As Old Man Winter prepares to loosen his frigid grip on the nation once again to make way for spring, right-wing skeptics of global warming seize on some record cold temperatures and heavier-than-normal snowfall this winter to dispute what reputable scientists and thoughtful humans accept as fact.
Global warming is real, but conservatives ~ who are always the last to grasp any new or advanced thought ~ once again do not accept reality. Their claim that a few record-low temperatures and heavy snowfall disprove global-warming findings doesn't hold up to basic scientific fact and balanced reasoning.
The web site Center for American Progress devoted a February newsletter to this controversy. It said:
"Earlier this month (February), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report that confirmed and refined what scientists already knew: The recent global warming trend is real, it is caused primarily by human activities, and we can expect further dangerous warming of a few degrees if we don't reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Despite the very high level of confidence that the IPCC placed on this assertion, climate skeptics refuse to allow themselves to be convinced by the facts. Global warming deniers ~ desperate for any information that might contravene the science ~ have latched onto this month's colder-than-normal temperatures that have gripped much of the United States, particularly the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. In a recent headline, the Drudge Report joked, 'Hearing on 'warming of planet' canceled because of ice storm.' Many on the right have cited the joke as actual proof that climate change isn't occurring. The right-wing publication Newsmax.com referenced the headline to claim global warming is part of the 'current media fed hysteria'."
To understanding global warming without being confused by hard-to-understand scientific jargon, thinking is required. And we will look at global warming with only a little scientific background getting in the way, and using knowledge gleaned by the experience of working in electronic intelligence, where instruction in electronic-communication transmission is part of standard training.
It's obvious to knowledgeable people that colder temperatures and heavier snowfall PROVE global warming is real. That concept is impossible for a conservative mind to understand, but it is so.
To understand that proof one needs to know why a radio signal can be received several miles farther from the transmission site than can a TV signal.
The ionosphere is the cause. The ionosphere is a duo-layered crust of particles several miles thick holding the atmosphere in place. Without it, our atmosphere could drift into space to be replaced by absolute-zero temperatures. The ionosphere is why meteorites or spent space ships are burned to a crisp by friction when they enter earth's atmosphere.
The reason that a radio signal travels much farther than a TV signal is that the radio signal is much weaker than the TV signal.
The logic of the TV-radio conundrum is: The strong TV signal will penetrate the ionosphere at all angles and head off into space, so can only be received on TV sets on a line-of-sight basis. The weaker radio signal will penetrate the ionosphere when it hits head on but be deflected back to earth when it hits at an angle and can be received many miles farther away than the TV signal. It is deflected back to earth because it is too weak to penetrate the ionosphere at an angle. The process is like a rock skipping off the surface of a pond when thrown at a low point to create a severe angle away from perpendicular.
Now think of those signals as coming from the sun. Light is like the powerful TV signal and will penetrate the ionosphere everywhere with no problem other than a slight refraction in northern and southern locales. Heat from the sun is like the weak radio signal and most will be deflected by the ionosphere when it hits at a sharp angle, such as in winter.
As we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the rigidity of the ionosphere is increased so that it deflects more heat than previously when heat hits at a sharp angle, resulting in colder temperatures, while allowing all heat into the atmosphere when coming head on, then trapping the heat beneath the strengthened upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Between the two extremes will be a gradual change in the amounts of heat allowed past the ionosphere. Because cold air is heavier than warm air, warmth is blocked from moving into cold areas. And the coldest air will sit at ground level, where temperatures are recorded, and won't pass over higher ground to invade warm area.
The same phenomena occur during winter in temperate regions, when a high-pressure system increases rigidity at, and just below, the ionosphere so that it deflects more heat-carrying rays; thus on bright sunny days in January the temperature is colder than it is during overcast low-pressure weather and why no one ever gets a suntan or sunburn in the dead of winter. When the high pressure dissipates, more heat is allowed to enter the atmosphere. High-pressure systems do not greatly affect heat entering the atmosphere during the summer since the rays carrying heat mainly hit the ionosphere head on.
Higher average temperatures will increase evaporation, making a more-humid atmosphere year round, and that added moisture is available for snowstorms; thus heavier snowfall is definitely caused by global warming just as are colder short-term winter temperatures. The heavier air resulting from the higher moisture content of the atmosphere also makes wind storms more destructive.
That is how global warming contributes to colder winter temperatures and heavier snowfall. It's completely logical because it's real, but so difficult for conservative "minds" to grasp that they get the conclusion totally backward.
We can now return to the Center for American Progress report, that uses scientific reasoning and language. It follows below:
*****************************************************
Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., and tries (without much success) to be patient with people who argue endlessly on subjects they have never studied. He is the author of "The Un-Americans: Trashing of the United States Constitution in the American Press", a critique of the mainstream media for ignorance of, or disdain for, our constitutional principles of self-government. He left newspaper work years ago, disgusted at the direction the Fourth Estate ~ under the mismanagement of ineffectual, out-of-touch, can't-do executives ~ was taking away from honest responsible journalism and the observation that there was no place in the mainstream media for a progressive, or liberal, constitutional "expert". Bonsell is an honors graduate of Woodbury College (Los Angeles, California) with a bachelor of business administration degree. He is profiled in Marquis Who's Who in America. (Self-portrait, above, was handled to make author/artist appear prettier than he actually is.)
Personal motto: Have brain; will use.
Climate change is real ttp://www.sugarcitycane.com
Climate change is real and fixing it is another matter. Nuclear power is not the answer I agree. On top of that the supply is limited. Does not make much sense spending all the money they do in building next generation nukplants for a limited supply. Of course there is the waste issue, although they could use the waste to make their own dirty nukbombs and strap them to missiles. To me that is not positive. Infact we should be working toward dismantling.
