>> Evidence that makes it essentially certain that naturally
>> increasing output of the sun is a or the major contributor
>> to global warming.

> That last one peaked my interest, but after reading through the 
> transcript "Hank Spruit" seems to be saying that it's "rather 
> unlikely" that the sun's output has varied enough to account for 
> global warning.  Did I miss something?

I think so. He's a careful scientist who knows that hard declarations 
of fact are not the scientific way. He knows he can only deal in 
probabilities. BUT my reading overall is that he is very clearly 
saying that as far as he is concerned personally it's a done deal - 
the sun ISN'T the cause of any of the delta heating we are seeing.

This was a very important statement to me as I have until now been 
fairly convinced by the arguments I've seen, with supporting data, 
that we are actually on the back of a regular cycle whose existence 
has been carefully or fortuitously suppressed from publicly displayed 
and discussed data. The "data" that I've seen to support that view 
seemed reasonably convincing AND I'd never seen it rebutted.

Now I hear a man who is dealing in precisely that area specifically 
rebutting the concept after having specifically studied it. I just 
looked at the transcript again

        http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v443/n7108/nature-2006-09-14.html

and I'm convinced that he's careful but convinced. He does caution 
great care due to political and other issues which tend to confuse 
matters.


        Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist