Kim asked:
Note: The following is NOT a discussion of global warming but of historic evidence for a variable Sun. So, please no one take offense. . . . . Does anyone know of reliable observations of changes in the Sun's output that might have been made by earlier cultures, that is, other than the Maunder Minimum?
Kim, You may find this webpage at the Standford Solar Center of interest on solar variability: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html "Ancient Observations Link Changes in Sun's Brightness and Earth's Climate" by Kevin D. Pang and Kevin K. Yao; EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 83, number 43, 22 October 2002, pages 481+. Marriott Library carries EOS. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net
Thanks, Kurt. I'll be taking a look. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fisher Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:58 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Variable Sun? Kim asked:
Note: The following is NOT a discussion of global warming but of historic evidence for a variable Sun. So, please no one take offense. . . . . Does anyone know of reliable observations of changes in the Sun's output that might have been made by earlier cultures, that is, other than the Maunder Minimum?
Kim, You may find this webpage at the Standford Solar Center of interest on solar variability: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html "Ancient Observations Link Changes in Sun's Brightness and Earth's Climate" by Kevin D. Pang and Kevin K. Yao; EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 83, number 43, 22 October 2002, pages 481+. Marriott Library carries EOS. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
The solar impact on global warming may be greater than the Stanford article assumes due to cosmic rays. Also cosmic rays from other sources may have an impact. See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6270 http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030713212408data_trunc_sys.shtml http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_45 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391047/ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fisher Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:58 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Variable Sun? Kim asked:
Note: The following is NOT a discussion of global warming but of historic evidence for a variable Sun. So, please no one take offense. . . . . Does anyone know of reliable observations of changes in the Sun's output that might have been made by earlier cultures, that is, other than the Maunder Minimum?
Kim, You may find this webpage at the Standford Solar Center of interest on solar variability: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html "Ancient Observations Link Changes in Sun's Brightness and Earth's Climate" by Kevin D. Pang and Kevin K. Yao; EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 83, number 43, 22 October 2002, pages 481+. Marriott Library carries EOS. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I said I wouldn't debate the issue, and I still won't, but while observing the thread I noticed that while everyone is debating whether the current round of global warming has a major human-caused component or not, no-one seems to be concerned about the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect in it's beginning stages- REGARDLESS what percentage the sun, or humans, or any other component may have. There is little argument on any side that the earth's carbon sinks are at or near capacity- in fact deforestation in developing tropical countries has reached a critical level- not to mention that as ocean temperatures rise- REGARDLESS of cause, the solubility of carbon dioxide in them decreases. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, indisputably. Until such time as we know for sure that we won't have an unlivable environment in a few hundred or thousand years, COMMON SENSE dictates that we as a species need to reduce our production of greenhouse gasses (and all pollutants, really) and conserve resources. After all, the fossil fuel industry does have a limited lifetime. One day there simply won't be anymore available sources (for a long, long, time, at least!). The hydrogen ecconomy (or something better) is inevitable, assuming we don't suffocate ourselves first. Again, I'm not debating whether human influences are a major component of global warming. I think those who passionately debate that issue are merely trying to defend an ecconomic investment (or political- they really are the same thing in this country, and most other representative governments), regardless of which side you're on. Note that both sides are constantly trying to accuse the other of being motivated by money- whether or not that's true, it's plain to me that good old fashioned hubris is behind the argument on both sides as well. Come on, people, put the pride aside and quite picking nits. It's time to reduce emissions and spend a LOT more money on new technologies, new fuels, and greenhouse effect research. *The debate on the size of a human component is stupid*. Even if it's miniscule, it needs to be reversed.
I think the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is a major problem. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:56 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Variable Sun? I said I wouldn't debate the issue, and I still won't, but while observing the thread I noticed that while everyone is debating whether the current round of global warming has a major human-caused component or not, no-one seems to be concerned about the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect in it's beginning stages- REGARDLESS what percentage the sun, or humans, or any other component may have. There is little argument on any side that the earth's carbon sinks are at or near capacity- in fact deforestation in developing tropical countries has reached a critical level- not to mention that as ocean temperatures rise- REGARDLESS of cause, the solubility of carbon dioxide in them decreases. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, indisputably. Until such time as we know for sure that we won't have an unlivable environment in a few hundred or thousand years, COMMON SENSE dictates that we as a species need to reduce our production of greenhouse gasses (and all pollutants, really) and conserve resources. After all, the fossil fuel industry does have a limited lifetime. One day there simply won't be anymore available sources (for a long, long, time, at least!). The hydrogen ecconomy (or something better) is inevitable, assuming we don't suffocate ourselves first. Again, I'm not debating whether human influences are a major component of global warming. I think those who passionately debate that issue are merely trying to defend an ecconomic investment (or political- they really are the same thing in this country, and most other representative governments), regardless of which side you're on. Note that both sides are constantly trying to accuse the other of being motivated by money- whether or not that's true, it's plain to me that good old fashioned hubris is behind the argument on both sides as well. Come on, people, put the pride aside and quite picking nits. It's time to reduce emissions and spend a LOT more money on new technologies, new fuels, and greenhouse effect research. *The debate on the size of a human component is stupid*. Even if it's miniscule, it needs to be reversed. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Kurt: Unfortunately, the Stanford Solar Center website for which you provided the link doesn't have a link to that particular article, but I may try to track it down. I did see a couple of fascinating graphs on that website. One shows data regarding temperature, CO2 and sunspot activity: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png . The other shows the purported attribution to climate change of a number of gases: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Climate_Change_Attribution.png . 'Nuff for today. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fisher Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:58 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Variable Sun? Kim asked:
Note: The following is NOT a discussion of global warming but of historic evidence for a variable Sun. So, please no one take offense. . . . . Does anyone know of reliable observations of changes in the Sun's output that might have been made by earlier cultures, that is, other than the Maunder Minimum?
Kim, You may find this webpage at the Standford Solar Center of interest on solar variability: http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html "Ancient Observations Link Changes in Sun's Brightness and Earth's Climate" by Kevin D. Pang and Kevin K. Yao; EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Volume 83, number 43, 22 October 2002, pages 481+. Marriott Library carries EOS. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
participants (4)
-
Chuck Hards -
Don J. Colton -
Kim -
Kurt Fisher