> 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. While I would agree that other factors
> are probably important in climate change, I think it would be foolish to
> dismiss solar flux variation as a driving factor. It is a chaotic system,
> and many of the other theorized factors in global warming also rely on
minor
> variations generating massive changes.
>
> -James Rogers
> jamesr@best.com
>
History lends support to this. The pronounced cold spell between the late
16th and early 18th centuries (the "little ice age") was associated with a
long period when no sunspots could be seen on the sun, probably an indicator
of reduced solar activity. The climate in that period had all sorts of far
reaching economic and political effects, according to many historians. Steve
D
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT