On Wed, 26 May 2004 05:27:02 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
I recall reading an article by someone who had studied a lamination
series in sediment rock (I think the site was down somewhere in the
Flinders Range, but perhaps it is a mix-up in memory with a rather
strange regular lamination I've seen there myself, north of Wilpuna)

Anyhow, in that article the author had meticulously mapped and
measured the laminations in the rock bed laid down over a period of
many hundreds of years, and he indeed linked the patterns in them to
the solar cycle you mention. Of course lamination in _sediment_ rock
could only be linked to the solar cycle by the cycle itself being
linked to rainfall. Another startling thing I remember about his
observations was, that if true, that would mean that our fat old Sun
had very much the same activity cycle when that sediment ws layed
down, many hundreds of thousands of years ago, as it has to this day.
Torsten,

Where was this? I would be very intersted in seeing the work.

Gordon, this was an article I read in Scientific American almost
40 years ago, and I no longer remember the name of the site.
I think the name had 'creek' in it (talk about a minimal clue :-)
and I am pretty sure it was somewhere in the semiarid land north
of Adelaide, in Flinders Range or further out, beyond the black
stump. I got the impression that the site was kinda famous for its
exposure of a very long sediment series with peculiarly regular and
eyecatching laminations in the rock. Again, from memory, the author
argued that the long term stable arid/semiarid climate at the site
was crucial in making it at all possible to discern this alleged
solar cycle influence on the sedimentation -- that is, in a less arid
environment chaotic rainfall would have drowned out the signal.

Linking
sunspots to rainfall in modern times hasn't worked very well on a single
cycle scale in all the work I have seen tried. But linking how energetic the
cycle is to the average global temperature seems to have a pretty high
correlation. Particularly when there is a long run of them that are strong
or weak. The most outstanding being the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice
age from 1645 to 1715.

Part of the warming in the last century was due to 3 very strong cycles and
I think the reason that the global warming suddenly petered out at the end
of the century was the last cycle was real dud. This cycle started off with
one of the biggest magnetic storms in history at the bottom or the last or
start of the next cycle when the magnetic storms on the sun reversed
direction. There seems to be no way to forecast how strong a cycle will be
except in retrospect.

Gordon

In article , Torsten Brinch wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2004 14:01:37 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:

In article , Torsten Brinch
wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2004 14:58:47 GMT, "Steve Young" wrote:
[...]
"They" say things like, That was a 100 year flood, expected to occur only
every 100 years. (or snow, drought, whatever) But I have doubts about how
they calculate that.

We do not need to get into the detail, but from a solid observation
series (preferably many hundreds of years :-) one can of course make a
good statistical estimate of what magnitude the event must have to
have only a 1 % chance of occurring in any given year. The problem
with some estimated 100 year events is that they do not have that kind
of solid base in observation. Say, if you have only 20 years worth of
data, you are thrust into making an extrapolation resting on a set of
assumptions, which reality may very well see fit to overturn in time.
[...]

Yeah. I recall sitting by a motel pool drinking beer late one evening
several decades ago and discussing "rainfall cycles" (you know the
sort of thing, the 11/13/whatever year "solar cycle" etc.).

No I have never heard of that., Phred. I do recall sitting by a pool
at Uluru camp drinking beer with a friend decades ago too. But we were
talking about a girl... :-)

And a very appropriate topic in such circumstances too. :-)

The local
mathematical statistician pointed out that you would need a minimum of
300 years of annual data to "see" such cycles with any confidence. As
he said, humans are always looking for patterns in things and are very
good at finding them, even if they are not real ones.

Funny, my friend had seen a pattern in things too. He said don't be
stupid, I've seen how she looks at you, just go'fer her.... er,
and he was right :-)

You mean it was a recurring pattern?
(I suppose most patterns are. 8-)

(Incidentally, I don't know if that "300 years" was just a figure
plucked out of the XXXX ambience, or whether he had some knowledge of
the distributions when he made the claim. As he was supporting a
large team of scientists working on pastoral systems at the time, it's
quite possible it was the latter.)

