*

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Smoking gun?

The GoreBull Warmists and Tree Huggers Inc may be slightly pissed after the discovery of this gem.

I do not understand the exact math behind correlations, but correlations can apparently be scaled as below
  • 1.0 Perfect
  • 0.9 Good
  • 0.5 Fair
  • 0.25 Poor
  • 0 or negative - No match
On to the topic

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.

Off Joe went finding these interesting results when looking at various data set trends against the rise in CO2 levels

  • Ice core sampled CO2 content back to 1880 gave an R2 correlation of 0.44 (less than Fair)
  • Solar irradiance gave an R2 correlation of 0.57 (better than Fair)
  • PDO (La Nina / El Nino) plus AMO (Atlantic cycle) gave gave an R2 correlation of 0.83(considered Good)
Because those with the faith continuously spout that 11 of the highest temperatures have been in the last 13 years, he looked at this period very closely and found a 'No match' correlation of 0.02. Now children. I think that is not a valid starting point when you you are high on a soapbox, spouting forth gospel.

Further intrigued, he looked at the correlation of the UK data set and the satellite data set. Not good with an R2 of 0.01 and 0.02 respectively. End result, the satellite data does not match the rising CO2 trend either.

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. [emphasis mine]


Global Warming as the Noo Religion is plain crap, as I have long suspected.

Time to rug up people, looks like its getting colder.

1 comment:

Blue Belle said...

Don't you get sick of being lied to? I sure do.

I would accept the GWers had a point if only they didn't exaggerate, distort and plain lie to us all the time. But if they didn't lie to us, they wouldn't have a point at all, would they?

As it is, I way beyond being a skeptic. I just have not seen any observational, provable scientific reports that actually support the theory of AGW. Their 'proof' comes from computer models that have little or no relationship with what is actually happening.