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.
So what’s the McIntyre view on this paper?
It´s the SUN….! PERIOD.
The paper may have the correct conclusions from the data used. However, it is very clear that the temperature data from NASA GISS has been manipulated and is false. Further, the CO2 data, and the assumptions and data about CH4 are also false. There is, also, doubt about changes of and what constitutes solar radiation (eg magnetic and particle fluxes).
I am sure if the authors used the correct data that they would find that there is no relation short or long term been atmospheric temperatures and the factors assumed to be forcing (which in itself is a stupid term) ie so-called greenhouse gases other than H2O in its various physical forms.
I would suggest that the paper has been poorly peer reviewed by people who do not understand the science and technology of measurement and heat transfer. The authors should have at least mentioned doubts about the data and the effect on conclusions of uncertainty.
The salient point of this analysis is that in order to determine what CO2 will do in the future in a complex system it is more instructive to look at what it has done in the past in that system rather than to argue on the basis of a single theoretical physical effect component.
Data always trumps theory.
Gary,
Main issue with Miskolczi is his rather peculiar use of the Virial theorem. The particular form he uses is only valid when all interactions between particles are inverse-square attraction, but the interactions between atmosphere and the ground are repulsive and not inverse-square, so the usage would seem to be invalid. And the way he presents it is by drawing some sort of vague analogy between radically different concepts, so it’s impossible to tell exactly what he meant. I’ve never seen any answer from Miskolczi on that.
But yes, the sort of feedback he proposes would possibly lead to the sort of relationship identified in this paper. But then, so would a thousand other possibilities.
It is a capital error to theorise without data. We simply don’t know, and we’re not going to spoil things by guessing. Providing evidence of such a feedback would be sufficient – figuring out what causes it can come later.
Beware of Geeks bearing gifts!
However high-falluting the language of these theorists may sound and however much I’d love to believe their findings but I’m ‘sceptical’! Perhaps I may be turning into a “suspicionist”
If the past few decades have shown us anything that took root in our awareness then, for me, it’s been the willingness of so many to clamber aboard bandwagons!
Yesterdays gravy-train rewarded its passengers for rooting out the sin of SeeOTwo (in Science CO2 but, phonetically, rendered into a format that multitudes of Scientifically unaware, but easily duped, could cope with)
Today, work in progress, the popular paradigm appears to be shifting. Possibly Man is not the primary driver as once thought!
I’m not impressed by the prognostications of currently resident Robust-Man, Gavin, but neither am I interested in him being replaced by an equivalent contrarian!
Forget the models. Today’s or tomorrows! Listen to the data.
That’s why I go to CA to sit before SMc, Mosh, Bender et al. Ditto for WUWT, AV and BH etc.
Beware of Geeks bearing Gifts.
Pa Annoyed (15:47:29) :
“Basically, it’s saying that there is some sort of unknown feedback mechanism, adjusting some other quantity, that compensates for the effect of changes in CO2 within a few years. i.e. CO2 warms the atmosphere, which permanently releases something else, which cools the atmosphere again.”
TanGeng (16:07:30) :
“if this paper is correct then there must be some kind of rapid negative feedback mechanism that virtually eliminates all of the warming from greenhouse gas increases. It’s a mathematical approach so I think it requires some careful consideration.”
I think you will find the culprit is water vapour, providing a negative feedback.
R. Gates (13:53:54) :
From both a mathematical standpoint, and the very marginal “science” involved in this paper…it is pure crap.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion. The problem here for me is, I don’t know your background, so how can assign a relative value to your opinions? You may well be right, for all I know.
That being said, which disciplines of science and/or mathematics do you hold advanced degrees in? What facts are you basing your very strong opinion on? Did you already find and read all of the supportive works cited in the paper? Where did the authors err, in your analysis? Inquiring minds want to know!
_________________________________________________________________________
I have noticed that with very few exceptions, most posters and guest authors here do not state their qualifications. For instance, I am considered to be a reasonably intelligent fellow with a degree in Political Science. While I may not be able to follow all of the advanced math and science, I can follow the authors’ reasoning and supporting arguments. As always, the devil is in the details. I need to hear what other qualified mathematicians or scientists in the fields related to climate science have to say about the paper; people who understand the math and the jargon so they can opine with some authority. Perhaps R. Gates is so qualified, but I don’t know that.
One can draw an informed opinion from analyzing the concurring and dissenting arguments of people well qualified in the subject matter to do so. However well informed one may be, they are still a layman and not a qualified scientist. I am no different than our elected policy makers in this regard. With much of the supporting “settled” science in question and the compromised integrity and veracity of many of the scientists involved, a prudent approach would be to affect a Missouri attitude (Show Me or skeptical).
