Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (21579)	5/14/2008 1:08:14 PM
From: Triffin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

neo .. From that chart I'd say it's time to go long on Sunspots .. Stay long until 2012 or so then go short !! Triff ..

To: neolib who wrote (21579)	5/14/2008 2:41:10 PM
From: mistermj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

I see a clear trendline of much increased sunspot activity from about 1915 to 2000. How does that correspond to your temperature chart? Whoop...there it is! Global temps shoot up out of the hole around 1920 and top out around 2000. Be careful what you wish for neolib.

To: neolib who wrote (21579)	5/15/2008 3:58:45 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

re: "Now that clearly shows how the increased solar cycles results in warming. Oops, I guess not." 1. Are you sure you know what you are supposed to be looking for? It seems to me that you are mocking the theory by looking at the peak number of sunspots in a cycle and deciding that this doesn't relate to global temperature. I thought that the study that linked sunspot activity and temperature - compared the period of a sunspot cycle and global temperature. The difference is like the difference between AM and FM radio. From looking at your graph, I cannot tell if a particular sunspot cycle has a period of 10 years or 12 years...can you? Indeed, there does seem to be changes in the peak number of sunspots per cycle, I just don't know if the study looked at that - do you? 2. I'm not sure that sunspots are not an actual measurement of solar output, I thought they were a proxy. I believe that there were other studies that claimed that solar output in the late 90's - early 00's were the highest in decades (or thousands of years if compared to other proxies) 3. I believe that the authors re-examined the data (adding points in the late 90's) and found that there was a divergence to sunspot period and temperature in later time points (meaning when CO2 remained relatively constant, temperature followed sunspot cycle period) - of course, there is currently a divergence between CO2 and temperature (but that is being explained by another oscillating input).