Future Timeline

[BethesdaWX]

The difference between you and Rusty is that even after you have been proven wrong dozens of times you keep repeating the same things.

These 'other' solar phenomenon don't correlate to temperature... Geo mag aa happened to show a positive trend over the last 100 years.... which gave the appearance of a general correlation. By the same standard, ANY phenomenon which shows a positive correlation would "correlate excellently to temperature" (your words). This is NOT a statistically powerful test, especially considering there is no plausible causative mechanism. And the correlation has fallen apart... geo mag aa has fallen off a cliff since 1990.. while we have continued to warm rapidly. It's quite apparent that you read somewhere that these other solar factors are responsible for the warming, and even though this has been proven wrong multiple times, you just aren't willing to let it go.

You also keep claiming that CO2 has not induced warming in the past and therefore isn't causing our current warming. Not only is this a fallacious argument but it is factually incorrect, as has been explained at least a half a dozen times. There ARE examples of past warming events triggered by CO2. And although the interglacials were not initiated by CO2, the magnitude of warming and cooling between glacial periods is ONLY explainable if we include CO2 as a forcing.

Finally, that geocraft link you keep posting (#3 above) actually agrees that doubling of CO2 alone causes 1.2C of warming. If you're going to keep claiming the CO2 effect is small, you should probably find a different source that actually agrees with you. Or preferentially, correct your false opinions.

haha I think I hit a soft spot. Look who's talkin here!

If you read, you wouldn't make the same mistake over and over again, though it is entertaining.

Everything you just said is Dead Wrong or a flaming heap of hypothesis, because you Cannot handle Reading anything that Goes against your way of thinking. So you anxiously skip over it, and post a rebuttal before reading it, and end up looking silly in the process! How you do not recognize this, I do not know, but its HILARIOUS

1) Do you know what the Lag Time for Geo-AA index is? It is 4-8 years, not the 1-2 of TSI Because you never read/learn. Geo -AA index peaked in 2003-04. Start here.....

Academic Journals: http://www.academicj...10/July/Aly.pdf (Note: This assumes no Weight to the PDO/AMO/IOD, and uses GISS data).

International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol. 5(7), pp. 1040-1049, July 2010

Available online at

http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS

ISSN 1992 - 1950 ©2010 Academic Journals

(this assuming no weight to PDO/AMO, and Using GISS data, Pro AGW). How about the 2 part relationship between 10/BE Conc? How about the Flux Standalone Value in correlation to a weakening Magnetic field? Read more, post less.

2) Do you know the difference between the Goe-AA index and the Standalone Valuea? If not, read below, and you can learn

This explains how the Geo-AA index works, and how the Magnetic Field decrease plays in below this: http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

Remember to seperate Magnetic Flux, Geomagnetic Constant, and Geo-AA index. Don't confuse TSI and its inclusion of Gamma rays, Microwaves, VA rays, UVB rays, Radio Waves, IR, etc, and the aspects that acutally correlate to GT.

Earth's Magnetic FIeld Decrease: http://www.megakastr..._modulation.htm

You fail miserably to try and understand correlations, when the aspects that have the largest impact are those that can feedback, intercorrelate, and Manipulate the Climate System. How do we know this? We've seen it happen constantly throughout the Holocene! We've seen spikes of up to 3C, and numerous Jumps of 1-2C...caused by solar. Our warming started after the LIA.

3) Show me ONE example where CO2 triggered mass warming in the Past, come on now, really?

I wouldn't ask that if you Had showed evidence, which you didn't.

Stratosphere: If CO2 cannot influence the stratosphere, a much smaller energybody, how can we assume it to affect the oceans and tropopause, which feature 1000000X the amount of energy?

http://debunkhouse.w...ss.com/2009/12/

The problem is that the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming have never been simultaneous. I calculated the monthly differences of the stratospheric and tropospheric temperature anomalies from the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) satellite data to get d-Strat and d-L Trop. Then I multiplied d-Strat times d-L Trop. A negative d-Strat * d- L Trop means that d-Strat and d-L Trop are moving in opposite directions and should indicate an increased greenhouse effect. A positive d-Strat * d- L Trop should mean that d-Strat and d-L Trop are moving in the same direction and should indicate a decreased greenhouse effect. If the Stratosphere is cooling due to a progressively increasing retention of heat in the lower atmosphere (enhanced greenhouse effect), d-Strat * d-L Trop should exhibit a measurable negative trend… But it doesn’t…

The slope is actually very slightly positive; which is consistent a very slight decline in total greenhouse warming over the last 30 years. This would mean that negative feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere are offsetting the increasing

atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Cheers

[skierinvermont]

haha I think I hit a soft spot. Look who's talkin here!

