<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 06/21/2011 03:49 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTimy520EfT_7eKqXd=TGBgTeou-48g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>On Venus (source for quotes and some exploration of
scientific complexities regarding "clouds" lower down) "only
about 10 percent of the Sun’s radiation penetrates the clouds
and gets to the surface." Yet "On the surface the temperature
is 900 degrees F." It seems this example of rather
serious "shading the ground" by clouds does not result in a cool
planet!<br>
<br>
You are misrepresenting your original comment ("...a weak sun
allows more cosmic<br>
rays to strike the Earth, leaving ionized air molecules for
clouds to<br>
form around. This causes a cooling of the Earth by shading the
ground...") and my request, in your response to my request on
Svensmark's cosmic ray/cloud formation theory regarding the
variable "shading the ground," so I'm not directly going to
respond to this question, except to point out that, "the Earth"
is about 70 percent covered by oceans, so "shading the ground"
would only apply to the about 30 percent of the Earth's surface
that is land. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I meant that it shades whatever is underneath it, whether that is
land, water, or a human on a hot day. I didn't expect that clouds
only formed over land. Look, clouds can have a positive and a
negative affect on temperature. Clouds can shade the earth (ground,
water, rooftops, etc), and clouds can also hold in heat. This
should be grade-school level stuff. If you're out on a sunny day,
clouds coming in front of the Sun are a welcome relief and cool you
off. On the other hand, if clouds cover the sky all night, it will
stay warmer over night.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTimy520EfT_7eKqXd=TGBgTeou-48g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>Besides, your response seems to be dodging the central point
of my response to your "Sunspots" post: For someone who is
apparently following and studying recent sunspot activity
regarding the impact on global climate and temperature, and
historically (Maunder Minimum, LIA), with some serious interest,
to not mention the deep solar minimum, the deepest in nearly a
century, in 2009, and the associated 2009 and 2010 global
temperatures as the second and first warmest years in Goddard's
131 year data set, which is relatively new and very important
empirical data regarding the debate on solar forcing of climate,
is, as I wrote, "a major and puzzling omission." </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Here's Svensmark's theory in a nutshell. When the Sun is more
magnetically intense, the solar wind is stronger and keeps out more
cosmic rays. Cosmic rays ionize the air and cause low clouds to
form that reflect more sunlight back into space (shading whatever is
under them). More cosmic rays cause a cooling effect upon the
climate, fewer cosmic rays cause an increase in the amount of
sunlight that reaches the Earth. When the Sun is more active, as it
has been up until the last few years, fewer cosmic rays make it
through causing fewer low level clouds to reflect the sunlight back
into space.<br>
<br>
Now, we're talking about a statistical effect on the amount of
low-level cloud cover. I would imagine it would take a while to
lower temperature when the magnetic intensity declines over time,
especially since some of that heat is in the oceans. That's just a
guess. I don't actually know how everything works. But Svensmark's
theory is compelling, especially in light of the Maunder minimum /
Little Ice Age possible connection.<br>
<br>
I mean, compare it to CO2. Only lately, in the last few decades,
has CO2 increased drastically due to man. That doesn't explain the
Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, or any other
fluctuations in temperature over the last few thousand years.
Svensmark, on the other hand, can show a correlation between the
magnetic intensity of the Sun and the temperature of the Earth that
explains the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and that
correlates well with past temperature history.<br>
<br>
So, the real question is, how do the increase in CO2 and the
decrease in the magnetic intensity of the Sun affect each other? I
don't know the answer to that, and I suspect that the IPCC doesn't
either. It would be nice if they would at least consider the
possibility that the Sun can affect the Earth's climate directly,
through cosmic rays or some other mechanism, but they seem too
focused on their climate models and CO2 as a driver to do so.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTimy520EfT_7eKqXd=TGBgTeou-48g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>But I have another planet for you to ponder regarding clouds
impacting planetary temperatures. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Clouds have a complex impact on global temperature, both
cooling and warming. Defining what a "cloud" is not as simple
as it might seem. Atmospheric water vapor is the dominant
greenhouse warming variable on Earth, and clouds are for the
most part water in the atmosphere. Skeptics of anthropogenic
climate change often point out that CO2 has a relatively small
impact on the greenhouse effect on Earth compared to water
vapor, but they sometimes ignore the well established positive
feedback from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels also causing
increasing atmospheric water vapor levels, thus causing more
warming than would occur from the CO2 increase alone.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If CO2 had a positive feedback on temperature then in the past when
CO2 rose as the Earth warmed from the last ice age, we would have
ended up with a runaway greenhouse effect. Since this did not
happen, something must overcome it, or it must be too small to
matter. That's the trouble with positive feedbacks, once you've
