James Rogers wrote,
> On 11/20/01 9:21 AM, "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Contrary to first appearances, this may actually be used to
> help support the
> > global-warming theory. This analysis not only showed the 1/10%
> variation in
> > sunlight, but also showed that there has not been any larger
> variation than
> > that for the past 12,000 years. This means that sun cycles do
> not account
> > for global warming more than 1/10% variation. Other causative
> factors must
> > be at work to explain changes in global climate.
>
>
> This doesn't follow. A 0.1% variation in solar flux can have a
> much larger
> than 0.1% variation impact on global warming. In fact, I recall
> a number of
> studies suggesting that very minor variations in solar flux have a fairly
> dramatic impact on global climate.
I would be interested in seeing any of these studies. I am not an expert in
climate, so I am just repeating what I have heard. A recent program on the
Weather Channel quoted the Solar study and said that the 1/10% change was
too small to account for global warming. Although the program seemed to be
balanced against global warming being a man-made phenomenon, it did make it
sound like the true cause was now a mystery since the solar cycle had been
ruled out.
-- Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant, Newstaff Inc. <www.Newstaff.com> Board of Directors, Extropy Institute <www.Extropy.org> Cofounder, Pro-Act <www.ProgressAction.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT