The Message in the Dye 3 Data

Guest post by David Archibald

The story so far: in this recent post – Ap Index Neutrons and Climate, we had looked at the Dye 3 oxygen isotope-derived temperature record to see how big climate swings have been over the last few thousand years.

image

Figure 1: Dye 3 Temperature Record from Oxygen Isotope Ratios

As Figure 1 shows, the raw Dye 3 data shows plenty of noise and rapid swings in temperature.

image

Figure 2: Dye 3 Temperature Record 22 Year Smooth and less Millennial Cooling Trend

Applying a 22 year averaging to the data (the Hale Cycle) and taking off the millennial cooling trend that averages 0.00010915°C per annum produces the data in Figure 2. It is evident that the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period occurred as a result of few excursions to the lower bounding line of activity.

image

Figure 3: Dye 3 Normalised Temperature Distribution

Figure 3 shows the result of sorting the normalised Dye 3 temperature record from lowest to highest and then plotting that up. The vertical lines are deciles of 377 years. What is striking is that the temperature range in the 2nd and 9th deciles is almost the same as that of the 5th and 6th deciles, which means that the average isn’t normal. What is normal is change. If temperature dwelled in the middle of the range and was subject to excursions up and down, then the curve would be flatter in the middle. In fact the temperature is only in the middle if it is on its way to somewhere else, either hotter or colder. Which means that there is no Arcadia of normal bliss – growing ranges are constantly either contracting or expanding like a concertina.

image

Figure 4: Lagged Dye 3 and CET Temperature with Inverted Be10 Data 1659 – 1750

Nobody lives on top of the Greenland icesheet so how does the Greenland data affect the affairs of Men? Figure 4 plots the Dye 3 temperature data, lagged three years, in red (plus 36°C) against the Central England Temperature (CET) Record in blue with the Dye 3 Be10 data in green. The interval 1659 to 1750 was chosen because this includes the fastest change in the CET record and the biggest spike in the Dye 3 Be10 record. There is a very good correlation between the Dye 3 temperature record and the Dye 3 Be10 record. There is good correlation between the Dye 3 temperature record and the CET record apart from the decades 1690 to 1710.

There is another good reason for looking at the decades 1690 to 1710 and that is that the decades 2010 to 2030 might be a re-run of them. Famines caused by the cold killed roughly 10% of the population in France 1693-94, Norway 1695-96 and Sweden 1696-97, 20% in Estonia 1696-97 and 33% in Finland 1696-97 (Elizabeth Ewan, Janay Nugent (2008) ”Finding the family in medieval and early modern Scotland” Ashgate Publishing. p.153).

Humans expand to fill the habitable zone, but the habitable zone can shrink too. This is a link to the Arbor Day Foundation’s animation of the changes they made to their hardiness zone map in 2006: http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

image

Figure 5: Hardiness Zones Map

Figure 5 shows the current hardiness zones map. The 10°F width of these zones just about equates to the 5°C drop in temperature due to the length of Solar Cycle 24 over that of Solar Cycle 22.

The lesson from the Dye 3 temperature data, and that late 17th Century Finnish famine, is this: exploit the expansion in the habitable zone as the Sun becomes more active, but be prepared to run back towards the equator because it isn’t going to last.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jeroen B.

Excellent article but one nitpick:
The “Dye 3” label in figure 4 points to the same line as the CET, which was rather confusing at first.

Do you have a similar map for Europe?

Tim

On your graph Dye 3 label is attached to the CET record in blue. From the text, I believe it should be attached to the red curve. To lesson confusion I would put the font in red and attach it to the red curve.

R. Gates

This is all very interesting, and I am a huge believer that the sun plays a major role in modulating our climate, but now is likely being trumped by the rapid build-up in greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, but increasingly methane and N2O as well. Seems at least some solar experts and models indicate that even were we to have a Maunder type minimum over the next century (they give it an 8% possibility), the impacts on overall global temps will be very minimal.

Don B

Slightly OT, but you might not mind a comment about galactic cosmic rays. The Oulu count is certainly staying high, two years after the solar cycle minimum, compared to the two other cycles on the 22 year cycle. If Svensmark is right, cool times ahead.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/01/01&starttime=00:00&enddate=2012/01/24&endtime=22:25&resolution=Automatic choice&picture=on

Greg Elliott

“which means that the average isn’t normal”
Which means that typical statistical methods are likely to return misleading results.

R. Gates: Puh-leeeeeze. Either put a figure on it or stuff a cork in it.

Willis Eschenbach

It’s an interesting theory, but over baked. Call me crazy, but a graph with a note identifying the date of “The neutron flux that killed a third of Finland” in the 1690s hardly engenders confidence (figure 4).
If you want to try to establish a connection between neutron flux and temperature, that’s one thing, and a good thing too. But prematurely claiming without sufficient evidence that neutron flux killed people in Finland in 1696? Not science in my book, we’ve had enough of that alarmism from the AGW crowd already/
w.

10Be records from Greenland are grossly contaminated, they are as good as useless.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET&10Be.htm

Colin Aldridge

seriously unconvincing. Have you done a proper statistiacl correlation between Dye 3 and CET. It fails my eyeball test. And we all know temperature is not random in the snese that a trend tends to continue at least for a while.

MDR

As I said in the other thread, I don’t doubt that the trend shown in Figure 2 is present in the data shown in Figure 1, but the conclusion drawn from these figures is closer to pure speculation than scientific prediction.
In general, conclusions based on extrapolations in time [“the past shows a trend, so the trend must continue”] and space [“it’s happening in one place, so it’s probably happening elsewhere”] without additional supporting data or attribution to the underlying physical cause are unlikely to be robust.

Andrew30

R. Gates:
Fantasized “This is all very interesting, and I am a huge believer that the sun plays a major role in modulating our climate, but now is likely being trumped by the rapid build-up in greenhouse gases, mainly CO2…”
Perhaps you meant to write:
“This is all very interesting, and I am a huge believer that the sun plays a major role in modulating our climate, [since the] trumped [up affect of] rapid build-up in greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 [does not seem to be causing any increase in global average temperature for the last 13 years]”
Year Deviation from the base period 1961-90, degrees C
1998 0.529
1999 0.304
2000 0.278
2001 0.407
2002 0.455
2003 0.467
2004 0.444
2005 0.474
2006 0.425
2007 0.397
2008 0.329
2009 0.436
2010 0.470
2011 0.356
Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
Carbon Dioxide goes up and the Temperature remains the same

LarryD

Here, Brian: Europe Hardiness Zones.
Search “hardiness zones europe map”

R. Gates

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
January 24, 2012 at 10:52 am
R. Gates: Puh-leeeeeze. Either put a figure on it or stuff a cork in it.
_____
Solar output likely to decline over the next 90 years from 20th century averages, but would onnly result in a 0.08C decline in global temps for a Dalton Type minimum, and a 0.13C decline in temps for a Maunder type decline. Either of these small declines would be more than offset by a much larger increase in temps from increasing greenhouse forcing:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-decline-solar-output-offset-global.html
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research
I know even the smallest suggestion that the much anticipated (by some skeptics) big cool-down may not happen, and that the world will continue warming will cause much angst among those skeptics. While Mr. Archibald does an excellent analysis for what it is, and I whole-heartedly support the notion that the sun was largely responsibly, directly or indirectly, for most of the sub-Milankovitch modulations of Earth’s climate over the past few million years, the underlying assumption that Earth 2012=Earth 1600 is simply that, an assumption, and not supported by the extensive changes to atmosphere, hydropshere, and biosphere by human activities in that time frame.

Camburn

Interesting reading, some correlation.
Robust findings? No……..

bones

@Willis
I believe that the remark on the graph was intended to imply correlation rather than causation. But given the type of science reporting that we have these days, it might be reported as causation if another third of Finns croak.

crosspatch

Solar output likely to decline over the next 90 years from 20th century averages, but would onnly result in a 0.08C decline in global temps for a Dalton Type minimum, and a 0.13C decline in temps for a Maunder type decline. Either of these small declines would be more than offset by a much larger increase in temps from increasing greenhouse forcing:

That assumes the only change in climate is from the small variation of TSI. If Svensmark is correct, a change in the behavior of the sun could be amplified by changes in Earth cloud cover which would cause larger changes in climate than the variation of TSI itself could produce. In other words, an indirect effect resulting from solar change may provide more climate impact than any direct effect of actual solar energy variation. If you are electronically inclined, imagine the climate being the current flow through a transistor. If you change the supply voltage a tiny bit on the collector, your signal on the collector varies only a tiny bit. But if you apply the same amount of variation to the base, the collector current varies considerably. The ability of the sun to modulate the quantity of GCR in the inner solar system may have more impact than the change in surface energy emitted by the sun.
There *IS* a striking correlation between solar cycle length and climate going all the way back to the 1800’s. There is NO such correlation between CO2 and climate save for one 30 year period of the record.

