Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 05/30/2009 12:57:45 PM PDT by Talisker
Strange logic on this thread. 2008 is the 9th warmest year in the last 150—despite prevailing La Nina conditions and a solar minimum (i.e., 2008 should have been cold as balls but wasn’t) and you think that undercuts AGW? The NOAA study demonstrates how little we still know about our climate, which may supports a cautionary approach to adopting any climate theory hook, line and sinker—but it doesn’t “put the lie” to anything.
The solar output will peak on December 23 2012 and the earth will be engulfed with flairs which will kill anyone facing the sun. Probably 90% or even all life will die.
It won't get me. On December 22, 2012 I'm going to buy a Prius, get inside, close the door, and be safe.
The solar cycle was first discovered in 1843. They have known about it for 166 years. These same people estimate the Sun’s age at 4.57 billion years. That’s roughly %0.00000003 of the Sun’s activity. They can guess, I guess...
There’s a very clear correlation between the sunspot activity and the heating up and cooling down of the earth. And yes, it “puts the lie” to the AGW people and really bolsters the idea of the sun being the prime “engine” behind heating and cooling...
When you mention one year, I prefer to see a whole series of years, like you saw in the Maunder Minimum and other years. So, I wouldn’t put any reliability on one year, but on the trend over a period of a number of years and how that ties in with the solar activity...
bookmarked.
Strange logic yourself, claiming conclusions from data you haven't provided. Maybe you figured it was beyond us, and you could just supply your interpretive summary?
“Time to stock up on blankets and fuel.”
What data and charts are you using to make your statement for correlation between sunspots and earth temperature?
Oops. Yeah. I hiccuped...
Are the SS's man-made? Can Obama, envirowackos or the left do anything to stop them? Stay tuned, when the Messiah's teleprompter says: "Holy shit Batman, what we gonna do about this?"
You asked — What data and charts are you using to make your statement for correlation between sunspots and earth temperature?
—
That’s why I said in Post #11 ...
—
For “solar minimums” and the “Maunder Minimum”, in connection with the idea of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, everyone has to see this, and also they’ve gotta show everyone they know, too...
—
I supplied the data and charts there...
Since you didn't provide the data, how are those 9 years distributed across that span? How accurate is the data, is the measurement criterion the same for those 150 measurements (apples to apples)?
/johnny
The sun cycles are the prime heating/cooling change mechanism, but the lowest sunspot activity in a 100 years produces the 9th warmest year since 1875? That’s very funny. I hope you are not a criminal defense lawyer.
P.S. Before you send that video propaganda to your neighbors, know this: Christie is a proponent of AGW, and Lindzen thinks cigarette dangers are highly overated. If that’s the best Marty Durkin could find—that should tell you something.
It’s a very complicate issue, that remains largley in doubt, but kool-aid is kool-aid no matter which side is serving it.
I have to agree that NASA is “whistlin’ Dixie”, not having a clue what the Sun will do next.
It is very tempting to thing that because you can over time detect what you think is a pattern, it somehow gives you control over that pattern.
At the personal level it is called “superstition.” At the academic level, its most common manifestation is called “Man Made Global Warming.”
Preying on individuals who fall prey to superstition is what casinos do. Preying on superstitious people in government is what Al Gore does.
You said — It’s a very complicate issue, that remains largley in doubt, but kool-aid is kool-aid no matter which side is serving it.
—
Well.., I’ll guarantee you, that when people see the data presented and the charts that show the correlation between the sunspot activity and the cooling and warming over that same period of time — those viewers don’t need much else to convince them. The data and the charts do a fine job in and of themselves (you couldn’t find a better “match”... :-) ... ) — which is why this is being shown to a lot of people all over the world now...
Fair enough. Sorry for the stupid lawyer joke. I do believe solar variation has a significant role—as does the IPCC and NOAA. I just don’t agree that one excludes the other, and I think 2007 and 2008 are prime evidence of that fact. Enjoy your weekend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.