knocked that marble down the hill, it's really hard to stop it.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BANLkTimy520EfT_7eKqXd=TGBgTeou-48g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>Venus has a cloud cover so dense that only "about 10 percent
of the Sun’s radiation penetrates the clouds and gets to the
surface." Quite an example of "shading the ground," it appears,
yet "On the surface the temperature is 900 degrees F."</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/68774.aspx"
target="_blank">http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/68774.aspx</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From website above:</div>
<div><br>
<div style="border: medium none; text-align: left;
background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); overflow:
hidden; text-decoration: none;">
<p>Part of the reason for this planetary hothouse is Venus’
thick <a moz-do-not-send="true" style="border-bottom: 0.1em
solid rgb(3, 100, 164); padding-bottom: 1px;
background-color: transparent; color: rgb(3, 100, 164);
font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal; text-decoration:
underline;"
href="http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/68774.aspx#"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="background:
none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; color: rgb(3, 100,
164);">cloud</span></a> cover and atmosphere. Consisting
mainly of carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>), Venus’ atmosphere
carries the greenhouse effect to the extreme. As the
environmentalists keep warning, a buildup of CO<sub>2</sub>
in our atmosphere could increase Earth’s temperature to
unbearable levels. It has on Venus.</p>
<p>Add the thick cloud cover which also helps hold heat in,
and you have a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
style="border-bottom: 0.1em solid rgb(3, 100, 164);
padding-bottom: 1px; background-color: transparent; color:
rgb(3, 100, 164); font-size: 100%; font-weight: normal;
text-decoration: underline;"
href="http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/68774.aspx#"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="background:
none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; color: rgb(3, 100,
164);">world</span></a> that can never cool off. In
fact, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Venus Express probe
has found that there is very little difference in day and
night time temperatures on the planet.</p>
<div style="border: medium none; text-align: left;
background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none;">
Interestingly, the probe has found that only about 10
percent of the Sun’s radiation penetrates the clouds and
gets to the surface. But 100 percent what does reach the
surface stays, because the greenhouse effect and clouds hold
it in.<br>
------------------------------------------</div>
<div style="border: medium none; text-align: left;
background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none;">
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Paul
Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote"><br>
Are you asking me to find you a peer-reviewed paper published
in a credible scientific journal that backs up my claim that
"clouds shade the earth"? Really?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Paul</font>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 06/19/2011 10:28 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">Excuse me?<br>
<br>
You did not mention in your "Sunspots" post that in 2009
the solar<br>
minimum was the deepest in nearly a century, nor mention
that the<br>
impacts on cooling global temperature that such a deep
solar minimum<br>
should have were likely overcome by other forcings in
the climate<br>
system, given that 2009 and 2010 were the second and
first warmest<br>
years for global average temperature in Goddard's
temperature record<br>
since 1880.<br>
<br>
Given your emphasis on sunspot cycles having a major
influence on<br>
global temperature, to not mention the 2009 recent deep
solar minimum,<br>
and the associated global temperatures, is a major and
puzzling<br>
omission.<br>
<br>
As far as you posing as a credible critic of NASA's
climate scientist<br>
James Hansen, pardon my intense skepticism.<br>
<br>
At the website below from James Hansen read discussion
indicating that<br>
variations in solar irradiance associated with sunspot
cycles do have<br>
an impact on global temperature in short time frames,
from year to<br>
year, as does ENSO cycles, so the deep solar minimum of
2009, the<br>
deepest in nearly a century, should have had an impact
on 2009 or 2010<br>
global temperature, even if small:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/"
target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/2009-temperatures-by-jim-hansen/</a><br>
<br>
> From website above:<br>
<br>
"The 5 year mean is sufficient to reduce the effect of
the El Niño –<br>
La Niña cycles of tropical climate. The 11 year mean
minimizes the<br>
effect of solar variability – the brightness of the sun
varies by a<br>
measurable amount over the sunspot cycle, which is
typically of 10-12<br>
year duration."<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Also, please refer to a published climate science
article in a<br>
credible peer reviewed journal where in reference to
Svensmark's<br>
cosmic ray/cloud formation theory the phrase "shading
the ground" is<br>
used to indicate this is a major variable involved in
cooling or not<br>
of the Earth's climate due to cosmic ray cloud formation
variables.<br>
<br>
Good luck!<br>
------------------------------------------<br>
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
On 6/18/11, Paul Rumelhart<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">On 06/18/2011 11:47 AM, Ted
Moffett wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;" class="gmail_quote">The subject heading sums
up the main point of this post.<br>
<br>
Odd (well, not really, actually what I've come to
expect) that given<br>
your in-depth (?) research into solar activity and
its relation to<br>
Earth's climate, you make no mention, in your
sunspot comments below,<br>
of the very significant recent deep solar minimum in
sunspot activity<br>
in 2009, the deepest solar minimum in nearly a
century, according to<br>
NASA: "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost
a century,"<br>
agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall
Space Flight<br>
Center:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/"
target="_blank">http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/</a><br>
</blockquote>
Sure I did. It was the part where I said (and I
quote) "I started this<br>
a couple of years ago. It was extremely boring at
first,<br>
because there would be stretches of sometimes months
between sunspots."<br>
I've been watching the Sun, mostly daily, ever since.<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;" class="gmail_quote">During and just after this
deep solar minimum, Earth's average surface<br>
temperature in 2009 and 2010 remained among the top
ten warmest years<br>
in the 131 year instrumental record from the Goddard
Insitutue for<br>
Space Studies.<br>
<br>
In fact, 2010 was tied statistically with 2005 as
the top warmest year<br>
in 131 years, according to GISS:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/"
target="_blank">http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt"
target="_blank">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt</a><br>
</blockquote>
Wasn't 2010 an El-Nino year?<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;" class="gmail_quote">The following article from
the Earth Institute at Columbia University<br>
mentions the 2009 deep solar minimum impacts on
global temperature:<br>
2000-2009: The Warmest Decade:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/2620"
target="_blank">http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/2620</a><br>
"In 2009, it was clear that even the deepest solar
minimum in the<br>
period of satellite data hasn't stopped global
warming from<br>
continuing," said Goddard Institute for Space
Studies director Dr.<br>
James Hansen.<br>
</blockquote>
It would appear that a small drop in total solar
irradiance does not<br>
have an immediate effect upon surface temperatures.
However, it would<br>
be ill-advised to ignore the Maunder Minimum / Little
Ice Age connection<br>
because of this. There is a lot of heat currently in
the system, much<br>
of it in the oceans. Maybe it takes a few years to
have an effect.<br>
That's if you trust the guys in charge of the surface
temperature data<br>
sets, which I don't.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;" class="gmail_quote">---------------------<br>
In 2009, during this deep solar minimum, there was
speculation in the<br>
scientific community that we could be entering a
prolonged period of<br>
very low solar activity, that "...sunspots could
completely vanish<br>
around the year 2015."<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/"
target="_blank">http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/</a><br>
<br>
But this did not occur. Solar cycle 24 has seen an
increase in<br>
sunspot activity, with sunspot activity predicted
for 2015 above the<br>
2009 deep solar minimum.<br>
</blockquote>
According to my phone, which may be incorrect, we're
actually in 2011<br>
right now. The current sunspot cycle, which was much
delayed, is<br>
currently running between half and two-thirds the
power that the last<br>
cycle ran. It's true that solar cycle 24 (the current
one) has seen an<br>
increase in sunspot activity. It's now in that part
of the cycle. It's<br>
turning out to be a rather dismal cycle for sunspots,
though.<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;" class="gmail_quote">There are always a wide
variety of theories and speculations occuring<br>
in the science community on many issues. Those with
a biased agenda<br>
cherry-pick the theories and research to suit their
confirmation bias<br>
filter, and conveniently ignore a balanced
consideration of all the<br>
scientific research.<br>
<br>
On 6/17/11, Paul Rumelhart<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
"For example, there is an interesting theory by a
guy<br>
named Henrik Svensmark that states that a weak sun
allows more cosmic<br>
rays to strike the Earth, leaving ionized air
molecules for clouds to<br>
form around. This causes a cooling of the Earth by
shading the ground<br>
and by changing the albedo."<br>
<br>
Your depiction of the cosmic ray/cloud formation
impacts on cooling<br>
the Earth's is misleading. Given my reading on this
scientific issue,<br>
"shading the ground" is not a major impact of cloud
formation<br>
associated with cosmic rays on temperature, though
changes in albedo<br>
are:<br>
A detailed analysis of Svensmark's cosmic ray/cloud
theories from<br>
Skepticalscience.com at this website:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=388"
target="_blank">http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=388</a><br>
</blockquote>
"Shading the ground" not having a major impact is
clearly BS. Ever<br>
stood outside on a hot day when the sun is out and had
a cloud move in<br>
front of the Sun? Cools it down, doesn't it?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;" class="gmail_quote">------------------------------------------<br>
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
On 6/17/11, Paul Rumelhart<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">I've been
meaning to post on this subject for a while, but
have been<br>
short on time.<br>
<br>
You've probably all seen the news about some
research that was unveiled<br>
at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society
that suggests that the<br>
Sun will become more quiet over the next few years
as sunspots become<br>
rarer. This is due mainly to a river of gas under
the surface of the<br>
