On
top of this linear trend is some sort of sine wave.
Not exact matches
Finally, by substituting the historic
linear trend above into the IRR term
of this equation, and the industry average investment period
of 13 years into the c term, we get the following formula, which shows that nominal R&D productivity / ROI currently stands at about 1.2 (i.e., we get only 20 % back on
top of our original R&D investment after 13 years), is declining exponentially by about 10 % per year, and will hit 1.0 (zero net return on investment) by 2020:
(
Top) Distribution
of linear trends of annual land precipitation amounts over the period 1901 to 2005 (% per century) and (middle) 1979 to 2005 (% per decade).
You need to look at tools for identifying a periodic (or quasiperiodic) signal on
top of a base
trend that is NOT
linear; because there's a heck
of a lot more going on with climate that you can capture on such scales with one line a sine wave.
Actually, you can't forecast anything anyway, because you are curve - fitting to something that looks like a mere 1 1/2 cycles
of something, without a prediction - capable mechanism, and without anything that cross-checks it to anything outside those 1 1/2 cycles, on
top of which the supposed underlying
linear trend might be part
of some other cycle and hence not
linear at all,.
But the real L&S model failure is in the
linear trend, since these mysterious astronomical cycles are simply oscillations on
top of that
trend.
It's very common in science to see a
linear trend with a cycle on
top of it; you have to be careful when interpreting such a plot to know if what you're seeing is long - term change or short - term.
So this model will produce a
linear warming
trend with two natural oscillations superimposed on
top of it.
Figure 3: Left: composite global
linear trends for hiatus decades (red bars) and all other decades (green bars) for
top of the atmosphere (TOA) net radiation (positive values denote net energy entering the system).