BEWARE!
B0NZ0
January 2, 2008
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida
announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA
solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun's
surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded
they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting
cold era.
Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research
he led that independently discovered the sun's changes are the result of
a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to
warm and back again.
"We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are
historic and important changes taking place on the sun's surface. This
will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will
bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however
a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news
to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of
alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of
years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles
are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next
series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the
accuracy of these cycles' behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to
temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%."
As to what these changes are Casey says, "The sun's surface flows have
slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface
movement, what NASA calls the "conveyor belt" essentially sweeps up old
sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA's studies have found that when the
surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All
records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back
6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot
counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate,
globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that
starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the
SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with
the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own
research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA
is right about one thing - a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our
way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a
"solar hibernation," the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it
has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more
accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures
before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the
world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30
years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive."
When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the
street, Casey was firm. "The last time this particular cycle regenerated
was over 200 years ago. I call it the "Bi-Centennial Cycle" solar cycle.
It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a
period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post
called the 'last great subsistence crisis.' With that cold came massive
crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next
climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more
cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects.
The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle's impact versus the
last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next
coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other
effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real
prospect of the 'perfect storm of global food shortages' in the next
climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will
be affected."
Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether
the government has been notified. "Yes, as soon as my research revealed
these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the
next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush
administration including both parties in the Senate and House science
committees as well as most of the nation's media outlets. Unfortunately,
because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global
warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in
getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable.
With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change,
hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized
SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly
worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world's
brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate
change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to
spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to
take place for the Earth's climate. Soon, I believe this will be
recognized as the most important climate story of this century."
More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available
at: www.spaceandscience.net
The previous NASA announcement was made at:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
--
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
Serge
<claptrap snipped>
There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up
this ng with your mindless drivel.
You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
ThatsIT.net.au
"Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
news:477f2e23$0$30003$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
I read his article and found it quite convincing. While your abuse made me
think that you did not read it. It would seem that you believe abuse is a
substitute for debate or that you can not handle the debate and resort to
abuse.
have also found that the global warming believers rely on the Emperors New
Cloths approach. That is to abuse and belittle anyone that does not believe
in your claims. Of cause this approach is not necessary if you have evidence
of your claims.
Serge
"ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote in message
news:477f33e8$0$25507$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
> news:477f2e23$0$30003$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >
> > "Bonzo" <bo...@flat.earth.society.au> babbled in message
> >
> > <claptrap snipped>
> >
> > There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
> >
> > Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up
> > this ng with your mindless drivel.
> >
> > You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
> >
> > Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>
>
> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
>
> I read his article and found it quite convincing.
>
> While your abuse made me think that you did not read it. It would seem
> that you believe abuse is a substitute for debate or that you can not
> handle the debate and resort to abuse.
>
> New Cloths approach. That is to abuse and belittle anyone that does not
> believe in your claims. Of cause this approach is not necessary if you
> have evidence of your claims.
>
> http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
I don't read any of Bozo's rubbish.
Just as I don't read rubbish about the Earth being flat or posts about alien
abductions.
ThatsIT.net.au
He made no such claims, yet if he said that mans CO2 is warming the planet
you would believe him?
You now seem to be making up arguments you can dismiss maybe because the
claim he did make you cant?
ant
> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
fuck off and die, you gibbering fucking idiot.
--
ant
Don't try to email me!
I'm using the latest spammer/scammer's
email addy.
Tex
"Serge" <MoonCons...@JakeMcCrannIsMyHero.net.au> wrote in message
news:477f3deb$0$29377$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
But you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax :)
Tex
Serge is the person who claimed that the Apollo 11 mission was a hoax.
ThatsIT.net.au
"ant" <paultony...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5u950sF...@mid.individual.net...
> ThatsIT.net.au wrote:
>> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
>
> fuck off and die, you gibbering fucking idiot.
>
Is that the full extent of you argument?
Really, think about it, who is the gibbering idiot?
ThatsIT.net.au
"Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:477f74c5$0$26204$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
What an embracement he must be to his kin folk
Lloyd
> Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
>
> January 2, 2008
>
> http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
>
> Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida
> announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA
> solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun's
> surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded
> they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting
> cold era.