I recall reading an article by someone who had studied a lamination
series in sediment rock (I think the site was down somewhere in the
Flinders Range, but perhaps it is a mix-up in memory with a rather
strange regular lamination I've seen there myself, north of Wilpuna)

Anyhow, in that article the author had meticulously mapped and
measured the laminations in the rock bed laid down over a period of
many hundreds of years, and he indeed linked the patterns in them to
the solar cycle you mention. Of course lamination in _sediment_ rock
could only be linked to the solar cycle by the cycle itself being
linked to rainfall. Another startling thing I remember about his
observations was, that if true, that would mean that our fat old Sun
had very much the same activity cycle when that sediment ws layed
down, many hundreds of thousands of years ago, as it has to this day.

Except that it seems to be wearing out lately:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2566165
(FWIW).

See also:
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/notes29.htm
which actually has some sensible discussion and reputable references.
[In fact the sun is not dimming, we're just getting less light from
it here on the surface of Earth.]


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:37:45 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:
In article , Torsten Brinch wrote:

Anyhow, in that article the author had meticulously mapped and
measured the laminations in the rock bed laid down over a period of
many hundreds of years, and he indeed linked the patterns in them to
the solar cycle you mention. Of course lamination in _sediment_ rock
could only be linked to the solar cycle by the cycle itself being
linked to rainfall. Another startling thing I remember about his
observations was, that if true, that would mean that our fat old Sun
had very much the same activity cycle when that sediment ws layed
down, many hundreds of thousands of years ago, as it has to this day.

Except that it seems to be wearing out lately:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2566165
(FWIW).

See also:
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/notes29.htm
which actually has some sensible discussion and reputable references.
[In fact the sun is not dimming, we're just getting less light from
it here on the surface of Earth.]

Also see
http://science.newsfactor.com/story....story_id=24285

But, if less sunshine is reaching the surface of the earth, AND
less sunshine is reflected back to space from Earth, what on
earth is going on? Something's amiss here :-)

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 05:27:02 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
I recall reading an article by someone who had studied a lamination
series in sediment rock (I think the site was down somewhere in the
Flinders Range, but perhaps it is a mix-up in memory with a rather
strange regular lamination I've seen there myself, north of Wilpuna)

Anyhow, in that article the author had meticulously mapped and
measured the laminations in the rock bed laid down over a period of
many hundreds of years, and he indeed linked the patterns in them to
the solar cycle you mention. Of course lamination in _sediment_ rock
could only be linked to the solar cycle by the cycle itself being
linked to rainfall. Another startling thing I remember about his
observations was, that if true, that would mean that our fat old Sun
had very much the same activity cycle when that sediment ws layed
down, many hundreds of thousands of years ago, as it has to this day.
Torsten,

Where was this? I would be very intersted in seeing the work.

Gordon, this was an article I read in Scientific American almost
40 years ago, and I no longer remember the name of the site.
I think the name had 'creek' in it (talk about a minimal clue :-)
and I am pretty sure it was somewhere in the semiarid land north
of Adelaide, in Flinders Range or further out, beyond the black
stump. I got the impression that the site was kinda famous for its
exposure of a very long sediment series with peculiarly regular and
eyecatching laminations in the rock. Again, from memory, the author
argued that the long term stable arid/semiarid climate at the site
was crucial in making it at all possible to discern this alleged
solar cycle influence on the sedimentation -- that is, in a less arid
environment chaotic rainfall would have drowned out the signal.


That is enough to find the article. At worst I will have to look through the
indexes published every 5 or 10 years to find the article if I can find the
index on line. I was a very regular reader of SA 40 years ago so I may
remember it if I start looking though the index.

I can do it while I am waiting on my wife when I pick her up at work here
collection goes back to the 30's. The main library has it back to the teens
when the university opened. I expect it will be one of the journal cut by
vet med the next time around. It don't bear on their subject and it is a
duplicate. And money is getting very thin. The book on research was half the
size as last year and it was inflated a good deal. Republicans are not good
for research. But democrats have not been much better. We have been cutting
public funding of research in agriculture like there was no more to do. Just
when we were getting the tools to do a lot in many way they decide that it
can be better spent on social programs and their own salaries. Agriculture
doesn't buy many votes. Even our state has baled out and agriculture and oil
are the big money in Oklahoma and the are pulling the plug on both.

