Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase: The Sea Surface Temperature Rules

[daveman]

Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-causedAtmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase:The Sea Surface Temperature Rules

Abstract
The impact of certain factors on the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations
has yet to be elucidated. In particular, the impacts of sea surface temperature (SST) on the balance
of CO₂ emissions and absorption in the atmosphere and the human use of fossil fuels have not
been rigorously compared. In this study, the impact of each factor was examined using multivar-
iate analysis. Publicly available data from prominent climate research and energy-related organi-
zations were used. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed using the annual changes in
atmospheric CO₂ levels for each year as the objective variable. The SST and human emissions for
each year were the explanatory factors. After 1959, the model using the SST derived from NASA
best represented the annual CO₂ increase (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P < 0.0002, model R²
= 0.663, P < 7e-15). However, human emissions were not a determining factor in any of the
regression models. Furthermore, the atmospheric CO₂ concentration predicted, using the regres-
sion equation obtained for the SST derived from UK-HADLEY centre after 1960, showed an
extremely high correlation with the actual CO₂ concentration (Pearson correlation coefficient r =
0.9995, P < 3e-92). The difference was 1.45 ppm in 2022. In conclusion, this study is the first to
use multiple regression analysis to demonstrate that the independent determinant of the annual
increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration was SST, which showed strong predictive ability.
However, human CO₂ emissions were irrelevant. This result indicates that atmospheric CO₂ has
fluctuated as natural phenomenon, regardless of human activity.

 

[EMH]

This idiot here ^^^^ is parroting something YOU FUNDED and had no reason to.

First Problem = SST, sea surface temperature is FUDGE.

IF oceans were warming, we would see an increase in hurricane activity, a "breakout." We don't. Here's the data. The strongest decade for canes is still the 1940s, second place the 1890s.

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

Last Cat 5 to get as far north as .... drumroll... Martha's Vineyard.... 1938

https://www.google.com/search?q=1938+hurricane+martha%27s+vineyard+wind+gusts&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS1003US1003&oq=1&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j46i512j69i59l2j0i131i433i512j0i67i512i650j46i131i433i512j46i199i433i465i512j0i433i512j0i131i433i512.3983j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Second Problem = Co2 does nothing

We have 2 and only 2 measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons.

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling



Translation from NBC spin = highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere for more than 3 decades of rising Co2


Hence if your theory is that adding Co2 to the atmosphere causes warming, your theory would be REJECTED
but instead was FUDGED in 2005 with indefensible bullshit.

satellites had "orbit wobble" = would not affect IR readings at all
balloons had "shade issue" that was CONSTANT = a CONSTANT bias would result in a "correction" of a CONSTANT added or subtracted to all data, but instead a FLAT LINE was FUDGED into a UPWARD SLOPE


So there is NO EVIDENCE that Co2 causes warming, just FUDGE.



and the election may well hinge on whether Trump asks the questions the "warmers" cannot answer without admitting Co2 is not the cause...


1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?



THE LAST THING the Co2 DEBATE NEEDS is IQ<5 PARROTING MORONS

 

[ReinyDays]

"The author did not receive any funding of the work." ...

We can tell ... no mention of isotope ratios either ... so I can see why no one funded this ... it's all misguided statistical buffoonery ... in Figure 2, all that data is within instrumentation error ... ± 0.5ºC ... and of no scientific value at all ...

No paywall? ... sure sign bullshit follows ... or should I say a thesis mill ... or some teenager in his parents house, real universities' main frame computers don't run Windoze ...

 

[Crick]

Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-causedAtmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase:The Sea Surface Temperature Rules

Abstract
The impact of certain factors on the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations
has yet to be elucidated. In particular, the impacts of sea surface temperature (SST) on the balance
of CO₂ emissions and absorption in the atmosphere and the human use of fossil fuels have not
been rigorously compared. In this study, the impact of each factor was examined using multivar-
iate analysis. Publicly available data from prominent climate research and energy-related organi-
zations were used. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed using the annual changes in
atmospheric CO₂ levels for each year as the objective variable. The SST and human emissions for
each year were the explanatory factors. After 1959, the model using the SST derived from NASA
best represented the annual CO₂ increase (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P < 0.0002, model R²
= 0.663, P < 7e-15). However, human emissions were not a determining factor in any of the
regression models. Furthermore, the atmospheric CO₂ concentration predicted, using the regres-
sion equation obtained for the SST derived from UK-HADLEY centre after 1960, showed an
extremely high correlation with the actual CO₂ concentration (Pearson correlation coefficient r =
0.9995, P < 3e-92). The difference was 1.45 ppm in 2022. In conclusion, this study is the first to
use multiple regression analysis to demonstrate that the independent determinant of the annual
increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration was SST, which showed strong predictive ability.
However, human CO₂ emissions were irrelevant. This result indicates that atmospheric CO₂ has
fluctuated as natural phenomenon, regardless of human activity.

Carrying on from the Abstract in your linked article, we read:

1. Introduction

Since the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), endorsed by Margaret Thatcher (Thatcher, [1]), the “so-called” global consensus that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are the primary cause of global warming, has been said to be growing. Nowadays, the term "global warming" has been replaced by the term "climate change.” Beginning in 1990, the IPCC has published reports every few years. The latest version of the sixth report (IPCC, [2]) stated that humanity's impact on climate change is certain. This argument has been also refuted by skeptics. In recent years, starting with the Global Warming Petition Project [3,4], the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was established in 2007 (later the International Conference of Climate Change, Singer, [5]). Furthermore, the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL, [6]) and more than 90 Italian scientists [7] have denied the impact of humans on climate change. They share the belief that being pessimistic about the impact of increased anthropogenic CO₂ emissions is unnecessary. Among these beliefs, the rejection of the anthropogenic theory by John Clauser, Nobel laureate in Physics in 2022, is significant (Clauser, [8]).

---

---

By which it is patently obvious that this is ignorant bullshit.