Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Like I said, there are various lag effects which means any change in solar insolation at the Earth's surface won't necessarily mean an immediate shift in climate, but it is the principle driving force behind the changes which may or may not occur rapidly or slowly.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
The correlation between obliquity, eccentricity and precessional drift of the semi-major axis of the Earth's orbit and long term climate is reasonably well documented.
|
My general response was more to do answering "interstellar" question and the given NOAA's article. There is of course much debate on weather is based on climate change, but there does seem to me a particularly large void in explaining natural variations against possible manmade ones. Whilst I agree with your quoted statement above, it is quite surprising that many novices actually have not learnt about this at all.
The sunspot debate on climate is a trick one to openly discuss, as it can set the typical trap for the layperson that the science for this is absolute known. Previous influencing Australian forecasters, say like, Indigo Jones and Lennox Walker (and now Hayden Walker) profess being able to predict long-range weather patterns using sunspots. Many among the general population accept this correlation as a scientific fact rather than towards its more speculative nature. (It does appear that much of there presumed knowledge or experience is more based on "pseudo-statistical means" from the physical cyclic observation of the sun, sunspots or planets, say, like Jupiter, which also has an 11-odd year cycle.)
Historically, these forecaster's views have held much sway on climate debate in Australia. (Others like Ken Ring and his generally debunked moon theory on weather seem to have more influence these days.)
I was unaware of your background or knowledge here, so sorry if I sounded too condescending! My sole aim was offer general astronomical explanations as other contributing factors.