Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I can discuss it all day long it you wish. But the starting point for that discussion needs to be you countering the claims in that piece with some actual words.

That's how a discussion works love.

Instead you find it more comfortable to post further insults and ignore the content, as per your #standard MO.

 

You're actually having a meltdown, you always do when you start posting ouch

The recent paper has not been walked away from, and it shows how irradiance has effected the last 100 years.

But that doesn't fit in with your denial

 

You are not discussing anything, you are talking about me, conspiracy, conspiracy loon, posting many facepalms and laughy faces and nonsense.

You have rarely discussed the topic, posting **** you dont understand is "they said it".

Discussion. A week telling people, a week, that one offer was a market price Traveling around boards trying to convince people and being told you are talking ****e everywhere.

I know I am on the right track when Astro gets into denial mode and you both start backing each other up.
#groupmeltdown

 

which paper, the recent one I just posted or the original chart?

We can count sunspots, and we can measure temp, they match. Without even getting into irradiance. numbers match temp anomalies. For global mean and arctic air temp.

It was redone, you are a ******. Proving it you are

#fail

 

Which one is that? The Chinese one you misunderstood the graph from which shows the correlation ended about 30 years ago?

Here's the raw data from that paper BTW. What happened since 1980 oops

please log in to view this image

 

What is hilarious is that you lot dont even know what is claimed, hilarious

To quote tobes "I dont even need to know the official story" to know what the official story is.

 

Solar irradiance / sunspots are on the downward curve of their cycle and yet the temperature trend is still on an upward curve, please explain

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

 

Never said I can't see a cycle so you can drop the pathetic conspiraloon tactic of putting words in my mouth.

So can you tell me where the cycle (that you claimed) is taking us.

 

I love how they are so busy collectively ****ing off over each other they missed me insulting them....

 

So still no comment on the findings that rubbish your theory that the sun is the cause of the continued warming trend then.

Just yet more nonsense and insults.

Ok love x

 

It wasn't missed it was merely ignored.

 

But your own godlike CRU say no

please log in to view this image

Also
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13646826

please log in to view this image

a) sunspots, b) temperature, c) CO2, d-i show the amplitudes of the strongest cycle lengths (period in years) shown in the data for sunspots, temperature, and CO2

please log in to view this image

Wavelet analysis in graph a shows the most prominent solar periods in red and graph b for temperature. The most stable period for both is at ~1024 years, shown by the horizontal region in red/yellow/light blue.

please log in to view this image

The authors find a lag of 30-40 years between changes in solar activity driving temperature, likely due to the huge thermal capacity and inertia of the oceans. Lead time shown in bottom graph of 40 years shows the temperature response following an increase or decrease of solar activity lags by about 40 years. Top graph shows "the anti-phase relation between [solar activity and temperature] keeps them stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past."

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun's role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year "pause" of global warming).

please log in to view this image

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the "sunspot integral." The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).

_________________________

RECENT PAPER, solar activity has controlled the temperature for the last 11.000 years.

Sorry Astro, try other sources besides Skeptical science.

 

Earth's climate is compellingly well correlated with the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets. From this we can see that slight cooling will continue until 2028, then some warming (about half a degree) for about 30 years until the long-term maximum is reached in 2058, after which there will be nearly 500 years of cooling with superimposed 60 year cycles.

This fits in with papers from Cern and the Royal academy of sciences. All deniers.
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

dont have a meltdown lads

 

Also Astro, stop posting stuff from the skeptical science site as your own words, it's annoying and pathetic

Show me the retractions.. after you search your debunk site for a debunk for this latest paper, wtf does skeptical science know about solar physics, it's like listening to communists for an appraisal of communism. Cook is a failed cartoonist, that is your source
Did you get that butchered chart with the sine from there and download it and upload it to hide that fact or did you butcher the hadcru chart yourself?

 

Oh right, so at 9.30 this morning you were stating that solar activity mirrored the temperature curve, and posted graphs to prove said point.

2 1/2 hours later (faced with the facts that clearly show that solar activity is now on the downward curve whilst temperature is still on an upward curve), you've now decided that there's a 40 year lag (convenient that like) between the solar activity and the temperature.

Amazing how quick 'science' changes isn't it?

 

I see so after posting your link and chart for solar irradiance as proof, you then tell me I cant possibly know.

Then you laugh.

The post you quoted, shows correlation, and sun driven temp for 11000 years. You are clueless
You accusing me of moving goalposts, it's like Stalin accusing of being a communist


what do you know about science, you already admitted your ignorance on the matter, why keep posting?
#meltdown

 

Oh and that 11.000 year cycle the paper above shows.
Backed by NASA's recent paper on the antarctic, the antarctic is in an ongoing 10.000+ year process atm and is growing.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/

Knowing wtf you are talking about helps.

 

Another swerve.

You're saying that solar irradiance and sunspots correlate with temperature, so am I. The graphs I posted clearly show that.

However, the correlation now isn't there, as solar activity is on the downward curve whilst temperature continues to rise.

You've tried to cover this massive hole in your claim, with a different theory that claims a 40 year lag between solar peaks and global temperature, which isn't shown on the graphs that you were using to 'prove' your point this morning, which also conveniently end before the disparity is clearly obvious.

Sort your story out.

 

You've swerved every post lad every single one.

If you are so sure, get a quote and then the quote it contradicts, isn't that how it works, read carefully and no out of context stuff now. Off you go.

 

And for the love of god stop posting laughy faces, you are not laughing, unless you are laughing at your own posts? I am certainly not funny.