Charles Momsen wrote:
"jeff" wrote in message
. ..


Or c. The "paper" referenced was not published in a peer reviewed journal
and thus has no credibility.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html


"""Yes, the sun can't be responsible for warming :
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml (peer reviewed, no
less!)

"Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human
influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's
brightness," says Wigley.

Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun's
surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae.

Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that
the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity,
such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low
end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small
to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed
since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net
increase in brightness over the period."""

But yet:

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/arc...unclimate.html
-----Bonus: Sailing related content!







It is obvious that the sun has no effect on the temperature of the
surface of the earth. That the reason that there are no seasonal
changes in the temperature and the temperature of the earth is constant
from the north pole through the equator to the south pole. At any point
in time the earth temperature is constantly between 0 and about 110
degrees.

Any book on astronomy will tell you there are variations in the distance
from the sun as the earth revolves around the sun. It is a known fact
that the poles have shifted as the earth wiggles and spins on its axis.
I believe that the sun also expanse and contracts in a well established
cycle.

Shall we discuss how constant the moon revolves around the earth?