On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:09:46 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:51:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:46:53 -0400,
wrote:

On 14 May 2007 15:07:31 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

In message , sprach forth
the following:

To me, common sense, and every weather textbook I have ever read leads
me to conclude that warmer waters will affect hurricane activity.

This chart:

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlit...unclimate.html

shows a near 1:1 correlation between solar activity (sunspots) and
temperature on earth. Can you produce a similar chart showing correlation
between temperature and hurricanes?

In northwestern Europe, there is a 1:1 relationship between the number
of storks per square mile and the birth rate. Therefore, the fact that
storks bring children is as statistically relevant as your suggestion
that sunspots somehow mystically determines the temperature on earth.

Let's look at some 50 year old numbers (prior to global warming?) that
describe the effect of water temperature on hurricanes:
http://tinyurl.com/yvlhwm

Sure would like to see the stork site.


Not sure there is one, but it is a pretty stock example that
correlation is not a sufficient determinant of causality. See any
elementary statistics text.

Are you trying to imply there's no causal relationship between the sun and
the warming of the earth?

As far as I know, the sun is the ONLY cause of warming of the earth.
Fossil fuels are only stored solar energy and the current debate is
over how man may be affecting the release of that energy and the
dynamics of how that energy may be affecting the radiation of that
energy.

I remain skeptical of data that suggests that solar wind has the
effect of blowing away the protection of cloud cover, which then
causes heating of the earth.

Rather than being some gloom and doom prognosticator, I'd just like to
keep an open mind that man might (and I think does) have an impact on
global warming. Those that say than man "just couldn't" have any
effect are trying to form a negative proof in lieu of scientific
method and must, therefore, have some other agenda (political, most
likely) rather than science or logic.

I think you've said it all when you say, "I remain skeptical of data
that suggests..." That's the problem many of us are having with the
'data' that suggests man is the root cause of global warming.