Sunspots hit new highs

Sunspots hit new highs (Oct 27)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/10/16
The Sun is more active at present than it has been for over 8000 years
according to a new method for determining the level of sunspot activity
in the past. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in
Katlenburg-Lindau and colleagues in Finland, Germany and Switzerland
have developed a technique that relates the number of sunspots to the
concentration of carbon-14 in tree rings. However, the team insists that
this high level of solar activity is unlikely to be the main cause of
global warming (Nature 431 1084).

In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:
Sunspots hit new highs (Oct 27)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/10/16
The Sun is more active at present than it has been for over 8000 years
according to a new method for determining the level of sunspot activity
in the past. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in
Katlenburg-Lindau and colleagues in Finland, Germany and Switzerland
have developed a technique that relates the number of sunspots to the
concentration of carbon-14 in tree rings. However, the team insists that
this high level of solar activity is unlikely to be the main cause of
global warming (Nature 431 1084).

Yeah, sure, it couldn't POSSIBLY be totally natural, uncontrollable, and
untaxable; that doesn't get research grants.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Sam Wormley wrote:

Sunspots hit new highs (Oct 27)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/10/16

Hmmm...
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html

'Solar activity is expected to persist at low levels.'
--
My ol' grandaddy taught me to always;
post in plain text,
quote only that portion to which you are replying,
post replies at the bottom.

Sam Wormley wrote:
Sunspots hit new highs (Oct 27)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/10/16
The Sun is more active at present than it has been for over 8000 years
according to a new method for determining the level of sunspot activity
in the past. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in
Katlenburg-Lindau and colleagues in Finland, Germany and Switzerland
have developed a technique that relates the number of sunspots to the
concentration of carbon-14 in tree rings. However, the team insists that
this high level of solar activity is unlikely to be the main cause of
global warming (Nature 431 1084).

I wonder what about this technique is new. Relating the number of
sunspots to carbon-14 levels is an old idea. As I recall, high sunspots
means low carbon-14 levels, and vice versa. It has something to do with
different levels of charged particles coming in through the ionosphere
and changing a proton in nitrogen-14 to a neutron, making carbon-14.

I'd check myself, but I'm reading on a text monitor, and I don't have a
web browser handy. (And I guess I'm too lazy to look it up on lynx or
the like.)

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Tom Warner wrote:
Hmmm...
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html

'Solar activity is expected to persist at low levels.'

Different time scales. When this source says "low levels," they mean the
trough that comes every 11 years or so. The OP's article refers to a much
longer-scale, possibly secular trend.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

On 28 Oct 2004 05:08:22 GMT, Uncle Bob
wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:

Sunspots hit new highs (Oct 27)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/10/16
The Sun is more active at present than it has been for over 8000 years
according to a new method for determining the level of sunspot activity
in the past. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in
Katlenburg-Lindau and colleagues in Finland, Germany and Switzerland
have developed a technique that relates the number of sunspots to the
concentration of carbon-14 in tree rings. However, the team insists that
this high level of solar activity is unlikely to be the main cause of
global warming (Nature 431 1084).


Yeah, sure, it couldn't POSSIBLY be totally natural, uncontrollable, and
untaxable; that doesn't get research grants.

You've applied for a grant to study links between sunspot activity
and global warming? Please tell us about it.
Thanks,
Uncle Bob

Canada put up $70,000,000 in grant money to study global warming.
What was the catch? You had to be working on a project whose goal
was to PROVE global warming was man-made. Otherwise, no money.
Some kind of way to do science, huh?

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct 2004 05:08:22 GMT, Uncle Bob
wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:

Sunspots hit new highs (Oct 27)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/10/16
The Sun is more active at present than it has been for over
8000 years
according to a new method for determining the level of sunspot
activity
in the past. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in
Katlenburg-Lindau and colleagues in Finland, Germany and
Switzerland
have developed a technique that relates the number of sunspots
to the
concentration of carbon-14 in tree rings. However, the team
insists that
this high level of solar activity is unlikely to be the main
cause of
global warming (Nature 431 1084).


Yeah, sure, it couldn't POSSIBLY be totally natural,
uncontrollable, and
untaxable; that doesn't get research grants.

You've applied for a grant to study links between sunspot activity
and global warming? Please tell us about it.
Thanks,
Uncle Bob

Canada put up $70,000,000 in grant money to study global warming.
What was the catch? You had to be working on a project whose goal
was to PROVE global warming was man-made. Otherwise, no money.
Some kind of way to do science, huh?

You got a reference for this claim?

Although this is NOT the forum for this, I couldn't resist:

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...101504.asp?p=0

Paul


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:CuYfd.19015$R05.17183@attbi_s53...
Sunspots hit new highs (Oct 27)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/10/16
The Sun is more active at present than it has been for over 8000 years
according to a new method for determining the level of sunspot
activity
in the past. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in
Katlenburg-Lindau and colleagues in Finland, Germany and Switzerland
have developed a technique that relates the number of sunspots to the
concentration of carbon-14 in tree rings. However, the team insists
that
this high level of solar activity is unlikely to be the main cause of
global warming (Nature 431 1084).

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:45:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"RichA" wrote in message
.. .
On 28 Oct 2004 05:08:22 GMT, Uncle Bob
wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics Sam Wormley wrote:

Sunspots hit new highs (Oct 27)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/10/16
The Sun is more active at present than it has been for over
8000 years
according to a new method for determining the level of sunspot
activity
in the past. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in
Katlenburg-Lindau and colleagues in Finland, Germany and
Switzerland
have developed a technique that relates the number of sunspots
to the
concentration of carbon-14 in tree rings. However, the team
insists that
this high level of solar activity is unlikely to be the main
cause of
global warming (Nature 431 1084).


Yeah, sure, it couldn't POSSIBLY be totally natural,
uncontrollable, and
untaxable; that doesn't get research grants.

You've applied for a grant to study links between sunspot activity
and global warming? Please tell us about it.
Thanks,
Uncle Bob

Canada put up $70,000,000 in grant money to study global warming.
What was the catch? You had to be working on a project whose goal
was to PROVE global warming was man-made. Otherwise, no money.
Some kind of way to do science, huh?

You got a reference for this claim?


Not anymore. This came up six months ago.
I thought I'd put in for some of the money, seeing
as they're entertaining any wild theory that says it's happening.

What I thought I'd base my thesis on was that is was possible to
reduce greenhouse gasses by ONLY regulating Western industry while
China and India (whose economies are rapidly industrializing) aren't
required to do any pollution control at all.
Way to go, Kyoto!

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:45:21 +0100, "OG"

Canada put up $70,000,000 in grant money to study global warming.
What was the catch? You had to be working on a project whose goal
was to PROVE global warming was man-made. Otherwise, no money.
Some kind of way to do science, huh?

You got a reference for this claim?


Not anymore. This came up six months ago.
I thought I'd put in for some of the money, seeing
as they're entertaining any wild theory that says it's happening.

Where did you apply to?

What I thought I'd base my thesis on was that is was possible to
reduce greenhouse gasses by ONLY regulating Western industry while
China and India (whose economies are rapidly industrializing) aren't
required to do any pollution control at all.
Way to go, Kyoto!

China and India
Interesting cases. Both developing nations, both now in the top 5
polluting nations.
However, they are the two largest nations by population.

So your typical inhabitant of China could double her CO2 emissions
and then double them again
and then double them again

and still produce 10% less CO2 pollution than a typical American.

Is CO2 emission from developing nations harmful? YES.
but the per capita emission from US citizens is 9 times more harmful
than from Chinese citizens, and 18 times more harmful than Indian
citizens, so surely you can see that we in the rich west nations have
the first responsibility to reduce emissions.