What's going on with the Sun?

Using our moon to interactively block up to 3% of solar influx would
certainly reverse GW and AGW combined, and we'd be all set for
thousands of years to come, or at least until every last spendy and
bloody drop or kg of hydrocarbon fuel is expended during or by some
time after WW3 or WW4 that leaves less than 500 million cranky humans
on Earth.

* * How could this be done?

By pulling it further out and slowing it down.

Given enough time and force applied, it can be accomplished.

With tethers and some reactive thrusting of the counter mass at the
end of Each tether, should do the job of moving our moon to Earth L1,
and keeping it there.

I suppose you want all the math, time scale and budget?

* *That is a requirement and a given!

Why not start with just the energy requirement to an accuracy of +/- 1
order of magnitude?


Bret Cahill

On Jul 4, 3:43*am, AGW Facts wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 08:45:42 +1000, "Vince Morgan"









wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?
* *http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387
I estimate that such estimations will be freely and often adjusted in
accordance with the estimated public impact of said second estimations.

You mean "Among the FOX 'News' obeying public."

--
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.

If you aren't at least three deviations from the norm, you're just part of the crowd.

All this fuss over temperature fluctuations of less than a degree but
not a single one of you can handle the massive daily temperature
fluctuations and the cause -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/101?

There you go,1461 rotations across 4 years and 4 orbital circuits
which empiricists refuse to accept as they imagine a nonsensical 1465
rotations for the same period as it is a simple matter of extracting
daily rotation from the temperature fluctuations.

You poor people,if the temperature legend as data and the
interpretation of it in terms of rotational dynamics was difficult I
could go some ways to understand why that fuss about human control
over global temperatures emerged but that the technical details are so
clear and so easy to grasp and it still is rejected demonstrates a
huge problem indeed.

It feels like standing in a room full of over excited pupils rather
than among men .

In article ,
AGW Facts wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner – and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.


--
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.

If you aren't at least three deviations from the norm, you're just part of
the crowd.

Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance, bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get as warm as they
did before.

On 7/3/11 10:36 PM, Scientifically Illiterate oriel36 wrote:
There you go,1461 rotations across 4 years and 4 orbital circuits
which empiricists refuse to accept as they imagine a nonsensical 1465
rotations for the same period as it is a simple matter of extracting
daily rotation from the temperature fluctuations.

Let me correct you, Gerald--It's not an integer number, but
1464.9688 earth rotations in 4 astronomical years. Measurable
by almost anyone with two sticks and a view of the night-time
sky.

On 7/3/11 10:53 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In ,
AGW wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner – and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.


--
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.

If you aren't at least three deviations from the norm, you're just part of
the crowd.

Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance, bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get as warm as they
did before.

Solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent from solar min to solar
max. Greenhouse gasses currently causing the global warming of the
earth are a much larger effect.

The climatologists have an understanding of the effects of greenhouse
gasses, which you are ignoring.

The greenhouse gas effect has been known for probably more
than a century now. Here are a number of good resources for
you to read, Orval:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf

Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

On Jul 4, 6:04*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/3/11 10:36 PM, Scientifically Illiterate oriel36 wrote:

There you go,1461 rotations across 4 years and 4 orbital circuits
which empiricists refuse to accept as they imagine a nonsensical 1465
rotations for the same period as it is a simple matter of extracting
daily rotation from the temperature fluctuations.

* *Let me correct you, Gerald--It's not an integer number, but
* *1464.9688 earth rotations in 4 astronomical years. Measurable
* *by almost anyone with two sticks and a view of the night-time
* *sky.

Two sticks indeed !,you have a basic temperature legend from any
location on the planet and Feb 29th rounding off 1461 rotations across
4 orbital circuits or its timekeeping equivalent of 1461 days over 4
years -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/8?

The leap day correction only tells readers that daily and orbital
cycles are separate,the 1/4 rotation omitted each non leap year is
picked up by the extra rotation and day/night cycle of Feb th where
the daily and orbital cycles are brought back close enough into sync.

What's the point with cause and effect if you can't get something as
easy as the correlation between daily temperature fluctuations and
daily rotation straight.Somebody has to be feeling irritation at the
collapse of human reasoning at this level but if they do I haven't
seen it yet.Do you all want to be considered responsible and brilliant
people because you can't set aside your watch and sticks in the ground
and actually look at relevant data where cause and effect are
experienced on a daily basis.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/11 10:53 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In ,
AGW wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news
that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner – and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others
argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.


