Comments on: Independent Confirmation of Beenstock's Theory

By: Steve Short

Steve Short — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:49:00 +0000

Oceanic Specific Humidity +6 monthsSST +6 monthsOceanic Wind -2 monthshttp://www.remss.com/papers/wentz_science_2007.pdfCO2 -10 - -15 yearshttp://ocean.mit.edu/~mick/Papers/ItoFollows-pr...

By: dewittpayne

dewittpayne — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:22:09 +0000

On the scale of a century, forcings and temperature are not linearly related. There are time constants involved. For a two box model, the time constants are on the order of 1 and 19 years. Also, a linear combination of the forcings with independent coefficients not equal to 1 is unphysical and the results are meaningless.

By: Steve Short

Steve Short — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:49:00 +0000

Oceanic Specific Humidity +6 monthsSST +6 monthsOceanic Wind -2 monthshttp://www.remss.com/papers/wentz_science_2007.pdfCO2 -10 - -15 yearshttp://ocean.mit.edu/~mick/Papers/ItoFollows-pr...

By: dewittpayne

dewittpayne — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:22:09 +0000

By: The Blackboard » Questions for VS and Dave

The Blackboard » Questions for VS and Dave — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:49:47 +0000

[...] do with a paper by Beenstock and Reingewertz (PDF). Dave appears to have written several tutorials [(1), (2) and (3)] to help us with terminology. Meanwhile Tamino has performed a number of statistical [...]

By: davids99us

davids99us — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:30:52 +0000

True. You know a thread is near the end when they start talking aboutphilosophy of science.

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:27:20 +0000

2 would be better at screwing up than 1??;>)Ended up over at OurChangingClimate and appreciate your efforts.As here, if I keep reading I might actually learn something!!

By: vs_metrics

vs_metrics — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:47:50 +0000

CLT suggests that two would be better at it than one..

By: davids99us

davids99us — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:52:23 +0000

VS – I am always willing to help promote numeracy though like you I am really not an expert in it. Be warned, my philosophy of science is that the best explanation is that somebody screwed up, including me

By: vs_metrics

vs_metrics — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:34:03 +0000

Hi David,I understand what the tests/estimations mean and imply. I also really appreciate your analysis here, and your efforts to disseminate information about cointegration analysis.My invitation referred to a thread containing the first part of the analysis (i.e. we established unit root presence) justifying the whole cointegration approach.We now need to move on from there and explain both cointegration and the results. I believe we can truly reach some people in that way.Since I'm not a TSA expert (far from it, I simply had a proper formal education in it, i.e. a Dutch one , I'm really eager to call in experts who seem to have a good grasp of the matter at hand.You are such an individual. Let's do this.Kind regards, VS