Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming
Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz – Department of Economics, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel.
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.
Paper here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for one more “nail in the coffin”……
Roger
OT, Dr. Spencer has a new post that shows the Jan. temperature variation across the world. What I see does not seem to agree with some reports at WUWT. Particularly, it has Canada completely above average and I seem to remember several posts complaining of cold temps in central Canada. It also begs the question of where the cold air came from that led to the cooler temps in the US.
If true, another paper supportive of my suggestion that more greenhouse gases cause the hydrological cycle to speed up thus neutralising the effect on tropospheric temperatures and maintaining the basic equilibrium between sea surface and surface air temperatures dictated by sun and oceans as they interact over time.
I think you caused the economics.huji.ac.il web site to crash 🙂
Interesting indeed. What is really amazing though is the slew of papers that are surfacing now that would not have done so even a few months ago or at best would have been met with scorn and derision. This sort of balance has been suppressed for too long.
So what’s the status of this paper? Submitted? Published? What journal?
Well they are economists, not journalists who write for the WWF, so there’s little chance their paper will survive the IPCC ‘review’ process.
Viscount Monckton analyzes global warming numbers: click
Hank – Hank whats-his-name of RC fame maybe?
In any case, you can find it here Hank:
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
It was slow on loading for me via a Google link.
.
.
Someone showed me this paper a few days ago.
I’m not much good with statistics – but I’m hoping that among the excitement generated a few people can explain what exactly these statisticians were testing against.
Because if CO2 had a direct link to surface temperature, we could just run a simple/complex statistical test – which seems to be what they did..
But if CO2 and lots of other effects link to surface temperature then how can they test it? What are they testing?
For example – not that I am convinced by the argument – but the modeling community says that when they run their models with the effects of CO2 AND aerosols, they can explain the last 100 years of climate history. (Seems like a necessary but not sufficient proof of climate models..)
Did this paper test against that theory? Including aerosols? Because I couldn’t find any mention of it.
If not, they are too late, the climate modeling community has already rejected the theory that this paper appears to reject.
Might I be so bold as to suggest that alarmist politicians, at least around here, are stationary in differences of the 3rd kind.
Also, Google quickvew link
.
.
From both a mathematical standpoint, and the very marginal “science” involved in this paper…it is pure crap.
meanwhile, let’s not imagine BBC is changing its spots:
if you listen to the program (link at top of summary), you will hear Dr. Brown repeatedly say we MUST reduce our carbon footprint, and therefore electronics in cars, however, faulty, are not all that dangerous:
12 Feb: BBC: Science in Action
**Modern cars, software and safety
Dr Colin Brown is the Engineering Director at the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in the UK. He explained why the brakes on the Prius were causing problems..
**Potatoes and Climate change
In Peru, in the Andes, the potato is a vital, staple crop. Due to climate change, in particular a change in rain patterns, crop yields have been falling over the past few years. Now scientists, from all around the world have been working on different strategies to fix the problem…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0063zcn
as Delingpole said on his blog yesterday:
Climategate: the official cover-up continues
“If there’s one thing that stinks even more than Climategate, it’s the attempts we’re seeing everywhere from the IPCC and Penn State University to the BBC to pretend that nothing seriously bad has happened, that “the science” is still “settled”, and that it’s perfectly OK for the authorities go on throwing loads more of our money at a problem that doesn’t exist.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100025934/climategate-the-official-cover-up-continues/
Richard M (13:17:03) :
OT, Dr. Spencer has a new post that shows the Jan. temperature variation across the world. What I see does not seem to agree with some reports at WUWT. Particularly, it has Canada completely above average and I seem to remember several posts complaining of cold temps in central Canada. It also begs the question of where the cold air came from that led to the cooler temps in the US.
Was wondering where that cold air come from myself. I would have thought that it came from the Pole, but the westward motion of the jet streams and the warm anomaly over Canada seems to preclude it getting there.
Maybe it just fell out of the sky.
Stephen Wilde (13:18:21) :
How about biological cycle speeding up? More C02 = more bacteria, protozoa, plankton, etc. If I leave the contents of my refrigerator out in the warm air, it gets eaten whether I am able to get to it first or not.
If the bugs don’t eat it, it ain’t food.
I wonder if this paper will get published. What is linked looks like a submission rather than a pre-print.
This is certainly the first work to state “it is not the level of greenhouse gas forcings that matters, but the change in the level.” There is no physical basis for such a behaviour, and none is even suggested in this paper. I take it the authors are economists, not scientists.
The pdf is entitled Nature_Paper091209. However, given that Beenstock is releasing this now, I assume Nature are not planning on publishing it.
Hmm. They come out swinging in the abstract with, “Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted.”
Why is it in all the books that I have read on the subject of climate change; all the newspaper articles etc etc, I have not seen any mention of Precession. as I understand it (and I am not in any way qualified) all the calculations for a planetary rise in temperature are inaccurate unless Precession is taken into account as a base figure. Astronomers have known of Precession for two thousand years. Navigators have made allowance for Precession for hundreds of years. Precession is tabled in the navigators bible, Norries Tables. So why do we read nothing of it? Can any qualified person explain??
Where the hell do these guys get off using “nonstationary time series” and “methodology of polynomial cointegration”? Looking through their paper, they say things like “The method of cointegration 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.” So what. How was it designed? Under what circumstances will this design succeed in modeling reality and how might it fail? And this is supposed to be a Nature paper of general interest? How are they establishing causality where others have failed? There is no discussion nor any proof. They simply assert that they are correct on the strength of tests that they don’t explain.
The statements they make are uninterpretable to anyone but them and a small group of people like this methodology. If I were to spend a couple weeks figuring out what their ridiculous jargon means, I suspect it could be rewritten using much simpler mathematics. I’ve done this before with other fields, but, I’m really getting sick of it. These authors are doing their level best to be priests of climatology. I condemn their efforts and have zero confidence in their conclusions until the put forward a convincing argument that other people can follow.
Maybe it just fell out of the sky.
Maybe the heat didn’t?
I second @Hank (13:32:44) what is the status of this paper? Also, what does stationary in 1st or 2nd differences mean as described in the paper? In googling the terms it seems to simply mean that the 1st derivative is a constant or the second derivative is a constant, respectively. Any help?
science of doom,
From the abstract, I got the impression that they were testing against the overly simplistic idea that CO2 causes global warming, which is where the overwhelming majority of GHG news stories center, and the level of understanding that has been given to governments all over the world, therefore we must all cease and desist producing CO2 altogether (and give these great scientists a huge grant to continue). THAT is what that paper is showing to be bogus– the very thing that “everybody knows” about climate.
rbateman (13:58:21)
“How about biological cycle speeding up? More C02 = more bacteria, protozoa, plankton, etc. If I leave the contents of my refrigerator out in the warm air, it gets eaten whether I am able to get to it first or not.
If the bugs don’t eat it, it ain’t food.”
If you can show that a change in the speed of the biological cycle can shift the air circulation patterns in the same way that changing sea surface temperatures seem able to do then yes, I’d go along with that 🙂
As for the paper at the head of this thread it does seem a bit ‘thin’ on detail so we’ll just have to wait and see what others say when they’ve deconstructed it.