re: 99.999% likelihood GW is man made.

quote:

---

buckeye_vol

---

Thanks for the contribution to the tribal echo chamber! I'm not sure they were searching for cross dependency as much as they were trying to eliminate it as a possibility. Keep that in mind.

The problem I have with this is the choice of input parameters. They chose a whopping four variables to model the climate with. Only one displays an exponential response (CO2). Then go through the ruminations of saying it correlates best to the presumed temperature anomaly.



Conceptually, that's kind of a "duh". In reality, they could have chosen population (below) and shown that it was the best fit of the four.



Corn crop yields would probably have worked too.



Perhaps the housing price index?



Maybe too flat at the beginning...

I realize I'm dumbing this down a lot. But it is a 4-variable model. Conceptually, I don't see how it could have come to a different conclusion given the inputs. GIGO is a risk.

I wish there were more discussion on residuals. I *do* see a spike c.1940 (good!), but the duration is much shorter than the 40s Bump. And I'd expect to see a rise at the end accounting for "the pause". Those are pretty solid landmarks for when the CO2/temperature correlations have have gone wonky. I'd expect the modeling to go wonky too, or, have a suitable input. Could be as simple as a time slice issue, or washed out with regression( ), tho.