Kawasaki Versys Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,519 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
NASA has put out the report about the coming solar flare and if you don't know about it you should read about it! Its not if it is 2013 and its going to be a big one!
Do any of you know or do you think the V's will still run after all that energy hits? I don't know much about that, but was hoping my bike would still run? Thanks for your opinion!~ :thanx:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
If we get hit with a solar flare potent enough to kill the ECU in the V, our bikes being out of commission will be the least of our problems.

Besides, the newer contender for `The Top 10 Things To Be Afraid Of' list is the lack of solar activity...


Sun's Fading Spots Signal Big Drop in Solar Activity

Excerpts FTA:

Some unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years....

..."The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus,"...

... "This is highly unusual and unexpected," Hill said. "But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."...

... ”We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it," Hill said. "The flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009. This leads us to believe that the next cycle will be very much delayed,... "...

... Hill estimated that the start of Cycle 25 could be delayed to 2021 or 2022 and will be very weak, if it even happens at all...

... "If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

Now THIS may put a serious crimp in the Global Warming crowd’s agenda. It going to be a harder sell when they’re chipping ice off the oranges in Miami in June!
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,519 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Well thanks for all the info!:thanx:
I do feel better about all those sun flares!! And really what can we do about it? I heard the government is making these huge capacitors to put on line to try and protect the grid. :topsecret:
The 2012 thing is just a joke than is what you guys are telling me! I'm good with that I don't want to die some hellish death! Life is finally feelin great with my new bike and ridin all over the country!!:right:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
< Global Warming or Little Ice Age: Which Will It Be? >
.
"Though the dip in solar activity isn't expected to reverse climate change and plunge Earth into a cold snap"
.
"It turns out this would be a very minor impact on the climate, even if we were to return to Maunder Minimum conditions,"
"That would only lead to a
decrease of about 0.2 watts of power per square meter
of the Earth's surface — that compared to greenhouse forcing,
which is more than 2 watts per meter squared.That's a factor of 10 larger."


Now THIS may put a serious crimp in the Global Warming crowd’s agenda. It going to be a harder sell when they’re chipping ice off the oranges in Miami in June!
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
I'm going to make a tinfoil bike cover to go with my tinfoil hat!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
.
"Though the dip in solar activity isn't expected to reverse climate change and plunge Earth into a cold snap"
.

"It turns out this would be a very minor impact on the climate, ..."

Today It’s Global Warming; In the ‘70s It was the Coming Ice Age

"On Earth Day, we commonly hear dark predictions about the looming horrors of global warming (a typical example, “What is at stake [is] our ability to live on planet Earth,” Al Gore).

Yet not so long ago the news media issued dire warnings about global cooling and a coming Ice Age..."

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/press/press-releases/today-it’s-global-warming-‘70s-it-was-coming-ice-age
.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
Washington Policy Center
You're forgiven if you haven't heard of the Washington Policy Center (WPC), a right-wing "freemarket" think tank based in Seattle, Washington. Most likely you haven't heard of them because you don't follow State-level politics or because the WPC has changed its name a few times over the last few years.
In any event, you should get to know them because they are running some pretty heavy lobbying activities at the Washington State Legislature in an attempt to block plans for a new cap and trade greenhouse gas reduction strategy.
Background
The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a free-market think tank based in Seattle, Washington with annual revenue of approx. $1.3 million. The WPC was originally founded as the "Washington Institute for Policy Studies." In 1997 the Washington Institute for Policy Studies (WIPS) created a new organization, the Washington Institute Foundation. Eventually, in 1998, the Washington Institute Foundation replaced WIPS. In 2001 the Washington Institute Foundation was renamed the Washington Policy Center. WPC's mission is to "promote limited government and free market solutions for state and local issues, and be Washington state's premier public policy institute providing high qulity analysis and research for our state's citizens, policymakers and media." Washington Policy Center has been referred to as the "Heritage Foundation of the Northwest."Funding The Washington Policy Center chooses not to disclose its donors. However, according Media Transparency, $387,500 have been donated cumulatively to the WPC, WIF, and WIPS. The largest donor is The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.; it has provided the WPC with just under half the funding -- $178,500. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is considered the "largest and most influential right-wing foundation" in the United States.We're watching and researching the activities of the Washington Policy Center, so watch for more on this group in the coming weeks.


Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.

Scientific method, refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.







-> Pentagon Study Suggests Potentially Catastrophic Consequences of Climate Change <-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
Well thanks for all the info!:thanx:
I do feel better about all those sun flares!! And really what can we do about it? I heard the government is making these huge capacitors to put on line to try and protect the grid. :topsecret:
The 2012 thing is just a joke than is what you guys are telling me! I'm good with that I don't want to die some hellish death! Life is finally feelin great with my new bike and ridin all over the country!!:right:
at the end of the international spy museum in washington DC, they have a room where it explains that the biggest single threat to the US is our power grid. We still operate on a east and west coast grid, and then there is texas lol :usa:. So if an enemy were to successfully shut down power to the grid it would essentially take down the ENTIRE side of the continent. Shutting down most importantly water plants, food distribution, hospitals and beer manufacturing (jk):cheers:

Needless to say, if there is a room about it in they museum, I think the government has already taken plenty of steps to make sure this kind of catastrophy is quite hard to pull off.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,018 Posts
When people claim that 'global warming' is caused by mankind, I am tempted to mention Greenland, MOST of which is under a miles thick ice-cap. It got its name quite some time ago when it was GREEN, as it was 1,000 years ago. The east coast of Canada where Eric the Red landed and called "Vineland" around that time because of the grapes (vines...) growing there, is now one helluva lot 'cooler' with no vines in sight.
YES, there is climate change going on, just as it has, FOREVER, but to think that it is man-made, and that we can change it back (while making Al Gore richer...) is a conceit.
Guess we can blame the ice-caps on those pre-emissions-controlled Ford F150s and Ram 150s the Vikings used, as well as all their smoke-stack industries...! :goodluck:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
Washington Policy Center
You're forgiven if you haven't heard of the Washington Policy Center (WPC), a right-wing "freemarket" think tank...
Gee, thanks for the “forgiveness”... but I find it interesting that the information you posted about the Washington Policy Center being a “right-wing think tank” was actually a cut & paste from an article at a Left-Wing Blog and that you put it up without accreditation – as if you had written it yourself – but those points aside...

I linked to the Washington Policy Center article simply because it was accurate & concise. There are countless other articles available which support its content – not the least of which can be clearly seen by the cover images which I posted of the (anything but Right-Wing) Time Magazine and the associated articles which are still available, e.g., Time June 24, 1974: Another Ice Age?

Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus...
I find it ironic that those who question – not just deny, but even dare question – the so called “consensus” of Anthropogenic (Man caused) Global Warming are being dismissed & ridiculed as “Deniers” and “Flat Earthers” — when just 500 years ago it was the “Flat Earthers” who were the “consensus” — and it was those who said that the Earth was round who were then called deniers, non-believers and heretics.

The above charts & graphs prove nothing:

The U.S. Statewide “Normal” (even NOAA puts it in quotes) temperature changes map only goes back to 1971 and it’s not even global. It might be useful for predicting long term U.S. weather patterns... but short term Local Weather is not long term Global Climate.

The Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide chart shows an apparent correlation — but correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. Every day, the Rooster crows and the Sun comes up... but that doesn’t mean that he caused it... no matter what he & all the other barnyard animals may think. There are many accredited scientists who believe that it might be the increase in temperature that causes the increase in CO2 – and not vice versa.

The other charts also only go back 130 years. While that’s many generations in `dog years’..., geologically speaking it’s the blink of an eye. In the same way that Michael Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick Graph” (that started all the Global Warming hysteria) conveniently stopped just short of the “Medieval Warm Period” (apparently that was an inconvenient truth) because it showed that current temperatures are now only about 0.2c warmer than it was then – and just ignored the ”Little Ice Age” as a non-event, because it made the current warming trend appear more dramatic. And BTW, there were also a number of other (to be generous) `mistakes’ in Mann’s chart which have been well documented.

Scientific method, refers to a body of techniques...
And one of other techniques in that body of sound science, is where after you posit a theory, you then try to disprove it. Simply accepting it because some of your peers agree with it – or just because you want to – isn’t science, it’s an article of blind faith.

Right now the Apostles of the Global Warmists religion are beside themselves trying to figure out how to reconcile the fact that the polar ice is also melting on Mars (they must be having a hell of a time trying to rationalize how that too must somehow be Man’s fault).


Is the Earth warming? Yes, it has been, a bit... but now it looks like we might be in for another natural cooling cycle.

Is a little warming a bad thing? Maybe yes, maybe no. A little warmer would lengthen crop cycles & allow us to produce more food. Colder would shorten them... and that could become a real problem.

Is Man’s generated CO2 contributing significantly to Global Warming? Maybe yes, maybe no. But let’s not destroy the U.S. & European economies (while China will keep building coal fired plants as fast as they can) in a knee-jerk reaction — before we really know and understand all the facts — because it might raise the temperature a couple of degrees over the course of next 100 years.


NASA
Mars is Melting
The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole

JunkScience.com
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
Some facts about greenhouse and global warming
http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/index.html

The U.K. Telegraph
'Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated
The 'hockey stick' that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using 'inappropriate' methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
i dont see why people freak out if its something we cant stop. so if everything goes bat**** crazy then ill just go outside to die.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
There are a lot of similarities in the global warming argument and the smoking is bad argument of a few decades ago. Tobacco lobby groups tried very hard to convince the public that there was discord in the scientific community on whether smoking caused cancer in previous decades. In fact there never really was an argument in the medical field once the results of a few legitimate studies were in. In science when a research team can repeat a study done by other researchers and get the same results it increases the credibility of the original study. If enough separate researchers get the same results it gets accepted as fact. The same is true in the field of meteorology concerning global warming, they’ve found the answer ~10 years ago – global warming due to CO2 emissions is occurring. There are no accredited meteorology researches who would debate this issue today. They accept it like they accept gravity or medical professionals accept smoking causes cancer. That is not to say study and debate are not still going on but it is now down to the exact effect on regions of that global warming and what they will be.

The media in an attempt to present a “balanced” story and make things more interesting for viewers usually go the route of interviewing people with opposing viewpoints. While this often works with many subjects it plays into the hands of lobby groups. Since there are no meteorologists working for unbiased research facilities like universities who will argue global warming is not occurring, the media dig up someone working for one of the lobby groups, or someone quoting their "findings" to provide an opposing argument. These lobby groups also conduct their own studies which they quote and try and pass of as legitimate research but these studies are almost always never peer reviewed or accepted by the the scientific community. From the public’s view point this makes it appear this issue is still being hotly contested and unresolved which it is not. Next time you watch a debate on this issue check out the organization the opposing “expert” is from and who provides their funding. There are also people with political agendas on both sides with further still hides the truth. In situations like this the media is often to blame by being lazy and not verifying the legitimacy of studies interviewees quote (are they peer reviewed, have they been accepted by the scientific community at large) or checking the credentials of "experts".
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top