Neelman on cnbc.com today....

[JFReservist]

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.

 

[jayme]

Nope, not kidding at all. I quote NASA and NOAA, and stl717 quotes newspapers and blogs.

 

[MJ42]

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.

 

[jayme]

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.

 

[MJ42]

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...

 

[jayme]

For example?

 

[MJ42]

For example?

AGAIN, POST 51. Every once in a while Camille lets one slip through the cracks

 

[jayme]

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.

 

[jayme]

I had a nice thing going at skywest, but that has nothing to do with this.

 

[Soverytired]

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.