Posted: Apr 25, 2008, 10:43 AM CST
Sparky55 wrote:Sometimes I just get lucky Tom.
Been gone for awhile, how ya been doing? Hope all is well.
Doing OK here. Thanks for asking. How are things with you?
I have two pet theories for global warming neither have much to do with emmissions. The first is the heating of the oceans.......
I see pretty solid linkage to heating of them and our increase in number of hurricanes and the strength of them. So what do warmer oceans give you? and how did it occur? You put heat into water, you reduce oxygen....just think of boiling water and you have that. Same think in ocean water. Less oxygen is harder on the marine life to sustain it self....another reason for less marinelife.
So how did it happen? And is it man's fault? Here we need to turn to the atmosphere. We know that there is large ozone layers above the caps. The current thinking is that these are not diffusing sunlight and
the atmoshpere is letting the sunlight into cap and water. But that is
not where the oceans are being heated at.....which at the equator and the subtropic belt n and s of it. Here the atmosphere is actually thicker and more dense than the caps. So this diffussion theory does not hold water there. Also it has holes above the caps as well.
Here is why. The caps get hit with angled sunlight. Take a ball and run a flashlight on it some time. The light that hits at the poles, passes thru more atmoshpere to to get there. Striking the surface at a very sharp angle. Also both poles have 30 day dark periods annually, where there is little light at all. All that reduces the amount of sunlight energy at the poles.
So my first theory is the lot of our global warming is being done in the oceans at the equator. That car that we drive places such a minute
amount emmission into the air, and even if multiplies by the millions of cars. We don't have solid science linkage to say those emmissions end up in the ozone layers above the poles or have effected this deeper atmosphere at the belt of the planet. If the heating is being caused just by this physical relationship of sun and earth. I don't see mankind changing this physical relationship of sun and planet any time soon.
My second theory is really an extension of the first. That land masses long the equatorial belt are being warmed more as well. This is putting more heat directly back into the atmoshpere. Think on our increase in tornado and thunderstorm activity, if you want to see the result here.
Land mass heat into the ground surfaces, cause this kind of weather
phenomea.
They have been doing alot of sounding rocket flights upper atmosphere testing to see if the air here is changed or different. The stuff that is at the 100FL+ range. If that equatorial belt boundary air is changing in depth or in composition....and less diffraction of sunlight is happening. This is a not a good thing.
We know the there is a 'oxygen burn off' of emps (eletromagentic pulse). Sunlight is basically a emp. So it could be that sunlight itself is
burning off this boundary layer oxygen in atmosphere and changing it composition. That is not being caused by your car emmissions.
The environmental scienctists have pegged the cause of global warming on the emmissions of autos, factories and such. But I think that my theories here are solid. No data to prove either. And the real problem to this is high altitude air test program are expensive and complex. They would need to be done at a number of global locations and test flights done on a fairly frequent schedule. To give the kind of data that is.
As I said earlier, for Ciero to send his fire battalion to a place in Rome, where it was not burning. Was not going to be effective. It is the samething here. Unless we can conclusively say it is this cause or those causes.......we can spend a lot money/time/effort on solutions that don't get us much closer to solving the problem.