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: mistermj who wrote (21597)	5/14/2008 9:57:00 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

It is not my fault you are being stupid and still are being so. If you really think there is something significant around 1958, then that should show up at all similar points. It absolutely does not. There is no pattern of correlation between the solar cycles and the temps on the scale shown. For every point on a solar cycle which you think you can match to something you like, I can point to the reverse behavior on a different cycle. The longer you argue, the more it makes you look like a complete dunce. Anyway, unless you are willing to mark up that graph in any sort of an intelligent way to support your claims, I'll give it a rest. I really don't expect anything but steadfast refusal to enlighten yourself on any subject. If you could show me something useful, I would be delighted to see your POV. That is the difference between us. But don't show me nonsense, I have zero tolerance for crap. The abstract of the Nature article does not try to show any correlation on this scale. They show an 11,000 year cycle and then show that recently they think things have gone up significantly, but they don't show that correlating to temps at all. I did look at their data, which I suspect has a very interesting problem: They average data for 10 year periods which will exhibit a beat frequency with solar cycles, since those are not 10 years long.