No disrespect meant to R. Gates or anyone else here. I just like to know who’s who.
Bob Tisdale – “and AGW is refuted” is just a shop talk and doesn’t mean that any refutation took place. Mathematicians often use the term “refuted” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
At the end of the day, what Miskolczi said was an increase in CO2 would cause a temporary fluctuation that would settle out to an equilibrium about the same as before. What this paper says is that an increase in CO2 would cause a temporary fluctuation that would settle out to an equilibrium about the same as before.
The notion that this paper defies physics is correct… provided that it is physics as per the IPCC and others who argue that increase in CO2 is a positive feedback that will in the long term exceed negative feedback. If its physics governed by the laws of thermodynamics including conservation of energy though, then it supports the physics.
Some further, but abbreviated, background here
http://www.patrickminford.net/Business_Topics/BusinessTopicsCOctober2009.pdf
I really am amazed at how the warmist trolls in this post come out immediately attacking something they obviously don’t understand and don’t have the credentials to understand. Let time take its course and we will see if this is refuted or clarified by those mathematicians, physicists, and climatologists who should understand it. I only remember polynomials from my high school algebra class, so I don’t know what the heck “polynomial cointegration” is, either.
This paper purports to tease out the “CO2 signal” (or lack of one.) So far, so good, because I cannot think of any other person or paper who even made a serious stab at determining what portion of climate variability is due to CO2. Climate models certainly don’t count; they start with a given and work backwards.
However, the jury is out. We need to know if their mathematical treatment applies in this case and, if so, did they do it right.
Miskolczi Interview
“Former NASA scientist defends theory refuting global warming doctrine“
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/02/13/miskolczi-interview/
Another paper:
Water vapor feedback NEGATIVE:
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/02/14/new-paper-water-vapor-feedback-negative/
I can help explain the first and second derivatives being a constant.
Consider the equation of a line, Y = mX + b, where m is the slope of the line. The first derivative dY/dx results in m, a constant. Thus, the equation is first order, because the first derivative (dY/dx) yields a constant. The term ‘b’ disappears, as the derivative of a constant is, by definition, zero.
But, when this is done with a curve, such as a parabola, the first derivative yields the equation of a straight line. The parabola equation is y = ax^2 + bx + c. The first derivative is then dY/dx = 2a x + b. We must then take the second derivative to obtain a constant. Thus the equation is second order.
What the paper appears to state is that portions of the problem are first-order and other portions are second-order.
My father was an eminent meteorologist/physicist.. working as an expert for the WMO (published 3 papers in Nature). I remember way back in 1998 he said that it was a tax grab (AGW) how’s that for foresight. I remember him saying the extraordinary temps in Europe that year were nothing out of the ordinary! (occurred ocassionally every 30-40 years) Of course he knew the science was c### even then. Hopefully this site will not be required soon sorry Anthony. Maybe you can keep going as a Climate/Weather in general site!
Hmm. Polynomial cointegration, eh? Common sense gives the same answer.
pRadio (13:12:39) :
“Thank you for one more “nail in the coffin”……
Roger”
This coffin has so many nails in it that its weight should cause it to sink into the earth like a lead weight into quicksand. But there are powerful people who hope to profit from it, who are keeping it afloat.
Man-made global warming caused 9/11.
“(CNN) — The thin wisps of condensation that trail jet airliners have a significant influence on the climate, according to scientists who studied U.S. skies during a rare interruption in national air traffic after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day, said meteorological researchers.”
9/11 Study: Air Traffic Affects Climate
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/index.html
Ice/snow cover, Northern Hemisphere, 2009 v 2010: click
From the Conclusion, page 13 of the pdf:
We have shown that greenhouse gas forcings do not polynomially cointegrate withglobal temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, previous claims that carbonemissions permanently increase global temperature are false.
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
I would like to see another thread on this very interesting work from Ferenc Miskolczi. Interesting interview:
…..“greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87…..The computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations, using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code…….the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be 1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Former-NASA-scientist-defends-theory-refuting-global-warming-doctrine
🙂
[quote bob (14:55:55) :]
Where are the data tables?
[/quote]
They’re at the end of the article.
Anyway, I’ll label this paper as “interesting”. That the rate of change in CO2 matters is certainly a new idea. But I’ll wait till I see someone come up with a physical process that occurs when the rate of change of CO2 changes before I take the findings of this paper seriously.
ScienceOfDoom,
Confidence in ability of the models to predict future climate was decreased when someone leaked the source code and comments, especially the liberal use of hard coded fudge factors to reproduce any curve they wanted.