|
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
CO2 or Sunspots: Statistical Correlation Chooses
Statistical correlation is a powerful technique with very many uses. It produces "R squared" a measure of whether two series of measures trend together. (Those who are new to statistical correlation and "R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject he http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correla...efficient.html Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed relationships.) When applied to a time series of global mean surface temperatures and data from prospective global warming causes covering the same time period, correlation can help locate the cause of the observed global warming. Low "R squared" values, those near zero, can, by themselves, totally rule out a prospective cause. High "R squared" values indicate that a prospective cause is very likely, but do not, by themselves, 'prove' something caused the warming. (Experimental science rarely 'proves' something like a mathematical proof does.) 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. The R^2 value for the correlation of CO2 and planetary surface temperature is 0.78. The simple rising line showing heating for increasing CO2 explains a lot of the variance in the global mean temperature. The relationship between CO2 and global temperature is very strong and the anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing theory is well supported by these data. The R^2 value for sunspots and and planetary surface temperature is very near zero. These data clearly do not support any relationship between sunspot numbers and global mean surface temperature over the last 50 years. It is very unlikely that sunspots have anything to do with the current global warming. This test applies very easily to all other claims for global warming causes. It will quickly separate the wheat from the chaff. -.-. --.- Roger Coppock =-=-=-=-=-=-= The Data =-=-=-=-=-=-= The global mean surface "Temp"erature data are the GISS adjusted J-D yearly land and sea average, available from NASA at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt The "CO2" data are the yearly averages of the monthly data from the Keeling curve measured at Mauna Loa, available at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt "Sunspots" are the yearly averages of the monthly means in the NOAA NGDC "MONTHLY" file. They are available at the FTP site accessed through this web page: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/SSN/ssn.html Year Temp CO2 Sunspots 1958 14.08 315.33 184.5917 1959 14.06 315.98 158.75 1960 13.99 316.91 112.275 1961 14.08 317.65 53.8833 1962 14.04 318.46 37.6 1963 14.08 318.99 27.8917 1964 13.79 319.20 10.2 1965 13.89 320.03 15.0583 1966 13.97 321.37 46.875 1967 14.00 322.18 93.6667 1968 13.96 323.05 105.8917 1969 14.08 324.62 105.5583 1970 14.03 325.68 104.6917 1971 13.90 326.32 66.65 1972 14.00 327.46 68.9333 1973 14.14 329.68 38.15 1974 13.92 330.17 34.4083 1975 13.95 331.14 15.4583 1976 13.84 332.06 12.55 1977 14.13 333.78 27.4833 1978 14.02 335.40 92.6583 1979 14.09 336.78 155.275 1980 14.18 338.70 154.65 1981 14.27 340.11 140.45 1982 14.05 340.98 116.2917 1983 14.26 342.84 66.6333 1984 14.09 344.20 45.85 1985 14.06 345.87 17.9417 1986 14.13 347.19 13.4 1987 14.27 348.98 29.225 1988 14.31 351.45 100 1989 14.19 352.89 157.7917 1990 14.38 354.16 142.2917 1991 14.35 355.48 145.775 1992 14.12 356.27 94.4833 1993 14.14 356.96 54.7333 1994 14.24 358.63 29.8667 1995 14.38 360.63 17.5 1996 14.30 362.37 8.625 1997 14.40 363.47 21.4833 1998 14.57 366.50 64.2083 1999 14.33 368.14 93.175 2000 14.33 369.41 119.5333 2001 14.48 371.07 110.925 2002 14.56 373.16 104.0917 2003 14.55 375.80 63.5667 2004 14.49 377.55 40.4417 2005 14.62 379.75 29.7833 2006 14.54 381.85 15.1833 2007 14.57 383.72 7.5417 =-=-=-=-=-=-= "R" Program Outputs =-=-=-=-=-=-= The following are outputs of the "R" statistical program: For information on "R," please see: http://www.r-project.org/ -------- Call: lm(formula = Temp ~ CO2, data = aframe) Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -0.2316612 -0.0805322 0.0185249 0.0763159 0.1798386 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|) (Intercept) 1.10008e+01 2.41721e-01 45.5103 2.22e-16 *** CO2 9.24797e-03 7.01018e-04 13.1922 2.22e-16 *** --- Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 Residual standard error: 0.101321 on 48 degrees of freedom Multiple R-Squared: 0.783817, Adjusted R-squared: 0.779313 F-statistic: 174.034 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: 2.220e-16 -------- Call: lm(formula = Temp ~ Sunspots, data = aframe) Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -0.3909495 -0.1523184 -0.0514594 0.1445919 0.4380756 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(|t|) (Intercept) 1.41804e+01 5.39054e-02 263.06149 2e-16 *** Sunspots 4.97803e-05 6.18766e-04 0.08045 0.93621 --- Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 Residual standard error: 0.217902 on 48 degrees of freedom Multiple R-Squared: 0.000134823, Adjusted R-squared: -0.0206957 F-statistic: 0.00647235 on 1 and 48 DF, p-value: 0.936213 |
