Neo, you were obviously speed reading instead of reading. Obviously the number of sun-spots isn't going to go lower than none.
Now that you accept my calculations and linear regression analysis of the sun spot cycle, you can probably also see that indeed things will get cold over the next two or three decades and probably permanently.
I'm surprised you could have concluded that I thought the sun spot cycle was going to stop. Interesting. Perhaps your reading of Greenhouse Doomster literature is similarly faulty?
Curses, I thought I was going to make an easy $1 million. Anyway, now you can see that an ice age return is incipient precipitated by the pathetic sunspot cycles which are coming up. Of course, as with 1812 and 1915, in the midst of carnage, people won't be counting sun-spots. A glaciation might be the least of their worries. It might even be good in that it will slow the movement of tanks through snow drifts.
We do have data Neo. Get that slide rule out and do that maths: <I have no problem with the next cycle possibly being either lower or higher, or the same, in fact, I have no data to guide me in picking any of them. >
I have told you what the conclusion is. I have offered loot if you disagree which you have just said you do = you think it will be just your average sun spot cycle. It won't. You think, probabilistically, it will be average. I think, statistically, it will be lower and more like 72. I was hoping you'd back the average of the last 60 years, but you are backing away from that.
We could also bet on snow on the ground. "Snow in May won't go away!" Now, should that be Ottawa, Oslo or Omsk?
Mqurice |
