An Inconvenient Hypocrite

James R

Your graph shows that temperatures decrease when the sunspot cycle is longer.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? from what I see the blue line, Temperature, follows the red line, Sunspot Cycle, like a dance partner follows the lead.
 
The left axis for the length of the sunspot cycle is an inverse one.

In lay language, the numbers decrease going from down to up.

In extremely lay language 11.0 is greater than 10.0
 
samcdkey, thank you, all it means is that someone coppied the graph wrong and then missed the proof read, but still the blue line, Temperature, follows the red line, Sunspot Cycle, like a dance partner follows the lead.
 
The mean average income in the U.S. is 46,000$, and ALGORVE spends almost that much on energy one house alone, he has 4, and he wants to buy indulgences to cover his carbon foot print, how about he just reduces his foot print off the backs of the common people, Le Grand Hypocrite, live as I say, you aren't good enough to live as I do. Carbon usage is carbon usage, by up the carbon offset, and move the garbage pile to another part of the room.
 
Last edited:
Buffalo Roam said:
samcdkey, thank you, all it means is that someone coppied the graph wrong and then missed the proof read, but still the blue line, Temperature, follows the red line, Sunspot Cycle, like a dance partner follows the lead.
Click to expand...
Just say, "Oops, my bad" and get it over with. They've got ya. ;)
 
Mr. G, Maunder Minimum, I know about that, read about it some were, I just didn't recognize it in the graph, and yes now it make sense, and I see that it isn't a proof read error.
 
Mr. G, but don't it show the corrolation? I haven't looked it up and it was a long time ago, or do I have something mixed up?
 
Mr G.

Are there any studies that do show a positive correlation between sunspot cycle length and temperature increase?

I remember reading somewhere that the inverse relation no longer holds due to human intervention? Or perhaps the relation is changed in some way?
 
samcdkey said:
Mr G.

Are there any studies that do show a positive correlation between sunspot cycle length and temperature increase?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Global+Warming+2.jpg

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/[/QUOTE]

;)
 
Buffalo Roam said:
Mr. G, but don't it show the corrolation? I haven't looked it up and it was a long time ago, or do I have something mixed up?
Click to expand...
Just say'n the graph I posted (AD1860 - AD2000) doesn't cover the period of the Maunder Minimum (late AD1600's - early AD1700's). Just say'n. :)
 
Mr. G said:
500-Level Statistics vocabulary doesn't necessarily translate directly to 200-Level Physical Science vocabulary.

Now there's a negative correlation. ;)
Click to expand...

I can recognise evasion when I see it though.

Has the relationship between sunspots and temperature changed in any way since, let us say, 1970?
 
samcdkey said:
I can recognise evasion when I see it though.
Click to expand...
And isn't playing hard to get an integral part of romance? To analogize.
Has the relationship between sunspots and temperature changed in any way since, let us say, 1970?
Click to expand...
Your original question was about solar sunspot cycle length vs temperature. The period 1970 to the present is less than two 22-year sunspot cycles -- too brief a sampling interval to answer your original question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top