Where did I say anything about lowest sunspot activity? I said constant sunspot activity.
You really should read posts more carefully.
So 20 years of constant sunspot activity and continued temperature rise. Please explain.
I rarely use emojis. I’ll take your advice going forward.
A scientific theory is as high as one can go in science. Nothing is proven in science. You know that.
And as you know, there are theories and then there are theories. This particular theory is barely out of the blocks. Most of its support is circumstantial and coincidental. While there is plenty of evidence consistent with the theory’s premise that man may be influencing climate change, skepticism is still the intelligent response to the conclusion of some that man is the primary cause of the change.
Ok, let’s go with that then. Sunspot activity is not a measure of brightness.
When has the number of sunspots remained constant for any significant period of time exactly?
Everything I’ve seen shows to be highly variable most years and definitely so over five and ten year periods or longer.
Well, that’s certainly not true either.
There is always a degree of uncertainty largely due to experimental methods, accuracy of instruments and readings etc but we know to a greater than 99% certainty that for example under the same conditions acceleration due to gravity will be the same in virtually every instance.
We therefore have a better than 99% certainty how any given object will act under those same conditions therefore the theory is true.
The closest that can be determined with any certainty is that man’s contribution of CO2 to the enviroment might be having some small impact on global temps but no one can show experimentally to any degree of certainty how much.
Hmm, I just quoted from the article I linked. I googled this and found graphs going back 20 years which looked fairly cyclical. Here is the link:
This doesn’t help your case. Activity increases dramatically from 1998 yet we know there was a global “pause” in rising temps.
Then around 2003 the sunspots decrease dramatically yet we don’t see the temp cooling.
Then from 2010 to today we see another cycle. Yet our temperature has just risen over that period.
From a layman’s point of view, I don’t see any correlation.
The definition of the term “theory” in science is not true? I think you meant AGW is not a scientific theory. I agree. I was joking with Samm.
That’s a ridiculous statement. Without knowing the mechanism, how can you know the regulatory?
So basically the evidence of climate change skeptics rely on is some mysterious periodic warming and cooling of the planet from which the evidence of cause is beyond our ability to determine.
Even more so it is not so important to even know the mechanisms. Ignorance is permissible after going only so far to say it is scheduled.
Climate change skeptics rarely if ever present any evidence. All they have is skepticism.
And they rail about the system being far too complex to model, as they rely on models of past data.
Why do scientists even bother with all the research of past climate? Just to make a wavy time series chart and say that’s that? That is essentially what is being said.
I presume you mean regularity …
By recording the data and plotting it. You don’t need to know the mechanics behind a pattern to know that the pattern exists. There are many such phenomena in nature that have a regular cycle, yet scientists know very little about why they occur.
The onas is on you to submit evidence for your theory as to why the climate is changing. So far, all you have is more theories.
No it isn’t. The past record essentially determines “normal” over a geologic era. And that record clearly shows a regular pattern of prolonged cold periods interrupted by relatively short warm periods, the last of which we are currently enjoying.
Past regulatory does not guarantee future regulatory. In fact, the period of cooling cycles has changed dramatically in the last million years.
What a ridiculous statement.
