|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 16, 2011 7:35:06 GMT
Oooooo you, you you denier you! Take that!
Oh alas! 40 lashes with a wet noodle!
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jun 16, 2011 7:51:28 GMT
You say my point lacks scientific support? What 'point' is that may I ask? Nobody knows. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 16, 2011 8:26:39 GMT
One could also ask for example why did it take until 1975 for warming to restart if the solar cycle hit its alltime record max in 1957.
One could ask that but a more relevant question might be why did it start cooling in the 1940s when solar activity continued to rise right up to the 1960s.
Or why did it take until 1880 for cooling to proceed the last time when the solar cycle started declining in 1850?
Because solar activity doesn't have much to do with global temperature, perhaps.
Interesting idea, though. It means that maunder minimum cooling should have continued until ~1740 and Dalton cooling should have started in ~1830.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 16, 2011 8:52:45 GMT
One could also ask for example why did it take until 1975 for warming to restart if the solar cycle hit its alltime record max in 1957.
One could ask that but a more relevant question might be why did it start cooling in the 1940s when solar activity continued to rise right up to the 1960s.
Ocean oscillation perhaps acting alone due to solar grand max being underway?
Or why did it take until 1880 for cooling to proceed the last time when the solar cycle started declining in 1850?
Because solar activity doesn't have much to do with global temperature, perhaps.
Interesting idea, though. It means that maunder minimum cooling should have continued until ~1740 and Dalton cooling should have started in ~1830.
Oh I think you probably used to be pretty close to the right idea. Short term temperature fluctuations prior to Hadcrut starting in 1850 were influenced by unique regional timings. Seems there is enough agreement on that so that nobody has gone beyond the evidence that it was colder and tried to document just how much it was colder.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 16, 2011 8:52:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 16, 2011 14:10:03 GMT
the original graph ends at 1980 and it only diverges after you amend it yet we are not supposed to assume the divergence is because of your changes? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2011 15:46:07 GMT
Um...with respect I don't think glc has the ability to hack the data stored at woodfortrees.
Also I think the pre-1980 similarities are entirely within the eye of the beholder - ie. both plots go up and down in an uncorrelated way in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 16, 2011 15:56:05 GMT
Um...with respect I don't think glc has the ability to hack the data stored at woodfortrees. Also I think the pre-1980 similarities are entirely within the eye of the beholder - ie. both plots go up and down in an uncorrelated way in my opinion. If you truly thought the Sun had nothing to do with weather and climate, would you spend hundreds of hours on a site that explores the link between them? I don't spend hundreds of hours on sites exploring the link between dirty bath water volume in New Zealand and the price of apricots in North America. I could, of course, but I don't. If I did, and someone told me my behavior suggested some fascination with the relationship between these things, I would have to admit that my actions seemed to lend credence to their claim. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 16, 2011 16:29:45 GMT
If you truly thought that I truly thought that the sun had nothing to do with climate and weather then I'm afraid you've been listening to astromet more than is good for you.
But I think if you were an orange salesmen and notices that the bath water-apricot link was being talked up to undermine the price of oranges then maybe you *would* be interested in the subject (or the debunking of it).
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 16, 2011 17:27:48 GMT
the original graph ends at 1980 and it only diverges after you amend it yet we are not supposed to assume the divergence is because of your changes? Really?
Are you for real? How have I managed to change a graph which has been generated by woodfortrees - and which uses the woodfortrees database.
The original graph ended in 1980 because Tallbloke didn't want to show the rest of it. Have you never wondered why, despite all the claimed sun/climate correlations floating about, there are very few graphs comparing recent sun/temperature data.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 16, 2011 17:38:33 GMT
Oh I think you probably used to be pretty close to the right idea. Short term temperature fluctuations prior to Hadcrut starting in 1850 were influenced by unique regional timings. Seems there is enough agreement on that so that nobody has gone beyond the evidence that it was colder and tried to document just how much it was colder.
This is supposed to mean something is it? Can you tell me if you think there really was a lag of 30 years after the Dalton minimum before cooling started.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 16, 2011 18:12:32 GMT
Oh I think you probably used to be pretty close to the right idea. Short term temperature fluctuations prior to Hadcrut starting in 1850 were influenced by unique regional timings. Seems there is enough agreement on that so that nobody has gone beyond the evidence that it was colder and tried to document just how much it was colder.This is supposed to mean something is it? Can you tell me if you think there really was a lag of 30 years after the Dalton minimum before cooling started. Cooling where? when will the co2 lag cease and "global" warming commence? |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 16, 2011 18:24:51 GMT
Oh I think you probably used to be pretty close to the right idea. Short term temperature fluctuations prior to Hadcrut starting in 1850 were influenced by unique regional timings. Seems there is enough agreement on that so that nobody has gone beyond the evidence that it was colder and tried to document just how much it was colder.This is supposed to mean something is it? Can you tell me if you think there really was a lag of 30 years after the Dalton minimum before cooling started. glc you frequently argue as though you expect the climate system to behave in a linear fashion. Do you know how long it takes for the ocean to overturn? Do you know the precise effect on atmospheric temperature of each overturning? Do you know the precise effect of vulcanism during the last, say, three millennia? Do you know the precise effect of cosmic ray flux over this same period of time? And if you did know all of these things down to a fine decimal point would it allow you to predict a repetition of any circumstances in our own time? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 16, 2011 19:35:44 GMT
But I think if you were an orange salesmen and notices that the bath water-apricot link was being talked up to undermine the price of oranges then maybe you *would* be interested in the subject (or the debunking of it). I guess it depends entirely on what you are selling. Sometimes amazingly we are in complete agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 16, 2011 23:39:28 GMT
glc you frequently argue as though you expect the climate system to behave in a linear fashion.
It might have been more appropriate to have given this response to Magellan's comment.
I don' t expect the climate to behave in a linear fashion. However we've been told that there is a clear and obvious relationship between solar activity and climate - until that relationship breaks down. It's then that the 5, 10, 20, 30.... year lags and the non-linearity issues are invoked.
The reportedly cold Dalton minimum period is supposed to be linked to the weak Dalton cycles which followed a period of high solar activity., i.e. NO lag.
Make your mind up!
|
|
