I wanted to follow up on my previous post on the global warming debate regarding CO2 and solar activity. Since my post was fairly long I've shortened it down to a few points. Also, Andrew33 of KOOK's Manifesto and an excellent source of global warming knowledge provided several enlightening comments that I wanted to add to the post.
I strongly believe that global warming models based on solar activity will prevail over the man-made CO2 models, because it only takes a little common sense to prove a strong cause-effect relationship. If the sun were to extinguish tomorrow, what would the temperature of the earth be? How much heat will carbon dioxide and man generate once the sun is out of the equation?
The very term man-made global warming is a joke since man does not create any heat in the model. The cause and effect chain for man-made global warming goes like this: man makes carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide traps heat causing a .2 degree Celsius increase in temperatures over the last 50 years, which is causing water to evaporate more than usual adding another .4 degree Celsius increase over the last 50 years. The big hole in this chain reaction is that the sun is nowhere in their equation and yet it is essential for global warming to exist. That's certainly the case on Mars, where global temperatures have also been increasing.
The global warming nuts are well aware of their failing "scientific" models. When asked to comment on the sun's recent lull in solar activity and how it will effect global warming models, climatologist Mike Lockwood has this to say:
"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."
This quote is an excellent example of how broken man-made global warming science has become. Instead of making a valid arguement, Lockwood resorts to comparing apples to oranges. It’s like saying, “the new F-somenumber is not faster than the new GM Greenster because the new jet has increased its top speed over the F-22 by only 1% and the Greenster beat out the top speed of a Prius by 40%." The sun is thousands of times bigger than the earth and a small change is significant. On the other hand, CO2 is .001% of the earth’s atmosphere. It requires very, very large changes to affect anything, if at all.
Andrew33 had this to say on man-made global warming:
While on the subject of "green", "green jobs", geenhouse gasses etc. I look at it like this: "Green" is the new "Red" as in communism. The color for communism was red mainly from the Russians but it has been repackaged in a nice friendly "green" wrapper to sell to Americans. The "star and sickle" don't sell well here in the States so to sell Government jobs they get called "Green" jobs now. Green sounds much nicer and less controlling than either "Government" or "red." Here's a little more "Green 101." The fact is any Carbon Dioxide emitted by a smokestack or a tailpipe sinks to and into the ground like a rock in the water because Carbon Dioxide is far heavier than air. Air is a nearly constant solution of CO2, O2 and other trace elements similar to salt water. CO2 doesn't pile up in the atmosphere because of the oxygen and other trace gasses that are far lighter than CO2. That is Global Warming hoax #1 plain and simple. Water is in the air just like CO2. Yet when there is too much water in the air, it forms clouds. When the clouds get thick enough, and the water becomes heavy enough it falls as rain, but they don't teach that in science class anymore. That is the reality behind "Green." Funny thing is when I ask those who support Global Warming about this they responded with silence."
You can prove this effect by filling a beaker with pure CO2 and corking it. Then light several candles on a table. Uncork, then turn upside down the CO2 beaker 2-3 ft directly above the candles. You will see the candles go out as the excess CO2 falls to the floor.
This is a most rudimentary way to prove what happens to excess CO2. When I have done this in front of or asked so-called experts about this, they were dumbfounded.
So remember folks, when you drive, breathe or do anything else, your CO2 goes into the ground just like rain after a rainstorm where the roots of plants absorb it as food. Also rem,ember that our bodies as well as our planet is mostly carbon. Lastly, despite what Al Gore says, it is the Sun that heats the Earth, not CO2. If "runaway greenhouse effect" was happening, Earth would be a mirror image of Venus.
Atmospheric Density is another question. With CO2 being much heavier and more dense than air, how come the measure of atmospheric density A.K.A. barometric pressure has not risen? That is because CO2 levels are not rising. The average barometric pressure at sea level has not changed one bit since readings began being recorded.
One more little thing, this year, Arctic Sea Ice is higher than average and much higher than ALGORE predicted for this year so the Polar Bears will be okay for a while.
