James R What do you mean? from what I see the blue line, Temperature, follows the red line, Sunspot Cycle, like a dance partner follows the lead.
James R , ? I think you need to cage your gryos, and get the right end up, pray tell which graph is upside down?
The left axis for the length of the sunspot cycle is an inverse one. In lay language, the numbers decrease going from down to up. In extremely lay language 11.0 is greater than 10.0
samcdkey, thank you, all it means is that someone coppied the graph wrong and then missed the proof read, but still the blue line, Temperature, follows the red line, Sunspot Cycle, like a dance partner follows the lead.
The mean average income in the U.S. is 46,000$, and ALGORVE spends almost that much on energy one house alone, he has 4, and he wants to buy indulgences to cover his carbon foot print, how about he just reduces his foot print off the backs of the common people, Le Grand Hypocrite, live as I say, you aren't good enough to live as I do. Carbon usage is carbon usage, by up the carbon offset, and move the garbage pile to another part of the room.
Just say, "Oops, my bad" and get it over with. They've got ya. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mr. G, Maunder Minimum, I know about that, read about it some were, I just didn't recognize it in the graph, and yes now it make sense, and I see that it isn't a proof read error.
'cause the graph doesn't include the Maunder minimum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! hehe
Mr. G, but don't it show the corrolation? I haven't looked it up and it was a long time ago, or do I have something mixed up?
Mr G. Are there any studies that do show a positive correlation between sunspot cycle length and temperature increase? I remember reading somewhere that the inverse relation no longer holds due to human intervention? Or perhaps the relation is changed in some way?
Yes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/[/QUOTE] Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image![/QUOTE] You're confusing me with Messrs. Baffled & Wrong. I have 500 level credits in Statistics. http://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/Positive_Correlation-769.htm
Just say'n the graph I posted (AD1860 - AD2000) doesn't cover the period of the Maunder Minimum (late AD1600's - early AD1700's). Just say'n. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
500-Level Statistics vocabulary doesn't necessarily translate directly to 200-Level Physical Science vocabulary. Now there's a negative correlation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can recognise evasion when I see it though. Has the relationship between sunspots and temperature changed in any way since, let us say, 1970?
And isn't playing hard to get an integral part of romance? To analogize. Your original question was about solar sunspot cycle length vs temperature. The period 1970 to the present is less than two 22-year sunspot cycles -- too brief a sampling interval to answer your original question.