Remember me
▼ Content

80 year moving average data

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > 80 year moving average data > Page 3


Page 3 of 3<123
12-05-2020 16:37
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(305)
Z06norway wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Z06norway wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
seaninak wrote:
I'm a structural engineer. I make my living designing structures in the arctic. I have studied temperature data very closely because it factors into projections for ice formation, permafrost temperature and many other aspects of what I design.

.....

On a hunch, I did some looking at what solar cycles might be in that range. Interestingly, there is a solar cycle, the Glyssberg Cycle for solar irradiance/sunspot activity. Looking for some means of validating a hypothesis over such a long time frame, I searched for corresponding temperature and sunspot data that could be compared with each other to see if there is any relationship. I found the Central England Temperature Record (1659 to present) and a historical sunspot record over that same time period (give or take a few years). I plotted several moving averages of temperature vs sunspot count. Year to year, 11 year, 22 year...many others I got very little correlation. However, at 80 years the correlation is striking. I would invite any of you to duplicate what I've done and see it for yourself. The two records are very tightly correlated, and you can see the 80 year moving average of sunspot count is at the highest point ever recorded in the last 350 years. Is it just a coincidence that the temperature has risen and fallen with this moving average consistently during that time frame? See the attached chart and let me know what you think.


I don't know where you got the sunspot data from but it is completely wrong. The sunspot best data is from the Royal Belgian Observatory's Solar Influences Data Centre or from the NOAA Space Weather prediction center.

Your plot shows a peak in solar activity in about 2005, the actual peak was in 1957, since then there has been a steady decline in solar activity just as global temperatures started to rise rapidly.

PS almost no solar physicists take the Glyssberg Cycle seriously any more, myself included.
I looked up sunspot data and cant find the 1957 peak, it seems sunspot Wass up all the way to 2005 ? This is directly from SIDC web page.... explain please.... http://sidc.oma.be/press/01/welcome.html


You cannot see that the largest solar cycle on record is in 1957? Really? All of the figures in the article you quoted show it.

2005 is 3 years year after the peak of solar cycle 23 which itself was a medium intensity cycle (9th largest)

Look at the SIDC data: http://sidc.oma.be/silso/monthlyssnplot


sorry my bad, sun cycle 19 was highest, then a sharp drop in 20 and almost same level for 21, 22 and 23 and there is more to energi from sun than # of sunspots. The polarisation and intensity is not expressed in # sunspots ? So you can not use that factor alone to dismiss energy balance from the sun.... Energy from sun peaked around 2000 https://youtu.be/JyyuouPSNEA


Where does she say anything about energy from the Sun Peaking in 2000?
12-05-2020 17:59
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
Do you believe this happens with all photons whenever one becomes incident with a body?


No, not with all photons. It depends on the wavelenght of the photon and the composition of the receiving object. There must be two energy levels in the absorbing element with a gap between them that corresponds to the energy of the photon and the receiving atom or molecule must be able to transfer the energy to its surrounding by collisions.
However, if *one* photon of one particular wavelength can be absorbed and converted to thermal energy so can *all* photons of the same wavelength regardless of whether they originated from a hotter or from a colder object. The absorbing surface doesn't know whether the photon came from a hotter or a colder object, it cannot possibly differentiate them.
Therefore, thermal radiation emitted by a colder object can be absorbed by a warmer object and converted into thermal energy.
But since the hotter object will always emit *more* energy than it receives during any period of time (that's kind of the definition of being hotter than the environment), the absorption of the incident photons from a colder object do not result in an increase in the macroscopic temperature of the object.

IBdaMann wrote:
You insist on discussing electromagnetic energy while we are trying to discuss thermal energy, as though you don't understand that they are competely separate topics.

If they're so fundamentally separate topics then how can thermal energy be transferred through space without using photons?

IBdaMann wrote:
Maybe this will help you: suppose hypothetically that I were to respond "I don't know and I don't care. It is sufficient that I acknowledge that it does." Now are you able to free yourself from your distractions and focus on the thermal energy?

No. There is no distraction. Emission and absorption of photons is *exactly* how thermal energy transfer happens through space.
Thermal energy is kinetic energy (motion of particles) and electromagnetic energy is potential energy. Just as a swinging pendulum continuously converts potential energy into kinetic energy and back, two objects emitting and absorbing each others thermal radiation are continuously converting thermal energy into potential energy and back again.
Edited on 12-05-2020 18:02
12-05-2020 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21583)
JackFou wrote:
If you look at the solar irradiance vs global temperature trends, you'll see that somewhere around the 1970s any semblance of correlation breaks down. Link

So whatever is driving up temperatures since then, it cannot be an increase in solar activity.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no 'global temperature trend'.
Mantras 25g.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2020 21:18
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(305)		 Thermal energy, internal energy present in a system in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium by virtue of its temperature. (Britannica)

Thermal energy can do no work (TDE). Whereas kinetic energy can (0.5* m * v^2) so they are not equivalent

Electromagnetic energy (E=hc/lambda=hf) is not potential energy (mgh)

You are correct that a pendulum converts potential energy to kinetic energy as it swings. But the temperature (thermal energy) of the pendulum does not change.
12-05-2020 22:43
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
DRKTS wrote:
Thermal energy, internal energy present in a system in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium by virtue of its temperature. (Britannica)


Sometimes I feel like this forum got stuck a few hundred years ago when people thought heat was some kind of invisible liquid called "caloric", pouring in and out of objects.

All forms of energy can be converted into other forms at will. There is nothing special about thermal energy. Thermal energy can easily be converted into electromagnetic energy and back. Any object above 0 K is constantly losing thermal energy by emitting photons. This mechanism can easily extend into the visible range and beyond as you can see with a glowing hot piece of metal.
Absorption depends on the composition of the absorbing material but visible light can be transformed into thermal energy just as well as infrared light. A dark object will absorb most infrared and visible light photons and convert them into thermal energy. A white object might absorb infrared but will mostly emit absorbed visible light photons again without turning them into thermal energy. That's why dark objects get warmer in the sun than white objects.
The reason why people often colloquially use infrared light synonymous with heat/warmth is because at temperatures commonly found on earth, thermal radiation only extends into infrared. However, visible light is just as much "thermal radiation" as is infrared light.

DRKTS wrote:
Thermal energy can do no work (TDE). Whereas kinetic energy can (0.5* m * v^2) so they are not equivalent

Thermal energy *is* kinetic energy -- just on the scale of atoms instead of macroscopic objects.
"Thermal energy" is nothing other than the kinetic energy of particles bumping into each other. The more you heat an object, the faster its atoms move about.
The gas law states that pV=nRT. If you increase the temperature of a gas while keeping the pressure constant it expands. Expansion against external pressure is work. That's how heat engines work.
If you add enough thermal energy to water it becomes steam which can drive turbines. That's how we make electricity in coal-fired and nuclear power plants.
In an internal combustion engine, chemical energy (another form of potential energy) is converted into thermal energy causing gas to expand rapidly which drives the engine.

DRKTS wrote:
Electromagnetic energy (E=hc/lambda=hf) is not potential energy (mgh)

Just like gravitational potential energy, electromagnetic energy cannot perform work. You need to convert it into another from of energy (kinetic energy of particles) in order to do work.

DRKTS wrote:
You are correct that a pendulum converts potential energy to kinetic energy as it swings. But the temperature (thermal energy) of the pendulum does not change.

The pendulum was really just an analogy. A pendulum is a macroscopic object, atoms and photons are not. They don't behave the same way.
Either way, without friction, you'd be correct. But since every pendulum will always have some friction (both internal and with the surrounding air), the kinetic energy will be converted into thermal energy as the pendulum slowly winds down over time.
Edited on 12-05-2020 22:48
12-05-2020 23:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21583)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:So whatever is driving up temperatures since then, it cannot be an increase in solar activity.

What makes you believe anyone knows the average temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error?


The original author of the thread has done data analysis on their own measured data.

Math error. Failure to publish raw data. Failure to remove biasing influences on raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Attempt to predict using statistical analysis. Mantras 25c...25d...25e...25f...25g...4d...4f...20j...37c...37a...
JackFou wrote:
If you want to debate the validity of that data, you'll have to take it up with them.

The data isn't valid. It is just random numbers. NASA has no capability to measure the temperature of the Earth.
JackFou wrote:
Regarding the data used by NASA, you can take it up with the people at the goddard space centre if you don't believe their analysis.

NASA is a government agency. Mantra 37a...37c...25c...25g...4d...4f...
JackFou wrote:
...deleted Holy Links to NASA...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. NASA can't do it either. Neither can NOAA nor any other government agency.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2020 23:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21583)
Z06norway wrote:
JackFou wrote:
If you look at the solar irradiance vs global temperature trends, you'll see that somewhere around the 1970s any semblance of correlation breaks down. Link

So whatever is driving up temperatures since then, it cannot be an increase in solar activity.


IF your data was correct, ? where is it from
Here is a link to a studie in Europe , shows clearly very good correlation with temp rise and fall, and rise again .
AND remember. its not only the SUNs absolute power or change in Energi output that control climate.... Clouds or how much clouds is a HUGE factor..... Can show you cloud coverage change 1983-2003, but after that mysteriously I cant find any.. https://iac.ethz.ch/group/climate-and-water-cycle/research/radiation-and-the-hydrological-cycle/global-dimming-and-brightening.html


It is not possible to determine what the temperature would have been if the cloud had not been there. It is not possible to determine the temperature would have been at a clear location if a cloud were to be there.

Mantra 25g...20l...20o...

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-05-2020 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21583)
JackFou wrote:
Z06norway wrote:
IF your data was correct, ? where is it from


It's not "my" data and the sources are named on the figure. For the temperature record, see gistemp.


NASA has no global temperature record. Random numbers are not data.

Mantra 4d...4f...25g...37a...37c...circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-05-2020 01:32
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
Z06norway wrote:
IF your data was correct, ? where is it from


It's not "my" data and the sources are named on the figure. For the temperature record, see gistemp.


NASA has no global temperature record. Random numbers are not data.

Mantra 4d...4f...25g...37a...37c...circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).



I'll translate, ok?
ITN has no understanding of what "is" is. He looks at his hands and asks no one there, what are these things? Are they real or just my imagination?
Random mantras are not mantras. I wish I could have an actual thought but like clouds in the sky, you can try to grab one and hold on to it but will find out that it's out of reach.
How to make sense of something that 'is" that cannot be grasped?
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate 80 year moving average data:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Happy New Year1203-01-2024 02:16
86 year old Jane Fonda will only date men in their 20's. Whew I'm safe204-12-2023 03:58
The retards at FOX news claim 74 year old rapist teacher faces 600 years behind bars004-08-2023 23:48
17 year old cyclist murdered, do not expect the law to investigate, as the cyclist is always at fault031-07-2023 22:23
LOL, the FBI is still looking for Jimmy Hoffa, as 100,000 Americans die of Fentanyl every year031-07-2023 19:16
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact