CO2 and the Climate

[ratty]

Study Finds Manmade Carbon Emissions ‘Irrelevant’ to Atmospheric CO2

Abstract
The impact of certain factors on the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations
has yet to be elucidated. In particular, the impacts of sea surface temperature (SST) on the balance
of CO₂ emissions and absorption in the atmosphere and the human use of fossil fuels have not
been rigorously compared. In this study, the impact of each factor was examined using multivar
iate analysis. Publicly available data from prominent climate research and energy-related organi
zations were used. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed using the annual changes in
atmospheric CO₂ levels for each year as the objective variable. The SST and human emissions for
each year were the explanatory factors. After 1959, the model using the SST derived from NASA
best represented the annual CO₂ increase (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P < 0.0002, model R²
= 0.663, P < 7e-15). However, human emissions were not a determining factor in any of the
regression models. Furthermore, the atmospheric CO₂ concentration predicted, using the regres
sion equation obtained for the SST derived from UK-HADLEY centre after 1960, showed an
extremely high correlation with the actual CO₂ concentration (Pearson correlation coefficient r =
0.9995, P < 3e-92). The difference was 1.45 ppm in 2022. In conclusion, this study is the first to
use multiple regression analysis to demonstrate that the independent determinant of the annual
increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration was SST, which showed strong predictive ability.
However, human CO₂ emissions were irrelevant. This result indicates that atmospheric CO₂ has
fluctuated as natural phenomenon, regardless of human activity.

[Sigurdur]

Want to read the study.

[ratty]

Nov 12, 2024 14:56:13 GMT Sigurdur said:

Want to read the study.

Multivariate Analysis Rejects the Theory of Human-caused Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increase: The Sea Surface Temperature Rules

[ratty]

Nov 12, 2024 11:29:52 GMT ratty said:

Study Finds Manmade Carbon Emissions ‘Irrelevant’ to Atmospheric CO2

Abstract
The impact of certain factors on the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations
has yet to be elucidated. In particular, the impacts of sea surface temperature (SST) on the balance
of CO₂ emissions and absorption in the atmosphere and the human use of fossil fuels have not
been rigorously compared. In this study, the impact of each factor was examined using multivar
iate analysis. Publicly available data from prominent climate research and energy-related organi
zations were used. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed using the annual changes in
atmospheric CO₂ levels for each year as the objective variable. The SST and human emissions for
each year were the explanatory factors. After 1959, the model using the SST derived from NASA
best represented the annual CO₂ increase (regression coefficient B = 2.406, P < 0.0002, model R²
= 0.663, P < 7e-15). However, human emissions were not a determining factor in any of the
regression models. Furthermore, the atmospheric CO₂ concentration predicted, using the regres
sion equation obtained for the SST derived from UK-HADLEY centre after 1960, showed an
extremely high correlation with the actual CO₂ concentration (Pearson correlation coefficient r =
0.9995, P < 3e-92). The difference was 1.45 ppm in 2022. In conclusion, this study is the first to
use multiple regression analysis to demonstrate that the independent determinant of the annual
increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration was SST, which showed strong predictive ability.
However, human CO₂ emissions were irrelevant. This result indicates that atmospheric CO₂ has
fluctuated as natural phenomenon, regardless of human activity.

I wrote to the author ...

Hi Dai Ato,

Please forgive this intrusion .....

I am a retired schoolteacher from Australia and - whilst I do not have a science background - have been a keen student of the climate science debate and the role of CO2 for many years. I fall into the 'denier' category.

Looking at your Omron background, I am curious what gave you an interest in CO2 Vs. SST.

Thank you for your work,

... and received this response:

Thank you for your message.

I have been interested (or rather anxious about the lies) in the field
for almost twenty years, since the IPCC 4th report in 2007. Because in
Japan, there are so many shell mounds, which indicate that it was much
warmer at that time without using fossil fuels.

So, I have learned various information in the field myself. In that
process, I knew a lot of skeptic scientists including Australian last
Bob Carter of James Cook University, one of the great skeptics in the
field.

In the process, I knew the relationship between SST and CO2, and the CO2
circulation. Then, I just wondered if the scientists in this field
really previously confirmed the real cause of CO2 increase by
statistical method. And the reason why I came up with the method is
because the method is common in the medical field, and I was used to.

And when I came up with the idea is that I was writing the paper about
the benefit of the vaccination for COVID-19 in Japan. And it is
essentially the same method.

To explain simply, that’s all.

Regards

Dai Ato Japan

I've written back pressing further on his views on the "vaccines".

[duwayne]

Nov 14, 2024 11:40:29 GMT ratty said:

Nov 12, 2024 11:29:52 GMT ratty said:

Study Finds Manmade Carbon Emissions ‘Irrelevant’ to Atmospheric CO2

I wrote to the author ...

Hi Dai Ato,

Please forgive this intrusion .....

I am a retired schoolteacher from Australia and - whilst I do not have a science background - have been a keen student of the climate science debate and the role of CO2 for many years. I fall into the 'denier' category.

Looking at your Omron background, I am curious what gave you an interest in CO2 Vs. SST.

Thank you for your work,

... and received this response:

Thank you for your message.

I have been interested (or rather anxious about the lies) in the field
for almost twenty years, since the IPCC 4th report in 2007. Because in
Japan, there are so many shell mounds, which indicate that it was much
warmer at that time without using fossil fuels.

So, I have learned various information in the field myself. In that
process, I knew a lot of skeptic scientists including Australian last
Bob Carter of James Cook University, one of the great skeptics in the
field.

In the process, I knew the relationship between SST and CO2, and the CO2
circulation. Then, I just wondered if the scientists in this field
really previously confirmed the real cause of CO2 increase by
statistical method. And the reason why I came up with the method is
because the method is common in the medical field, and I was used to.

And when I came up with the idea is that I was writing the paper about
the benefit of the vaccination for COVID-19 in Japan. And it is
essentially the same method.

To explain simply, that’s all.

Regards

Dai Ato Japan

I've written back pressing further on his views on the "vaccines".

A yes or no question for Dai Ato if you feel comfortable asking..  Do you believe the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming?

[ratty]

Nov 15, 2024 1:19:06 GMT duwayne said:

Nov 14, 2024 11:40:29 GMT ratty said:

I wrote to the author ...


... and received this response:

I've written back pressing further on his views on the "vaccines".

A yes or no question for Dai Ato if you feel comfortable asking..  Do you believe the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming?

Do you think we can infer a 'Yes' from his conclusions?

PS: I haven't heard anything since I queried him (nicely) on vaccines.

Conclusions
The global SST has been the main determinant of annual increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations since 1959. No human impact was observed. This result indicates that human efforts to curb CO₂ emissions have been, at least in the past, meaningless. Moreover, the theory that modern global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO₂ is also wrong, irrelevantly to the credibility of the story that modern warming and climate change are occurring more dramatically than those in the past.

[duwayne]

Nov 15, 2024 1:32:27 GMT ratty said:

Nov 15, 2024 1:19:06 GMT duwayne said:

A yes or no question for Dai Ato if you feel comfortable asking..  Do you believe the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming?

Do you think we can infer a 'Yes' from his conclusions?

PS: I haven't heard anything since I queried him (nicely) on vaccines.

Conclusions
The global SST has been the main determinant of annual increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations since 1959. No human impact was observed. This result indicates that human efforts to curb CO₂ emissions have been, at least in the past, meaningless. Moreover, the theory that modern global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO₂ is also wrong, irrelevantly to the credibility of the story that modern warming and climate change are occurring more dramatically than those in the past.

My question was a sanity check.  I don't want to guess what his answer will be. 

[ratty]

Another paper disputes the notion that CO₂ is a climate driver ...

The misleading Greenhouse Effect Idea is falsified by experiment

Abstract
The GreenHouse Effect GHE idea is said to be heating the Earth and human emission of CO 2 by the burning of fossil fuels is adding to this heating of the Earth. The GHE is made up of many different interlinking ideas. Albert Einstein Award and Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynmann is renowned for saying: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. The GHE idea is not a theory. It doesn’t even rise to the scientific level of hypothesis. It is an idea that fails experiment and hence is wrong. In this paper, all these different ideas are put to the test by experiment and observation. They all fail.