Prev: RE: Veering [OT] Fundamentalists in general, was RE: [FH] ecofund amentalists was RE: [FH] World maps Next: RE: [FH] ecofundamentalists was RE: [FH] World maps

RE: [OT] Sunspots was: World maps

From: Beth.Fulton@c...
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:04:59 +1100
Subject: RE: [OT] Sunspots was: World maps

G'day,

> While solar activity has dropped in the last decade, temperatures have
> continued to rise, which doesn't fit that theory.
> Back to the drawing board for the sunspot theories, I guess.

Like I said still a debated topic. There was always something in
addition to
sunspots (otherwise the mismatch before 1880 wouldn't be so large),
there's
just so many factors to grapple with that you can't just point your
finger
at any single one and say that's it. However, if (and yes this could be
a
big if) real ecospheres work anything like our models then if we're to
make
the transition into the new climate state as easy as possible on us puny
humans we should be looking for ways of moderating our influence, as
nonlinear amplification of effects could be critical.

Dragging my lecture at least slightly on topic, may be its the failure
to
adopt eco-friendly technology that ultimately leads to the economic
crisis
underlying the US collapse (I think Allan suggested that in the thread
on
potential real triggers for such an event). In contrast some of the
nations
currently most effected by poor climates may welcome eco-friendly
technology
more readily and so that's how they get enough of a leg up to be
federated
superstates with even a marginal look-in within the timeframe set out by
Jon's loose timeline.

Just a thought.

Cheers

Beth

Prev: RE: Veering [OT] Fundamentalists in general, was RE: [FH] ecofund amentalists was RE: [FH] World maps Next: RE: [FH] ecofundamentalists was RE: [FH] World maps