New Kiwi study — warming not linked to CO2

Gary Kerkin, a scientist member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition, has released a study of surface temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (pdf, 349 KB) over New Zealand during the last hundred years and finds they are unrelated. This is similar, Gary says, to observations around the world, which find “a small increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but no significant upward trend in temperature.”

He says no experiment has ever been conducted to demonstrate the relationship between carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature. Nor has anyone established an empirical explanation of the extent to which carbon dioxide contributes to atmospheric temperature.

With no link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature established experimentally, he set out to discover one by comparing recent records. At least over New Zealand, he found no evidence that a link exists.

Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Changes Over 25-year Periods

Kerkin’s Figure 3: “Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Changes Over 25-year Periods.” In each year, the 25-year records of carbon dioxide and air temperature over New Zealand show no correlation. Click to enlarge.

An increase in either temperature or carbon dioxide does not appear to cause an increase in the other.

If that is true, his Figure 2, showing CO2 and temperature trending in unison, hints at some other factor driving them both:

New Zealand Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Record

Kerkin’s Figure 2: “New Zealand Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Record.” Uncorrelated, but their trends are similar—so what drives them? Click to enlarge.

He finishes by suggesting we might be “more concerned about the colder temperatures which will occur as the Holocene ends.”

Our time in the sun has been pleasant and productive (though some tell us to cool it) but it could be drawing to a close.


Download essay: “Carbon Dioxide and Atmospheric Warming” (pdf, 349 KB)

44
Leave a Reply

avatar
43 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Gary KerkinMike JowseySimonRichard TreadgoldRichard C (NZ) Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

The possible future lack of warmth scares me. Zooology tells us that warm-blooded man has eveolved to operate optimally in an ambient temp of around 20degrees Celcius. A couple of degrees colder will have unpleasant ramifications in so many areas of all of our lives. I have no idea why so many politicians have a desire to cool the world, but I notice that those same politicians are not quite as vociferous as they were formerly. Perhaps good sense is breaking out, but who knows?

Paul Litely
Guest

The Reality is that Clouds control the Earth’s Temperature, and the Sun keeps the clouds away when it is active with Sunspots. Now that the Sun is in a decline of activity, consistent with the past, we are already experiencing the cold trend that is projected to bottom out between 2025 and 2030. Yes, and Cold Kills. considerthis.info for proofs that temperature claims are manipulated and we are already in a cooling cycle.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

An interesting essay by this retired Master of Chemical Engineering. Will it be published in a peer-reviewed journal? Will there be a press release about it? Has it been submitted to the government?

Andy
Guest
Andy

With temps bottoming out at -22 degC in the MacKenzie this week, I do start to question the sanity of us building a house down there.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Good work Gary, as usual. Lurkers, Gary is an original ‘Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review’ guy and an accomplished number cruncher (leaves me for dead). Gary I understand your rationale and the comparative metrics you’ve used (Temp/CO2), however I’ve been in the process of tying down the primary climate change metric and it is neither of those (perhaps surprisingly to many). I’ve commented much on this in the previous ‘Wicked Witch’ and ‘Are you a scientist?’ threads so not too much more here. My responses below to your analysis are from that stance. >”The most prominent current hypothesis is that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the major cause of climate change” The UKMO expound on this (sort of) on a “Why is our climate changing?” page but CO2 is absent at the start: “Anything that affects the amount of energy being absorbed from the Sun, or the amount being radiated by the Earth – the planet’s energy balance – may produce long- or short-term cooling or warming.” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change/why Note that the criteria is “the planet’s energy balance” at TOA. This is the climate change indicator – not… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Correction – “there is no [CO2] forcing”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