If you read, you wouldn't make the same mistake over and over again, though it is entertaining.

Everything you just said is Dead Wrong or a flaming heap of hypothesis, because you Cannot handle Reading anything that Goes against your way of thinking. So you anxiously skip over it, and post a rebuttal before reading it, and end up looking silly in the process! How you do not recognize this, I do not know, but its HILARIOUS

1) Do you know what the Lag Time for Geo-AA index is? It is 4-8 years, not the 1-2 of TSI Because you never read/learn. Geo -AA index peaked in 2003-04. Start here.....

Academic Journals: http://www.academicj...10/July/Aly.pdf (Note: This assumes no Weight to the PDO/AMO/IOD, and uses GISS data).

International Journal of the Physical Sciences Vol. 5(7), pp. 1040-1049, July 2010

Available online at

http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS

ISSN 1992 - 1950 ©2010 Academic Journals

(this assuming no weight to PDO/AMO, and Using GISS data, Pro AGW). How about the 2 part relationship between 10/BE Conc? How about the Flux Standalone Value in correlation to a weakening Magnetic field? Read more, post less.

2) Do you know the difference between the Goe-AA index and the Standalone Valuea? If not, read below, and you can learn

This explains how the Geo-AA index works, and how the Magnetic Field decrease plays in below this: http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

Remember to seperate Magnetic Flux, Geomagnetic Constant, and Geo-AA index. Don't confuse TSI and its inclusion of Gamma rays, Microwaves, VA rays, UVB rays, Radio Waves, IR, etc, and the aspects that acutally correlate to GT.

Earth's Magnetic FIeld Decrease: http://www.megakastr..._modulation.htm

You fail miserably to try and understand correlations, when the aspects that have the largest impact are those that can feedback, intercorrelate, and Manipulate the Climate System. How do we know this? We've seen it happen constantly throughout the Holocene! We've seen spikes of up to 3C, and numerous Jumps of 1-2C...caused by solar. Our warming started after the LIA.

3) Show me ONE example where CO2 triggered mass warming in the Past, come on now, really?

I wouldn't ask that if you Had showed evidence, which you didn't.

Stratosphere: If CO2 cannot influence the stratosphere, a much smaller energybody, how can we assume it to affect the oceans and tropopause, which feature 1000000X the amount of energy?

http://debunkhouse.w...ss.com/2009/12/

The problem is that the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming have never been simultaneous. I calculated the monthly differences of the stratospheric and tropospheric temperature anomalies from the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) satellite data to get d-Strat and d-L Trop. Then I multiplied d-Strat times d-L Trop. A negative d-Strat * d- L Trop means that d-Strat and d-L Trop are moving in opposite directions and should indicate an increased greenhouse effect. A positive d-Strat * d- L Trop should mean that d-Strat and d-L Trop are moving in the same direction and should indicate a decreased greenhouse effect. If the Stratosphere is cooling due to a progressively increasing retention of heat in the lower atmosphere (enhanced greenhouse effect), d-Strat * d-L Trop should exhibit a measurable negative trend… But it doesn’t…

The slope is actually very slightly positive; which is consistent a very slight decline in total greenhouse warming over the last 30 years. This would mean that negative feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere are offsetting the increasing

atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Cheers

1) I am aware that Landscheidt theorized there was a 4-8 year lag between geo aa and temperature, however this was based off extremely poor statistical techniques. He basically derives a correlation from the fact that both series (global temperature, geo-aa) exhibit a general upward trend. That's not a powerful statistical test. Which is why the correlation has broken down. He predicted that we would cool this decade, based on geo-aa and his 4-8 year lag. Instead, we have continued to warm. The failure of his prediction, poor statistical techniques, and the collapse of the correlation indicates that there is no causal relationship.

The peak in geo-aa in 2003-2004 was much lower than the 1990 peak.. and yet we have warmed.. there was a protracted minimum between the 1990 and 2004 geo-aa peaks. And since then geo aa has reached record lows. And yet our temperatures have continued to rise. The correlation is over. Landscheidt was wrong.

