Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Neelman on cnbc.com today....

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Of course if people would simply put down the coffee, the cheeseburger, the cell phone, the paper and f-ing pay attention .....and maybe use a turn signal once in a while, fatalities might just not increase. But, then who am I to ask people to be aware of their surroundings?

Hmm. Perhaps we should have the federal government install cameras, GPS systems, engine governors, and data-recorders in cars to monitor drivers? Driving is a privilege granted by the government, after all.

Cars could "self-report" traffic infractions, and we would all be so much safer.

It's so much better when government tells you what you can and cannot do, all because its for your own safety and your own good. And it's for the children. And the environment.

(and the tax revenue)
 
One more time - I never brought up Gore. You did.


I'm more concerned with NOAA and NASA.

I'm afraid it's inevitable. Al Gore may have raised awareness on the issue of "climate change", but he did so in such a bombastic, alarmist, and frankly false way that his own integrity and motives are now associated with the issue. He is now synonymous with "the movement".

His own conduct of profligate waste, carbon emitting, energy hogging for personal use and profiteering is just another example of how the "elites" will cram regulation down our throats while they live like kings.

The ultimate hypocrisy? Gore can emit as much carbon as he wants . . he just has to give the government some money for "carbon offsets" and he's now a saint again. Chumps like you and I will never be able to afford it.

Bjorn Lomborg is a hard-core environmentalist in the best sense. He's written two books that don't cherry pick data, good or bad, on climate change. Climate change, in his estimation, may be a long-term problem.

In his book "Cool it", his primary thesis is that if the ultimate purpose of environmentalists is to save lives, there are dozens of better ways to make immediate impacts all over the world. Millions, if not tens of millions, of lives could be saved by things like mosquito netting, DDT application, vitamin supplements, clean water programs, vaccinations, etc. And this could all be done IMMEDIATELY for a fraction of the cost of some of the laughable schemes being contemplated for climate change "control".

Little of that is being pursued. One is led to think that a fair amount of "climate change" talk is scare tactics for government power grabs, not concern for humanity.
 
Last edited:
The Earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age (about 11000 years ago). Unlike global warming, almost ALL scientists agree that we are currently between ice ages.

It will cool off again. Give it about 80000 years. People will look back at this century and think how lucky we were to have global warming.

Now where is my winter jacket?
 
Hmm. Perhaps we should have the federal government install cameras, GPS systems, engine governors, and data-recorders in cars to monitor drivers? Driving is a privilege granted by the government, after all.

Cars could "self-report" traffic infractions, and we would all be so much safer.

It's so much better when government tells you what you can and cannot do, all because its for your own safety and your own good. And it's for the children. And the environment.

(and the tax revenue)

Huh?? Someone said there is a fear of an increase in fatalities with smaller cars. I was merely suggesting that if people learned how to freaking drive, maybe it wouldn't be as much of an issue. You fly airplanes. Do you eat a burger, drink a coffee, read the paper and talk on your stupid looking bluetooth thing in the flare????
 
Huh?? Someone said there is a fear of an increase in fatalities with smaller cars. I was merely suggesting that if people learned how to freaking drive, maybe it wouldn't be as much of an issue. You fly airplanes. Do you eat a burger, drink a coffee, read the paper and talk on your stupid looking bluetooth thing in the flare????

You seem like a Democrat government can-and-should solve any and all problems sort of person. I just thought this sort of solution might appeal to you.

It's actually moving this way (baby steps, baby steps). Speed cameras, GPS in cell phones, cell phones that can be turned on as wiretaps without your knowledge even with the power button off, computers in cars recording data, automated speed cameras at red lights . . . .

All for our own safety, which after all is far more important than freedom.
 
You seem like a Democrat government can-and-should solve any and all problems sort of person. I just thought this sort of solution might appeal to you.

It's actually moving this way (baby steps, baby steps). Speed cameras, GPS in cell phones, cell phones that can be turned on as wiretaps without your knowledge even with the power button off, computers in cars recording data, automated speed cameras at red lights . . . .

All for our own safety, which after all is far more important than freedom.

I am aware of all that, and I am completely against it. But, hey, all in the name of "national security" right?

I was merely suggesting that people stop being stupid and pay attention when they are hurling 3000 pounds of metal at 75 mph.
 
And then there's this gem, right off the front page of noaa.gov.

A synopsis:

The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.



One month does not make a climate.

=======================
Garbage in, garbage out.

If the OFFICIAL temperature sensors are not located correctly, such as near pavement and heat sources, do we really know what the temperature is?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-56/




=============================
Oh...
Your, “it has to be a .GOV web site” is not valid. A .GOV web site is not infallible. Conversely there are many non .GOV web sites that are full of accurate unbiased information.


May 02, 2008
A Tale of Two Thermometers

By Steven Goddard, The UK Register
A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the earth won’t be getting any warmer until 2015. Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the “consensus” models which don’t. But how will we know whether the earth is warming or cooling? Today, it all depends on the data source.
Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Center for Climate Studies Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. By contrast, NASA data shows worldwide temperatures increasing at a record pace. The other two widely used global temperature data sources are from earth-orbiting satellites UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems.) Both show decreasing temperatures over the last decade, with present temperatures barely above the 30 year average. Satellite temperature data (UAH and RSS) is more reliable because it covers the entire earth - with the exception of small regions near the north and south poles. They use the same methodology from year to year, and the two sources tend to agree fairly closely. The downside of satellite data is that it only goes back to 1978.
Confusing? How can scientists who report measurements of the earth’s temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data - but what is it?
One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards - which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre has been tracking the changes closely on his Climate Audit site, and reports that NASA is Rewriting History, Time and Time Again. The recent changes can be seen by comparing the NASA 1999 and 2007 US temperature graphs.
Particularly troubling are the years from 1986-1998. In the 2007 version of the graph, the 1986 data was adjusted upwards by 0.4 degrees relative to the 1999 graph. In fact, every year except one from 1986-1998 was adjusted upwards, by an average of 0.2 degrees. If someone wanted to present a case for a lot of recent warming, adjusting data upwards would be an excellent way to do it.
Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore’s science advisor and the world’s leading long-term advocate of global warming. Read story here.
 
