News reports of Cycle24 inactivity (inc GW)

This may have been posted previously, but I just ran across it. The speech was given Apr 2 by Keith Rattie at Utah Valley University and BYU. Good read.

www.scribd.com/doc/14838276/UVU-and-BYU-Speech

Except for the final paragraph - the obligatory CO2 Global Warming crap statement.

www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/README3

Updated solar cycle prediction.

"May 8, 2009


Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update

May 8, 2009 -- The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus
decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel
has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies
as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through
September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below
average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted
date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now
expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a
unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction."

Good pic to bring up, but what is not obvious is the length of cycles which many still point out has the greatest correlation with global warming/cooling. Cycle 21 was about 9.5 years and 22 was 10.something. Those cycles were happening as this whole "global warming" thing jumped from science into politics. I still think it has a lot to do with blue-green wavelenth light charging the ocean waters, and stratospheric cooling as well. Again, the problem today is that lobby groups have it all sealed up.

See:
Help Section :: How do you post an image.
solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=help&action=display&thread=3, Replies 7 and 8

You might also want to look at Open Forum, Forum Functionality Test, Replies 1, 2, and 3.
solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talkanything&action=display&thread=110

In a recent inquiry to House Representative Henry Waxman (D) of California, as to why Lord Monckton was turned away during the April testimonies on Climate Change, I received the following response:

-----Original Message-----
From: "Congressman Henry A. Waxman" <ca30hima.pub@mail.house.gov>

Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 15:16:21
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Re. your recent message


 
Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:
 
           Thank you for contacting me about witnesses invited to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  I appreciate your taking the time to write.
 
You will be pleased to know that Christopher Monckton testified before the House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment on March 25, 2009.  You can learn more about this hearing and view Lord Monckton's testimony by visiting 

energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1549:preparing-for-climate-change-adaptation-polities-and-programs&catid=130:subcommittee-on-energy-and-the-environment&Itemid=71


             
Congressional hearings provide Members of Congress the opportunity to collect and analyze information and draw attention to pertinent issues, and it is important that diverse points of view are represented. Under House Rule XI, when a House committee or subcommittee holds a hearing, members of the panel from the minority party have the right to call witnesses of their choosing to testify.  
           
During consideration of climate change policy, the Energy and Commerce Committee held dozens of hearings that have shaped the proposed legislation currently under review, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES).  As Chairman, I have worked to ensure that diverse opinions and interests are heard by the committee and that the minority is able to call witnesses, consistent with House rules. You may be interested in an April 27 letter on this issue that I sent to Ranking Member Joe Barton, which is posted at 


energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090427/aceshearings.pdf
 
           
To learn more about my work in Congress or sign up for periodic e-mail updates, please visit  <iq/server_eval/www.waxman.house.gov> www.waxman.house.gov and  <http://energycommerce.house.gov> energycommerce.house.gov.
 
Again, thank you for contacting me and I hope you will continue to keep in touch on issues of concern.
     
           With kind regards, I am
 
Sincerely,
                                                        
                                                                 HENRY A. WAXMAN
                                                                 Member of Congress
 
HAW:IMAIL
 

Pooh, the National Geographic articles are consistent with the Western educational system which promotes advocacy, not critical thinking.

per Lockwood: "I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 per cent higher than normal."
Just exactly what is normal? If Lockwood believes that atmospheric CO2 content is currently above normal, then he demonstrates no knowledge of the much higher than present CO2 atmospheric content after the KT extinction, which perhaps preserved life on earth.



per Faukal: "--most climate models--including ones used by the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change -- already incorporate the effects of the Sun's waxing and waning power on Earth's weather."
Again, as I asked Steve in a previous thread, please direct me to exactly where in the IPCC reports they "incorporate the effects of the Sun's waxing and waning power on Earth's weather."

per Faukal: "You'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate."
Besides from being an inaccessible, obscure statement, I was under the impression that few, if any sunspots were detectable during the Maunder Minimum.