Factors regarding heat balance of planet earth:
3. Properties (reflective and heat retention) of earth surface. Water, ice, snow, buildings, tarmac, sand, agricultural areas, forested areas.
5. Ocean currents, precipitation (rain and snow) and wind.
Of these, the only factors directly discernible to our senses are sunshine, general hot and cold, shade including clouds (very influential perhaps), substance underfoot, precipitation, wind.
This a broad, off the cuff effort, easily missing something. Some peer reviewing might be justified.
Then there are many factors not discernible to our senses but of course are measurable to the scientifically equipped. Actual temperatures, varying around our planet from say minus 40 degC to plus 50 degC, those variations day/night, summer/winter, equatorial/polar, cloud/no cloud, but somehow calculable by scientists accurately enough to discern short-term global averages of less than 1 degC, in fact to a decimal place!Hmmm!
Then there are variations in all these factors of varying degrees of influence, one of which has been isolated as the main cause of suspected increases in average global temperature. I am of course, referring to CO2, a trace amount gas which occupies approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere and has a less than 10% capability of absorbing Infrared energy, the energy involved in green house heating.
After years of disputation and dissertation about the global warming issue, going absolutely nowhere from a science point of view, but creating havoc and financial and social upheaval from a worldly point of view, a new theory has surfaced.
It involves cosmic rays which are affected by the sun’s magnetic influences and which are claimed to directly affect cloud generation. They claim a direct causation between solar influences and cloud formation, hence planet temperature. Surely this needs to be looked at?
We are well aware that the AGW ‘scientists’ do not care much about clouds, because they can’t quantify them. Nor can they blame humans for them. Even though greenhouse effects of H2O are quantifiable, they are extremely variable in nature and also not due to mankind activities, so are largely discounted in assessing global warming causes.
Now, there is just as much reason why the cosmic ray influence is potentially as scientifically valid as other actual influences but attempts so far to have them considered have met with opposition. Reference:
- Scientists Gagged From Interpreting Study That Links Climate Change To Cosmic Rays (Revised 22/7/11)
- The Other Climate Theory
- AGW – not settled. A look at Cosmic Ray Influences.
So strange that the scientists promoting AGW are so negative, close-minded and anti-science. The detractors so far have not said anything except the correlation is weak, they have yet to prove Svensen wrong.
It just seems to me that the issue of global warming and any relativity to carbon trading is becoming so unscientific that it is more logical to believe that there is an over-riding political agenda. (Surely not! 🙂 ) Well, it has been so for some time, but the evidence is piling up and up that political it is, science it is not!
Can thousands of politicians be wrong? Led up the garden path by a few scientists banging on their drum and shutting the door on real science? My money is on the science, real science. It has never been sensible to believe a politician. I see no reason for why we should start now.
- What’s this about cosmic rays and global warming? (openparachute.wordpress.com)
- The Slow, Certain Death of the Global Warming Theory – Tea Party Nation (gds44.wordpress.com)
- Are cosmic rays causing global warming? (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
- Henrik Svensmark: The Cosmic-Ray/Cloud Seeding Hypothesis Is Converging With Reality (junksciencesidebar.com)