Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

On Feb 18, 8:21 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 17, 2:15 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
Roger Coppock wrote:
Below are directly observed data for global mean surface
temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last
50 years. This is as long as the longest directly
observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
...
As originally posted in spawning thread:

Why only 50 years? I'm not considering CO2 as part of my correlation,
why are you?

This is an arbitrary and fictitious limit that you have imposed without
sound justification, and therefore I must conclude that your results are
(deliberately?) skewed.
[ . . . ]
DID YOU READ MY POST? I don't think so.

Below are directly observed data for global mean surface
temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last
50 years. This is as long as the longest directly
observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Yes, I read that.

DID YOU READ MY POST? I don't think so either.

I made no mention of CO2. I'm not interested in correlating with CO2 in
this discussion, I AM interested in the correlation between temperature
and sunspots for the time period in question, specifically 1850-2000.

And just so that it is clear this time you ignore it, again.

NOT INTERESTED IN CORRELATING WITH CO2 IN THIS DISCUSSION.

I lifted this URL from another thread. I think it contains what you
want.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/TempCO2Sunspots.html .

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

"Peter Franks" wrote
I made no mention of CO2. I'm not interested in correlating with CO2 in
this discussion, I AM interested in the correlation between temperature
and sunspots for the time period in question, specifically 1850-2000.

There is none.

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

John M. wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:21 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 17, 2:15 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
Roger Coppock wrote:
Below are directly observed data for global mean surface
temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last
50 years. This is as long as the longest directly
observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
...
As originally posted in spawning thread:
Why only 50 years? I'm not considering CO2 as part of my correlation,
why are you?
This is an arbitrary and fictitious limit that you have imposed without
sound justification, and therefore I must conclude that your results are
(deliberately?) skewed.
[ . . . ]
DID YOU READ MY POST? I don't think so.
Below are directly observed data for global mean surface
temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last
50 years. This is as long as the longest directly
observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Yes, I read that.

DID YOU READ MY POST? I don't think so either.

I made no mention of CO2. I'm not interested in correlating with CO2 in
this discussion, I AM interested in the correlation between temperature
and sunspots for the time period in question, specifically 1850-2000.

And just so that it is clear this time you ignore it, again.

NOT INTERESTED IN CORRELATING WITH CO2 IN THIS DISCUSSION.

I lifted this URL from another thread. I think it contains what you
want.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/TempCO2Sunspots.html .

Thanks, I saw that thread. However, it doesn't address the timespan of
1850-2000.

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

"Peter Franks" wrote
Thanks, I saw that thread. However, it doesn't address the timespan of
1850-2000.

Don't you know how to use a pencil?

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

On Feb 19, 2:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:21 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 17, 2:15 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
Roger Coppock wrote:
Below are directly observed data for global mean surface
temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last
50 years. This is as long as the longest directly
observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
...
As originally posted in spawning thread:
Why only 50 years? I'm not considering CO2 as part of my correlation,
why are you?
This is an arbitrary and fictitious limit that you have imposed without
sound justification, and therefore I must conclude that your results are
(deliberately?) skewed.
[ . . . ]
DID YOU READ MY POST? I don't think so.
Below are directly observed data for global mean surface
temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last
50 years. This is as long as the longest directly
observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Yes, I read that.

DID YOU READ MY POST? I don't think so either.

I made no mention of CO2. I'm not interested in correlating with CO2 in
this discussion, I AM interested in the correlation between temperature
and sunspots for the time period in question, specifically 1850-2000.

And just so that it is clear this time you ignore it, again.

NOT INTERESTED IN CORRELATING WITH CO2 IN THIS DISCUSSION.

I lifted this URL from another thread. I think it contains what you
want.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/TempCO2Sunspots.html.

Thanks, I saw that thread. However, it doesn't address the timespan of
1850-2000.

I doubt if sufficiently precise data exists for sunspots during the
early part of this period. Proxy data might be possible. The
correlation between certain populations of well studied Arctic fauna
and solar cycles is one such. You will need access to a very well
stocked library if you wish to go down that route.

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

On Feb 20, 4:12 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
"John M." wrote

I doubt if sufficiently precise data exists for sunspots during the
early part of this period. Proxy data might be possible. The
correlation between certain populations of well studied Arctic fauna
and solar cycles is one such. You will need access to a very well
stocked library if you wish to go down that route.

Sorry, sunspot counts for that period are readily available.

Then you should say where to find this, shouldn't you?

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

On Feb 20, 4:37 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
"John M." wrote

Then you should say where to find this, shouldn't you?

The sun has been observed for a LLLOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG time.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html

Chinese records go back a couple of thousand years, although they are visual
records.

Finally! Well done. I hope Peter Franks appreciates your efforts,
althogh he will have to use some proxy data for the annual (before ca.
1940) CO2.

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

John M. wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:06 am, Peter Franks wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Feb 18, 8:21 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Feb 17, 2:15 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
Roger Coppock wrote:
Below are directly observed data for global mean surface
temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last
50 years. This is as long as the longest directly
observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
...
As originally posted in spawning thread:
Why only 50 years? I'm not considering CO2 as part of my correlation,
why are you?
This is an arbitrary and fictitious limit that you have imposed without
sound justification, and therefore I must conclude that your results are
(deliberately?) skewed.
[ . . . ]
DID YOU READ MY POST? I don't think so.
Below are directly observed data for global mean surface
temperature, CO2 concentration, and sunspots for the last
50 years. This is as long as the longest directly
observed record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Yes, I read that.
DID YOU READ MY POST? I don't think so either.
I made no mention of CO2. I'm not interested in correlating with CO2 in
this discussion, I AM interested in the correlation between temperature
and sunspots for the time period in question, specifically 1850-2000.
And just so that it is clear this time you ignore it, again.
NOT INTERESTED IN CORRELATING WITH CO2 IN THIS DISCUSSION.
I lifted this URL from another thread. I think it contains what you
want.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/TempCO2Sunspots.html.
Thanks, I saw that thread. However, it doesn't address the timespan of
1850-2000.

I doubt if sufficiently precise data exists for sunspots during the
early part of this period. Proxy data might be possible. The
correlation between certain populations of well studied Arctic fauna
and solar cycles is one such. You will need access to a very well
stocked library if you wish to go down that route.

Sunspots have been carefully recorded for hundreds of years.

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

On Feb 20, 6:51 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
wrote:
Then you should say where to find this, shouldn't you?

The sun has been observed for a LLLOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG time.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html

Chinese records go back a couple of thousand years, although they are
visual
records.

"John M." wrote

Finally! Well done. I hope Peter Franks appreciates your efforts,
althogh he will have to use some proxy data for the annual (before ca.
1940) CO2.

Finally?

Because between his request and you delivering the goods, you posted
twice in this sub-thread.

Finding the records took 2.5 seconds.

So why the 24-hr delay in posting the URL?

Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
 

"John M." wrote
I doubt if sufficiently precise data exists for sunspots during the
early part of this period. Proxy data might be possible. The
correlation between certain populations of well studied Arctic fauna
and solar cycles is one such. You will need access to a very well
stocked library if you wish to go down that route.

Sorry, sunspot counts for that period are readily available.