The monopoly of alarmism in the media overshadows the true climate science which suggests a much more moderate reality of climate change. However, such indications of normalcy will not receive attention because of media sensationalism of disaster and the simple fact is that the global warming theory completely fits the socialist agenda.
NASA recently released information that indicates lightning, a perfectly natural phenomenon, may be responsible for more ‘noxious’ gas production than human kind in totality. Reports shows each bolt of lightning produces a chemical reaction putting off gases like nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide. Furthermore, NASA scientists have been unable to quantify the production of such gases specifically as it relates to the 3,153,600,000,000 strikes of lightning (averaging 100 strikes per second) that take place around the world each year.
You would think that such gas production would be significantly noted as a major player in the ecology. Yet, it seems to hold no bearing on the opinions of global ecological disaster and thus is ignored almost completely with only minor and incomplete mentions. What we see is that facts do not matter to the cause. All that matters is belief. Accuracy has no bearing on the decisions of the alarmists.
Another field almost completely ignored (due to its stunningly effective debunking of environmental alarmism) is the study of the solar magnetic field. Many scientists these days are showing direct links between the historical temperature and the historical record of solar activity. With modern technology, specifically the recent probes sent up by researchers to study the sun more intently, scientists can now analyze a reaction in the Earths atmosphere that is related to the magnetic field of the sun.
The only scientific explanation provided for the production of clouds in the atmosphere has a direct relationship to stellar radiation absorbed by the Earth from other stars and that such radiation affects the type of cloud and the number produced. When the magnetic field of the sun is strong it enhances the solar barrier in our solar system that prevents excess radiation from getting through. In essence more solar activity means more solar radiation getting through and less cloud cover to block it. This results in an obvious above normal temperature on the Earth.
Yet what is so striking and so ignored about this analysis is that this occurs at a parallel rate on Mars to our planet. Mars scientists have noted warming that is also said to be causing a decline in the Martian ice caps at a rate identical to our own warming. Yet, such stories that atmospheric change is normalcy, receives only scoffs from alarmists and downplay from ecological extremists.
The average temperature change has been spouted by pundits on both sides of the argument. But just how accurate are our measurements? Nowadays, the temperature of the atmosphere is taken two different ways; through satellite technology and through weather balloon readings.
Certainly, we have the technology to analyze the atmosphere not only at the surface but all the way until up to where the air is thinnest near space. Comparing those readings to historical readings is 100% useless because historical readings only accounted for surface temperatures. People in those days had no method of analyzing the conditions just a thousand feet of the ground much less the several miles to fifty miles above the Earth that comprises the totality of our atmosphere. Due to the massive vertical scale of our atmosphere, we cannot use ice cores or tree rings or any near ground method viewing historical high altitude temperature.
Additionally, historical temperature records are barely skeletal at best and do not record the temperature rates more than a few hundred years back and not at all on most places on the Earth, considering that most of the Earth’s surface is water.
Furthermore, ocean temperatures are currently not measured with any level of accuracy. There are massive portions of the ocean floor which have never even been mapped by scientists in any detail other than the average elevation over several square miles. Imagine trying to navigate the Appalachian Mountains with a map that has only the average height of the surrounding ten miles. You would be as lost as we are right now trying to comprehend ecology so massive as to butt up against the limits of our minds plenty before analyzing all of the factors.
There are depths in the oceans we do not go to but with a handful of craft and even depths at which we have no technology to access save sonar. How are we supposed to believe that we know the exact average temperature of the seas when we cannot access vast portions of them? Isn’t all the research so far indicative of massive undersea volcanoes and lava flows that drastically affect the study of ocean temperature? We know they exist quite often across mapped ocean floors. Is it so far fetched to think that there may be massive temperature factories we cannot analyze and therefore cannot quantify?
Notable of the oceans as well is the fact that they are extremely slow to react to temperature changes. Many indications show the oceans taking hundreds of years to show any noticeable change in temperature due to the extreme volume compared to the surface area atop the crashing waves and in the murky depths.
Every major temperature change in the sea can be scientifically attributed to specific, local and isolated factors and have shown that without support from such local factors the temperature quickly returns to the average temperature of the surrounding waters. Perhaps it snows extremely hard in Pittsburg for a winter and misses Boston altogether. Such runoff could chill the Ohio River and further south chill the Mississippi River resulting in a noticeable cooling of the gulf immediately surrounding the waters where the Mississippi empties.
Scientists studying the oceans have found that the oceans themselves absorb and emit CO2 based solely upon temperature changes in the oceans. In that there is more volume of water on the earth than there is dry land is it inconceivable that any perceived changes in CO2 volume in the atmosphere have a direct link to the temperature of the oceans? Well, the alarmists have been saying that exact notion for many years. The only problem with their argument is that the temperature change in the oceans precedes the volumetric change in CO2 by several hundred years.
The fact is that this sort of thing happens on a day to day basis and has always happened throughout history. Warming and cooling has always occurred. The word climate actually means constant change. Yet, for several reasons such ecological normalcy is given a scientific stamp of disaster and declared a ‘breach of pattern’ and thrown onto the television screen as proof of a drastic problem. Is melting ice really a harbinger of our doom?
