On Apr 23, 1:33*am, Alastair wrote:
* * * * How much of a correlation is there between solar activity,
i.e. sunspots and solar flares etc, and solar output. *No-one ever
seems to explain this and I have a suspicion that there is lot more to
it than merely assuming the sun is hotter when it is active, i.e.
spotty, and cooler when quiescent. *The *coincidence of the Maunder
Minimum and a particularly cold period in Europe may be no more than
that, a coincidence. *It was not possible to measure solar output in
the 17th century but are there any modern measurements that show that
the sun could have been cooler? *Should we assume that fewer spots
equals dimmer?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

It was thought in the 20th Century that since sunspots are dark then
more of them would mean less radiation and a cooler world. *But that
seems to be the converse of the truth. *The Maunder Minimum, a name
chosen for its alliteration, was given as an example of why less
sunspots means a cooler world.

The idea that the radiation from the sun is a constant (solar
constant) is based on an 18th Century concept that God created the
world and then let it like run a clockwork machine, al la Newton.

Cheers, Alastair.

That hardly answers my question. Is there any *independent*
corroboration of a reduced solar output during 1645-1715? In any
case a climatic deterioration had set in well before the Maunder
Minimum. As far as I know there is no verification of the sun's
output being reduced during that period and futhermore it seems that
there is very little variation in solar output during a solar cycle or
from one cycle to the next, regardless of its intensity. It would be
nice if someone could confirm this, or deny it, come to that. This
is like trying to get blood out of a stone and there seems to be
widespread ignorance and confusion on the issue.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.