New Global warming evidence


Sometimes it’s really hard to come up with ideas for a weekly column, but just when you wonder what, you do a simple web search. The first article on global warming that came up grabbed my attention. It's what this site is about. The headlines read:

 

New global warming evidence presented

Scientists say their observations prove industry is to blame

This headline from the San Francisco Chronicle grabbed my attention. I desperately wanted to see this new evidence on global warming. Maybe this was going to be the article to turn me around and pull me on board the global warming express.

The headline's suggested evidence was that someone saw ice melting in the arctic. Someone saw plankton (algae) growing farther north. The ocean temperatures in the arctic are warmer. That’s all scientific proof and fact. No one on the planet is disputing any of this as for as I know.

Pretty much the only thing in dispute is if global warming is man made and if it will continue. The headline says, “Scientists say their observations prove industry is to blame.” The article itself does not say that at all. The article says only that industry was in part the blame.

“Scientists reported Friday they have detected the clearest evidence yet that global warming is real -- and that human industrial activity is largely responsible for it.”

Farther down in the article it talks about how the salinity of the ice in the upper layers of ice has been reduced. This points us back to ocean salinity. Some scientist suggest that there is X amount of salt in the oceans. When temperatures drop and the ocean freezes, the salt is forced out of the ice and is stored in deposits within the ice. As that sea ice melts that salt is returned to the ocean.

“What about snow and ice packs?” You ask. That is water that was at some point evaporated from the ocean. So if most of the rainfall/snow came from the ocean, then the salt remains since it never evaporates. Only 2.7% of the water on Earth is fresh water. That’s only a drop in the bucket compared to the oceans.

Also, there are large deposits of salt on dry land. If the arctic does melt and floods these lands that were once seas, that salt will once more be returned to the oceans. In effect, some scientist say the salinity of the oceans do vary, but should never cause some catastrophic affect.

nams420.jpg

The Salt Flats are the remnants of an ancient, shallow lake that once occupied this area during the Pleistocene Epoch, approximately 1.8 million years ago. As you can see that much of the USA was under a sea at some point. If, when the oceans reclaims the land, then the salt will once again return to the ocean. In just one dry salt lake bed there can be a trillions of tons of salt.

“Those plants thrive in warmer waters and require higher-than-normal levels of carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- to reproduce”, Smith said.

Some scientists say that the higher concentrations of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere are a result of global warming and not the direct cause. Those ice cores the global alarmists like to use as evidence tells us that with warming a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows. Notice the word “Follows”. They do not say the rise in carbon dioxide precedes the warming.

Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography said, "The debate is over, at least for rational people. And for those who insist that the uncertainties remain too great, their argument is no longer tenable. We've nailed it."

When I see the above statement in any article, for me it looses any validation. I will repeat once more, if the debate were over, I wouldn’t be writing this article. That article was written in 2005 and the debate is still raging, and louder than ever.
Comments