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