Craig, I agree with your thinking. We are intrinsically connected to the sun thru sunspots, solar flares & CME's as well as the solar wind and typical radiation . I think Earth is just a nodal battery in what is primarily a dark matter/entropic Matrix...
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Craig <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/04/2013 04:59 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: > > > The bottom line is I just don't understand the thinking of the Global > Warming Deniers, the contrarians. Global Warming is so blatantly obvious > in the data, observations, theory and models that the only reason I can > think that anyone would argue against it's reality is someone being paid to > do so. Either that or your just a plain gullible person. > > > What's blatantly obvious in the data is a correlation. But it's not > possible to prove causation from a correlation. That's just a fact. It just > means that CO2 is not an independent variable. > > What I think is happening is that CO2 is contributing something to the > temperature rise, but it's also being pulled by the temperatures. We can > see this on an annual basis, as the CO2 level moves up and down in response > to seasonal temperature variations. > > http://www.climate4you.com/images/CO2%20MaunaLoa%20MonthlySince1958.gif > > But there's no way to know if CO2 is driving the correlation, or if it's > the temperature. So you have to guess and say, "Well, it's probably the CO2 > which is the primary cause of the change in temperature." It's just a guess > because you can't model the entire world, with all of its complexities and > feedback loops. Even if you know that CO2 WILL act as a greenhouse gas in a > sterile environment, you don't know how it's acting in the atmosphere. > > But check this out! > > > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4QESdNmbCJSMHExcF9OVFRQSGM/edit?usp=sharing > > Just the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81! > > So if the simple correlation between temperature and sunspots is 0.81 and > the simple correlation between temperature and CO2 is 0.96, then isn't it > 'possible' that solar activity is driving the temperature and the > temperature is driving the CO2 increases -- to SOME degree? > > Since there is no logical way that temperature changes could drive solar > activity, then solar activity is driving the temperature to some degree. > That's the only thing that makes sense. CO2 may be affecting it somewhat, > but it's not the only thing. > > Craig > > PS: I put the worksheet together. It averages temperature anomalies and > sunspots over each solar cycle. I am basically compiling a total number of > sunspots for each solar cycle, and then subtracting a base number. If the > number of sunspots is greater than the base number, then temperatures go > up. If the number of sunspots is less than the base number, then > temperatures go down. Then I'm scaling down the curve, and centering it, > but that's it. There's no forward referencing or any thing else. It also > correlates to temperature at 0.916 from 1954 'til present. > > > > > >
