See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Source:
The Australian
URL Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a ... /0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
Published: Jun 25, 2008
Author: Phil Chapman
Post Date: 2008-06-25 02:36:28 by RickyJ
Keywords: None
Views: 1067
Comments: 131
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time. If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale. For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun. We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits. We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades. The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible. All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake. In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: FormerLurker (#0)
Hansen is a quack. Probably a crypto-Jew as well.
God is always good!
Gawd, I hope this is true. As for the millions or billions who may die, my view is that the earth has way too many humans already, many of whom (especially the neocons) have shown no sign that they are able to coexist peaceably with other humans of other civilizations to begin with. This is called Mother Nature striking back. As for the predominant global warming mindset, it will not change. Their collectiv(ist) response to this will be: "That's our story and we're sticking to it!"
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Sounds like the obama-ites! Even the few republicans I still talk to aren't excited about voting for mcCain. But the obama-ites are certified, just as the global warming worshippers are!! ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Nice job trying to pass off an editorial as a scientific article. How much does Exxon pay you for all your hard work here?
Uh huh. And he's hiding under your bed, waiting to stuff you with Matzah balls and eat you up... Get a f'ing life.
Now there's a ballsy prediction...
I don't know enough about Hansen or the global cooling theories to have a strong position. I know the weather where I live is ugly and severe as opposed to my past decades of experience. Do you have the education or background to evaluate Hansen's or other's theories with any critical analysis? You seem to have a mindset and those theories that conform to your already established belief system are true and anything outside your mindset is quackery. Where does the learning come in?
The black line is Hansen's prediction. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. Hate to ruin your fun, but it appears that your friend Phil Chapman is full of shiite. From The Australian Warming trend has not been reversed THE opinion piece by Phil Chapman ("Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh", Opinion, April 22) warns of an approaching ice age but contains a number of factual errors, misleading statements and incorrect conclusions. Chapman reports global average temperature cooled by 0.7C in 2007 and says: "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over." It is true that global data sets show a pronounced cooling from January2007 to January 2008 of slightly less than 0.7C. It is an error to state, as Chapman does, that this is unprecedented, as similar dramatic falls occurred from 1998 to 1999, and from 1973 to 1974. It should also be noted that the global average temperature has warmed substantially, by about 0.3C from January 2008 to March 2008. In addition, the annual average temperature for 2007 was within 0.1C of the average temperature in 2006 and 2005; no dramatic cooling there. So what caused this rapid cooling during 2007, and also from 1998 to 1999, and from 1973 to 1974? What was common to all those periods? In each case, the common factor was a rapid change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, from warm temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean to cold temperatures in the same region, which has a significant effect on global climate patterns and global average temperature. La Nina is associated with below-normal global average temperature, and because of its influence, 2008 is likely to be about 0.3C cooler than the average of the previous few years. Chapman did not consider La Nina as a cause of the cooling in 2007 and instead linked it to the minimum in the 11-year cycle in sunspot numbers: "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday." I don't know where these sunspot numbers came from but they are in error. The best source of data for present sunspot numbers is the World Data Centre for Solar Terrestrial Physics at the National Geophysical Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. According to it, the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4, followed by 2.1 in February and 9.3 in March. The minimum was in October2007. So, are variations in global average temperature directly related to sunspot numbers on a monthly, annual or decadal timescale? Certainly not on a monthly timescale and the effect, if any, on a year-to-year timescale is very small, as can be found by correlating the variations of global average temperature on monthly or annual timescales with the sunspot numbers. Any relationship between sunspot numbers and global average temperatures is much, much smaller than the clear relationship between inter- annual variations of equatorial Pacific Sea surface temperatures and global average temperatures, showing the effect of the El Nino-La Nina cycle. While those errors are bad enough, the main flaw in Chapman's opinion is trying to infer long-term climate trends from short-term (one year) variations of global temperature. It is well known (among climate scientists) that there are large inter-annual variations of global temperature caused by a number of factors, including El Nino, big volcanic eruptions, or just the chaotic variability of the climate system. It is not possible to make conclusions about long-term climate trends from inter-annual climate variations. Many lines of evidence support the conclusion reached last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", referring to changes over the past 100 years. Even when we consider only the global average temperature during La Nina episodes, such as the present cool period, we find that we are experiencing the warmest global temperature of any strong La Nina episode in the past 100 years, again showing clear long-term global warming. Most of the increase in global average temperature over the past 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This long-term increase in global average temperature will continue throughout the 21st century because of further increases in greenhouse gases. Yes, there will be year-to-year natural climate variations, with some colder years, but the long- term warming trend will continue. An ice age is definitely not going to occur in the 21st century. Instead, we will all need to make very large reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases if we are to minimise dangerous anthropogenic climate change. David Karoly is a professor in the University of Melbourne's school of earth sciences and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4, followed by 2.1 in February and 9.3 in March. So why are you lying? From ftp://ftp.ngd c.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2008 Good post. Interesting read and rebuttal.
Isn't it interesting that the global warming critics have to resort to outright lying in order to make their case?
I find it interesting that you provide no source for your graphs. Being that you've lied about sunspot activity, I see no reason why I should place any faith in the validity of the pretty graphs you've posted here.
I find it interesting that a posse comes round to ridicule, spam and de- humanize any who wish to discuss the changes we see around us.
It goes with the territory, just as on any other forum.
So, oil companies put a few million into trying to stem the lemming like tide of climate change hysterical bullshit and it's an "evil corporate conspiracy" but the government pours about 103 more money into grants to people biased toward proving it because it'll facilitate their accreation of power and control and that's A-OK... Here's a hint, if you're going to utilize the logical fallacy that the mere supporters of a side in a debate disprove that sides assertions, then you have to accept the same for the opposition and in this case the Pro-globaloney side has a lot more vested interests backing it and to boot, they don't merely want to make money, they want to take your freedom, control you, and diminish the sovereignity of our nation...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Did you know that the article was based on a false premise, and that the author actually lied about the lack of sunspot activity? Do you find this sort of "info" fascinating and believable? As far as oil companies, of course they are siding with global warming critics, in fact they are the ones that PAY global warming critics in many cases. They side with global warming critics because they do not wish to lose the monopoly they have on the world's energy, which is exactly what would happen if alternative sources of energy were developed to a point where oil would become obsolete. Do you think they are taking sides here because they are just nice guys who actually care about you and your family?
No doubt there's the "Pro-globaloney" aspect to make money and restrict freedoms. That doesn't exclude the reality that things in our environment are fukked and the real reasons for it are a subject of interest to many.
The number of spots is not as important as the cycle they come from. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The 12-monthly best fit gives around the year 1797. The Dalton minimum reigned 1798-1823. It's anybody's guess what happens next. At least the Earth is already cooling. Sunspot number from Jan to May = 3, 2, 9, 3, 3 = 20.6 = 19.45(from 23) + 1.15 (from 24). Spotless days Jan to May = 20, 21, 16, 20, 23. One, I didn't lie about sun spot activity. I even posted current SOHO pictures. As for the graphs, they came from one or more of the members of David Wojick's Climate Skeptics forum. I don't remember who did them. The data is sourced however and that is all that is really necessary.
Here's a hint, if you're going to utilize the logical fallacy that the mere supporters of a side in a debate disprove that sides assertions, then you have to accept the same for the opposition and in this case the Pro-globaloney side has a lot more vested interests backing it and to boot, they don't merely want to make money, they want to take your freedom, control you, and diminish the sovereignity of our nation... Heresy! As a side note, I wonder how many of these world socialist nut bags actually practice conservation in their home environments, with their means of transportation, etc.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
You posted an image of the Sun, so what? Are you saying that NOAA is lying about the number of sunspots this year? You quoted the author of this rather lame article in stating that there was only one sunspot in January, and one on each of the two Mondays prior to writing the article in April. There were in reality 12 on 1/4, 11 on 1/6 and 1/7, 10 on 1/5, and from 7 to 9 on eight other days that month. In February, there were 11 on 2/1, and 8 to 9 on six other days that month. In March, there were between 30 and 36 on six days of that month, 25 on 3/31, l9 on 3/24, and 7 to 9 for six other days that month. In the days of April prior to publishing the article, there were 16 on 4/1, 9 on 4/2 and 4/3, 7 on 4/4, 7 on 4/13 and 4/14, and 8 on 4/19, 4/22, and 4/23, where the article was published on 4/23. The only Monday that had sunspots prior to the 23rd of that month was on the 14th, but there was not just ONE, there were SEVEN. So this individual has to be extrordinarily stupid to think people can't look up this information to find out he's either lying or extremely ignorant of what he claims to be knowledgable about. Same goes for you farmfriend, as you are using sunspots as your argument here, and repeated the lie this individual presented.