>
"Headquartered in Orlando, Florida, the Space and Science Research
Center (SSRC) is the leading science and engineering research company
internationally, that specializes in the analysis of and planning for
climate changes based upon the "Relational Cycle Theory." "
"Also called The Relational Cycle Theory or simply the RC Theory, this
new solar physics theory was developed from the independent research
into solar activity by John L. Casey, the Director of the Space and
Science Research Center. It forms the core of research on going at the
SSRC and provides a foundation for future scientific research into the
next and future global climate changes, which according to the RC
Theory, are strictly determined by specific cycles of the Sun's
behavior."
Not exactly modest, is he? He forms a group with an impressive-
sounding name to promote his own idea.
"His experience also includes being a former space shuttle engineer,
military missile and computer systems officer, advanced rocketry and
commercial space developer. He has an extensive executive management
background in the start-up and financing of high technology companies.
He has a BS degree in Physics and Mathematics and an MA degree in
Management. "
Yep, a real scientist there!
This is one of their "services":
"National and international government planning for
the next climate change to a cold era."
So they decide before getting any data -- this is one of the reaons
for the group's existence.
Lloyd
> "Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:477f2e23$0$30003$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> > <claptrap snipped>
>
> > There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
>
> > Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up
> > this ng with your mindless drivel.
>
> > You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
>
> > Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>
> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
>
> I read his article and found it quite convincing.
Well then, you must love articles about Bigfoot and Space aliens.
>While your abuse made me
> think that you did not read it. It would seem that you believe abuse is a
> substitute for debate or that you can not handle the debate and resort to
> abuse.
>
> have also found that the global warming believers rely on the Emperors New
> Cloths approach. That is to abuse and belittle anyone that does not believe
> in your claims. Of cause this approach is not necessary if you have evidence
> of your claims.
Read the IPCC report. Read the National Academy of Sciences position.
Lloyd
> "Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:477f3deb$0$29377$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote in message
> >news:477f33e8$0$25507$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> >> "Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
> >>news:477f2e23$0$30003$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
> >> > <claptrap snipped>
>
> >> > There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
>
> >> > Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up
> >> > this ng with your mindless drivel.
>
> >> > You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
>
> >> > Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>
> >> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
>
> >> I read his article and found it quite convincing.
>
> >> While your abuse made me think that you did not read it. It would seem
> >> that you believe abuse is a substitute for debate or that you can not
> >> handle the debate and resort to abuse.
>
> >> I have also found that the global warming believers rely on the Emperors
> >> New Cloths approach. That is to abuse and belittle anyone that does not
> >> believe in your claims. Of cause this approach is not necessary if you
> >> have evidence of your claims.
>
> >>http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
>
> > I don't read any of Bozo's rubbish.
>
> > Just as I don't read rubbish about the Earth being flat or posts about
> > alien
> > abductions.
>
> He made no such claims, yet if he said that mans CO2 is warming the planet
> you would believe him?
>
If you said the earth is 6000 years old, and someone else said it was
billions of years old, who would you believe?
Fun Tyme
Tom Gardner
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:a45f9df0-f549-43e1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>
> Read the IPCC report. Read the National Academy of Sciences position.
Now, which of those IPCC scientists are we suposed to ignore? Oh yea, the ones that no longer agree with the
scam. They MUST have been bought off by the oil companies.
ThatsIT.net.au
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:a45f9df0-f549-43e1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> "Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:477f2e23$0$30003$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> > "Bonzo" <b...@flat.earth.society.au> babbled in message
>>
>> > <claptrap snipped>
>>
>> > There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
>>
>> > Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up
>> > this ng with your mindless drivel.
>>
>> > You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
>>
>> > Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>>
>> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
>>
>> I read his article and found it quite convincing.
>
> Well then, you must love articles about Bigfoot and Space aliens.
>
You seem to be confused, It is up to you to provide evidence of man made
global warming, I am not asking you to believe anything.
Do you have evidence or not?
>
>>While your abuse made me
>> think that you did not read it. It would seem that you believe abuse is a
>> substitute for debate or that you can not handle the debate and resort to
>> abuse.
>>
>> have also found that the global warming believers rely on the Emperors
>> New
>> Cloths approach. That is to abuse and belittle anyone that does not
>> believe
>> in your claims. Of cause this approach is not necessary if you have
>> evidence
>> of your claims.
>
> Read the IPCC report. Read the National Academy of Sciences position.
I not interested in peoples position, do you have evidence?
Becko
I think the complaint was more about cluttering up our newsgroups with OT
stuff...
