In article , "Waghorn" writes:

He may be a 'charlaton' and a 'self publicist',however some recent results
suggest his ideas may not be so mad or easily dismissed-

Which ideas, exactly?

That he can determine the weather to very fine temporal and spacial resolutions
over periods extending many months?

Or something more vague, perhaps, for which he can claim no original authorship
whatsoever?



Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West

“Solar Flare Intermittency and the Earth's Temperature Anomalies”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 248701 (2003). PDF

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/PRL48701.pdf


A broad statistical correlation (which is very difficult to follow). If it
holds up to scrutiny, the results are quite an achievement.



http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.642.html

This, on the other hand, is codswallop. It is headed "Solar Flares and
Global Warming" when the quoted work (above) has NOTHING to do with "global
warming" (as everyone understands the term) but with *temperature anomalies*,
which are, by definition, temporary.

It states "the research suggests that for the large part variations in
global temperatures are beyond our control and are instead at the mercy
of the sun's activity."

Obviously, the American Institute of Physics has NEVER HEARD of the effect
atmospheric carbon dioxide has upon temperature.

As far as I can see it, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.



and

http://metlink.org/conf2003/detail.php?recordID=70

This, again, is dealing with transients. It does not deny the effect
increasing CO2 has upon our atmospheric temperatures. It is also well-known
that the Sun is currently stable within its known cycles...

I had the misfortune to hear Piers Corbyn interviewed about the current heat
wave on some news programme, where he wittered on about solar particles.
Of course, he may have been edited into idiocy... but no news reporter has
even the basic knowledge to remind him the solar maximum has passed.


Few Cheers,

keith

---
OIL: regime change starts at home..