Global Warming or Solar Warming?
Global Warming Theory is Just That, an Unproven Theory Relying on Wild Assumptions
I wrote an essay on this topic six years ago entitled "If You Can't Stand the Heat, Don't Blame Global Warming." In this paper published by the Independence Institute, I warned that wild assumptions were fueling the theory that human energy consumption was causing measured but slight increases in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature.
The worst wild assumption, I argued, is "that the modern Earth is a steady state, unchanging planet receiving a constant, invariable amount of heat from the sun."
The Earth has been warming since the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age about 18,000 years ago, and there's nothing to indicate that 130 years of Industrial Man has accelerated the warming trend. In fact, geocraft.com says we're more likely to start experiencing a cooling trend leading to another Ice Age in about 2,000 to 10,000 years.
As recently as 1715, Europe was experiencing a mini-Ice Age caused by a decrease in sunspots and total solar output. Peaking between 1645 and 1715, the Maunder Minimum caused glaciers to move southward, rivers to freeze more frequently and longer, and many reported crop failures.
Gary Rottman, a senior research associate at the Boulder-based Laboratory for Atmospheric Science and Physics, speculated in 2000 that the sun's visible spectrum output may have decreased by only .03 percent during the Maunder Minimum, but that was enough to cause dramatic climate change on Earth.
The sun's measurable output has increased by .01 percent since accurate measurements began in 1978, Rottman said.
According to one research organization, the warming trend on Earth ended in 1998. The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reports that for the years 1998-2005, the global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
So what's all the fuss really about? A measurable increase in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature of .4 to .8 degrees Centigrade was observed between 1978 and 1998, relying on satellite measurements.
But, according to space.com, Mars also appears to be coming out of an Ice Age and is slowly warming. Now, there aren't any humans or industry on Mars, so it's going to be pretty hard to blame humans for Mars' apparently shrinking polar ice caps.
And that's the point. Planets change, even when there is no life at all on them. Sheets of ice form and recede; continents shift; ice caps grow and shrink; oceans grow and recede; atmospheric temperatures range from tropical to Ice Age. And all of these things occurred on Earth long before man evolved or industry began.
Scientists who are more environmentalists than objective researchers claim their computer models give them the godlike power to separate and discern natural climate change from "anthropogenic," or human-caused, climate change. I say hogwash. There's no computer model complex enough to take into account all factors that make up Earth's biosphere.
OK, let's say you're still not convinced and you want to do something to make sure the Earth does not become unbearably hot. Rather than agitating for laws, regulations and treaties like the Kyoto Accord, there is something much more effective you can do to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions: become a vegetarian, or at least stop eating red meat.
Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, conducted a study showing the vegetarian diet to be the most energy efficient, and therefore non-polluting, followed by a generally omnivorous American-style diet emphasizing poultry and fish, reported ABC News in April.
Besides that, cows and pigs are flatulent. They produce methane. Who's to say that global warming, if it's not natural, isn't caused by methane-producing bovines and porcines, raised in huge numbers planet-wide by humans?
Published by Ron Bain
I am an award-winning newspaper and radio reporter and editor, a freelance magazine writer, a 34-year vegetarian, a 20-year divorcee, an above-average bowler and a libertarian political activist. View profile
Global Warming or Not Things Are a ChangingDebate is health on any subject. If you chose to debate global warming perhaps you could use some new ammunition. - Phil Jones - Global Warming Science Not Settled After AllProfessor Phil Jones, a global warming advocate whose observations has fueled world-wide efforts to curb carbon emissions, has made a number of startling admissions that will surely undermine the entire issue of clima...
- Is Human-induced Global Warming an Imminent Threat?Despite the "consensus," the so-called evidence of global warming doesn't really add up. Remember--a consensus (especially a so-called one) is not proof of anything.
- The Global Warming HoaxGlobal warming is considered a great and pressing problem in the world today. Many politicians preach on the dangers of fossil fuels and how we must alter our activities to 'suite' the planet.
- Astonishing Climate Assumptions About Global WarmingGlobal warming advances still being affected by reports of global cooling
- Global Warming: How to Think Sensibly
- The Inconvenient Truth Behind Global Cooling, Global Dimming and Global Warming Ma...
- The Political Pseudoscience of Global Warming
- The Global Warming Issue: The National Association of Evangelicals Adopt a Do-Noth...
- Global Warming: Based Upon Six Degrees Could Change the World
- Global Warming or Global Cooling?
- Hot Air Study Disputes Global Warming Theory
- "If You Can't Stand the Heat, Don't Blame Global Warming." Published August 2000 by the Independence Institute: www.i2i.org/articles/8-2000.PDF
- Global warming theory is based on several wild assumptions
- Mars is getting warmer and its polar ice caps are shrinking
- Vegetarianism would reduce human energy consumption
12 Comments
Post a CommentUniversity of East Anglia leaked emails of scientists (Paid) admitting to lies. People are getting paid to sell carbon credits? who gave them those tangible goods. Follow the $
www.lemonparty.com
Case and point.
Only a mean spirited, party pooper would bring up facts and arguments which incontravertably disprove the Global Warming myth. Shame on you! LOL
Global warming on Mars?
. . . . Astronomy prof - Oct 2005
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data. etc
Why should anyone believe scientists who say the earth is going to be hotter in 50 yrs when they can't even reliably predict the weather 2 weeks out? It is obvious that weather is much more complex than anyone can fathom! Computer models are only as good as the data fed into it. If all the variables aren't taken into account, then the program is worthless. What is the sun doing? It seems incredible that the single greatest source of heat in the solar system is not also taken into account co cerning GW. Having lived in El Paso 59 yrs ago it's still no hotter there now than it was then. You can still fry an egg on the sidewalk in July!
I believe that neither side in the political spectrum are seeing the whole picture. Global warming and cooling are a part of natural trends. In areas of dense population, sure, the human factor is bound to play a roll. They need to study which areas are being affected the most by which factor and create game plans from the standpoint that both natural and human factors are involved. California is going to have a much higher human factor than Montana for instance. You can't possibly treat both areas with the same "medicine". It won't work and will be a waste of time and the tax payer's dollars. I'd like to see some brave political soul stand up and recognize that there is no one right answer to issue. Are we trying to slow it down or are we trying to come up with solutions to what we'll do when the oceans rise and reduce the land along the coastal areas? Slowing it down is a great idea, but nature will have its way regardless and problems will persist. I'd like to see the poli
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Check out above article.
See the Vostok Ice Core graph in the Newshour piece on Greenland (link in preceding post). Temp & CO2 have been oscillating with nearly the same amplitude and period for at least the last 600,000 years. Approximately every 100,000 years both Temp & CO2 rise together and at approximately the same rate. Current levels appear to be in line with this past history. Makes one question how much man is driving warming vesus being caught up in a long-standing astrophysical cycle. Are both Temp & CO2 dependent variables? What is the independent variable with the ~100,000 yr period? Sun activity? Planetary position? .....
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec09/greenland_10-19.html
These views have long been held by different scientists...perhaps the best known is David Bellamy whose real field is Botany but who was famous for many tv programmes about the environment..since his anti global warming views were aired he has been noticeably absent from our screens being "frozen" out by the BBC...Western Governments have fostered the belief in man made global warming when they realised it was a potential cash cow in the form of environmental taxation....hypocrites all!!!