The paper below is exceptionally informative science by Professor Jamal Munshi. The examples used are helpful to understanding the statistical tools used. Since this work only involves two components of a single climate variable, CO2, the many other climate variables cancel out and may be ignored for the purpose of this work. This is extremely important because simultaneity bias, which should always be removed from the many entangled, interdependent climate variables but unfortunately has been rarely considered in climate studies, requires difficult math including many assumptions and uncertainties, which are not needed in this method. This is a home run.
Summarizing, the human contribution to CO2 by burning fossil fuels is so small that it has no measurable effect on the overall natural growth rate of CO2. By logical inference, human CO2 cannot have any measurable effect on global temperature.
Dr. Munshi is Professor Emeritus at Sonoma State University. He taught applied statistics in the Business Administration department. He earned a BS Chemical Engineering at San Jose State University, MS Chemical Engineering Colorado School of Mines, and PhD from University of Arkansas.
I have copied below only the abstract, introduction and conclusions. I strongly encourage you to take the time to read and consider the other sections of this excellent and brief paper including the excellent graphics and references. A link to the online paper is below where you can download a pdf version.
RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS:
8/8/2015, Revised 12/13/2015
ABSTRACT: A statistically significant correlation between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the annual rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over a 53-year sample period from 1959-2011 is likely to be spurious because it vanishes when the two series are detrended. The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.1
The theory of anthropogenic global warming is that since 1750, human activity, involving the use of fossil fuels, the manufacture of cement, and changes in land use, has been injecting an artificial flow of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere at such an accelerated rate that it has overwhelmed nature’s delicate carbon balance and caused a steadily rising unnatural and unprecedented accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The change in atmospheric composition has enhanced its greenhouse effect causing surface temperatures to rise unnaturally and dangerously and threaten catastrophic consequences in terms of climate change (Hansen, 2006) (IPCC, 2007) (IPCC, 2014) (Plass, 1956). An important policy implication is that since these changes were created by artificial means they can also be moderated by artificial means simply by making significant reductions in our emissions of CO2 (IPCC, 2014).
Since the recent accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is ascribed solely to human emissions, a testable implication of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between the rate of anthropogenic emissions and the rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere; and this correlation should be observable at the inter-annual frequency level (Patra, 2005) (Raupach, 2008) (Keeling, 2001) (Plass, 1956) (Lorius, 1990). This means that, net of long term trends, we should find that years of higher annual emissions should correspond with years of greater annual increase in atmospheric CO2 and years of lower emissions should correspond with years of lower rates of accumulation of atmospheric CO2. In this short note, we test this hypothesis by applying detrended correlation analysis, a tool that is often used by financial analysts to detect higher frequency changes net of long term trends (Prodobnik, 2008) (Granger, 1964) (Haan, 2002). The method tests the relationship between two variables that share a common direction in their long term drift in time by removing the drift component and comparing the detrended series in terms of correlation at shorter intervals. When applied to atmospheric CO2, this procedure shows that the correlation between the annual rate at which anthropogenic emissions are introduced into the atmosphere and the annual rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, though significant, does not survive into the detrended series and is therefore likely to be spurious or an artifact of the common direction of their long term drift in time to which no anthropogenic cause can be ascribed.
- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. It was found that the observed correlation between these variables derives solely from a common direction in their long term trends and not from a correspondence in their annual fluctuations. As a corollary to this finding, a further study reveals that change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to surface temperature both in long term trends and in short term annual fluctuations. The results have significant implications for interpreting the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 in terms of the climate system and the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
All data and computational details used in this note may be downloaded from its online data archive (Munshi, 2015).
UN IPCC and others claim that human produced CO2 from fossil fuels is the largest contributor to the increase in atmospheric CO2. This is demonstrably wrong. Claims are that humans have increased fossil fuel emissions 300% since the year 2000, or 15% per year. But simple high school math and a spreadsheet will convince you that fossil fuels emissions are statistically insignificant across any time frame. Download the CO2 data from the Keeling Lab at Mauna Loa. It is already available for download in unseasonalized format. You can easily see the winter summer seasonal shark’s teeth variations overlaid on the long term trend, visually as well as by 2nd derivative. But, you cannot detect an anomaly, perturbation to trend, or change in slope (2nd derivative) that correlates with an increase of 300% since year 2000, nor with a 15% per year increase. If fossil fuel emissions were the dominant cause of the CO2 trend or even a significant factor in the trend, then the CO2 trend would appear to exponential and the second derivative would indicated that slope was increasing. It should be needless to say, if fossil fuel CO2 emissions are not forcing a change in the ongoing trend of global net atmospheric CO2 concentration trend, then fossil fuel emssions are not forcing any climate trends which are dependent on the net CO2 trend.
Pingback: Hubris versus concrete | budbromley
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: A few important CO2 facts | budbromley
Professor Murry Salby and Prof Jamal Mushi confirm each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
No. This is factually incorrect because the timeline is way too short. This author is suggesting that an increase of, say, 1 PPM concentration per year of atmospheric CO2 must translate to a measurable increase in global temperature to be causal and he does this by detrending the yearly data and concluding that because there is not a one-to-one correlation within a year there can be no causality. And you’ve posted it for just this reason.
What you haven’t posted is why the trending over a minimum of 200 years is vital to find that human fingerprint, to reveal atmospheric CO2 for the role it actually plays over time. This is why every atmospheric scientific organization in the world uses trending… not just for CO2 but for design features of sophisticated and fragile measuring instruments used in data gathering. And this data gathering is, in fact, highly accurate in real life measuring stuff through the atmosphere and adapting to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, the trending works to accurately reflect reality when equipment designed to account for these emissions/temperature changes over time. If this paper were offering us real insight into the role CO2 plays in atmospheric effects – that there is no causality between rising temperature and CO2 emissions, then these instruments should not work. But they do. So we know there’s something wrong with the paper. And what’s wrong is the arbitrary shortness of timeline and the removal of the long term trend data.
I sold and managed people who sold and serviced scientific instruments worldwide for over 30 years. This statistician is specifically NOT analyzing CO2 and temperature, but rather only one variable, CO2, which is broken down into two components, human trend and non-human trend. He is specifically analyzing one trend versus the other. Since the trend of human-contributed CO2 is not significantly affecting the trend of total CO2, he and we all can confidently conclude that human-produced CO2 is irrelevant. In other words, CO2 atmospheric composition is not responsive to the rate of fossil fuel emissions. Off the top of my head I know of two other scientists who show the same result. By the way, carbon isotope ratio mass spectrometers can easily differentiate human/fossil fuel produced CO2 versus non-human CO2 emissions in a single flask of air taken at a single sampling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, but then release it into the atmosphere of, say, an open air stadium and then try to find only the human caused CO2. This is why we use and compile dozens of metrics to find the trend lines. Again, the point is that the timeline is far too short in this global open atmosphere stadium. This is why climate scientists look for ‘fingerprint’ data and the most potent of these is the global temperature mean.
But there are dozens and dozens of metrics all pointing – all trending – the same way. And there is no correlation to any known naturally occurring emitter of CO2 to explain the rise of atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting – predictably – with the correlation of the frequency and rate of our changing climate patterns. Rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases – of which CO2 is one of the longer lasting – has been identified as the most likely culprit and there is a strong likelihood of 90+% confidence by a near consensus of climate scientists and almost every major scientific body in the world that human emissions is this driver… because the drastic changes to rate and frequency of radically shifting climate patterns in such a short period of geological time is unprecedented in global history without an extinction event.
Warming oceans, which contain 50 to 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere, are releasing CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere. It is Henry’s Law at work and it is only a mystery to so-called climate scientists. It conflicts with their precious but wrong hypothesis. Warming trends happen prior to trends of increasing CO2 concentration, therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of warming. That is how simple it is. But they are in denial. Secondly, the onging trend in the generally accepted global average net atmospheric CO2 concentration which has been reported from the Keeling Lab on Mauna Loa is not perturbed by the addition of fossil fuel CO2 emissions. The human contrribution is too small to detect in the overall trend. That is discussed in detail in other posts on my blog along with references, so I will not repeat it hear. I have done the data analysis myself as you should. Thank yo for reading and for your comments.
Why comment to me when you have zero intention of respecting any other opinion than your own?