Neelman on cnbc.com today....

[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.

 

[MJ42]

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.

 

[STL717]

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.

 

[Lebowski]

My scientific sources are much more convincing than some .GOV web sites.

Bullsh*t.

 

[STL717]

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.

 

[STL717]

Bullsh*t.

Bull........????

Not really!

Where am I wrong?

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

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.

 

[Bavarian Chef]

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?