As of Wednesday, March 11, 2015
by Mark Gibson
I will leave it to the science community to defend the theory, but the simple explanation is this: Most energy from the sun is emitted in very short wavelengths (4,000 nanometers). It is absorbed and released by the earth in longer wavelengths.
Carbon burned and released into the atmosphere combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, which absorbs the longer wavelengths being released by the earth.
This heat is then released in all directions, and in doing so creates a “greenhouse” warming effect.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased since the industrial revolution.
Carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants, and the destruction of forests and farmland have also impacted the buildup of this gas.
Early models predicted melting glaciers, rising sea levels and more extreme weather patterns. As the climate changes, weather patterns shift between greater, more erratic extremes.
So far, predictions have played out as expected. Indeed, those developing predictive models appear to have erred on the side of caution: The impacts of global warming are being felt sooner, and with greater intensity, than was expected.
It's a scary thing.
Here on the east side of the Cascade Range, we are likely to see increased drought, and increased flooding as well. Our mountains will receive — are receiving — less snow. This will impact not just our water supplies, but our mountain creeks and rivers as well.
Yes, we've always had drought east of the mountains.
I well remember seeing the carcasses of cattle scattered over the fields as a boy: Cow-shaped, leather-wrapped bones. Drought, prolonged and more extreme due to climate change, is frightening to contemplate.
A lot has been done to reduce emissions: Our automobiles release far fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. New coal plants generate less carbon as well. Efforts are being made to identify solutions.
Here in Oregon we have mandated increased use of ethanol in gasoline.
It burns cleaner, but I personally find the idea of burning our food crops obscene. Our need for electricity and fuel seems to have overridden all other considerations. I question Oregon's “feel good” approach.
Industrial sources of carbon have far greater impact, but the difficulties of obtaining meaningful reductions in the US are huge.
The world? It seems near impossible. Reduced emissions, energy conservation and efficiency, plastic recycling, research into cleaner fuel sources and technologies all have potential in addressing this critical issue.
by RaeLynn Ricarte
Let’s play the “What if?” game for just a moment. It goes like this:
What if the fear spawned by threats of manmade global warming and a looming climate apocalypse was being used as a tool to get people to agreeably give up their liberties?
What if a crack in the lies of global warming alarmists began to fissure after nearly 15 years of no warming so a report was conveniently issued by two government agencies declaring 2014 the hottest year on record — even though the data was disputed by a number of climate scientists?
What if actual temperature data didn’t cooperate with the party line that mankind is ruining the planet with its addiction to fossil fuels — four of the hottest years on record in the U.S. were in the 1930s when there were a negligible number of vehicles and carbon emissions — but critics were attacked to make the issue one of emotion?
Who would make up such a dastardly lie, you ask? Try the United Naton’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others.
By regulating how humans affect the environment, a global network of governments could control virtually every activity.
Who gains from this? The elites who stand to grab power from this control. There is big money to be made when you can control the way people live, eat, learn, move and communicate.
As an example, the global carbon market requires corporations to buy permits to emit greenhouse gases. Reuters financial analysts estimated the 2014 market was worth around $87 billion.
Former vice-president Al Gore, the leading advocate in the U.S. for more regulatory policies to stop global warming, is now estimated by ABC News to be worth $100 million, up from $1 million during his time in office.
The truth is that wind and solar alone will never be able to power an industrial economy. Yet, environmentalists who have believed the lies are closing down conventional producers before a way has been found to bridge that gap — so expect your utility bills to soar at some point in the future, even if the temperatures don’t.
In 2007, the BBC reported that the Arctic, due to global warming, would be ice-free by summer of 2013. Instead, the Arctic ice cap grew by a whopping 60 percent.
There have always been cyclical changes in the weather, as shown by researchers with the multinational European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica and ongoing investigations by the Russian Vostok Station in Antarctica.
These scientists report finding extended periods of temperatures between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago that exceeded by 2 to 3 degrees elsius our present temperatures.