1. We have showed you there is a strong correlation between co2 levels and temperature going both up and down. your article is correct the correlation can be more than 90 percent. The issues for you is that the same data shows that co2 levels follow (not lead) the change in ocean temps both going up and going down. It would be very hard for the lagging variable to be the cause... don't you think? Do you want me to post the peer reviewed info on this subject again? 2. Recently WeTodd has posted recent studies showing Temperature follows solar Irradiance closely. The key I believe is you have to filter out the cooling effect from volcanic erruptions from the data. 3. Finally no one is arguing the earth has been getting warming in cycles. We have been warming since the last ice age.
Aren't you and gw-trading a statistics expert, a programming expert, and a data analysis engineer? Why not load the data into R and follow the article yourself, instead of regurgitating what other people are telling you? I know I can do it, and I would come out more educated. Can you?
Trump is proving irrelevant. US business leaders are going ahead and implementing as best they can renewable energy solutions in their own plants. It is a shame that the US is going isolationist on an issue that requires multi-national cooperation in order to do a frontal attack on this extremely serious issue.
did you not read my response. first off the findings are not the least bit esoteric. They don't require some sort of advanced understanding of stats. your link says it good for an intro course. Plus... I am not challenging the findings in the article. I accept them we have seen this before many times here at et. I could load the data in and come out with very similar results. 2. But.. .then I would ask... could co2 be the cause of the correlation. would you not want to know that? why can't you discuss that without getting all nitroey and leaving the thread? Since you said you can do it... I challenge you to put the data in and analyze it Who wouldn't discuss that? green is atmoshperic co2. see how it trails the blue. the blue is change in ocean temps. that is a 90 percent plus correlation.. CO2 levels lag change in ocean temps by 12 months. you can read the study... I have presented to you here before. humlum is the main author. its peer reviewed... just waiting for you to analyze the data. The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Ah gotcha. Let me think about what you are saying and I will get back to you. My initial response though is, of course we could be missing some hidden variable. But the statistical analysis AFAIK is very careful to model those extraneous forces.
Actually I am probably the one person in this group who took in the HadCRUT data from the British Met and actually performed some analysis, along with predictive and adaptive modelling. This also marks the point where I went from having no real opinion on AGW to being offended on how these "global warming scientists" were undermining our entire profession using a combination of adjusted data and misleading models. Bottom line: None of their models and assertions would ever hold up to any reasonable scrutiny in a business environment.