Richard Lindzen of MIT has released a new paper disproving a central tenet of Global Warming. According to fear mongers, radiation from the Earth into space should decrease as the surface temperature increases (see the eleven predictive models in Lindzen's paper). This is a non-feedback system (i.e. no feedback mechanism--small deviations in input result in this case in larger deviations in output. In this case a small increase in surface temperature would result in a larger increase in surface temperature later presumably due to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere trapping that radiated heat. . .runaway temp increase! Sound the alarm! Manbearpig!).

Lindzen's paper, however, using data compiled for over 20 years from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellites (ERBE(xperiment)) shows that as surface temperature increases, radiation from Earth to space. . .wait for it. . .INCREASES!

Yes, that's right sports fans. As the Earth gets hotter, it radiates more heat into space, which in turn cools it down towards the norm again. That's negative feedback at work. Makes sense doesn't it?

So much for the dreaded hockey stick, drowning polar bears, swampy Manhattan, single digit (or multi for that matter) temp increases over the next hundred years due to human activity, and other such nonsense. It's going to take a lot more water vapor and methane (oh yeah and I suppose CO2) for the system to heat up like the global warming scaredy pants imagine. And even then it won't "run away." The system is stable! Deviations from the norm result in negative deviations back in the direction of the norm. We're not at a tipping point. Not even close. It ain't built like that.

It will be interesting to see which scientists will look at this in detail and which will continue to suckle at the IPCC.

It is a good day to be B-A.

As the Earth gets hotter, it radiates more heat into space, which in turn cools it down towards the norm again.

If that's the case, why are the Arctic ice caps melting? (Don't say they aren't. There are pictures to prove it.)

Well....there ya go...Doctor Mary with all her credentials snuffs that idea.

Not only are they melting but they've melted so much that people can actually sail from Norway to the Bering Sea in the fabled "Northwest Passage." I have pictures to prove it.

(Please don't be silly and cry, "They've been melting since 1903? Oh the humanity!")

There's a fallacy swimming around in here somewhere.

Well, there is this idea (its crazy I know) that the sun has something to do with it.

You see, I (and many other people) noticed that the 11 and 88 year solar cycles recently converged--that is the peak of the 11 year cycle coincided with the peak of the 88 year cycle. This means that just a few years ago the sun spots due to the 11 year peak combined with the sun spots due to the 88 year peak for an especially active solar year. Imagine! An especially active sun spot cycle coincident with the hottest year on record! What the hell are the odds of that!?

Oh yes, I know. They've already figured that into the holy models. The magnificent and complicated and never wrong models. And the models are never wrong. Doubt me? Just ask Lindzen from MIT who has studied this thing for years--wait. Don't ask him. Ask some world renouned guy, like Freeman Dyson--wait. Don't ask him either.

Not saying sun spots are the reason. Only saying I'll believe they're the cause long before I believe CO2 is the cause.

Oh and by the way, the central premise of Global Warming is a bunch of crap. There is that to consider.

If the peak of the 11 year cycle coincided with the peak of the 88 year cycle a few years ago, then there must be a similar convergence every time there is a peak of the 88 year cycle. What were the temperatures like 88 years before this last convergence? How about 88 years before that? Is there an 88 year cycle of temperature spikes corresponding with these convergences? Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, if you remember ever since the 40s or 50s there has been this terrible, frightening ramp up of global temperatures which sparked the current dour concern by Al Gore and the IPCC. So there is that. . .and the fact that the central premise of Global Warming is crap.

Not saying solar cycles are the cause. But I'll believe they are the cause well before I believe any of this crap about CO2 being the cause.

Do you realize that the temperature here has dropped 20 degrees since noon!? If this trend continues, the San Francisco Bay will be frozen over in ice 100 ft deep by the weekend!

We've got to do something about this NOW!

hmmm ..

hmmm.

No comment.

I'm going to wait Kramer's take, if you don't mind.

Question: do you know what you're talking about?

If no, why are you posting?

If yes, why are you posting here?

He's nothing but a bought and paid for EXXON apologist. Utterly predictable and totally discredited.

Don't you ever read anything but what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity tell you to read? Of course you don't, you don't even read what they tell you to. You just repeat what they tell you about some piece of vaguely scientific, cherry-picked nonsense, which I doubt very much they have read either. You are pitiful, simply pitiful.

Is this forum going to have to endure your anti-TBOF agitprop on an ongoing basis or are you going to keep it mostly to your neues Potemkin Village? Can't have it both ways, which is what your trying to do now. (probably succeed) sadly. TBOF is just doing just fine.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Please fuck off.

Don't be disingenuous. Smearing TBOF on your new forum and then starting on a brow-beating campaign against fraysters who post here. Wow, you're not shy!

1. Huh?

B. Please fuck off.

do you know what you're talking about?

Yes

If yes, why are you posting here?

Why not?