Sun which disrupts sunspots.<br>
<br>
Sunspots are holes in the outer layer of the Sun
caused by magnetic<br>
fields. The more sunspots on the Earth-facing
side of the Sun and the<br>
hotter it is. Of course, this varies only
slightly in comparison to the<br>
overall output of the Sun.<br>
<br>
I just wanted to weigh in on this subject and to
post some related<br>
information about it. I'll also give my take on
it. Not that anybody<br>
cares.<br>
<br>
First, here is a representative article on the
subject from the BBC:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13792479"
target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13792479</a><br>
<br>
Global warming alarmists (as I like to think of
them) were quick to<br>
rebut this idea. Here is a representative article
from Discover:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/17/are-we-headed-for-a-new-ice-age/"
target="_blank">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/17/are-we-headed-for-a-new-ice-age/</a><br>
<br>
Here is a chart from NASA that shows solar cycle
24 (the one we're<br>
currently in) compared to solar cycle 23. It also
shows their current<br>
predictions for the rest of this cycle:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif"
target="_blank">http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif</a><br>
<br>
One of the reasons that this topic is so important
is that the last time<br>
sunspots declined for a long period of time during
the Maunder Minimum,<br>
we had the Little Ice Age, which followed the
Medieval Warm Period.<br>
Some people suspect there might be a link between
the two events. Here<br>
is some info from Wikipedia about LIA and the
Maunder Minimum:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age"
target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum"
target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum</a><br>
<br>
Now, the main objection to the LIA (aside from the
whole "Hockey Stick"<br>
fiasco) seems to be that it was a phenomenon local
to Europe. However,<br>
there is a paper by Huang and Pollack (1997) that
looked at 6,144 sets<br>
of heat flow measurements obtained from all over
the globe suitable for<br>
reconstructing temperature over the Earth for the
last 20,000 years and<br>
concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age were both<br>
global phenomena. Here is a link to an article on
CO2 Science about it:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N22/C3.php"
target="_blank">http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N22/C3.php</a><br>
<br>
Now, there have been lots of rhetoric from both
sides of the fence about<br>
this. No, I don't think we ought to all be idling
our Expeditions so we<br>
don't get any colder. I do, however, think there
might be something to<br>
this. Every day when I get up in the morning, I
check my email, check a<br>
few forums I post on, and see how the sun is
doing. I like to follow<br>
the sunspot number, and since I check it every day
I watch the<br>
individual sunspots form, decay, and rotate around
the Sun. It's an odd<br>
hobby, to be sure, but I find it fascinating.
Here are a couple of<br>
websites where you, too, can spend your time
watching the Sun instead of<br>
doing something constructive:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.spaceweather.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.spaceweather.com/</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.solarham.com/" target="_blank">http://www.solarham.com/</a><br>
<br>
I started this a couple of years ago. It was
extremely boring at first,<br>
because there would be stretches of sometimes
months between sunspots.<br>
Now, the cycle has finally fired up. The current
sunspot number as of<br>
this writing is 62. I've seen it up over a
hundred, but that's still<br>
low compared to the last cycle.<br>
<br>
It makes sense to me that small variations in<br>
ahttp://<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum"
target="_blank">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum</a>
large ball of fusing gas<br>
that gives us almost all our heat might have an
affect on climate. The<br>
professional climate modelers are convinced that
the amount of<br>
fluctuation is too small to make a difference,
since TSI doesn't change<br>
but by less than a percent. The problem with this
is that it, in my<br>
opinion, is pure hubris. We know so little about
how the Sun actually<br>
affects the Earth. For example, there is an
interesting theory by a guy<br>
named Henrik Svensmark that states that a weak sun
allows more cosmic<br>
rays to strike the Earth, leaving ionized air
molecules for clouds to<br>
form around. This causes a cooling of the Earth
by shading the ground<br>
and by changing the albedo. This, of course,
happens over a long period<br>
of time, but adds up. Poor Svensmark, lacking his
stamp of authority by<br>
the IPCC, has been shopping around begging for
cloud chamber experiment<br>
time. Here is a youtube video describing the
theory:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDDqGqN16s"
target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDDqGqN16s</a><br>
<br>
This is just one possible mechanism by which small
variations in the<br>
Sun's output can affect climate. To me, it seems
crazy to discount the<br>
Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum as being
local events are<br>
assuming they are not causally related simply
because the climate models<br>
we've designed don't show as strong of a
connection. I consider most of<br>
the climate models unproven, while the global
warming community<br>
apparently thinks they are evidence.<br>
<br>
So, may take on it is that the science behind the
sunspot predictions is<br>
sound, there seems to be a connection between the
last time this<br>
happened and a large cooling down of the climate,
and that dismissing it<br>
out of hand is foolhardy at this stage.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>