tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post6957146572199748821..comments2024-03-19T01:48:39.709+00:00Comments on Power and Control: Climate: The Astrology ModelM. Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-4355066004824422132007-12-02T18:33:00.000+00:002007-12-02T18:33:00.000+00:00Get Your Personalized Astrology Reading and My "Pr...Get Your Personalized Astrology Reading and My "Practical Astrology" Book Now, 100 % FREE<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/practicalastrology" REL="nofollow">GET FREE EBOOK NOW!</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-70309926861047064952007-07-12T18:14:00.000+00:002007-07-12T18:14:00.000+00:00Swwmya,The link is interesting.Swwmya,<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://thiruspot.blogspot.com/2007/07/indian-hindu-religious-astronomers.html" REL="nofollow">The link</A> is interesting.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-26625716703598179732007-07-12T17:06:00.000+00:002007-07-12T17:06:00.000+00:00hi,I would like you to read this post and say your...hi,<BR/><BR/>I would like you to read this post and say your comments on it.<BR/><BR/>http://thiruspot.blogspot.com/2007/07/<BR/>indian-hindu-religious-astronomers.htmlSowmyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00944961915103273886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-28500844064334434292007-06-08T15:14:00.000+00:002007-06-08T15:14:00.000+00:00M. Simon,The problem is not that the climate scien...M. Simon,<BR/><BR/>The problem is not that the climate scientists don't agree. The point is that the mainstream of <B>solar scientists</B> don't agree with these new models.<BR/><BR/>How can increases in cosmic-ray flux explain current GW, when for the last 3 solar cycles the CRF have been going up/down, up/down, up/down - but the GW has been going up pretty steady?<BR/><BR/>Likewise, how can the tightly constrained variation of solar luminosity (to within 0.1%) explain the current GW trend?<BR/><BR/>Because a vital point is that GW has <B>not</B> stalled. Because of the high degree of jumpiness and the multi-year rhythms in weather (El Nino-Southern Oscillation, etc.), to pull out the trend of the climate, the customary thing is to apply something like a 5-year smoothing filter: you get a running average that way. (This is a technique used in many areas of quantitative science.) When you do that, you are not confused by the peak at 1998 and the valley in 2000. <BR/><BR/>Here's <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png" REL="nofollow">what you get</A>.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that it will be necessary to get China, India and others on-board to stop the C-O2 train: However, I'll point out that so long as people keep trying to resuscitate the "it's not happening" and the "it's not due to us" opinions - <I>opinions which mainstream scientists view as having gone 'way past their sell-by dates</I> - so long will the developing countries have an excuse not to tackle their end of the problem. "If you rich people aren't going to do anything, why should we poor people?". "If you rich people don't believe it has anything to do with C-O2, then why should we poor people remain poor instead of using coal?"<BR/><BR/>But the reason for sticking to the science, and the scientific mainstream, on this matter is not for political-economic reasons. The right reason is that it is most likely correct. And your policy decisions will always be more appropriate when you're speaking to a correct understanding of the situation - not one informed mostly by wishful thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-23912577867011136292007-06-08T00:17:00.000+00:002007-06-08T00:17:00.000+00:00Neal says:The climate change people will take into...Neal says:<BR/><BR/><I>The climate change people will take into account new scenarios for how the Sun behaves when the experts on the Sun agree that they make sense. Not before.</I><BR/><BR/>It does make sense. You are just a denier.<BR/><BR/>However, I will grant you this: when the CO2 guys <B>KNOW</B> the sign of the water vapor term in their equations and the magnitude to within say 20% I'll give their prognostications more weight.<BR/><BR/>From where I sit the solar theories have as much weight as the CO2 theories.<BR/><BR/>If the solar guys are correct cutting back on energy production will be a disaster.<BR/><BR/>OTOH if the CO2 guys are right adaptation may be the best way to go. So I support the USA policy of developing technology and observing.<BR/><BR/>For the last 8 or 9 years global temperatures have stalled. It could be an inflection point (if the solar guys are right) or it could be a result of a confluence of internal cycles (if the CO2 folks are right).<BR/><BR/>In any case if we don't get the industrializing countries on board the CO2 band wagon none of the CO2 mitigation stuff is going to matter much re: global CO2 output.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-26379011929087981202007-06-07T18:13:00.000+00:002007-06-07T18:13:00.000+00:00Simon,The climate change people will take into acc...Simon,<BR/><BR/>The climate change people will take into account new scenarios for how the Sun behaves when the experts on the Sun agree that they make sense. Not before.<BR/><BR/>A relevant example from the history of science: One of the great physicists of the day, Lord Kelvin, estimated the age of the Earth to be about 24 Million years, based on his model of how it would have cooled off after formation. This created a problem for geologists generally, and for Darwin's theory specifically. This couldn't be resolved by any discussion among geologists and biologists: The resolution came with the discovery of radioactivity, which invalidated Kelvin's calculation.<BR/><BR/>wrt taxing the Sun: Again, let's stick to the issue. If we're talking about causes and results, we're talking about science. If we're talking about cures, we're talking policies. Let's not confuse them.<BR/><BR/>They are more different than volts and amperes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-37023526294963230612007-06-07T14:55:00.000+00:002007-06-07T14:55:00.000+00:00James Lewis, at American Thinker, wrote an essay e...James Lewis, at American Thinker, wrote an essay entitled <A HEF="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/global_warming_as_european_imp.html">Global Warming as European Imperialism</A>. I think he nailed it.<BR/><BR/>Accordingly, I think that when <BR/>GW jumps the Shark, that they'll look for something else to try and put the world under their control with.<BR/><BR/>They may be thinking about that now, with China going to pass the US in CO2 emission this year, the embarrassing failure of their carbon trading scheme in Europe, and Bush's <A HREF="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/kyoto_and_the_g8_a_day_late_an.html" REL="nofollow">pre-emptive end run around Kyoto II</A>.LarryDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955273945502612268noreply@blogger.com