{"id":433,"date":"2007-05-09T12:56:48","date_gmt":"2007-05-09T17:56:48","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=433"},"modified":"2007-06-10T14:23:20","modified_gmt":"2007-06-10T19:23:20","slug":"fun-with-correlations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/05\/fun-with-correlations\/","title":{"rendered":"Fun with correlations! Korelasyonlarla e\u011flenelim!<\/lang_tk>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

We are forever being bombarded with apparently incredible correlations of various solar indices and climate. A number of them came up in the excoriable TGGWS<\/a> mockumentary last month where they were mysteriously ‘improved’ in a number of underhand ways. But even without those improvements (which variously involved changing the axes, drawing in non-existent data, taking out data that would contradict the point etc.), the as-published correlations were superficially quite impressive. Why then are we not impressed? <\/p>\n

To give you an idea, I’m going to go through the motions of constructing a new theory of political change using techniques that have been pioneered by a small subset of solar-climate researchers (references will of course be given). And to make it even more relevant, I’m going to take as my starting point research that Richard Lindzen has highlighted on his office door for many years:
\n
\n


\n
\n<\/center><\/p>\n

That’s right. Forget the economy or the war(s), the fortunes of the Republican party in the US Senate are instead tied closely to the sunspot cycle. <\/p>\n

<\/a> “Oh yes”, the sceptics might say “but that’s just a couple of cycles and doesn’t use up-to-date numbers. What happens after 1986?”<\/p>\n

Well, that is a little problematic, however, the good early correlation is obviously still important (r<\/i>=0.52! 1960-1986) and so we should be able to refer to it over and over again without noting that it breaks down subsequently (cf. Svensmark, 2007<\/a> referring to Marsh and Svensmark (2000)). But more importantly, it just demonstrates that the theory needs a little adjustment. <\/p>\n

Let’s look at the second half of the record. Well, there’s another strong correlation for that period as well (r<\/i>=-0.63, 1988-2006). Only this time the correlation is inverted, but that shouldn’t be surprising to anyone – solar-senator effects are complicated!<\/p>\n

<\/a>If we now put it all together, we can see that there is a reasonable match over the whole period…. well, except that break in the period 1984 and 1988 and, unfortunately, last year’s elections didn’t fit the pattern either. But 1984-1988 was Ronald Reagan’s second term and clearly no theory of Republican senators can ignore that. We therefore propose that the ‘Ronald Reagan second term phase shift’ combined with the change of sign of the Hale solar magnetic cycle<\/a> in 1986, obviously changed the dynamics. This kind of phase shift is frequently seen in solar studies (cf. Landscheidt<\/a> and many others), where it is rarely taken as a sign that two time series with decadal spectral power are in fact completely independent. Finally, it is permissible to leave off the more recent data points (cf. TGGWS<\/a>) for “graphical convenience”. So after just a little work, we have managed to rescue the original theory to match a much longer amount of data:<\/p>\n


\n<\/a>
\n<\/center><\/p>\n

Some readers may scoff and suggest that in the absence of any mechanism, these powerful correlations are numerological artifacts arrived at using post hoc fallacious reasoning that have no predictive capability. That might appear to be a valid argument. However the ultimate test will of course be experimental. On the basis of these intriguing results, we propose exposing Republican senators to varying levels of cosmic rays in a basement and monitoring their electability. Any refusal by the funding agencies or ethical review panels to support this would simply be confirmation that the political science establishment are scared of what this research would imply for their so-called “consensus”.<\/p>\n

Convincing, eh?<\/p>\n

The data<\/a> for sunspots and senators can, I’m sure, be manipulated even more effectively than I’ve done here. I’ve made no use of various lags or filters (which can be altered as you go along cf. Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991)<\/a>), or of partial detrending (cf. Marsh and Svensmark (2003)), or of splicing of unconnected data sets (cf. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen 1997, Nir Shaviv). More ideas could be taken from “New evidence for the Theory of the Stork” (H\u00f6fer et al, 2004<\/a>)”. A special RealClimate commendation for anyone who can do better! <\/small><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Ingilizce\u2019den \u00e7eviren Figen Mekik<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n

G\u00fcne\u015fle ilgili \u00e7e\u015fitli indislerle iklim de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi arasinda g\u00f6r\u00fclen ve g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrde inanilmaz olan korelasyonlarla s\u0131k s\u0131k sald\u0131r\u0131ya u\u011fruyoruz. Hatta bu korelasyonlar\u0131n nas\u0131l gizemli ve el alt\u0131ndan yollarla daha da harika hale getirildi\u011fi, \u201cB\u00fcy\u00fck K\u00fcresel Is\u0131nma Aldatmas\u0131\u201d<\/a> adl\u0131 filimle dalga ge\u00e7en bir yay\u0131nda ge\u00e7en ay ele al\u0131nd\u0131. Ama bu islah y\u00f6ntemleri (mesela, eksenleri de\u011fi\u015f toku\u015f etmek, var olmayan veri noktalar\u0131n\u0131 grafiklere eklemek, istenilen e\u011filime uymayan veri noktalar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7\u0131karmak gibi) kullan\u0131lmadan dahi \u201cyay\u0131nlanan bilgiler\u201d y\u00fczeysel olarak etkileyici hani. Peki biz neden etkilenmedik o zaman?<\/p>\n

Size bu konuda fikir vermek amac\u0131yla, g\u00fcne\u015f\/iklim bilimcilerinden k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck bir az\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00f6nc\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 metodlar\u0131 kullanarak (ve gerekli yerlerde at\u0131flar da olacak tabii) yeni bir siyasi yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n \u00fcretilmesini ama\u00e7layan bir egzersiz yapaca\u011f\u0131m.. Ve konumuza daha da uygun olsun diye, Richard Lindzen\u2019in ofis kap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 pek \u00e7ok y\u0131l s\u00fcsleyen bir grafik ile ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131m:<\/p>\n


\n
\n<\/center><\/p>\n

Evet, do\u011fru okudunuz. Ekonomi veya sava\u015flar\u0131 unutun, Cumhuriyet\u00e7i partinin kaderini g\u00fcne\u015f lekelerindeki evreler belirliyor.<\/p>\n

<\/a> \u201cTabii ama\u201d diyebilir inanmayanlar \u201cbu grafik sadece bir iki evrede uyum g\u00f6steriyor. 1986\u2019dan sonra uyum bozuluyor.\u201d<\/p>\n

Evet, bu do\u011fru tabii. Ama grafi\u011fin sol k\u0131sm\u0131ndaki iyi korelasyon hala kayda de\u011fer (r = 0.52! 1960-1986); dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, sonra nas\u0131l bozuldu\u011funu g\u00f6z ard\u0131 ederek buna s\u0131k s\u0131k at\u0131f yapabiliriz (mesela Svenmark, 2007\u2019de<\/a> Marsh and Svenmark 2000\u2019den bahsettikleri gibi). Ama daha \u00f6nemlisi, bu sadece kuram\u0131m\u0131z\u0131n biraz ayarlanmaya gerek duydu\u011funu g\u00f6steriyor.<\/p>\n

Grafi\u011fimizin ikinci yar\u0131s\u0131na bakal\u0131m. Eh bu d\u00f6nem i\u00e7inde g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bir korelasyon var asl\u0131nda (r = 0.63, 1988-2006). Ancak bu sefer korelasyonumuz ters. Ama bu kimseyi \u015fa\u015f\u0131rtmamal\u0131. G\u00fcne\u015f \u2013 senat\u00f6r ili\u015fkileri kar\u0131\u015f\u0131k malum.<\/p>\n

<\/a>\u015eimdi hepsini bir araya getirirsek, b\u00fct\u00fcn s\u00fcre\u00e7 boyunca g\u00fczel bir uyum oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rebiliriz\u2026. 1984 ile 1988 aras\u0131ndaki bo\u015fluk hari\u00e7 tabii, ama maalesef, ge\u00e7en y\u0131lki se\u00e7imler de bu trende uymam\u0131\u015ft\u0131 zaten. 1984-1988 aras\u0131 Ronald Reagan\u2019\u0131n ikinci d\u00f6nemiydi. Tabii ki hi\u00e7 bir Cumhuriyet\u00e7i senat\u00f6r bunu g\u00f6z ard\u0131 edemez. O zaman \u015fu sav\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcyoruz: \u201cRonald Reagan\u2019\u0131n ikinci d\u00f6nem faz kaymas\u0131\u201d ile 1986\u2019daki Hale g\u00fcne\u015f manyetik devresinin<\/a> i\u015faret de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi buradaki dinami\u011fi bariz bir \u015fekilde de\u011fi\u015ftirdi. Bu tip faz kaymalar\u0131 g\u00fcne\u015f \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda s\u0131k s\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr (mesela Landschmidt<\/a> ve pek \u00e7ok ba\u015fkalar\u0131), ve \u00e7ok nadir olarak bu olaylar iki, ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z ony\u0131ll\u0131k spektral g\u00fc\u00e7 olarak alg\u0131lan\u0131r. Son olarak, daha yak\u0131n zamana ait veri noktalar\u0131n\u0131 grafi\u011fimize koymam\u0131za da m\u00fcsaade var (mesela B\u00fcy\u00fck K\u00fcresel Is\u0131nma Aldatmas\u0131<\/a> gibi) ki grafi\u011fimiz s\u0131k dursun. Yani biraz \u00e7al\u0131smayla, temelde savunmak istedi\u011fimiz kuram\u0131, daha uzun s\u00fcreli verilerle destekleyerek kurtarabildik. <\/p>\n


\n<\/a>
\n<\/center><\/p>\n

Baz\u0131 okuyucular\u0131m\u0131z diyebilirler ki herhangi bir mekanizma \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fclmeden g\u00f6sterilen bu g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc korelasyonlar bir matematik oyunundan ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fil; ve hatta diyebilirler ki yanl\u0131\u015f ve g\u00fcd\u00fcml\u00fc bir mant\u0131kla elde edilen veri e\u011filimlerinin hi\u00e7 bir de\u011feri yok. Bu mant\u0131kl\u0131 bir iddia gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnebilir. Ancak tabii ki deneyler yapmadan nihai sonu\u00e7lara ula\u015fmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fil. Bu \u00e7ok ilgin\u00e7 sonu\u00e7lar\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 temel alarak, Cumhuriyet\u00e7i senat\u00f6rleri \u00e7e\u015fitli kuvvette kozmik \u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131mlara maruz b\u0131rakt\u0131ktan sonra se\u00e7ilebilirliklerini \u00f6l\u00e7meyi \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcyoruz. Bunu yapmam\u0131za engel olmak isteyecek fon veren kurulu\u015flar\u0131n veya etik kurullar\u0131n\u0131n tutumu, sadece siyasi \u201cfikir birlik\u201dlerini bozulaca\u011f\u0131ndan korktuklar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterir. <\/p>\n

Inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131, de\u011fil mi?<\/p>\n

G\u00fcne\u015f lekeleri ve senat\u00f6rlerle ilgili veriler<\/a> muhakkak ki benim yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131mdan daha g\u00fczel kurcalanabilir. Ben, \u00e7e\u015fitli gecikme, filtre (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991<\/a>), baz\u0131 e\u011filimleri giderme (mesela Marsh and Svensmark, 2003) veya birbiriyle alakas\u0131z veri tabanlar\u0131n\u0131 ay\u0131rma (mesela Svensmark ve Friis-Christensen 1997, Nir Shaviv) metodlar\u0131ndan hi\u00e7 birini kullanmad\u0131m. \u201cLeyle\u011fin neler getirdi\u011fine dair yeni veriler\u201d (Hofer ve di\u011ferleri, 2004<\/a>) adl\u0131 eserden ba\u015fka fikirler de edinebilirsiniz. Benden daha ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 veri kurcalama y\u00f6ntemleri g\u00f6sterebilecek okurlar\u0131m\u0131za \u00f6zel tebriklerimiz olacak.
\n<\/small><\/small><\/lang_tk> <\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We are forever being bombarded with apparently incredible correlations of various solar indices and climate. A number of them came up in the excoriable TGGWS mockumentary last month where they were mysteriously ‘improved’ in a number of underhand ways. But even without those improvements (which variously involved changing the axes, drawing in non-existent data, taking […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,4],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-433","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-sun-earth-connections","8":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}