PD – I never had wine come so close to coming out of my nose until I read your comment about Perry’s girlfriend having “guy equipment”. LMFAO.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough in the whole global warming argument is the phenomenon of negative feedback loops. This basically centers around the world’s oceans and how they are a huge, natural buffer to drastic climatic changes.
It basically works like this: The temperature rises, evaporates more water, which then forms more clouds. The increase in cloud cover blocks the sun’s radiation from hitting the earth, thus cooling it (negative feedback).
The next logical step in the discussion goes to the topic of incoming solar radiation (short wave) vs. exiting radiation from the earth (long wave). The earth emits long wave radiation that gets trapped by clouds. That’s why cloudy evenings are typically warmer than non-cloudy ones, and why it can get so cold in the desert at night…there are no clouds to trap the long wave radiation.
So does a blockage of incoming short wave radiation offset a blockage of outgoing long wave radiation? I’ll let the scientists figure this one out.
I think I fall somewhere in the middle of the global warming debate. I believe that mankind DOES have the ability to affect global climatic changes (contrary to Rush Limbaugh). However, I don’t feel those changes are as extreme as some would have us believe (contrary to Al Gore). Do not be fooled. Just as those on the right might have an agenda to disregard the global warming argument (oil production, development, etc.); those on the left also have an agenda to propagate the very same argument (research, funding, etc.).
My advice: read with a jaundiced eye.
PS: The effects of melting glaciers and it’s effects on fresh and salt water oceanic currents also plays a role in this debate. Perhaps we can save this for another thread. 🙂
Sincerely,
Piggington’s ENVIRO-Almanac for the Blankety Blank (fill in the blanks)