B0NZ0
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:a45f9df0-f549-43e1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
Serge
Before you hitch your wagon to Tex, you should be aware that he reckons Yuri
Gagarin's orbit of the Earth was a hoax. (ask him to deny it)
Taken in isolation, that example of Tex's stupidity is bad enough, but
coupled with his ludicrous statements that Australian pilots were diggers;
that Japan was a Nazi State; that Adolf Eichmann was executed by Israel
using forged documents; that not all Jews are Jews; etc, together with his
accurate self assessment as having no functioning neurones and not being
intellectual, clearly shows him to be the card carrying buffoon which he
undoubtedly is.
In fact, they should change the definition for the word idiot, which
currently reads "a mentally deficient person, having an intelligence
quotient in the 20 to 50 range and classified as severely subnormal", to the
much simpler definition of "Tex".
Serge
"Tex" <my.credibility.i...@there.is.no.URL.com> wrote
<diversion snipped>
Where's that URL you promised to provide, Tex?
I know that you're senile, but you must remember, surely?
Let me refresh your memory. :-}......
> > So Serge, do you deny sending 20+ copies of the same message in one
> > day? Yes or no?
>
> Yes!
>
> > Careful how you answer Sergey :)
>
> No need! Now, where's that URL that purports to show that I sent "20+
> copies of the same message on the same day"?
>
> .......waiting. :-}
>
> > I'll do a search tomorrow Sergey, fear not :)
>
> Well! Here we are on the morrow. Where's that URL? <derisory snort>
>
> > I'll get around to it. Among thousands of your posts, it'll take time to
> > find Sergey.
>
> Doesn't exist does it, Tex.
>
> > Oh yes it does.
>
> Tell you what. Let's let the veracity of our respective claims depend on
> whether or not you were lying about the 20+ post bullshit.
Sound of...
1) Crickets; and
2) Tex falling on his sword.
It's been over a week and Tex still can't produce that mythical URL. lol
Well, that's it then. Game, Set, and Match!
I'm off on another victory sabbatical. :-}
ThatsIT.net.au
I'm really not interested.
What You can do is show me evidence of man made global warming, if you cant
can you explain why you believe in it without evidence?
ThatsIT.net.au
"Becko" <becko...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:47805472$0$11988$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Sorry, what is OT stuff?
And what do you mean by "our newsgroup"
Tex
"Serge" <MoonCons...@IHateBlacks.net.au> wrote in message
news:4780b07e$0$11993$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
You snipped another post Sergey. Pressure getting to you is it? Hehehehe
Here's what you snipped:
"But you believe Apollo 11 was a hoax :) "
Now, why did you snip that Sergey? :)
> Where's that URL you promised to provide, Tex?
Maybe you snipped it. You've been doing that a lot lately. Why is that
Sergey? :)
> I know that you're senile, but you must remember, surely?
You snipping posts you couldn't deal with? Why would I forget?
> Let me refresh your memory. :-}......
Speaking of memory, do you remember those pesky apollo 11 questions you've
been running away from? :)
>> > So Serge, do you deny sending 20+ copies of the same message in one
>> > day? Yes or no?
>>
>> Yes!
>>
>> > Careful how you answer Sergey :)
>>
>> No need! Now, where's that URL that purports to show that I sent "20+
>> copies of the same message on the same day"?
>>
>> .......waiting. :-}
>>
>> > I'll do a search tomorrow Sergey, fear not :)
>>
>> Well! Here we are on the morrow. Where's that URL? <derisory snort>
>>
>> > I'll get around to it. Among thousands of your posts, it'll take time
>> > to
>> > find Sergey.
>>
>> Doesn't exist does it, Tex.
>>
>> > Oh yes it does.
>>
>> Tell you what. Let's let the veracity of our respective claims depend on
>> whether or not you were lying about the 20+ post bullshit.
>
> Sound of...
>
> 1) Crickets; and
>
> 2) Tex falling on his sword.
3) Serge stops daydreaming and realises he'll have to do another runner :)
> It's been over a week and Tex still can't produce that mythical URL. lol
That's what you said about the URLs for your racist quotes, and look what
happened there :)
> Well, that's it then. Game, Set, and Match!
To me.
BTW Sergey, I've brought up your multiple-posting day before, and you never
denied it. Now why is that Sergey? :)
> I'm off on another victory sabbatical. :-}
You'd have to win something first, instead of snipping entire posts an doing
a runner :)
Tex
"Serge" <PleaseDontMentio...@SnippingIsMyFriend.net.au> wrote
in message
news:4780ae45$0$11992$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
I've said over and over it wasn't a hoax. Are you denying I said it was real
Sergey? Yes or no? :)
You on the other hand, still won't deny you said the Apollo 11 mission was a
hoax.
