Neil: if you look at it that way then it could be called a 22 year cycle, but the common way to refer to it is by the sunspot cycle which is 11 years.
Quote:
|
Then why has everything you've posted been an argument that CO2 does not cause warming? After all, even if the sun was responsible for some significant fraction of observed warming, there's nothing (well, maybe orbital mirrors...) that we can do about it.
|
I never said it wasn't a factor, I disagree that it is the only thing causing warming.
Quote:
Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the other factors, such as solar output, will keep increasing without limit. As best we can tell from the available data, the Sun has remained pretty constant over millions of years, and there are physical reasons to expect that it will undergo no significant change on human timescales. So absent any physical reason to think otherwise, we should expect solar output to keep on following its pattern of very small periodic & random variations around its long-term average.
|
IPCC, NASA, NOAA all agree that the sun has increased in output and is responsible for at least some warming, since you don't trust my word, why don't you trust theirs, they are climate scientists after all.
Quote:
|
Use, sure, but not misuse. You need to stay aware of the fact that the scale of the graph is misleading, so that what appears to be large swings are really tiny variations. I dare say that if you graphed it on a 0-1400 scale, it would just appear as a straight line.
|
How have I misused it? If you look at the calculations I did I used the proper values.