Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sense who wrote (3707)	2/6/2014 10:15:35 PM
From: weatherguru	1 Recommendation Recommended By Hawkmoon Respond to of 4326

The models refer to incoming sunlight as the solar constant. LOL! But this is just the sun's radiation. The true driver of climate change with the sun is the solar wind. Meteorology is taught from the surface up. The stratosphere is shown as the "cap" to tropospheric weather. However, I eventually learned about potential vorticity. Looking at papers such as Baldwin and Dunkerton's, sciencemag.org, the idea of stratospheric perturbations preceding surface weather changes was fascinating. Piers Corbyn opened my eyes to the connection between the sun and "climate". Why climate in quotes? Weather is 3-7 days. Beyond that, errors become too amplified and typically changes the forecast. So climate in quotes is the lower-frequency variability of weather...ranges from 10-90 days, year-to-year, decade-to-decade, etc. Piers talks about Solar-Action-Lunar-Technique, which I understand to take solar wind along with the position of the moon to influence the jet streams. The jet streams, in a meteorological sense, is a main driver of synoptic weather (highs and lows on weather maps). He opened my eyes to the influence of the jet streams by the solar wind via its interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. It seems very rational to link the upper layers of the atmosphere to surface changes in weather, which is why I brought up the dynamical stuff in the second paragraph. Piers is a free-market guy (keeps his methods of predicting the solar wind pretty secret). He did predict the jet pattern this winter via less active solar wind. He uses a laptop computer to make better predictions of seasonal patterns than multi-billion dollar climate models. Sigh. But as you mentioned, Polaris getting dimmer than brighter? Could it happen to our sun? Why would there be such fluctuations with something powered by fusion? But does the government and insurance companies want accurate seasonal predictions? Hell no. The same question could be posed on energy. We are enslaved to energy, but coal companies are being shut down while abundant, domestic natural gas goes up in price. If it gets colder and colder, there is less energy and more demand. However, we cause global warming and global cooling, so just pay more and shut up :)

To: sense who wrote (3707)	2/7/2014 5:27:27 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Recommended By Hawkmoon Respond to of 4326

The fact is, we don't understand the nature and drivers of solar variation... and we don't have a clue how solar variation interacts with the systems of the planet to influence climate. I suspect climate is driven by variation in things the climatologists aren't considering... and aren't capable of considering... but, of course, wouldn't, anyway... I expect it might be vastly easier (and far more valid) to "prove" that variation in climate can be determined by measuring the changes in luminosity and color of aurora, over time... along with other electrical atmospheric phenomena... with a larger predictive dependence than that claimed for CO2. Can anyone point me to those studies on variation in solar output, parsed by frequency... and the composition of the output relative to the systemic modifying influences of the magnetosphere... and how that interaction alters the average in RF exposure, and its variation... at the level of the planets "climate generator" ? In recent years there is some murmured admissions that the sun has an 11 year (give or take) cycle with increasing and decreasing sun spot frequency that also corresponds to increased and decreased energy output. But there is another variable that contributes to the amount of solar radiation that reaches our atmosphere. The earth's magnetosphere is not a constant. The poles shift in what appears to be semi random intervals. and when they shift, our magnetosphere becomes weaker in general to the point that there are holes in the magnetic field that protects us from the charged particles coming from the sun. I brought this up 5 years ago. Message 26741963 and it is finally getting a little more visibility.....15% reduction in strength over the past 200 years. dailymail.co.uk