Global Warming Truth

[tbird]

apparently not all of the IPCC report (2007) is based on "peer-reviewed writting...(january 2010)

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24389/?nlid=2683

also, Mr. Lindzen (a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT]) has a problem with the IPCC reports. "The Climate Science Isn't Settled". (nov 30, 2009)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

tom

[sparks]

   The amount of visible light infrared and uv are a very small portion of the amount of energy transferred between the Sun and the Earth.  Obviously missed by the published pack of buffons is the coronal mass ejection that slams into the day side of the Earth at millions of miles an hour all the time.  Or the scalar waves that heat the coronal atmosphere to millions of degrees above the temperature of the solar plasmasphere racing down plasma conduits directly from the sun to the Earth. .  Or cosmic background radiation photons constantly being absorbed by upper atmospheric mass as the Earth moves through this field at 60,000 miles an hour.  Or gamma radiation from outside the solar system causing mass to energy conversion in the upper atmosphere producing muon showers.  How many accelerated neutrinos does it take to cause a heating effect. Or how about the magnetohydrodynamic currents responsible for the formation of the planet to begin with.  These two counter rotating fluidic currents give rise to the magnetosphere.  Any instability in these currents results in inductive heating of mass residing within the magnetic flux field produced by these currents.  This is heat from within the planet radiating out. The Earth will someday cool to the point that it will become a frozen rock probably the size of a baseball.  Of course its gravity isnt going anywhere soon.  It just resides in a smaller field.  The Earth moves under our feet the sky comes tumbling down tumbling down wherever gravity abounds.

[Azorus]

As others and I have said before, there is no solid proof that supports Man Made Global warming.  All graphs that have been submitted by Paul, or anyother individual are inconclusive.  Up to the late 1970's there is a near direct correlation with solar output and the earths warming pattern.  After that there is less than a 75% correlation with solar output and less than a 78% correlation with greenhouse gases.  Thus making it inconclusive.  the answer is more study needs to be done, no definitive answer can be made at the moment.  I and others have submitted graphs, articles to this conclusion.

[silverfish]

As others and I have said before, there is no solid proof that supports Man Made Global warming.  All graphs that have been submitted by Paul, or anyother individual are inconclusive.  Up to the late 1970's there is a near direct correlation with solar output and the earths warming pattern.  After that there is less than a 75% correlation with solar output and less than a 78% correlation with greenhouse gases.  Thus making it inconclusive.  the answer is more study needs to be done, no definitive answer can be made at the moment.  I and others have submitted graphs, articles to this conclusion.

To further underline your point, take a look at James Hansen, in charge of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS):

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/

more on GISS land surface anomaly temperature data, pointing to questionable results:

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/01/was-2009-warmest-year-on-record-in.html

more on Himalayan glacier melting not backed up by evidence:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-01-20-un-panel-himalayan-glaciers_N.htm

and EPA's CO2 endangerment finding challenged today in the US senate:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/21/epas-co2-endangerment-finding-challenged-today-in-the-u-s-senate/#more-15502

[sparks]

As others and I have said before, there is no solid proof that supports A Made Global warming.  All graphs that have been submitted by Paul, or anyother individual are inconclusive.  Up to the late 1970's there is a near direct correlation with solar output and the earths warming pattern.  After that there is less than a 75% correlation with solar output and less than a 78% correlation with greenhouse gases.  Thus making it inconclusive.  the answer is more study needs to be done, no definitive answer can be made at the moment.  I and others have submitted graphs, articles to this conclusion.

   My point exactly.  The electromagnetic wave spectrum is openended.  In other words there are big photons and there are little photons.  (photons are just a name for electromagnetic waves they come in all sizes depending on their wavelength) and there are countless types of electromagnetic waves imposed on this little spherical  standing wavefield we call Earth. Until all these scources of radiant energy are taken into account lets move on to bigger and better uses of technology than trying to cool down the planet.  If we cool down the planet it is going to rain.  It is going to rain alot.  It will make the rising of the oceans predictad by snowmelt look like a mosquito urine stream in a swimming pool.  This has been done in the past.  Noah's flood comes to mind.  You take all the water vapor that is present in the heated atmosphere and place it in the oceans goodbye land mass.