I love how you cut and paste stuff with no reference where the info came from, and no understanding of what it means. As stated earlier, the earth is NOT cooling in regards to average temperature, any cooling is due to a cyclic effect known as La Nina, and sunspots have very little effect on the climate to begin with.
ARe you saying that the SOHO picture is false? Check the link. As for the sun spots, well you need to educate yourself rather than copy data you don't understand. The author was correct. There was only one spot in Jan from cycle 24. Maybe you should read my more indepth data. It's not just the over all number that is important but which cycle they come from and the intensity. Let's not forget the number of spotless days either, also in the data I posted. Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity SDF Number 176 Issued at 2200Z on 24 Jun 2008 Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 23/2100Z to 24/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares were observed during the past 24 hours. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low for the next three days (25-27 June). Geophysical Activity Summary 23/2100Z to 24/2100Z: The geomagnetic field was quiet. The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit reached high levels during the past 24 hours. Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled during the next three days (25-27 June). The increase in activity is forecast due to the expected arrival of a coronal hole high speed stream. I understand exactly what it means. Do you? As for the source, it was a personal email from Timo Niroma. A picture of the Sun on one particular day doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove that there wasn't any solar activity prior to that day, and it is simply a pretty picture which you posted in an attempt to fool people into thinking the article is correct.
Are you still trying to say that there were only three sunspots this year up through April 23rd?
University at Buffalo scientists working with ice cores have solved a mystery surrounding sunspots and their effect on climate that has puzzled scientists since they began studying the phenomenon. The research, published in a paper in the May 15 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, provides striking evidence that sunspots -- blemishes on the sun's surface indicating strong solar activity -- do influence global climate change, but that explosive volcanic eruptions on Earth can completely reverse those influences. It is the first time that volcanic eruptions have been identified as the atmospheric event responsible for the sudden and baffling reversals that scientists have seen in correlations between sunspots and climate. "Knowing the mechanisms behind past climate changes is critical to our understanding of possible future changes in climate, such as global warming, and for assessing which of these changes are due to human activities and which arise naturally," explained co-author Michael Stolz, doctoral candidate in the Department of Physics in UB's College of Arts and Sciences. According to the UB researchers, their work reveals two different mechanisms by which climate is affected by cosmic rays, charged particles that stream toward Earth and which are strongly influenced by solar activity. "For a long time people have tried to find out whether, for example, periods of maximum sunspots will influence the climate to behave in a certain way," said Michael Ram, Ph.D., professor of physics at UB and co-author on the paper. "Whenever scientists thought they had discovered something, say, they were seeing a positive correlation between temperature and sunspots, it would continue like that for several years and, all of a sudden, there would be a reversal and, instead, they would start to see a negative correlation," said Ram. "There seemed to be no consistent relationship between what the sun was doing and what the climate was doing," he said. To truly confirm any connection between sunspots and climate, a consistent correlation would have to be observed over a long period, covering many solar cycles, Ram explained. That's what he and his graduate students and co-authors have done with their study of ice cores, long cylinders of ancient ice from Greenland that serve as a frozen archive in that they record climate details from thousands of years ago. "This is the beauty of working with ice cores," said Ram. "They go back 100,000 years, so we can study how dust concentrations vary along the ice core, reflecting past atmospheric dust concentrations." Plain old dust, Ram added, holds the key in these experiments because it reflects how dry conditions were in a particular year. "Dust is a very sensitive parameter of climate," he explained. Drawing on climate data derived from ice cores obtained through the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2, (GISP2), the scientists used laser-light scattering techniques to determine the level of dust in the atmosphere for roughly the past 300 years, which is how far back sunspot data have been recorded. The scientists started out with the assumption that a low level of cosmic rays on Earth resulting from high sunspot activity would lead to less cloud cover and less rain, with resulting high dust levels. "This was true for the first three or four solar cycles we studied, from about 1930 to 1962, but then the correlation reversed itself, demonstrating that the mechanism couldn't be what we thought," said Ram. It turned out that during those 32 years of positive sun/dust correlation, there was relatively little explosive volcanic activity worldwide. The researchers found that the same conditions existed between 1860 and 1882. Each of these relatively "quiet" periods came to an end with increased volcanic activity. For example, in 1883, the Indonesian volcano Krakatau erupted in one of the deadliest volcanic disasters, killing 36,000 people. At exactly the same time, the data started to exhibit low dust concentration whenever there was high sunspot activity, a correlation that violated the scientists' original assumptions. "By carefully studying the timing of other volcanic eruptions, we found that they coincided with all of the correlation reversals between sunspots and climate," said Ram. A chart in the paper shows how six major volcanic eruptions between 1800 and 1962 occurred during precisely the same years when there were reversals in the correlation between sunspot activity and climate. That revelation provided a further insight into how sunspots affect climate. "All energy comes from the sun, but the change in visible radiation from the sun during any one solar cycle is less than one half of a percent," explained Stolz. "Scientists have said it's impossible that so small a change could influence any signal in the climate. But here we have evidence to show that it's not just radiation energy from the sun that is affecting climate, it's the solar-modulated cosmic rays that have a strong influence because of their impact on cloud cover." With fewer clouds, and therefore less rain, the scientists reasoned, maximum sunspots should cause levels of atmospheric dust to rise. "That is true sometimes," said John Donarummo, Jr., UB doctoral candidate in the UB Department of Geology and a co-author on the paper. But, the researchers discovered, during periods of high volcanic activity, high sunspot activity also results in high levels of atmospheric dust. According to Donarummo, it long has been known that volcanoes add more dust and more sulfates to the atmosphere. The UB team discovered that these additional sulfates cause cosmic rays to have a more pronounced effect on Earth by spurring the formation of small droplets in the atmosphere that, in turn, cause the formation of a type of cloud that does not produce rain. "During these times of high volcanic activity, the sunspot/climate correlation reverses and dust levels rise, even in the absence of high sunspots," explained Stolz. The work was funded in part by the National Science Foundation.- By Ellen Goldbaum I highly doubt it. BTW, do you believe everything you read on the Internet, or do you only believe that which agrees with your worldview?
Didn't read the data I posted did you? Let me repost the short version for you. Spotless days Jan to May = 20, 21, 16, 20, 23. Then there is this important tidbit: As I said, any relationship between climate and sunspot activity is minimal. I didn't say non-existent, I said minimal.
I guess you don't count very well do you. That, or you are simply ignoring the actual sunspot counts provided by NOAA. Which is it?
Cycle 23 spots show up in the Southern Hemisphere of the sun. Cycle 24 spots show up in the North. cycle 24 is already a year late. Cycle 23 was responsible for the peak warming in 98. The more number of spotless days, also in the information I posted, the cooler the Earth. The Maunder minimum and the Dalton minimum were both caused by decreses in sun spot activity. The Landscheidt minimum is expected to be similar to the Dalton minimum.
Your numbers seem to match mine so what is the problem? Other than you failed to show which cycle they came from or the significance of the number of spotless days.
According to Donarummo, it long has been known that volcanoes add more dust and more sulfates to the atmosphere. The UB team discovered that these additional sulfates cause cosmic rays to have a more pronounced effect on Earth by spurring the formation of small droplets in the atmosphere that, in turn, cause the formation of a type of cloud that does not produce rain. So are you trying to say that sunspots cause volcanic activity? What exactly ARE you trying to say here? Should high sunspot activity make the earth warmer or cooler?
You quoted the author of this article stating that there were only three this year up to the 23rd of April. Do you retract that quote and agree that the author is lying?
I'm not saying anything, just countering your unsourced unsupported notion that "any relationship between climate and sunspot activity is minimal." Do you want to source that? Support it in any way?
