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: 1540
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
Comments (1-91) not displayed.
.
.
.
#92. To: FormerLurker (#89)
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.
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