Now, why is that Sergey? :)
> Taken in isolation, that example of Tex's stupidity is bad enough, but
> coupled with his ludicrous statements that Australian pilots were diggers;
> that Japan was a Nazi State; that Adolf Eichmann was executed by Israel
> using forged documents; that not all Jews are Jews; etc, together with his
> accurate self assessment as having no functioning neurones and not being
> intellectual, clearly shows him to be the card carrying buffoon which he
> undoubtedly is.
Oddly, when you are asked to back up these assertions, you run away.
> In fact, they should change the definition for the word idiot, which
> currently reads "a mentally deficient person, having an intelligence
> quotient in the 20 to 50 range and classified as severely subnormal", to
> the
> much simpler definition of "Tex".
Hey, you're the one who claimed the Apollo 11 mission was a hoax Sergey :)
Serge
<diversion snipped>
Where's that URL you promised to provide, Tex?
I know that you're senile, but you must remember, surely?
Let me refresh your memory. :-}......
> > So Serge, do you deny sending 20+ copies of the same message in one
> > day? Yes or no?
>
> Yes!
>
> > Careful how you answer Sergey :)
>
> No need! Now, where's that URL that purports to show that I sent "20+
> copies of the same message on the same day"?
>
> .......waiting. :-}
>
> > I'll do a search tomorrow Sergey, fear not :)
>
> Well! Here we are on the morrow. Where's that URL? <derisory snort>
>
> > I'll get around to it. Among thousands of your posts, it'll take time to
> > find Sergey.
>
> Doesn't exist does it, Tex.
>
> > Oh yes it does.
>
> Tell you what. Let's let the veracity of our respective claims depend on
> whether or not you were lying about the 20+ post bullshit.
Sound of...
1) Crickets; and
2) Tex falling on his sword.
It's been over a week and Tex still can't produce that mythical URL. lol
Well, that's it then. Game, Set, and Match!
I'm off on another victory sabbatical. :-}
Serge
<diversion snipped>
Where's that URL you promised to provide, Tex?
I know that you're senile, but you must remember, surely?
Let me refresh your memory. :-}......
> > So Serge, do you deny sending 20+ copies of the same message in one
> > day? Yes or no?
>
> Yes!
>
> > Careful how you answer Sergey :)
>
> No need! Now, where's that URL that purports to show that I sent "20+
> copies of the same message on the same day"?
>
> .......waiting. :-}
>
> > I'll do a search tomorrow Sergey, fear not :)
>
> Well! Here we are on the morrow. Where's that URL? <derisory snort>
>
> > I'll get around to it. Among thousands of your posts, it'll take time to
> > find Sergey.
>
> Doesn't exist does it, Tex.
>
> > Oh yes it does.
>
> Tell you what. Let's let the veracity of our respective claims depend on
> whether or not you were lying about the 20+ post bullshit.
Sound of...
1) Crickets; and
2) Tex falling on his sword.
It's been over a week and Tex still can't produce that mythical URL. lol
Well, that's it then. Game, Set, and Match!
I'm off on another victory sabbatical. :-}
Tex
> "Tex" <my.credibility.i...@there.is.no.URL.com> wrote
>
> <diversion snipped>
>
> Where's that URL you promised to provide, Tex?
While Serge's latest amusing public mental breakdown continues, a response
to his latest repeat of exactly the same post can be found here:
Tex
> "Tex" <my.credibility.i...@there.is.no.URL.com> wrote
>
> <diversion snipped>
>
> Where's that URL you promised to provide, Tex?
While Serge's latest amusing public mental breakdown continues, a response
T. Keating
wrote:
>Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
>
> January 2, 2008
>
>
>
>http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
>
>
>
>Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida
>announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA
>solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun's
>surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded
>they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting
>cold era.
The real story..
Jan 2, 2008 Satellites detected a reversed polarity sunspot, this
signals the END OF THE SOLAR Minimum (sunspot) cycle.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/solar-cycle-24-has-officially-started/
Note: The solar minimum sun spot cycle also correlates with SOL's
minimum solar irradiance. (Energy output).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
As the sunspot cycle peaks in the next few years, SOL's net output at
the edge of Earth's atmosphere will increase by another Watt per meter
squared. This will increase Earth's net energy imbalance by another
0.3 W/M^2.
We're are now entering a period of extra crispy AGW... :-(
Whata Fool
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
>
>As the sunspot cycle peaks in the next few years, SOL's net output at
>the edge of Earth's atmosphere will increase by another Watt per meter
>squared. This will increase Earth's net energy imbalance by another
>0.3 W/M^2.
