We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, February 26. 2011
Where do I buy 500 lb. marshmallows?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This will not have any effect on our weather. Only SUV's and incandescent light bulbs affect our weather.
Hmmm. A number of misleading statements all rolled up together. It's true that after a VERY extended "solar minimum", the Sun is starting to wake up, and we are, one year into the increase, starting to see some more sunspots. This one was merely mid-grade, and not Earth-directed. You can visit spaceweather.com for today's sunspot numbers.
And while it is true that strong solar flares aimed at the Earth can cause power disruptions and satellite problems, we have no particular reason to think that THIS cycle, SolarCyle24, will be anything out of the ordinary. In fact, we sort of expect that there will be a lower than average number of sunspots this cycle, which will probably peak in 2013 or 2014.
On the flip side, it's also important to note that the most massive solar flares that we know of happened during the low part of the 11-year sunspot cycle, and in 1879 the geomagnetic activity was so great that it once caused a telegraph office to burn down!
A great source for sun science is Kevin Gibeau, VE3EN and his Solarcycle24.com site.
Lots of neat stuff there.
""We have every reason to expect we're going to be seeing more space weather in the coming years, and it behooves us to be smart and be prepared.""
IIRC, Ms. Lubchenko was a marine biologist, and so is perfectly qualified to instruct us as to the cycles of the sun, and their implications for our future.
More importantly, though, she was also one of the first big names to whole-heartedly get behind the global warming hysteria.
I'm guessing that, in the wake of Climategate, coming as it did on the heels of The Great Hockeystick Disaster, and combined with the new evidence that we're well into the next cooling cycle, all viewed with full knowledge that the climate modelers' models turned out to use sleight-of-hand much more than actual computer modeling techniques, she's been left with a giant hole in her heart where she had previously stored her eager anticipation of the millions of dollars that the Warmenists would have been sending her way but which had been cruelly snatched from her at the last instant.
And, to fill this hole, we'll now be hearing about how we all need to start letting her spend billions and billions of our dollars studying, and preparing for, our coming Long Decade of Nuclear Killer Sunspots From Hell. (tm)
(It amazes me that, not only are we going to let all of those lying thieves who pushed the AGW scam to the bitter end get away with it simply by backing away slowly, but we're going to actually let them speak publicly about a new and even more idiotic danger to mankind which can only be averted by sending them all of our money. God, we are sheep.)
Think you "nailed it" perfectly.
Never let a crisis go to waste is the mantra of such people. Opportunists always seek out some such happenings and attempt to cash-in.
Think they see possibly an employment situation looming soon with a change in Congress and what a wonderful way to re-focus attention on some "new" threat to jump jobs. I'll keep closer tabs on Ms. Jane Lubchenco.
Ahh Geez--just another poorly qualified, fast rising, fem nazi, incompetent superstar! Starting to get pretty predictable don't you think?
Wasn't George Costanza a marine biologist? I'd rather get my catastrophic event predictions from him!
And yes, my first thoughts upon reading this were, "How much is this going to cost us."
Incompetent, um, no. Poorly qualified? perhaps? Misdirected? Definitely-- "yes". Often such "officials" have not really spent adequate time looking at both sides of the argument and had a pointed debate regarding the flaws in the science. They often reflect for public discussion the consensus position which to us is silly. I always maintain hope that they are of suffiient caliber of scientists that they can see the arguments of good science and not follow some cult mantra.
I try to avoid tossing "word bombs" to maintain credibility with the opposing side and hoping to be able to engage in legitimate debate. Sometimes it is useless, but one can always hone one's skills by each encounter. We are supposingly trying to garner popular support and try to keep it that way by presenting a reasoned dialogue.
Weasel words ever'-where.
"more space weather in the coming years."
Uh, yeah, space weather being more or less continuous, it definitely hasn't ended for all time. Or, if "more" means "increased", we've had virtually zero for some time, so any wee blip will qualify.
But if it means "more severe than usual", then it's bollocks.
Actually, you are way off the mark sorry to say. I'm not a big fan of Dr. Lubchenko by any means, but she's not wrong with this. The fact that she has a degree other than physics does not disqualify her to head an agency that encompasses the entire whole of Earth's environmental habitat including space. I'm a mathematician by training and an engineer by trade - should I be disqualified as an engineer because I'm technically not a degreed engineer?
As Ken Mitchell stated, there really isn't a reason to think that this solar cycle will produce a catastrophic calamity and in fact it seems to be a rather tame cycle which accounts (and correlates by the way) to oddball weather cycles. There is a lot of evidence that solar storms, mass ejections and other solar events effect biological system on Earth and, strange as this may sound, may be a factor in evolutionary science. You would think that flying on a airplane wouldn't be a problem, but a solar proton event while flying at altitude can seriously affect biological systems - think having a full power XRAY without protecting the family jewels with a lead apron. :>)
The danger though, as Dr. Lubchenko stated, is space bound satellites. Any sort of mass ejection can cause enormous levels of EMP and EMF which can, simply put, destroy a communications satellite in nothing flat. Think of it this way - most of the maneuvering by satellite controllers is done because of solar wind at normal levels - there is a lot of pressure on the solar panels and hulls which move the satellites out of their assigned orbit and have to be corrected for. With a huge amount of pressure with the coinciding EMP and EMF, bye bye communications. GPS satellites will cease to function. Etc., etc., etc.
Think about this - a strong enough solar flare or mass ejection can blow your TV up. No radio either. Your car won't start because the computer is a gibbering idiot from the radiation. No Internet. Think of it - NO INTERNET!! :>)
Just to prove a point, there is an experiment being considered to test several combined field theories in physics. The experiment involves a satellite with a huge solar sail - we're talking acres of solar sail material. The plan is to see just how fast the satellite will be going by the time it passes the Kuiper belt. They figure the acceleration will be an appreciable fraction of the speed of light just by solar photon pressure alone. Very cool idea and it shows just how powerful the Sun's energy is.
So all this isn't a joke - it is real - very real. The problem is we can't account for it other than by observation. And it will happen - we're due if historical records are any predictor.
Seen too many of them.
Been brutalized by too many of them.
Watched their training ground from too close for too many years,
not to know that being the "Best in the Field" is not even something that is considered a possible qualification when the femnazis are demanding these "leadership" roles be turned over to them.
Well I sympathize with your brutalization and can't comment on your behavior or situation, but I've been brutalized by men also and know how to handle that. We are not well equipped to handle frontal assaults from female "attackers" as our training is to avoid such conflict, and sometimes we are surprised when that gender behaves like a "man" with a testosterone load. That leaves us uncertain how to proceed except to unflatteringly label them and hope it sticks. I agree all of the notable women politicians appointed (or elected) to high positions of leadership with few exceptions, are not "Best of the Field".
That is why we need to make sure the politicos we elect represent "Best of the Field". Most people are too lazy and unwilling to invest the effort beyond determining which political party they belong to. Education of the "masses" to overcome this failing is where we must focus our energy.
it is nice that you acknowledge the problem--men are not trained to confront women head on, or to defend themselves against these gals. What I have witnessed happens in agency, or academia is that the men just sit back and be quiet. It is not possible to suggest another solution, it is not possible to have reasoned debate when these gals are in charge. They run to their puppet masters and come back and do what they are told. The puppet masters being that small circle of powerful (Wealthy) women who got them the job in the first place. I don't blame men for giving the nod of agreement to these gals--disagree and you die!
Your assessment of "it is not possible to have reasoned debate" is often unfortunately correct as they usually have gotten to their position in not a meritorious manner but though an informal "quota" system. Debates require knowledge of facts beyond your limited specialty and skill. I don't know if her appointment was an acknowledgement of her alliance to the Left, or was a true meritocracy appointment which would be my standard.
What especially bothers me is that Dr. Lubchenko allies herself with the GCM farce:
"Dr. Lubchenco believes climate models are now sufficiently “robust” to help scientists start to do the same with climate, to help businesses, elected officials and regulators make good decisions on issues like where to put buildings or roads or wind farms."
and further on says she is going to follow this policy:
"Lubchenco declared that science would guide the agency and that she expects it to play a role in developing a green economy."
I question what "science" she is going to follow, and I shudder the consequences of her advocating the development of a "Green Economy" such that has unfolded in the current political circles. Using “robust” models in the decision process relieves the decision maker of the intellectual responsibility of the decision and will always lead to eventual disaster. Dumb and Dumber.
Hang on for the ride.
"Actually, you are way off the mark sorry to say. I'm not a big fan of Dr. Lubchenko by any means, but she's not wrong with this."
I think you've mistaken what my mark actually was. We've watched this specific person for some time as she has used her offices' and institutions' good names to support, bolster, and greatly expand the scope of the AGW fraud. She was one of the first to push - hard - for some sort of cap-and-trade system for carbon, she has established a school designed, explicitly, to teach scientists how to affect public policy and garner public support, her appointment by O to head NOAA was seen as a huge sign that he was going to be an AGW True Believer President . . . .
If I give her the benefit of the doubt concerning her intellect and professional abilities (which I generally have done), the remaining explanation seems to center on greed for funding and a disdain for honesty in pursuing it. When the shroud lifted from over much of the "data" used by the modelers, it became very obvious that there is presently NO valid foundation for the entire hysterical movement.
When a competent and professional scientist views data, and reviews valid and competently-performed study of that data, the scientist may well become a committed advocate for some position that the study proves would be beneficial. That's human, and that's good. People should fight for what they believe.
But when that same competent and professional scientist becomes a committed advocate for huge societal change that would, incidentally, transform her profession from a backwater to a leading light, and she cannot point to any validly-gathered data, nor any competently-performed study of that data, that supports her advocacy, there's solid reason for suspicion. At this point, I'd say there is a more solid scientific case proving she has acted dishonestly than there is supporting the AGW hysteria.
So, no, I wasn't disparaging the idea that technical competence in one area lends competence in other technical areas, nor was I making fun of caution over solar energy. I was purely involved in trying to ridicule a scam artist seeking to have her own way with the world through deception. When, in a fairly quiet part of the solar cycle she starts coming up with dire warnings that sound just like her last eight years of Chicken-Littling over AGW, my first thought was "migawd, she could at least try to be subtle about it."
For me, my encounter with the Good Dr. has been recent and what you say about her activities and motives is more frightening than CAGW. CAGW is proffered by the Team as "likely" and her other nefarious activities pursued to support their goals by any justified or questionable science- I'm afraid is real and most troubling. Policy should never drive science but it seems that is what we are experiencing. There also seems to be a difference in opinions as to the basic origins of her behavior and demeanor with regard to science and her role as a policy maker. Think you have hit the root of it however as your views makes sense. You know, we really don't know enough about her to properly asses her motivation, but in absence of first hand information, we guess anyway. We must be civil and fair in our characterizations however to have maximum impact on the populous. All we know is contained in her behavior and statements. How revealing it would be to hear her in a debate with noted skeptical scientists that would cut her to pieces. Unfortunately, these debates are never “permitted" nor agreed to- by any significant voices of the CAGW Team.
The science is settled you know. No debate is worthwhile as it will only give you credibility if "we" debate. /sarc
Oil keerect. Except, it's "populus", not "populous". Of course, you can have a populous populus, if you have enough people.