Posted on 06/11/2008 12:00:22 PM PDT by cogitator
and
Maybe for tomorrow’s Doomage.
That's like worrying that we'll enter another Medieval Warm Period. We may well be entering another minimum, but another Maunder minimum would require time travel, as it was a specific historic event.
Really? This might be the big truth in the article.
By the way if we actually do enter a new minimum I propose the name “Cogitator Minimum.”
Question: Do they really have records of sun spots going back 400 years???
Are they hard to see (I assume through smoked glass)
And when and why did the first guy look up and say Hey spots???
And though this backs up us “Deniers” they sure do bend over backwards to make certain everyone knows this won’t effect Global Warming...
- The sun's energy drives all climate and weather on Earth. - But the sun isn't the only thing that influences our climate - Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability
“Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told SPACE.com, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, “the sun’s contribution is getting smaller and smaller,” he added.”
So for kicks lets say that man accounts for 1% of the variability. Than the sun still accounts for 9 to 29% of climate variability. These people are just to much.
While I would be honored, I don't think I'm eligible, as I don't do statistical analysis of sunspot numbers.
Obviously, the other 70 - 90 percent was caused by witches back then, but now, Big Oil has put all the witches out of work. ;~))
This "scientist" is blatantly lieing his ass off at the "Solar Variability, Earth's Climate and the Space Environment" Conference because he has to make sure he isn't exiled from his industry's gravy train.
Absolutely pathetic that "solar science" in the USA has fallen to such depths of swindling duplicity.
Other than witchcraft, what accounted for the rest?
Not sure what astonishes me more...people who continue to spout this drivel, people who continue to publish it, or people who continue to believe it?
Tee hee hee
That last item should probably be expressed as, "Prior to the Industrial Revolution, variability of solar output probably accounted for 10-30% of climate variability."
Don't you think? Another way to say it is that prior to the Industrial Revolution, external forcing from the Sun accounted for about 30% of climate variability, and internal forcing (volcanoes, El Nino, AMO, PDO, snow and ice cover, etc.) accounted for the other 70%.
It’s a rebus.
Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told SPACE.com, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, "the sun's contribution is getting smaller and smaller," he added.
This is a tough one, but I'm gonna make the call: That is the MOST STUPID statement I've read this month (and I read a lot).
Lead + Acid = Battery ;~))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.