Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: splif who wrote (121253)	7/1/2008 10:52:03 PM
From: Amark$p	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 313022

Yes, that was my take from reading a few articles on sunspots and climate. The CO2/greenhouse is part of the problem but there does appear to be some impact from sunspot/irradiance activity. Coxe is standing on better science in regard to Bee Colony Collapse vs. sunspots, but dismissing sunspot activity altogether seems inappropriate. "For the past three decades NASA scientists have investigated the unique relationship between the sun and Earth. Using space-based tools, like the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), they have studied how much solar energy illuminates Earth, and explored what happens to that energy once it penetrates the atmosphere. The amount of energy that reaches Earth's outer atmosphere is called the total solar irradiance. Total solar irradiance is variable over many different timescales, ranging from seconds to centuries due to changes in solar activity." google "sunspot irradiance climate" and you get some interesing articles. From what I gather, if this lack of sunspot activity continues for several months/years (i.e. for well over 20 months), then the case gets stronger for colder global weather. Coxe is a bit early with just a few months of little sunspot activity to base his comments. That's my take on it.