Paul,
Not at all.
My post was all about people (usually the media) taking a carefully selected segment of contiguous data out of context and making a statement about just that piece of data without reference to the rest of the data.
ie use an isolated piece of data (fact) to draw a non factual but seemingly obvious conclusion in isolation.
For people who don't know or don't bother to look any further they are convinced by this - because after all its based on "Fact" - trouble is of course its not all the facts and its definitely not the whole story.
It then goes on and becomes a factoid.
I then deliberately extracted another potential factoid from another segment of the same data in order to draw an erronous and stupid conclusion to that data in order to highlight this very problem and I referred to that as "This is obviously cherry picking the data . . . "
Of course the real question is - Is it Game of Thrones weather ?
I guess in 200 years we will have a much better idea and in 20,000 years we might actually know !
The planet has regular Ice Ages and Global Warmings - the last Ice Age thaw was just over 10,000 years ago, so rapid global temperature change is nothing new - its more a Who Dunnit question.
Rally
Quote:
Originally Posted by rally
Paul,
The reason the sunspot numbers have been "dropping" over the last 50 years is because roughly 60 years ago we had the the highest recorded annual peak since 1700 !
So, yes I guess its all downhill since then !
The relevance of it returning to "normal" is what ? - That its "Normal" or that its "Dropping" ?
But if you compared the last 50 years with what occurred 100 years ago you could then say that we now have roughly double the sunspots from that time !
Obviously man induced Global Warming - Im joking of course
This is obviously cherry picking the data and drawing any conclusions like these is meaningless misinformation.
If you look at the long term annual sunspot data you can see the cycles and see that the last 50 years is pretty ordinary and represents little variation to what has happened before (in fact quite similar to a similar period around 200 years ago) - what we can see is there is quite a lot of variation over time that probably indicates there is more going on inside the sun and given there is only a record of not quite 30 cycles since 1700 - we simply dont have a lot of data to truly analyse the internal cyclic nature of all that is going on inside the Sun.
jpg attached of chart showing annual sunspots since 1700
Graph X axis at ) actually represents 1700.
Data from reliable source - http://sidc.oma.be/silso/datafiles
Picture tells a 1000 words here - everyone can draw their own conclusions.
Rally |