Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/14/2010 1:51:24 PM PST by Bhoy
Abstract: We use statistical methods designed for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic theory of global warming (AGW). This theory predicts that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increases global temperature permanently. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW when global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences, whereas greenhouse gas forcings (CO2, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.
Yes, but this time we cannot let it end there. The politicians, the journalists and the scientists who have driven this climate change agenda msut be pilloried and thrown out of their respective positions of power.
Well, I’ll be dadgummed. Al Gore was wrong, then?
All well and good. But one wonders if the model correctly takes account of the stochastic, non-linear multicollinearities between the third-order differences of carbon-derivative forcings and the second-order differences of solar-cycle perturbations? And what about the autocorrelations in the indices of time-dependent polynomial gradient factors? These questions might be answered satisfactorily if the authors have performed chi-square tests on the coefficients of a three-stage least squares regression in multidimensional hyperspace. But there’s no indication here that such an elementary series significance tests has been performed.
Here’s another steak to munch on;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490
Can someone explain this to the lay people in the congregation?
“...Can someone explain this to the lay people in the congregation?...”
-
The math they use in their computer model is facacta.
That makes Sense,
barbra ann
Attribution?
The beginnings of AGW science have NEVER been founded on science, because they have always (in all their models) ASSUMED that correlation IS causation - that changes in C02 in a corresponding time frame with changes in temperature PROVE CO2 to be a cause of long-term temperature change.
But true science refutes the notion that mere correlation (two or more conditions occurring in proximate time series) identifies causation - it doesn’t. It never does.
Without evidence of actual cause, they built climate models with the presumption of cause built in, using the circular logic of the model’s result as “proof”; when the only thing the models proved is that if they are programmed for a particular result, they, the models, will produce that result.
I did that, and the answer came out '42'.
Yes, SISU became CICU = carbon in carbon out.
In science models should be used to help design better experiments, not to assign or identify causation.
>> Attribution? <<
Are you referring to the non-stochastic, multivariate type of attribution that one commonly observes for n-dimensional convex matrices in the presence of minimum component Eigen vectors? Or something else?
“But there’s no indication here that such an elementary series significance tests has been performed.”
You may be correct. The paper is attached & perhaps you could reply to WUWT with your insights. I do not presume to be able to critically evaluate the mathematics, but I do think this is the necessary level of discussion upon which trillions of dollars will be extracted from taxpayers to support the AGW theory.
An earlier post today (IPCC Erroes: Facts and Spin) demonstrates that the AGW advocates are still relying on science:
“... The system we study is ruled by the well-known laws of physics.... The greenhouse effect was discovered in 1824 by Fourier, the heat trapping properties of CO2 and other gases were first measured by Tyndall in 1859, the climate sensitivity to CO2 was first computed in 1896 by Arrhenius, and by the 1950s the scientific foundations were pretty much understood.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2451330/posts
I think we should challenge them on that level. I think good presenters/teachers can make these arguments clear to most people of average education.
>> the answer came out ‘42’ <<
Fantastic! You should be on the peer review committee for this paper!
Something else;o
Sorry, but in that case I guess I can't help you.
Too bad, but that's the way the old bivariate Gaussian distribution crumbles when one applies the Kuhn-Tucker maximization methodology in a quasi-Bayesian context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.