--
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.

If you aren't at least three deviations from the norm, you're just part
of
the crowd.

Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance, bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get as warm as they
did before.

Solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent from solar min to solar
max.

Is that *all* outputs of the Sun?

In article ,
Sam Wormley wrote:

On 7/3/11 10:53 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In ,
AGW wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner * and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.


--
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.

If you aren't at least three deviations from the norm, you're just part of
the crowd.

Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance, bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get as warm as they
did before.

Solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent from solar min to solar
max. Greenhouse gasses currently causing the global warming of the
earth are a much larger effect.

The climatologists have an understanding of the effects of greenhouse
gasses, which you are ignoring.

The greenhouse gas effect has been known for probably more
than a century now. Here are a number of good resources for
you to read, Orval:

Here's a simple fact for you, Sam: If solar irradiance varies about
0.1%, that translates into about 3 degrees K. You have to start at
absolute zero, BTW. Those 3K are an order of magnitude larger than the
alleged changes due to CO2.




The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf

Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

On Jul 4, 6:55*pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
*Sam Wormley wrote:









On 7/3/11 10:53 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In ,
* AGW *wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:58:11 -0500, Sam Wormley
*wrote:

What's going on with the Sun?

* *http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

"Earlier this month a lot of column inches were devoted to the news that
the Sun continues to behave in a peculiar manner * and that solar
activity could be about to enter a period of extended calm. The story
emerged after three groups of researchers presented independent studies
at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American
Astronomical Society, which appear to support this theory. But are the
new findings really that clear-cut and what implications do they have
for the climate here on Earth?

"Finally, even if the Sun were to head into a quiet period, others argue
that the reduction in solar irradiance on Earth would still be small
compared with the heating caused by man-made global warming. Mike
Lockwood, a researcher at the University of Reading, estimates that the
change in climate radiative forcing since the Maunder minimum is about
one tenth of the change caused by man-made trace greenhouse gases".

See:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

I saw that a day ago. =NONE= of the solar physicists on the
planet, as far as I could find, have said the possible "calm
period" would cool Earth. A few have said it might reduce solar
radiance, temporarily decreasing the current 0.79c anomalous
global temperature increase caused by humanity's CO2 production,
by from 0.2c to 0.4c

The "it's going to get cooler!" belief appears to be yet another
FOX "News" lie fed into the cult's echo chamber. No scientist in
the field said it.

--
Science can best be thought of as the endeavor by which humanity
works to move the answer "I don't know" back one "Why?" at a time.

If you aren't at least three deviations from the norm, you're just part of
the crowd.

Well, Ray, Basic science teaches us that, if a radiating body reduces
its radiance, bodies receiving that radiation will see a proportionate
reduction in radiance received. In short, they don't get as warm as they
did before.

* *Solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent from solar min to solar
* *max. Greenhouse gasses currently causing the global warming of the
* *earth are a much larger effect.

* *The climatologists have an understanding of the effects of greenhouse
* *gasses, which you are ignoring.

* *The greenhouse gas effect has been known for probably more
* *than a century now. Here are a number of good resources for
* *you to read, Orval:

Here's a simple fact for you, Sam: If solar irradiance varies about
0.1%, that translates into about 3 degrees K. You have to start at
absolute zero, BTW. Those 3K are an order of magnitude larger than the
alleged changes due to CO2.


This is all very quaint but some day a person will discover that this
era refuses to account for the daily rises and fall in temperature
through the inability to extract the rotation of the Earth from any
basic temperature legend -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/36?

So,how long will people of this generation continue to disgrace
themselves is anyone's guess but when you propose 1465 rotations
across 4 orbital circuits and 4 years,you have hit intellectual
impotence,a condition that is best left unspoken via its sterility.

I could understand the mistake of linking daily rotation directly to
stellar circumpolar motion and even the attempt to explain 366 1/4
rotations per year through that lamentable conclusion but when there
is a 10 degree temperature variation each day relying on a rotational
cause and nobody excepts it as a proportion of 1461 rotations for 4
orbital circuits and 365 1/4 rotations for one then it is not science
that is finished but the once magnificent Western civilization.

On 7/4/11 11:55 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Here's a simple fact for you, Sam: If solar irradiance varies about
0.1%, that translates into about 3 degrees K.

The variation of 0.1 irradiance through solar sun-spot cycles
has *no significant changes* in global surface temperatures.

Perhaps you can cite data that global surface temperatures change
3° C every solar cycle, Orval.