Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-14-2022, 04:39 PM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 14,525
Thanks: 22,541
Thanked 6,715 Times in 4,255 Posts
link?

Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
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.

__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-14-2022, 07:26 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 23,382
Thanks: 6,600
Thanked 7,460 Times in 6,083 Posts
Quote:
The link about Spencer?
....
If I'm remembering Spencer correctly.
The question wasn't about his reputation, just the article.

Quote:
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?
__________________
.
.

Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster
____________________

Not responsible for spelling until vBulletin's British-spelling leaning spell checker is fixed.
____________________
 
The Following User Says Thank You to freebeard For This Useful Post:
aerohead (04-18-2022)
Old 04-18-2022, 12:10 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 14,525
Thanks: 22,541
Thanked 6,715 Times in 4,255 Posts
self-consistent

Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
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.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
 
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
freebeard (04-18-2022)
Old 07-19-2022, 01:02 PM   #14 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,412

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.07 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)

Appliance car - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 66.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,942
Thanked 6,820 Times in 3,540 Posts
Closing this thread.


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



Let's stick to talking about vehicular efficiency.

__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:
aerohead (07-21-2022), sheepdog 44 (07-26-2022)
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Tags
lies, scam

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com