The author was talking about cycle 24. Why don't you get back to me when you understand more about sun spots.
Why don't you get back to me when you know the difference between 3 and 129, as from the data it appears there were 129 separate sunspots between the first of the year and April 23rd, whereas you implied the author was correct in stating there were only THREE...
This is exactly what you quoted in post# 11 on this thread; "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon."
How can you be countering what I posted if you don't know what effect sunspots have on the climate?
LOL! Not according to the data you posted from NOAA. Do you not believe your own data?
Did anyone teach you how to count when you were a little girl? Looking over the data, I looked at the highest number in a group and counted that highest number only once. I tallied the highest number of EACH group up through 4/23 and arrived at 129. Is that beyond your understanding?
"The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon." No. This is what I quoted from post #11: It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The first sun spot for cycle 24 did appear in Jan. Are you going to actually read the data I posted?
Ok farmfriend, why don't you show us your fancy new math and tell us what YOU think the count is up to 4/23.
Is that beyond your understanding? I knew that was what you did. It's the wrong way to do it. Sadly you didn't notice their tallies at the bottom.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just playing dumb here?
LOL! Your repost doesn't have the bottom tallies that the first one had? Why not?
You cut the post taking a portion out of context and you ask if I have a reading comprehension problem? That's rich.
Those are average number of spots per days in the month. Are you really that dumb? They added the number of sunspots from each day and divided by the number of days in the month. Geesh, do it on a calculator if you don't believe me. I take it you weren't an honor roll student, eh..............
See above post for your answer, if you can understand it that is...
Do you or do you not understand what 1 + 1 + 1 equals?
Did you really think that if there were 12 sunspots on January 4th, there would only be 3.4 sunspots recorded for the month of January?
Would a graph help you. This is a NOAA graph. Again those are monthly AVERAGED values. DO you think if you have 12 of something on one day of the month, the total number for that month would equal anything less?
It obviously wouldn't help YOU.
As you can see from the following table for daily sunspot activity in 2000, the values depicted on the graph you posted are MONTHLY AVERAGE VALUES, not TOTALS.
So are you ready to admit that the author lied, and that you were wrong in assuming there were only three sunspots from the beginning of the year through the day he published his editorial?
Get back to me when you know the difference between cycle 23 and 24.
From the data I posted. January 2008 Do you or do you not understand dates and numbers? Does the statement "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday." confuse you? Does the fact that the author published his article on April 23rd befuddle your mind, where you can't understand how many sunspots he claims there were from the beginning of the year up to the day he wrote his article? Are you REALLY that dumb, or are you just playing like you are because your pay will get docked if you do admit that the author lied, or didn't know what the hell he was talking about? If you AREN'T that dumb, you are a terrible liar.
Three spots from cycle 24. Until you understand that we get nowhere. That's why I said you were cutting the quote I used and therefore taking it out of context. 3 spots from Cycle 24. The distinction if vital.
I could care less what horseshit you post from some off the wall website. You refuse to acknowledge 12 is greater than 3.4, and that 1 + 1 + 1 equals 3.
In cycle 24. Cycle 24. cycle 24. You can not take a part of the quote out of context. He was talking about cycle 24 and clearly states that. There is a difference between cycle 24 and cycle 23 sun spots.
the 3.4 is averages as you clearly pointed out. His numbers are almost identical to the averages you posted earlier.
Watch out, thems will suck the life right out of you. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
He said there was ONE sunspot in January. That is a LIE. There were 28 separate sunspots that month. He said there was ONE sunspot TWO Mondays before he wrote the article, and another ONE the Monday after that, where there were NO days this year where there was only ONE sunspot, never mind only one on a Monday. And YOU are an even bigger liar, as cycle 24 started January 4th, where there were TWELVE sunspots that day, and 129 separate sunspots just up to 4/23/08. I've been trying to let you off the hook on that, but it's quite clear that you had no intention of correcting yourself and admitting you were wrong.
Your averages 3.4, 2.1, 9.3, 2.9, 2.9 His averages 3.4, 2.1, 9.3, 2.9, 2.9 taken directly from the data I posted.
No, he said there was one spot from cycle 24. How many times do I have to repeat that. Here is the direct quote again: It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. Those figures are nonsense, especially the 0.3 from cycle 24. He AND you are presenting averaged numbers as if they were ACTUAL counts, and then trying to say there were 0.3 sunspots this entire year. Do you really expect people to be that stupid?
How many from cycle 23 and how many from cycle 24?
Do you live in some sort of alternate universe where 20 = 3, and 3 equals 1? Again, cycle 24 STARTED on January 4th of this year, and has JUST began. Thus far, from what I can see there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY (160) thus far this cycle. So you are here trying to say that 160 equals 1?
Are you pals with Bill Clinton or something? Are you going to try to change the meaning of the word EQUALS?
No, he represented the same averages you did only English is not his primary language.
LOL It's like remedial pre-school class and you got stuck teaching!
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
It didn't happen. A) The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. B) A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. C) Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. A) LIE B) LIE C) LIE Are you going to try to say that January doesn't exist, or that he meant next year, or something equally deranged?
I bet she was your teacher, right?
Are you ready to admit that there were 160 sunspots so far this cycle and that you were lying about there only being ONE?
LOL! cycle 23 spots and cycle 24 spots happen at the same time. Hemisphere is important. That's why Timo gives data each month for cycle 23 and cycle 24. It's not just a matter of numbers since a certain date. There well may have been 160 spots since Jan 4, I didn't count them, but most of those are cycle 23 spots. Look at Timo's data again. Would this help. He has the same 3.4 average spots you have then breaks it down by cycle. I'll add % to make it clear. There hasn't been 160 spots "this cycle".
Correct. Sort of. Cycle 24 spots have made an appearance but the cycle is still considered delayed since the spots are few in number and weak plus we are still getting cycle 23 spots. Incorrect. Most of those were from last cycle, cycle 23.
No. Shall I go back and pull the data? Go back and look at Timo's data, taken from NOAA, he breaks it down by cycle as it should be. Most months had cycle 23 spots not cycle 24. There is a distinction that is important.
Do you or do you not admit that on the day this cycle started, 1/4/2008, there were 12 active sunspots? Do you or do you not admit that since there were TWELVE that day, then your statement, "No, he said there was one spot from cycle 24" would indicate the man is either an idiot or a liar?
Are you for real? The cycle started 1/4/2008, and by summing the highest value for unique groups of spots up through the end of May, the sum is 160. Hell, you still can't admit that 12 doesn't equal 1.
January 2008 You do realize that we are IN CYCLE 24 right NOW, don't you?
Do you or do you NOT admit that 12 DOES NOT EQUAL 1?
The start of cycle 24 doesn't mean that all subsequent spots are cycle 24.
And still getting cycle 23 spots.
I think you're just trying to see if I'll lose my temper with how dumb you are acting. The cycle began 1/4/2008. A sunspot cycle BEGINS with the MINIMUM point in the cycle, where there is EXPECTED to be very little sunspot activity. Even YOU should have seen that from the graph you posted.. Hell, here's another set of graphs which go back to 1760. So sunspot activity will increase over the next several years, but what we are experiencing NOW is perfectly normal and expected.
Do you know the difference between an apple and an orange? I really don't think you do.
Do you admit that the beginning of a cycle indicates a point where there is a lull in sunspot activity?
Do you think it really matters if a spot is cycle 23 or 24 in regards to the number of spots at this point? Do you even know what would make a spot cycle 23 or 24?
"... the daily "Boulder Sunspot Number," is computed by the NOAA Space Environment Center using a formula devised by Rudolph Wolf in 1848: R=k (10g+s), where R is the sunspot number; g is the number of sunspot groups on the solar disk; s is the total number of individual spots in all the groups; and k is a variable scaling factor (usually <1) that accounts for observing conditions and the type of telescope (binoculars, space telescopes, etc.)." .............. "As a rule of thumb, if you divide either of the official sunspot numbers by 15, you'll get the approximate number of individual sunspots visible on the solar disk if you look at the Sun by projecting its image on a paper plate with a small telescope."
Of course that doesn't mean the result is the actual number of sunspots, rather it simply means that'd be the approximate number you'd see on a paper plate with a small telescope.
How many of those were cycle 24 spots? I agree though that the article of the thread is a poor one.
Keisha Brown, 21, from Chicago, whose mother has a nightgown with a picture of Obama on it, said, “Everything will be different now.”
It does if the quote is specifically talking about cycle 24 and you turn it into all spots. It also matters when you are trying to project if cycle 24 is going to be active or not. So far cycle 24 has not been strong enough to push out cycle 23. I agree though that the article of the thread is a poor one. Only one from what I gather, yet the way the article is worded, most people would think that was the ONLY sunspot in January, period.
The "sunspot number" for the day is about the number of spots you'd see on a paper plate with a small telescope, multiplied by 15.
For most people reading the article, one spot is one spot. He embellished the importance of the matter, whereas it's NORMAL and EXPECTED for there to be a lull in sunspot activity at the beginning of a new cycle. He neglected not only that, but he failed to mention that there was still sunspot activity taking place from the previous cycle, again, as expected.
Right, but scientists don't use paper plates, they use various observatories to measure the actual number.
FWIW, when most people ralk about a sunspot they are talking about a spot visible by a method like the "paper plate" method. That the image is on a "paper plate" isn't that important, it's the size of the image, assuming it's sharp. Not sure how big the image would be on the "paper plate" to come up with the "divide R by 15 to get the number of spots seen" situation, but I doubt it would cover the entire plate if a small scope is used. Using a paper plate and small scope is probably not much different from counting the spots on the SOHO website's smaller sunspot images. If you look at the formula for "R", though, "s" is apparently the actual number of spots counted no matter how big the scope is, and R is close to 10g + s, where g is the number of groups. If you had two groups with five spots in each, "R" would apparently be 30, if the explanation given with the formula is correct, with s = 10, g = 2 (and k close to 1). The other number in the formula, "k", the scaling constant, apparently would become larger the smaller the scope. Two groups of five spots seen as two spots on a small scope would apparently also give R = 30, using the divide by 15 method, R/15= 2. The factor "k" is apparently intended to norm all observations on different instruments to a standard resolution which is basically the same as a standard magnification. So, it seems the standard image is apparently about 15 times sharper than a small-scope/paper plate image and shows small-scope spots to be groups of about 5 spots. Five is probably representative of an average of even numbers 4 and 6 here, as pairs of poles. That's my guess, anyway. A definite fractal flavor to it, too. I do not follow this old-cycle/new-cycle stuff, and it apparently has nothing to do with "sunspot number" R. It looks like nonsense to me.
If you search "fractal sunspot" you'll see things like "This paper analyzes the model for the evolution of sunspots considered as fractal clusters of magnetic flux tubes." If you see one obvious spot at a glance from a simple pinhole, then it's probably two with a small scope inserted instead, then at the standard image gain used for R it is more likely seen as two sets of four or six spots, which for each set represent two or three obvious pairs of flux-tube exits and entries. I think.
Do you find this sort of "info" fascinating and believable? I don't even give a shit about the article. My point was that you seem to put a shitload of faith in the good intentions of a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians who have MORE than the vested interests in screwing us than the oil companies ever have, and have REPEATEDLY produced on those screwings. So the sunspot article was off, or had some inaccuracies. Your side has fruitloops that claim a fraction of a degree of warming is increasing tectonic activity. The whole discussion is bullshit. The planet's going to be FINE. It's survived 200,000,000 to 500,000,000+ Mt IMPACT events for Gods sake and still harbored life and kept rotating around the sun. CO2 levels have been nearly 2000 ppm in the past and the planet was a RIOT of life and diversity then. If the stupid NGO-Treehugger-Gobalist crowd had a pound of brains among themselves they'd ROOT for global warming to cull humans and increase diversity. You know why they don't? Because the point is SCREW THE AMERICANS. That's why all the treaty bullshit exempts 3rd worlders, and probably still China and India and then turns around and prohibits us from offsetting with programs like reforestation. You don't say??? Did you freakin' read what I wrote??? The "I believe the sky is falling and the Earth is crying and we need more patchouli oil and compact flourescents" crowd gets paid about 1000X more by governments, foundations and university grants to spout their crap, and while it's no where NEAR settled as to what or how much effect we have and how bad or good it will be, it's become a damn multibillion dollar lobbying and business machine on that side. Oil and liquid/solid hydrocarbons will NOT BECOME OBSOLETE FOREVER OR AT LEAST UNTIL WE EVOLVE INTO THE NEW AGES "PEACEFUL LIGHT BEINGS" OR JESUS RETURNS AND PUTS HIS FOOT DOWN! It just ain't happening. Aside from the fact that practically EVERY piece of modern technology you ride in, eat off of, play with, shit on, Ad Infinitum... has a hydrocarbon component, liquid hydrocarbons provide the MOST UNIT ENERGY PER VOLUME of any reasonably cheap motive and power producing fuel. Until you can generate or store on a large scale the energy equivalent of a tankfull of hydrocarbons for less than it would cost to actually synthesize liquid hydrocarbons from something like trash and water you're going to use hydrocarbons. I don't give a shit what they think of my family as long as they produce portable liquid fuel available on demand... As for the CO2 concentrations as they stand having anything to do with what we actually are observing on the macro scale, there isn't any. None of todays weather phenominon can be connected to a fraction of a degree change in temperature up or down. The WHOLE hysteria about it is NOTHING BUT GOVERNMENT AND VESTED INTEREST BULLSHIT designed to get us to cough up freedom, independance and sovereignity...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
I agree with that. But air pollution, while not being a significant cause of global warming, does hurt people who must breath that air.
God is always good!
Oh, I've NO issue with tackling problems like "air you can chew" like we had in the 50's/60's and they have in China now. What raises my BP into the twilight zone is that the actions taken to address environmental issues keep snowballing even after the original problem is solved. It's like MADD and their BAC limit lobbyings...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Other than alarmist bullshit and Rush Limbaugh talking points, do you have anything useful to say about this topic? Do you have any sort of physics background, or any background in earth science to where you even understand the subject matter? Judging from your post, I wouldn't think you do. You appear to think we've reached the pinnacle of human development and that oil is the answer to every single energy need, current and future. That philosophy is no different than those who insisted that if men were meant to fly God would have given him wings. Even then there were superior alternatives to petroleum, namely hemp oil, which would have been an abundent and replenishible energy source. However, pals of yours such as Rockefellar and DuPont saw to it that hemp was made illegal, so that Rockefellar could have his oil monopoly (hence a monopoly on energy) and DuPont could have his monopoly on petroleum based plastics, where his patent wouldn't have covered hemp oil based plastics. We are currently at the mercy of those who have bought and paid for the laws which have made us as dependent on petroleum as a heroin addict is to heroin. Being that the those scientists who are predicting climate change have urged the world to seek new sources of energy in order to eliminate fossil fuels, it isn't hard to see why oil companies might have a problem with that idea, and why they pay shills to screech how awful those scientists are and how wonderful things are for us all, even though we are paying out the ass for a product that could fairly easily be replaced with something cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient. You pretend you care about freedom, independance and sovereignity, where you don't mind being the bitch for the elites who pull the strings of the various governments to maintain their stranglehold over the world's energy supply, which THEY have forced down our throats and made us into junkies with.
What is it connected with? Why is the weather shit? Changing weather patterns, apparent climate changes and all around freakyness is happening. And it seems to be happening quickly and severely. Dumping shit in the rivers made them dirty. Dumping shit in our air makes it dirty. I don't know enough to say for certain what's the problem. I don't think you know enough for certain to say what isn't the problem. But I do agree with you that the bought and paid for US funding machine has designs that have nothing to do with our health and survival and a lot to do with our enslavement.