R. Gates

Andrew30:
Well, we’ll certainly all get to see how a Dalton or Maunder Minimum compares to a 40% increase in CO2 over the next few decades. As 9 out of 10 of the warmest years on instrument record have been since 2000, and 2012-2015 look to continue as warm, guess the skeptics are holding out for the next solar cycle for the cooling to begin? What an exciting time to be studying the climate!

Not certain I entirely understand Fig.3 but it looks like typical Gaussian distribution curve if rotated by 90 degrees to the left.

Camburn

R. Gates says:
January 24, 2012 at 11:19 am
Both of your posts are modeled climatic projections. Note the “projection” and not prediction.
It is obvious when looking at historical climate data that we are missing a large piece of the clmate puzzle. As a Skeptic, i have no more faith in the models which show a modest cooling than the models which show a large warming.

adolfogiurfa

@R.Gates: It´s funny, so you are not going to follow the advice: be prepared to run back towards the equator because it isn’t going to last.
You will be frozen like Lot´s wife, turned into a block of salt… 🙂

R. Gates says:
January 24, 2012 at 11:19 am
“the underlying assumption that Earth 2012=Earth 1600 is simply that, an assumption, and not supported by the extensive changes to atmosphere, hydropshere, and biosphere by human activities in that time frame.”

As is the underlying assumption, and it is just an assumption, by the crystal-ball modellers that there is going to be this huge temperature increase in the future. Referring to Met Office propaganda is not really going to convince anyone. Their ongoing recital of the meme in the face of evidence to the contrary–summarized above by Andrew 30–is not what I would accept as soundly-reasoned projections. Their estimates are only that. And while they may teem with juicy scientific precision (“0.08”), that is inestimable fluff…and immeasurable as well. So, please, try again, R.

adolfogiurfa

Don B says:
It is remarkable!: Oulu cosmic rays:
2007.12.31 00:00:00 2007.9972603 5264 6670 1031.75
2012.01.19 00:00:00 2012.0493151 6024 6407 1008.33

R. Gates

crosspatch said:
“There *IS* a striking correlation between solar cycle length and climate going all the way back to the 1800′s. There is NO such correlation between CO2 and climate save for one 30 year period of the record.”
____
Agree completely. And hence why it will be so interesting to see how the 40% increase in CO2 stacks up against whatever forcings (direct, indirect, or otherwise) the sun can deliver over the next few decades. The correlation between SCL and climate is one of my favorite natural cycles to look at, but it’s existence in no way precludes the possibility that at some point during the past century, that correlation might be broken by the forcing caused by increases in CO2. Again, what an amazing time and opportunity to be studying the climate!

Gates,
Your harping about “9 out of 10” & etc. is making you sound stupid. Here, let me help:
The planet has been emerging from the LIA along the same trend line for hundreds of years. There has been no acceleration in the warming despite rising CO2.
Conclusion: Going back to the LIA, every decade will tend to be the warmest. And despite the ≈40% increase in harmless, beneficial CO2, the most recent decade has shown no warming.
Thus, even if CO2 causes some minor [and completely beneficial] warming, its effect is insignificant. It is not even measurable. Because your CO2 conjecture doesn’t stand up to real world evidence, your comments sound like science fiction and fantasy. Wise up. CO2 is only a bit player. If even that.

Neutron count suffered a bit of a shock, look out for Forbush effect.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/TheThPlot.gif

R Gates – you are really struggling now, and have been for a while. Time to give up, I think, and open your mind to actual possibilities.
You say “I am a huge believer that the sun plays a major role in modulating our climate, but …“. This is obviously a direct lie, given all your posts.
You then say “Seems at least some solar experts and models indicate that even were we to have a Maunder type minimum over the next century (they give it an 8% possibility), the impacts on overall global temps will be very minimal.“. You later confirm that this is the source of that comment:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research
New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.
Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun’s activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.
It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun’s output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions).
“.
The problem (sorry, A problem) with this argument, and all others like it, is that the figures being produced by the Met Office and the University of Reading and their fellow travellers are way way too small to be able to explain the Dalton Minimum by solar (in)activity. Therefore either (a) something else caused the Dalton Minimum, or (b) solar activity has more influence on global temperature than is being allowed for.
If (a), then that “something else” is not allowed for by the climate models, and thus the models are completely useless for predicting anything today.
If (b) then solar activity is absurdly unrepresented in the climate models, and thus the models are completely useless for predicting anything today.

crosspatch

And hence why it will be so interesting to see how the 40% increase in CO2 stacks up against whatever forcings (direct, indirect, or otherwise) the sun can deliver over the next few decades.