NIWA has a future scenarios page: ‘Climate change scenarios for New Zealand’ Downscaling to New Zealand The New Zealand downscaled projections follow the IPCC Fourth Assessment approach. That is, changes are relative to 1980-1999, which we abbreviate as “1990” for convenience. Changes are calculated for the two future periods 2030-2049 (“2040” for short) and 2080-2099 (“2090”). Thus, the New Zealand projections are 50 and 100 year changes, between the baseline climate (centred on 1990) and future periods centred on 2040 and 2090. Table 1: Main features of New Zealand climate change projections for 2040 and 2090 (Ministry for the Environment, 2008). All-scenario average 0.9°C by 2040, https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/scenarios NIWA don’t provide a graph showing progress of the prediction (why not?) so I’ve plotted out BEST-37SS monthly data with 3 trendlines: the linear data trend, the prediction, and a Ln trend. The latter being a “damping trend” defined as a trend that approaches an asymptote but doesn’t cross it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/emv972u2sb8xg0j/NiWA%20projection%20vs%20observations.xls?dl=0 You might have to download the spreadsheet because what you see in Dropbox is not what you get in Excel. Predictably, the prediction is not tracking observations. The prediction trend is 1.8 C/century, the observations… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

RT thanks for the update. I look forward to the various responses, if any. I like to look at credentials of new ideas as well as the ideas. Kerkin’s ideas here are interesting and I agree with his premise that there should be empirical (localised) studies to validate or invalidate a hypothesis such as AGW. If I may play devil’s advocate however, it seems to me that this essay should be no more that a blog post and will wither under the crossfire from global warming advocates. Such crossfire may include the following: – Figure 2 seems to show a trend correlation between temperature and CO2 to my naked eye; – Figure 3 seems to be a statistical nightmare – why the 25-year difference? Not explained in the article except for this unsatisfactory attempt: “In an endeavour to more closely define a relationship, if one exists, a simple analysis might look at changes in temperature over a continuous span of years, and the change in concentration of carbon dioxide over the same time span. As an example of this approach I took the temperature and carbon dioxide data series described above over spans… Read more »

Alan Henderson
Guest

Please ask this genius to release his seminal study revealing that the Earth is flat.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Mike] – >”why the 25-year difference? Not explained in the article except for this unsatisfactory attempt: “In an endeavour to more closely define a relationship, if one exists, a simple analysis might look at changes in temperature over a continuous span of years, and the change in concentration of carbon dioxide over the same time span” As I understand Gary’s rationale, if a relationship exists, 25 years is plenty of time to reveal it when over successive 25 year periods incremented one year at a time. This is exhaustive. If a change of CO2 concentration occurs there should be a corresponding change in temperature over each successive 25 years or at least an indication of cause/effect – but there isn’t. This relationship does not exist in NZ data obviously. It should begin to emerge from about the 1950s and become more and more apparent as CO2 concentrations increase but instead, temperature is completely independent of CO2. My own trend analyses of NIWA 7SS (annual) and BEST 37SS (monthly) returns the same conclusion. From 1972 – 1997 (26 years), just prior to the strong El Nino (+0.4 C shift, solar-fueled), there was a negative/flat… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I see the “crossfire” has begun but not in the terms Mike suggested it would.

I predict more (probably much more) “crossfire” in the vein of Henderson than any other.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing? What is radiative forcing? The influence of a factor that can cause climate change, such as a greenhouse gas, is often evaluated in terms of its radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature. The term forcing is used to indicate that Earth’s radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state. Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2). When radiative forcing from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty’

Norman G. Loeb,
John M. Lyman,
Gregory C. Johnson,
Richard P. Allan,
David R. Doelling,
Takmeng Wong,
Brian J. Soden
& Graeme L. Stephens (2012)

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1375.html

Figure 3 Comparison of net TOA flux and upper-ocean heating rates.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/fig_tab/ngeo1375_F3.html

There is no 0.2 W.m-2/decade CO2 forcing (empirical, Berkeley Labs) evident in the TOA observations (IPCC confirms) and in all years except 2009 the TOA imbalance is less than CO2 forcing which, using Mauna Loa data from 1959, is now 1.24 W.m-2. CO2 forcing is therefore a completely ineffective energy driver at TOA in accordance with forcing criteria.

Therefore there is no point looking for CO2/Temp correlation, or not, at the surface (I’ve done this myself too) when CO2 falls at the first hurdle, TOA. Anything else that happens anywhere else is rendered moot, of no consequence, and of no relevance requiring consideration.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

No falsifiable hypothesis has been written for the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a.k.a. man-made climate change (MMCC) so let’s write one in terms of the critical criteria.

“The theory of AGW/MMCC posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing.”

This is falsifiable and is falsified by live real-world experiment results (TOA obs).

Q.E.D.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Maybe someone would like to explain to me how the 25 year values are calculated in Figure 3? It does not appear to be a rolling mean. Has the author simply taken the difference between two discrete points in time? If so, what two points are chosen for a given year? Would anyone like to speculate on why this approach would be statistically inappropriate?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”how the 25 year values are calculated in Figure 3? It does not appear to be a rolling mean” Nothing in the essay to suggest it might be and doesn’t make sense for them to be anyway. The Figure 3 title clearly states “Change in Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Over Preceding 25 Years”. So for each year on the graph the change graphed is the change over the previous 25 years in terms of Change/25 yrs, Gary doesn’t say but I think you can safely assume the change is calculated by linear regression of the data. Salinger wrote papers on NZ climate determining change by taking the average of the first part of the period, the average of the last part, and the difference between the two. I personally favour this approach rather than linear regression but it has fallen from favour among the climate science fraternity. I don’t think this is what Gary did though. He is simply following the practice of the day (linear regression) i.e. don’t criticize Gary for this, criticize climatology. You might note too that Gary has tabulated the 25 yr changes into 3 groups: For the range… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”You might note too that Gary has tabulated the 25 yr changes into 3 groups:”

Some of them but not all. The negative temperature changes in Figure 4 are missing from the tabulation.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Many thanks to both Richards for patiently and congenially explaining the ‘between the lines’ logic which my simple brain simply could not simply. I would suggest that the essay could be less cryptic and that fuller explanations along the lines of your two replies might make it more comprehensible to a wider readership. I now have a clearer understanding of the essay and its ramifications. In light of your tutorship I will reread the essay and may comment again as time permits. Again, thank you both.

On another matter, RC says “I predict more (probably much more) “crossfire” in the vein of Henderson than any other.” Henderson’s troll-like drive-by is not worthy of any response whatsoever and reflects very poorly on Henderson’s wit and intelligence. Had he raised one valid question or criticism it would be worthy of our attention, but if you RC predict more of this empty-headed rhetoric then it will be no problem at all, as they all will be rightly ignored.

Cheers!

Simon
Guest
Simon

I doubt that Gary has applied a regression to each year because if he did neighbouring years would be strongly correlated rather than exhibiting large differences. I still suspect that the method is the simple difference between the start and finish year. If that is the case, then any period comparison will be nonsense; it is the equivalent of trying to derive a trend from two data points.
The article should clearly state what methodology was applied.

Simon
Guest
Simon

If you look closely at Figure 3, you will see that the cumulative sum of the temperatures appears to be correlated to the cumulative sum of the CO2 measures. It is consistent with the apparent correlation between temperature and CO2 in Figure 2.
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation but in this instance we have a theory which supports the evidence. Unless you assume that the 7 Station Series is flawed, but there is no mention of this in the article.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”BEST monthly is essentially linear before and after 1997 from 1972 onwards.”

One could argue that the 1991/92 temperature plunge, about the inverse of the 97/98 El Nino, is not “essentially linear”, it’s clearly not. My reasoning though is that there is no ongoing effect of ENSO activity as there is after the 97/98 El Nino.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I doubt that Gary has applied a regression to each year because if he did neighbouring years would be strongly correlated rather than exhibiting large differences.”

Yes on the face of it but not necessarily. This is 7SS annual I’ve just confirmed from the essay. Here’s the data source:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data

Annual is not that representative so an additional year of annual data can return some weird trends. But point taken and it’s a good one. I agree Gary should have provided his method in detail. But given Gary’s experience with data of this nature I don’t think his method will be an issue once disclosed.

>”I still suspect that the method is the simple difference between the start and finish year”

You may well be correct but remember annual is the average of 12 data points so is not one “discrete” datapoint. This is actually Salinger’s method although he used more than one year I think I recall but how many I would have to look up. I’d be very surprised if Gary has used just one year of averaged monthly data at each end of a 25 yr period.

>”The article should clearly state what methodology was applied.”

Agreed.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”If you look closely at Figure 3, you will see that the cumulative sum of the temperatures appears to be correlated to the cumulative sum of the CO2 measures. It is consistent with the apparent correlation between temperature and CO2 in Figure 2.” Not even close given the temperature changes. The major changes occurred in the mid 1950s and late 1960s. The 1950s when CO2 change is least i.e. no correlation. The cumulative temperature change curve would have the greatest increase in the first half of the graph and the least in the last half. CO2 has the least increase in the first half and the greatest in the last half i.e. again, no correlation. A cumulative curve does not reveal any underlying physical basis anyway unless it’s non-CO2. It obscures periods like 1976 – 1983 and 1991 – 1997 for example when temperature change was predominantly negative apart from the odd aberration. Both of these periods are in the second half when CO2 change was large and positive. The large and positive temperature changes occurred in the first half when CO2 change was small. >”Correlation does not necessarily imply causation but in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ve just had a quick look at the 7SS annual data and it does look like Gary has used the one year average at the beginning and end of 25 years and the difference between. So I think you are correct Simon but we’ll have get confirmation. Presumably CO2 is the same so it’s an apples-to-apples comparison with the 25 year frame moving forward incrementally. Salinger used this method to determine climate regime difference so it’s not as if it’s invalid. The only difference in approach is the number of months averaged at each end. I would have preferred to see more than 12 months but fact remains it’s apples-to-apples if CO2 is the same. >”it is the equivalent of trying to derive a trend from two data points.” No it’s not (assuming the method is the difference between start and end rather than regression). It is determining the absolute difference between 2 regimes. In this case (our assumed method) the first regime is the average of 12 months of data at the beginning of the window and the second is the average of 12 months of data at the end of the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”in this instance we have a theory” Even if you had a theory in this instance it’s not in terms of the science of climate change as laid out by the IPCC and UKMO at least. The theory and hypothesis must be in terms of the critical, and primary criteria. This has never been documented to my knowledge so I’ve written it upthread: “The theory of AGW/MMCC posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing.” That’s it nothing else, all other “overwhelming evidence” and “multiple lines of evidence” are anecdotal observations that are many times removed from the hypothesis and not necessarily connected with it and are certainly not if the hypothesis is null. This is a falsifiable hypothesis with measurable variables relevant to the criteria. Actually falsified by live real-world experiment results (TOA obs). To attempt forming a hypothesis at the surface is barking up the wrong tree scientifically. So are exercises that assume some vague surface theory and then analyze variables pertaining to it. I’m as guilty of this as anyone but I wont be pursuing that anymore now that I know what defines climate… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

The climate change metric to monitor in the first instance to determine CO2 forcing effect, or not, is TOA energy balance – not surface temperature. If CO2 has no effect at TOA (and none is evident) then surface temperature is driven by some other forcing, the same forcing that is driving the TOA imbalance, whatever that is.

This sounds interesting Richard. Would you please expound on why CO2 forcing should be measured at TOA rather than surface? What is TOA energy balance? Do clouds or water vapour affect it? Do you have time to write such a thesis 😉

To attempt forming a hypothesis at the surface is barking up the wrong tree scientifically.

Surely this would be a game-changer in the debate. It obviates the need for accurate surface temperature or ocean temperature data (in the debate).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”It is consistent with the apparent correlation between temperature and CO2 in Figure 2.”

Except you cannot claim the period prior to the 1950s for causation. That period of warming has already been attributed to solar change according to the UKMO:

“solar radiation is thought to have been responsible for increased warming early in the 20th century.”

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change/why

UKMO on the latter half of the 20th century:

“Scientific research into the energy we receive from the Sun has found that it is not the main cause of the current warming trend.”

I repeat my response to this from ‘Are you a scientist’ thread:

How they make this distinction when solar input to the planetary system continued to increase after 1940 to Grand Maximum levels 1958 – 2005 (except SC 20) is beyond me. Usoskin graphs this level as the highest for around 11,000 years. And solar input is still very close to that level. This is the simple explanation for the current stable TOA imbalance – the UKMO’s climate change metric.

And planetary thermal lag is neglected in their cause/effect conclusion. A conclusion based on a thermodynamically illiterate approach.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Richard. Would you please expound on why CO2 forcing should be measured at TOA rather than surface? What is TOA energy balance? Do clouds or water vapour affect it? Do you have time to write such a thesis” Sure Mike but I’ve written a lot about it already in this thread, and the ‘Are you a scientist thread and the ‘Wicked Witch’ thread previously. It’s actually quite simple no thesis required. I suggest that you start from my first comment in this thread and read down. Then go back to the other threads, there’s references and links to literature all the way including to IPCC. If you’re still mystified just comment anywhere and I’ll write a brief synopsis (I get the comment feed). >”Surely this [hypothesis at the surface] would be a game-changer in the debate” No it wouldn’t. The game changer is in same game as has always been played at TOA by climate science. It’s just that a formal hypothesis has never been written in those terms. And because of this everyone has been, as I’ve put it, barking up the wrong tree scientifically. Climate science defines climate forcing in terms… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I’m not anticipating solar change to show up in [global] temperature until after [2020]”

And because the land mass is predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere the temperature response will show up there first and the ongoing effects greatest. With NZ surrounded in ocean it will probably show up here last (could be wrong of course).

During the solar Maunder Minimum the Bosphorus froze over at Istanbul (Constantinople) and people walked across from Asia to Europe and vice versa. This is the extreme Little ice Age scenario again. First scenario is Gleissberg, then Dalton, then Maunder in increasing severity. I’m hoping for none of these.

Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

Thanks to you all for your questions, comments, thoughts and criticisms. I think it fair to say that this represents proper and rigorous debate––with one exception! Usually I would forbear from responding to Alan Henderson but, in this case, it is worth noting that his metaphor is not particularly apt and that it does not take a genius to analyse the information as I did. He too can do it and no doubt will have to reach the same conclusion. I had a similar argument on Quora recently and two people pursued it, with a little more intelligence than Henderson, but gave up when I challenged them to repeat the exercise with their national information. Richard C has answered most of the queries but I appreciate that, as Richard T has stated, I was economic with my explanations. I will explain this in a bit more detail but at the outset let me make it quite clear: there is no statistics involved in the essay. No correlations––auto- co- or cross-. Just, and only just, differences. Richard T pointed out that I used only those differences in temperature which were positive. I saw no… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”What is TOA energy balance? Do clouds or water vapour affect it?” Yes and no. Both are H2O in different phases (liquid and gas) and both are TOA forcings but ONLY IF there is sufficient change over time to show up in the TOA energy budget. To date undetected therefore negligible and ineffective (the opposite at the surface in the case of cloudiness however). All IR absorbing particles in the atmosphere, if an effective forcing e.g. H2O, CO2, CH4, aerosols, etc, are a direct instantaneous TOA forcing at the speed of light but the magnitude of the forcing must build up over time. Solar forcing is indirect, via the ocean, over decades. There is nowhere near enough satellite data to make any conclusion re solar forcing at TOA. Ideally satellite monitoring would have started in the 1600s. Would have been good from 1750. Still very useful from 1800 or 1900. But we are stuck with when the satellite era began. The alternative is proxies but the uncertainty takes a giant leap and the whole issue becomes highly contentious with wildly varying estimates. The IPCC discards the estimates they don’t like or can’t understand… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Comprehensive update Gary. Thanks.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Mike, the reason I’m reluctant to immediately write a thesis or synopsis re the TOA climate criteria is that if you have not done some background reading of what I’ve pointed you at (this thread at least and two others, and the references), you will not have learned the terminology, definitions, or be familiar with any of the literature or relevant references. In other words I’ll have to explain far too much background.

I’m sure that having done the background leg work even a synopsis would be unnecessary, you should see what it is all about from that. But if still required, you would at least then know the necessary background so the synopsis is then little more than a few bullet points.

Basically though,

# Climate science prescribed the criteria long ago.
# It is repeated in IPCC assessments and FAQs (see upthread) and on institute’s websites (e.g. UKMO).
# Everyone has forgotten or ignored this or is unaware of it and gone off on wild tangents.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Went looking for the Salinger paper that uses differences of averages to determine changes but can’t find it again. Salinger (1993) uses linear trends but it wasn’t that. I’m sure I saw the technique in a Salinger paper but whatever I saw I can’t find again. No matter. Here’s another old paper that does use the technique: ‘1976 Step in the Pacific Climate:’ Ebbesmeyer et al (1990) http://aquaticcommons.org/4562/1/EbbesmeyerEtal_1990_ProcPacCLIM7th_pp115-126.pdf Not possible to copy from the pdf but in Methods on page 5 pdf they write: “….to equally weight the years before and after the step we examined the 8 years before the step (1968 – 1975) and the eight years after the step (1977 – 1984), yielding a total interval of 17 years including the year of the step (1976). By averaging over two 8 year blocks of time, we were able to estimate changes between two intervals that were approximately decadal.” They don’t express the step in terms of temperature, in Discussion on page 9 they state: “….variables shifted in 1976 by an amount averaging 4-7 times interannual variability during the preceding and succeeding eight years.” # # # 1) 8 years is… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”3) They have no gap between”

Actually they do – the 1976 year.

Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

In discussions of this sort the subject of statistics is always raised. Have the appropriate statistics been used? Is the conclusion statistically significant? Can we believe it? I have called my analysis “simple” for very good reason. I have not got into the statistical game because it leads nowhere. As far as I am aware all the statistics which have been applied to temperatures and other important climate parameters are based on Normal, Gaussian, unimodal distributions of the parameters and their errors. I am not in a position to comment on the CO2 data for reasons I stated in the essay…there is no sufficiently fine resolution data to enable some statistics to be identified. But I can assure all that the raw temperature data underlying the seven station series is far from unimodal and Normally distributed. At the very least it is bimodal and even multimodal and strongly skewed. To assume that it is Normal, therefore, is a stretch of the imagination. Worse, the methodology of Salinger and NIWA in inferring temperatures from other, “near”, stations can really only be applied if the statistics are similar i.e. have the same sort of distribution––modes… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The normal climatological span is considered to be 30 years but I understand that this is somewhat arbitrary. Why not 10 years? Or 50 years? I would suggest that 10 years would be too fine a resolution and 50 years too coarse to gain an understanding of the larger picture.”

Just for interests sake:

HadCRUT4
Running 50 year linear annual temperature trend calculated from monthly global average surface air temperature anomaly provided by to Hadley CRUT, The blue line represents the 50×12 month linear trend, plotted at the last month included in the analysis. As the HadCRUT4 record begins in January 1850, the first 50 yr plot is for December 1899. Last month included in analysis: April 2015. Last diagram update: 5 June 2015.

http://climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%2050yr%20AnnualTrendSinceDecember1899.gif

Running 50 year linear annual CO2 trend plotted against this would be good for chuckles.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I have called my analysis “simple” for very good reason.”

Also an easy spreadsheet exercise I would have thought. No pain but plenty of gain.

I don’t know but seems to me 25 yr linear regressions at each 1 yr increment would be a mission unless you’re a VBA expert or something.

Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

Richard C
“I don’t know but seems to me 25 yr linear regressions at each 1 yr increment would be a mission unless you’re a VBA expert or something.”

Yes it would be but surely all it would do would be to give something like an envelope of tangents to what is likely to be a higher-order regression.

Yes, I did use a spreadsheet (LibreOffice xls). Calculating the differences is relatively easy if two columns are set up with the start row in one and the end row in the other and using INDIRECT() to derive the correct difference.

I guess from my thoughts above on statistics you will appreciate just how reluctant I am to devote a huge amount of time to something I consider inappropriate.

Even though I am retired I do not find it easy to devote time to all the things I consider important. I prioritise. Sometimes an afternoon nap seems like a high priority 🙂

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gary >”surely all it would do would be to give something like an envelope of tangents to what is likely to be a higher-order regression” Yes I did give an example that used running windows of 50 yr trends upthread. Here it is again: HadCRUT4 Running 50 year linear annual temperature trend calculated from monthly global average surface air temperature anomaly provided by to Hadley CRUT, The blue line represents the 50×12 month linear trend, plotted at the last month included in the analysis. As the HadCRUT4 record begins in January 1850, the first 50 yr plot is for December 1899. Last month included in analysis: April 2015. Last diagram update: 5 June 2015. http://climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%2050yr%20AnnualTrendSinceDecember1899.gif That’s the envelope you describe (I think) and it is clearly unrelated to CO2. The higher order regression is about 0.8/century (I think) and doesn’t tell us anything in terms of CO2-Temp comparison. But a similar envelope of 25 yr trends on NZ data would be more sensitive (but far less sensitive than your technique). And almost the inverse of the CO2 envelope, again telling us a lot about the lack of relationship. I think you’ve demonstrated that… Read more »

Post Navigation