2) Geo-aa and solar source magnetic flux are measures of the exact same phenomenon. Neither of them show particular strong correlations to global temperature. There was a general upward trend in magnetic flux and global temperature over the 20th century, but this is not a powerful statistical test. They have diverged since 1990. Which is why Landscheidt's prediction failed.

3) Several people have already given you examples where CO2 triggerred a warming event. The PETM is one. The interglacial periods of the last 3 million years could not have been as warm without corresponding increases in CO2.

Also.. your dtrop-dstrat argument makes absolutely no sense. There is no expectation for short term inverse correlation between stratospheric temperatures and tropospheric temperatures. There is an expectation of a LONG TERM inverse correlation, which is exactly what we have witnessed. Warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere.

The fact that on a given day both the troposphere and stratosphere happened to warm doesn't even come remotely close to contradicting AGW theory. All in all a very silly argument. Not surprising considering you just found it on some random dude's blog.

[BethesdaWX]

1) I am aware that Landscheidt theorized there was a 4-8 year lag between geo aa and temperature, however this was based off extremely poor statistical techniques. He basically derives a correlation from the fact that both series (global temperature, geo-aa) exhibit a general upward trend. That's not a powerful statistical test. Which is why the correlation has broken down. He predicted that we would cool this decade, based on geo-aa and his 4-8 year lag. Instead, we have continued to warm. The failure of his prediction, poor statistical techniques, and the collapse of the correlation indicates that there is no causal relationship.

The peak in geo-aa in 2003-2004 was much lower than the 1990 peak.. and yet we have warmed.. there was a protracted minimum between the 1990 and 2004 geo-aa peaks. And since then geo aa has reached record lows. And yet we are temperatures have continued to rise. The correlation is over. Landscheidt was wrong.

2) Geo-aa and solar source magnetic flux are measures of the exact same phenomenon. Neither of them show particular strong correlations to global temperature. There was a general upward trend in magnetic flux and global temperature over the 20th century, but this is not a powerful statistical test. They have diverged since 1990. Which is why Landscheidt's prediction failed.

3) Several people have already given you examples where CO2 triggerred a warming event. The PETM is one. The interglacial periods of the last 3 million years could not have been as warm without corresponding increases in CO2.

Also.. your dtrop-dstrat argument makes absolutely no sense. There is no expectation for short term inverse correlation between stratospheric temperatures and tropospheric temperatures. There is an expectation of a LONG TERM inverse correlation, which is exactly what we have witnessed. Warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere.

The fact that on a given day both the troposphere and stratosphere happened to warm doesn't even come remotely close to contradicting AGW theory. All in all a very silly argument. I'm guessing it's from Roy Spencer? He tends to play silly statistical games like that.

Read

1) We have not warmed since 2002, any excess trends outside ENSO can be attributed to warmer trending changes in Global SST somewhat correlating to the +IO.

1) Geo-AA index is NOT THE SAME THING as the Flux Standalone...which peak in 1990, Landshiet is irrelivant to this paper. The flux is a branch of the AA index variability dude, they do not have the same complications in regards to the climate.

It is NOT DEBATABLE that the GEO-AA index has a longer Lag...why are you even suggesting this?

Did you read the paper from the National Academics Jounral of Physical sciences? It explains several issues, with a lag time possible between 4-11 years...Even using GISS data.

During the period 1970 - 2008 (the second warming period), in which the increase in GT was faster and smoother than in the first warming region, the aa geomagnetic magnitudes values have greatly increased than the two previous periods (El Borie et al., 2007). The largest peak, over the considered period, was in 1991.74 and the warmest year was 2001.74, which was 10-year apart. The second peak was in 2003.66 and the global warming peak was in 2006.90. For comparison, the separation-time between them was 3.24-year. In other studies (El Boire et al., 2007), the separation- time of both periods was 7years. However, there has been a strong warming trend over the past 50 years. We should notice that, the GT in 1998 was associated with one of the strongest El-Ninos in recent centuries. Generally, there are two classes of physical mechanisms employed to describe the fluctuations in global temperature. The first involves the strong correlations that show the inverse relationship between the strength of interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) and galactic cosmic ray intensity. This factor is correlated with the formation of low cloud cover (Marsh and Sevenmark, 2000). The second involves the strong correlation between the total solar irradiance and low cloud cover (Kristjansson et al., 2002). However, there is a third process that might contribute to global warming. To assess the solar climate link, it is important to know Aly 1045 the periodicities involved and their interactions with climate phenomena. A series of power spectral density (PSD) have been performed. Figure 3 (a, shows a comparison of the PSD for the Rz (1868 - 2008) and TSI (1978 - 2003), while Figure 4 (a, shows a comparison of the PSD for the aa (1868 - 2008) and GST (1880 - 2008). The large amount of the data is the cause of high fluctuations. Numbers are added to assist in determining the relative locations of peaks in years (yrs). The indicated statistical uncertainties (dashed lines) show the 99, 95 and 90% confidence levels. Table (1) lists the existence of significant peaks with the confidence levels. From Table (1), we can conclude that the peak at the 34- year exist only in the aa index at a 99% level of confidence. It should be noted that only GT shows strong 21.3 years periodicity at a 99% significant level. The ~ 22 years variation is due to the polarity of the solar magnetic cycle (Hale cycle). This proves that the (IMF) effect is more powered on GST than the solar activity cycle. The polarity of solar magnetic field may be playing an important role in the mechanism that produces the modulation of cosmic rays and the variation in solar diurnal variation having a 22-year periodicity (Ahluwalia, 1988; Sharma and Yadav, 1993). The amplitude of solar diurnal variations shows an 11- year variation and the values of amplitude decrease with increasing the median rigidity of stations. Also, the phase of the solar diurnal variations showed a 22-year variation according to the polarity of interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). The phase, during the positive magnetic polarity (directed away from northern solar hemisphere) shows relatively, small change and large decrease in amplitude in the higher rigidity data than during the negative magnetic polarity (directed towards the northern solar hemisphere) (El-Borie et al., 1995). The high-speed solar-wind streams (HSSWS) emanate from both solar 1046 Int. J. Phys. Sci.

You obviously need more help than I can give you regarding this issue. You argument is seriously botched in regards to climactic response.

No one has given me any examples of Co2 Causing warming, and no proof that it had anything to do with it. How about you post soething instead of giving me the Cop-out you always do.

Past interglacials could have been warmer without CO2.

[skierinvermont]

More botched statistical techniques. There is no correlation.. any correlation is due to chance and statistical techniques with low-power. Here is geomag-aa vs temps. The two bear no more than a superficial correlation, because they both happen to exhibit positive trends.

[BethesdaWX]

More botched statistical techniques.

How so? Good attempt at a cop out, but you get a fail.

You didn't read the paper which goes into why.

Do you want me to post and link the images, formula & discussion? Because I will.

[BethesdaWX]

More botched statistical techniques. There is no correlation.. any correlation is due to chance and statistical techniques with low-power. Here is geomag-aa vs temps. The two bear no more than a superficial correlation, because they both happen to exhibit positive trends.

DUDE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING WTF??????

Read the freakin Nation Academics of Physical Sciences Journal and see BASIC PHYSICS based on a 4-10 YEAR LAG

[skierinvermont]

That's a new one ... "warming SSTs since 2002 caused the warming, so we haven't really warmed"

I guess we haven't warmed at all since 1900 on that basis.

[skierinvermont]

DUDE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING WTF??????

Read the freakin Nation Academics of Physical Sciences Journal and see BASIC PHYSICS based on a 4-10 YEAR LAG

The statistical techniques are terrible in that paper.. they have no statistical power. I just graphed the two.. the correlation is so poor I don't need to even need to do a statistical test.

[BethesdaWX]

Evidence? You'll go against basic consensus and physics from the National Academic Journal of Physical Sciences, an accepted Consensus? How about reading the whole paper.

Ok then, lets see some proof of your Hypothesis.

[BethesdaWX]

The statistical techniques are terrible in that paper.. they have no statistical power. I just graphed the two.. the correlation is so poor I don't need to even need to do a statistical test.

Examples?

[skierinvermont]

Evidence? You'll go against basic consensus and physics from the National Academic Journal of Physical Sciences, an accepted Consensus? How about reading the whole paper.

Ok then, lets see some proof of your Hypothesis.

This is a minor journal with a crumby review process.. nobody else agrees.

[BethesdaWX]

This is a minor journal with a crumby review process.. nobody else agrees.

Examples? What is the peer-review process like in the National Academic Journal of Physical Sciences?

And how are they breaking the worldwide Rules/requirements for peer review?

Good attempt at a Cop-out, but it ain't cuttin it.

One more post, then I'll give you the formulas used.

[skierinvermont]

Examples? What is the peer-review process like in the National Academic Journal of Physical Sciences? And how are they breaking the Rules for peer review?

Good attempt at a Cop-out, but it ain't cuttin it.

The fact that very few of the articles in it are cited by other authors in the field.

[BethesdaWX]

Go to page 1042 for formula, too much to post here.

[BethesdaWX]

The fact that very few of the articles in it are cited by other authors in the field.

There are at least 20.. Do I have to link them all here for you? Keep in mind this is a peer reviewed Journal used by the world, there are thousands of scientiss referenced throughout the journal,which I have on My Kindle thingy

[skierinvermont]

There are at least 20.. Do I have to link them all here for you? Keep in mind this is a peer reviewed Journal used by the world, there are thousands of scientiss referenced throughout the journal,which I have on My Kindle thingy

Sure. Please post other papers which cite this paper. This is a random professor from egypt publishing an obscure article which rehashes the same lockwood/landscheidt nonsense we have seen over and over again.

[BethesdaWX]

Skier, you are not going to find a way out of this, you're stuck.

[skierinvermont]

Skier, you are not going to find a way out of this, you're stuck.

No you are the one that is stuck.. you are citing obscure papers which use poor statistical techniques. He also appears to cite old papers which have been refuted.

[BethesdaWX]

Sure. Please post other papers which cite this paper.

I see what you're trying to do here. Thats like asking me to Jog across the US.

How about you post papers on the Geomagnetic AA-Index that you've read first...since you haven't read an yet.

[BethesdaWX]

No you are the one that is stuck.. you are citing obscure papers which use poor statistical techniques.

GO TO PAGE 1042

[skierinvermont]

I see what you're trying to do here. Thats like asking me to Jog across the US.

How about you post papers on the Geomagnetic AA-Index that you've read first...since you haven't read an yet.

No it's not. Type the title of the paper into google scholar and google will tell you how many other papers cite that paper. Most major scientific papers are cited dozens or hundreds of times. Even relatively minor technical papers usually have a dozen or so citations.

(Hint: none)

[BethesdaWX]

Again, I cannot make in any more simple. You're trapped.

1) I want a Rebuttal of the Formula used on page 1042.

2) I want you to explain the peer review Process in the Journal, Clearly and thoroughly, and how it deviates from expectations.

3) I want your Alternative hypothesis using actual measurements within the indicies.

If you cannot answer these questions, you're done

[BethesdaWX]

No it's not. Type the title of the paper into google scholar and google will tell you how many other papers cite that paper. Most major scientific papers are cited dozens or hundreds of times. Even relatively minor technical papers usually have a dozen or so citations.

(Hint: none)

No, it will search the paper for you, not who cited it if the other paper is irrelivant in Subject matter...thats how google gets you the proper results

The Formulas used in this paper are Those used Throughout the field.......THERE IS NO OTHER FORMULA IN EXISTANCE.

[BethesdaWX]

CIted: http://www.scirp2.or...px?paperID=2030

To be clear, the formula I want you to create will have to addres the problems on with the formula on page 1042

[skierinvermont]

Again, I cannot make in any more simple. You're trapped.

1) I want a Rebuttal of the Formula used on page 1042.

2) I want you to explain the peer review Process in the Journal, Clearly and thoroughly, and how it deviates from expectations.

3) I want your Alternative hypothesis using actual measurements within the indicies.

If you cannot answer these questions, you're done

1) You don't even understand the formula on page 1042. The formula on page 1042 isn't a statistical test of correlation, they are standard mathematical formulas for performing a power spectral density tests. In short, they tell us if a particular SINGLE data series oscillates on particular frequencies. The last formula tells us if these oscillations at particular frequencies are statistical significant. For example, the 11-yr solar cycle would have very high PSD significance at a frequency of 11 years. Which is exactly what we see when we scroll down to page 1045. Rz (abbrevation for sunspot number) has a spike at 10.7 years, indicating it oscillates on a period of 10.7 years. I have no doubt that the 11-year solar cycle oscillates at a frequency of 11 years. We didn't need a PSD analysis to tell us this.

In fact, the article you are citing never even tries to correlate surface temperature and geomag-aa. It doesn't even perform correlation analyses. All the author does is make qualitative comparisons between the data (IE "well there was a spike in geomag aa in 1990.. ergo this explains the temperature spike in 1998.. there was another spike in 2003 this explains the temperature spike in 2006"). THIS IS NOT A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.. these are qualitative observations, accompanied by a spectral density analysis which is of little interest or consequence.

2) Most journal articles are cited by dozens sometimes hundreds of other articles by other professionals in the field. The article you are citing has not been cited by another researcher a single time. This is clear evidence that is an obscure article that few people read it or bothered to respond to it. Usually when I read a paper, I read the papers which cite the paper. When researching a subject I usually follow the web of citations chronologically to see how understanding has grown or changed (which can be a daunting task as the web can grow exponentially). This is standard good research practice which you should get in the habit of. In this case, this is impossible because the paper is a dead end.

3) The study you are citing hypothesizes that geomag aa and TSI affect surface temperatures. I accept the fact that TSI fluctuations modulate surface temperature. However geomag-aa shows neither a long term nor short term QUANTITATIVE correlation. This can be seen below. There is no correspondence between the peaks and troughs of geomagnetic flux and temperature. Moreover, they have rapidly diverged over the last two decades.

[skierinvermont]

CIted: http://www.scirp2.or...px?paperID=2030

To be clear, the formula I want you to create will have to addres the problems on with the formula on page 1042

This is not another paper citing the paper in question. It is simply another copy of the paper from another database. I asked you for OTHER papers that cite the paper in question, not other copies of the same paper from different search engines.

The formulas on 1042 have nothing to do with performing correlation between two variables. They are standard mathematical formulas found in any textbook on PSD analysis. Take a statistics class.

[skierinvermont]

No, it will search the paper for you, not who cited it if the other paper is irrelivant in Subject matter...thats how google gets you the proper results

The Formulas used in this paper are Those used Throughout the field.......THERE IS NO OTHER FORMULA IN EXISTANCE.

Google scholar will tell you how many times a paper has been cited and will provide you with those papers which cite your paper. Do you want me to take screen shots of how to do this or a youtube video?

[BethesdaWX]

1) You don't even understand the formula on page 1042. The formula on page 1042 isn't a statistical test of correlation, they are standard mathematical formulas for performing a power spectral density tests. In short, they tell us if a particular data SINGLE data series oscillates on particular frequencies. The last formula tells us if these oscillations at particular frequencies are statistical significant. For example, the 11-yr solar cycle would have very high PSD significance at a frequency of 11 years. Which is exactly what we see when we scroll down to page 1045. Rz (abbrevation for sunspot number) has a spike at 10.7 years, indicating it oscillates on a period of 10.7 years.

In fact, the article you are citing never even tries to correlate surface temperature and geomag-aa. It doesn't even perform correlation analyses. All the author does is make qualitative comparisons between the data (IE well there was a spike in geomag aa in 1990.. ergo this explains the temperature spike in 1998.. there was another spike in 2003 this explains the temperature spike in 2006). THIS IS NOT A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.. these are qualitative observations, accompanied by a spectral density analysis which is of little interest or consequence.

2) Most journal articles are cited by dozens sometimes hundreds of other articles by other professionals in the field. The article you are citing has not been cited by another researcher a single time. This is clear evidence that is an obscure article that few people read or bothered to respond to.

3) The study you are citing hypothesizes that geomag aa and TSI effect surface temperatures. I accept the fact that TSI fluctuations modulate surface temperature. However geomag-aa shows neither a long term nor short term QUANTITATIVE correlation. This can be seen below. There is no correspondence between the peaks and troughs of geomagnetic flux and temperature. Moreover, they have rapidly diverged over the last two decades.

A few things

1) The Geo-Flux Stand alone is NOT THE AA INDEX! Why do you keep posting it? :arrowhead: :arrowhead:

2) What do you mean they don't try to correlate it? The whole point was to correlate. This explains correlation BELOW at the Conclusion,whic you DIDNT READ.

Setup before analysis:

Different preliminary treatments are applied to the databefore performing any analysis. So, gaps were linearlyinterpolated. When the sample data include spurioustrends or higher order polynomial components with awavelength longer than the record length Tr = ND t, themost common technique for trend removal is to fit a loworderpolynomial to the data using the least squares procedures. However, long term trends were performed. A series of power spectral density (PSD) have beenperformed. The (PSD), describe how the power of asignal or time series is distributed with frequency. Here,power can be the actual physical power, or more often,for convenience with abstract signal, it can be defined asa squared value of the signal. This instantaneous power(the mean or expected value of which is the averagepower) The power spectral density of a signal exists if and only if the signal is a wide-sense stationary process. If the signalis not stationary, then the autocorrelation function mustbe a function of two variables, so no existing, but similartechniques may be used to estimate a time-varyingspectral density. Fast Fourier Transformations (FFT)have been used to yield the power spectral density (PSD). The results were smoothed using the Hanningwindow function. This is necessary since most of the disturbed features will completely disappear, while thesignificant peaks are clearly defined. Nevertheless, theparticular window chosen does not shift the positions ofthe spectral peaks.Figure 1 (a,

displays the time profile of the 5-month

RESULTS

1. During the period 1880 - 1940 (1st warming region),

the increase of GT were observed later by 1.33 - 9.66years.

2. During the period (1940 - 1970], which is the globalcooling period, the averages of aa showed greatfluctuations. These fluctuations in aa are due to thecorresponding variations in the solar activities.

3. During the period 1970 - 2008, which is the secondwarming period, the increase in GT was faster andsmoother than in the first warming region. The warmestyear was 2001.74, by 10 year apart and the globalwarming peak was in 2006.90, by 3.24 year apart. Resultof time series of TSI and Rz shows that the variations oftotal solar irradiance are roughly proportional with thesunspot cycle.Results of spectral analysis revealed strong 21.3 yearpeak in GST. It is related to the changes in the polarity ofmain solar magnetic field. This obtained resultdemonstrates that the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)effect is more powered on GST. Significant peak at 10.7year is appearing in Rz, TSI and aa. This is a well-known periodicity ~11-year, known as solar activity.The power law index (n) for Rz and TSI have a higher value than aa and GST. This indicates that the PSD of Rzand TSI is harder than the PSD of the other parameters

You need to answer these.

1) I want a Rebuttal of the Formula used on page 1042.

2) I want you to explain the peer review Process in the Journal, Clearly and thoroughly, and how it deviates from expectations.

3) I want your Alternative hypothesis using actual measurements within the indicies.

[skierinvermont]

The author of the paper uses sunspots, TSI, and geomag-aa. So that is what I used. If you would like to provide a paper which shows a correlation to some other variable, I would be happy to read it. I also don't think you understand what the 'geo-flux standalone' is. Please provide the technical term used in the papers.

There is no statistical correlation performed anywhere in the paper. The author performs a PSD analysis to show the frequency of oscillations (periodicity) in TSI and AA data. He then notes QUALITATIVE similarities to temperature data.

This is an extremely speculative and poor basis from which to draw conclusions.

I answered all three of your questions quite clearly. If you can't understand the answers, we are at an impasse.

[BethesdaWX]

The author of the paper uses sunspots, TSI, and geomag-aa. So that is what I used. If you would like to provide a paper which shows a correlation to some other variable, I would be happy to read it. I also don't think you understand what the 'geo-flux standalone' is. Please provide the technical term used in the papers.

There is no statistical correlation performed anywhere in the paper. The author performs a PSD analysis to show the frequency of oscillations (periodicity) in TSI and AA data. He then notes QUALITATIVE similarities to temperature data.

This is an extremely speculative and poor basis from which to draw conclusions.

I answered all three of your questions quite clearly. If you can't understand the answers, we are at an impasse.

Yes he uses Rz, TSI, Geo-AA, and references GST to correlate. Look at page #1045. He uses a PSD (power spectral density) analysis. Do you know what that is, and why it is important when measuring a complicated system like the climate? Stochastic processing is used here, as even if there is a known beginning, where the processing leads is based on severla factors (in this case, climactic drivers). What one aspect (Geo-AA, for example) may demonstrate, temps do not match the time of occurance, but more of the response from the climate system based on how long it takes for feedbacks to occur.

Using a statistical analysis for what, now? Makes no sense to simple stat this.

1) You did not Describe the Peer review process in detail within the National Academic Journal of Physical sciences.

2) You do not understand the procceses used in creating a correlating GST-SOlar graph

3) You have not stated any evidence for an alternative hypothesis to the widely accepted theories.