Last edited:
One month does not make a climate.

I never said it did. You, however, argued earlier that since 1998 was the warmest year on record, that global warming was a sham.

The only reason I posted that link was because MJ42 stated his "uncle" was a bigwig at NOAA. I took a link right of the front page of NOAA.gov that suggested his "uncle" doesn't read his own website.

Oh...
Your, “it has to be a .GOV web site” is not valid. A .GOV web site is not infallible. Conversely there are many non .GOV web sites that are full of accurate unbiased information.

Another straw man argument...

All I did was challenge you to find me a single, solitary government website that sided with you. You failed.
Instead you come up with more silly opinion pieces.

If you don't know the difference between journalism and science, I don't think I can help you.
 
Climate change? Isn't that what its suppossed to do? I may not be as smart as some of you other folks, but it seems to me that if you really cared about the environment and this impending doom, you'd all ride your bicycles to the airport to quit your jobs have sit ins at the gates to stop people from killing our 'mother'. Maybe you could distract TSA long enough for me to walk through security with the rest of my coffee (it's been a bit cold this May).
 
Instead you come up with more silly opinion pieces.

If you don't know the difference between journalism and science, I don't think I can help you. - Jayme

You're kidding right? You know that all these theories are "opinions," don't you? Don't you? My theory is that its stupidity that keeps changing the climate. Prove me worng, goes I'm collecting plenty of evidence.
 
Nope, not kidding at all. I quote NASA and NOAA, and stl717 quotes newspapers and blogs.
 
Nope, not kidding at all. I quote NASA and NOAA, and stl717 quotes newspapers and blogs.

And you need to read between the lines and "connect the dots" to support your "opinion" you (incorrectly) interpret from NOAA and NASA. And yes, my Uncle did retire from NOAA and still does consulting work for them.
 
I had to paraphrase for you because you weren't understanding what I copied off NOAA. We can go over it again if you need me to.
 
I had to paraphrase for you because you weren't understanding what I copied off NOAA. We can go over it again if you need me to.


Oh, I understand. I just don't twist things around like you. You pick things out that support your opinion yet leave out things that would make you look dumb. See post 51...
 
Last edited:
I personally liked #10:


10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

You have the attention span of a squirrel. You saw something you thought proved your point, but didn't bother to read and comprehend it before you posted it.
 
I had a nice thing going at skywest, but that has nothing to do with this.
 
I am aware of all that, and I am completely against it. But, hey, all in the name of "national security" right?

I was merely suggesting that people stop being stupid and pay attention when they are hurling 3000 pounds of metal at 75 mph.

Just remember, the Dems are the ones who keep sending bills to the president to sign to reauthorize patriot act stuff. They could block it or stop it all tomorrow, but they'd rather talk out of both sides of their mouths. (as do the Republicans, admittedly)

But yeah . . . bad drivers suck.
 
Originally Posted by MJ42
I personally liked #10:


10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.



"You have the attention span of a squirrel. You saw something you thought proved your point, but didn't bother to read and comprehend it before you posted it."


Read bold above....I think this proved my point very well, but again you pick what you want to see. Very closed minded on your part.
 
Nope, not kidding at all. I quote NASA and NOAA, and stl717 quotes newspapers and blogs.

Those .GOV web sites sure want to convince all of us this manmade global warming environmental death trend is very real.

Then you and all the other concerned citizens can demand congress to pass cap and trade or carbon taxes to save the world. What a great new idea, create a crisis so the citizens demand huge new taxes. Everybody wins; brokers, green manufacturers and the government, except you. You will be paying thousands of dollars in taxes you demanded. The new taxes will not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The taxes will make some people very wealthy.

So... Maybe that’s why NASA’s Mr. James Hanson is pushing manmade global warming so hard, or it could be just all the money he has received from various individuals and organizations.

No, there could never be any bias or erroneous information on .GOV web site or any other government sources, such as the hockey stick temperature graph or the error in the formula in NASA’s global temperatures for all years after 1999 that they quietly corrected.

I hope for the sake of that cute little child on your avatar we as a country do the right thing and not kill the economy with carbon taxes or cap and trade. It's time you did some thinking.

Our economy runs on energy.

My scientific sources are much more convincing than some .GOV web sites.
 
Last edited:
More silly reading for jayme.




================================
The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Related Topics: Global Warming

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.
 
Just remember, the Dems are the ones who keep sending bills to the president to sign to reauthorize patriot act stuff. They could block it or stop it all tomorrow, but they'd rather talk out of both sides of their mouths. (as do the Republicans, admittedly)

But yeah . . . bad drivers suck.

Just because I lean to the left doesn't mean that everything the Dems do makes me happy.
 
My scientific sources are much more convincing than some .GOV web sites.

Wow. This place is on fire. First it was advice on how to run the airlines, now it's scientific advice on how to run the environment. Yet, we are all still nothing more than (un)glorified bus drivers.

Maybe we are all aiming too low in our actual career field.

What's next on the average flightinfo-er agenda? Maybe solve LiLo's drug addiction problem? Resurrect Tom Cruise's career? Prove that Obama killed Kennedy while he was wearing the Shroud of Turin?

What other magical and complicated world crisis will such smart pilots solve?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom