Greenhouse Gases

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Did you find the link interesting?

The link about Spencer?
If so, I already addressed his presentation.
One model out of a couple of dozen is of little consequence in light of the total body of information.
NATURE and SCIENCE both warned of these 'reinterpretations' of data.
It seems like, if your paycheck comes from an oil-lobby financed think tank, identical data from NASA experiences a different 'conclusion' than NASA.
If I'm remembering Spencer correctly.

[freebeard]

The link about Spencer?
....
If I'm remembering Spencer correctly.

The question wasn't about his reputation, just the article.

Introduction
Inferring Causation from the “Master Equation”
Correlation of dCO2/dt with Various Potential Forcings
Regression Models of Mauna Loa CO2
Conclusions
The Mauna Loa CO2 data need to be converted to year-to-year changes before being empirically compared to other variables to ferret out possible causal mechanisms. This in effect uses the ‘master equation’ (a time differential equation) which is the basis of many physically-based treatments of physical systems. It, in effect, removes the linear trend in the dependent variable from the correlation analysis, and trends by themselves have no utility in determining cause-versus-effect from purely statistical analyses.

When the CO2 data are analyzed in this way, the greatest correlations are found with global (or tropical) surface temperature changes and estimated yearly anthropogenic emissions. Curiously, reversing the direction of causation between surface temperature and CO2 (yearly changes in SST [dSST/dt] being caused by increasing CO2) yields a very low correlation.

Using a regression model that has one anthropogenic source term and three natural forcing terms, a high level of agreement between model and observations is found, including during the COVID-19 year of 2020 when global CO2 emissions were reduced by about 6%.

Did you find the article internally self-consistent?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The question wasn't about his reputation, just the article.



Did you find the article internally self-consistent?

I found it intellectually dishonest!
It, in itself, isn't even something one would be so concerned about at this juncture.
And if Spencer was actually a 'climate scientist', he'd know from first principles that the carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration, or how it's represented statistically, isn't 'the' thing to worry about now.
It's why I posted about Andrew Glickson's book.
The Earth's 6th-Mass Extinction is about methane ( permafrost and sea-bed sediment clathrates ), triggered by the warming from carbon-dioxide, which is a done deal, unfolding as I type.

[MetroMPG]

Closing this thread.


Lots of other forums where discussion of this subject matter is welcome.



Let's stick to talking about vehicular efficiency.