Frosty Blast of Reality for the 'Global Warming' Crowd

As for the NOAA data, it shows one month which was below average, should I gather data over the past 20 years which shows contrary information? It's stuff like this that dupes people into thinking the wrong way. Politics should NEVER decide science theory, yet again and again, we continue to see this administration spin scientific research to agree with their agenda. It's just one more was Bush has lied to the American people.

Quote:

The solar increase has nothing to do with global warming, contrary to what the GOP would like you to believe. In fact,the solar constant,which is on an 11 year cycle, increased dramatically during the 60's, yet there was no direct global effect.

I didn't know this was a GOP stance? I haven't seen anything on how the GOP has stated what I said. I thought I was making an original statement by just looking around the universe. Could you please find this data on how the GOP has blamed all of this on solar radiation?

As for the rest of it, could you please explain the "seeps" on Mars then? If they didn't come from increased solar radiation then how come we have ice melting on Mars?

You need to explain your neat little graph that you posted, it doesn't explain anything but possible solar radiation output from the sun but it doesn't even explain that. It has no reference to what the output is and no temp correlations. This might help prove your statement.

I don't know if you caught the first line of the article or not, but it says a group of "international scientists". I would say there is a movement to better explain what is really happening instead of using doom and gloom which is all the people of green peace and the like have. There is data to show both sides of the story and not one study looks stronger then the other.

Let me get this straight, because they are suing information that doesn't agree with yours, you are calling it spin. We don't know the full story as of yet when it comes to global warming, and to look at other places for information seems like the right thing to do. Cities across the US have been coming off of the dirty air lists for the last few years. Denver the metro area where I live came off of the list about 2 years ago. Other cities in the US have had the same thing happen. LA isn't any dirtier then it was 10 years ago and they have improved their air quality.

This link is to a chart showing air quality for selected major cities and it shows a decline of poor air quality for 10 years. Look at the chart and tell me this isn't improvement. The worst one was LA and they had a major decline after 1994. Looking at my city Denver, we have some of the best air quality in the US for a major city and it was in the 90's when we had the largest population explosion.

Sunspot data over the last 200 years? How in the world were we able to determine sunspot activity 200 years ago? It wasn't until about the 1850's when sunspots were discovered. So to have a listing of sunspot activity for the last 200 years seems like speculation and at best is modeling. Modeling can be unreliable because it doesn't account for more intense or declined cycles. I can accept polar core samples because those can be seen now and the data used.

They have some nice explanations on how certain formations were made but they don't show any pictures of recent seeps, which were discovered by some of the Mars spacecraft.

http://www.marsunearthed.com/DWArchive/sow.html

Look at the images and tell me what you think.

According to you we have a perfect explanation of what is happening here on Earth. According to you it is green house gasses reeking havoc here, but when you look at the pictures taken of Mars, we know that something is flowing to the surface and leaving marks on the surface. What else could cause such events to take place? Mars doesn't really have an atmosphere to speak of so we know it isn't global warming, and if it isn't global warming then what is it? Solar radiation seems to be the best explanation to me. After all we know the Moon doesn't have water on it but we now know that Mars does have H20 and C02 in the form of ice and dry ice in the northern and southern hemispheres.

You still haven't shown difference in solar radiation and temp change. In order for what I'm saying to be bullshit, there must be some graphs you can show to prove no correlation.