"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d7fc3a64-44fb-402a-8efe-96804f95abd9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 30, 3:11 pm, matt_sykes <zzeb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 9:42 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Welcome to Roger Coppock's new health plan:
> > EXPOSE A FOSSIL FOOL LIE A DAY, AND KEEP THE ONCOLOGIST AWAY.
> > DAY 1
>
> > BOZNO SAYS, "CO2 Anti-Correlates With Global Temperature, Except For
> > 1980 To 1998"
>
> > Bonzo lies!
>
> > OK, Lets remove the years 1980 through 1998 from the
> > data and then do the math.
>
> > Call:
> > lm(formula = Temp ~ CO2, data = aframe)
>
> > Coefficients:
> > Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
> > (Intercept) 1.09889e+01 2.57035e-01 42.7525 < 2.22e-16 ***
> > CO2 9.29942e-03 7.55354e-04 12.3113 4.8508e-13 ***
> > ---
> > Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
>
> > Residual standard error: 0.100648 on 29 degrees of freedom
> > Multiple R-Squared: 0.839397, Adjusted R-squared: 0.833859
> > F-statistic: 151.569 on 1 and 29 DF, p-value: 4.8508e-13
>
> > THERE IS A STONG POSITIVE CORRELATION HERE!
>
> > Year Temp CO2
> > 1958 14.08 315.33
> > 1959 14.06 315.98
> > 1960 13.99 316.91
> > 1961 14.08 317.65
> > 1962 14.04 318.46
> > 1963 14.08 318.99
> > 1964 13.79 319.20
> > 1965 13.89 320.03
> > 1966 13.97 321.37
> > 1967 14.00 322.18
> > 1968 13.96 323.05
> > 1969 14.08 324.62
> > 1970 14.03 325.68
> > 1971 13.90 326.32
> > 1972 14.00 327.46
> > 1973 14.14 329.68
> > 1974 13.92 330.17
> > 1975 13.95 331.14
> > 1976 13.84 332.06
> > 1977 14.13 333.78
> > 1978 14.02 335.40
> > 1979 14.09 336.78
> > 1999 14.33 368.14
> > 2000 14.33 369.41
> > 2001 14.48 371.07
> > 2002 14.56 373.16
> > 2003 14.55 375.80
> > 2004 14.49 377.55
> > 2005 14.62 379.75
> > 2006 14.54 381.85
> > 2007 14.57 383.72
>
> > 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
>
> > The global mean temperature data are the GISS adjusted
> > J-D yearly land and sea average, available from NASA at:
>
> >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
>
> cherry picked.
Cherry picked from what larger set of data?
***********************
And just plain dimbass wrong as well.
PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2
AND NEGATIVE CORRELATION FOR CO2 FROM 1998
http://www.junkscience.com:80/blog_js/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2
Joe D’Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, one of the
founders of The Weather Channel and who operates the website ICECAP took
it upon himself to do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface
temperature data set and compare it against measured trends of CO2,
Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar Irradiance. to see which one
matched better.
It’s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R2
correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of
determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the
correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The
lower the number, the lower the trend correlation.
Understanding R2 correlation
R2 Coefficient Match between data trends
1.0 Perfect
..90 Good
..50 Fair
..25 Poor
0 or negative no match at all
If CO2 is the main driver of climate change this last century, it stands
to reason that the trend of surface temperatures would follow the trend
of CO2, and thus the R2 correlation between the two trends would be
high. Since NCDC has recently released the new USHCN2 data set for
surface temperatures, which promises improved detection and removal of
false trends introduced by change points in the data, such as station
moves, it seemed like an op****tune time to test the correlation.
At the same time, R2 correlation tests were run on other possible
drivers of climate; Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).
First lets look at the surface temperature record. Here we see the
familiar plot of temperature over the last century as it has been
plotted by NASA GISS:
The temperature trend is unmistakeably upwards, and the change over the
last century is about +0.8°C.
Now lets look at the familiar carbon dioxide graph, known as the Keeling
Curve, which plots atmospheric CO2 concentration measure at the Mauna
Loa Observatory:
CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Oak Ridge National
Lab) also has a data set for this that includes CO2 data back to the
last century (1895) extracted from ice core samples. That CO2 data set
was plotted against the new USHCN2 surface temperature data as shown
below:
A comparison of the 11year running mean of the USHCN version 2 annual
mean temperatures with the running mean of CO2 from CDIAC. An r-squared
of 0.44 was found.
The results were striking to say the least. An R2 correlation of only
0.44 was determined, placing it between fair and poor in the fit between
the two data sets.
Now lets look at other potential drivers of climate, TSI and PDO.
Scafetta and West (2007) have suggested that the total solar irradiance
(TSI) is a good proxy for the total solar effect which may be
responsible for at least 50% of the warming since 1900. To test it,
again the same R2 correlation was run on the two data sets.
In this case, the correlation of TSI to the surface temperature record
is better than with CO2, producing an R2 correlation of 0.57 which is
between fair and good.
Finally. Joe ran the R2 correlation test on PDO, the Pacfic Decadal
Oscillation. He writes:
We know both the Pacific and Atlantic undergo multidecadal cycles the
order of 50 to 70 years. In the Pacific this cycle is called the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation. A warm Pacific (positive PDO Index) as we found
from 1922 to 1947 and again 1977 to 1997 has been found to be
accompanied by more El Ninos, while a cool Pacific more La Ninas (in
both cases a frequency difference of close to a factor of 2). Since El
Ninos have been shown to lead to global warming and La Ninas global
cooling, this should have an affect on annual mean temperature trends in
North America.
This PDO and TSI to surface temperature connection has also been pointed
out in previous post I made here, for former California State
Climatologist, Jim Goodridge. PDO affects the USA more than the Atlantic
cycle (AMO) because we have prevailing westerly wind flow.
Here is how Joe did the data correlation:
Since the warm modes of the PDO and AMO both favor warming and their
cold modes cooling, I though the sum of the two may provide a useful
index of ocean induced warming for the hemisphere (and US). I
standardized the two data bases and summed them and correlated with the
USHCN data, again using a 11 point smoothing as with the CO2 and TSI.
This was the jackpot correlation with the highest value of r-squared
(0.83!!!).
An R2 correlation of 0.83 would be considered “good”. This indicates
that PDO and our surface temperature is more closely tied together than
Co2 to surface temperature by almost a factor of 2.
But he didn’t stop there. He also looked at the last decade where it has
been commonly opined that the Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All
Been In Last 13 Years to see how well the correlation was in the last
decade:
Since temperatures have stabilized in the last decade, we looked at the
correlation of the CO2 with HCSN data. Greenhouse theory and models
predict an accelerated warming with the increasing carbon dioxide.
Instead, a negative correlation between USHCN and CO2 was found in the
last decade with an R or Pearson Coefficient of -0.14, yielding an
r-squared of 0.02.
According to CO2 theory, we should see long term rise of mean
temperatures, and while there may be yearly patterns of weather that
diminish the effect of the short term, one would expect to see some sort
of correlation over a decade. But it appears that with an R2 correlation
of only 0.02, there isn’t any match over the past ten years.
As another test, this analysis was also done on Britain’s Hadley Climate
Research Unit (CRU) data and MSU’s (John Christy) satellite temperature
data:
To ensure that was not just an artifact of the United States data, we
did a similar correlation of the CO2 with the CRU global and MSU lower
tropospheric monthlies over the same period. We found a similar non
existent correlation of just 0.02 for CRU and 0.01 for the MSU over
troposphere.
So with R2 correlations of .01 and .02 what this shows is that the
rising CO2 trend does not match the satellite data either.
Here are the different test correlations in a summary table:
And his conclusion:
Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated
far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The
correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed
in the last decade.
Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline
in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations,
temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly.
While this isn’t a “smoking gun” it is as close as anything I’ve seen.
Time will give us the qualified answer as we have expectations of a
lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now happening.
References:
US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895 , Joeseph D’Aleo, 2008
Persistence in California Weather Patterns, Jim Goodridge, 2007
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern
Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600 Scafetta and West,
2007
The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset, National Climatic Data
Center, 2007
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada
|
