Re: Sunspots...

fãhç wrote:

> "Stuart Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is one about your speed:
> > http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990313202232data_trunc_sys.shtml
>
>
> Another good one Stewie!  From your own link...
>
> "According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of
> energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.

But you now know it is a real theory.
What were you calling it, "tin hat"?
You clearly know almost nothing of the
field, if you are unfamiliar with the
competing theories.

Oh, btw, Shindell is completely wrong.

> Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle - an
> increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century - are not
> strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases.

This is ironic. On the face of it, the evidence for
CO2 causing the warming is negatively indicated. The
same thing they are saying about solar fluctuations
can be said about CO2, only CO2 follows behind by
an order of magnitude.

> The
> GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause
> large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that
> greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role."

Shindell's error is that they didn't know that
there has been a long term increase in the solar
cycle. His claims are based on the assumption
that it has been constant for the last 100 years.
We know now, from correlation's with tree rings,
and other historical evidence, that his assumption
is FALSE.

> > This one is surely beyond your limited comprehension:
> > http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
>
>
> Ah, another paper based on the single paper from a single surface location
> measurement point pitted against thousands of measurements on land, sea,
> air, and space.

For one, what you say about a "single surface location"
simply isn't so.

Secondly, this Danish result was replicated with the
same result in Ireland, without Jone's bogus data
that you cling to like a security blanket.

> > Here's one from a research group called "NASA".
> > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_03/
>
>
> Looking good Stewie!  Keep posting these "commiecrat" links that contradict
> you!
>
> "The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar
> variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first
> half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the
> past three decades. 

Now, go back and look at the period of 1970 to 1990 in
the Christensen and Lassen Science 1991 paper, and you'll
see this simply isn't true for this period. The period
from 1990-1994, in the Jones paper, shows a big increase
in the temperature starting in 1990.

Lots of people fell for it. The problem is, the Jones
data included bogus data points, as I explained. Jones
has been debunked. It was in all the newspapers a
few years afterwards.