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message ... CO2 or Sunspots: Statistical Correlation Chooses Statistical correlation is a powerful technique with very many uses. It produces "R squared" a measure of whether two series of measures trend together. Behold! Roger's own hockey stick! |
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
James was whining again because:
Roger Coppock replied: CO2 or Sunspots: Statistical Correlation Chooses Statistical correlation is a powerful technique with very many uses. It produces "R squared" a measure of whether two series of measures trend together. (Those who are new to statistical correlation and "R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject he http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correla...efficient.html Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed relationships.) When applied to a time series of global mean surface temperatures and data from prospective global warming causes covering the same time period, correlation can help locate the cause of the observed global warming. Low "R squared" values, those near zero, can, by themselves, totally rule out a prospective cause. High "R squared" values indicate that a prospective cause is very likely, but do not, by themselves, 'prove' something caused the warming. (Experimental science rarely 'proves' something like a mathematical proof does.) 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. The R^2 value for the correlation of CO2 and planetary surface temperature is 0.78. The simple rising line showing heating for increasing CO2 explains a lot of the variance in the global mean temperature. The relationship between CO2 and global temperature is very strong and the anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing theory is well supported by these data. The R^2 value for sunspots and and planetary surface temperature is very near zero. These data clearly do not support any relationship between sunspot numbers and global mean surface temperature over the last 50 years. It is very unlikely that sunspots have anything to do with the current global warming. This test applies very easily to all other claims for global warming causes. It will quickly separate the wheat from the chaff. Behold! Roger's own hockey stick! Behold, James cowardice and intentional ignorance.. --Gas music from Jupiter indeed.. |
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
On Feb 17, 3:20 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 or Sunspots: Statistical Correlation ... I have an interesting idea, Roger, concerning the analysis of temperature stats. You can email me by replacing "hotmail" in my addy with "yahoo" and I'll get back to you. |
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 or Sunspots: Statistical Correlation Chooses Statistical correlation is a powerful technique with very many uses. It produces "R squared" a measure of whether two series of measures trend together. (Those who are new to statistical correlation and "R squared" will find a tutorial on the subject he http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correlation.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Correla...efficient.html Item 20 in the above shows R squared for several graphed relationships.) When applied to a time series of global mean surface temperatures and data from prospective global warming causes covering the same time period, correlation can help locate the cause of the observed global warming. Low "R squared" values, those near zero, can, by themselves, totally rule out a prospective cause. High "R squared" values indicate that a prospective cause is very likely, but do not, by themselves, 'prove' something caused the warming. (Experimental science rarely 'proves' something like a mathematical proof does.) 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. If you wish to engage in the discussion with your 'winning computations', please use a timespan that is equivalent to what we are discussing, specifically 1850-2000. |
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
"James" wrote Behold! Roger's own hockey stick! Behold. Sunspot / Temp Correlation = 0.00 |
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
"Peter Franks" wrote 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. One of the nice things about mathematics, is that it's available to everyone. Feel free to add years to that 50 you are complaining about. Franks. Don't you have the ability? |
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
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. |
Global Warming: CO2 More Likely that Sunspots
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk