Where are the sun spots?

[EddieWalker]

More arrogance. People who do not worship at the Church of Global Warming are simply too stupid to understand.

This is the single most frustrating aspect of discussing global warming and politics in general. Those who believe and are willing to give examples, site sources and debate the reason they belive what they belive have my total respect. Unfortunately, there are far too many who resort to name calling and personal attacks to support their position.

Al Gore has refused to debate any aspect of global warming. He will lecture on it and attack those who disagree, but he has not had one debate or discussion on it with anybody who disagrees with him. That is significant for many reasons. Add to that his massive use of fuels with personal jets, his extreme use of electricity in his personal home, and the obscene proffit that he's making from this all adds up to a complete lack of credibility.

When the UN voted that global warming has a strong likelyhood of existing, there vote was only 54 percent. Of those who voted, very few were actual climate scientist. Many were geologist or other unrelated scientist, but allot were not even scientists.

Eddie

 

[MicroPilot]

I wish those sunspots would come on out and warm the planet some more. I want to start an orange grove here in Kentucky!

I think a better question is "where are the Smiley's for new posts?"

 

[Soundguy]

They are great for ham radio reception!

soundguy

 

[dmccarty]

Or maybe the sunspot activity has declined as we go out looking for them at night and can't see them in the dark???

Nah, I went out looking for Sun spots yesterday afternoon.

The only thing I see now is spots.

Later,
Dan

 

[Eagleview]

Seeing as they are going to create an atmosphere on Mars and are going to cool the surface of Venus as well as cleanup the Sulphuric acid clouds that surround Venus so we can one day live there , fixing global warming on our own patch of star dust will be easy .

 

[jcurtisB78]

I wish those sunspots would come on out and warm the planet some more. I want to start an orange grove here in Kentucky!

Me too, I'm tired of having to run my pellet stove in June .

 

[Egon]

Maybe we don't see them is cause the sky is cloudy!

 

[ihookem]

Me three, I'm tired of running my woodburner in june, and August.

 

[Egon]

The fireplace is in use this evening. 19 of June so where is all this Global warming??

 

[Eagleview]

A sunspot is caused by magnetic energy that bursts through the Photosphere and then re enters which makes these "holes" cooler than the Photosphere creating the dark spots we observe . Every 11 years the poles of the sun flip and it is in between these flips that the sun is at it's magnetic maximum . It is now believed that our weather is being influenced by these polar flips . It may even be the reason behind global warming as both the changing polar positions and the warming of the planet have only recently been studied . I think you guys will be chopping firewood for a little longer .

 

[alchemysa]

It is the height of human arrogance and hubris to think man causes global warming.

.

I don't really know what you mean by that. Are saying we don't have the technology to the stuff up the planet? Or do you mean we don't have the 'power' to destroy one of 'God's creations'?

Anyway, I defy anyone to go to somewhere like Bangkok and say humans are not contributing to global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it. Some days it was like being shut in the garage with the engine running.
And, just north, a billion Chinese are discovering the joys of motoring.

 

[MikePA]

I don't really know what you mean by that. Are saying we don't have the technology to the stuff up the planet? Or do you mean we don't have the 'power' to destroy one of 'God's creations'?

Both. Of all possible causes of variations in climate over the years, it's hubris and arrogance to think humans cause it. It was arrogance in the 70s when the 'experts' thought humans were causing us to enter a new ice age. It was arrogance in the 90s when the 'experts' said humans were causing global warming. It's arrogance now for the 'experts' to think we're causing climate change. They've gotten smart, now it's 'climate change' so any change in the weather is cause for alarm. It's arrogance to assume the climate the way it is now, is the way it's supposed to be.

Anyway, I defy anyone to go to somewhere like Bangkok and say humans are not contributing to global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it. Some days it was like being shut in the garage with the engine running.And, just north, a billion Chinese are discovering the joys of motoring.

Anecdotal observations, like other global warming 'proof', isn't science.

 

[alchemysa]

Both. Of all possible causes of variations in climate over the years, it's hubris and arrogance to think humans cause it. It was arrogance in the 70s when the 'experts' thought humans were causing us to enter a new ice age. It was arrogance in the 90s when the 'experts' said humans were causing global warming. It's arrogance now for the 'experts' to think we're causing climate change. They've gotten smart, now it's 'climate change' so any change in the weather is cause for alarm. It's arrogance to assume the climate the way it is now, it the way it's supposed to be.


Anecdotal observations, like other global warming 'proof', isn't science.

Firstly, Of course we have the technology to wreck the planet. We could cut down all the trees and burn them, pour all our poisons into the lakes and oceans, and let off all our nuclear weapons at once. It would be pretty easy really but hopefully we won't do it deliberately.

Secondly, It appears you believe in God. I admit I don't, but even if I did why would I believe he/she would stop it happening? WW1, WW2, The holocaust, Aids, genocide in Africa, Obesity, and countless other man-made and natural disasters seem to have proceeded quite smoothly without any divine intervention. Why would God stop us proceeding down yet another path of self destruction? Maybe he wants to teach us a lesson. We will reap what we sow.

Thirdly. What will it take to convince you? Seriously, I'm interested in your answer. What 'sign' do you need? Can you tell me what needs to happen before you will begin to get worried? Have you really asked yourself that question?
In my opinion you are dismissing both the anecdotal observations of common folks AND some pretty compelling scientific evidence. I'm living in a 'one in a thousand year' drought at the moment. It could just be a temporary 'correction' but I don't think we should count on that.

We live in a thin film of habitable atmosphere around a pretty tiny planet. Its so thin that just climbing Mt Everest requires the wearing of an oxygen mask. If you don't think we have the power to mess up this little air bubble of ours then I think you are in a minority.

 

[MikePA]

Firstly, Of course we have the technology to wreck the planet.

Secondly, It appears you believe in God.

Thirdly. What will it take to convince you?

Firstly, we have the ability to damage areas of the planet, but not wreck it. Did setting off nukes in WWII wreck the planet? Did nuke testing in the 50s and 60s wreck the planet? Did Chernobyl wreck the planet? No.

Secondly, yes, I believe in God. Since religious discussions are not allowed on TBN, I won't respond.

Thirdly, there are a lot of scientists who do not believe man causes global warming. Science is not about opinions. It's great if individuals want to alter their lives because they believe in man made global warming. I draw the line when leftists and liberals want to grab power and tax revenue for governments around the world to control more and more of citizens lives based on a someone's theory. Doesn't it cause you any concern that it's primarily leftists and liberals and organizations like the UN who are pushing massive tax hikes and huge grabs of power who are pushing man-made global warming? 'Cap and trade' legislation is a huge power grab by the US government into private enterprise that will increase costs which will be passed onto the consumer.

 

[Egon]

chopping firewood for a little longer .

Yes that will be happening as long as the aging body can comply.

Back in Alberta one was able to see the Northern Lights. After an unusually nice light show weather changes like storms usually occurred within four days time. I do miss seeing them in Nova Scotia as they can be quite spectacular!

Of course you folks Down Under don't see the Northern Lights! It's the Aurora Australis isn't it?

Could someone please tell me which contributes more atmospheric pollution. Burning wood in my stove or letting the log rot in the Woods??

 

[SPYDERLK]

[[[Firstly, we have the ability to damage areas of the planet, but not wreck it. Did setting off nukes in WWII wreck the planet? Did nuke testing in the 50s and 60s wreck the planet? Did Chernobyl wreck the planet? No.]]]

[[[Secondly, yes, I believe in God. ]]] Since religious discussions are not allowed on TBN, I won't respond.

[[[ Perhaps firstly we need a definition of wreck. Then we need to understand the concept of a fulcrum point. Then perhaps the concept of balance and tipping points.]]] This would aid your understanding of what scientists are talking about. The extremely limited above ground nukes were a tiny nudge compared to what could easily happen in nuclear war. -- And still, these isolated past events had measurable immediate and delayed health effects on nearby populations.

[[[ This is obvious by your repititious use of "arrogance" in prior posts to describe any thot or fear Man may have about the real ability to have a monumental effect.]]]
larry

 

[Egon]

Toward the end of the of the Archean Period and at the beginning of the Proterozoic Period, about 2.5 billion years ago, oxygen-forming photosynthesis began to occur. The first fossils, in fact, were a type of blue-green algae that could photosynthesize

Speaking of altering the Earth these little fellows, prolific multipliers were so efficient at turning carbon dioxide into oxygen that they destroyed the environment they could live in and created one in which we can live!

 

[MikePA]

This would aid your understanding of what scientists are talking about. The extremely limited above ground nukes were a tiny nudge compared to what could easily happen in nuclear war. -- And still, these isolated past events had measurable immediate and delayed health effects on nearby populations.

[[[ This is obvious by your repititious use of "arrogance" in prior posts to describe any thot or fear Man may have about the real ability to have a monumental effect.]]]
larry

This thread is about man's ability to cause changes in climate, not about health effects of nuclear blasts. Nor did I say there weren't localized effects. I said it didn't 'wreck the planet'. Since all this is theory, we will never know.

How would you describe the following?

• Man looking at temperature differences over decades or centuries and concluding the only possible explanation is what humans have done.
  
• These same people ridiculing equally qualified scientists who disagree with them.
  
• Asking others to agree to massive tax increases and changes in lifestyle to 'fix' this 'problem'.

 

[SPYDERLK]

This thread is about man's ability to cause changes in climate, not about health effects of nuclear blasts. Nor did I say there weren't localized effects. I said it didn't 'wreck the planet'. Since all this is theory, we will never know.

[[[How would you describe the following?]]]

• Man looking at temperature differences over decades or centuries and concluding the only possible explanation is what humans have done.
  
• These same people ridiculing equally qualified scientists who disagree with them.
  
• Asking others to agree to massive tax increases and changes in lifestyle to 'fix' this 'problem'.

As I said - Perhaps firstly we need a definition of wreck. Then we need to understand the concept of a fulcrum point. Then perhaps the concept of balance and tipping points.

[[[ I would describe this as an incomplete interpretation portrayed in a way that leads the reader toward an inaccurate view of the scientific discussion.]]] There is too much exaggeration being used in the argument on both sides, but there is also good science in the debate.
larry

 

[alchemysa]

. Doesn't it cause you any concern that it's primarily leftists and liberals and organizations like the UN who are pushing massive tax hikes and huge grabs of power who are pushing man-made global warming? 'Cap and trade' legislation is a huge power grab by the US government into private enterprise that will increase costs which will be passed onto the consumer.

Sure it bugs me that there are opportunists on all sides who see this as easy money. (Look up the meaning of 'Rent Seekers').

But that doesn't blind me from seeing a real problem at the heart of the matter.

And it appears that any science that suggests that man is responsible is going to be dismissed by you as 'hubris and arrogance' so you are really not arguing this from a scientific perspective at all.