3 ms·
25 years is also a really tiny meaningless sample in terms of climate. Are we forgetting that we have a solar cycle of 22 years? We can't tell shit from such sm
by sparkie 12y ago
25 years is also a really tiny meaningless sample in terms of climate. Are we forgetting that we have a solar cycle of 22 years? We can't tell shit from such small periods.
- anon1385 12y agoYes I agree. I do find the obsession with plotting linear regressions of temperature data fairly strange, since surely even the most ardent climate skeptic accepts the existence of solar cycles (and volcanism etc). Once you accept that there are external drivers of the climate system, I don't know why you would ignore what they have been doing. Anyway, I'm not the one trying to claim that there is suddenly no longer an energy imbalance in the climate system because of a decade of (incomplete) surface temperature data. I do think it's worth pointing out how cherry picked the 'pause' argument is though, even on its own terms.
- pyre 12y agoI thought that I remember the solar cycle being claimed as 11 years. Is this new?
- lutusp 12y agoThe OP might be trying to say that 25 years conflicts with two solar cycles. Because it is in fact an 11-year cycle.