Andrew33 also had to say:
Water acts like a battery. It is slow to store energy and slow to release energy. Land is the opposite, as it warms quickly and cools quickly. Like the Sun, the oceans go through warm and cold cycles which greatly affect the land around them. Warm Oceans nearby generally lead to warm moist weather patterns, while cold oceans nearby lead to cold dry weather patterns. The point I am getting to here is that the 0.2-0.4C increase over the last 50 years was caused by shifts in oceanic temperature. These are cyclical in nature and occur in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They are known as the AMO and PDO respectively. The AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) was warm from the '30s through the '50's, then cold from the '60s through early '90s. By the late '90s it was back to warm again. That is why if you do any study of hurricane history, there were many in the '30s trough '50s, then there was a general lull until 95. After 95, hurricane activity ramped up in the Atlantic. On the Pacific side, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a similar pattern although less is known about historically. The Pacific was in a warm cycle in the '80s-'90s, but seems to recently have shifted to a cold cycle. The PDO is often associated with the phenomenon known as EL NINO. It is a personal belief of mine that the warm PDO cycle and the EL NINO events it triggered led to the common belief currently held that the globe is warming. I emphasize that people reading this do not just take my word for this but look it up for themselves. This is a very rudimentary explanation of the events that I believe have led to the misinformation known as "man made global warming." I encourage everyone who reads this to look this up for themselves and educate themselves here so that those spreading lies about global warming can be countered everywhere and at all times. A simple google search to NWS AMO will lead you to all this info.
28 comments
My comments in your previous posts should at least make a half decent argument that the sun, it's cycles and oceanic temperature cycles are the real culprit behind climate change. I'm sorry, but I don't feel like repeating all that again.
June 28, 2009 at 8:06 PMI hope these are the comments you were hoping for when you asked for them on my blog. I would love to hear your comments from one amateur climatologist to another.
June 28, 2009 at 8:18 PMHere's one more dirty little secret for you. The folks hyping "Global warming by using these "models" don't give you all the facts. These are the same models such as the GFS NAM and ECMWRF that are used to predict local short term weather. Sure they give the models different names, but they are the same ones just given different names. They are not 100% 24 hours out and become VERY INNACURATE 2 weeks out. According to the NAM from 48 hours ago, I should have a cat 1 hurricane over my house as of this moment. If these models don't work 2 weeks out, how can they work 50 years out???? This is the big lie that AlGore and his pals don't want you to know.
June 28, 2009 at 8:23 PMI hope this makes a decent case against man made global warming in a way that everyone can understand.
I will repost this on the "Manifesto" too...
June 28, 2009 at 8:26 PMSo we just ignore other signs of global warming, such as melting ice caps, changes in migratory patterns of birds, fish, and other species? Phenomenon that occurs what, every 10,000 years or so? So we just happen to be lucky enough to witness astronomical history?
June 29, 2009 at 2:05 AMIs it such a strange thought that manmade gasses may be more than the earth can filter out? Does it not make sense that as our production of carbon dioxide increases, there could be a *possibility* that it is doing damage to the planet?
You talk about a .5 degree celsius increase in temperature in 50 years... do you have *any* idea how disasterous that would be?! The freezing point is 0 degrees celcius... at .5 celcius, the ice will melt! VERY slowly, but it will melt! Any temperature above 0 will cause ice to melt. This throws the seasons out of whack, causing longer periods of melting, which could raise sea levels. I don't understand how peopl ecan think that's such a preposterous idea.
And really that part of the debate doesn't matter much. Carbon emmissions is bad for the air quality. There are some who want leave the environmental standard to the businesses that are doing the polluting. After all these years of polluting the atmosphere because it is the cheapest solution, why are we to believe they'd do anythign about environmental control?
And what if you're wrong, and the earth explodes in 10 years? (sarcasm). But in all seriousness what if we sit on our hands now, and 10 years from now the problem is worse and more than we can handle... and all it wouldve took was some kind of action now? I for one don't want to see who is right or wrong, when the right thing to do in this case is as clear as day. Again, I'm always happy to debate on the particulars, but i think it is saddening that we have to deabte whether or not we should have some serious climate control measures.
First of all, I'm not arguing about whether global warming exist. I'm arguing that the sun and not CO2 is the main cause. I am arguing that the earth's temperature fluctuates naturally. We are actually beginning to see global cooling at the moment.
June 29, 2009 at 8:23 AMOut of all the gasses CO2 is not harmful to man. It's plant food and it's natural. If you were talking mercury vapor, I'd agree with you.
Speaking of mercury vapor. I am certainly not advocating a do nothing approach. You know that I am a big supporter of green, renewable energy so long as it is developed in a free market economy. However, as with all things, we need to correctly and objectively assess risks or we will make harmful, stupid decisions. For example and I mentioned this before, the government is mandating that we start using flourescent light bulbs. The problem with this is that there is mercury vapor in them. I'd say this would be a calculated risk in the face of the world coming to an end. However, if the world is not coming to an end, then we are going to be reintroducing massive amounts of mercury back into the home and our water. Making smaller cars causes more car accident fatalities. Banning fire places causes more elderly people to freeze to death. It is essential we are not blowing things out of proportion, because the "we have to do something, anything" mentality has very serioius consequences like mercury poisoning (which unlike CO2 is very harmful to people) or increase in deaths.
The truth is, even if CO2 is causing temperatures to rise, we still have time to address it. The worst case scenario has us increasing temperatures by 4 degrees celsius by the end of the century. There are many that are saying that we will run out of fossil fuel before that anyways and that the 4 degrees isn't even possible to reach. However, and this is the most important point, cap and trade is a useless solution. The MIT study, which is the Holy Grail of cap and trade for the progressive shows that realistically we will only be able to reduce CO2 enough to bring the 4 degree celsius number down .5 degrees to 3.5 degrees celsius.
Do I think it may be possible for CO2 to cause global disaster? Yes. Does the science say that we are anywhere near that point? No. Let's flip your arguement. Is it so hard to believe that global temperatures are being driven by the sun?
We already have a planet with runaway greenhouse global arming to study. It is called Venus. There is a MASSIVE discrepancy in the density of the atmosphere because of the huge amount of CO2. The density of our atmosphere which is measured as "barometric pressure" since before the 19th century has not changed one bit. If CO2 were increasing, so would barometric pressure.
June 29, 2009 at 8:53 AMNow if you extinguish the sun, how long does human life last on earth. My money is on 2 hours as it takes light energy 90 mins to get here and give the temps about 30 mins to fall to "absolute zero".
To turn this planet into Venus, we would have to use every person on earth along with every changing all planetary industrial output to dedicated creation of CO2 while scrubbing the atmosphere of oxygen and water vapor along with all the trace gasses are lighter than CO2. Basically it would be man's first "terraforming" project.
June 29, 2009 at 9:04 AMAll in favor of doing so say I...AlGore says I....
All in favor of leaving things as they are say NO...the rest of the world says... NO!!!
No's have it 6 billion to one. Sorry, no CO2 disaster today, maybe AlGore can try again next week.
C-Gen, we are getting a good number of comments on our blog on this. Good Job!!!!!
June 29, 2009 at 10:59 AMThe Law, have you ever studied European History, especially the end of the Roman Empire, and the beginning of the middle ages? Right at the beginning of the "middle ages" we experienced a similar warming cycle as the one today. After about 100 years or so during which temps rose up to 2-5C, the climatological bottom fell out. This led to a cooling pattern known as the "little ice age." (They even do stories about it on history channel) My question to you is who was driving the SUVs that caused the warming cycle leading to the warm period preceding the "little ice age?" What legislation was passed that stopped this horrible warming from taking place putting an end to Vikings settling Greenland, winemaking in England, and led to the Bubonic Plague outbreak? (to be continued...)
June 29, 2009 at 3:09 PMI believe that the factors leading to the cooling were not legislated by the English Parliament, Kings or Popes, but were the following. During the warm period preceding the "little ice age", polar ice caps melted just as they are now probably because of increased solar activity. Then the solar cycle shifted just as fresh water from melting ice caps blocked the oceanic conveyor (known in my part of the world as the Gulf Stream) which stopped the transportation of heat from the equator where it is stored to the mid and northern latitude regions of Earth leading to the "little ice age".
June 29, 2009 at 3:19 PMThere is evidence supporting the theory that a similar string of events pushed nomadic groups of people SW from northern Europe and Asia into the Roman Empire @400 A.D. leading to the fall of the Romans but this is debatable.
Still, I have shown plenty of evidence here that the Earth goes through temperature cycles whether there are SUVs or not. Also, if as some claim that "cow flatulence" is the biggest cause of "global warming" how come the dinosaurs didn't torch the planet eons ago????
Andrew,
June 29, 2009 at 7:38 PMYou truly are a wealth of information! Just FYI, I've gotten record page hits on this post and the last. Thanks for contributing.
I did have a question for you. What's the methodology behind GFS NAM and ECMWRF? I was under the impression that most climatologists were using simple regression modeling. Are they similar?
