Solar variation NOT mere luminosity

Space/Science » in reply to Solar constant variation drives global warming?

Solar variation NOT mere luminosity

JimO — 10/15/2006 10:57:19 PM (archived)

I draw your attention to this
(admittedly argumentative) essay
on what may be a testable mechanism
and hence a manipulatable natural
process:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.htm

The whole thread (45 posts)

Solar constant variation drives global warming? - ER - 10/15/2006 12:43:28 PM
- re: Solar constant variation drives global warming? - Pugs - 10/16/2006 9:44:32 PM
  - Maybe not control it, perhaps prevent it. (n/t) - ER - 10/17/2006 1:04:01 AM
- I think an ice age would be far more destructive - SDF - 10/16/2006 1:53:47 PM
  - Excellent point. - ER - 10/16/2006 3:40:56 PM
- Thanks ER - Buck Galaxy - 10/16/2006 7:22:40 AM
- Solar variation NOT mere luminosity - JimO - 10/15/2006 10:57:19 PM
- Right here ER. - et - 10/15/2006 7:28:05 PM
  - Please rein in your rhetoric - JimO - 10/15/2006 11:00:30 PM
    - What's next, rhetoric trials? - end transmission - 10/16/2006 1:00:50 AM
      - "Tu quoque" rebuttal? - JimO - 10/16/2006 1:00:25 PM
        
        how ridiculous - pwokenyaw - 10/16/2006 3:32:58 PM
        
        re: how ridiculous - JimO - 10/16/2006 3:46:05 PM
        
        Rhetoric techniques - Tom Brosz - 10/16/2006 5:19:54 PM
        
        here's a trick from us lawyers - pwokenyaw - 10/16/2006 7:31:04 PM
        
        re: here's a trick from us lawyers - JimO - 10/16/2006 8:15:44 PM
        
        What we say vs how we say it. - Buck Galaxy - 10/17/2006 8:08:38 AM
- re: global warming drivers - Tom Brosz - 10/15/2006 6:53:53 PM
  - re: global warming drivers - ER - 10/15/2006 8:05:08 PM
    - re: global warming drivers - JimO - 10/15/2006 9:43:44 PM
      - funny how the pro-tech denialists on this board have no interest in carbon sequestration - pwokenyaw - 10/16/2006 3:41:29 PM
        
        carbon sequestration - JimO - 10/16/2006 8:19:22 PM
        
        re: carbon sequestration - pwokenyaw - 10/17/2006 4:21:14 PM
      - That seems like a reasonable response to me. - ER - 10/15/2006 10:10:09 PM
        
        I'm with you on nuclear power. - Tom Brosz - 10/15/2006 10:40:30 PM
        
        The safety and crime-fighting benefits... - ER - 10/15/2006 10:55:14 PM
    - re: scientific study drivers - Tom Brosz - 10/15/2006 9:06:09 PM
      - Hurricanes - Buck Galaxy - 10/15/2006 11:03:32 PM
        
        Where are the deadly hurricanes this year, Buck? - Tom Brosz - 10/15/2006 11:55:28 PM
        
        re: Where are the deadly hurricanes this year, Buck? - Buck Galaxy - 10/16/2006 7:16:43 AM
      - re: scientific study drivers - ER - 10/15/2006 10:48:31 PM
        
        "no one blames it on global warning." - Tom Brosz - 10/15/2006 10:59:18 PM
  - So much 'belief", so little time... - end transmission - 10/15/2006 7:24:42 PM
- re: "Burden of proof" vs "ruling out" - Fox - 10/15/2006 3:08:48 PM
  - coupling mechanism - JimO - 10/15/2006 4:02:53 PM
    - All I'm interested in (in this thread) is whether I'm orbiting a variable star. (n/t) - Fox - 10/16/2006 2:49:38 AM
      - re: Variable Star? - nick hoffman - 10/16/2006 2:03:18 PM
  - re: "Burden of proof" vs "ruling out" - ER - 10/15/2006 3:43:10 PM
    - Addendum. - ER - 10/15/2006 3:51:42 PM
- re: "Solar constant VARIATION" - that's the catch - E.P. - 10/15/2006 2:34:23 PM
  - re: "Solar constant VARIATION" - that's the catch - ER - 10/15/2006 2:56:09 PM
    - Maunder minimum and ice age during 70 years... - Raoul - 10/15/2006 3:09:09 PM
- Suppose global warming altered civilization..... - SDF - 10/15/2006 2:17:47 PM
  - re: Populations displaced - Raoul - 10/15/2006 3:01:26 PM
  - re: Suppose global warming altered civilization..... - ER - 10/15/2006 2:43:42 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (45 posts)