okie,
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/YEARLY
this gives you a rough plot of Maximums. To find the monthly max for the year go to that year. That allows you to count the actual months.
It is easier to see it in the smoothed sunspot count here.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/SMOOTHED You can see the high in 1989 is July and the high in 2000 is April.
This would plot the 2000 cycle on the chart that OE just posted at 10 years and about 9 months which would put it almost exactly on the smoothed curve for solar cycles. Perhaps a little below it. Meanwhile you can see the 2002 temperature curve from Jone and Moberg for yourself on the chart.
old europe wrote:
Interesting, huh? Do you see a deviation there between the solar cycle and the temperature curve for the last couple of decades, okie?
No, wait, let me guess: "No, no deviation! I want to see more data! No need to panic! Everything's alright!"
Correct, no deviation. When I say deviation, I am talking about the curves showing opposites, which they do not. The difference is a difference in magnitudes. You are trying to make the case that the data has no correlation whatsoever, that they show the opposite, which is not the case at all. No serious scientist would expect an exact overlay.
parados wrote:okie,
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/YEARLY
this gives you a rough plot of Maximums. To find the monthly max for the year go to that year. That allows you to count the actual months.
It is easier to see it in the smoothed sunspot count here.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/SMOOTHED You can see the high in 1989 is July and the high in 2000 is April.
This would plot the 2000 cycle on the chart that OE just posted at 10 years and about 9 months which would put it almost exactly on the smoothed curve for solar cycles. Perhaps a little below it. Meanwhile you can see the 2002 temperature curve from Jone and Moberg for yourself on the chart.
Okay. Where are the average earth temps since 2002?
okie wrote:Correct, no deviation. When I say deviation, I am talking about the curves showing opposites
And of course you can't be bothered by the fact that you had to change the definition of the word "deviation" to reach your conclusion.
Quote:deviation: Noun
* S: (n) deviation, divergence, departure, difference (a variation that deviates from the standard or norm) "the deviation from the mean"
* S: (n) deviation (the difference between an observed value and the expected value of a variable or function)
* S: (n) deviation (the error of a compass due to local magnetic disturbances)
* S: (n) deviation, deviance (deviate behavior)
* S: (n) diversion, deviation, digression, deflection, deflexion, divagation (a turning aside (of your course or attention or concern)) "a diversion from the main highway"; "a digression into irrelevant details"; "a deflection from his goal"
If the curves were showing opposites, you could call them maybe "reciprocally proportional" or something. Wouldn't make much sense here, of course.
However, "deviation" is quite clearly defined, and redefining it because reality doesn't align with your beliefs won't help you there....
okie wrote:You are trying to make the case that the data has no correlation whatsoever, that they show the opposite, which is not the case at all.
Oh, and by the way: I've never been arguing that there wasn't any correlation whatsoever. Nice strawman there. No, quite the opposite. There seems to be quite a correlation, especially if you go back a bit, before the industrial revolution.
So, if terrestrial temperatures before the industrial revolution show a somewhat stronger correlation with solar activity, and then, especially during the last decades of the 20th century, the curves diverge, what does that tell you, okie?
Just an anomaly, which can be observed for a couple of decades now, and which just by accident coincides with the period when mankind started blowing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
I haven't followed all the details of this question of the divergence of the curves, so please forgive me if I resurrect some point already addressed.
First, a question about units: Why should the length or period of the sunspot cycle correlate with temperature? I can understand a correlation with the current phase of the cycle (indeed it can be detected in tree ring data), but don't see any connection with its duration. Moreover I don't understand the particular significance of a continuous variable that purports to measure the length of the sunspot cycle - a phenomenon for which we have no predictive model, other than empirical. Is the axis on the graph mislabelled, or have I misunderstood?
Second, I believe the chart implies an accuracy in the average temperature (or deviation from a presumed mean) of the atmosphere that does not exist. Certainly the thermal energy storage capacity of the biosphere is enormous and small changes in energy distribution alone could cause excursions of the magnitude in question. The earth's atmosphere has never been in equilibrium on a geologic time scale, and even on shorter scales there have been significant variations. Indeed the period from 1700 to 1850 included the final stages of recovery from the mini ice age that occurred in the Northern Hemisphers (at least) from the 14th through the `18th centuries. The temperature anomaly data oddly don't show that.
Finally much depends on the "Jones and Moberg" data for recent temperature trends. The smooth curve depicted looks more like the product of a model or simulation than actual data. There are many difficulties surrounding the problem off accurately measuring the value of a single parameter representing the mean temperature of the atmosphere, either overall or at the earth's surface. Certainly they are significant relative to the 0.5 deg C maximum anomaly in question.
I'm not arguing that atmospheric warming is not occurring or that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a contributing factor. However, I do believe the forecast continuing rates of change which are the basis for the rather drastic scenarios being put forward and the even more drastic remedies being proposed are not yet supported by sufficient scientific finding or understanding.
George OBl wrote:
I'm not arguing that atmospheric warming is not occurring or that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is a not contributing factor. However I do believe the forecast continuing rates of change which are the basis for the rather drastic scenarios being put forward and the even more drastic remedies being proposed are not yet supported by sufficient scientific finding or understanding.
You do have a scientific background, I am sure. If you have read my posts, I have indicated three basic points based mainly on my readings in Lomborg.
l. There are great difficulties in the accurate measurement of temperatures in the past and in the temperatures predicted in the models during the future.
2. As you so wisely pointed out, George OB1, "the rather drastic scenarios being put forward and the even more drastic remedies being proposed are not yet supported by sufficient scientific finding and understanding. I have repeately cited evidence to show this but some of the posters either have not read this evidence or have chosen not to read it. I WILL HOWEVER, POST IT IN ITS ENTIRETY AGAIN. THIS THREAD IS NOT ONLY ABOUT SOLAR EFFECTS, IT HAS TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING, HOW MUCH OF IT IS THERE, AND WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT.
3. I will,in the future, do what the apparently ignorant Mr. Parados and Mr. Old Europe have not done. I will post, from several sources, the temperature readings offered for the past and the computer model for the future.
IT IS AMAZING THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO ERASE THE SUN'S EFFECT ( EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE SMALL) ARE SO ABYSMALLY IGNORANT OR MISINFORMED THAT THEY CANNOT GIVE THE ACTUAL GLOBAL WARMING TEMPERATURE STATISTICS.
I will repost all of my evidence!!!
Average anomoly in surface temps can be found here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
This chart shows monthly mean temps from normal.
We have had almost 5 straight years of .5 or more above mean with most of last year .7 or more above mean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George OBl wrote:
I'm not arguing that atmospheric warming is not occurring or that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is a not contributing factor. However I do believe the forecast continuing rates of change which are the basis for the rather drastic scenarios being put forward and the even more drastic remedies being proposed are not yet supported by sufficient scientific finding or understanding.
You do have a scientific background, I am sure. If you have read my posts, I have indicated three basic points based mainly on my readings in Lomborg.
l. There are great difficulties in the accurate measurement of temperatures in the past and in the temperatures predicted in the models during the future.
2. As you so wisely pointed out, George OB1, "the rather drastic scenarios being put forward and the even more drastic remedies being proposed are not yet supported by sufficient scientific finding and understanding. I have repeately cited evidence to show this but some of the posters either have not read this evidence or have chosen not to read it. I WILL HOWEVER, POST IT IN ITS ENTIRETY AGAIN. THIS THREAD IS NOT ONLY ABOUT SOLAR EFFECTS, IT HAS TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING, HOW MUCH OF IT IS THERE, AND WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT.
3. I will,in the future, do what the apparently ignorant Mr. Parados and Mr. Old Europe have not done. I will post, from several sources, the temperature readings offered for the past and the computer model for the future.
IT IS AMAZING THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO ERASE THE SUN'S EFFECT ( EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE SMALL) ARE SO ABYSMALLY IGNORANT OR MISINFORMED THAT THEY CANNOT GIVE THE ACTUAL GLOBAL WARMING TEMPERATURE STATISTICS.
I will repost all of my evidence!!!
I do not profess to know the exact link between duration of the cycle, amplitude of the cycles, and earth's temperatures, but common sense tells me they would not be unrelated. Do we understand the mechanism? Probably not.
Old Europe, your discussion of divergence reveals just a little bit of naivity concerning graphs. I will concede a portion of the divergence could be real, but I could simply make the divergence to appear less by changing the scale of the solar cycles and/or the scales of earths temperature. This factor should be obvious, but it goes back to the old adage, figures don't lie, but liars will figure. I am not implying there are lies involved here, but I am pointing out that the person drawing a graph can design the graph to show the curves widely diverging, or not so widely diverging, by using scales that best illustrate the factor they favor. You must instead look at the general peaks, valleys, and plateaus, and when you do, there is a correlation. If the curves were exactly opposite, then there would be a contradiction, but we instead see correlation. The scales chosen for sunspots and for earth temperature are arbitrary, because we have no way to directly equate the two in terms of scale.
I know this has been brought out from time to time, but just to remind folks here, there seems to be reports of percieved warming on Mars and perhaps other planets, which I believe strongly reinforces the need to study solar cycles more closely as they relate to climatic cycles.
okie wrote:Old Europe, your discussion of divergence reveals just a little bit of naivity concerning graphs. I will concede a portion of the divergence could be real, but I could simply make the divergence to appear less by changing the scale of the solar cycles and/or the scales of earths temperature.
Sure sure sure, okie. But now you're changing your argument. I have never asked whether or not you can see a
significant divergence in the curves. I have only asked you whether you can
see a divergence.
Your answer was no, there is no divergence.
Now you are arguing that they are not
widely diverging. So thanks for admitting, after some six pages, that you can, indeed, see a divergence.
One of the reasons the numbers correlate is because they are smoothed to try to eliminate anomalies. It is possible to smooth any number of points to show there is practically no movement. One can just increase the number of points used for the smoothing calculations.
If you want to argue the math when it doesn't show what you want then you need to examine all the math.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George OBl wrote:
I'm not arguing that atmospheric warming is not occurring or that accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is a not contributing factor. However I do believe the forecast continuing rates of change which are the basis for the rather drastic scenarios being put forward and the even more drastic remedies being proposed are not yet supported by sufficient scientific finding or understanding.
You do have a scientific background, I am sure. If you have read my posts, I have indicated three basic points based mainly on my readings in Lomborg.
l. There are great difficulties in the accurate measurement of temperatures in the past and in the temperatures predicted in the models during the future.
2. As you so wisely pointed out, George OB1, "the rather drastic scenarios being put forward and the even more drastic remedies being proposed are not yet supported by sufficient scientific finding and understanding. I have repeately cited evidence to show this but some of the posters either have not read this evidence or have chosen not to read it. I WILL HOWEVER, POST IT IN ITS ENTIRETY AGAIN. THIS THREAD IS NOT ONLY ABOUT SOLAR EFFECTS, IT HAS TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING, HOW MUCH OF IT IS THERE, AND WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT.
3. I will,in the future, do what the apparently ignorant Mr. Parados and Mr. Old Europe have not done. I will post, from several sources, the temperature readings offered for the past and the computer model for the future.
IT IS AMAZING THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO ERASE THE SUN'S EFFECT ( EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE SMALL) ARE SO ABYSMALLY IGNORANT OR MISINFORMED THAT THEY CANNOT GIVE THE ACTUAL GLOBAL WARMING TEMPERATURE STATISTICS.
I will repost all of my evidence!!!
BernardR wrote:I will repost all of my evidence!!!
And I will start reporting every "repost" as spamming - starting with this one!
You may define spamming as the repetition of useless dialogue. I will repost and ask that Mr. Old Europe and Mr. Parados respond to my post.
That, sir, is not spamming!!!
You never responded to this post which torpedoed your argument, Old Europe. Are you unable to respond? You prate about spamming. I am merely giving you a chance to respond.
So, again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Europe says that some of the warming might be from solar influences and some of the warming might be man made.
