Give me your opinions about global warming

[lucaspa]

Why don't you all do two things:

 

1) Do a pubmed search on "global warming" (http://www.pubmed.gov)

 

 

2) goto the IPCC's website: http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

 

That way you will see that there is roughly the same amount of evidence presented by both sides (the doomsdayers and the others).

 

Define "doomsayers". How severe must the consequences of global warming be before it qualifies as "doomsayers"?

 

Now, if you are saying no consequences vs severe consequences, then you haven't searched either place for "evidence". Looking at the papers on PubMed shows the data indicates severe consequences of global warming unless it is stopped. Same for the work of the IPCC. In fact, the scientists at the last IPCC meeting in April staged something of a revolt because the politicians consistently understated the consequences:

 

1. D Biello. Conservative climate. Scientific American 296: 16-18, April 2007. "consensus document may understate the climate change problem"

[lucaspa]

Like the case where you claimed greenhouse gases were the dominant cause of warming from 1900 onwards. I showed with clear cut data, that from 1900 to 1940 at least, the dominant warming mechanism was solar.

 

I've looked carefully thru this thread --twice -- and haven't seen ANY data posted by you on the subject. Now, I do know from the thread discussing population, that data you posted as "clear cut" was nothing of the sort because you didn't understand the methodology. I'd like to see the data here, please, to see if you haven't done the same thing again.

 

http://www.colby.edu/sts/controversy/pages/solar_activity.htm

 

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html

"There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's."

 

Basically, we don't have any direct measurements of solar irradiation. It's a reconstruction that may or may not be accurate. The only thing that we know is that this model -- incorporating several factors -- matches past temperature readings. However, I'm sure there are other models that can also do so.

[lucaspa]

let's put this in context. for those of you new to this forum, as far as i'm aware swansont is the only actual scientist (i.e., PhD, works as a research phisisisit. astrophisics, iirc) who's posted in this thread.

 

Then you haven't read my profile.

 

what you, SkepticLance, are doing, is turning round to this army of swansonts, and -- without knowing that much about phisics yourself, without knowing how to assess and interpret data properly, without having looked at the evidence as much, and, in all likelyhood, without being as clever -- and saying 'bollocks'.

 

SkepticLance says "IPCC" is an "authority", as tho it is a single person. It's not. IPCC represents hundreds or thousands of climatologists. What it states is the consensus these scientists have reached because the data leaves them no choice. This is a summary of data, but SkepticLance tries to sidestep that by saying it is "authority".

 

however, you must, at some point, actually allow your beliefs to be shifted, otherwize what you have isn't skeptisism, it's bloody-minded refusal to accept something.

 

It's worthwhile to point out that this has happened with virtually EVERYONE who accepts global warming! Remember, the accepted hypothesis was that the average temperature of the earth was constant! And that human activity was not large enough to affect a system as large as the earth.

 

So what we have are all "skeptics" who changed their minds based on the data!

 

now, if you still think that the scientific consensus is wrong, then i suggest you do one of two things:

 

a/ publish. you'll get tons of fame and money. maybe some chicks.

or

b/ have an argument with swansont that basically revolves around your ability, on your own, to out-think a couple of thousand of him, in a fraction of the time and without access to the same data, and lets see how that goes. for bonus points, argue that you're not the arrogant one whilst doing so.

 

Nice summary.

[SkepticLance]

lucaspa said

 

I've looked carefully thru this thread --twice -- and haven't seen ANY data posted by you on the subject.

 

You must carefgully have ignored

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

 

Yes, these are reconstructions. As I understand it, they are reconstructed from sunspot counts, for which there is an unbroken record for about 400 years.

 

I had a look at your colby reference. Essentially, it agrees with what I said on warming 1910 to 1940, with the main criticism being that we do not understand the mechanism as yet. That is true, but does not make the correlation incorrect. In science we start with observation, and sort out the mechanism later.

 

Your second reference says no increase in solar activity since 1940. That is also true. In fact, the period following 1940 saw a reduction in solar activity, and a cooling. After that reduction, solar activity has changed little through to the present, outside the normal 11 year cycle. It is still at an 8000 year high, though.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html

[lucaspa]

I think the big difference between you and I on this subject is that you are convinced by authority, and I am not. I am only interested in data. If the IPCC makes the statement that CO2 accounts for half the temperature rise, you appear convinced by that. I am not. I want to see the basic data.

 

This is where you blew it. IPCC is not a person, and therefore not an "authority" like you are using. IPCC is the consensus conclusions of hundreds/thousands of climatologists. And what are those conclusions? Summaries of data. So, what you are trying to do is dismiss data you don't like by trying to call it "authority".

 

Skeptic, remember that every one of the scientists who now advocate global warming started out thinking 1) the earth's average temperature was not changing and 2) that human activity was far too small to effect a system as large as the earth. IOW, NONE of them started out thinking anthropogenic global warming was true! ALL of them have changed their minds because they were faced by data that compelled them to do so.

 

I have shown you that basic data, and you still refuse to accept that solar activity is more important.

 

No, you haven't shown us "basic data". Because there is none. We only have direct measurements of solar activity for the last 40 years, since we have had satellites. And that data says solar activity has not changed during that time. Anything else is guesswork, and you have NOT looked at the basic data that led them to that guesswork. So it is really you taking the word of "authority" -- that solar irradiation increased from 1900 - 1940. We have no direct measurement that this happened.

 

So, please, why don't you go to the paper where the graph was published and post to us the text (by cut and paste) on how they arrived at their model and their "authority" about solar irradiation.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa said

 

I've looked carefully thru this thread --twice -- and haven't seen ANY data posted by you on the subject.

 

You must carefgully have ignored

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif

 

It was labeled as "longer term trends" but nothing about relating that to earth temperature:

"Your graph of sunspot activity is hard to interpret. There are other graphs which do not track the 11 year cycle so closely - instead plotting longer term trends, which show the differences more clearly.

 

For example :

 

http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekt...te/climate.gif"

 

Now, what is the original source of this graph? I can't get back to a webpage. Anyone can make up any graph they damn well please. But unless you have the original scientific source, you can't claim it as "basic data".

 

Yes, these are reconstructions. As I understand it, they are reconstructed from sunspot counts, for which there is an unbroken record for about 400 years.

 

Now you admit that sunspot activity does not correlate to solar irradiation "After that reduction, solar activity has changed little through to the present, outside the normal 11 year cycle. " So, we've gone thru several sunspot changes but no change in solar activity in 40 years. So why do you think sunspot activity before 1940 is going to correlate to solar activity?

 

I had a look at your colby reference. Essentially, it agrees with what I said on warming 1910 to 1940, with the main criticism being that we do not understand the mechanism as yet. That is true, but does not make the correlation incorrect. In science we start with observation, and sort out the mechanism later.

 

But you said what the mechanism was, didn't you? You said the mechanism was solar irradiation. So now you are saying you jumped from correlation to mechanism without adequate justification! Thanks for destroying your own argument.

 

Your second reference says no increase in solar activity since 1940. That is also true. In fact, the period following 1940 saw a reduction in solar activity, and a cooling. After that reduction, solar activity has changed little through to the present, outside the normal 11 year cycle. It is still at an 8000 year high, though.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html

 

But this destroys the rationale behind the graph! If sunspots are at an all time high and have been for 70 years, then why does the graph have an increase in solar activity from 1930 to 1960, if it is based on sunspots? By the sunspot data, that solar activity area should have been constant and at what we see from 1960 onward -- based on the satellite data.

 

From your posted article:

"They then extrapolated the tree ring data backwards in time and discovered that no period in the last 8000 years has been as active as the last 70. About 75 sunspots have appeared every year in this period, compared to an annual average of about 30 over the last 11,400 years."

 

That being the case, the graph should have a constant solar activity from 1920 to present during a period of increasing temperature. And there goes your "correlation" out the window.

 

Yes, Skeptic, examining the data is always a good idea. You take way too much on authority, including an anonymous graph that is contradicted by the other data you post.

[SkepticLance]

To lucaspa

 

Please read my postings more carefully, and try to avoid drawing conclusions that are not there.

 

Take the following.

 

"I had a look at your colby reference. Essentially, it agrees with what I said on warming 1910 to 1940, with the main criticism being that we do not understand the mechanism as yet. That is true, but does not make the correlation incorrect. In science we start with observation, and sort out the mechanism later."

 

But you said what the mechanism was, didn't you? You said the mechanism was solar irradiation.

 

Solar activity is measured by sunspot activity. That is an observation. Not a mechanism. The mechanism is how sunspot activity translates into warming. High sunsport activity causes increases in ultra violet, and also changes in solar magnetic fields. Probably one of these leads to warming of the Earth, but that mechanism is not properly understood. Repeat, solar activity is an observation - not a mechanism.

 

Incidentally, increased sunspot activity leading to global warming is not my crackpot theory. Even the IPCC admits that is true. They just do not like applying it to the 20th and 21st Centuries.

 

But this destroys the rationale behind the graph! If sunspots are at an all time high and have been for 70 years, then why does the graph have an increase in solar activity from 1930 to 1960, if it is based on sunspots?

 

 

This statement is not correct. The graph does not show an increase from 1930 to 1960. It shows an increase from 1910 to 1940, and a decrease from 1940 to 1970.

 

They then extrapolated the tree ring data backwards in time and discovered that no period in the last 8000 years has been as active as the last 70. About 75 sunspots have appeared every year in this period, compared to an annual average of about 30 over the last 11,400 years."

 

That being the case, the graph should have a constant solar activity from 1920 to present during a period of increasing temperature. And there goes your "correlation" out the window.

 

Your maths needed correcting. Subtract 70 from 2007 and you get 1937. So sunspot activity has been at an 8000 year high (although still varying up and down to a degree) since 1937. This ties in with my original statement about sunspot activity increasing from 1910 to 1940 and causing the associated warming.

 

This is where you blew it. IPCC is not a person, and therefore not an "authority" like you are using.

 

The word 'authority' as I used it, can refer to a person, or an organisation.

[1veedo]

I think the big difference between you and I on this subject is that you are convinced by authority' date=' and I am not. I am only interested in data. If the IPCC makes the statement that CO2 accounts for half the temperature rise, you appear convinced by that. I am not. I want to see the basic data. I have shown you that basic data, and you still refuse to accept that solar activity is more important.[/quote']1) You have not posted any data (beyond correlation which btw CO2 correlates just as well, if not better).

2) I am not quoting the IPCC.

3) I did in fact show you the data.

 

Lean et al. "Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change." Geophysical Research Letters 22:23, 3195-3198. (read: not the IPCC!!!)

 

Your use of the strawman fallacy is getting annoying.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo.

 

Neither have you posted data. A published opinion is not data.

To give you an idea what I mean, you will recall that, on another thread, you pulled me up with data on ozone depletion. That data was sound and forced me to change my mind.

 

However, you have not done that on this thread. Opinions, no matter who publishes them, do not count.

[Dak]

yes they do... or we're back to you thinking you can analyse data better than scientists.

 

anyhoo, 1veedo cited his source, so you could just go look up the paper and look at the 'results' section. the data will be there. don't forget to look up the papers that are cited in that paper too.

 

Then you haven't read my profile.

 

you hadn't posted by then

[SkepticLance]

Let me remind you guys what we are arguing about, since you have a tendency to misquote me.

 

I have accepted that 1975 to the present, warming correlates closest to CO2 increase. I have been arguing, however, that the period of 1910 to 1940, the warming correlated closer to sunspot activity.

 

This is shown clearly in the following Wikipedia article.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

 

If you look at the posted graphs of sunspot activity versus temperature, you will see a close correlation for the periods before 1940.

[1veedo]

Correlation does not imply causation. Ever. You can make the exact same argument about CO2 during this period as well. What matters is that when you calculate the total energy influx from solar irradiance and greenhouse gases you find that the two are about equal in magnitude. I already showed you one study that indicates it was 40%. Other similar studies show pretty much the same thing.

 

The sun obviously had a much stronger role during this period but that doesn't make it the primary mover by any comparable extent that greenhouse gases are currently driving temperatures up.

Let me remind you guys what we are arguing about, since you have a tendency to misquote me.

Well you might be flattered to find out, if you read the past few posts, that you have not been misquoted.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

Correlation does not imply causation. Ever. You can make the exact same argument about CO2 during this period as well. What matters is that when you calculate the total energy influx from solar irradiance and greenhouse gases you find that the two are about equal in magnitude.

 

You have said this before, but only when it suits you. In fact, you are wrong. Correlation does not prove causation, but it frequently implies it.

 

And as I have said before, I am seriously unhappy about some of the calculations carried out by those you quote. Solar forcings, calculated from sunspot activity, should reflect that activity. Frequently they do not. And any rational scientific argument shows they should. I suspect manipulation of the calculations to get a result preferred by those who are involved. Thus, I prefer to look at the raw data, such as numbers of sunspots, and correlate them with warming.

 

If we look at the period of 1880 to 1910, which is what I have been arguing about, then greenhouse gas increase is almost a straight line on the graph. Yet 1880 to 1910 saw a decrease in temperature while 1910 to 1940 saw one of the biggest increases ever measured. The only significant difference that might be causal is number of sunspots. Low in the 1880 to 1910 period, and rapidly increasing in the 1910 to 1940 period.

 

These are facts that can be verified by any scientific record of the time. To suggest that greenhouse gases are the cause of a rapid increase in temperature when the greenhouse gas emissions remain constant - well that is just plain idiotic. Certainly not good science!

[1veedo]

These are facts that can be verified by any scientific record of the time. To suggest that greenhouse gases are the cause of a rapid increase in temperature when the greenhouse gas emissions remain constant - well that is just plain idiotic. Certainly not good science!

Especially considering that this is what the scientists themselves came up with. Damned scientists and their "idiotic" ideas.

And as I have said before, I am seriously unhappy about some of the calculations carried out by those you quote. Solar forcings, calculated from sunspot activity, should reflect that activity. Frequently they do not.

You have proof of this I assume? The raw data is accessible online; I don't see a problem looking yourself at the data Lean used in his paper. If you find that, indeed, solar forcing does not reflect sunspot activity, then and only then, will your argument be valid. Otherwise you're just pulling at straws to tip toe your way around the topic at hand.

 

Your argument, "I know 1veedo has published data that supports his position but he cant use this reference because..." isn't going to get you anywhere. Stop making excuses.

 

In the end what this means is that you are ignoring my reference and pretending that it isn't there. This isn't being skeptical; this is burying your head in sand and denying the existence of anything that proves you wrong.

If we look at the period of 1880 to 1910, which is what I have been arguing about, then greenhouse gas increase is almost a straight line on the graph. Yet 1880 to 1910 saw a decrease in temperature while 1910 to 1940 saw one of the biggest increases ever measured. The only significant difference that might be causal is number of sunspots. Low in the 1880 to 1910 period, and rapidly increasing in the 1910 to 1940 period.

Yes and over the entire period from 1900 to 1950 greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for roughly 50% of the total temperature increase. Nobody is saying that CO2 is the ONLY factor in the climate. Your argument amounts to a straw man in this regard, especially considering that I have made the concept of "about half" relatively clear in my posts.

You have said this before, but only when it suits you. In fact, you are wrong. Correlation does not prove causation, but it frequently implies it.

Correlation does not imply causation. Ever. This is a logical fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[SkepticLance]

To 1veedo

 

As I have said before, you seem to be more impressed by authority than by data. I do not care what scientists or IPCC or anyone else says. I care about the data. If you want to change my mind, you will not do so by telling me that scientist X disagrees with me. You will change my mind if you show me actual data that proves me wrong.

 

The 1880 to 1940 set of data is clear cut. I have said this so often. 30 years, cooling. Then 30 years substantial warming. Greenhouse gas increase stable throughout.

 

You cannot use that data to show that greenhouse gas is even 50% of the warming influence, because if it were, we would see warming over the 30 year period 1880 to 1910. Instead we saw cooling.

 

However, there is a clear and strong correlation between sunspot number and warming influence. And you are wrong about correlation. Sure it does not prove causation, but it often implies it. We have to be careful about drawing a firm conclusion on causation, because an implication is only an implication and can be wrong. But the implication is often there.

[swansont]

However, there is a clear and strong correlation between sunspot number and warming influence. And you are wrong about correlation. Sure it does not prove causation, but it often implies it. We have to be careful about drawing a firm conclusion on causation, because an implication is only an implication and can be wrong. But the implication is often there.

 

Seeing a correlation is where the science starts. It's not where it ends.

[1veedo]

As I have said before, you seem to be more impressed by authority than by data. I do not care what scientists or IPCC or anyone else says.

Which brings us back to the first problem of you thinking you know better than all the thousands of scientists who have been researching this topic for years upon years. There's no way you can look at the same data from Lean and decide, "no, he's full of shit I have a better idea." No offense but you (nor me) probably don't even know the appropriate mathematics to use in order to deduce conclusions from this data. The scientists however have phds and do happen to know the proper mathematics to use. So I'll just leave you with the data set referenced/included in Lean et al's paper so you can do your own calculations, seeing as you are much more qualified than anyone else on the planet to be doing so. Maybe you should be a scientist yourself! Or would this be too arrogant?

You will change my mind if you show me actual data that proves me wrong.

Which you can find in the study I posted. This line of reasoning is a straw man.

 

@your correlation: You do realize that CO2 correlates just as well as solar irradiance during this period, I assume?

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

You do realize that CO2 correlates just as well as solar irradiance during this period, I assume?

 

No, it does not.

From 1880 to 1910 the correlation with CO2 is negative, since the world is cooling. From 1910 to 1940 the correlation would be positive since the world was warming. However, over the whole 60 years, any correlation is exceedingly weak, since we go from negative to positive. Because the warming is greater than the cooling, and because CO2 is increasing over that 60 year period, albeit only to a small degree compared with later decades, there would be a slight positive correlation. However, it is way weaker than the correlation with sunspot number.

 

Yopu see, from 1880 to 1910 sunspot numbers drop. From 1910 to 1940, sunspot numbers increase substantially. Thus, a very strong correlation.

[Dak]

Let me remind you guys what we are arguing about, since you have a tendency to misquote me.

 

I have accepted that 1975 to the present, warming correlates closest to CO2 increase. I have been arguing, however, that the period of 1910 to 1940, the warming correlated closer to sunspot activity.

 

This is shown clearly in the following Wikipedia article.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

 

If you look at the posted graphs of sunspot activity versus temperature, you will see a close correlation for the periods before 1940.

 

i'm assuming you mean this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

 

Thus, I prefer to look at the raw data, such as numbers of sunspots, and correlate them with warming.

 

yet its not that simple.

 

If we look at the period of 1880 to 1910, which is what I have been arguing about, then greenhouse gas increase is almost a straight line on the graph. Yet 1880 to 1910 saw a decrease in temperature while 1910 to 1940 saw one of the biggest increases ever measured. The only significant difference that might be causal is number of sunspots. Low in the 1880 to 1910 period, and rapidly increasing in the 1910 to 1940 period.

 

sorry, but the temperature from 1910 - 1940 seems to correlate quite closely to the sunspot activity ~1920 - 1960. note how the morphology of the two graphs 1910 - 1980 are quite similar, barring the fact that the sunspot activity lags behind temperature changes by 10 years.

 

iow, if this indicates a direct causal relationship, it would indicate that increases in temperature on the earth increase sunspot activities. which is silly.

[SkepticLance]

To Dak.

 

I do see your point. If the situation was entirely simple, you would be absolutely correct. I think, though, we would all agree that many factors are at play.

 

I have been told so many times by 1veedo, bascule etc about sulphate effects after 1940. If correct, then that is the reason for the cooling after 1940. I have simply said that sunspots correlate better with the 1910 to 1940 warming than CO2. And you should agree that the data shows this.

[Dak]

without any significance testing and just from that graph:

 

yeah, i'll agree that it looks like the C and sunspot activity correlate well. however, this:

 

1910 to 1940 saw one of the biggest increases [in temperature] ever measured. The only significant difference that might be causal is number of sunspots.

 

is 100% absolutely wrong. the cause cannot come after the effect. after 1910ish, all correlation indicates that, if there's a causal relationship, earths mean temperature causes sunspot activity changes (which we know is not true)

[SkepticLance]

Dak

 

That graph just happened to be one I had picked up recently. There are a number of publications showing that graph or something very similar. I do not actually know why you argue that point. Even the IPCC accepts that sunspot numbers at that time correlate with warming.

 

It is kind of strange. I have told you I accept that the world is warming, and that the last 30 years that warming correlates most closely with CO2 increase. Why are you so bloody minded about the historical nature of the 1910 to 1940 warming? Why can you not accept that back then things were different?

 

The facts are clear cut. CO2 increase from 1880 to 1940 was minor and pretty much a straight line on the graph. Cooling and warming occurred which was not in any way closely related to that CO2 increase. However, cooling and warming followed quite closely with sunspot number change. The correlation is not, of course, perfect, since climate is multi-factorial. But the correlation is much closer than with CO2 increase. Why can you not admit that utterly obvious fact?

 

The warming of 1910 to 1940 was 0.4 C. That is a MASSIVE warming for only 3 decades, and only the warming of the last 3 decades compares. At that time, CO2 increase was minor and quite unexceptional compared to the period that preceded it. However, we also saw an increase in sunspots, lifted to the highest level in 8,000 years. If you deny this simple fact, you belong with Homer Simpson and the Doh brigade.

[swansont]

Looking for correlation by inspection on a graph is preliminary analysis at best. You can't have something be causal only part of the time, so since the graph does not show correlation for the whole run, you simply have to look at all of the factors and quantify the effects. Sunspots can't cause warming for only those 30 years and then not at other times. So the next question is how much of an effect does solar have, and it seems that this has been addressed.

[1veedo]

It is kind of strange. I have told you I accept that the world is warming, and that the last 30 years that warming correlates most closely with CO2 increase. Why are you so bloody minded about the historical nature of the 1910 to 1940 warming? Why can you not accept that back then things were different?

Because the data indicates CO2 is responsible for ~half of the temperature increase during the first half of the century. I'm only challenging you because published research shows something different than what you are trying to say. It's not really that important except to illustrate that all and all the total temperature increase for the 20th century was largely caused by greenhouse gases -- not the first half solar and the second half greenhouse gases. If it weren't for greenhouse gases,

 

1) There would only be half the warming between 1900 and 1950

2) The cooling after 1958 would have been much greater

3) The recent warming would be non-existent

 

Therefore, the Earth would be much cooler today than it actually is.

[Dak]

The facts are clear cut. CO2 increase from 1880 to 1940 was minor and pretty much a straight line on the graph. Cooling and warming occurred which was not in any way closely related to that CO2 increase.

 

I'm not arguing against any of that, per se. i'd point out that it was a strait line that was going up... i.e., it was steadily increasing.

 

However, cooling and warming followed quite closely with sunspot number change. The correlation is not, of course, perfect, since climate is multi-factorial. But the correlation is much closer than with CO2 increase. Why can you not admit that utterly obvious fact?

 

i admit that fact. what i don't admit, based on the evidence that you've provided, is that sunspot activity caused temperature fluctuations, what with them coming after the temperature changes they correlate with.

 

The warming of 1910 to 1940 was 0.4 C. That is a MASSIVE warming for only 3 decades, and only the warming of the last 3 decades compares. At that time, CO2 increase was minor and quite unexceptional compared to the period that preceded it. However, we also saw an increase in sunspots, lifted to the highest level in 8,000 years.

 

oh? quantify 'minor and quite unexceptional'. the CO2 had, after all, been steadily increasing for decades by 1910.

 

as for sunspots increase to their highest level in 8,000 years, the graph shows a higher frequency in 1850-1910, and 1940-2000. iow, the period we're talking about has the lowest frequency of the dates represented on the graph.

 

it's not really that important, but a simple citation supporting your claim that sunspot activity was the main contributer to global temperature in that period would suffice. and, forgive me, but you ain't half bad at even cursory examination of data for someone who want's to ignore the science and analyse the data for himself.

 

not to mention that proper statistical significance testing would be beyond either of us.

 

If you deny this simple fact, you belong with Homer Simpson and the Doh brigade.

 

no need for ad-homs. tho i will point out that your the one insinuating that sunspot activity reached back in time and caused temperature changes before the sunspots themselves had happened. doh!