Beth wrote thus:
> Failing that I will finally get some holiday time in early January -
> after 5 yrs without one I don't doubt many tasks I've been avoiding,
I have some stuff still packed from our move from Germany in 1993..
Anyway (and on-topic) have you seen some of the correlation graphs
between rise in global temperature and interval between sunspot maxima? If
they're reliable,
it appears that any human-caused change is (so far) too small to be
measureable.
See http://www.irfl.lu.se/HeliosHome/solaractivitytemp.html
Bad News if true - the change (about 0.5 degree/century) can't be
counter-acted
by anything we can do (finely manipulating the internals of the sun isn't
within our capability yet). We also don't have any idea how long the change
will last for.
Then there's the possibility of a reversal in the Earth's magnetic polarity
in the not-too-distant future. Any guesses as to how this will affect
the biosphere?
> Alan Brain wrote:
> Anyway (and on-topic) have you seen some of the correlation graphs
The local newsies picked this up a couple of years ago, but this is the first
time I've seen it on the web. It is a major embarrassment for the Greenies
BTW; they prefer to hush it down as much as possible. Can't imagine why <g>
> Bad News if true - the change (about 0.5 degree/century) can't be
If it is correct (and the evidence I've seen suggests that at least holds a
very large grain of truth) there are some bad news, and some good news. The
bad news are that we can't do anything about it and that all the computer
models are wrong (since they "predict" the current temperature rise without
taking variable solar activity into account, and thus probably overstates the
CO2 etc. greenhouse effect by a factor lots); the good news OTOH is that
failing to implement the Kyoto protocol isn't automatically disastrous <g> and
that this sort of thing has happened quite a few times before (which we
already knew from ice cores etc., of course) without causing the end of Earth.
Whether you count the problems the theory causes for the
eco-fundamentalists as "good news" or "bad news" depends on your point
of
view, I suppose :-)
Later,
Some further links commenting on this:
> Anyway (and on-topic) have you seen some of the correlation graphs
[...]
> See http://www.irfl.lu.se/HeliosHome/solaractivitytemp.html
A somewhat cynical Canadian column:
http://www.sepp.org/reality/ghgs&pol.html
This seems to be the abstract of the original paper:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/meetings/ESLAB31/Abstracts/friis-christen
sen/
friis-christensen.html
A scientific paper following the Svensmark/Friis-Christensen results
which investigates how much of the global warming is due to solar activity and
how much (if any) effect GreenHouse Gasses (GHG in the article) have:
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/fraction/fraction.htm
and also some comments to said paper from other scientists.
Later,