It has been shown by Professor Lomborg ( and replicated by me on this thread which people like you refuse to read because you can't respond to it) that indeed Solar Influence may be a small part of the warming while the larger part may be from man made influences.
Strike One for Old Europe.
Old Europe says that the other part of the global warming might be man made
But neither Old Europe or Mr.Parados gives us the part that might be made made in statistical form.
What is the warming caused by man made activities,Old Europe?
What caused the warming trend before 1945 Old Europe?
Why were the Vikings able to farm Greenland and Iceland in 700 and 800 AD when the temperature was at least 1 C higher ?
If Old Europe cannot answer this-STRIKE TWO.
When people object to studies reported on in detail and laid out on these threads, if they think that the studies are not definitive, they are obliged to show why not or present other studies.If they don't, as Old Europe has not done.
Strike Three-for Old Europe.
BernardR wrote:You may define spamming as the repetition of useless dialogue. I will repost and ask that Mr. Old Europe and Mr. Parados respond to my post.
That, sir, is not spamming!!!
Well, you might want to risk a look at the
Terms of Use:
Quote:Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt topics with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam." Spammers will be removed from the service, and their accounts terminated.
But then again, you already know that. Of course.
My messages are NOT meaningless messages, They are NOT repititive messages. They are an attempt to get posters like you who are either so rude or so uninformed to RESPOND TO THE CRITICAL ISSUES IN A THREAD.
I will ask you again. Respond to my challenge to you.It is not meaningless except to someone like you who either does not understand it or is so inept that he cannot answer it.
That is not spamming and I will defend it on those grounds. I will give you another opportunity to show you are not incredibly rude or inept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Europe says that some of the warming might be from solar influences and some of the warming might be man made.
It has been shown by Professor Lomborg ( and replicated by me on this thread which people like you refuse to read because you can't respond to it) that indeed Solar Influence may be a small part of the warming while the larger part may be from man made influences.
Strike One for Old Europe.
Old Europe says that the other part of the global warming might be man made
But neither Old Europe or Mr.Parados gives us the part that might be made made in statistical form.
What is the warming caused by man made activities,Old Europe?
What caused the warming trend before 1945 Old Europe?
Why were the Vikings able to farm Greenland and Iceland in 700 and 800 AD when the temperature was at least 1 C higher ?
If Old Europe cannot answer this-STRIKE TWO.
When people object to studies reported on in detail and laid out on these threads, if they think that the studies are not definitive, they are obliged to show why not or present other studies.If they don't, as Old Europe has not done.
Strike Three-for Old Europe.
That, sir, is not spamming. It is reposting the question for someone who has either missed it or cannot answer it.
Please be so good as to make a reply so that I do not have to remind you again that I posted MATERIAL CRITICAL to the discussion on this thread which you have ignored!
old europe wrote:
Sure sure sure, okie. But now you're changing your argument. I have never asked whether or not you can see a significant divergence in the curves. I have only asked you whether you can see a divergence.
Your answer was no, there is no divergence.
Now you are arguing that they are not widely diverging. So thanks for admitting, after some six pages, that you can, indeed, see a divergence.
If you wish to be very technical about the word, "divergence," I will grant the curves, "AS DEPICTED ACCORDING TO THE SCALES CHOSEN," do diverge. I merely wanted to cut you and Parados off at the pass and make it perfectly clear that we all understand the curves are not heading in the opposite directions, but instead one curve shows a higher amplitude than the other, as drawn. There is still correlation, which obviously is the bottom line in my mind. Since we cannot calculate the exact impact of the changes in intensity of sunspot levels with changes in earth's average temperature, then some apparent divergence of the graph as drawn, cannot be interpreted as having alot of meaning? The bottom line as I see it is if the data appears to show an effect, that is a pretty important finding, and one which we hear nothing about in the news concerning global warming. We do not know if it accounts for 1% or 99% of any perceived climate change, but at least it is an important factor that should come to the forefront of the global warming issue, and obviously it is not being presented that way by the politicians. Instead, all we hear is the greenhouse effect and CO2 levels.