Gordon

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:37:45 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:
In article , Torsten Brinch
wrote:

Anyhow, in that article the author had meticulously mapped and
measured the laminations in the rock bed laid down over a period of
many hundreds of years, and he indeed linked the patterns in them to
the solar cycle you mention. Of course lamination in _sediment_ rock
could only be linked to the solar cycle by the cycle itself being
linked to rainfall. Another startling thing I remember about his
observations was, that if true, that would mean that our fat old Sun
had very much the same activity cycle when that sediment ws layed
down, many hundreds of thousands of years ago, as it has to this day.

Except that it seems to be wearing out lately:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2566165
(FWIW).

See also:
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/notes29.htm
which actually has some sensible discussion and reputable references.
[In fact the sun is not dimming, we're just getting less light from
it here on the surface of Earth.]

Also see
http://science.newsfactor.com/story....story_id=24285

But, if less sunshine is reaching the surface of the earth, AND
less sunshine is reflected back to space from Earth, what on
earth is going on? Something's amiss here :-)

If the atmosphere is not as clear the radiation from the sun could be being
absorbed and converted to heat would be one explanation to less light
reaching the surface and less being reflected. Or simply there is less being
output by the sun in the first place.

The area under the curve of the sun spot numbers is believed to be a pretty
good relative indictor of the amount of energy the sun puts out. The last
cycle being pretty weak and the one before being a very strong one. We are
at the lowest point of a new cycle that is about 6 weeks old right now.

http://web.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/annual.gif This diagram of solar
cycles doesn't go back in the Maunder Minimum it stops that 1700

An interesting site http://www.xs4all.nl/~josvg/thesis/chap1212.html I wish
this had better resolution graphs but figure 1has good sun spot data back to
1610 covering the Maunder Minium. Some of the other conclusion are
questionable to my rather concrete way of thinking. But It does show that
the warming we are experiencing today is small in respect to recent
historical estimates by thier methods.

Gordon

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:N5juc.3594$1L4.419@okepread02...

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:37:45 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:
In article , Torsten Brinch
wrote:

Anyhow, in that article the author had meticulously mapped and
measured the laminations in the rock bed laid down over a period of
many hundreds of years, and he indeed linked the patterns in them to
the solar cycle you mention. Of course lamination in _sediment_ rock
could only be linked to the solar cycle by the cycle itself being
linked to rainfall. Another startling thing I remember about his
observations was, that if true, that would mean that our fat old Sun
had very much the same activity cycle when that sediment ws layed
down, many hundreds of thousands of years ago, as it has to this day.

Except that it seems to be wearing out lately:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2566165
(FWIW).

See also:
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/notes29.htm
which actually has some sensible discussion and reputable references.
[In fact the sun is not dimming, we're just getting less light from
it here on the surface of Earth.]

Also see
http://science.newsfactor.com/story....story_id=24285

But, if less sunshine is reaching the surface of the earth, AND
less sunshine is reflected back to space from Earth, what on
earth is going on? Something's amiss here :-)

If the atmosphere is not as clear the radiation from the sun could be
being
absorbed and converted to heat would be one explanation to less light
reaching the surface and less being reflected. Or simply there is less
being
output by the sun in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Actually there are less women and men looking at themselves today. Less
mirrors less reflection.

Chuck

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
The area under the curve of the sun spot numbers is believed to be a pretty
good relative indictor of the amount of energy the sun puts out. The last
cycle being pretty weak and the one before being a very strong one. We are
at the lowest point of a new cycle that is about 6 weeks old right now.

http://web.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/annual.gif This diagram of solar
cycles doesn't go back in the Maunder Minimum it stops that 1700

An interesting site http://www.xs4all.nl/~josvg/thesis/chap1212.html I
wish
this had better resolution graphs but figure 1has good sun spot data back
to
1610 covering the Maunder Minium. Some of the other conclusion are
questionable to my rather concrete way of thinking. But It does show that
the warming we are experiencing today is small in respect to recent
historical estimates by thier methods.

Gordon

On 5/30/04 4:25 PM, in article
et, "Chuck"
wrote:

Actually there are less women and men looking at themselves today. Less
mirrors less reflection.

Chuck

It isn't Rogaine? Fewer bald headed men reflecting the sunlight off
their domes?

Dean



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
...
On 5/30/04 4:25 PM, in article
et, "Chuck"
wrote:

Actually there are less women and men looking at themselves today. Less
mirrors less reflection.

Chuck

It isn't Rogaine? Fewer bald headed men reflecting the sunlight off
their domes?


More reasons to verify less reflection. They no longer have to count their
remaing hairs. Again less mirrors. Less smoke too.

Chuck

Dean



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In message N5juc.3594$1L4.419@okepread02, Gordon Couger
writes

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:37:45 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:
In article , Torsten Brinch
wrote:

Anyhow, in that article the author had meticulously mapped and
measured the laminations in the rock bed laid down over a period of
many hundreds of years, and he indeed linked the patterns in them to
the solar cycle you mention. Of course lamination in _sediment_ rock

See also:
http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/notes29.htm
which actually has some sensible discussion and reputable references.
[In fact the sun is not dimming, we're just getting less light from
it here on the surface of Earth.]

Also see
http://science.newsfactor.com/story....story_id=24285

But, if less sunshine is reaching the surface of the earth, AND
less sunshine is reflected back to space from Earth, what on
earth is going on? Something's amiss here :-)

If the atmosphere is not as clear the radiation from the sun could be being
absorbed and converted to heat would be one explanation to less light
reaching the surface and less being reflected. Or simply there is less being
output by the sun in the first place.

The latter possibility can be ruled out by data from satellite
monitoring of total solar irradiance or TSI. There are several
instruments in flight that have been doing this continuously for a
couple of decades.

The area under the curve of the sun spot numbers is believed to be a pretty
good relative indictor of the amount of energy the sun puts out. The last
cycle being pretty weak and the one before being a very strong one. We are
at the lowest point of a new cycle that is about 6 weeks old right now.

It only makes a very small modulation on the total amount of energy
output of about 0.08% over the period for which accurate satellite data
exists. Enough cyclical variation to show up in some proxy data like
tree rings, sediments, and ice cores though.

http://web.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/annual.gif This diagram of solar
cycles doesn't go back in the Maunder Minimum it stops that 1700

An interesting site http://www.xs4all.nl/~josvg/thesis/chap1212.html I wish
this had better resolution graphs but figure 1has good sun spot data back to
1610 covering the Maunder Minium. Some of the other conclusion are
questionable to my rather concrete way of thinking. But It does show that
the warming we are experiencing today is small in respect to recent
historical estimates by thier methods.

However, since we are adding to the problem at an exponentially
increasing rate with CO2 emissions it cannot be safely ignored.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Brown"
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.geo.meteorology
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 4:07 AM
Subject: Climate models [Was: Real beef! [Was: Agriculture's
Bullied Market]]


snip
:
: The latter possibility can be ruled out by data from satellite
: monitoring of total solar irradiance or TSI. There are several
: instruments in flight that have been doing this continuously for a
: couple of decades.
:
: The area under the curve of the sun spot numbers is believed to
be a pretty
: good relative indictor of the amount of energy the sun puts out.
The last
: cycle being pretty weak and the one before being a very strong
one. We are
: at the lowest point of a new cycle that is about 6 weeks old
right now.
:
: It only makes a very small modulation on the total amount of
energy
: output of about 0.08% over the period for which accurate satellite
data
: exists. Enough cyclical variation to show up in some proxy data
like
: tree rings, sediments, and ice cores though.

Satellite data only covers a very small part of the data. The weater
connected with the Maunder Minimum and the Grand Maximum
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/...s/00416654.pdf is a
better indicater than three or four cycles worth of data confused by
short term trends and co2 and methane emmsions. The historic record
of sun spots and the weather show a much bigger swing than we have
seen in the last 200 years.

I don't dissagree that we sould conserve fuel and reduce CO2 and
other greenhouse gases but I don't believe that they are the
driveing force behind climate change and CO2 is being tied up by
modern no til farming far faster that models are accoununting for.
If you reall need to get rid of CO2 fertilize the ocean with iron.

We should not wreck the world economy over some computer modles that
the folks that write them won't stand behind.

Gordon
: