tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post3985483545429625938..comments2024-03-26T07:51:43.186+00:00Comments on Mabinogogiblog: Sunspot theory fatally flawedDocRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-27275789783175083352009-12-20T17:49:58.910+00:002009-12-20T17:49:58.910+00:00When using Peter Laut as a source one should be aw...When using Peter Laut as a source one should be aware that he was for many years a paid lobbyist for the Danish government:<br /><br />http://www.pepke.dk/BerlingskeTidende.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-81727714672075520682009-12-17T14:24:03.599+00:002009-12-17T14:24:03.599+00:00So when composing this post in which you mention t...So when composing this post in which you mention two scientists who are continuing to publish peer-reviewed papers relating to the role that the Sun plays in influencing the Earth's climate, didn't it occur to you (in the interests of the fairness, neutrality and rationality that you claim to try to achieve)to see if they have anything to say about the situation.<br />(I don't know if this link will work, but this is the relevant URL).<br /><br />http://www.space.dtu.dk<br />/English/Research/Research_divisions/<br />Sun_Climate/Publications_full_text_SC.aspx<br /><br />JMacAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-79413573392117926102009-12-16T12:21:40.480+00:002009-12-16T12:21:40.480+00:00JMac
(I have a feeling that I should know you)
the...JMac<br />(I have a feeling that I should know you)<br />the statement is in the Indie, Mon 14 Dec. p 9, by Steve Connor; i cannot find it in the on-line version:<br /><br />"F-C now accepts that any correlation between sunspots and GW that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is he says a "clear divergence" between sunspots and global temps after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone".<br /><br />It's in a newspaper, so it could be wrong. <br /><br />If you have the link, I will post it.DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-55268547752952473122009-12-15T19:21:43.254+00:002009-12-15T19:21:43.254+00:00The Independent article says:-
"Messrs Svensm...The Independent article says:-<br />"Messrs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen stand by their studies and continue to believe there is evidence to support their sunspot theory of global warming, despite the doubts first raised by Laut."<br /><br />You write:-"Christensen now accepts that the 1991 study is now invalid."<br /><br />Can you point me to where Friis-Christensen accepts the 1991 study is invalid?<br />All I can find are rebuttals of the Peter Laut analysis.One is by Svensmark and the other by Friis-Christensen&Svensmark together. (I think they are both at the website of the Danish Space Research Institute).<br /> I am not as good with the internet as perhaps I could be, so maybe I am looking in the wrong places.<br /><br />If those rebuttals still represent those authors views are you going to link to them in your blog post in the interests of fairness?<br />JMac.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com