Improved Modeling of Sunspot Activity

Philip Miller Tate Philmt59 at
Sat Jun 27 06:04:01 CDT 2009

The one critical factor that is all too often left out of the global  
climate change debate is that, despite any attempts to reduce the  
burning of fossil fuels or engage in other other activities that may  
be critical to climate change, the population of earth continues to  
increase exponentially at a remarkably stable 0.5% per annum. These  
additional souls will demand their share of energy and resources, or,  
even more damagingly to us all, will exist in poverty. Despite our  
egocentric view that, contrary to history and (possibly) Darwin's  
principles, that the human race should strive to be immune to  
extinction, the truth is that we are going to have to think long-term  
about compromise, rather than trying to engineer an unchanging planet  
in the face of this population onslaught. The critical thing is to  
understand as well as possible the primary causes of climate change  
(solar, metereological, human) and thence to aim our meagre resources  
of combat as effectively as possible: to reduce CO2 or install  
central air conditioning.

Or, as a colleague of mine at the University once said: "Global  
warming: bad for humans, but good for fish." Cynical, but surely more  
accurate than the quote from a former director of the British  
Metereological Office who once stated (unchallenged), "There is  
absolutely no evidence that the weather is in any way influenced by  
the sun."

Phil M1GWZ

On 27 Jun 2009, at 00:57, Alex Fraser wrote:

>     I've heard this slam on global warming before, it is not  
> scientific at all.  Sure there could be natural long term  
> temperature variations, this has to be true as we have had ice  
> ages.  Also volcanic eruptions and  cow farts could have an  
> effect.  So you have this oscillation of temperature with highs and  
> lows.  Suppose the vast majority of scientists are right and there  
> is a green house effect.  Wouldn't that mean you would have higher  
> highs and higher lows as the temperature got shifted upwards?  What  
> I'm saying is that proving oscillation in temperature does not  
> disprove the green house effect.  In fact it could make things  
> worse in that if we are in a natural long term trough the resulting  
> higher than expected peak could give us a big surprise.
>     I too am worried over any plan that depends on greed to  
> succeed.  I think the question people should be asking is not cost,  
> but rather if you don't plan to live on this planet, then where are  
> you going to live?  Perhaps you have a secret plan to leave?
>  --
>    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\-----++++*0*++++-----//////////////////
>        No electrons were harmed in the creation of this message
>          --------------------------------------------------------
>  ~~~********************Alex Fraser********************~~~
>          --------------------------------------------------------
> [[[[[[~~^^^#___=>>>```/\/\**O**/\/\```<<<=___#^^^~~]]]]]]
> _______________________________________________
> Tacos mailing list
> Tacos at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Tacos mailing list