I've yet to utilize a "Rush Limbaugh" talking point in this. OTOH, you've provided squat yourself. Ah, hey McFLY, in case you haven't been paying attention for the last few years we've occasionally interfaced here, I'm a GEOLOGIST in the ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRY with just shy of 20 YEARS under my belt... Handily reiterating the fact that your judgement in this instance is about as worthless as tits on boars... Please just STFU with pontificating and get on with demonstrating how it isn't. Tell me what you're proposing we make plastics, fertilizers, fuel, et.al. with... BTW, it's not the answer to every single energy need, there's nuclear, and coal, but when it comes to the passive generating concepts you just can't get the density to run more than ~20% of civilization. Hemp oil is FINE by me, it's a LIQUID HYDROCARBON. It fits with EXACTLY what I'm saying. You're still making plastics with oil. I've NEVER said Hemp wasn't a good idea as a resource, it hasn't even been brought up until you decided to just hump it in here. Hemp oil would probably decrease the US's dependance on foreign oil, our carbon footprint (whatever that's worth in anyones mind) and create a lot of US jobs. Guess what?! THAT'S EXACTLY WHY YOU WON"T SEE IT GET EXPLOITED. It's like the reforestation no no for the US in Kyoto offsets and it doesn't fit the NWO ideal of reducing and eliminating individual nations sovereignity. The planet is awash in hydrocarbons. The only ones with ANY remotely demonstrable plateau in quantity are easily extracted light fraction oils. If anything, we're at the mercy of bankers who've corrupted the monetary system so much that there's no true market response to sourcing and utilizing hydrocarbons... How are we paying out the ass for it??? Measured against almost any other commodity it's the same price it was 60+ years ago. And what?, do those scientists get a "bye" on being right merely because it makes you feel good and seems to give your life purpose? To reiterate, you need oil, in any form, for a hell of a lot more than just moving. The providers haven't made anyone their bitches, the bankers have if anything and at this time, in order to keep harvesting the labor and fruits of people the globe over...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Well if you don't view $4 or more a gallon as paying out the ass, perhaps when it goes past $5 you'll begin to understand. Compared to the pre-invasion prices, we ARE paying out the ass. Gas was $1.25 or so a gallon in 2002, and has almost quadrupled since then. You are wrong in your analogy about the price 60 years ago as well, since gas was only $ 0.20 per gallon, and as most things are ten times more expensive today than then, gas should be $2.00 per gallon, not twice that.
Moment of brotherly love for todays 2nd Amendment ruling!!! Whoo Hoo!
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
That you either refuse to see it or can't understand doesn't make it so. Hemp was made illegal BECAUSE Rockefellar wanted total control of the US energy supply, AND because DuPont wanted total control of the plastic/synthtic fiber industry. Not just this country, but the entire world was made dependent on petroleum not just for its energy, but for its use in a broad spectrum of applications including but not limited to plastics, synthetic textile fibers, lubricants, medicines, pesticides, and even food additives (food colorings). It was no accident, it was done for the purpose of gaining absolute control over the world. It would be exactly something that a group of people plotting to take over the world would do. Hence, I view any interference with altervative energy development as something the NWO would orchestrate.
Gas - ~$1.50/gallon in ~2000/01. M3 supply increased an average of about 15% a year since then. 1.50 X 1.15 = $1.72 M3 should hold an approximately 16-18% growth this year, that would put gasoline at an average nationwide 2008 adjusted price of $4.66. Bookmark this and see if it doesn't hold true. As for the analogy of prices in the past, within a range of approximately $0.18- $0.32, the same amount of 90% silver coinage (undepreciating essentially) buys an identical quantity of gasoline now as it did back then. You can convert it at any time here and follow it. It will be in shortage or some type of problem when it passes and HOLDS for a significant period of time (like a year or so) over ~$0.35- 37/gallon in 90% coinage... Oil is not going up significantly, your dollars are going DOWN and/or the people taking them for oil perceive it as such...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Take a closer look at the Bush administration and its policies in Iraq, not to mention the Energy Bill. A big hog trough for big oil.
Yes, but oil's margins themselves are the same as always, about 8-10%. Note who get's the giant mongo behemoth keeps-going-for-awhile bailout now though... BANKS. Banks and the FED need that cash absorbed someplace or the terrible "D" word will crop up and they'll all crap their pants. Oils doing it's part and rising. Sure as heck aren't going to park that green shit in realestate at this point in time. Additionally, as far as subsidies go, the "green" lobby, including biofuels, particularly ethanol, (ADM primarily) is making the 7 sisters look like cheap street hookers now days...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
x 1.15 = $1.98 (2002) x 1.15 = $2.28 (2003) x 1.15 = $2.62 (2004) x 1.15 = $3.01 (2005) x 1.15 = $3.46 (2006) x 1.15 = $3.99 (2007) Gas was about $1.25 per gallon in April of 2002. In 2003, gas was averaging about $1.72 per gallon in March. Latest survey shows average price up 5 cents a gallon over last two weeks to $1.72 a gallon. In March 2004, the average was about $1.75 per gallon. Average price for gallon of regular self-serve comes in at $1.753 before OPEC meets to discuss cuts. In March 2005, gasoline averaged $1.95 per gallon in the Houston area. January, February, March 2005 Gas Prices March 2006 brought us $2.35 per gallon prices. Gas prices up even as crude goes lower In March of 2007, gas prices ranged anywhere from $2.17 to $3.17 per gallon. And finally, March of 2008 brought us average prices of $3.16 per gallon However, now we are paying $4 or so per gallon, a 27% increase since March of this year. It appears your formula doesn't pass master.
As far as inflation goes, it'd be true inflation if people's salaries were keeping up with any rise in overall cost of goods. When prices go up and wages stay the same, it's theft, not inflation.
BTW, do you agree that the article misrepresents the nature of sunspot activity in order to fool people into thinking we are in danger of global cooling?
BTW Axenolith, the people who own the banks AND the Federal Reserve ALSO own the oil companies. The Rockefellar family owns shares in the FED and oil, such as Exxon/Mobil, formerly Standard Oil. So the people that you are aiding by siding with global warming critics are those who control not just the world's energy, but the world's money supply as well.
Dude, the bottom line is that regardless of whether it got here all spikey and disjointed with much in the latter 3 years, or as a smooth curve, it perfectly parallels the rise in the money supply to purchase it. I won't contest that you're links show the actual, but it's reasonably close for the annual, and spot on for the duration. The heavier rise in the later years would actually bear out the lag in the effect of the increase in money supply. MOST of the rise in prices we see today is due to inflation of the US money supply. So what's the arguement? Are you contesting my methodology merely to pick nits? We're not, in the aggregate, extremely far apart in our lines of thinking. The general disagreement we have is over the criticality and scope of effect, if any, of human instituted changes in the composition of minor atmospheric gasses...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
When prices go up and wages stay the same, it's theft, not inflation. There was some economic commetary just to that effect recently, that the spike in prices had to be mitigated or controlled before it translated into demands for higher wages...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
My point, as a Geologist, is that the warming, if any, is insignificant and will remain so for the indefinite future. It will never carry outside the norms of geologic history. The current measured warming is still not statistically significant. The people pushing it are the same ones who are aiding the critics in the aggregate. It's NOT a real threat, it's a manufactured and hyped threat to gain them more control. Now, regardless of our stance on the issue, the global warming proponents would get nearly everything they want if they merely worked the world back to a hard asset backed currency system and allowed it to subsequently limit growth to the approximately 1.5-2% annual growth of gold and silver bases (and others if need be). The KEY to nearly every environmentalist desire on this globe is the limitation to growth and many of them state that growth is THE problem but for some reason I never see them bring this (money supply) issue up. When they talk of curbing growth, they talk of doing it by regulation and management. If growth were curbed by money supply, the natural tendancy of people desiring higher margins and expansion would be through greater competitiveness gained through efficiency.
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
You know what, I actually went back up and perused both articles (pro and rebuttal con) and you know what, they're both SHIT science. Geologicaly speaking, having a big debate over .3 or .7 degree temperature changes over a period of at the most a year and as little as 3 months is just bullshit. Those types of changes and duration are statistical noise in the geologic record. If you translated the actual fluctuation of temperature into a 3 dimensional solid with each point of the solids surface relief representing one months temperature change you couldn't distinguish those readings from from anything else with a microscope, probably even a STE microscope at that...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
The rebuttal does the opposite of what you claim it does, and uses the very same argument you make that temperature changes over such a short time mean next to nothing. Did you really read it or did you just skim over it thinking you already knew what is said?
The causes of an ice age are very complicated. Certainly the sun has a variable output and there is the tilt of the earth due to the 41,000 year wobble cycle. If the sun is entering a cooling cycle and the tilt of earth is right, no doubt we will enter an Ice Age. And the idea that bull dozers could cover millions of square miles of snow with dirt near as fast as new snow falls is silly. But an ice age isn't all bad. It would destroy the USA's ability to make war on the rest of the world. And it would certainly reduce the world's population eliminating most of the excess humans.
Are you one of those excess humans?
God is always good!
At my age, I'm near worthless and a drain on society so I am one of the excess humans. However, I probably have the resourses to survive the remainder of my natural life while other productive humans would starve. Live is the way it is and fairness is not a factor in survival. Regardless lots of excess humans (probably half the world's population) would die in an ice age.
#2. To: RickyJ (#0)
#3. To: Sam Houston (#2)
As for the predominant global warming mindset, it will not change. Their collectiv(ist) response to this will be: "That's our story and we're sticking to it!"
#4. To: RickyJ (#0)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#5. To: RickyJ (#1)
Hansen is a quack. Probably a crypto-Jew as well.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#6. To: RickyJ (#0)
We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#7. To: RickyJ (#1)
Hansen is a quack.
#8. To: angle (#7)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#9. To: All (#8)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#10. To: All (#9)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#11. To: RickyJ (#0)
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#12. To: RickyJ, farmfriend, Rotara, Sam Houston, who knows what evil, angle (#0)
David Karoly | April 29, 2008
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#13. To: farmfriend, RickyJ, angle (#11)
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
DAILY SUNSPOT NUMBERS 2008
===============================================================================
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr Day
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 11 0 16 0 2008 01
7 9 0 9 0 2008 02
7 9 7 9 0 2008 03
12 8 0 7 7 2008 04
10 0 0 0 8 2008 05
11 0 8 0 0 2008 06
11 0 0 0 0 2008 07
9 0 0 0 0 2008 08
0 0 0 0 0 2008 09
8 0 9 0 0 2008 10
8 0 0 0 0 2008 11
0 0 0 0 0 2008 12
0 0 0 7 8 2008 13
0 0 0 7 0 2008 14
0 0 7 0 9 2008 15
0 0 7 0 14 2008 16
0 0 7 0 12 2008 17
0 0 0 0 15 2008 18
0 0 0 8 11 2008 19
0 0 0 0 7 2008 20
0 0 0 0 0 2008 21
0 0 0 8 0 2008 22
0 0 0 8 0 2008 23
0 0 19 7 0 2008 24
0 8 32 0 0 2008 25
0 8 36 0 0 2008 26
0 8 35 0 0 2008 27
0 0 34 0 0 2008 28
0 0 30 0 0 2008 29
8 31 0 0 2008 30
8 25 0 2008 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4 2.1 9.3 2.9 2.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values are preliminary after Dec 07.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#14. To: FormerLurker (#12)
#15. To: angle (#14)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#16. To: farmfriend (#8)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#17. To: FormerLurker (#15)
#18. To: angle (#17)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#19. To: FormerLurker (#4)
How much does Exxon pay you for all your hard work here?
#20. To: Axenolith (#19)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#21. To: Axenolith (#19)
in this case the Pro-globaloney side has a lot more vested interests backing it and to boot, they don't merely want to make money, they want to take your freedom, control you, and diminish the sovereignity of our nation...
#22. To: FormerLurker (#13)
the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4, followed by 2.1 in February and 9.3 in March.
The situation with sunspots from July 2007 to May 2008. The cycle 23 that began already in 1996 still reigns superior.
From cycle 24 there are three tiny signatures: one in January (1 day), one in April (2 days)and one in May (2 days).
In 2008 there has been 14 groups from cycle 23 lasting together 80 days, and 3 groups from cycle 24 lasting together 5 days.
From July 2007 to December 2007
month
year
spotless days
days with below 10 Wolfs (1 sunspot group)
days with below 20 Wolfs (most probable 2 groups)
days between 20-30 Wolfs (3-4 groups)
07 2007 08 10 09 04
08 2007 08 22 01
09 2007 22 07 01
10 2007 28 02 01
11 2007 24 04 02
12 2007 12 05 05 08
-------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2008
spotless days 20
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 11 days
one spot group from cycle 24 (northern hemisphere) on 1 day (4.1.)
4.1. there were two spot groups at the same time, one from cycle 23
and one from cycle 24
Sunspot number 3.4 (3.1 from cycle 23 0.3 from cycle 24)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
February 2008
spotless days 21
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 8 days
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 2.1 (all from cycle 23)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2008 (some ending in April)
spotless days 16
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (5.-6.3.) max size 30 per mil
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (10.3.) max size 90 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 3 days (15.-17.3.) max size 20 pm
a triplet (3 at the same time 25.3.-31.3.):
first sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 12 days (23.3.-31.3.)
second sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (24.3.-2.4.)
third sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (25.3.-3.4.)
max size together 520 pm (26.3.), above 100 from 24.3.-2.4.
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 9.3 (all from cycle 23)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2008
spotless days 20
remnants from sp-gr from cycle 23 1.4.-3.4. (see March)
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (19.-20.4.) max size 20 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (NH) on 3 days (22.-24.4.) max size 40 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (NH) on 2 days (14.-15.4.) max size 10 pm
this is number 2 cycle 24 spot 102 days after the first in January
Sunspot number 2.9 (2.45 from cycle 23 and 0.45 from cycle 24)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2008
spotless days 23
three simultaneous sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (16.5) ms 45
two sim. sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 4 days (17.5.-20.5.) ms 80
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (26.5.) ms 10
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (SH!) on 2 days (4.-5.5.) ms 20
sunspot number 2.9 (2.5 from cycle 23 and 0.4 from cycle 24)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#23. To: FormerLurker (#16)
I find it interesting that you provide no source for your graphs. Being that you've lied about sunspot activity, I see no reason why I should place any faith in the validity of the pretty graphs you've posted here.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#24. To: Axenolith (#19)
So, oil companies put a few million into trying to stem the lemming like tide of climate change hysterical bullshit and it's an "evil corporate conspiracy" but the government pours about 103 more money into grants to people biased toward proving it because it'll facilitate their accreation of power and control and that's A-OK...
#25. To: farmfriend (#23)
One, I didn't lie about sun spot activity. I even posted current SOHO pictures.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#26. To: farmfriend (#22)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#27. To: FormerLurker (#25)
Are you saying that NOAA is lying about the number of sunspots this year?
From the Space Weather Prediction Center Updated 2008 Jun 24 2203 UTC
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#28. To: FormerLurker (#26)
I love how you cut and paste stuff with no reference where the info came from, and no understanding of what it means.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#29. To: farmfriend (#27)
ARe you saying that the SOHO picture is false?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#30. To: farmfriend (#28)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#31. To: FormerLurker (#26)
(Edited)
and sunspots have very little effect on the climate to begin with.
Of Sunspots, Volcanic Eruptions And Climate Change
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#32. To: farmfriend (#28)
I understand exactly what it means.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#33. To: FormerLurker (#30)
Are you still trying to say that there were only three sunspots this year up through April 23rd?
Sunspot number from Jan to May = 3, 2, 9, 3, 3 = 20.6 = 19.45 (from 23) + 1.15 (from 24).
The 12-monthly best fit gives around the year 1797. The Dalton minimum reigned 1798-1823. It's anybody's guess what happens next. At least the Earth is already cooling.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#34. To: farmfriend (#31)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#35. To: farmfriend (#33)
Sunspot number from Jan to May = 3, 2, 9, 3, 3
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#36. To: FormerLurker (#32)
I highly doubt it. BTW
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#37. To: FormerLurker (#35)
I guess you don't count very well do you. That, or you are simply ignoring the actual sunspot counts provided by NOAA. Which is it?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#38. To: farmfriend (#31)
But, the researchers discovered, during periods of high volcanic activity, high sunspot activity also results in high levels of atmospheric dust.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#39. To: farmfriend (#37)
Your numbers seem to match mine so what is the problem?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#40. To: FormerLurker (#38)
So are you trying to say that sunspots cause volcanic activity? What exactly ARE you trying to say here? Should high sunspot activity make the earth warmer or cooler?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#41. To: FormerLurker (#39)
(Edited)
You quoted the author of this article stating that there were only three this year up to the 23rd of April. Do you retract that quote and agree that the author is lying?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#42. To: farmfriend (#41)
Why don't you get back to me when you understand more about sun spots
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#43. To: farmfriend (#41)
The author was talking about cycle 24.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#44. To: farmfriend (#40)
I'm not saying anything, just countering your unsourced unsupported notion that "any relationship between climate and sunspot activity is minimal."