As the response to CO2 is logarithmic, most of the change has already happened. We will get diminishing increases in temperatures with linear rises in CO2. In other words, the next 10 ppm has less impact than the previous 10ppm had and the following 10ppm will have even less impact on climate.
But what is most interesting to me is what little impact human emissions have on global atmospheric CO2 increase. For example, in 2009 the amount of human emissions declined in absolute terms. There was less CO2 emitted from human activity in 2009 than there was in 2008 but it had no impact on atmospheric CO2 rise. I don’t mean that the rate of increase of human emissions declined, I mean the total emissions actually declined. Global atmospheric CO2 increase was unchanged. It didn’t flatten, it didn’t drop, it just kept increasing as if nothing at all had changed. This is also interesting in another context, too. As you increase atmospheric CO2, the rate at which it is scrubbed out increases. So in order to increase atmospheric CO2 at a nearly linear rate, CO2 must be added to the atmosphere at a greater than linear rate of increase. So we really should have seen a decline in atmospheric CO2 in 2009 if human emissions play a significant role in that increase, but we didn’t.
All of this tells me that CO2 is being added to the atmosphere at an increasing rate and the rate at which that CO2 is increasing is greater than the change in human emissions; so much so that a complete reversal in human CO2 emissions in 2009 had no impact on the CO2 content as measured at Mauna Loa.
So all in all I would say that 1: we aren’t likely to have any change in atmospheric CO2 by any reductions in emissions mandated by policy since reductions in CO2 mandated by economics had no impact and 2: we aren’t likely to see any real impact on climate from that CO2 rise. But it would be interesting to know where all that excess CO2 is coming from.

crosspatch

Meant at Mauna Kea

crosspatch

Nevermind, I guess it is Mauna Loa

Michael D Smith

Figure 3 shows the result of sorting the normalised Dye 3 temperature record from lowest to highest and then plotting that up.
This looks like a textbook cumulative normal distribution to me. The temperature differences are not the same in the 2nd and 9th deciles as within the 5th and 6th (nor would they be with a normal distribution). You can make one yourself, put -5 to +5 in about 0.1 increments in one column. In the next column use =normdist(first column cell,0,1,true). Plot the result. Try it again with the cumulative parameter set to false.
I’ll take a look tonight, but this looks totally normal to me, no pun intended.

Camburn says:”Both of your posts are modeled climatic projections. Note the “projection” and not prediction.
Let me explain it for you very simply:-
A projection is a prediction.
Except when referred to by a sceptic.
Then it is only a projection.

Michael D Smith

Smokey says:
January 24, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Gates,
Your harping about “9 out of 10″ & etc. is making you sound stupid. Here, let me help:

Smokey, I just did this 2 nights ago… Yes, it is a silly and meaningless claim. Anytime you have an uptrend, it is very likely that the last years will be among the top 10.
With GISTEMP, looking at annual average only, and starting at the beginning, 62.9% of ALL years in the 132 year record are in the top 10. Obviously, each of the 1st 10 years are in the top ten. There is nothing unusual at all about having the last years in the top 10. 14.4% of ALL years (of 132) were ranked as #1. Have a look:
http://naturalclimate.home.comcast.net/~naturalclimate/GISSRunAndRank.png

Luther Wu

I’m not going to feed the troll.

MarkW

R. Gates says:
January 24, 2012 at 11:38 am
Considering the fact that a 40% increase in CO2 over the last century has had a barely discernable impact on climate, why should anyone worry about the next 40%?

MarkW

Luther Wu says:
January 24, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I’m not going to feed the troll.

Go ahead, it’s the only attention he gets all day.

henrythethird

And yet, one of the “facts” they use to define Global Warming is that plants and animals are moving their habitats further north.
Kinda makes you wonder where their habitats were during the last Ice Age…

RockyRoad

Looks like R. Gates is riding a natural warming earth trend and claiming it has mankind’s fingerprints all over it.
I submit from the evidence that R. Gates is wrong, fingerprints notwithstanding.
(Sorry, Lurther Wu–I just had to feed the troll.)

Orkneygal

I understand the phrase “the distribution isn’t normal”.
But what does the phrase-
“the average isn’t normal” mean?
TIA

Chris Edwards

R Gates, as the A Gores of this world (and the IPCC) insist on fighting global warming by taxing northern hemisphere manufacturing industry to extinction and subsidizing unregulated factories in the southern hemisphere and thus producing unheard of pollution there can you explain to me how it helps the atmosphere in general?

@David What is striking is that the temperature range in the 2nd and 9th deciles is almost the same as that of the 5th and 6th deciles, which means that the average isn’t normal.
What is striking is that the distribution looks far more normal than it looks lognormal or any thing else. You have to do more work to invalidate a normal distribution assumption, like actually comparing the normalized curve to an equally scaled theoretical normal distribution with the same mean and std. deviation. Then you have to show not only the curve fails f-test or t-test statistics, but that you have found a better distribution to use. Show that the third moment is significanltly different from zero (skewness). Show that the 4th moment (kurtosos) is very different from normality (3σ^4).
” which means that the average isn’t normal” I’ll take it you meant, “the distribution isn’t normal”

Mike M

henrythethird says: And yet, one of the “facts” they use to define Global Warming is that plants and animals are moving their habitats further north.

Yes, and all the while, life in the tropics, where there is the greatest diversity of species, seems to go happily rolling along, (wherever we didn’t invade their habitat this is). So while some plants and animals can be said to be moving pole-ward, there have to be a great number of species that are not just moving but probably expanding pole-ward as well. When plants do better – generally so do the animals.

Philip Bradley

,i>What does the average isn’t normal” mean?
The average is only normal when you have a normal distribution (bell curve).
On average a human has one testicle, but this isn’t normal.
But as a commenter above noted, the graph looks like a normal cumulative distribution.

Interstellar Bill

The much-ignored Japanese satellite measurements of CO2
showed its highest concentrations were over the tropics,
so look there for the true source of emissions, not fossil fuel consumption.
I predict that the third NASA attempt at a CO2 satellite will also crash.
Can’t have actual CO2 data impede the Warmista party line,
such as the silly lie about recent years being the warmest on record.
Warmistas: Come back after you’ve fixed all your ill-sited surface stations,
and all the cells in your stupid global temperature grids have actual stations,
as if second decimal place changes mean anything in that quagmire of Team statistics.
The recent warming wasn’t global anyway, since much of the world didn’t warm at all,
and it’s not going to be global anytime in this century.

R. Gates appears to miss the point that, for whatever reason, there is indeed clear cut evidence of natural climate cycles which have periodicity in the vicinity of 900 to 1100 years, tending to suggest a maximum somewhere between the years 2000 and 2200, followed by cooling for about 500 years.
If we look only at measured temperature data for the last 120 to 200 or so years the trend tends to appear near linear in any particular location, as would be expected when considering only 10% to 20% of the above cycle. One of the longest records for any one location is that dating from 1796 for Northern Ireland as shown on my Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com – a nice linear trend without any hint of a hockey stick. There is a similar linear trend since 1880 for US National Surface Temperatures (48 states) shown here: http://earth-climate.com/image318.gif . Then note that records since 1880 for the Arctic show absolutely no correlation with carbon dioxide levels. http://climate-change-theory.com/arctic1880.jpg . For my part, I would rather place my confidence in the Northern Ireland and US data than in spuriously constructed global temperature data much of which came from doubtful sources and could easily have been “adjusted” to create a hockey stick effect. I suggest that there is no hockey stick in any measured temperature data for any fixed location since 1880. Prove me wrong!
None of this is surprising in light of the computational physics now published by Prof Claes Johnson and also, in December, by Joseph Reynen – see http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IR-absorption.pdf
The above papers each demonstrate that there is no warming effect caused by so-called backradiation. Hence we have computational proof that an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” is a physical impossibility.
If people like R.Gates (and the IPCC) wish to convince me that AGW is a possibility they will need to show me empirical evidence that radiation from the sky at night is causing warming of the surface. Experiments with metal plates (one shielded from such radiation) would be quite easy to devise. Experiments have already been carried out by Prof Nahle to show that the lower atmosphere cools faster than the surface at night. According to a post by DeWitt Payne on SoD, another experiment has shown that gases only start to absorb radiation when the source becomes warmer than the surrounding gas. It seems one small step to assume that the (solid and liquid) surface also acts in the same way as gases and thus, as Johnson proves, only absorbs (and converts to thermal energy) radiation from a warmer source – that is, the Sun, but not the colder atmosphere.

StuartMcL

Mike M says:
January 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Yes, and all the while, life in the tropics, where there is the greatest diversity of species, seems to go happily rolling along,
————————————————————————————–
You are clearly misinformed.
With all the vegetation and animals moving north/south, there is now a total “dead zone” around the equator from which all life has fled. You can’t catch fish in the oceans around the equator and migratory creatures such as birds, whales etc can’t pass through this zone.
We’re all doomed, I say!

Hoser

Hey, you guys arguing so much scared all the girls away.

robinedwards36

Stephen Rasey has made some excellent comments on normal distributions, and what might be required to validate of refute the hypothesis that a given data set is (or is not) reasonably represented by a true normal distribution. First I must point out that NO real distribution is ever actually normal, though some do indeed show a very good approximation to it. For the Pye3 data, used as they are presented – thus without doing a linear fit and working with its residuals – here are some statistics that anyone can confirm. There are 3771 data items, whose mean is -27.8229, standard deviation 0.910651, its skewness is -0.143982 and its kurtosis is 0.15098. The resulting Jarque-Bera statistic is 16.611, and the probability of such a value coming from a truly normal distribution is very low indeed, probably less than 10^-5. If you make a normal plot of the data, on a suitably scaled x axis (thus going from -3.647 to 3.647) the plot is remarkably straight apart from about the first and last 15-20 points. Thus despite the above statistics, the normal curve is an adequate practical approximation. By binning the data into 40 equal sized bins (width 0.2) the familiar bell-shaped curve emerges very strongly. A superimposed normal curve of the same parameters also fits the histogram very nicely, though is slightly displaced towards the left (negative) end of the distribution. Again, I’d be happy to call it normal for any practical purpose. If anyone wants to see the statistics of the residuals of a linear fit I’ll be happy to supply them.
Lest there be any doubt about the general trend of the Dye3 numbers, the annual coefficient is -9.729*10^-5, with standard error 1.353*10^-5, giving a t ratio of 7.192, probability below 10^-7. R-squared, for those who like this statistic, is 0.0135376, and adjusted r-squared is 0.0132759. In practical predictive terms the regression is enormously significant, but totally useless for predicting a future observation of Pye3. That’s statistics for you!
I hope this will help get things straight (pun intended).
Robin

R. Gates

crosspatch says:
January 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm
And hence why it will be so interesting to see how the 40% increase in CO2 stacks up against whatever forcings (direct, indirect, or otherwise) the sun can deliver over the next few decades.
As the response to CO2 is logarithmic, most of the change has already happened. We will get diminishing increases in temperatures with linear rises in CO2. In other words, the next 10 ppm has less impact than the previous 10ppm had and the following 10ppm will have even less impact on climate.
———
This is one of the biggest fallacies that skeptics seem to want to keep putting out there. The Earth’s climate system has not even finished reaching equIlibrium temperture from the current level of CO2, and won’t for many decades (if somehow the level locked in around the 392 ppm mark). To suggest “most the change has already happened” shows either extreme ignorance or a deliberate attempt to deceive. The Earth has not seen this kind of jump in CO2 levels in at least 800,000 years, and most likely far lomger as it is akin to a large continual CO2 volcano going off, and it is well beyond the natural feedback processes to balance. Saying “most the change has already happened” is laughable.

R. Gates

Doug Cotton says:
January 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm
R. Gates appears to miss the point that, for whatever reason, there is indeed clear cut evidence of natural climate cycles which have periodicity in the vicinity of 900 to 1100 years, tending to suggest a maximum somewhere between the years 2000 and 2200, followed by cooling for about 500 years.
——–
As I’ve stated, I completely agree that there has been a relationship between sub-Milankovitch climate cycles and solar variations. This is no way precludes anthopogenic forcings from now playing a factor. I tend to trust the general tenets of the multiple attribution studies that clearly show the degree to which different forcings effect average global temperatures. This is a most exciting time to watch a grand solar minimum on the potential Maunder level scale occur at the same time CO2 is at the highest levels in at least 800,000 years and probably several million.