Anthropogenic global warming isn't a belief system, its facts and data. You may not agree with the facts or the data and if you don't its up to the observer to challenge those facts and data with either a competing hypothesis or evidence that the conclusions drawn are either not valid or having lesser validity to a competing hypothesis.
In the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (2007) the producers propose the hypothesis that global warming is connected to solar output using the enclosed graph. The graph suggestively supports the assertion that the activity of our sun is responsible for the heating of the earth.
Two things to note about the graph ...
First the temperature scale is bounded with both negative and positive values above or below a datum point. The datum point is commonly agreed as a specific mean temperature within a base period. The generally agreed base period is the interval of 1951 through 1980. So that sets our zero point for the temperature side of the graph.
Secondly, and much more problematic is the portion of the graph illustrating solar forcing. It has no units so you have to guess; it looks like total solar irradiance but the numbers are way out of range and further the numbers decline monotonically as you ascent the axis. They could be using the duration of solar cycles but these are two entirely different measures.
In the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (2007) the producers propose the hypothesis that global warming is connected to solar output using the enclosed graph. The graph suggestively supports the assertion that the activity of our sun is responsible for the heating of the earth.
Two things to note about the graph ...
First the temperature scale is bounded with both negative and positive values above or below a datum point. The datum point is commonly agreed as a specific mean temperature within a base period. The generally agreed base period is the interval of 1951 through 1980. So that sets our zero point for the temperature side of the graph.
Secondly, and much more problematic is the portion of the graph illustrating solar forcing. It has no units so you have to guess; it looks like total solar irradiance but the numbers are way out of range and further the numbers decline monotonically as you ascent the axis. They could be using the duration of solar cycles but these are two entirely different measures.
My question for the Witchfinder General is with the volumes of data available why do they stop the solar data in the late 1970's and the temperature data in the early 1980's ?
No comments:
Post a Comment