John Penhallurick’s Blog 12. Significant correlations argue against IPCC’s model


Significant correlations

In a recent paper “US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895”, Joe D’Aleo has studied the R2 correlations since 1895 between U.S. temperature measurements, measurements of CO2, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). The R2 correlation is a way of stating how well data trends match, with 1.0 being a perfect match, 0.90 being a very good match, 0.50 a fair match, 0.25 a poor match and 0.00 no match at all. A negative number means that the two trends are reversed. A comparison of the 11 year running mean between temperature and CO2 was 0.44, that is fair to poor. The R2 correlation between TSI (which is a good proxy for total solar effect) and CO2 was 0.57, between fair and good. Finally, since the warm modes of the PDO and AMO both favor warming and their cold modes cooling, he thought the sum of the two may provide a useful index of ocean induced warming for the hemisphere (and USA). He 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. The correlation in this case is 0.83, which is close to very good. Also, coming back to the claim that the last 15 years were among the hottest ever recorded: D’Aleo also measured the correlations between global temperature as measured by the Hadley Climate Unit (HADCRUTv3), CO2 (as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii), and the Ocean Warming Index (OWI combining PDO, AMO and TSI). The correlation between temperature and CO2 was 0.02, which is abysmal. The correlation with OWI was 0.83, which is very good.

Advertisements

About jpenhall

I am a keen birder and have devoted my life especially since retirement to a study of the world's birds. But I was also a professor, with thirty years experience of both carrying out and evaluating research.But I detest shoddy research. Thus I reject almost wholly the propaganda of the IPCC and its minions
This entry was posted in Climate Change. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to John Penhallurick’s Blog 12. Significant correlations argue against IPCC’s model

  1. Pingback: Why I remain a climate sceptic in relation to human emissions of CO2 | jpenhall

  2. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 1:Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud | jpenhall

  3. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 1:Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud | jpenhall

  4. Robert Gunning says:

    interesting

  5. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 11:The truth about Arctic Ice | jpenhall

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s