Sell your sailplane before 2030

In 1804 the population of the earth was 1 billion people. It took 123
years to add another billion, then 33 years, then 14, then 12 to get the
population up to 6 billion by 1999 (source
https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=5&secNum=4).
Now the human population is roughty 10.8 billion people (source
http://populationpyramid.net/world/2015/)!

I don't suppose all those people blowing CO2 into the atmosphere has
anything to do with this?

On 7/19/2015 10:08 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/16/2015 9:38 PM:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:50:38 AM UTC+12, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:09:42 -0700, David Hirst wrote:

A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by
then.

Thankfully, they mean sunspot activity, not heat output, though
the lack of sunspots will likely cause some noticeable weather
changes.
(http://www.space.com/19280-solar-act...h-climate.html)

There may well be a connection: the Maunder Minimum, when there
were very few sunspots from 1645 to about 1715, coincided with the
middle part of the Little Ice Age (1350 to about 1850), during
which Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.
However, as AFAIK there was no good understanding of either IR or
UV radiation during the Maunder Minimum nor any reliable means of
measuring the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth, any
association between the two events is at best supposition, but
should it happen again we are now well enough instrumented to
discover what, if any, mechanism connects the two.

The theorized mechanism is fewer sunspots - less solar wind - more
cosmic rays reaching earth - more nucleation of aerosols - more
clouds - higher reflectivity - more energy radiation into space -
lower temperatures.

The key link in this chain (more cosmic rays - more nucleation of
aerosols) has been experimentally verified at CERN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_...imat e_change


IPCC reports state that cloud reflectivity and proportion of cloud
cover is one of the most important and yet least understood aspects
of the global climate system.

"While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be
confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between
cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global
warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been
having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at
their highest on record."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosm...termediate.htm




--
Dan Marotta

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 4:08:21 PM UTC+12, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bruce Hoult wrote on 7/16/2015 9:38 PM:
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:50:38 AM UTC+12, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:09:42 -0700, David Hirst wrote:

A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by
then.

Thankfully, they mean sunspot activity, not heat output, though
the lack of sunspots will likely cause some noticeable weather
changes.
(http://www.space.com/19280-solar-act...h-climate.html)

There may well be a connection: the Maunder Minimum, when there
were very few sunspots from 1645 to about 1715, coincided with the
middle part of the Little Ice Age (1350 to about 1850), during
which Europe and North America experienced very cold winters.
However, as AFAIK there was no good understanding of either IR or
UV radiation during the Maunder Minimum nor any reliable means of
measuring the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth, any
association between the two events is at best supposition, but
should it happen again we are now well enough instrumented to
discover what, if any, mechanism connects the two.

The theorized mechanism is fewer sunspots - less solar wind - more
cosmic rays reaching earth - more nucleation of aerosols - more
clouds - higher reflectivity - more energy radiation into space -
lower temperatures.

The key link in this chain (more cosmic rays - more nucleation of
aerosols) has been experimentally verified at CERN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_...imat e_change

IPCC reports state that cloud reflectivity and proportion of cloud
cover is one of the most important and yet least understood aspects
of the global climate system.

"While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be
confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between
cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global
warming. In fact, in recent years when cosmic rays should have been
having their largest cooling effect on record, temperatures have been at
their highest on record."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosm...termediate.htm

That's an awfully ignorant argument.

Heating and cooling effects accumulate. June 21 has the most sunlight (in the Northern Hemisphere) descreasing after that, but it's usually far before the hottest days in July and August.

It is mathematically natural that at the end of a period of increasing temperatures you'll have a period of temperatures that are flat but at or near the maximum.

Failing to take account of the trend and notice that temperatures have ceased to increase, and simply continue to beat on the undeniable (and not denied) fact that temperatures are "the highest ever" is either mathematical ignorance or deception.

Originally Posted by David Hirst

A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by then.

Thankfully, they mean sunspot activity, not heat output, though the lack of sunspots will likely cause some noticeable weather changes.
(http://www.space.com/19280-solar-act...h-climate.html)

If things do get worse, then hopefully by 2030 we'll have got better at scratching around in weak conditions, so we'll be sorted.

Better look after that turbo David, it might come in handy when the rest of us can't stay up anymore

:-) Colin

Better look after that turbo David, it might come in handy when the rest
of us can't stay up anymore

Surely having wingtips in two different time-zones will help you too, Colin :-)

Originally Posted by David Hirst

Better look after that turbo David, it might come in handy when the rest
of us can't stay up anymore

Surely having wingtips in two different time-zones will help you too, Colin :-)

It does help very much David but I got the span because I couldn't buy skill :-)

I got the span because I couldn't buy
skill :-)


Why do you think I got the turbo? To paraphrase a much-bandied aphorism, to give another option for my superior judgement to avoid situations that may require the use of my superior skill cough! Now I just have to aquire some superior skills...

i don't care what the temperature is as long as there isn't an inversion!
+1!! But a good inversion plus good winds sometimes means good wave.

i don't care what the temperature is as long as there isn't an inversion!

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:18:05 -0700, Soartech wrote:

Unless you have ridge or wave nearby.
A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by then.
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregul...en-dynamo.html

You mean climate change is real??? And this one's got nothing to do with
AG driving his 20 SUV's around. Maybe he can buy all those carbon
credits back that he sold to some really really stupid people.

"We're gonna need a bigger wing!"

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 8:18:08 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
Unless you have ridge or wave nearby.
A huge reduction in solar output is predicted to occur by then.
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregul...en-dynamo.html

Just curious---thousands of years ago there was 2 mile thick ice on the property I own here in western Washington. Since this no longer is the case, doesn't it appear we have been in a global warming situation since way before the industrial revolution. Could we blame this whole thing starting on the original inhabitants of earth?