Don’t give up hope for CentFL yet, Missy. Not gone… just relocated. Perhaps he’ll return with a new “handle”.

BTW… not sure the above comment by “al gore” isn’t stealth “spam”… but letting it go.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Whew, isn’t this a trip back in time. I will take this opportunity to hope all is going well for CentFla, miss him.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

definitely Manbearpig CentFla i cant think of anything else it could possibly be

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Click Here [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

So if 100 scientists do not agree with you, it is politicial progaganda….??? what a stupid statement……Using that thought process, ANY disagreement from the norm can thus be considered political propaganda. So I guess your MBA makes you more qualified then those 100 scientists and thus able to dismiss their objections?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Steve,

The Earth has been warmer than it is today. Vikings had colonies on Greenland. Cities were not swamped in Europe when this happened.

You are slipping into that “Conservative mind set: Declaring something to be true from FoxNews autmatically makes it so” mindset again. I have to wonder if you lost an arguement with a family member again and are taking it out on us as Robert has cited physical experiments and accurate data (which replaced the corrupted data found on many monitoring stations).

Remember I could just as easily state “Voicing opions not backed up by sound data”, especially in a political document is not science, it is political propoganda. Where are their replicatable physical experiments and verifiable, non-corrupted data?

And then I could say That appears to be the Leftist mind set: Declaring something to be true from Al Gore autmatically makes it so.

More and more scentists are breaking from the multi-billion dollar industry/religion of “man-made” global warming and the trend will most likely continue (unless the threat of jail for the us dissenters is followed through). Like the “new Ice Age”, continued, replicatable experiments may make “man made” global warming go the way of the Flat Earth theory (though that is still followed in some Islamic areas). The Earth may be slowly warming, as it has every few thousand years, but humans have little impact on it. CO2 is a poor heat retention gas. Water Vapor is much more effective.

Conservatives do not go out destroying the environment, despite the insane charges the environmentalists seem to take from watching Captain Planet. However, this chicken little doom and gloom from the left is getting tiring, especially since, like most every other doomsday prediction, it falls flat and then is changed to fit new occurances (was global cooling, but is now global warming). The only doomsday prediction which holds water is that in a far disant future, the sun will expand to engulf the Earth in fire.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: “That is funny. Lets see what you have ignored….Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.”

“Voicing objections”, especially in a political document is not science, it is political propoganda. Where are their physical experiments and data?

The average global temperatore is increasing.
The polar ice caps are melting.
If (when) the ice sheets in Greenland and South Pole melt, ocean levels will rise significantly.
Increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, resulting from combustion, will retain heat and accelerate global warming.

Try pasting those “testimonials” all over the place. Perhaps they will convince the earth’s atmosphere not to warm up: That appears to be the Conservative mind set: Declaring something to be true from FoxNews autmatically makes it so.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

let’s pretend nothing is happening

never said that, don’t lie….

You can continue to get your science from Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe.

I got it from NASA, ass, stop lying and misrepresenting me, and I will stop name calling…..

The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.

Nope: Wrong again Steve……

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun’s radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.The increase would only be significant to Earth’s climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

In other words, over periods of tens of thousands of years Earth’s climate is controlled by these variations in orbital geometry. ..etc

A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun’s current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said…etc

I already said most of this…do you not read what you comment on???….and considering you once again ignore most of my arguments in the work, I will continue to make fun of you and not treat you seriously.

cherry picking preliminary data .

That is funny. Lets see what you have ignored….Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore…..

and you have ignored a good portion of the points I made,,,,

..oh, and you just about ignored most of the rest of the arguments too.

notice you have not really debunked this:

And you are telling me that a change in the sole source of energy has NO EFFECT on our temperature? And at the same time the sun’s output changes other planets warm, but when our planet is warming, it is some other factor. also, Steve, different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation have different properties, different absorbtions and different penetration power (which is why we do not have to worry about gamma rays on the surface), so even if you are right (which I doubt) that there is no net increase in radiation reaching the surface, that does not prove that there is no increase in the upper atmosphere, which would alter global temperatures.”

as I said, you are a joke. If you want to be treated seriously, stop ignoring certain facts, stop lying, and debate me point by point..

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You are combining multiple measurements and variations in solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. And cherry picking preliminary data and declaring it to be absolute fact to pretend that Global Warming is either not taking place, is not influenced by human activity, or will be inconsequential.

Two of the factors are listed below: The “TSI” measurements point to a slight increase in solar energy that would have to continue for another century to have any significant effect. The Milankovitch cycle is actually trending the other way, toward a cooler earth (over the next 20,000 years).

And we have the 11-year sunspot cycle that can increase or decreased the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface.

However other factors include:
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the more there is, the less energy the earth re-radiates out into space, meaning that even with reduced energy fro the sun, the earth will grow warmer)
The amount of ice/snow cover in the Arctic/Antarctica. Because the “white” ice reflects more solar radiation into space, less solar radiation is absorbed. For example the speed of Arctic ice melting is going even faster than models predicted because, instead of “white” ice floating in the ocean to reflect sunlight back into space, we now have darker water, which is absorbing more solar radiation and warming the ocean (and melting the ice) even faster.

Even if you do succeed in stalling any action, the Earth will continue to warm up. And the consequences (as I posted many posts ago) will be expensive, both in terms of money to ameliorate the damage and deal with the worldwide dislocations.

Playing “let’s pretend nothing is happening” and “anyone who wants to do something must be bad” may make for great fun in Conservative circles. However it is not serving the long term interests of our country, or humanity in general.

I’ll continue to review scientific papers and information. You can continue to get your science from Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe.

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/efculprits3.html

All three of these effects cause little change in the annual amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Their effect is to change the contrast between the seasons. Milutin Milankovitch, a Yugoslavian astronomer, plotted out these three changes to Earth’s orbital geometry. He found that these changes were closely associated with changes in climate. In other words, over periods of tens of thousands of years Earth’s climate is controlled by these variations in orbital geometry. Based on the Milankovitch cycle, the trend for the next 20,000 years is for a cooler climate with extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Large-scale ocean and climate variations on Earth can also mask long-term trends and can make it difficult to sort out what is normal, what is unusual, and which effects might or might not result from shifts in solar radiation.
To get above all this, scientists rely on measurements of total solar energy, at all wavelengths, outside Earth’s atmosphere. The figure they derive is called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
Heating up
The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.
On time scales as short as several days, the TSI can vary by 0.2 percent due to the number and size of sunspots crossing the face of the Sun. That shift, said to be insignificant to weather, is however equal to the total amount of energy used by humans, globally, for a year, the researchers estimate.
The study analyzed data from six satellites orbiting Earth at different times over the 24 years. Willson ferreted out errors in one of the datasets that had prevented previous studies from discovering the trend.
A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun’s current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said.
He said firm conclusions about whether the present changes involve a long-term trend or a relatively brief aberration should come with continued monitoring into the next solar minimum, expected around 2006.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Fantasyland? Not a scientific source? The source was NASA. And again, you either did not get what I said or are choosing to ignore what I said, as you are for the most part ignoring most of the points that I just made. Reread what I just said, and when you make an intelligent rebuttal to what I said as opposed your your one tired argument you have already used, I will reply.

You are just making yourself look stupid, Steve.

Like or Dislike: 0  0