Must be really hot out there.
...during the Southern Hemisphere's recent winter, unusually low temperatures in part of the country's tropical region hit freshwater species hard, killing an estimated 6 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles and river dolphins.
That was Bolivia.
Yah, I know, weather is not climate.
But my WE Energy bill had a nice surprise: the average high/low temps in the last billing month were EXACTLY the same as the average high/low temps last year same month.
And WE doesn't use thermometers placed next to air-conditioning vents.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The science is settled. That cold weather you talk about? Global Warming. The warm weather we had this summer? Global Warming. The cold we will have this winter? Global Warming. A few months ago,I saw a comment by one of the (alleged) AGW acolytes who said something to the effect of, "we may see some cooling over the next 30 years, but make no mistake, AGW is really happening". Yeah....30 years is the expected length of the low-sunspot phenomenon.
Hide the decline!!!
Deekaman: "Yeah....30 years is the expected length of the low-sunspot phenomenon."
I'm unable to determine if you're being facetious, but am assuming not, and would love to know where you get your data. Sunspots follow a fairly regular 11 year cycle. We're at the dead center of one now, a so-called "solar minimum," though a bit of an extended one, and should hit a peak in less than six years, not 30.
As to what your "acolyte" said, that makes perfect sense. There is a ton of variation of ups and downs in the data, though it is following a general trend.
Just like a stock chart. Conservatives are supposed to be good with figures and graphs when they relate to finances, right? Well, look at the global warming data and imagine it's a stock. Toss in a couple of moving average indicators. Does your analysis say buy or sell? If you say sell, that Temp. Co. will be tanking soon, remind me never to ask for stock tips from you.
Your information is wrong. We are in the beginning of a Maunder or Dillon minimum.
Sunspots are not just an 11 year cycle. The 11 year is a cycle within a cycle. http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Don't blame me when you are freezing your ass off.
Oh...and I don't sell stock advice, but I wouldn't get too deeply involved in the market until after the election. Dems win? Get out.
You won't need to get out.
Deekaman: I provide a link to NASA, and you provide a link to a theory from Theodor Landscheidt "an author, astrologer and amateur climatologist." An astrologer? That's your idea of refuting evidence? Remind me never to ask you for legal representation either.
That aside, I'm well aware of longer term solar cycles, though I'm unfamiliar with your "Dillon" minimum; could you by any chance mean Dalton? And while some of these other cycles are quite well undertood, e.g. the tilt of the earth or it's varying oribital distance from the sun, others are not. Scientists do not have the tools yet to predict longer term minimums like the Maunder. They are not identified until they have already begun or are over, sort of like a recession.
I wonder why you hold such confidence in Landscheidt while discounting EVERY respected scientist out of hand.
There are, incidentally both Dalton and Dillon minima.
The reason I put so much faith into amateurs is that they don't have a dog in the fight. That is, their paycheck doesn't depend on their results. With the politicization of (alleged) AGW, wouldn't you think amateurs might be more objective than people who work for government?
And my previous comment was apparently lost in the ether(net)
"...wouldn't you think amateurs might be more objective..."
No. For a scientist, being right before everyone else is the cap feather of a lifetime. And further, an amateur is ill-equipped to understand these complex issues. It's a 24/7/4/12/365 job.
If you disagree, why don't you hire an amateur doctor, accountant or layer the next time you need one.
And I'd love a link to that Dillon minimum you cite.
That should have read "lawyer" but I guess "layer" works too.
Not finding "Dillon Minimum" and I may be wrong. We go with "confused" until I find different. ;-)
Were it not for the politicization of science in general, and (alleged) AGW, in particular, I might agree. But I don't.
Big difference between "scientist" and doctor, lawyer or accountant.
We do NOT have to disagree that there IS warming. The MIT guy says there is: .6 degree C in the last 30 (??) years or so (McIlheran's latest blog has the right number and name...)
The question is "whether such warming is solely ascribable to human activity" and the answer to that is "no." If it were solely human CO2 emissions, then Greenland's green would have resulted ONLY from human activity.
Patent lunacy to go that direction.
As a Conservative, I happen to believe that waste--of anything--is wrong. That includes utilization of electricity, petroleum, lumber, food--you name it. (I'll make an exception if I could ever purchase a 450HP Corvette, of course.)
I suspect most Conservatives agree on that point. And by "Conservatives", I mean ones with principle--not just those who are Conservative when it comes to disagreeing with Liberal politics.
Thought I'd make that clear...
Post a Comment