On 24 Sep 2005 07:59:41 -0700, wrote:


Cliff wrote:
On 24 Sep 2005 01:10:01 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:ctm8j1tphc5mtmbcspp8nr75pivpm7n4n9@
4ax.com:

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20
years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the
Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

Well that statement is flat out wrong. An absolute lie in fact. How
reliable is the rest of the BS you're posting?

Sheesh .... That was a DIRECT QUOTE from the link
that was posted by someone objecting to global warming ...
and shown as such, IIRC.

Which does not change the fact that the statement, taken
at its face, is so incorrect as to warrant a strong suspicion
of dishonesty.

How so?
You think it's bush & his cronies again?

Which do you object to: The fact of global warming or the fact
that there's nothing unusual about sunspots?

This chart suggests that the latest cycle may have had a few
less than previous cycles *where they can be observed* but
says nothing about net energy outputs:
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html

o

And it's quite probably true if any of it is. Recall that
it's a 20 year average type of statement ... it does not
claim that the usual sunspot cycle is not in effect.

By which I suppose you mean that the total number of sunspots
over the last two cycles has been the same as over previous
cycles.

They are never quite the same. So what?

Assuming I am correct about what you mean and you are correct
about what the source meant and teh source was accurately quoted

By the newspaper? I don't know .... my quote from the link was,
however, accurate.

Go fish or do some research I suppose, if it concerns you.
How much would it matter, exactly?

Consider the mass of the sun and it's temperature.
Let's assume fro the sake of argument that the nuclear
reactions that power the sun went out in it's core today.

How long would it take for it to drop 1 degree Centigrade?

Remember that almost all energy radiated is by black body
radiation ..... even if there can be slight local brief variations
in specific areas from time to time.

How much would that 1 degree centigrade drop matter
in the total energy output radiated? And that would matter
here how much?

Or are you concerned about the last 11 years of a 22 year cycle?

(which assumptions may at least be plausible) the original
statement was at best ill-considered as it literally meant
something very differene than the speaker ostensibly intended.

Such as?

Personally, it sounds more like an example of a person blurting
out some supposed fact they don't really understand but have
been told is supportive of the position they have chosen to
favor for other reasons.

And yours is?
--
Cliff