These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-thingsequal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate--13 times in fact--that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work.

The temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

…

In conclusion then, a separate analysis of each of the thirteen (13) reported temperature time series has demonstrated that not one of them showed, other things equal, a statistically significant trend slope impact of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And, even if this analysis had found such an impact, it would then have been necessary to utilize simultaneous equation parameter estimation techniques to confirm an unbiased and consistent estimate of CO2’s actual impact.

…

These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-otherthings-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate--13 times in fact--that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?

Stated simply, their claim is that GAST is primarily a function of four explanatory variables: Atmospheric CO2 Levels (CO2), Solar Activity (SA), Volcanic Activity (VA), and a coupled ocean atmosphere phenomenon called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO.)

Note that in the two equations above, by assumption, CO2 concentration impacts GAST in 1.) And, higher GAST impacts CO2 concentrations in 2.) Here, CO2 is assumed to be an “independent variable” in equation 1 and the “dependent variable” in equation 2. Of course, the opposite is true of GAST. CO2 may be assumed to be an independent variable in equation 1 because it is a variable not dependent on the other explanatory variables (i.e., ENSO, SA and VA,) but assumed capable of impacting GAST. In statistics, the dependent variable is the variable predicted using, for example, a regression equation. Here, the forecast values of CO2 and GAST must be obtained by solving the two simultaneous equations.

[1] (∆C- cfossil)t = a + b*Tt + c* CO2,t-1 where t is used as a subscript (see pg 62)

Where (∆C - cfossil)t, is the efflux of Net non-fossil fuel CO2 emissions from the oceans and land into the atmosphere and cfossil is CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuel consumption.

Tt is UAH Tropical TLT Ocean temperature. The expected sign is positive.

CO2,t-1 on the right-hand side is a proxy for Land use. The expected sign is negative, because as CO2 levels rise, other things equal, the CO2 absorption of the flora increase.

[2] Ct = Ct-1 = Cequilibrium Using equation [1], yields: [3] 0 = a + b*T0 + c*Cequilibrium Or, rearranging,

[4] Cequilibrium = (a + b*T0)/(-c) Substituting the estimated coefficients from Table XXIV-1 and substituting the average temperature observed over 1979 -2013 for T (272.9 K) into the equation [4], yields:

Cequilibrium = (-311.845 + 1.1765*272.9)/(0.02976) = 310.1

Thus, as shown in Figure XXIV, in equilibrium, without any Fossil Fuel consumption, and assuming a constant 272.9 K TLT Tropical Ocean temperature, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would average around 310 ppm. But, it would take 50 years to get back down to just 330 ppm.

To quote from NOAA, “El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the most important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on inter-annual time scales. Here we attempt to monitor ENSO by basing the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) on the six main observed variables over the tropical Pacific. {Emphasis added}

These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C). These observations have been collected and published in {International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set} ICOADS for many years. - - - -”

Thus, the Multivariate ENSO Index, MEI, at a point in time, is a linear function of six variables, all measured in the Tropics.

These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate--13 times in fact--that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?

We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.

So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?

Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?

Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?

When do deficits and governments become too large?

Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?

Related Links

This is a list of pages with related content.

Powered by Disqus