This weeks Soapbox is....

[User482]

is solar activity the same as solar output?

Just a thought...

To all intents and purposes yes - solar output (irradiance) is dependent on the activity (sunspots and flares). The graph I posted shows this, and all three are decreasing at present.

 

[LLB]

For goodness sake, I just posted the graph that supports what I said.

As did I

The recent trend of a .05 percent per decade increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in watts per meter squared, or the amount of solar energy that falls upon a square meter outside the Earths atmosphere. The trend was measured between successive solar minima that occur approximately every 11 years. At the bottom, the timeline of the many different datasets that contributed to this finding, from 1978 to present.
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia...ributed+to+this+finding,+from+1978+to+present.

 

[User482]

As did I

Actually you haven't. The study you linked to shows that there has been an insignificant increase in cycle minima. I suppose that if this increase continued for several decades it might become significant.

This ignores the role of sunspot and flare activity, which are on the graph I posted. I repeat: solar output is currently decreasing. There has been no significant net overall change for several decades now.

 

[LLB]

Actually you haven't. The study you linked to shows that there has been an insignificant increase in cycle minima. I suppose that if this increase continued for several decades it might become significant.

This ignores the role of sunspot and flare activity, which are on the graph I posted. I repeat: solar output is currently decreasing. There has been no significant net overall change for several decades now.

They could say that about Global warming as a whole

 

[User482]

They could say that about Global warming as a whole

You don't think that the warming we are experiencing is significant? Wow.

 

[LLB]

You don't think that the warming we are experiencing is significant? Wow.

Hindsight is more accurate than guestimation

 

[Dave5N]

Were the first six pages as good as this?

 

[bonj2]

Basically yes, but even 'matters of fact', ideed most common scientific hypotheses are often 'working propositions' when it comes down to it.

The problem with this is you then get numbskulls who think that this means 'global warming isn't true' when it is almost as 'true' as the theory of gravitation and I wouldn't recommend jumping out of a 50th-storey window to check that one...

So, is the hypothesis that climate change is just as true as gravity - is that epistemology, ontology, aesthetics, ethics, or politics? Or a mix of them all?

 

[Dave5N]

So, is the hypothesis that climate change is just as true as gravity - is that epistemology, ontology, aesthetics, ethics, or politics? Or a mix of them all?

Gravity isn't 'true' but it is demonstrable. So is climate change. The facts accord with the theory.

It isn't a hypothesis.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

Gravity isn't 'true' but it is demonstrable. So is climate change. The facts accord with the theory.

It isn't a hypothesis.

Can you let us have a clear statement of the theory then?

 

[Dave5N]

Can you let us have a clear statement of the theory then?

F=G (M1M2)/r2

if my memory is still working properly.

 

[Cycling Naturalist]

F=G (M1M2)/r2

if my memory is still working properly.

Yes, that's the one for gravity. Can you state the theory of climate change with similar brevity?