Scientists Uses Anti-Correlation To Gain Correlation Confidence

Super El Nino is back from the dead!

ScreenHunter_1470 Oct. 13 20.23

Scientists say they are more certain than ever about the impact of global warming on a critical weather pattern.

The El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) occurs in the Pacific Ocean but plays an important part in the world’s climate system. Researchers have until now been unsure as to how rising temperatures would affect ENSO in the future.

But this new study suggests that droughts and floods driven by ENSO will be more intense.

BBC News – Global warming will increase intensity of El Nino, scientists say

What a complete load of crap. ENSO has been in steep decline since 355 PPM CO2. The data shows the exact opposite of what the “scientists“are claiming.

ScreenHunter_1370 Oct. 10 20.56

MEI timeseries from Dec/Jan 1940/50 up to the present

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Scientists Uses Anti-Correlation To Gain Correlation Confidence

  1. @NJSnowFan says:

    The sun, The sun.


  2. tom0mason says:

    Typical BBC ‘scientist’ and ‘researchers’ say but no attribution no names, no honesty in the bulletin.

    The paper they quote is all about climate models with the lines
    “Experiments with an Atmospheric General Circulation Model reveal that robust projected changes in precipitation anomalies during El Niño years are primarily determined by a nonlinear response to surface global warming. Uncertain projected changes in the amplitude of ENSO-driven surface temperature variability have only a secondary role. “

  3. Cheshirered says:

    So, absolutely no ‘evidence’ for these claims, just computer models. Again. And it’s the compliant BBC pushing its agw agenda, again. What else would be expected of them but climate deceit?

  4. Ed says:

    Why use real data when you can play with a computer model? Come one, it’s better than working for a living.

  5. Eric Simpson says:

    Meanwhile, in the UK…

    Record-breaking snowfall predicted for November.

    Forecasters last night warned the entire country is set for a horror freeze which will bring brutal winds and fierce blizzards. “We are looking at a potentially paralysing winter, the worst for decades, which could at times grind the nation to a halt,” said Jonathan Powell, forecaster for Vantage Weather Services.

    So now the UK is going to continue unfazed with their Einstein plan to shut down a few more plants next year, and then many more after that.

    • Andy Oz says:

      “Brutal winds” will keep the wind turbines spinning.

    • Cheshirered says:

      Re closing down perfect power stations before replacement capacity is actually available; it can’t be stressed enough, this needs to STOP. If there’s blackouts or deaths due to an avoidable shortage of energy then Ministers should be in the Dock.

  6. QV says:

    But the models agree – they MUST be correct!!!

    “Up until now, there has been a lack of agreement among computer models as to how ENSO will change in the future,” he explained.”

    “This paper is significant in that there is stronger agreement among different climate models in predicting the future impact.”

  7. ralphcramdo says:

    Sounds like someone’s running out of grant money.

  8. averyharden says:

    A good way to see the correlation is in a longer time frame than five year. Accurate temperature measurements beginning in 1880s till now, and CO2 measurements (taken from ice core samples) from the 1880s till now show an unmistakeable correlation. Another graph going back a million years, again using ice core samples, showing the temperature going up and down also show an unmistakeable correlation.

    • The temperatures were accurate before they were tampered with – when they showed no warming

    • Glacierman says:

      CO2 measurements taken from Ice Core samples from 1880s till now show an unmistakeable correlation? What did ice core measurements say about CO2 for the past 15 years? Is the correlation with temperature unmistakeably good?

      • averyharden says:

        They meaure much more preciesly today than before with ice cores. Goggle it, lots of info there on the subject.

        • Glacierman says:

          Your’e the one that said it. Don’t tell me to Google it, get your facts straight and work on reading comprehension.

        • averyharden says:

          The car was an improvement over the horse, but the horse could get you there. If you are offended by the science, then attack the messenger.

        • Glacierman says:

          Typical tactic – Ad hom. You said “Accurate temperature measurements beginning in 1880s till now, and CO2 measurements (taken from ice core samples) from the 1880s till now show an unmistakeable correlation.”

          I did not attack the messanger, I attacked you brainless message. Now you start talking about cars or something? You are not only anti science, you are anti comprehension. You don’t even understand what you write.

        • Glacierman says:

          AVERY, do you even understand that I am commenting on you stating that “using CO2 measurements (from Ice Core samples) from the 1880s and to the present….”

          Then you turn around and try to make it look like I don’t know there is better data out there? You said it, maybe you should just admit you made a mistake instead of trying to redirect. You screwed up. Own it.

        • averyharden says:

          Why can’t you guys just stick to the science? Why does it alway turn into personal attacks? Why the hostility? Just imagine were talking across the table. All the rest of you speculate out loud, why does my doing so generate such hostility? Not just you I’m talking about. How is it possible that you guys on this site can be so absolutely right about everything and others elsewhere are so absolutely wrong about everything.

        • Glacierman says:

          AVERY, it’s because you’re wrong and wont admit it. I did not attack you, just your incredibly wrong statements.

    • Glacierman says:

      Are ice cores the best way to measure CO2 now, or is that only used when CO2 goes up and temps don’t, so you have something to redirect the uniformed?

    • Latitude says:

      Another graph going back a million years, again using ice core samples, showing the temperature going up and down also show an unmistakeable correlation.
      yep, they show small uptics….when the overall trend is down
      and when CO2 reached a level where it would have the most effect…temps flatlined

      • Glacierman says:

        But the real question is what did the CO2 level from Ice Cores from last year show? I know it seems like a lot of work, but it really is the best way to measure CO2, right Avery?

      • averyharden says:

        The subject was correlation between temperature and CO2. The article and graphs did not address that.

        • The McGrath article was about temperature vs. ENSO (“Global warming will increase intensity of El Niño, scientists say”). Goddard’s point was about ENSO vs. CO2, which would be entirely on point if CO2 and temperature advanced together over the indicated time frame (as, it should be emphasized, the “consensus” alarmists claim); the only problem with that is that the temperature has been flatline overall, for most of the time frame of Goddard’s ENSO vs CO2 graph (since about 363 ppm in 1996, say–or really, since about 1989, according to the unfudged data, which is longer than the full time period covered in the ENSO vs. CO2 graph above, about 1991 to 2013). Without the temperature adjustments, which Goddard and others have shown should carry no scientific weight whatsoever, we basically have that temperature does not correlate with CO2 (except, most recently, in the 1976-1989 time frame), and while CO2 has been rising all along, particularly in the last 55 years, ENSO has been going down for the last 22 years (1991 to 2013). Climate science is a total failure, and its defenders, like McGrath, are a joke (or should be, to everyone, and not just the few like me, and others who agree with Steven Goddard).

    • kuhnkat says:

      “and CO2 measurements (taken from ice core samples) from the 1880s till now”

      Gullible fools… Here is a good overview of why our consensus understanding of ice cores is wrong.

      Let’s just say that the only real empirical evidence we have from the ice cores was obtained by the retrieval of the Glacier Girl P-38 from the Greenland glacier.

      • averyharden says:

        So discount the science and get back to magical thinking. You guys greatly mischaracterize the science that is out there. At least your numbers are small and getting smaller by the day.

        • kuhnkat says:

          You are the magical thinker who seem to BELIEVE that ice cores can maintain a reasonably close facsimile to the atmosphere that was in existence at the time the snow was deposited.

          A recent paper found that glacial levels were much lower over 3000 years ago.

          Magical thinking says all those layers of snow between the peak of the last glaciation and now were maintained in good condition. You apparently are a magical thinker.

          Others have studied and determined that the hypsythermal was at least 2c warmer than current and was that warm for several thousand years allowing plenty of time to melt a lot of those ice layers you seem to think can tell us what was happening.

          Digging out the aircraft in Greenland ditched during WWII revealed thousands of layers our experts seem to think are yearly.

          Yup, y’all are Magical thinkers who couldn’t recognize my ass if you bit it with what passes for science currently.

      • You wouldn’t recognize science if it bit you on the ass.

    • catweazle666 says:

      “and CO2 measurements (taken from ice core samples) from the 1880s till now show an unmistakeable correlation”

      No they don’t. Not even close.

      In any case, even if they do, since when did correlation imply causation?

      “Another graph going back a million years, again using ice core samples, showing the temperature going up and down also show an unmistakeable correlation.”

      Unfortunately for your theory, it shows CO2 concentration ,b>lagging temperature increase by ~800 years.

      Stop making stuff up.

  9. tom0mason says:

    The Atmospheric General Circulation Model that is used here has no adequate method of accounting for ENSO events. Its ability to predict such events in the past have been woeful. So many times the alarmists have shouted that this is the year for the great El Nino, but no it came to nothing. All this so called research does is confirm that the model can not accurately track ENSO events – go figure.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s