This will definitely take 2 comments. In layman's terms, models are supercomputer based forecasts that look at past events worldwide and predict future events based on past events. These models are only as good as the info put into them. Here are explanations given by expert weather forecasters and climatologists" I am using the definitions given by the hurricane experts as they give the must understandable explanations.
June 29, 2009 at 8:00 PM"Forecast model" is a generic term that refers to any objective tool used to generate a prediction of a future event, such as the state of the atmosphere. Generation of such forecasts is usually created through mathematical computations.
Forecast models range from fairly simple methods, which can be run in a few seconds on an ordinary computer, to those that require a number of hours on a supercomputer. Dynamical models, also known as "numerical models" use high speed computers to solve the physical equations of motion governing the atmosphere. Statistical models, in contrast, do not explicitly consider the physics of the atmosphere but instead are based on historical relationships between storm behavior and storm-specific details such as location and date. Statistical-dynamical models use both dynamical and statistical techniques by making a forecast based on establishing historical relationships between storm behavior and atmospheric variables provided by dynamical models. Trajectory models move a tropical cyclone (TC) along based on the prevailing flow derived from a separate dynamical model. Ensemble or consensus techniques are not true forecast models per se, but rather involve combinations of forecasts from multiple models. The following sections provide more detailed description of the types of modeling systems and a description of the more commonly used individual models used at NHC.
(To be continued....)
The behavior of the atmosphere is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as mathematical equations. These equations represent how atmospheric quantities such as temperature, wind speed and direction, humidity, etc., will change from their initial current values (at the present time). If we can solve these equations, we will have a forecast. We can do this by sub-dividing the atmosphere into a 3-D grid of points and solving these equations at each point. These models have three main sources of error:
June 29, 2009 at 8:10 PM1) Initialization. We have an imperfect description of what the atmosphere is doing right now, due to lack of data (particularly over the oceans). When the model starts, is has an incorrect picture of the initial state of the atmosphere, so will always generate a forecast that is imperfect.
2) Resolution. Models are run on 3-D grids that cover the entire globe. Each grid point represents of piece of atmosphere perhaps 40 km on a side. Thus, processes smaller than that (such as thunderstorms) are not handled well, and must be "parameterized". This means we make up parameters (fudge factors) that do a good job giving the right forecast most of the time. Obviously, the fudge factors aren't going to work for all situations.
3) Basic understanding. Our basic understanding of the physics governing the atmosphere is imperfect, so the equations we're using aren't quite right.
Types of hurricane forecasting models
The best hurricane forecasting models we have are "global" models, that solve the mathematical equations governing the behavior of the atmosphere at every point on the globe. Models that solve these equations are called "dynamical" models. The four best hurricane forecast models--GFDL, GFS, UKMET, and NOGAPS--are all global dynamical models. These models take several hours to run on the world's most advanced supercomputers. There are also dynamical models that cover just a portion of the globe. These are less useful, unless the hurricane happens to start out inside the domain the model covers and stay there. Hurricanes moving from outside the model domain into the model domain are not well handled. An example of this kind of model is the NAM model covering North America and the surrounding waters, run by the National Weather Service (NWS). Another type of hurricane model is a statistical model. These models do not try to solve mathematical equations on a grid. The advantage of these statistical models is that they are fast to run and can provide output in a few minutes. There are also hybrid statistical/dynamical models, and simple trajectory models.
more to come...
From NOAA I got this:Computer forecast models are an integral part of the forecast process for operational Meteorologists. The majority of forecast models are run at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction in Silver Spring, MD. The forecast models provide us of a simulation of an atmosphere, projecting it into the future. Thousands upon thousands of observed surface data, observed upper air data, and other observed data, worldwide, such as satellite are incorporated into complex meteorological equations in the forecast models. The forecast models are then run on a very large supercomputer system at NCEP at different times each day, and become available for government and private Meteorologists worldwide, with indirect availability to the general public. Private Meteorological companies also redistribute the model information to other users. The forecast models are only guidance based on numerous mathematical equation assumptions as to how a so called "normal" atmosphere should behave. The Meteorologist first relies on observed surface and upper air data, wind profiler data, satellite and radar imagery, and other observed data, to assess the current behavior of the atmosphere over a given area. Then a conceptual model is formed in his/her mind to project the atmosphere into the future. At this point, the use of forecast models come into the picture.
June 29, 2009 at 8:21 PM(Jaime R.Rhome and Dr Jeff Masters are to be credited with writing this explanation, but how does this relate to climate???....more to come
"One of the largest uncertainties in climate simulations is from the representation of land processes, because there are few observations to calibrate or constrain it. Different land surface schemes (LSSs) use quite different parameterizations to describe the complex hydrological, biogeophysical, and biogeochemical processes. Even when forced by the same atmospheric forcing and provided the same parameter settings, different LSSs can still give significantly different surface fluxes. When these LSSs are coupled to the Atmospheric General Circulation Models (AGCMs), their different behaviors will bring uncertainties into the simulated climate. As the land-atmosphere system is nonlinear, uncertainties from LSSs can be amplified or reduced during land-atmosphere interaction. This problem is systemically addressed in this study. In addition to the climatology and variability, different LSSs can lead to different coupling strength between land and atmosphere (i.e., contribution of land to prediction of atmosphere). Within the framework of Global Land-Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (GLACE), we perform GLACE-type experiments to investigate this problem.
June 29, 2009 at 8:26 PMIn this study, we show results from COLA AGCM coupled to three state-of-the-art LSSs: SSiB, CLM3.5, and Noah. Two experiments are performed. In the first experiment (I), three LSSs are coupled to the AGCM individually. In the second experiment (C), the three LSSs are coupled to the AGCM in combination, i.e. the LSSs receive the same atmospheric forcing from the AGCM and the average surface fluxes from the LSSs are passed back to the AGCM at each grid point and at every time step. Experiment C is similar to three land model offline experiments with a same atmospheric forcing, but this forcing is affected by the average feedback from the LSSs.
We try to investigate the uncertainties of the three LSSs and their influence on climate simulation. We also explore the influence of land-atmosphere coupling on the simulation uncertainties. In addition, GLACE-type experiments with the COLA AGCM coupled to three land models are performed. By comparing the coupling strength of the three coupled models, we can know the impact of different land models on the coupling strength. In summary, the purpose of this study is threefold: firstly, to investigate current uncertainties in the behavior of LSSs; secondly, to investigate how much these uncertainties can influence atmospheric simulation through land-atmosphere interaction; thirdly and most importantly, to have a better understanding of the mechanisms of land-atmosphere coupling."
Here is the explanation of the models that the Climate Prediction Center gives. What they do not explain that the models they use are simply the short term models combined and alowed to run out forever.
More to come..
Here is a link to the GFS (Global Forecasting System) model. You can watch it in animation over a 2 week span. Watch what happens to the accuracy of the forecast after a week. The colors indicate increased chances of "vorticity" which is commonly called clouds and possible rainfall....http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/carib/gfs/18/index_pcp_l_loop.shtml
June 29, 2009 at 8:35 PMNote how in the first frames, the resolution is tight and clear but as time goes out, it becomes much less defined. What those who support Global warming are doing is letting these models run forever while inputting data to skew the models. It is most important to note that these models are only as effective as the info put into them. I hope this is what you wanted to know. I wish I could have made this answer more simple but you asked an extremely complex question that I cannot just answer in 3 words.
Now after seeing how undefined the GFS becomes after 2 weeks, would you trust it for a 50 year forecast? Whole the GFS in itself is not the sole model that climatologists use rather the models they use are an ensemble of all the above mentioned models and others. The point here was to show in a visual way that these models aren't accurate 2 weeks out so how can we trust them 50 years out????
June 29, 2009 at 8:42 PMI went around to all the blogs that I frequent ant told everybody about our "climate collaboration". It has been an honor to do this with you and would love do this again.
As I said, I have MOUNTAINS of info on this subject. I have been studying this since I experienced my first hurricane. That is why my initial model explanation actually came from hurricane tracking info. I hope this was what you wanted.
June 29, 2009 at 8:45 PMIf you have anymore questions ask me here or at KOOK's blog.
June 29, 2009 at 8:46 PMI think we're starting to get somewhere in this debate. I blame the left for focusing the energy issue on global warming. It is such a stupid idea to fight such a controversial issue. I acknowledge that natural phenomenon contributes to global warming, and I'll even go ahead and say it has a far larger impact than man-made factors. Still, we continually deny our own carbon footprint that contributes to more immediate concerns as well as other issues as deforestation, water pollution and air pollution.
June 30, 2009 at 12:51 AMThis topic should be about air pollution, debating on the merits of legislatively stopping dirty industries from making the air dirtier. People in the mountains ask "why are we paying for emmissions when it is the city slickers making the mess?" To them I say, look at the EPA's carbon pollution chart for your area. If the town already has clean air, there is a really good chance it could *make* money on the energy bill! Who is in trouble? City centers of CA, NY, and FL, and manufacturing centers like PA and MI. And it's about damn time too. It was always weird to not be able to see the mountains in california when it was only 5 miles away because of heavy smog. I remember my very first thought when I went to school in upstate NY (first time in that region) was WOW... it is much easier to breathe here!
Andrew and Conservative Gen - Great piece, great debate. I really have nothing to add as you two combined are an amazing source. Obviously you guys have a keen analytical background in the sciences, mine is more literary. As such, I am not an expert on such topics but I am surely aware of the fallacious arguments being made by the junk-science, global warming alarmists. As Andrew, KOOK, and Sean here would agree, such alarmist nonsense has nearly nothing to do with science and almost everything to do with government control over the economy and the people. Green is the new red. Well said Andrew. Great job guys, I bookmarked this piece and will read it more than once!
June 30, 2009 at 12:54 AMLCR
LCR please encourage others from your blog to check this out. C-Gen and I worked very hard on this.
June 30, 2009 at 1:20 AMI experienced my first hurricane 20years ago and have studied meteorology and climatology ever since. I spend far more time on this than politics and getting the opportunity to combine my favorite interests and work with someone who is as smart as C-Gen was for me the equivalent of a new talk show host being asked to fill in for Rush or Beck. This was a real honor to be invited to do this and I tried my best to make it worth C-Gens while. I have only been blogging a few months after all.
Economically, Florida is doing O.K. because Jeb Bush was not a big spender. When times were good we saved more than the other states mentioned and we have no income tax, and have had no tax increases despite all the hurricanes. The only problem that hit us was housing speculation but that is over with.
June 30, 2009 at 1:27 AMHere in Florida, we don't get haze. Ocean breezes and continual summer rain keep our air quality nice year round. Our A.Q.I (air quality index) here in West Palm Beach is among the highest in the country year round. Sorry, but you are wrong about Florida.
A C-Gen, A lib named "Nameless Cynic" tried to push me around intellectually on the climate subject. I posted the highlights of it on my blog. Check it out for a good laugh.
June 30, 2009 at 4:03 PMAs as an amateur in climate I believe that you have both your act and facts together. I hold a National Certification in Emergency Management from the Rochester Institute of Technology and took coursed both Earth Science and Meteorology. While not as educated in this field as you are, I would definitely put you into the category of being an expert in this subject area along and as such have a very high degree of credibility with me.
August 16, 2009 at 12:46 AMAnother cause and effect for weather patterns and climate change are called the "Trade Winds" because they were used by the early sailing vessels to navigate the world oceans. They are the surface winds or "Easterlies" the blow along the Equator from Africa. These are a major cause of "Red Sunsets" in the southern US because of the dust that is picked up from the Sahara and blown up into the upper atmosphere.
70% of that dust falls on Florida. (Sorry Andrew).
Along with the Jet Stream or "Westerlies" that are affected by El Nino.
To make a long story shorter these winds can raise or lower temperatures of water and land masses. Right now there has been a long period of sustained drought in Africa with increased land temperatures that in turn heat the easterlies. As the winds blow across the ocean heat from these winds is transferred from the air to the water. Water has the ability to absorb tremendous amounts of heat. The warm water is then transported by the oceans currents like the Gulf stream north and south. El Nino (warming of the water off the Northwest coast of South America) drives the Jet Stream farther north which picks up cold air from the northern latitudes like Alaska and the Arctic and when it collides with warmer air coming off the Gulf the number and intensity of tornadoes increase dramatically. When the easterly pick up dust off the Sahara the number and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes decrease while the number and intensity of cyclones in the Pacific increases. Together with the sun it is a natural occurrence in how the earth balances temperatures. Without wind you would have no weather. The earth would simply burn up. Wind is caused by the rotation of the earth along with temperature changes. It has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 or OZONE in the atmosphere. CO2 is what I call a necessary evil. When reduced to its main elements Carbon and Oxygen both necessary elements for our the existence of life on this planet.
Two other quick points. While the atmosphere might be warming the earth (land) masses are actually cooling. That coupled with the fact that a recent earthquake a couple of years ago in the Indian Ocean slightly shifted the earths rotation (something that has never occurred in recorded history) we have really no idea what effects that this will have on the earths weather patterns.
BrotherJ
Post a Comment