Global warming (was: leps-list sleeping)

Stanley A. Gorodenski stan_gorodenski at
Thu Jul 10 02:31:59 EDT 2003

I now know the real value of the internet. It is unbelievable. I thought I would not
be able to respond to Paul's post for days, and maybe for over three weeks until I
get back from my trip. After my last post I went on the internet I found the original
paper. To Paul's credit there is considerable merit to the graph he posted, and the
original paper. I don't know where he got the graph, though, because it is not
identical to the one in the paper. In the paper the axis are labeled "Cycle Length"
and "Temperature Anomoly", not whatever the labels are in Paul's version of the
graph. However, the plot of the two series in the two graphs are identical.

The Friis-Christensen & Klassen paper caused quite an stir among climate specialists.
Apparently, there have been other papers showing such a close correlation, but in the
end they were all disputed. This one showed a much more closer correlation. It
worried some researchers because it resurrected the "Marshall Institute Report" which
the White House at the time highly regarded (and probably by Bush now and may explain
his actions). It had predicted that the possible fading of the sun in the next
century might counteract the effects of any greenhouse warming.

One problem with the paper that even the authors acknowledged was that there was no
way to know, at least at the time, the energy output the variation in the sunspot
cycle represented. Some researchers felt the energy output is very small compared to
the effects of greenhouse gases. Thus, one might see a strong correlation in a graph
of sunspot measure vs. temperature measure, but it could be insignificant as part of
a much larger effect from other causes. Finally, a paper came out in 1995 that
apparently debunked the Friis-Christensen & Kassen explanation for the cause of
global warming. It is "The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession", by David J.
Thomson, Science 268(5207):59-68. A summary of the paper is in "Suns Role in Warming
is Discounted", by Richard A. Kerr, Science 268(5207):28-29.

There were no further search hits on Friis-Christensen from 1996 to the present in
Science. I assume the issue is settled until another paper comes out that resurrects

p.s. again, unbelievable to me that I was able to do this tonight.

"Stanley A. Gorodenski" wrote:

> Paul Cherubini wrote:
> > Yes I see the global temperature trend is well correlated
> > with variations in the sun's solar output
> >
> What an interesting graph. It is too small to read, but there is a reference to
> Science, 1991, 254: 698-700. Since I have not currently seen global warming
> seriously proposed as being caused by sunspots in the past few years in the
> publication Science, do you suppose researchers today are not aware of this 1991
> paper? More than likely, I suspect, this is a theory not seriously considered
> today, or maybe a graph taken out of context. Something just thrown in the
> argument without saying much about it to sway the uncritical reader. I will try
> to check out this paper tomorrow. If you don't hear from me in a timely manner it
> is only because I am preparing to leave for a three week trip starting this
> Saturday.
> Stan
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list