'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

That 11 year running mean is not updated to today's date either I don't believe. Why just 1980?

Another thing that should be kept in mind is that cosmic energy is higher during the minimums since it does not force it away as much.

 

That would be you, apparently. When the Sun is less active, that should lead to more GCR's (according to Svensmark), leading to more clouds and more cooling. The Svensmark hypothesis is a positive feedback on solar variability. Since the Sun is cooling, if Svensmark is right, clouds should be increasing, resulting in further cooling.

Beyond that, study after study has shown the Svensmark hypothesis to be false: Kazil 2006, Sloan & Wolfendale 2008, Kristjansson 2008, Calogovic 2010, Kumala 2010 to name a few.

In other words, you've got nothing.

In the first place, the pronounced minimum ended three years ago. In the second place, I used 11-year running averages to eliminate the Wolf cycle. So you've got nothing again.

Not true. Heat content of the planet continues to rise.

So you're saying actual data does not represent reality? And then you accuse us of "playing games"? Pathetic.

Climate scientists use 30 years minimum; anything shorter is weather. And if you choose anything shorter, I'm going to call you on it every time.

 

That's January 1980 through December 2011. I chose 1980 because that's about 30 years worth of data, the climatological standard. Also, the satellite record only goes back to 1979. You can go back farther than that using the SATIRE model of Krivova et. al. 2007 (data here), which has been verified to very tight tolerances. I did that to generate the first few terms of the 132-month running mean.

 

I just am not understanding you.
Is this the graph?

Long term does not matter. Most climatologists already acknowledge that the climate tracks TSI until the mid 1970s. No one is arguing against the "long term" correlation. t is the correlation since the mid 1970s that does not match up.

 

Then you need to take it for solar cycles, not some arbitrary end point.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5334/1963.abstract

 

It matches just fine when you analyze it correctly. Still cant grasp that linear correlation doesn't mean (*)(*)(*)(*) in lagged systems can you?

 

I dont care why you say you chose it its a bad choice. You are taking the average over two and a half cycles. You would get the same result with any random sinusoid.

 

Hilarious. To prove that you shouldn't use arbitrary end points, Hoosier quotes a source using arbitrary end points: the minima of cycles 21 and 22.

 

You still don't understand. You take full cycles not an end point in the middle of one. This is standard, nothing new.

 

Wrong. A solar cycle is 11 years. That's exactly why I chose an 11-year moving average: to eliminate the cycle.

 

Using an 11-year moving average eliminates the cycle. After eliminating the cycle, solar activity has declined since 1980. Period.

You've lost. Get over it.

 

LOL, since no one agrees with you, including the experts, you win right?


NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

 

Back in 2003, Willson's study was controversial because it seemed to show an opposite trend than other researchers. The question was, which was right?

And the answer, we now know, is that Willson was wrong. It's a long story about how and why he was wrong (he used less-than-best data to cover a gap in satellite coverage), but nobody accepts that any more.

See Krivova 2009 for details.

Of course, since you're a denier, I fully expect that now that you know the truth you will continue to cite decade-old discredited science because it conforms to your pre-existing belief system.

 

Thread is way over 50 pages, time to put a lock on it!