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#45. To: FormerLurker (#42)
Why don't you get back to me when you know the difference between 3 and 129, as from the data it appears there were 129 separate sunspots between the first of the year and April 23rd, whereas you implied the author was correct in stating there were only THREE...
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#46. To: farmfriend (#45)
LOL! Not according to the data you posted from NOAA. Do you not believe your own data?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#47. To: FormerLurker (#43)
This is exactly what you quoted in post# 11 on this thread;
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#48. To: farmfriend (#45)
DAILY SUNSPOT NUMBERS 2008
===============================================================================
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr Day
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 11 0 16 0 2008 01
7 9 0 9 0 2008 02
7 9 7 9 0 2008 03
12 8 0 7 7 2008 04
10 0 0 0 8 2008 05
11 0 8 0 0 2008 06
11 0 0 0 0 2008 07
9 0 0 0 0 2008 08
0 0 0 0 0 2008 09
8 0 9 0 0 2008 10
8 0 0 0 0 2008 11
0 0 0 0 0 2008 12
0 0 0 7 8 2008 13
0 0 0 7 0 2008 14
0 0 7 0 9 2008 15
0 0 7 0 14 2008 16
0 0 7 0 12 2008 17
0 0 0 0 15 2008 18
0 0 0 8 11 2008 19
0 0 0 0 7 2008 20
0 0 0 0 0 2008 21
0 0 0 8 0 2008 22
0 0 0 8 0 2008 23
0 0 19 7 0 2008 24
0 8 32 0 0 2008 25
0 8 36 0 0 2008 26
0 8 35 0 0 2008 27
0 0 34 0 0 2008 28
0 0 30 0 0 2008 29
8 31 0 0 2008 30
8 25 0 2008 31
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#49. To: FormerLurker (#46)
I tallied the highest number of EACH group up through 4/23 and arrived at 129.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#50. To: farmfriend (#47)
It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#51. To: FormerLurker (#48)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#52. To: FormerLurker (#50)
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just playing dumb here?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#53. To: farmfriend (#49)
Sadly you didn't notice their tallies at the bottom.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#54. To: farmfriend (#51)
LOL! Your repost doesn't have the bottom tallies that the first one had? Why not?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#55. To: farmfriend (#52)
You cut the post taking a portion out of context and you ask if I have a reading comprehension problem? That's rich.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#56. To: farmfriend (#51)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#57. To: FormerLurker (#53)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#58. To: farmfriend (#57)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#59. To: farmfriend (#57)
Would a graph help you.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#60. To: farmfriend (#57)
DAILY SUNSPOT NUMBERS 2000
===============================================================================
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr Day
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 71 138 187 91 85 145 106 142 115 140 116 2000 01
51 64 130 193 80 79 141 110 118 164 147 109 2000 02
54 81 114 177 76 75 124 107 128 153 141 118 2000 03
64 99 113 164 71 101 114 110 134 150 130 72 2000 04
73 104 113 129 71 95 127 144 114 128 133 65 2000 05
85 136 129 108 42 99 154 143 114 97 108 57 2000 06
85 130 155 94 52 105 177 164 110 66 122 68 2000 07
75 128 145 100 64 120 177 140 85 72 127 57 2000 08
76 109 146 108 99 122 179 128 63 71 95 58 2000 09
65 122 137 102 120 119 215 154 42 57 101 62 2000 10
90 114 127 96 133 151 202 165 26 82 90 72 2000 11
134 113 122 113 133 147 186 170 35 122 72 89 2000 12
153 108 121 118 161 156 194 176 55 121 70 114 2000 13
164 119 115 114 193 171 164 204 60 104 84 135 2000 14
157 118 103 105 205 158 148 183 77 83 98 153 2000 15
163 131 100 98 189 142 197 178 85 92 95 145 2000 16
131 109 95 110 170 139 224 152 108 97 94 151 2000 17
120 104 101 94 161 147 228 140 112 95 116 138 2000 18
114 89 126 103 167 145 246 133 121 90 125 118 2000 19
95 76 150 121 180 159 241 106 124 94 110 127 2000 20
88 92 148 128 163 147 231 77 137 97 120 116 2000 21
84 100 156 145 143 127 216 67 142 89 113 107 2000 22
82 95 182 170 132 124 199 67 160 85 91 102 2000 23
80 123 188 160 134 119 171 77 163 82 98 115 2000 24
85 131 185 151 115 111 177 81 153 88 74 108 2000 25
77 144 170 136 117 129 133 79 161 73 59 121 2000 26
70 150 155 118 106 138 126 113 162 80 84 118 2000 27
60 151 169 124 124 115 120 132 142 106 106 118 2000 28
61 162 148 100 117 109 113 138 119 113 123 110 2000 29
51 148 100 93 114 112 144 100 108 138 111 2000 30
58 164 67 93 157 111 87 2000 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90.1 112.9 138.5 125.5 121.6 124.9 170.1 130.5 109.7 99.4 106.8 104.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values are final. Annual mean = 119.6
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#61. To: farmfriend (#57)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#62. To: FormerLurker (#42)
Why don't you get back to me when you know the difference between 3 and 129,
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#63. To: FormerLurker (#61)
spotless days 20
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 11 days
one spot group from cycle 24 (northern hemisphere) on 1 day (4.1.)
4.1. there were two spot groups at the same time, one from cycle 23
and one from cycle 24
Sunspot number 3.4 (3.1 from cycle 23 0.3 from cycle 24)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#64. To: farmfriend (#62)
Get back to me when you know the difference between cycle 23 and 24.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#65. To: FormerLurker (#61)
So are you ready to admit that the author lied, and that you were wrong in assuming there were only three sunspots from the beginning of the year through the day he published his editorial?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#66. To: farmfriend (#63)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#67. To: FormerLurker (#64)
Do you or do you not understand dates and numbers? Does the statement "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday." confuse you?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#68. To: FormerLurker (#66)
You refuse to acknowledge 12 is greater than 3.4,
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#69. To: farmfriend (#62)
Get back to me when you know the difference between cycle 23 and 24.
#70. To: farmfriend (#65)
Three spots from cycle 24.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#71. To: FormerLurker (#66)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#72. To: FormerLurker (#70)
He said there was ONE sunspot in January.
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#73. To: farmfriend (#63)
Sunspot number 3.4 (3.1 from cycle 23 0.3 from cycle 24)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#74. To: FormerLurker (#70)
He said there was ONE sunspot in January. That is a LIE. There were 28 separate sunspots that month.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#75. To: farmfriend (#72)
No, he said there was one spot from cycle 24.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#76. To: farmfriend (#74)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#77. To: FormerLurker (#73)
He AND you are presenting averaged numbers as if they were ACTUAL counts,
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#78. To: farmfriend (#74)
#79. To: farmfriend (#72)
The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#80. To: Rotara (#78)
It's like remedial pre-school class and you got stuck teaching!
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#81. To: farmfriend (#77)
No, he represented the same averages you did only English is not his primary language.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#82. To: FormerLurker (#75)
(Edited)
Again, cycle 24 STARTED on January 4th of this year, and has JUST began. Thus far, from what I can see there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY (160) thus far this cycle.
Sunspot number 3.4% (3.1% from cycle 23 - 0.3% from cycle 24)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#83. To: FormerLurker (#81)
Are you ready to admit that there were 160 sunspots so far this cycle and that you were lying about there only being ONE?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#84. To: FormerLurker (#75)
Again, cycle 24 STARTED on January 4th of this year, and has JUST began.
Thus far, from what I can see there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY (160) thus far this cycle.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#85. To: All (#83)
There hasn't been 160 spots "this cycle".
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#86. To: farmfriend (#83)
There hasn't been 160 spots "this cycle".
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#87. To: farmfriend (#84)
Incorrect. Most of those were from last cycle, cycle 23.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#88. To: All (#83)
spotless days 20
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 11 days
one spot group from cycle 24 (northern hemisphere) on 1 day (4.1.)
4.1. there were two spot groups at the same time, one from cycle 23
and one from cycle 24
Sunspot number 3.4 (3.1 from cycle 23 0.3 from cycle 24)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
February 2008
spotless days 21
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 8 days
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 2.1 (all from cycle 23)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2008 (some ending in April)
spotless days 16
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (5.-6.3.) max size 30 per mil
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (10.3.) max size 90 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 3 days (15.-17.3.) max size 20 pm a triplet (3 at the same time 25.3.-31.3.):
first sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 12 days (23.3.-31.3.)
second sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (24.3.-2.4.)
third sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (25.3.-3.4.)
max size together 520 pm (26.3.), above 100 from 24.3.-2.4.
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 9.3 (all from cycle 23)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2008
spotless days 20
remnants from sp-gr from cycle 23 1.4.-3.4. (see March)
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (19.-20.4.) max size 20 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (NH) on 3 days (22.-24.4.) max size 40 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (NH) on 2 days (14.-15.4.) max size 10 pm
this is number 2 cycle 24 spot 102 days after the first in January
Sunspot number 2.9 (2.45 from cycle 23 and 0.45 from cycle 24)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2008
spotless days 23 three simultaneous sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (16.5) ms 45
two sim. sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 4 days (17.5.-20.5.) ms 80
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (26.5.) ms 10
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (SH!) on 2 days (4.-5.5.) ms 20
sunspot number 2.9 (2.5 from cycle 23 and 0.4 from cycle 24)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#89. To: farmfriend (#83)
There hasn't been 160 spots "this cycle".
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#90. To: farmfriend (#88)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#91. To: FormerLurker (#87)
Are you for real? The cycle started 1/4/2008, and by summing the highest value for unique groups of spots up through the end of May, the sum is 160.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#92. To: FormerLurker (#89)
You do realize that we are IN CYCLE 24 right NOW, don't you?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#93. To: farmfriend (#84)
Correct. Sort of. Cycle 24 spots have made an appearance but the cycle is still considered delayed since the spots are few in number and weak plus we are still getting cycle 23 spots.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#94. To: farmfriend (#91)
The start of cycle 24 doesn't mean that all subsequent spots are cycle 24.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#95. To: farmfriend (#84)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#96. To: farmfriend (#92)
And still getting cycle 23 spots.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#97. To: FormerLurker (#13)
#98. To: nobody (#97)
"As a rule of thumb, if you divide either of the official sunspot numbers by 15, you'll get the approximate number of individual sunspots visible on the solar disk if you look at the Sun by projecting its image on a paper plate with a small telescope."
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#99. To: FormerLurker, angle, RickyJ (#13)
(Edited)
the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4
#100. To: FormerLurker (#96)
Do you think it really matters if a spot is cycle 23 or 24 in regards to the number of spots at this point?
Do you even know what would make a spot cycle 23 or 24?
Yes, polarity and hemisphere. That's why Timo lists hemisphere in his data. It is important.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#101. To: Tauzero (#99)
How many of those were cycle 24 spots?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#102. To: FormerLurker (#98)
(Edited)
Of course that doesn't mean the result is the actual number of sunspots, rather it simply means that'd be the approximate number you'd see on a paper plate with a small telescope.
#103. To: farmfriend (#100)
It does if the quote is specifically talking about cycle 24 and you turn it into all spots.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#104. To: nobody (#102)
The "sunspot number" is about the number of spots you'd see on a paper plate with a small telescope, multiplied by 15.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#105. To: FormerLurker (#104)
(Edited)
#106. To: FormerLurker (#104)
(Edited)
#107. To: FormerLurker (#20)
Did you know that the article was based on a false premise, and that the author actually lied about the lack of sunspot activity?
As far as oil companies, of course they are siding with global warming critics, in fact they are the ones that PAY global warming critics in many cases.
They side with global warming critics because they do not wish to lose the monopoly they have on the world's energy, which is exactly what would happen if alternative sources of energy were developed to a point where oil would become obsolete.
Do you think they are taking sides here because they are just nice guys who actually care about you and your family?
#108. To: Axenolith (#107)
(Edited)
The WHOLE hysteria about it is NOTHING BUT GOVERNMENT AND VESTED INTEREST BULLSHIT designed to get us to cough up freedom, independance and sovereignity...
#109. To: RickyJ (#108)
#110. To: Axenolith (#107)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#111. To: Axenolith (#107)
None of todays weather phenomenon can be connected to a fraction of a degree change in temperature up or down.
#112. To: FormerLurker (#110)
Other than alarmist bullshit and Rush Limbaugh talking points, do you have anything useful to say about this topic??
Do you have any sort of physics background, or any background in earth science to where you even understand the subject matter?
Judging from your post, I wouldn't think you do.
You appear to think we've reached the pinnacle of human development and that oil is the answer to every single energy need, current and future.
That philosophy is no different than those who insisted that if men were meant to fly God would have given him wings. Even then there were superior alternatives to petroleum, namely hemp oil, which would have been an abundent and replenishible energy source. However, pals of yours such as Rockefellar and DuPont saw to it that hemp was made illegal, so that Rockefellar could have his oil monopoly (hence a monopoly on energy) and DuPont could have his monopoly on petroleum based plastics, where his patent wouldn't have covered hemp oil based plastics.
We are currently at the mercy of those who have bought and paid for the laws which have made us as dependent on petroleum as a heroin addict is to heroin.
Being that the those scientists who are predicting climate change have urged the world to seek new sources of energy in order to eliminate fossil fuels, it isn't hard to see why oil companies might have a problem with that idea, and why they pay shills to screech how awful those scientists are and how wonderful things are for us all, even though we are paying out the ass for a product that could fairly easily be replaced with something cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient.
You pretend you care about freedom, independance and sovereignity, where you don't mind being the bitch for the elites who pull the strings of the various governments to maintain their stranglehold over the world's energy supply, which THEY have forced down our throats and made us into junkies with.
#113. To: Axenolith (#112)
"How are we paying out the ass for it??? Measured against almost any other commodity it's the same price it was 60+ years ago"
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#114. To: All (#112)
#115. To: Axenolith (#112)
The providers haven't made anyone their bitches, the bankers have if anything and at this time, in order to keep harvesting the labor and fruits of people the globe over...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#116. To: FormerLurker (#113)
x 1.15 = $1.98 (2002)
x 1.15 = $2.28 (2003)
x 1.15 = $2.62 (2004)
x 1.15 = $3.01 (2005)
x 1.15 = $3.46 (2006)
x 1.15 = $3.99 (2007)
#117. To: Axenolith (#112)
The providers haven't made anyone their bitches
#118. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#117)
Take a closer look at the Bush administration and its policies in Iraq, not to mention the Energy Bill. A big hog trough for big oil.
#119. To: Axenolith (#116)
(Edited)
Gas - ~$1.50/gallon in ~2000/01. M3 supply increased an average of about 15% a year since then. 1.50 X 1.15 = $1.72
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#120. To: Axenolith (#118)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#121. To: Axenolith (#118)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#122. To: Axenolith (#118)
(Edited)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#123. To: FormerLurker (#119)
#124. To: FormerLurker (#120)
As far as inflation goes, it'd be true inflation if people's salaries were keeping up with any rise in overall cost of goods.
#125. To: FormerLurker (#122)
#126. To: FormerLurker (#122)
#127. To: Axenolith (#126)
(Edited)
Geologicaly speaking, having a big debate over .3 or .7 degree temperature changes over a period of at the most a year and as little as 3 months is just bullshit.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#128. To: RickyJ (#0)
#129. To: RickyJ (#0)
#130. To: DWornock (#129)
It would destroy the USA's ability to make war on the rest of the world. And it would certainly reduce the world's population eliminating most of the excess humans.
#131. To: RickyJ (#130)
Are you one of those excess humans?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest