[gomoho]

Originally Posted by biker1

I have no idea what that means and I am pretty sure you don't either.

Thank you.

[tuccillo]

Seasonal hurricane predictions are in the same category as seasonal temperature and precipitation forecasts: there is skill as demonstrated by statistical analysis. I don't personally have experience with solar activity predictions but I would expect that there is also some demonstrated skill. Unless you are involved in that particular science your comparison to lottery predictions is pretty worthless. Sorry to be so blunt but it is what it is.

Originally Posted by billethkid

No differentthan the cheif meteorologists attempting to predict how many hurricanes there will be each year.

Knowing what the sun did is a major task unto itself. Imagine the data/info kept over the last thousand years!

I would categorize predicting what the sun will do to be about as productive as predicting who will win the lottery.

[Carl in Tampa]

Well, in spite of the cute responses, the Maunder effect (related to sunspot cycles) is well documented (and undisputed) science.

Shortwave radio operators are very familiar with sunspot cycles because they affect shortwave communications.

The sunspot cycle is generally known to be a cycle of approximately 11 years between successive peaks in sunspot activity. What is less known and understood is that with each successive 11 year peak, the magnetic field of the sunspots is reversed. So the sunspot cycle is in reality a 22 year cycle when the magnetic fields of the sunspots are taken into account.
On January 4th 2008, the first recent "reverse polarity" sunspot was recorded. This officially marked the start of sunspot cycle 24. (Incidentally, the magnetic poles of the Earth also reverse, but it happens over a period of eons.)

The subject is much too complex for a discussion here. By the way, sunspots are (relatively) COLD areas of the sun. Having large COLD areas on the sun could arguably affect the climate on Earth. Where did the term "Maunder" come from on the subject of sunspots? Edward Maunder was an astronomer and pioneer in the study of sunspots. His study identified the Maunder Minimum which coincided with the "Little Ice Age."

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics


.

[jimmemac]

I hope I live ling enough to see is so that I am even happier that I moved here rather than stay up north.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by biker1

I have no idea what that means and I am pretty sure you don't either.

Man Made Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption is anything but science. It is more of a cult or political movement requiring virtual religious faith to continue to believe this nonsense after the exposure of the climategate emails, the debunked hockey stick analysis using manipulated data, and the complete failure of every computer model prediction. But, that's just my opinion.

[blueash]

Global cooling: No, were not headed for a mini–ice age.

[Chi-Town]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Man Made Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption is anything but science. It is more of a cult or political movement requiring virtual religious faith to continue to believe this nonsense after the exposure of the climategate emails, the debunked hockey stick analysis using manipulated data, and the complete failure of every computer model prediction. But, that's just my opinion.

I was wondering how long it would take for the climate denier posts.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

I was wondering how long it would take for the climate denier posts.

What the heck is a "climate denier"?

[tuccillo]

The real issue is that nobody really knows the size of the anthropogenic perturbation on the natural climate drift. Estimates are based on computer models and certain aspects of the physics are not well understood and therefore not easily incorporated into a computer model. This is particularly true with the modelling of cloud-radiation interactions. There is an enormous amount of science involved in the modelling-based investigations. I view it as a continued research effort that is not ready for use in setting public policy. You are correct in suggesting that there is some politics involved, particularly with the IPCC.

Does burning of fossil fuels impact our climate drift? Almost certainly. How much? That is the real question. Should we burn less fossil fuels? Probably. Will driving a Prius save the world? Probably not

Full disclosure: I wrote computer models for NASA and the National Weather Service.

Originally Posted by outlaw

Man Made Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption is anything but science. It is more of a cult or political movement requiring virtual religious faith to continue to believe this nonsense after the exposure of the climategate emails, the debunked hockey stick analysis using manipulated data, and the complete failure of every computer model prediction. But, that's just my opinion.

[tuccillo]

I am not aware of anyone who denies that there is climate.

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

I was wondering how long it would take for the climate denier posts.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

...Does burning of fossil fuels impact our climate drift? Almost certainly. How much? That is the real question. Should we burn less fossil fuels? Probably. Will driving a Prius save the world? Probably not

Full disclosure: I wrote computer models for NASA and the National Weather Service.

tuccillo used words in his full post that I can barely pronounce let alone understand. But IMHO his summary is spot-on.

Full disclosure: I built airplane models and love to play in the weather.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Global Climate Change is settled theology.

Those who don't believe that man-made global climate change is a religion, should at least read the recent speech and writings of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, saying this theory is "All wrong!"

NASA, along with NOAH, have been recently caught manipulating and manufacturing data on the subject, in order to maintain their funding. Unlike NASA and NOAH, Dr. Giaever has no financial interest in misrepresenting the facts.

[tuccillo]

It is actually NOAA, not NOAH. NOAH built the Ark, but I digress.

Yes, some of the surface observations are "cooked" a bit to try to account for urbanization and perhaps changes in instruments/location. Surface observations are not the most reliable data if you have to "cook" it. I wonder about whether the amount of "cooking" is of the same magnitude as the warming signal that is being looked for.

One of the "problems" with the way science is funded is that research proposals are peer reviewed. In other words, they are reviewed by people doing the same research as you. Papers are also peer reviewed for publication.

Originally Posted by Justus

Those who don't believe that man-made global climate change is a religion, should at least read the recent speech and writings of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, saying this theory is "All wrong!"

NASA, along with NOAH, have been recently caught manipulating and manufacturing data on the subject, in order to maintain their funding. Unlike NASA and NOAH, Dr. Giaever has no financial interest in misrepresenting the facts.

[outlaw]

My understanding: The warmists' theory/models/predictions are based on a positive feedback with water vapor. As the CO2 increases, warming the atmosphere by re-radiating the heat "bouncing" off of earth, water vapor (BIG green house gas) increases resulting in even more radiating of heat. Without this water vapor positive feedback, the catastrophic predictions don't exist. Counter arguments say that CO2 released into the air actually reaches a saturation point in which there is less and less radiative effect (nonlinear). So, while initial CO2 levels may contribute to warming, more and more input has less and less of an effect on temperatures. One thing most scientists agree on is that much higher levels of CO2 in our air promotes plant growth. Russian, Chinese and Polish leaders are laughing at the West. I believe the AGW scare mongering will go down in history as possibly the biggest fraud ever on the world's people.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

It is actually NOAA, not NOAH. NOAH built the Ark, but I digress.

Yes, some of the surface observations are "cooked" a bit to try to account for urbanization and perhaps changes in instruments/location. Surface observations are not the most reliable data if you have to "cook" it. I wonder about whether the amount of "cooking" is of the same magnitude as the warming signal that is being looked for.

One of the "problems" with the way science is funded is that research proposals are peer reviewed. In other words, they are reviewed by people doing the same research as you. Papers are also peer reviewed for publication.

Sorry about the NOAH...had religion on my mind when I posted. My bad.

Peer review, as you are aware, occurs through the publication of scientific works in well-known Scientific Journals. The problem with theories and data that oppose the AGW theory, i.e., Man-Made Global Warming, is that those "vaunted" peer-reviewed publications, for whatever reason, have for years categorically refused to publish those submissions, regardless of their validity. As a result, top scientists have been shunned, fired and black-listed. There's too much money and too many government jobs at stake. Only recently, as the theory collapses under the preponderance of actual data and observation, has the fraud been exposed for what it is.

BTW, the rain is starting and Noah is loading the boat...