"Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote

Then do you dispute the basis that the Maunder Minimum was in part a cause
of the Little Ice Age?

Yes or No?

Impossible to say since it is a singular event.

Other than the correlation what causitive evidence do you have?

On Apr 29, 4:11 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote

Then do you dispute the basis that the Maunder Minimum was in part a cause
of the Little Ice Age?

Yes or No?

Impossible to say since it is a singular event.

Nope, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject:

"In total there seem to have been 18 periods of sunspot minima in
the last 8,000 years, and studies indicate that the sun currently
spends up to a quarter of its time in these minima."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum


Other than the correlation what causitive evidence do you have?

Not much that is verifiable. As I said at the top
of this thread, "They produce cherry picked proxy
series and collections of anecdotes to try to support
this." It's debatable whether the LIA was even
a planetary event.

That is why I posted an analysis
of directly observed data, to anchor the debate in
known facts.

The GISS data are not directly observed but adjusted data.

"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:aa7e4020-6730-498e-af81-04146ebdd96e@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 29, 7:49 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
"0BZN0" <0B...@ddo.com> wrote in message
news:4817ca84$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
QUOTE: "a widespread brightening has been observed since the late
1980s.
Ahahahahaha.. This is the same article you used 2 years ago to claim
that
the sun was brightening.
Unfortunately for you, it turned out to claim that the the exact
opposite,
that there was no change in solar output.
Actually, satellite radiometers have the sun dimming
very very slightly.

******************************



How about straight from the horse's, mouth ...







Sunspot Facts From A Geologist

The GISS data are not directly observed but adjusted data.

NASA/GISS studied the issue in 2001 & found that an extended solar
grand minimum would indeed cause a miniature ice age (ala the LIA)

Easterbrook's analysis is corroborated by other studies on Holocene
ice core. Tim Patterson's mud core data corroborates the ice core
studies. Plant and ocean productivity rise and fall cyclically with
solar luminance. Extrapolating from those data the next down cycle
should happen just about ... the year 2007 give or take +/- 5 years.

The sun has dimmed slightly in the past 15-20 years while there's been
a slight rise, then plateau in temperatures. I think the sun *can*
offset what CO2-driven warming we can expect. That's not a problem to
me. What concerns me is that 1) The projections of exponential climate
sensitivity and 2) the prospect of an onset deep solar dimming period
in 2020.

This is what the AGW pessimists are misunderstanding in their fervor.
If they are claiming high climate sensitivity to CO2, then by the same
token the had better claim high sensitivity to decreased solar
luminance. If that's the case then a Dalton-style solar dimming would
be just as intense as moderate (not severe) WV feedback (CO2
forcing).

It's a matter of degree of which influence will prove strongest. This
is the kind of thinking that's missing in the current public
discussion, is to review all the counterveiling claims and data and
come up with a broad top-down view.

The current cool-phase PDO is more akin to a long-term Pinatubo event,
so it's important to not conflate it with solar dimming - at least not
yet, since solar dimming might play a role in the PDO. If solar
dimming is driving the PDO into a cool phase then it looks to me that
the solar influence outweighs the CO2/WV influence.

What leads me to dismiss James Hansen's comments about solar luminance
is that he claims it's been largely constant over the past 100 years.
If he knew his argument better he'd claim it's been slightly down for
the past 15, which would bolster his claims.

I'm afraid just like the posters to these newsgroups, the climatology
field is riven with trees-not-forest thinking. Overspecialization can
do that to a mind.

In that regard, the IPCC is largely overspecialized in that it tends
to have fewer geologists, paleobiologists and astronomers. The bias is
obvious, since those fields would view the problem in terms of solar
trends and geologic time, not in terms of atmospheric chemistry and
energy budget. That the political mission of the IPCC is to defend
Kyoto doesn't help persuade climate optimists. Critics of Kyoto see a
broader globalization agenda than just GHG mitigation.

