Some additional notes for my students:
Why I try to understand where the data come from before accusing people of distorting or hiding data
You can’t bluff your way through a discussion of time series analysis
Why I try to read the finance/forecasting literature before talking about finance/forecasting.
Why I try to understand the forecasting literature before talking about forecasting
The set of reminders is superbly useful. I am grateful.
Menzie, really? Understand where the data come from. Read the description of the index. Read the finance/forecasting literature. Understand the forecasting literature. That seems like an awful lot of work. Can’t Stevie just go ahead and try to bluff his way through a discussion of time series analysis?
Especially when (and I’m repeating myself here) Stevie can isn’t actually in a discussion with you. He’s doing the “fake science” shuffle. The faux news drive-by. The Bannon bloviate. Stevie’s making room for people who would dearly like to believe that everything is Biden’s fault and that energy prices matter more than anything and that there is a radical left in U.S. politics. They should be able to believe whatever they like. ‘Cause they read somewhere that some guy regressed miles driven against weekly jobless claims in a one-month timeframe.
Wanna know the result of that regression?
Gas.
You can’t bluff your way through a discussion of time series analysis
Well, CoRev is certainly giving it (i.e., bluffing) the old college try. His ignorance about very basic time series analysis is jaw dropping. As to the three papers I cited in which econometricians co-authored papers with climate scientists…well, CoRev’s comments showed that he completely misunderstood what they were saying. And if he can’t understand the concept of an I(1) time series like employment data, what are the odds that he’ll understand how to handle those economic data that are integrated of order 2?
2slugs, Barkley, Menzie et al (believing GHGs drive climate/temperatures/crises/…): ”
CoRev
June 25, 2022 at 4:22 pm
2slugs, did you note this from your reference? https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20824005
“We use recent advances in time series econometrics to estimate the relation among emissions of CO2 and CH4, the concentration of these gases, and global surface temperature. ” Are you as shocked as I that someone using econometric tools would do stochastic or deterministic tests.
And this: ” The regression results also indicate that increases in surface temperature since 1870 have changed the flow of carbon dioxide to and from the atmosphere in a way that increases its atmospheric concentration. ”
I highlighted the important part of that finding, because you (that’s inclusive) have ignored that econometric result.
We climate skeptics/cynics know why you ignored it, but to continue to tell us you’re the smartest on the blog without commenting on this blog shows you’re just ideologues and the opposite of smartest.
I await your analyses of the Kaufmann paper and his econometrics approach. Or you could continue to ignore it as I did on reviewing the Filippo paper on climate.
I have asked several time, but yet no response. Why is temperature anomalies OK for use in the Filippo paper, as his temperature data was almost surely created using the anomaly process, but even more.
Science is hard as it asks questions of every scientific paper produce. Except, of course, blog articles which may or not cite such papers, are exempt from questions. We are seeing a growing history on this blog alone.
Menzie, please use the Kaufmann temperature and CO2 finding as an example in your class.
A full day after this REPEAT of the comment and Kaufmann econometric findings and not an inkling of a response?
We climate skeptics/cynics know why you ignored it, but to continue to tell us you’re the smartest on the blog without commenting on this blog shows you’re just ideologues and the opposite of smartest.
CoRev,
As usual you are misrepresenting things. The paper you link to confirms that CO2 is the main driving force on global temperature. Then they find that there is some positive feedback from temperature to CO2, but it is minor compared to the first. You simply did not mention the main finding, suggesting inaccurately like you like to do so often that this is the main finding.
LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!
5. Conclusion
Recent advances in time series econometrics can be used to estimate statistically meaningful equations for the relation among human activities that emit CO2 and CH4, the atmospheric concentration of these gases, and global surface temperature. The results provide direct evidence that there is a statistically meaningful relation- ship between global surface temperature and an aggregate of radiative forcing that includes greenhouse gases, anthropogenic sulfur emissions, and solar activity. A simple model based on these results indicates that greenhouse gases and anthro- pogenic sulfur emissions are largely responsible for the observed increase in global surface temperature between 1870 and 1990. This result is direct evidence for the effect of human activity and global climate.
The effect of human activity on surface temperature is reinforced by the simulta- neous relationship between surface temperature and the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Our results indicate that the global carbon cycle contains a positive feed- back loop in which temperature increases associated with human activities that emit CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) change flows to and from the atmosphere in a way that on net increases the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, increases its radiative forcing, and increases temperature further. Together, our estimates for the simultaneous linkages among climate, human activity, and the biogeochemical cycling of carbon improve empirical estimates that focus on individual links and omit important variables.
Baffled quote says: ” Our results indicate that the global carbon cycle contains a positive feed- back loop in which temperature increases associated with human activities that emit CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) change flows to and from the atmosphere in a way that on net increases the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, increases its radiative forcing, and increases temperature further.”
And yet we have this: “… that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will lead to higher humidity in the atmosphere. And because water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this will cause additional warming. This process is known as water vapor feedback and is responsible for a significant portion of the warming predicted to occur over the next century.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm
Anyone notice which GHG is ignored in this:”…Even though CO2 comprises 80% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, it’s like long-sleeved thermal undershirt that might make you feel a little too warm on a hot day, while nitrous oxide is more like an uncomfortable sweater, and fluorinated gases are like that sweltering coat. If the levels of nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases continue to increase, we could be in serious trouble because they are so much stronger than CO2 and methane….” https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/some-greenhouse-gases-are-stronger-others
What does science say about H2O feedback? “… The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, NCDC continues, “but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.”” https://www.neefusa.org/weather-and-climate/climate-change/principal-greenhouse-gases-and-their-sources
So we have a peer reviewed paper using econometrics saying temperature increases lead increases in 2 major GHGs, H2O and CO2. How much of the GHGs are made up of water(all its forms)? Look at this chart: https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif
Also from this link: “Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.
Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.”
Continued exaggerated attention to the wrong GHGs will continue to be a problem, economically and slow growth in scientific and economic areas where it is better pointed.
Ah, how unsueprising that Menzie has a set of these problematic claims and arguments from CoRev. Heck, frankly I am not surprised as he seems to be more seriously off more frequently than Steven Kopits, although you had more such items in your post showing such things for him than there are here for CoRev.
Bruce Hall must feel cheated!