I have explained it already. These are not arbitrary values - they are recordings from land and sea over the time-period that I stated. Are you assuming they are false? Fine. Then you need to present extraordinary evidence that they are false. The 1951-1980 average temperature is used, but a longer temperature series could've equally been used. The point is, that after 1979 - the temperature exceeds the average value for this period, while solar activity/sunspots (which formerly showed a closer trend with temp) remains high but does not keep in line with the temperature. This is the "30 year" issue which is brought up by climate scientists when talking about the relationship between the sun and temperature.Aardwolf wrote:Where's the evidence that 1366 TSI is equivalent to 14C? That's the arbitrary element I'm interested in. What empirical evidence is driving the placing of the scales on each y-axis? If you dont have the answer just say so and then we can agree it's arbitrary and of limited scientific value. It's certainly not good enough to prove a specific timing of causation.PersianPaladin wrote:The temp data is the degree of + or - deviation from the average sea-land temperature between 1951-1980.Aardwolf wrote:The calculation that the 0C (14C absolute) is the average is not the arbitrary element. The decision the 14C is equal to 1366 TSI is entirely arbitrary based on a need to correlate the data. Where is the scientific evidence that 14C equates to 1366 TSI?PersianPaladin wrote:As for the TSI at 1366 - the 0C represents the degree of change from an average within a certain period. It's not arbitrary at all.
Source: NASA GISS.
Regarding the TSI data that you're seeing of 1366, I am assuming it is the average for the 1951-1980 period but not fully confirmed this. You can read about the origin of that data here:-
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=ts ... arConstant
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-clim ... i_1611.txt
You can probably work out the average TSI for 1951-1980 there.
There is more discussion here, please read it before responding:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... vanced.htm