Apophis 2037/2039 might be a far bigger threat, passing within 0.5
Earth Radius, in terms of potential impact, perturbation and margin
for error, than any threat of climate change. Don't think it could
happen? Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBu-yUzWXqg
(but turn off the sound ... needless melodramatic ... ).

Were the 400m asteroid to impact the effects would be far larger than
the Tunguska airburst caused by a 50m comet. The next observation
window, in 2013, will tell, but already NASA has contingency plans for
launching a mitigation mission. Solar-electric propulsion appears the
best option at the moment.

Al Gore can't make money by selling us asteroid risk.

/leebert

"Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message

news:d8e2f355-6d36-474d-9e2b-7ee3aa53d60b@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 30, 8:09 am, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[ . . . ]
The GISS data are not directly observed but adjusted data.

They are not proxy data, they are directly observed.
Adjustment has nothing to do with this.

What you use are not the observed data but the adjusted data, to not make the distinction
is to mislead.

On Apr 30, 8:09 am, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[ . . . ]
The GISS data are not directly observed but adjusted data.

They are not proxy data, they are directly observed.
Adjustment has nothing to do with this.

NASA/GISS studied the issue in 2001 & found that an extended solar
grand minimum would indeed cause a miniature ice age (ala the LIA).
The diminished solar luminance slowed interzonal convection and
increased La Nina frequency & a generally lowered heat budget which
lead to weaker continent-warming ocean-borne weather fronts in
wintertime. While the cooling was modest, the effects in continental
interiors were profound. Likewise SC Asia has a historical record of
famine corresponding with declines in solar luminance.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

How about straight from the horse's, mouth ...
Sunspot Facts From A Geologist

The sun has dimmed slightly in the past 15-20 years while there's been
a slight rise, then plateau in temperatures.

pseudom...@gmail.com> wrote

The sun has dimmed slightly in the past 15-20 years while there's been
a slight rise, then plateau in temperatures.

The sun has dimmed slightly over the last several solar cycles (33 years)
while global temperatures have continued to rise.

As for the claim of a recent plateau. Well that is just a lie of course.

Here are the figures for the last decade.

1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
2007 14.57 *****************************

Showing a warming of roughly 2'C per century...

pseudom...@gmail.com> wrote

NASA/GISS studied the issue in 2001 & found that an extended solar
grand minimum would indeed cause a miniature ice age (ala the LIA).
The diminished solar luminance slowed interzonal convection and
increased La Nina frequency & a generally lowered heat budget which
lead to weaker continent-warming ocean-borne weather fronts in
wintertime. While the cooling was modest, the effects in continental
interiors were profound. Likewise SC Asia has a historical record of
famine corresponding with declines in solar luminance.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

Nope. You are lying in your paragraph above.

Here is what your own reference says on the subject.

Translation... The Cooling was regional not generally global.

No Mini Ice age.

"Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message

news:4ef85b85-2ec2-4095-9bce-31e194f69e87@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...



On Apr 30, 2:54 pm, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message

news:d8e2f355-6d36-474d-9e2b-7ee3aa53d60b@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 30, 8:09 am, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[ . . . ]
The GISS data are not directly observed but adjusted data.

They are not proxy data, they are directly observed.
Adjustment has nothing to do with this.

What you use are not the observed data but the adjusted data, to not make the
distinction
is to mislead.

That you claim not to know the difference
between directly observed and proxy data,
is either stupidity, or lying just to make
a tempest in a teapot,

Apparently you are too stupid to understand what data you are using.
The fact is that you are using ADJUSTED data. The directly observed data are the RAW data.
Also, you appear to have a reading comprehension problem I NEVER said that it was PROXY
data.

"Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message

news:d8e2f355-6d36-474d-9e2b-7ee3aa53d60b@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 30, 8:09 am, "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[ . . . ]
The GISS data are not directly observed but adjusted data.

They are not proxy data, they are directly observed.
Adjustment has nothing to do with this.

What you use are not the observed data but the adjusted data, to not make the
distinction
is to mislead.