Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein
Total US Debt (public and private) as a percentage of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) correlates with NASA GISS US Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly better than CO2 levels! So, if we want to reduce warming, cut the debt!
The base chart tracks Total Public and Private US Debt as a percentage of GDP (black line) from 1870 through 2009. Notice how it slowly increases from 1880 to 1930 and then peaks sharply in the early 1930’s, declines through the 1950’s and then rises steadily through 2009.
NASA GISS data for the US Annual 5 year Mean Temperature Anomaly from 1880 to the present is superimposed (red line), and fits remarkably well. It is a bit noisier, but it too increases from 1880 to 1930 and then peaks sharply in the early 1930’s. It then declines through 1970, and then rises steadily through 2010.
Notice how CO2 levels (dotted blue line), estimated from 1880 through 1957 and based on Mauna Loa from 1958 through 2010, fail to indicate any peaking in the 1930’s.
It is amazing how the Warmists point to human-caused CO2 as the primary cause of Global Warming when Total US Debt as a Percentage of GDP matches so much better! Perhaps cutting the GISS budget will do more for the Warmist cause than wrecking our economy by cutting energy use and sequestering CO2? Let us save the environment by increasing US productivity and reducing deficits!
BOTTOM LINE:
1) I really do not think that US Debt is related to warming temperature at all, but it seems to be more related than CO2. (A geometric analogy: An ellipse has no corners at all, but it has more corners than a circle :^)
2) Correlation does not prove causation, and CO2 does not even correlate all that well as the cause of warming. Therefore, human activities, while most likely responsible for some small part of recent warming (see this) are overwhelmed by natural cycles and processes, responsible for most of the actual warming since 1880. Indeed, the greatest human cause of the supposed warming has been Data Bias, due to “adjustments” and re-analysis by NASA GISS.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
YES, I do trust the satellite data in general and Spencer’s analysis in particular. Looking at his graph, take his first January (1980) anomaly, which is -0.1ºC, and compare it with the most recent January (2011) anomaly, which is 0.0ºC, and you get a net warming since satellite data came available of only +0.1ºC, a lot less than the +0.5ºC I have allocated to warming since 1880. If you take Spencer’s first running centered 13-month average for January 1980, which is -0.1ºC, and compare it to the latest 13-month average, January 2010, which is +0.4ºC, the warming is +0.5ºC. If you compare the 13-month average for the same months in 1999 and 2009, you get a cooling of -0.2ºC. Thus, comparing the same month of the year for different years, you can get warming or cooling. Since human activities do not change that much over a year or a decade or two, that proves to me that natural cyclaes and processes are a far greater force in climate change than human activities.
Also, while the satellite data is the best we have, the sensors cannot penetrate cloud cover and thus report surface temperatures only under cloud-free conditions. That means they do not directly measure the considerably cooler temperatures that exist under daytime clouds (or the slightly warmer temperatures under nightime clouds). The readings also need to be adjusted according to the time of day the satellite happens to pass over a given location, as well as the deterioration of the sensors over time. In addition, there have been over a dozen different satellites in use at various times since measurements began in 1979, each with somewhat different instrumentation, requiring satellite intercalibration bias adjustments. Thus, while Spencer’s UAH analysis is fine, and far, far better than the GISS and CRU analysed data, I believe it may be off by +/-0.1ºC.
I use US temperature records because I pay for and am evaluating US NASA GISS (and other US government agencies that take and process temperature records). Why do you call it a “trick”? It seems to me that US agences have more control and knowledge of US temperature data than anything from other countries, where there may be fewer measurement stations and where other factors may distort the record. If they cannot get it right with US data, modifying their own published data by up to 0.5ºC, see FOIA email, how can they get it right with worldwide data?
As I pointed out here there are many different natural cycles and processes in addition to the Sun. Multi-decadal ocean oscillations are certainly heavy hitters. However, the run up in temperature does correlate to Sunspot number, with SC#20 (~1970, during a cool period) peaking lower than SC#21, #22, and #23. The real test of the contribution of Solar activity will come with SC#24, set to peak at a very low level around 2014. If Solar activity is a heavy hitter, this will result in stabilization of global temperatures and perhaps a bit of Global Cooling. If that happens, desipite continued rapid CO2 rise, I think that will prove that CO2 sensitivity has been way over-estimated by the official climate Team and, therefore, that the human contribution to warming is far less than they claim.
Thank you for your comment and I hope you follow up with more.
IRA,
A correlation would likely look pretty good (R2 wise) if you plotted the value of a home in the central valley of CA to temp and CO2 (say till 2006/7- unfortunately after that the correlation falls apart)- oh wait how about if you only start the time series in 2006 and then do the plot of home value to say CO2- that should show a pretty good negative feedback/ sac.
Our approaches fall under “PARC- Passive Analysis by Regressions and Correlations, or Profound Analysis Relying on Computers or maybe Planning After the Research is Completed” as noted by Davis Balestracci (page 2) http://www.asq.org/statistics/1998/06/data-sanity-statistical-thinking-applied-to-everyday-data.html?shl=088344#rate
“Data ‘Sanity’: Statistical Thinking Applied to Everyday Data
Abstract: This publication exposes eight common statistical “traps”. They are: 1. Treating all observed variation in a time series data sequence as special causes, 2. Fitting inappropriate “trend” lines to a time series data sequence, 3. Unnecessary obsession with and incorrect application of the Normal distribution, 4. Incorrect calculation of standard deviation and “sigma” limits, 5. Misreading special cause signals on a control chart, 6. Choosing arbitrary cutoffs for “above” average and “below” average, 7. Improving processes through arbitrary numerical goals and standards, 8. Using statistical techniques on “rolling” or “moving” averages.
Keywords: Process-oriented thinking – Time Series Data – Variance Reduction”
The USA has to tackle its debt or end up as just another Ireland or Greece, only in this case due to capitalist extremism. The only meaningful way for the USA to cut its budget is to cut defense spending. If you thought taking on a few warmista fanatics was tough just try taking on the American military industrial complex, good luck.
Matter at February 16, 2011 at 12:34 am accuses Ira of cherry picking the use of US temperature data. However, I am of the view that this is a valid exercise. What we need to know is where, when and how the globe is warming.
The use of a global average temperature has a tendency to fudge matters and conceal what may be important mechanisms in the warming phenomena. I can accept that the way in which temperatures respond may be different at the poles or over dessert where the is less water vapour and thus CO2 bears a larger proportion of the greenhouse gases over those areas. I can accept that the way that the equatorial area and the poles may warm could be different because of the incident of sunlight and duration of the day etc. I can accept that areas of tropical rain forest may respond differently etc. There may therefore be special cases to temperature response.
However, outside those special cases, is there any reason (whatsoever) to presume that the behaviour of warming experienced by the US in response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is not typical of the globe generally?
The advantage of looking at the US is that it is one area where there is an abundance of station data going back quite a long way. One anticipates that the quality control behind this data may be better than other temperature sets. IF there is no reason why the US should be considered an exceptional case and not typical of the globe generally, it follows that the analysis of the US is extremely pertinent to the AGW debate.
Under the current monetary system all money is created for debt. So the owners of this debt, Rothchild, JP Morgan, Warburg have no incentive to see the budget of their “private (federal) reserve” reduced. The bigger the debt, the higher the receivables for those who own the money supply.
That is my take. What do you think?
Anthony that’s a bad note for your GOP support.
Over the last 80 years, temps are spiking when a Republicain got the job -while temps are cooling when a dem gets in.
Was that sarcasm ? lol
And when it comes to correlation don’t forget that women’s hemlines tend to rise in times of national crises. Well known econometric observation.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
February 16, 2011 at 12:33 am
Here in the UK, we are a little worried about our debt – though we have just started to make huge cut-backs so we at least tackle our budget deficit.
*****************************************************
That statement is a myth (happily propagated in the media and by the opposition). UK government expenditure has increased every month since the Coalition took power. There are no cuts at the overall level.
All the best.
mkelly was quicker on the draw, but let me add my 2¢:
John Brookes says:
“US debt and CO2 correlated? Might I suggest that both the USA and the climate are in a state of decline. The difference being that while CO2 is driving the climate…”
Wrong on both. Just because a 3rd world country has had a growth spurt does not mean the U.S. is “in decline,” much as Mr Brookes wishes it were so. We will get over the Obama disaster just as we’ve gotten over worse problems.
And CO2 doesn’t drive anything except faster plant growth.
[Also, here’s another wonderful correlation. As you can see, it has an R-squared value much higher than CO2/Temp.]
Noelle – Ira’s being facetious. Look under your rock and see if you can find your sense of humor.
In the last two years, the U.S. government debt (on balance sheet) has increased by 40% (from ~$10 Trillion to ~$14 Trillion). CO2 has increased by about 1% (~4 ppm)and temperature has not increased at all statistically.
Draw your own conclusions.
Sun Spot says:
February 16, 2011 at 9:40 am
The USA has to tackle its debt or end up as just another Ireland or Greece, only in this case due to capitalist extremism. The only meaningful way for the USA to cut its budget is to cut defense spending. If you thought taking on a few warmista fanatics was tough just try taking on the American military industrial complex, good luck.
I would not disagree totally that some reduction in military spending is in order, but you seem to skip over several items like the dept of education, HEW, energy, etc. Of the departments listed only the defense department is mentioned in the Constitution as being required to be funded. So lets start with eliminating all non-Constitutional spending first. What say you.
Ira says
” YES, I do trust the satellite data in general and Spencer’s analysis in particular. Looking at his graph, take his first January (1980) anomaly, which is -0.1ºC, and compare it with the most recent January (2011) anomaly, which is 0.0ºC … ”
Choosing two individual months as the basis for a trend seems rather like cherry picking. The change from the first MARCH to the most recent MARCH looks like -0.25 to 0.55 = a change of 0.8C. Neither of these is a good estimate for much of anything.
Much better would be an annual average. Just eyeballing, I would say the average anomaly for the first 12 months is ~ -0.12ºC, and the eyeball estimate for the most recent 12 months is ~ 0.35ºC. So I would say that based on this, the increase is more like 0.45ºC, not the 0.1ºC you quote nor the 0.8ºC my picking a month with an especially big anomaly.
Better yet, what is the slope of the linear regression for the data? What are the 95% confidence bounds on the slope?
P Walker wrote: “Noelle – Ira’s being facetious. Look under your rock and see if you can find your sense of humor.”
Then why isn’t this tagged as humor? It’s tagged for CO2 and global warming.
Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
February 16, 2011 at 8:29 am
Matter says:
February 16, 2011 at 12:34 am
On your global warming is a pussycat thread you claim that there is only 0.5 C of global warming, and 0.3 C is from data adjustment in GISS.
Yet the warming in UAH and RSS is ~0.5 C since ’79.
Since I doubt even most WUWT commenters think that Roy Spencer is adjusting the satellite data because of airports in space, does that mean that there was hardly any warming or cooling before 1980?
—————————————
YES, I do trust the satellite data in general and Spencer’s analysis in particular. Looking at his graph, take his first January (1980) anomaly, which is -0.1ºC, and compare it with the most recent January (2011) anomaly, which is 0.0ºC, and you get a net warming since satellite data came available of only +0.1ºC, a lot less than the +0.5ºC I have allocated to warming since 1880.
———————
Oh please that nonsense is indefensible. Someone should take your PhD away from you.
richard verney says:
February 16, 2011 at 9:42 am
“Matter at February 16, 2011 at 12:34 am accuses Ira of cherry picking the use of US temperature data. However, I am of the view that this is a valid exercise. What we need to know is where, when and how the globe is warming.
The use of a global average temperature has a tendency to fudge matters”
————————-
Haha too funny. So we need to know how the globe is warming, by ignoring 98% of the Earth. Sadly I doubt your post was intended to be a joke.
Folks,
Please ignore the inanities spouted by John Brookes.
He’s been infesting Jo Nova’s site for some time now and has absolutely nothing to offer other than brain-dead “arguments from authority”.
Researchers Link Extreme Rains To Global Warming
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/16/133806402/researchers-link-extreme-rains-to-global-warming
>>To lower debt, cool the planet! It is clearly the only practical and effective way of doing it.<<
I'm doing my part by leaving the refrigerator door open. I'm thinking of moving it outside where it will do the most good.
Noelle says:
February 16, 2011 at 1:17 pm
P Walker wrote: “Noelle – Ira’s being facetious. Look under your rock and see if you can find your sense of humor.”
Then why isn’t this tagged as humor? It’s tagged for CO2 and global warming.
Oh dear, oh dear!
It’s not tagged as being in English either – some things are rather too obvious to need signposting.
onion2 says:
February 16, 2011 at 1:32 pm
“richard verney says:
February 16, 2011 at 9:42 am
“……The use of a global average temperature has a tendency to fudge matters”
————————-
Haha too funny. So we need to know how the globe is warming, by ignoring 98% of the Earth. Sadly I doubt your post was intended to be a joke.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Onion2, I am not suggesting that we should not examine warming trends from all over the globe. I am not suggesting that we only look at the US, but it is a valid exercise to look at the US unless there are cogent explanations as to why the experience of the US should not be typical. Onion2, I note that you do not offer any explanation as to why the temperature response in the US is significantly different to that of the global average, nor why the temperature response in the US does not seem to follow the principle undelying the AGW theory that increase in CO2 leads to warming. After all, the US has received its share of any increase in back radiation brought about by the increase in CO2 levels up to 390ppm. I presume Onion2 that you have no scientific explanation for the behavoiur noted in the US but if you do have scientific explanations, please detail them so that we can all consider their relevance.
My view (and I have posted this many times) is that a temperature record for each country (may be in some cases a collection of countries) should be compiled and analysed rather than some global fudge.
The effects of climate change (if there is any significant change) will be locally felt. For some countries it will be beneficial, for some neutral and for others it will pose some challenges. It is therefore much more important to see how each country/small area is being affected by temperature changes. This will probably also tell us more about the mechanisms involved.
The reason why this is not being done is probably for political reasons to try and bolster the mantric, ‘we are all in this togther. It is a global problem etc’ when in reality that mantric is not true.
Onion2, in making that final point, I am not suggesting that it follows that we should simply abandon those countries that face challenges to their fate. I am not saying that we should not help them deal with the challenges that they face. For present purposes, I am talking about the science, not the response.
The Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/extreme-weather-getting-worse—and-climate-change-to-blame-studies-say/article1910066/
As one poster commented:
“Let’s first acknowledge the Globe and Mail Climate Rapid Reaction Team: it took them no time to publish Seth Borenstein’s article, a journalist from AP and their most rabid alarmist mouthpiece of Global Warming, itself a rehash of Quirin Shiermeier’s blog on Nature’s website!
Therefore can we expect the same steadfast quickness when O’Donnell et al. debunk of Steig et al. 2009 on Antarctica’s supposed warming will be published in Journal of Climate soon? Don’t hold your breath on that one…”
Noelle says: February 16, 2011 at 6:28 am
[….. The whole point of this post is completely lost on me.]
—————————————————
Noelle –Ain’t that a shame!
ferd berple: THAT MADE ME LAUGH! THANKS! For readers who may find it too hard to move your refrigerator outside, the least you can do is take all the ice cubes outside and dump them, morning and evening, where they will cool the surface of the Earth. If you happen to live near an official temperature monitoring station, please haul your ice cubes over there to do the most good. (/sarc)
I notice that the number of girls wearing shorts has increased rapidly in the last few years, and the shorts themselves have become shorter, so that they only just (or, in some cases, almost) cover the girls’bottoms.
Is this correlated with weather patterns, and if so, is a cause or an effect?
(I’m not complaining either way.)