Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

On 17 Jul, 03:01, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert S <roberts2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/
> >Sunspot_Numbers.png
>
> >> >...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:
>
> >> why do you believe numbers so far back...and why do you care
>
> >There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
> >Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
> >wasn't the case.
>
> Tycho Brahe and Kepler weren't focused on sunspot activity (and I'm
> not sure they even observed sunspots - Brahe died 10 years before
> Galileo was systematically observing sunspots), and had no way to
> measure irradiance.

I didn't say they were. I offered Brahe as a counter-example to the
idea that astronomic data from hundreds of years ago can't be trusted.

I offered that as an example, because it was highly accurate, and it
was used to generate a mathematical model of the movement of the
planets, i.e. it had predictive power.

> The sunspot cycle was not discovered until the
1840s:http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whschwab.html
> and it was another decade before older observations were observed to
> match the cycle, but even then systematic data was lacking before
> 1700, which was 70 years after Kepler died.

Yes, but we also have a high degree of tem****al correlation of
results. 11 year cycles blend into the background on a time scale of
hundreds of years, no?

And longer time-scale trends emerge.

And we have modern correlation of sunspot numbers and solar output.
And we have a mini-ice back then. What does all that say to you?