Al Gore made a good movie and an award, but fell very short in providing answers. I think that is why no one takes him serious, because those very people have no idea either.
I think I have the answer and nobody knows I exist. Anyone can go visit my website: http://www.sugarcitycane.com this is a remarkable plan, and I know it will work. Not only does it provide transportation fuel we also produce charcoal from the bagrasse. And the supply is not limited. It is safe clean energy that does not pollute the air, the ground water, or uses fertilizers and pesticides distributed on land.
It has no waste product. Also it will give Ethanol its own distinction in the market in not being connected to the other commodites that are grown to make ethanol. Starch grown from corn and cellulosic debris is more expensive to grow and process, forcing rising prices to food and building materials such as plywood. Sugarcane grown on land also has the same characterisitcs, in that it pollutes the land and water from fertilizer and pesticides, and the growing region is limited. Growing on land sugarcane is mainly used for sugar production and they burn the fields first causing air pollution in order to harvest the canes easier. Sugarcane only grows well in hot climates. Not many acres of hot regions in the USA.
People think I am crazy growing this on the ocean. How can growing on the ocean be less expensive than on land? Because although money is used to build the supporting Aquatic rafts, they last for many years. Sugarcane is planted one time every 5-7 years depending on the variety and strain. Hydroponic solution is piped to the site from land, or hard bricks are made and thrown into the aquatic rafts where it dissolves from the abundance of rainwater that falls on the equator. No hurricanes, cyclones, or typhoons, materialize. It is safer there than on the mainland. Just think no crop insurance.
The Ocean is my story. This plan would create millions of jobs. I should run for President! I don't because people like killing more than living.
Hope we see the light. Funny I have the idea but no exposure like Al Gore. The planet is getting hotter, and colder. But the cold is not where it should be. The Artic is melting, Mt. Everest Snow cap is melting, and we go on with a stupid war in Iraq for oil in order to burn more of it in wrecking our atmosphere. What a terrible set of circumstances we have. President Bush will be calling me someday, and that day is getting to be a bit to late, on his part.
I just hope people study this and realize that God made this planet a certain way, and it is up us to realize the potentials for its use in sustainability. Winning elections over limited supplies of energy while destroying the planet is no winner in my mind. They are big time losers.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 6:45:56 AM
Temperature Change Is Real, But A Human Cause For It, Is Not
Man-made global warming is one of those heavily hyped, yet politically motivated beliefs imposed on the public by all knowing "experts". Further investigation usually reveals these people to be political operatives, with no real knowledge of what they're talking about, and very large axes to grind. The warming and cooling of global temperatures is nothing new or unusual on earth. It also commonly occurs on Mars, with no human population to speak of! The common denominator for both worlds however is the sun, rather than man. When weighing whose activities the sun's or man's, are most likely the source of fluctuations in planetary temperatures, mankind rightfully pales into insignificance!
Whenever, opinions are given, especially those heralded as the highest knowledge on a particular topic, it's always wise to consider the source. Let's not forget that highly respected "experts" also assured us that: "Global Cooling" was a dire threat back in 1970's, Saddam had WMD's, and the WTC twin towers were most certainly destroyed by jet-fuel fires alone! Man-made global warming as well as the dangerous "cures" for this "problem" being proposed by these same all knowing "experts", are no more truthful, than the foregoing nonsense about "Global Cooling", Iraq, and 9/11!
by
Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 10:40:15 AM
This reply by acheh reminds me of the refusal fundamentalists have in accepting evolution because one person tried to pull a hoax several decades ago. Because of that one hoax, they dismiss all other evidence.
Acheh claims that those "experts" who cite human causes of warming are political operatives. The opposite is fact. Those who poo-poo warming alerts are paid spokesmen for energy, oil, mining interests and are paid to dispute warming. Those not on such payrolls, are usually minor figures with little standing in mainstream scientific community.
Acheh also cites several past instances to support this misdirection. Long ago, a few "experts" foresaw a "cooling" trend. What some saw decades ago has no bearing on the present, and those who claimed "cooling" was coming were a vast minority in the scientific community, not the overwhelming majority who are in agreement on mankind causing warming now.
Also cited was that "experts" thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction virtually everywhere in Iraq. That is false. "Experts" in Iraq, such as Hans Blix and Scott Ritter said just the opposite; any weapons Hussein had were destroyed by Iraq or by United Nations inspectors. Those of us who had years of experience in the United States intelligence community also know that the Bush administration that didn't have clear-cut evidence of those WMDs merely made up "intelligence" to say what it wanted to say.
It's been said that right-wingers do not want to know what science has to say about problems because they don't want to admit that there is a cost to address those problems.
by
tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 263 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 5:37:58 PM
The "man-made global warming" hoax, like the "global cooling", 9/11, and Iraq WMD hoaxes, merely shows that "leftwingers" and "progressives", can be just as dangerous as "rightwingers and fundamentalists"! Both the "left" and the "right" heads, of the two-headed monster, of controlled political activism, is used with equal effectiveness by the powerful foreign and domestic special interests, threatening freedom, and peace, around the world. There is no difference between "global cooling" and "global warming". Both are equally bogus, and represent politically motivated scare tactics, designed to push the so-called "globalist" agenda. It matters not whether these earnest attempts at scaring the public, are mounted by leftwingers or righterwingers, these factions essentially form, twin arms of a single political pincer, with which the unsuspecting public can be bamboozled, with equal effectiveness!
by
Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments)
on Monday, March 26, 2007 at 8:03:23 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
