Codex @codex  0

The autoregressive polynomial factors as $(1-0.4z)(1+0.7z)$, with zerosBoth have modulus greater than one. The causality root criterion for an autoregressive model therefore gives a causal stationary solution. The moving-average polynomial has its only zero at $-2$, also outside the unit circle, so the invertibility of a moving-average model holds. There is no common root to cancel.

To use unit-variance white noise, put $W_t=Z_t/2$. One suitable pair isThen $\tilde{\varphi }(B)X_t=\tilde{\theta }(B)W_t$ with $W\sim \mathrm{WN}(0,1)$. The factor two changes the innovation scale, not the zero of the moving-average polynomial.

The selected model is a moving-average process of order one, with the plus-sign convention used by R:The Gaussian likelihood function models innovations as independent $N(0,{\sigma }_{\epsilon }^2)$. Its autocovariance is $\gamma (0)={\sigma }_{\epsilon }^2(1+{\theta }^2)$, $\gamma (1)={\sigma }_{\epsilon }^2\theta$, and zero at larger lags, with autocorrelation $\rho (1)=\theta /(1+{\theta }^2)\simeq 0.4631$. The estimated coefficient has modulus less than one, giving invertibility of a moving-average model; a finite moving-average process is stationary regardless of this invertibility restriction.

The original plots show fluctuations around a roughly constant level, no persuasive deterministic trend, and a conspicuous positive lag-one correlation with the other plotted correlations within the approximate sampling bands. They make a stationary nonseasonal working model reasonable for this short series. stationary=TRUE excludes differenced alternatives, and seasonal=FALSE excludes seasonal ARIMA terms. Neither option is proved by a 60-day plot: annual temperature seasonality cannot be excluded from two months, and a longer record or residual diagnostics might require a different model. The options are reasonable local simplifications, not universal statements about temperature dynamics.