Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote: > And we missed the increase in solar output exactly how?
By ignoring it? I don't suppose you watch the sun much, but the previous solar min was very strange, almost no decrease in sunspot numbers. Failure to have a pole reversal. Very entertaining for astronomers. The past few years have been very quiet, almost to the point that one might worry about another Maunder. BTW, while this is purely anecdotal, a post-doc friend of mine at BBSO was denied publication because their solar output data too closely matched the temperature data. No one wants to hear about other potential contributing factors. Its AGW or the highway...... Not the way science should be done. -- jeff
"jeff" <jalowe44.inva...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote
> VD is not a "scientist". He's just a vocally antiAmerican Indian > software engineer and has only jumped on the AGW bandwagon as a way to > put those uppity westerners in their place.
"He"?
I see you have been doing some research on me. Did yo umiss the part about my advanced degree in condensed matter physics?
> Too bad there are people that think things are bad now, > the past 20 years were probably the best this country and much > of the world has ever seen, there is no reason for extreme measures, > just a moderate conservative approach is the way to continued good times.
Thanx to abundant free energy an the spectacularly poor environmental performance of the Capitalism before environmental regulation, the U.S. environment has improved somewhat.
Now the game is to live sustainably, or die in ignorance as the KKKonservatives would have as AmeriKKKa's fate.
> And we missed the increase in solar output exactly how?
Ah, the KKKonservative rant goes something like.... All of the worlds Bolometers have conspired with the worlds Commie Thermometers to promote a new world order. A one world government run by the U.N. with Lucifer as it's leader.
On that note, Al Gore is a shew in for the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in 2009...
> It is the distance of the center of the sun from the center > of the solar system, but varies with where Jupiter is relative to > the position of the planet.
>> And we missed the increase in solar output exactly how?
"jeff" <jalowe44.inva...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote
> By ignoring it?
Sorry Shit Sack. It's continually being measured and has been for a long... Long time..
"jeff" <jalowe44.inva...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote
> I don't suppose you watch the sun much,
I don't now, but I did build a solar camera when I was much younger. And of course there are teams of scientists who's job it is to watch the sun.
"jeff" <jalowe44.inva...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote
> but the previous solar min was very strange, almost no decrease in > sunspot numbers. Failure to have a pole reversal. Very entertaining for > astronomers.
Sunspot numbers fell to zero during the previous minimum and it is the magnetic polarity reversal that is used to distinguish one sunspot cycle from the next. Since we are now in a new cycle, it necessarily follows that there was a reversal.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
"jeff" <jalowe44.inva...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote
> The past few years have been very quiet, almost to the point that one > might worry about another Maunder.
Sunspot minimum's are like that.
"jeff" <jalowe44.inva...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote
> BTW, while this is purely anecdotal, a post-doc friend of mine at BBSO was > denied publication because their solar output data too closely matched the > temperature data.
Translation - her paper didn't pass the peer review process.
She should post it on line so that we can laugh at it.
> Still don't get it. Maybe you could explain how the money gets from > the folks who sell carbon credits to NOAA, which funds climate grants. > And why the government is being so hard on researchers like Hansen, > who are strong believers in AGW and proponents of action to stop it, > if it's their policy for getting money.
I've been told they use an elaborate conduit of paper bags, stuffed rabbits and Hookers, Hookers, Hookers.
> Yeah, replacing a 100 watt bulb with a 30 watt bulb that gives off > equal candlepower/lumens is definitely the way I'm going to drive > myself into the poorhouse.
And it's sooooooooooo inconvenient. I mean you have to keep doing it once every 4 to 5 years when the CF bulbs finally pack it in, and the light just doesn't make my futon look the right shade of green.
> You mean those silly curly cue lightbulbs we have all been trolled into > using? I have one on my grinder..there's no light.
Maybe you should turn it on Vinny. There is probably a switch on the grinder that is for the light, of the back of the light itself has a switch on it.
Next we will explain how you need to wipe your own KKKonservative Bottom.
Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote in news:qtt244dm6ilabi6lmtthiebg297t95lnag@ 4ax.com:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 04:00:11 -0400, "vinny" <vi...@rockREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>Global warming is caused by our cars
> Only a portion of it. > Also by burning natural gas, fuel oils, coal, wood, producing Methane > (& other greenhouse gases), deforestation, poor land/farming > use (almost half the planet's biomass is bacteria in the soils), > ... and feedbacks.
You forgot the biggest "greenhouse gas", dihydrogen monoxide. It's responsible for at least 60% of the warming effect, perhaps more. But it's not nearly as well understood as CO2 which is easier to study.
>>> Decline of world's glaciers expected to have global impacts over >>> this century
> "D Murphy" <spamto...@comcast.net> wrote >> Like the last 120 centuries? There used to be a mile thick glacier >> where my living room now sits. It's melting has had a big impact on >> the ability of life to survive here.
> As did the laying down of animal dung on and around your property.
> Hence by your logic, dumping a mile high pile of dung onto your > property will be beneficial to you, your family, and life in general.
>heh. from your link: >"if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, >there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group >Greenpeace," namely the funding by ExxonMobil of groups opposed to the >theory of global warming [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/ >4319574.stm] "
>and here I had assumed you were on the other side of the debate.
More to the point (knowing poor winger gummer) from the link: "Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN troops in a plot to take over America." http://home.lightspeed.net/~gunner/ IIRC Used to be a pic of his trailer there too, black helicopter or something hovering in the background ... -- Cliff
On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:38:47 -0500, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote: >z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>>On May 28, 2:53?am, D Murphy <spamto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Feh. That pales in comparison to the carbon credit swindle proposed in >>> Kyoto. That's the real source of money driven tainted science. Plus the >>> UN finally gets to impose its will and punish all the big bad successful >>> countries for their successful profligate ways and reward tin horn >>> dictators who have managed to keep their citizens starving in abject >>> poverty.
>>Well, I'll bite. I'm following the money. I can't see how the lying >>scientists get the money from the companies selling carbon credits, >>though. Maybe you can explain it to us.
> I can't see how the carbon credits reduce emissions, it is like >paying somebody so you can stink up the air they breathe, but it doesn't >reduce how much you stink.
If you reduce your CO2 emissions you can sell the credits Pretty simple. But a tax on Carbon might be better. -- Cliff
>>> >"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote >>> >> I can't see how the carbon credits reduce emissions
>>> > The phrase "cap and trade" is the operative phrase. CO2 emission >>> > levels >>> >are capped, and industry sells the right to emit that CO2 among >>> >themselves, >>> >using a business model to determine what is the most economically >>> >efficient >>> >way to emit that CO2.
>>> > Every year or so, the emission cap is lowered and business readjusts >>> >accordingly.
>>> > It's a pretty simple concept. Even a child can understand it.
>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:14:47 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> (it's in fact really easy to tell a malfunctioning engine from >>>>> a malfunctioning transmission from a loose wheel nut) >>>> Is that not his point? >>> It's a wingnut. >>> -- >>> Cliff
>> ok cliff...why would you post that? >> Are you trying to prove my point? If so...thanks for the help. >> One simple word says you are trying to make this a polarized debate, the >> left vs the extreme right? >> THAT is the problem! This is scientific NOT political!
>> The debate is scientific, the propaganda is political. >> Or is it.........???
>Haven't you realized by now... *EVERYTHING* is political for cliffy the >crossposting monkey.
I'm not the one that started copying (clueless) winger lies ......
On Wed, 28 May 2008 14:01:59 -0500, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote: >vinny wrote: >> "Cliff" <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:le6r34dok0e6qk8halrp3b1qof1f5h06c7@4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 10:34:20 -0700, brewe...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:14:47 -0700 (PDT), z >>>> <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>>>>> (it's in fact really easy to tell a malfunctioning engine from >>>>> a malfunctioning transmission from a loose wheel nut)
>>>> Is that not his point?
>>> It's a wingnut. >> ok cliff...why would you post that? >> Are you trying to prove my point? If so...thanks for the help. >> One simple word says you are trying to make this a polarized debate, >> the left vs the extreme right? >> THAT is the problem! This is scientific NOT political!
