Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

On 18 Jul, 00:31, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert S <roberts2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On 17 Jul, 03:01, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Robert S <roberts2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Astronomic data that far back was high quality by 16th century
> standards, but I doubt if they would qualify by modern standards.
> Hobbiest amateur astronomers these days can run circles around even
> 19th century astronomers.
>
> >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 data, and the predictions, weren't that advanced, except by the
> standards of a very ignorant era.

Amazing. Of course. But it's good enough to show massive correlation
between different data obtained by different astronomers. It's good
enough to show a long trend lasting a long time.

The astronomy of a 1,000 years hence will probably trump what we do
now in terms of accuracy. Does that render our data useless?

Do you think our data would be of no use to future astronomers who
were studying long trends and tem****al events?

> >> 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?
>
> The data is too spotty to tell.  I've seen attempts to superimpose
> cycles on the earlier data, but they aren't very convincing.

Nasa thinks differently:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html

> >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?
>
> Nothing.  Because the variations in solar output associated with
> sunspot cycles are too small to make any difference.  If they did,
> then we would see some sign of a sunspot cycle in charts like this:
>
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec...
>
> We don't.

Your obsession that 11 year cycles don't cause climate change is
bewildering. They don't. No-one is saying they do. They get blurred
out.

Peaks that vary over time with long trends are different. And cause
changes in climate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-bfly.gif

And...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles