty could carry as much (or as little) merit as well. Afterall, what the heck does man really know anyway, right?

Between the 1950s and 1980s, the amount of solar energy penetrating through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface appeared to be declining, by about 2% per decade.

This trend received some publicity under the term "global dimming".

But in the 1980s, it appears to have reversed, according to two papers published last year in the journal Science.


The reversal of "global dimming" has been proposed in some circles as an alternative explanation for climatic change, removing the need to invoke human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Dr Wild dismissed this picture. His analysis suggests that "global dimming" and the man-made greenhouse effect may have cancelled each other out until the early 1980s, but now "global brightening" is adding to the impact of human greenhouse emissions.

"There is always this argument that maybe the whole temperature rise wasn't due to greenhouse warming but due to solar variations," he told the BBC News website.

Now there's a sentence that won't win any popularity contests for Dr. Wild amongst activists... "maybe the whole temperature rise wasn't due to greenhouse warming, but due to solar variations."

Summarily, Dr. Wild's theory revolves around the notion that most of the climate impact results are due to increased moisture vapor, resulting from the solar variations. Whether increased moisture or solar variations, it's safe to say that it's not looking good for the enviro-wackos' case accusing evil mankind for all the climatic changes Mother Nature is evoking.

And speaking of those assaulting mankind for it all, someone ought to make a call to the day late and vote short, Al Gore and bring him up to snuff on the issues before he makes even more a fool of himself.

As a U.S. senator, Gore gave global warming talks 15 years ago in Washington that relied almost entirely on scientists' best guesses and computer models.

Now bolstered by real climate changes, he has gone Hollywood, with movies of collapsing ice shelves, then-and-now shots of vanishing glaciers and lakes, telegenic photos of dwindling wildlife species — plus floods, tornadoes and, of course, hurricanes.

"We have been blind to the fact that the human species is now having a crushing impact on the ecological system of the planet," Gore said.


"This is the first foretaste of a cup that will be offered to us again and again and again until we regain our moral authority," Gore told members of Ceres, an organization of companies, investors and environmentalists pressing for greener behavior by corporations.

Boy did we dodge a bullet in the 2000 elections.... woof.

1 comment:

Spc. Freeman said...

Modern environmental theory bases its research methods on several concepts derived from theoretical mathematics. Often referred to as "chaos math" or "chaos theory," this relatively new academic discipline has yielded significant advances in our ability to examine and interpret the behavior of complex systems, such as Earth's ecosystems and weather patterns.

One of these concepts is called "homeostasis." Homeostasis rests on the idea that existing ecosystems serve, through natural processes such as plant aspiration, to maintain conditions necessary to make Earth a hospitable place for life. A great example is the way that fossil records show us that early photosynthetic life forms, over tens of millions of years, stripped the carbon gases from our atmosphere and bonded them to their own cellular structures. As these organisms died, they sank to the ocean floor, and the carbon from their decaying shells bonded with the local sediment under years of pressure. Thus, early processes of life served to pave the way for the emergence of new life on Earth, namely terrestrial vertebrates.

However, homeostatic behavior works both ways. If some new factor is introduced into an ecosystem, in a strong enough concentration, the potential for that homoeostasis to tip past an entropic threshold increases.
Solar energy is a necessary component of global warming. Global warming creates the potential for climate entropy. A great example of extreme climate entropy is our neighboring planet, Venus. Studies show us that, over billions of years, Venus' high-carbon atmosphere, compounded by steady volcanic activity and assisted by the intense doses of solar radiation provided by Venus's closer proximity to the sun, turned what was once very likely a more temperate world into one where the surface temperature exceeds that necessary to melt lead.

Obviously, the likelihood of that happening on our own world is next to nil, at least for the next few million years. However, it's important to note that water traps energy more efficiently than dry air. Ergo, changing patterns of warm-air currents serve to work against us in our attempts to reduce emissions. This should not be taken as a sign that global warming is by any means a dubious threat. Indeed, the science behind global warming theory amounts to literally thousands and thousands of pages of peer-reviewed academic work, much of which is ruthlessly dissected and, if necessary, discarded based on observed flaws in study methodology. I'd have to see more on the study, but until there is more science to support it, I'm willing to bet that such a study will later be discredited. "Massaged data," and what have you.

Though I think the Earth is more than capable of restoring its own natural balances without our help, I still believe, based on the great deal of literature I've read on the subject, that global warming is, indeed, a significant problem for us and our society. Let us not forget that, prior to about 10,000 years ago, when human populations first exploded, the deserts of Saudi Arabia were, in fact, a massive temperate zone, hosting more cedar forest than the entire Pacific Northwest. Also, at the current emission rates, the most likely effects we are likely to witness are not so much manifested in a raising of the median global temperature average, but rather a dramatic shift in global weather patterns. Truthfully, the biggest risk, it seems, is to our coastal cities. Remember New Orleans?

The information suggests that we are, in fact, having a negative impact on our planet, and while this is by no means an indictment of industry or technology, I think it's important that we search for solutions NOW, rather than simply grasp at scraps of conflicting information that reinforce our beliefs that the "salad days" of our culture aren't going away just yet. Admitting there's a problem, even if one has difficulty arriving solutions, is always better than pretending there's no problem at all.

I'm seeing a lot of people these days plugging their ears and humming loudly so as not to hear.