>
>We're are now entering a period of extra crispy AGW... :-(
Oh, its here already, 35 degrees F above normal at midnight,
that will really skew the average for the year (6 days) upward.
Isn't it great, just think, less space heating used, less carbon
burned, what more could we ask for (burning less carbon is the object,
isn't it).
Lloyd
> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:a45f9df0-f549-43e1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 2:38 am, "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote:
> >> "Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
>
> >>news:477f2e23$0$30003$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> >> > "Bonzo" <b...@flat.earth.society.au> babbled in message
>
> >> > <claptrap snipped>
>
> >> > There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
>
> >> > Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up
> >> > this ng with your mindless drivel.
>
> >> > You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
>
> >> > Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>
> >> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
>
> >> I read his article and found it quite convincing.
>
> > Well then, you must love articles about Bigfoot and Space aliens.
>
> You seem to be confused, It is up to you to provide evidence of man made
> global warming, I am not asking you to believe anything.
>
The evidence is there, in the scientific literature. Do you demand
evidence of the existence of atoms?
> Do you have evidence or not?
>
Show me some evidence of atoms.
>
>
> >>While your abuse made me
> >> think that you did not read it. It would seem that you believe abuse is a
> >> substitute for debate or that you can not handle the debate and resort to
> >> abuse.
>
> >> have also found that the global warming believers rely on the Emperors
> >> New
> >> Cloths approach. That is to abuse and belittle anyone that does not
> >> believe
> >> in your claims. Of cause this approach is not necessary if you have
> >> evidence
> >> of your claims.
>
> > Read the IPCC report. Read the National Academy of Sciences position.
>
> I not interested in peoples position, do you have evidence?
>
The IPCC report cites evidence. Try reading it.
Werner
> Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
>
>
> "We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are
> historic and important changes taking place on the sun's surface. This
> will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will
Could this be an inconvenient time to make this claim?
Around the end of the fist century predictions of the end of the world
were common. There has not been a shortage since. There was the Club
Of Rome prediction of the early '70s that by this time we would all be
breathing sulfuric acid. There was the Love Canal catastrophe which
led to the creations of still another federal agency. Now Global
Warming and sea level rise.
http://www.pacificmagazine.net/issue/2001/12/01/sea-levels-are-rising
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Environment.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/CleanEnvironmentMoney.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/PorkNotFish.shtml
Perhaps some day enough people will understand that governing has
become about money and privilege - taking it from some and giving it
to themselves.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
ThatsIT.net.au
> On Jan 5, 1:20 pm, "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote:
>> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a45f9df0-f549-43e1...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 5, 2:38 am, "ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote:
>> >> "Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:477f2e23$0$30003$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> >> > "Bonzo" <b...@flat.earth.society.au> babbled in message
>>
>> >> > <claptrap snipped>
>>
>> >> > There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
>>
>> >> > Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up
>> >> > this ng with your mindless drivel.
>>
>> >> > You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
>>
>> >> > Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>>
>> >> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
>>
>> >> I read his article and found it quite convincing.
>>
>> > Well then, you must love articles about Bigfoot and Space aliens.
>>
>> You seem to be confused, It is up to you to provide evidence of man made
>> global warming, I am not asking you to believe anything.
>>
>
> The evidence is there, in the scientific literature. Do you demand
> evidence of the existence of atoms?
>
>> Do you have evidence or not?
You dont have any?
Then why do you believe it?
chatnoir
> "Serge" <se...@one.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:477f2e23$0$30003$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> > "Bonzo" <b...@flat.earth.society.au> babbled in message
>
> > <claptrap snipped>
>
> > There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?
>
> > Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up
> > this ng with your mindless drivel.
>
> > You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.
>
> > Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!
>
> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
>
> think that you did not read it. It would seem that you believe abuse is a
> substitute for debate or that you can not handle the debate and resort to
> abuse.
>
> have also found that the global warming believers rely on the Emperors New
> Cloths approach. That is to abuse and belittle anyone that does not believe
> in your claims. Of cause this approach is not necessary if you have evidence
> of your claims.
>
headline:
Resistance is transversal
LOL: "Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change"
B26619 / Wed, 9 Jan 2008 03:04:22 / Intelligence
I wanted to document this brilliant bit of groundbreaking "research"
from a very reputable scientist for posterity. Thanks to bacchus for
the heads up. Be sure you let Paul Joseph Watson know, brother.
I'm still scratching my head at how he has records of sunspot activity
from 6000 years ago to analyze . . . I didn't realize they had
telescopes back then. It is also pretty impressive how anyone with
such an educational background as Mr Casey can write such poor
English. Perhaps Exxon or the CEI will come through with the financing
to hire a proofreader for his future press releases. ... (cont)
------
http://www.junkscience.com/blog/2008/01/08/must-have-brass-ones/
Must have brass ones...
January 8th, 2008 by Ed
Over the holidays there was a press release from the 'Space and
Science Research Center' making some extravagant claims and which
resulted in calls for information, the results of which were posted
here. At the time it was unclear how Casey expected to profit from his
actions -- now we know. The following turned up in my mail box:
Dear Editor,
Please accept my thanks at the outset for the outstanding job Junk
Science has done in providing an independent look at what is good,
bad, and just plain unknown in a variety of fields of science. I will
continue to follow your work.
This email is sent as a means of introducing what I have begun here in
Orlando, Florida, namely the startup of the Space and Science Research
Center. (SSRC). It is a division of a consulting company formed a few
years ago. I have attached a brief bio on myself and
just a few references for your review.
In the past two weeks I have taken the initial steps at launching this
new enterprise, one which has at its core, the mission of also
providing authoritative and independent scientific research.
The primary item on the agenda at the SSRC is the communicating of the
research done by myself and many other highly regarded researchers
especially in the fields of solar physics and climatology relative to
our prediction of the next climate change.
Based upon my own research begun in early 2007, I went from a global
warming acceptor to one who is now on a quest to tell as the great
radio commentator Paul Harvey says, "The rest of the story." That
story that has gone untold if not intentionally obscured is the role
of the sun in the heating and cooling of the Earth.
My research resulted in the development of "The Theory of Relational
Cycles of Solar Activity," or the "RC Theory." This theory was
developed on my part without any in depth knowledge of solar cycles
and Earth related climatic effects. I began by simply identifying
patterns in the sunspot records and extending that research into
carbon 14 and oxygen 18 proxies of solar activity going back 1,200
years. I then compared that to other sources of long term global
temperature records going back 6,000 years.
I was astounded at the outcome and more so that I had heard nothing of
the significant role of the sun, and the 'relational cycles' i.e. of
the dominant 206 year and 90-100 year cycles that I discovered. I call
them the "Bi-Centennial Cycle" and the "Centennial cycle." Certainly
there has been no public word of the predictable next climate change
amidst the media intensive coverage of the UN IPCC work and the
general man made global warming debate. I use the term debate lightly.
After completing my research and formulating my theory it was clear
that the message of the next climate change was that we are headed for
a deep long lasting and potentially dangerous cold era. This caused me
to conduct an exhaustive corroborative study of similar research to
see whether others had also found such indicators in the suns'
behavior. As you are probably aware there is indeed much research that
has been done and results published along the same lines as my
research that validated all or part of the "RC Theory," though when I
began my research again, it was all something that I was not aware of.
For example the cycles I named are also known as the Gliessberg and
the deVries/Suess cycles. In the past year I have communicated with
many of the authors of such outstanding research and they have not
only agreed with my results but some have offered to support me at the
SSRC going forward.
As a result of the impact the next climate change will have, I have
committed myself to the establishment of the SSRC, providing a
balanced review of important science that affects our citizens and in
particular gettting the word out about the next climate change.
To that end I took only the very first steps in the typical start-up
process by getting a virtual office, pending permanent funding and a
new location, published the SSRC web site and issued the first press
release within the last week. While I could have waited another six
months until all the first phase funding etc were in place, I felt
that this message was simply too important to hold back on any longer
and thus decided to do something now. Too much time has already been
lost. My research was in fact done roughly nine months ago. Even then
I took quick action to begin the notification of key government
offices about the impending climate change, with which in most cases I
have had a long professional reltionship. When the potential effects
are this serious and in view of the number of people to be affected by
the next climate change, I knew going out on a limb with an immediate
start of the SSRC and announcement was the only way to go.
The emails I have received from the first press release though, have
been overwhelmingly positive. There clearly is a lot of pent up
frustration over the last two decades of press on greenhouse gasses as
the cause of the past decades of increased planetary heating.
On the other hand there have been a few web postings questioning the
authenticity of the SSRC and its purpose. Given the fog of man made
global warming we have had to endure, such skepticism is healthy. I
have looked at some of these comments and taken immediate corrective
action on the web site to make sure the SSRC's status, staff etc are
clear. I am also attaching a related letter to one of those web sites
that specifically addresses these specific questions. I answer such
issues objectively and with the mind set that such are for the most
part well intended and like me are focused on getting the 'whole'
truth told.
In the course of getting the SSRC started and especially getting
meaningful funding in place, it essentially boils down to a step by
step process. I have taken but the very first small step on a long
path that will be many years in the making, as I and others like me do
our best to serve our various fields of science and our citizens.
Your help and advice along that path will be most appreciated.
Best Regards,
John Casey
Director
We think he's a scam artist trying to get his hands in your pockets
but couldn't see how he expected to do so -- now he's told us. He's
looking for 'meaningful funding' and he thinks the skeptic community
might be eager enough to slay the catastrophic warming myth to fork
over some cash.
We'd like to think skeptics are not a good target for scammers hunting
the gullible but with Al raking in cash with his fear campaign it was
inevitable some crook would try to siphon some off with another
'angle'. If you must give your hard-earned away bear in mind that
JunkScience.com is always chronically short of funds.
chatnoir
> Changesin theSun'sSurfacetoBringNextClimate Change
>
> January 2, 2008
>
> http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
>
> Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida
> announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA
> they willbringabout thenextclimate change to one of a long lasting
> cold era.
>
> Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research
> a family of cycles thatbringabout climate shifts from cold climate to
> warm and back again.
>
> "We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are
> will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that willbringan extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however
> a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news
> alternating climatechangesthat has been going on for thousands of
> years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles
> are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast thenext
> accuracy of these cycles' behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to
> temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%."
>
And since Physics is flawed, Many you can jump off buildings and not
fall down - go for the first!:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20071012-16699.html
Physics laws flawed
Monday, 10 December 2007
Swinburne University
A Swinburne astrophysicist has leapt another hurdle in the path to
proving that our fundamental theories of physics are not what they
seem.
Dr Michael Murphy is part of a team that has, over recent years,
uncovered surprising and controversial evidence suggesting the laws of
physics may have been changing through cosmic time. In this latest
move, Murphy has debunked a study which claimed to disprove his
findings.
Murphy's research into the laws of Nature goes back eight years, and
concerns our understanding of electromagnetism, the force of nature
that determines the sounds we hear, the light we see, and how atoms
are held together to form solids. Through the study of
electromagnetism in galaxies ten billion light years away, he has
challenged the fundamental assumption that the strength of
electromagnetism has been constant through time.
"Back in 2001 we published evidence showing a small change in the fine
structure constant, the number that physicists use to characterise the
strength of electromagnetism," Murphy said.
"Even though the change that we think we see in the data is quite
small, about five parts in a million, it would be enough to
demonstrate that our current understanding must in fact be wrong. It's
an important discovery if correct. It suggests to physicists that
there's an underlying set of theories we're yet to broach and
understand."
Physicists have been chasing results like these for a number of years,
but since 1999, Murphy and his co-researchers have been ahead of the
pack. They've published a series of observations from the Keck
Telescope in Hawaii as further evidence of a varying fine structure
constant. But, a few years ago, another research team claimed that
data from a different telescope contradicted Murphy's observations.
However, he's been able to prove that the contradictory work itself
was flawed. "We've shown that the way the data was analysed was
faulty," he said. "Their procedures were faulty so the numbers that
came out are meaningless. Our paper points this out. When you
replicate their analysis and fix their problems, you get a very very
different answer indeed."
Murphy has a 'comment' about this latest work in this week's issue of
the journal Physical Review Letters. It's the most difficult journal
for physicists to get published in, and is the one they turn to for
important results in their field.
This latest step is not the end of the road though in convincing
scientists across the world that they need to rethink their ideas
about electromagnetism. Even though this study also produced results
that agree with his initial Keck findings, Murphy said there's still
work to be done.
"There are some problems that need addressing," he said. "It's quite a
surprising result and one that probably many people need a lot more
convincing on. It will take some time, but we're doing that job."
chatnoir
in dull and dead frames, troubled with wandering thoughts at the time of
public and private worship, and utterly unable to keep themselves from
them. When they find themselves unaffected, while yet there is the
greatest occasion to be affected; and when they feel worldly
dispositions working in them-pride, envy, stirrings of revenge, or some
ill spirit towards some person that has injured them, as well as other
workings of indwelling sin-their hearts are almost sunk with the
disappointment; and they are ready presently to think that they are mere
hypocrites.
