Improved Modeling of Sunspot Activity

[bob at stratton.net]

----- "Alex Fraser" <beatnic at comcast.net> wrote:

> I've heard this slam on global warming before, it is not scientific at
> all. Sure there could be natural long term temperature variations,
> this has to be true as we have had ice ages. Also volcanic eruptions
> and cow farts could have an effect. So you have this oscillation of
> temperature with highs and lows. Suppose the vast majority of
> scientists are right and there is a green house effect. Wouldn't that
> mean you would have higher highs and higher lows as the temperature
> got shifted upwards? What I'm saying is that proving oscillation in
> temperature does not disprove the green house effect. In fact it could
> make things worse in that if we are in a natural long term trough the
> resulting higher than expected peak could give us a big surprise.
> 
> I too am worried over any plan that depends on greed to succeed. I
> think the question people should be asking is not cost, but rather if
> you don't plan to live on this planet, then where are you going to
> live? Perhaps you have a secret plan to leave?


At the risk of endorsing filthy lucre, I feel compelled to point out the salutary (and arguably global) effect that the Orteig Prize had on aviation technology. 

As someone currently doing sponsored research, I may be speaking against my own interests, but I thought the incentives in Forbes' proposal (which was again offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute today to no avail), presented some compelling challenges and tried to create incentives for them in a way that wouldn't shut out non-institutional innovators. 

It's worth looking at if you haven't seen it. 

--Bob S.