/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15693676
No thanks that's okay, just skip that process and post the data itself. Much better this way. I heartily recommend that simple course of action because wikipedia is a collection of reference links, just post the references themselves. Posting the exact data you are thinking about would allow ourselves to discuss the data. I still have little idea about what opinion you actually possess and what data you specifically want to refer to.

Here. I yanked some data from one of your own link. The study is massively outdated and extremely limited. I don't see much mention of support from the scientific community. Lastly, I can look at the picture myself and with my own two eyes and say that I don't find it particularly satisfying. There is one vaguely matching curve and many divergent peaks, seems pretty random. It also mentions a number of sunspots whereas I'd like to see more profound data about exact levels of solar radiation. But perhaps this isn't the data you've seen and that you want to discuss? It's in those links, but those links contain main things and you don't necessarily agree with all of them. Maybe it's relevant data to you, maybe it's not. I won't disrespect you with baseless assumptions.

I have to say, I am slightly puzzled by the fact that another anon posted in this thread to correct the solar activity and call it wrong, while all I am doing is cautiously asking you to show the data, but you appear solely dedicated to replying to me over and over, ignoring the other person altogether. I am only asking to see the data, there is another person straight up calling you wrong. What am I missing? I'm happy to learn more about divergent opinions. We're all friends here.