Re: [asa] Mission to Sun shows turbulent magnetic field/NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Fri Mar 23 2007 - 12:43:17 EDT

At 12:27 PM 3/23/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:

>On 3/23/07, Janice Matchett
><<>> found the
>usual garbage on <>
>Solar activity is currently at all-time high, with the intensity of
>incoming cosmic rays correspondingly low.
>I looked up GCR Climax data for end-of-year 2006. It's at 95% of the
>1954 maximum. Virgo irradiance data showed showed 1996 at 1365.5
>W/m^2, peaked in 2002 at the MASSIVE 1367 W/m^2 and is now at 1365
>W/m^2. (Here's the dirty little secret about solar irradiance. It
>varies with sunspots at about .1% variablility while CO2 has
>monotonically increased 35% since the industrial revolution with a
>slight annual variability. Some long term proxy studies suggest a
>millenial scale variablility with the irradiance 6-8 kya being
>noticibly HIGHER than it is now. See 2006 Beer et al Fig.
>) There's a scientific term for the quote from
><> above. A bald-faced lie.
>Let's look at Svensmark again. According to his hypothesis (not
>theory) If there is high GCR and low irradiance like we do now then
>we should have cooling. Did we? Nope. We had the warmest winter
>since records were kept even with El Nino shutting down in February.
>The last little tidbit is why the 2007 hurricane forecast just got
>bumped up because El Nino last year protected the Atlantic basin
>from some really bad hurricanes.
>If this is the kind of "quality" we consistently get where they
>cannot even keep track of where we are in the sunspot cycle, could
>we please add <> to the
>banned words list?

@ Point one: You'll no doubt blame me again for the fact that
you're confused - but the fact remains that you're not a careful
reader or you would have known noticed that I plainly showed the
article you're quoting didn't originate on FR - it originated here:

Point two:

The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change

Editorial Reviews
Book Description
The authors explain their theory that sub-atomic particles from
exploded stars have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2.
Their conclusion stems from Svensmark's research which has shown the
previously unsuspected role that cosmic rays play in creating clouds.
During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because
unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer
cosmic rays meant fewer clouds--and a warmer world. The theory,
simply put here but explained in fascinating detail, emerges at a
time of intense public and political concern about climate change.
Motivated only by their concern that science must be trustworthy,
Svensmark and Calder invite their readers to put aside their
preconceptions about manmade global warming and look afresh at the
role of Nature in this hottest of world issues.

Customers who bought this item also bought
Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis T. Avery
Consensus: The True State of Global Warming by Patrick J. Michaels
Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)
by Christopher C. Horner
The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
Politicians, and the Media by Patrick J. Michaels
similar items [snip]

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Mar 23 12:43:49 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 23 2007 - 12:43:49 EDT