**Problem 1.** If temperature is adequately represented by a deterministic trend due to increasing GHGs, why be concerned with the presence of a unit root?

Rather than bloviate over the implications of a unit root (integrative behavior) in the global temperature series, a more productive approach is to formulate an hypothesis, and test it.

A deterministic model of global temperature (y) and anthropogenic forcing (g) with random errors e is:

y_{t}=a+b.g_{t}+ε

An autoregressive model of changes in temperature Δy_{t} uses a difference equation with a deterministic trend b.g_{t-1} and the previous value of y or y_{t-1}:

Δy_{t} =b.g_{t-1}+c.y_{t-1}+ε

Written this way, the presence of the unit root in an AR1 series y is equivalent to the coefficient c equaling zero (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey%E2%80%93Fuller_test).

I suspect the controversy can be reduced to two simple hypotheses:

H0: The size of the coefficient b is not significantly different from zero.

Ha: The size of the coefficient b is significantly different from zero.

The size of the coefficient should be indicative of the contribution of the deterministic trend (in this case anthropogenic warming) to the global temperature.

We transform the global temperature by differencing (an autoregressive or AR coordinate system), and then fit a model just as we would with any model.

In the deterministic coordinate system, b is highly significant with a strong contribution from AGW. For the AGW forcing I use the sum of the anthropogenic forcings in the RadF.txt file W-M_GHGs, O3, StratH2O, LandUse, and AIE.

Call: lm(formula = y ~ g)

Coefficients:

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept) -0.34054 0.01521 -22.39 <2e-16 ***

g 0.31573 0.01802 17.52 <2e-16 ***

—

Signif. codes: 0 â€˜***â€™ 0.001 â€˜**â€™ 0.01 â€˜*â€™ 0.05 â€˜.â€™ 0.1 â€˜ â€™ 1

Residual standard error: 0.1251 on 121 degrees of freedom

Multiple R-squared: 0.7172, Adjusted R-squared: 0.7149

F-statistic: 306.9 on 1 and 121 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16

The result is very different in the AR coordinate system. The coefficient of y is not significantly greater than zero (at 95%) and neither is b.

Call: lm(formula = d ~ y + g + 0)

Coefficients:

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)

y -0.06261 0.03234 -1.936 0.0552 .

g 0.01439 0.01088 1.322 0.1887

—

Signif. codes: 0 â€˜***â€™ 0.001 â€˜**â€™ 0.01 â€˜*â€™ 0.05 â€˜.â€™ 0.1 â€˜ â€™ 1

Residual standard error: 0.101 on 121 degrees of freedom

Multiple R-squared: 0.0389, Adjusted R-squared: 0.02302

F-statistic: 2.449 on 2 and 121 DF, p-value: 0.09066

Perhaps the main contribution of AGW is since 1960, so we restrict the data to this period and examine the effect. The deterministic trend in AGW is greater, but still not significant.

Prob1(window(CRU,start=1960),GHG)

Call: lm(formula = d ~ y + g + 0)

Coefficients:

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)

y -0.24378 0.10652 -2.289 0.0273 *

g 0.03050 0.01512 2.017 0.0503 .

—

Signif. codes: 0 â€˜***â€™ 0.001 â€˜**â€™ 0.01 â€˜*â€™ 0.05 â€˜.â€™ 0.1 â€˜ â€™ 1

Residual standard error: 0.1149 on 41 degrees of freedom

Multiple R-squared: 0.1284, Adjusted R-squared: 0.08591

F-statistic: 3.021 on 2 and 41 DF, p-value: 0.05974

But what happens when we use another data set. Below is the result using GISS. The coefficients are significant but the effect is still small.

> Prob1(GISS,GHG)

Call: lm(formula = d ~ y + g + 0)

Coefficients:

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)

y -0.27142 0.06334 -4.285 3.69e-05 ***

g 0.06403 0.01895 3.379 0.00098 ***

—

Signif. codes: 0 â€˜***â€™ 0.001 â€˜**â€™ 0.01 â€˜*â€™ 0.05 â€˜.â€™ 0.1 â€˜ â€™ 1

Residual standard error: 0.1405 on 121 degrees of freedom

Multiple R-squared: 0.1375, Adjusted R-squared: 0.1232

F-statistic: 9.645 on 2 and 121 DF, p-value: 0.0001298

So why be concerned with the presence of a unit root? It has been argued that while the presence of a unit indicates that using OLS regression is wrong, this does not contradict AGW because the effect of greenhouse gas forcings can still be incorporated as deterministic trends.

I am not 100% sure of this, as the differencing removes most of the deterministic trend that could be potentially explained by g.

If the above is true, there is a problem. When the analysis respects the unit root on real data, the deterministic trend due to increasing GHGs is so small that the null hypothesis is not rejected, i.e. the large contribution of anthropogenic global warming suggested by a simple OLS regression model is a spurious result.

Here is my code. Orient is a functions that matches two time series to the same start and end date.

Prob1<-function(y,g) {

v<-orient(list(y,g))

d<-diff(v[,1]);y<-v[1:(dim(v)[1]-1),1];

g<-v[1:(dim(v)[1]-1),2]

l<-lm(d~y+g+0)

print(summary(l))

plot(y,type="l")

lines((g*l$coef[2]+y[1]),col="blue")

}

Pingback: sam waltonman

Pingback: for more information please contact

Pingback: iherb coupon

Pingback: iherb coupon code

Pingback: somanabolic muscle maximizer

Pingback: iherb coupon code

Pingback: body jet liposuction chicago

Pingback: Try This Site

Pingback: Play Hot Friv Games

Pingback: sex live cams

Pingback: buy cialis

Pingback: ??????????? ??????????? ??????

Pingback: premature ejaculation homeopathic treatment

Pingback: Marketing Tools

Pingback: xbox live codes

Pingback: School Fundraising

Pingback: Start

Pingback: submit url free

Pingback: Health

Pingback: hot rod wire harness

Pingback: Finance

Pingback: Liberty

Pingback: hairy anus

Pingback: mark cobb

Pingback: Trading

Pingback: Delivery

Pingback: go pro camera

Pingback: iherb coupons

Pingback: Business

Pingback: workout obsession

Pingback: download songs

Pingback: bonville.org/3-best-weight-loss-supplements-for-women-that-does-wonders/

Pingback: iherb.com coupon

Pingback: iherb coupon code

Pingback: iherb coupon

Pingback: Camp

Pingback: beton architektoniczny

Pingback: new books on lung cancer

Pingback: kolorowanki do wydruku

Pingback: Opzioni Binarie

Pingback: First time home buyer loan

Pingback: Tech

Pingback: product number free

Pingback: Custom Business Signs Dallas

Pingback: clash of clans cheats

Pingback: School

Pingback: Process Servers in Chicago

Pingback: Primerica is a scam?

Pingback: Diindolylmethane

Pingback: Fashion

Pingback: middlemarch llc

Pingback: alkaline water

Pingback: adelgaza20.com

Pingback: part time jobs

Pingback: paleo recipe book review

Pingback: kratom forum

Pingback: samplers

Pingback: click through the following web page

Pingback: free coins on slotomania

Pingback: Financial

Pingback: webcam

Pingback: ballsymedia.com

Pingback: Free Website Traffic

Pingback: Movemynt Products

Pingback: airspace classification

Pingback: online electronics

Pingback: purses

Pingback: christian music

Pingback: UK free bets and signup bonuses

Pingback: LINK M88

Pingback: Downers Grove Homes For Sale

Pingback: 7 day weight loss

Pingback: water damage restoration houston

Pingback: men

Pingback: dallas

Pingback: buy cheap instagram followers

Pingback: Pokrov spiritually religious movement

Pingback: Energy Booster

Pingback: clash of clans cheats

Pingback: how to prevent premature ejaculation video

Pingback: kitchen design layout

Pingback: how to become an emt

Pingback: zbzikowana na punkcie bmw

Pingback: Amddram

Pingback: naprawa telefonów

Pingback: Stars du foot

Pingback: dieta na mase

Pingback: kaffeevollautomat test jura c5

Pingback: napedy do bram skrzydlowych

Pingback: plisy warszawa

Pingback: Jail Bail Bonds

Pingback: Corset

Pingback: LED Mood Lamps

Pingback: Double X

Pingback: Wp Weekend Phoenix

Pingback: free slotomania coins

Pingback: Can Charlie Be Trusted This Time?

Pingback: Green tea

Pingback: ice age 2 the meltdown part 1

Pingback: London

Pingback: Private number plates

Pingback: scary mazes

Pingback: diet solutions

Pingback: fajsdgjfashdjfaksjdhkfa

Pingback: lisäravinteet

Pingback: men fashion accessories

Pingback: rent single family

Pingback: NCWISE Login

Pingback: scripts

Pingback: 332 Se Douglas St. Lee's Summit, MO 64063