On Thu, 15 May 2008 03:36:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "V-for-Vendicar"
<Justice@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
Just a note: I believe your X-axis should be sunspot count,
not CO2.
>
>"0BZN0" <0BZN0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Wa****ngton
>> University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
>> geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology;
environmental
>> and engineering geology.
>
> Easterbrook is fond of claiming that there is a strong correlation
between
>sunspot numbers and global
>average temperatures.
>
> Here is the data. No Correlation.
>
>View with mono spaced font.
>
> No correlation between sunspot number and global average temperature
> 1958 -> 2007
> |
> |
> | *
> |
> | * * *
> | * *
> |
> | * *
> |
>^|
>T| *
>e| *
>m| *
>p| * *
>e|
>r| * *
>a| *
>t| o o
>u| oo oooo o ooo o oo o oo oooo oo o ooo
>r| * * * *
>e| *
> | * * * *
> | * *
> | * * *
> | * * *
> | * *
> | *
> | *
> | * *
> |
> | *
> | *
>
+-----------------------CO2->----------------------------------------------
> * = Data
> 0 = Computed Regression
>
>Y = Mx+B
>M = 4.976998E-05 B = 14.18044
>Correlation Coefficient .01161709
>
>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
