|
Post by icefisher on Nov 2, 2009 7:03:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by glc on Nov 2, 2009 10:13:58 GMT
Icefisher www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.htmlFirst question: Why do both plots end in ~1980. Comments: 1. The most recent solar cycle (SC23) lasted ~12 years. According to the L & F-C plot we should have a temperature anomaly of around -0.5 (or ~1 deg below current temperatures). 2. I believe the SSN in the bottom plot could be out of date. Certainly there was very little change in the TSI output throughout the period shown.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 13:31:43 GMT
The correlation falls apart if the plots are continued past 1980
If this is the best evidence that can be found you can see why I don't accept the solar-global temperature link is as significant as people on this thread claim.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2009 13:51:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 2, 2009 15:04:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2009 16:44:48 GMT
A quote from the URL: "As the IPCC has admitted, no one has yet figured out how to perform such a test. And until such a test is devised, the warming estimates produced by the IPCC’s twenty-something climate models are little more than educated guesses. It verges on scientific malpractice that politicians and the media continue to portray the models as accurate in this regard, without any objections from the scientists who should know better."I find myself in agreement with the last statement - I would even put it stronger.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2009 17:50:40 GMT
Spot the science error
Guest post by Dr. Leif Svalgaard wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/spot-the-science-error/UPDATE:
Thanks to all the readers who so generously [some gleefully] have pointed out my misinterpretation of the figure. This, of course, makes my initial assessment of the quality control moot and void, with an apology to those involved. Perhaps this shows how important a graph can be [cf. the impact of the Hockey Stick] and how important is clear labeling of what is shown. The reason I take much of what LS says with a grain of salt is he has boxed himself in a corner and largely relies on ad hominem in describing other scientists disagreeing his opinons. In this instance he made a such an obvious erroneous assumption in a public forum and was forced to correct it. The truth is there is evidence of a solar influence on weather/climate even if it's not well understood. Despite those who would like to, it cannot be ignored forever and now as more research and discovery continues, the solar deniers, yes, even LS, won't have much wiggle room.
|
|