They are ready to argue that, if God had indeed done such great things
for them, as they hoped, such ingratitude would be inconsistent with it.
They complain of the hardness and wickedness of their hearts; and say
there is so much corruption, that it seems to them impossible there
should be any goodness there. Many of them seem to be much more sensible
how corrupt their hearts are, than before they were converted; and some
have been too ready to be impressed with fear, that instead of becoming
better, they are grown much worse, and make it an argument against the
goodness of their state. But the truth, the case seems plainly to be,
that now they feel the pain of their own wound; they have a watchful eye
upon their he
V-for-Vendicar
"ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote
> You seem to be confused, It is up to you to provide evidence of man made
> global warming, I am not asking you to believe anything.
>
> Do you have evidence or not?
1 The Climate System: an Overview
2 Observed Climate Variability and Change
3 The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
4 Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases
5 Aerosols, their Direct and Indirect Effects
6 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
7 Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks
8 Model Evaluation
9 Projections of Future Climate Change
10 Regional Climate Information - Evaluation and Projections
11 Changes in Sea Level
12 Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes
13 Climate Scenario Development
14 Advancing Our Understanding
Appendix I Glossary
Appendix II SRES Tables
Appendix III Contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report
Appendix IV Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report
Appendix V Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix VI Units
Appendix VII Some Chemical Symbols used in this Report
Appendix VIII Figures and Tables in this Report
V-for-Vendicar
"ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote
> Really, think about it, who is the gibbering idiot?
That would be you of course - idiot.
V-for-Vendicar
"ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote
> I noticed you offered no evidence to counter Bonzo's claim.
1 The Climate System: an Overview
V-for-Vendicar
"ThatsIT.net.au" <me@thatsit> wrote
> I'm really not interested.
Far too interested in lying to yourself.
Mr Stinks.
> Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
>
Please , out of aus tv with this spam
Mr Stinks.
> Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change
>
> January 2, 2008
>
>
> Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida
> announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA
> surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded
> cold era.
>
> Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research
> a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to
> warm and back again.
>
> "We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are
> will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will
> a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news
> alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of
> years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles
> are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next
> accuracy of these cycles' behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to
> temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%."
>
> slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface
> movement, what NASA calls the "conveyor belt" essentially sweeps up old
> sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA's studies have found that when the
> surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All
> records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back
> 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot
> counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate,
> globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that
> starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the
> SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with
> the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own
> research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA
> is right about one thing - a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our
> way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a
> "solar hibernation," the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it
> has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more
> accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures
> before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the
> world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30
> years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive."
>
> When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the
> street, Casey was firm. "The last time this particular cycle regenerated
> was over 200 years ago. I call it the "Bi-Centennial Cycle" solar cycle.
> It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a
> period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post
> called the 'last great subsistence crisis.' With that cold came massive
> crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next
> climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more
> cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects.
> The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle's impact versus the
> last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next
> coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other
> effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real
> prospect of the 'perfect storm of global food shortages' in the next
> climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will
> be affected."
>
> Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether
> the government has been notified. "Yes, as soon as my research revealed
> these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the
> next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush
> administration including both parties in the Senate and House science
> committees as well as most of the nation's media outlets. Unfortunately,
> because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global
> warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in
> getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable.
> With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change,
> hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized
> SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly
> worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world's
> brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate
> change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to
> spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to
> take place for the Earth's climate. Soon, I believe this will be
> recognized as the most important climate story of this century."
>
> More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available
> at:www.spaceandscience.net
>
> The previous NASA announcement was made at:
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
>
> --
>
> Get The TRUE Facts At
> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> Excellent Links At
> http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> Regards
> Bonzo
>
> "If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
> CO2
> contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
> floor"
> D'Aleo
>
> "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> panic us"
> National Academy of Sciences
>
V-for-Vendicar
>> Read the IPCC report. Read the National Academy of Sciences position.
"Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote
> Now, which of those IPCC scientists are we suposed to ignore? Oh yea, the
> ones that no longer agree with the scam.
Can Tom Gardner find a single climate scientist who claims that the globe
is cooling or that doubling the CO2 levels will do anything but raise global
average temperatures.
No he can't.
Tom Gardner is a fraud.