AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows stat...

AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming ...

There are 8 comments on the NorCalBlogs story from Jan 3, 2013, titled AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming .... In it, NorCalBlogs reports that:

From the journal Earth System Dynamics billed as "An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union" comes this paper which suggests that the posited AGW forcing effects simply isn't statistically significant in the observations, but other natural forcings are.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NorCalBlogs.

SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#1 Jan 3, 2013
Hey wait "potentially a bombshell" is in the text but not in the title. WOW.

Still, hope springs eternal that AGW is affected... potentially. NOT.

Where's NobodyYouKnow?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2 Jan 3, 2013
Wattatwat

"Department of Economics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem"

Experts on physics and climatology, I'm sure.

Anthony Watts is a fool. Or maybe a smart con-man with pockets full of oil industry cash.

His readers are certainly fools.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#3 Jan 11, 2013
So you disagree and that make them fools.What you two are saying is that you are the experts and to date cannot show any of your own work. Oh before you start with the name calling here is your opportunity to stop PHD from asking time and again to show your own work.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#4 Jan 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Wattatwat
"Department of Economics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem"
Experts on physics and climatology, I'm sure.
Anthony Watts is a fool. Or maybe a smart con-man with pockets full of oil industry cash.
His readers are certainly fools.
The paper was not peer reviewed.

It was mocked very effectively here on this science blog.

At the journal Earth System Dynamics , M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor have published a paper titled "Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming" which Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell.

This paper only plays games with statistics, not physics.

That's what all the whackos do.

The author here shows how these statisticians took two linear measurements and tried to argue they... viola really weren't linear after going through an amazing series of manipulations...

So the new best thing in the denialsphere is a paper by Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz from the Department of Economics of the The Hebrew University where they pull a Wegman, analyzing climate data without knowing anything about the science. Now this is par for the course in economics where there are no constraints, but it ain't so cool when you deal with physical reality. Anyhow, the rubber hits the road very quickly when they say that

The method of co-integration is designed to test hypotheses with time series data that are non-stationary to the same order, and to avoid the pitfall of spurious regression. The order of non-stationarity refers to the number of times a variable must be differenced (d) to render it stationary, in which case the variable is integrated of order, d, or I(d). We confirm previous findings, that the radiative forcings of greenhouse gases (C02, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in second differences (i.e. I(2)) while global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in first differences (i.e. I(1)).
Straightforwardly this is a claim that forcing has been increasing as a second order function, while temperature has only been increasing linearly. Given the noise in the temperature record, that is a reach as an absolute, but Eli is a nice Rabett. Still, as one of the mice said, whoa. The best

estimates of the radiative forcing is the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, which was first described in a paper by Hofmann, et al. and considers all forcings since 1979. Why 1979? Well that's when they established the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory global cooperative air sampling network. It's also the year when Eli got a tenure track job. Makes sense.

If you look at the CO2 forcing above it looks pretty linear, but how about the total radiative forcing, because, our new hero's are claiming that greenhouse gas forcing, 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, predicitons of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.
Hmm, that looks pretty linear too (the color you can't see in the legend is for CH4). So we have the result that the radiative forcing since 1979, has been linear. What about before 1979? Well, let's go to the IPCC WGI. Calculation of radiative forcing requires calculations, that means models. The figure below is from Nozawa et al., 2005; and Takemura et al., 2005. Different GCMs, get different values, but the general trends are as shown. Even if you simply plug into simple algebraic equations to calculate the radiative forcings, those equations came from GCMs, so in a real sense Beenstock and Reingewertz are unwittingly engaging in a circle jerk.

More with graphs to illustrate here.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/idiots-del...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#5 Jan 20, 2013
At the journal Earth System Dynamics , M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor have published a paper titled "Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming" which Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell.

This paper only plays games with statistics, not physics.

That's what all the whackos do.

The author at this science blog shows how these statisticians took two linear measurements and tried to argue they... viola really weren't linear after going through an amazing series of manipulations...

<<So the new best thing in the denialsphere is a paper by Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz from the Department of Economics of the The Hebrew University where they pull a Wegman, analyzing climate data without knowing anything about the science. Now this is par for the course in economics where there are no constraints, but it ain't so cool when you deal with physical reality. Anyhow, the rubber hits the road very quickly when they say that

The method of co-integration is designed to test hypotheses with time series data that are non-stationary to the same order, and to avoid the pitfall of spurious regression. The order of non-stationarity refers to the number of times a variable must be differenced (d) to render it stationary, in which case the variable is integrated of order, d, or I(d). We confirm previous findings, that the radiative forcings of greenhouse gases (C02, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in second differences (i.e. I(2)) while global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in first differences (i.e. I(1)).

Straightforwardly this is a claim that forcing has been increasing as a second order function, while temperature has only been increasing linearly. Given the noise in the temperature record, that is a reach as an absolute, but Eli is a nice Rabett. Still, as one of the mice said, whoa. The best estimates of the radiative forcing is the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, which was first described in a paper by Hofmann, et al. and considers all forcings since 1979. Why 1979? Well that's when they established the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory global cooperative air sampling network. It's also the year when Eli got a tenure track job. Makes sense.

If you look at the CO2 forcing above it looks pretty linear, but how about the total radiative forcing, because, our new hero's are claiming that
.......greenhouse gas forcing, 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, predicitons of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.

Hmm, that looks pretty linear too (the color you can't see in the legend is for CH4). So we have the result that the radiative forcing since 1979, has been linear. What about before 1979? Well, let's go to the IPCC WGI. Calculation of radiative forcing requires calculations, that means models. The figure below is from Nozawa et al., 2005; and Takemura et al., 2005. Different GCMs, get different values, but the general trends are as shown. Even if you simply plug into simple algebraic equations to calculate the radiative forcings, those equations came from GCMs, so in a real sense Beenstock and Reingewertz are unwittingly engaging in a circle jerk,

More here with graphs to illustrate.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/idiots-del...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#8 Jan 23, 2013
More scientific science fiction cut and paste.
SpaceBlues

United States

#10 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
At the journal Earth System Dynamics , M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor have published a paper titled "Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming" which Anthony Watts describes as a potential bombshell.
This paper only plays games with statistics, not physics.
That's what all the whackos do.
The author at this science blog shows how these statisticians took two linear measurements and tried to argue they... viola really weren't linear after going through an amazing series of manipulations...
<<So the new best thing in the denialsphere is a paper by Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz from the Department of Economics of the The Hebrew University where they pull a Wegman, analyzing climate data without knowing anything about the science. Now this is par for the course in economics where there are no constraints, but it ain't so cool when you deal with physical reality. Anyhow, the rubber hits the road very quickly when they say that
The method of co-integration is designed to test hypotheses with time series data that are non-stationary to the same order, and to avoid the pitfall of spurious regression. The order of non-stationarity refers to the number of times a variable must be differenced (d) to render it stationary, in which case the variable is integrated of order, d, or I(d). We confirm previous findings, that the radiative forcings of greenhouse gases (C02, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in second differences (i.e. I(2)) while global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in first differences (i.e. I(1)).
Straightforwardly this is a claim that forcing has been increasing as a second order function, while temperature has only been increasing linearly. Given the noise in the temperature record, that is a reach as an absolute, but Eli is a nice Rabett. Still, as one of the mice said, whoa. The best estimates of the radiative forcing is the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, which was first described in a paper by Hofmann, et al. and considers all forcings since 1979. Why 1979? Well that's when they established the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory global cooperative air sampling network. It's also the year when Eli got a tenure track job. Makes sense.
If you look at the CO2 forcing above it looks pretty linear, but how about the total radiative forcing, because, our new hero's are claiming that
.......greenhouse gas forcing, 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, predicitons of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.
Hmm, that looks pretty linear too (the color you can't see in the legend is for CH4). So we have the result that the radiative forcing since 1979, has been linear. What about before 1979? Well, let's go to the IPCC WGI. Calculation of radiative forcing requires calculations, that means models. The figure below is from Nozawa et al., 2005; and Takemura et al., 2005. Different GCMs, get different values, but the general trends are as shown. Even if you simply plug into simple algebraic equations to calculate the radiative forcings, those equations came from GCMs, so in a real sense Beenstock and Reingewertz are unwittingly engaging in a circle jerk,
More here with graphs to illustrate.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/idiots-del...
Very nice. Thanks.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#11 Feb 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Very nice. Thanks.
More scientific science fiction cut and paste. No thanks necessary glad to see youÂ’re waking up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jerusalem, Israel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Weed and Hash in Jerusalem(Fast and Discreet De... 2 hr HappiMan 3
JEWS==>>ARE TURKOFlLE GREEK HATERS! Wed TURKOFILE JEWS 1
Ken Livingstone, "Put up or shut up'' May 1 west is best 1
Is Jesus Christ God? A Valid Question Often Asked Apr 30 Jake999 5
News Netanyahu Makes Outrageous Claim That Palestini... (Oct '15) Apr 27 Grant Hill jr 5
look how me cute!!!! Apr 26 rachel 1
Jake999 Mar '16 Jake999 47
More from around the web