In article <1142040400.270675.69270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> The sun's variability could be another viable explanation for the
> reoccuring ice ages.
Only if you discard stellar physics. And probably atmospheric
physics too, though I am no expert on that. How much decrease in
solar irradiance do you think would be needed to produce an ice age?
SW> What is the mechanism causing this supposed solar variability?
> I have my own explanation for that but the mechanism is probably the
> same as other variable stars.
Which of the various mechanisms (plural) did you have in mind? If
your "own mechanism" is the one involving hydrogen explosions... your
narrative of solar formation is amusing but inconsistent with both
known physics and observations of star formation regions.
SW> Why haven't solar radiometers measured any secular change in solar
> The periods are extemely long, for example: Geologists estimate the
> period between the height of the Nebraskan glacial age and the Kansan
> glacial age was 300 thousand years with a warm interglacial period of
> 200 thousand years in between.
If you think the Sun varies on those time scales, you are going to
have to show why solar models are entirely wrong. Do bear in mind
that the models agree with quite a large number of observations.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)