Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Yet another 30-second disproof
I don't know why they keep doing this crap.
In their latest misuse of statistics to create destructive lies, the Carbon Cultists claim that "In La Nina years, Texas droughts are much stronger since the fast increase of CO2."
Okay, time to consult good old NCDC again.
Texas annual precip, entire state, for the last century.
Before anything else, do you see any increase in droughts in recent years?
Look at the green decade-length filter. I see strong or long dry periods around 1910, 1918, 1925, 1955, and right now. The right-now dry period looks the same as the '55 period so far; can't tell if it's going to start back up or go farther down.
I've added faint orange-ish bars for the moderate and strong La Nina years. (There were some weak LN's before 1955, but no mod or strong.) The LN years seem to agree pretty well with dry years, but the agreement is NOT any stronger now than it was at any other time. Both up and down peaks appear to be moderating (returning to the mean) since 1998, decidedly not increasing.
So where's the correlation? Might be there in the invalid and false models, but it sure as hell isn't there in the GODDAM FACTS. I spelled it that way because I strongly suspect that Texas's main problem is fast population growth and slow dam growth. I looked at this in detail before, comparing with Okla.
Okay, time to consult good old NCDC again.
Texas annual precip, entire state, for the last century.
Before anything else, do you see any increase in droughts in recent years?
Look at the green decade-length filter. I see strong or long dry periods around 1910, 1918, 1925, 1955, and right now. The right-now dry period looks the same as the '55 period so far; can't tell if it's going to start back up or go farther down.
I've added faint orange-ish bars for the moderate and strong La Nina years. (There were some weak LN's before 1955, but no mod or strong.) The LN years seem to agree pretty well with dry years, but the agreement is NOT any stronger now than it was at any other time. Both up and down peaks appear to be moderating (returning to the mean) since 1998, decidedly not increasing.
So where's the correlation? Might be there in the invalid and false models, but it sure as hell isn't there in the GODDAM FACTS. I spelled it that way because I strongly suspect that Texas's main problem is fast population growth and slow dam growth. I looked at this in detail before, comparing with Okla.
Labels: Blinded by Stats, Carbon Cult
¶ 5:11 PM
