• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

jsfisher said:
Are there links you can provide to the two datasets you used?
Click to expand...
Sorry. I meant to include the links but it was the first time I've posted an image and I got distracted in learning how to do that.

I gave the sunspots source earlier but here it is again. The temp figures are from here.

If you have other figures I'd gladly do graphs of those. CSV or fixed-width text is best. I'd prefer monthly too, for comparative purposes; monthly is also better if we want to "zoom in" on shorter time periods.
 
BenBurch said:
And this invalidates my statement how? I see the main sunspot cycle and its well known long term variability.
Click to expand...
Eh? Why do you assume that I'm trying to invalidate anything? I'm supporting your post!!

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e1/Sunspot-bfly.gif/600px-Sunspot-bfly.gif[/qimg]

Shows up in the butterfly diagram best, in my opinion.

But there is no long term trend in the late 20th century there. Just the 11-14 year solar half cycle.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of butterfly diagrams.:) I think they are excellent for showing how the cycles develop but for comparing the numbers with other data such as temps I prefer a line graph.:D
 
BenBurch said:
Here is another image to peruse; No long term trend here, either. Just the usual noise in the system;

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png/500px-Solar-cycle-data.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
The trend is actually very slightly downward but I'll settle for no real significant trend. :)
 
TrueSceptic said:
Sorry. I meant to include the links but it was the first time I've posted an image and I got distracted in learning how to do that.

I gave the sunspots source earlier but here it is again. The temp figures are from here.

If you have other figures I'd gladly do graphs of those. CSV or fixed-width text is best. I'd prefer monthly too, for comparative purposes; monthly is also better if we want to "zoom in" on shorter time periods.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I posted the wrong link for temps, the annual set. It should be this. They are both linked from HadCRUT3
 
varwoche said:
If I recall correctly, you made this same comment before in a different thread. As before, without a cite your feedback isn't useful.

In fact, in general, when you don't include a (meritorious) cite along with your challenges, by default I assume the truth is the opposite of what you post. (It's been a reliable system so far.)
Click to expand...

A quick check with google "Lockwood climate" brings up even more issues and complaints about the study than I recalled from last time we wisely didn't bother discussing it. But look into it if you like. Let me know if you find anything. And note that was only one of the three that I said wasn't worth discussing.

So here, you have an answer, again without a cite....
 
TrueSceptic said:
Sorry. I meant to include the links but it was the first time I've posted an image and I got distracted in learning how to do that.

I gave the sunspots source earlier but here it is again. The temp figures are from here.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

If you have other figures I'd gladly do graphs of those.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Your charts looked interesting, and if I get the time, I wanted to play with the correlations.
 
mhaze said:
A quick check with google "Lockwood climate" brings up even more issues and complaints about the study than I recalled from last time we wisely didn't bother discussing it. But look into it if you like. Let me know if you find anything. And note that was only one of the three that I said wasn't worth discussing.

So here, you have an answer, again without a cite....
Click to expand...
Got it! Thanks!
:confused:
 
Ha! You are doing GREAT! Just keep looking!

THIS reminds me of AUP's "Read the IPCC. The ANSWER is in there somewhere in chapters 1-10".

No, seriously, you do see all the complaints, right?
 
mhaze said:
Ha! You are doing GREAT! Just keep looking!

THIS reminds me of AUP's "Read the IPCC. The ANSWER is in there somewhere in chapters 1-10".

No, seriously, you do see all the complaints, right?
Click to expand...
What does that mean? What complaints?
 
mhaze said:
Really, there should be nothing wrong with suggesting an article was not up to standards that would make it worth discussing. There are many to pick from, correct?
Click to expand...
I find it laughable that you have "standards".

Perhaps we could look at the article piece by piece and you could point out its failings?
 
BenBurch said:
I will point out a similar quandary over whether cigarette smoking caused cancer.

Lung cancer happens at times in individuals who never smoked. So, for many years the defense of the Tobacco Industry was that you could not look at ANY specific death as a result of lung cancer and say definitively that it was caused by smoking. And then they would draw the conclusion that therefore no harm had ever been proven because you could not point to a single provable case.

Reality has a noisy signal, and when we try to find a trend we must make a rational assessment of probabilities.

-Ben
Click to expand...

Wonderful, utter lack of logic.

Good show!

Tokie
 
TrueSceptic said:
Originally Posted by mhaze
Really, there should be nothing wrong with suggesting an article was not up to standards that would make it worth discussing. There are many to pick from, correct?

​
I find it laughable that you have "standards". Perhaps we could look at the article piece by piece and you could point out its failings?
Click to expand...

One really does wonder about this type of thinking. Something is okay to discuss, even though a quick check shows all the issues and faults, and the published rebuttals. So sad. And Lockwood/Frolich were the ones that were going to "drive the last nail into the coffin of the sun". Is there a paucity of quality peer reviewed literature asserting "solar has no current influence on climate"?


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom