Which correlation works better?
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
2. Temperature vs. atmospheric CO2
In all the arguments from AGW proponents, I have never seen their definition of the null hypothesis they are trying to disprove. Maybe I’m missing something.
They need to disprove this correlation and show how the oceans are a less dominant driver than CO2. The IPCC was never set up with a null hypothesis. Their only job it seems to me is to demonize CO2, thereby blaming only human activity for climate change. They have no other operating system.
More or less, people have to be talking about the same subject to call it a conversation or an argument.If you are talking about climate and they are talking about “social justice” there can be no agreement about a null hypothesis or the need for one.
The IPCC mandate states:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/
Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the facts needed to hang the human race. The IPCC assumes the role of prosecution and and the skeptics that of the defense but the judge (aka the media) refuses to allow the defense council into the court room.
Academia is providing the manufactured evidence to ‘frame’ the human race and they are KNOWINGLY doing so. In other words Academics who prides themselves as being ‘lofty socialists’ untainted by plebeian capitalism are KNOWINGLY selling the rest of the human race into the slavery designed by the bankers and corporate elite. (Agenda 21)
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” ~ Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
A statement that puts the actual goal in a very clear light.The banker’s stake in CAGW
World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020
This is a fraud that produces nothing but poverty. It does not produce a single penny of wealth and instead acts as a short circuit across the advancement and wealth of an entire civilization.
You mean someone finally discovered the AMO….
Eventually people start listening to me. :-)
LOL…..stop it! :D
Hey, come on..… you know I’ve mentioning the AMO for the last … well a long, long time !!
Showing how it matches glacier growth and retreat patterns in quite diverse places like Switzerland and Mt Baker in USA
Need to turn either AMO or Mt Baker chart upside down to match, obviously
And naturally the Reykjavik temperatures are an uncanny match to the AMO being that Iceland is directly in its way.
LOL…yep all of the above
Finally people realise there’s something besides the PDO PDO PDO PDO PDO….
but that was because the AMO didn’t follow their story line
I assume this has been posted here before, but wow.
“The AMO is often thought to be driven by the variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) (Kushnir, 1994; Delworth and Mann, 2000; Knight et al., 2005; Latif et al., 2006), although some have suggested that the AMO is mainly driven by changes in anthropogenic radiative forcing (Mann and Emanuel, 2006). Various approaches have been proposed for the quantitative attribution of the AMO to an anthropogenic radiatively forced part and a part arising from natural variability (Trenberth and Shea, 2006; Kravtsov and Spannagle, 2008; Ting et al. 2009; DelSole et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2011). Recently it has been suggested that anthropogenic aerosols are a prime driver of the AMO using climate model simulations incorporating aerosol indirect effects (Booth et al., 2012). However, there are major discrepancies between the simulations in Booth et al. (2012) and observations in the North Atlantic upper-ocean heat content, in the spatial pattern of multidecadal SST changes within and outside the North Atlantic, and in the subpolar North Atlantic sea surface salinity (SSS), due to overestimated aerosol indirect effects (Zhang et al. 2013). Besides, the aerosol effects cannot account for the observed anticorrelation between detrended multidecadal surface and subsurface temperature variations in the tropical North Atlantic. These discrepancies cast considerable doubt on the claim that aerosols drive the bulk of the AMO. On the other hand, independent AMOC fingerprints derived from the observed subsurface ocean temperature indicate that the past AMOC variations are coherent with the observed AMO (Zhang, 2007, 2008; Wang and Zhang, 2013), bringing more evidence that the observed AMO is linked to AMOC variations rather than merely a 20th century artifact of changes in radiative forcing.”
Sorry, but the effect of the AMO is clearly visible in the Icelandic sea ice charts way back through the Little Ice age. In fact the LIA is when it is most visible.
Sorry Tony, I have to disagree with your graph. ;-)
You need to remember that Celsius degrees is not a zero scale measurement.
You need to be presenting your temperature in Kelvin to remove all scaling and false zero effects.
I still like this one better….. ;)
Yeah but… that one doesn’t show the CO2.
You know!….that would be a hootPlot CO2 on that graph using the same scale as Kelvin
That’s what I did.. I just used a zero offset
Would need a tall graph. After all would have to show the MASSIVE increase in CO2 against an ABSOLUTELY TINY increase in K temperature
I know…but it’s not as obvious as the “what this crap looks like on a thermometer” graph
OT.. Peak Oil… availability… :-)
This blog has added a lot to my understanding of the AGW debate. I am still bugged by my feeling that the weather in Denver, CO, where I live, has gotten noticeably warmer and more humid over the past 20 years. Either I am experiencing reality, or my body is telling me that it’s hotter because I’ve been reading about AGW. Can anybody give me any insight here?Also this blog provides some substantiation: http://globalwarmingdenver.com
bailcon – if you are going to look at a 20 year graph and think it is indicative of GLO-BULL warming you are beyond any of us here helping you out.Good luck buddy!
I don’t know Colorado at all.
TH or someone, can you use “Pulling Back the Curtain” to plot the raw temps for somewhere near Denver?
Here’s Boulder. Only a the 1998 El Nino spike and a lump/slight step around 1953 stand out
Bailcon, be very aware that sites like that are HIGHLY likely to be using “adjusted” temperatures from the AGW chiefs at GISS or NOAA.
Take there temps with a grain of salt.
Here is the combined UAH, RSS, USCRN temperatures for all America since USCRN was created in 2005. The last little hump is the effect of the El Nino and the North Atlantic blob and should settle back down to a ZERO trend in a few months time.
Boulder precipitation actually shows a slight upward trend, but really, found stupid is that precip graph on the page you link.
Last three years were above average… lol !!
And they calculate a trend of -o.01″.. someone skipped significance school !! DOH !
Whoops left out the Boulder precip graph..
Don’t forget the Urban Heat Effect. Most cities have been growing massively in these last 20 years.
That’s the problem with “feelings”, they are not thoughts. Try thinking.
Do you see the matching pattern? Did Bobby move to Denver?
Evidence demonstrates that GloBull Warming is apparently driven by US Postal rates.
Please see: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/
Regarding the CO2 versus temperature graphs, other than for clearer visual representation there is no need to transform Celsius to Kelvin to get the appropriate correlation coefficient. This is because both representations are linear. The appropriate transformation is performed implicitly by definition of the the cross-covariance. This implies the calculation is mean adjusted for both variates and normalized by each respective standard deviation.
OT.. but Josh nails it… YET AGAIN :-)
Um…..did someone say Trump?
Rsq numbers on the graph would be nice.I’m guessing temp/co2 is near zero, but AMO/temp looks like =>0.7
The second graph doesn’t even make sense. You need two different Y-Axes because you can’t compare CO2 (PPM) to monthly anomalies (degrees). It’s akin to comparing litres of water to speed of a buffalo.
Here’s the actual graph:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/normalise
Correlating parameters with differing units of measure should not be an issue when using a linear transformation. For time series sequences, a linear transformation preserves the density of samples per unit of time. When determining the correlation coefficient, the squared units of the respective variables (PPM, temperature, etc.) divide out when normalizing the cross-covariance by the product of the standard deviations.
I DID NOT POST THIS !!!!!!!
SOMEONE HAS USURPED MY NAME
IDENTITY FRAUD !!
The other Andy posts haveimg alt=”” src=”http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/4a69c3f6b013ab9367089a23b4c02abe?s=40&d=mm&r=g” srcset=”http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/4a69c3f6b013ab9367089a23b4c02abe?s=80&d=mm&r=g 2x” class=”avatar avatar-40 photo” height=”40″ width=”40″
while the usurped one hasimg alt=”” src=”http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f620f4647fb816073c9152a284245e64?s=40&d=mm&r=g” srcset=”http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f620f4647fb816073c9152a284245e64?s=80&d=mm&r=g 2x” class=”avatar avatar-40 photo” height=”40″ width=”40″
In the source just prior to thecite class=”fn” AndyG55 /citewhich is identical between them
Perhaps Tony should look into this
The way I could see this with chrome was to use from the upper right hand three dots menutools / developer toolsselect elementsthen click on the box with the arrow pointing at it at the left of that new menuthen finally click on the gravatar of the post in question
There are likely other ways this could be done with other browsers
DISGUSTING and ILLEGAL. !!
If the real AndyG55 would place some recognizable image into the gravatar associated with his postings, then if the usurper tried to copy that image, they would be guilty of copyright violation and you would have a legal means to get them to stop using that image. This could then make that image useful to distinguish between you and the usurper.
I don’t yet know how to go about setting a gravatar image.
Just right-click on the avatar, and choose properties.
Mine ends in …. abe?s…
Thanks. I learn something every day. That is much easier. Now … do you know how to actually go about setting your image?
I’ve started reading athttps://en.gravatar.com/but nothing is obvious yet …
Whoever you are..
you are a COWARDLY LUMP OF HUMAN EXCREMENT !!
Is that you Appell ??
Fake AndyG55 or not:
“It’s akin to comparing litres of water to speed of a buffalo.”
I’d posit that if a water buffalo drank zero liters of water over a month that you’d see an significant correlation in said buffalo’s speed as compared to a fully hydrated one. So the example is as false as the poster.
Posting under someone else’s name is really crappy. And just stupid.
That’s why I started using dave1billion long ago. There may be a Dave55 somewhere out there, but there aren’t another billion Daves.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.