AnFBoi212

What are you talking about?? increased solar radiation = less cosmic rays interacting with water? what? please explain quote> Cosmic rays are radiation that come from sources outside of our solar system. The theory behind cosmic rays and cloud formation is fairly involved but basically the rays interact with the atmosphere and produce aerosol particles which brings about cloud formation. I can give you links to articles that explain the process but it's been played around with in laboratories on a small scale under controlled conditions and basically this is the application on a global scale. With respect to what the solar cycle has to do with this is that clouds reflect the sun's heat before it reaches the earth's surface. If we have a cloudy summer - the temperature is colder for example. So the way this all relates is that the solar irradiance increases - the earth is basically being continuously bombarded by a steady flow much like a breeze (solar wind). When the sun is more active, we see solar eruptions and essentially what happens is the solar "wind" increases in its intensity and the particles from the sun strike the particles from foreign sources (the cosmic rays) and less reach the earth which means there is less cloud formation. Less cloud formation means more of the sun's energy hits the surface of the planet. The increased energy hitting the surface warms the surface - particularly in urbanized areas with a lot of concrete. It also hits the ocean which increases evaporation which increases water vapor which drives the greenhouse effect upwards so the temperature rises further. So basically there's nothing we can do to affect a changing climate. CO2 levels have been much higher historically when humans were not here to increase it or decrease it, and our miniscule contribution to the level of greenhouse gasses likely has very little effect on our actual climate. We're witnesses of a system much greater than we are that existed for billions of years before us and will continue whether we're here or not. So again - should we reduce our emissions of CO2? I don't really think it makes much difference one way or the other. My concern is that the amount of petroleum in the ground is finite. We will need it to manufacture plastics and composite materials long into the future. A world without these types of products would be a nightmare because if you think of how much we have even in our own homes that's plastic or derived from plastic, the loss of this stuff would be crippling to our society - so we need to conserve our planet's limited resources. Whereas using hydrogen which is a renuable resource - it's produced as fuel from water which our planet has plenty of, and when oxidized, it creates water. With regards to Japanese cars, while they are more efficient than say American SUVs, efficient cars that run on petroleum are sort of like bandaids, and while they can help tithe us over on the way to a better solution, they're still temporary. Ethanol is also a stop-gap solution as they're not really that clean, and they take more energy to produce than gasoline so they're a poor long-term solution.

If you examine the global warming model and what it claims (essentially that increased CO2 emissions made by humans creates what is essentially a "blanket" that catches the sun's heat as it reflects back off the surface of the earth), it's already been proven flawed by scientists who have taken temperature readings of the upper atmosphere both using satelite data and weather balloons. For the man-made global warming theory to be true, we should see the upper atmosphere warming at a faster rate than the surface temperature, but we see the opposite happening. The surface is warming more quickly than the atmosphere. The world is getting warmer, but the cause is the increased solar activity that control's the planet's temperature in the first place. Increased solar radiation results in less cloud formation (increased solar activity = decreased cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and interacting with water vapor), therefore more sunlight reaches the surface and this causes both land and water to "get hotter." In the case of the sun hitting the ocean, it causes more evaporation thereby increasing both the amount of water vapor in the air (water vapor of course being the principal greenhouse gas and being the main cause of atmospheric warming - NOT CO2), as well as increasing the amount of CO2 in the air (the majority of atmospheric CO2 naturally disolves into the ocean - but an increase in evaporation means that the ocean gives off CO2 rather than absorbing it). Also if one examines the charts and graphs of historical levels of atmospheric CO2 prior to the industrial revolution and compares them to the estimated temperatures prior to the industrial revolution on any chart/graph other than the "hockey stick" graph drawn by one man which is disputed by basically everyone else who's studied it's data, you find that changes in the levels of atmospheric CO2 generally lags behind the changes in average global temperature by several hundred years, not the other way around. CO2 makes up such a miniscule fraction of the atmosphere it's hardly going to be the cause of global warming. Further, the percentage of man-made CO2 as compared to the amount of CO2 produced naturally by everything from animals breathing and expelling natural gas, to leaves falling from trees and rotting in the fall, makes up only a small fraction of annual greenhouse gas emissions. What causes global warming and cooling is the sun - the most powerful force in our solar system. More powerful than us humans. If you compare sunspot graphs to temperature graphs from hundreds of years ago to today you find a much closer correlation between temperature and solar activity, than you do between CO2 levels and solar activity. Since nothing the planet does can affect the sun, it must obviously be happening the other way around. Unless you're Al Gore - and then solar activity's probably driven by CO2 levels as well - the sun turns up its thermostat to burn away CO2 maybe lol. In short, global warming is happening the same way it's happened for billions of years long before humans were around to "destroy the planet!!" :'( the sun goes the cycles of more and less activity, and the Earth is caught in the wash. Fairly simple really and neat and tidy too. I'm all for increased efficiency - it means I spend less $$$ at the gas pump. I'm also all for finding alternative fuel sources, though I prefer we skip ethanol and move towards hydrogen fuel cells since they'll be a cheaper source of fuel. It's less of a stop-gap solution the way the DVD is a stopgap solution on the road to globalized digital media. But I'm not in favor of taxing people for their carbon emissions. That's ridiculous and it will cripple the economy if everyone has to fork out a couple grand to pay for their emissions, and I have a problem with advocates like Al Gore sitting on the boards of companies that will use the "carbon credits" to build "clean solar & wind power plants" and then make a fortune selling their new clean energy. It's the effect of a shakedown and I'm opposed to it strongly until scientists have an open and honest debate on the subject examining the data of everyone studying the climate rather than a few people who agree getting together and promising global chaos in the hopes of raising a few more dollars via research grants to predict how "bad it's gonne be"