Pattern Matching Quiz

Which correlation works better?

  1. Temperature vs. the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

2. Temperature vs. atmospheric CO2


Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Pattern Matching Quiz

  1. OrganicFool says:

    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.

    • John F Hultquist says:

      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.

    • Gail Combs says:

      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.

      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 2007
      The 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.

  2. Latitude says:

    You mean someone finally discovered the AMO….

  3. bailcon says:

    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.”

    • AndyG55 says:

      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.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    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.

    :-) :-)

  5. bailcon says:

    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:

    • Stewart Pid says:

      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!

    • AndyG55 says:

      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

    • AndyG55 says:

      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.

    • AndyG55 says:

      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 !

    • AndyG55 says:

      Whoops left out the Boulder precip graph..

    • Robertv says:

      Don’t forget the Urban Heat Effect. Most cities have been growing massively in these last 20 years.

    • gator69 says:

      That’s the problem with “feelings”, they are not thoughts. Try thinking.

  6. Lance says:

    Snark on:

    Evidence demonstrates that GloBull Warming is apparently driven by US Postal rates.

    Please see:

    Snark Off.

  7. Stanley Smith says:

    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.

  8. AndyG55 says:

    OT.. but Josh nails it… YET AGAIN :-)

  9. Winnipeg Boy says:

    Rsq numbers on the graph would be nice.
    I’m guessing temp/co2 is near zero, but AMO/temp looks like =>0.7

  10. AndyG55 says:

    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:

    • Stanley Smith says:

      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.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I DID NOT POST THIS !!!!!!!


      • Latitude says:


      • Neal S says:


        The other Andy posts have
        img alt=”” src=”” srcset=” 2x” class=”avatar avatar-40 photo” height=”40″ width=”40″

        while the usurped one has
        img alt=”” src=”” srcset=” 2x” class=”avatar avatar-40 photo” height=”40″ width=”40″

        In the source just prior to the
        cite class=”fn” AndyG55 /cite
        which is identical between them

        Perhaps Tony should look into this

        • Neal S says:

          The way I could see this with chrome was to use from the upper right hand three dots menu
          tools / developer tools
          select elements
          then click on the box with the arrow pointing at it at the left of that new menu
          then finally click on the gravatar of the post in question

          There are likely other ways this could be done with other browsers

        • AndyG55 says:

          DISGUSTING and ILLEGAL. !!

        • Neal S says:

          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.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Whoever you are..


      Is that you Appell ??

  11. dave1billion says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *