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.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (5149)	2/21/2009 8:26:35 PM
From: enginer	Respond to of 86356

The science is settled, it is just not understood. A driving force or factor needn't account for all the change, it need just correlate at a high level. Then the intermediate factor can account for (much) of the rest, assuming a non-linear response. We know that there is a poor correlation between the sun's irradiance (IR and visible spectrum) and global warming, even with lags. And the Milancovich cycle does not match the ice ages very well. But galactic cosmic rays (fluxes of GCRs) ARE related to sunspots, and seem to be related to cloudiness and the earth's albedo. So solar >activity< measured as it's magnetic effect and solar wind, may account for the portion not directly accounted for by conventional thinking. A weak solar cycle 24 points to mass starvation and high food prices, and >i<LOTS OF ENERGY USE>/i<. Interesting Link OIL: $ solarcycle24com.proboards106.com