On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>
> On 27/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 27/11/2021 12:23, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
>>>> the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
>>>> pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
>>>> predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
>>>> climate change.
>
>>> Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
>>> temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the
>>> correlation is less than good.
>
>> But the good correlation is happening now, when greenhouse gases are
>> leading the feedback loop, not hundreds of thousands of years ago, when
>> temperature was leading it, so it was always a straw man rather than a
>> golden cross.
>
> If you like correlations. then here's an article for you:
>
> <h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a r t i c l e s / V 2 4 / n o v / a 2 . p h p>

Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with
the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run
by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...

h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a b o u t / c e n t
e r _ s t a f f . p h p

A n d y M a y

"J O H N A N D R E W ( A N D Y ) M A Y is ... an experienced
petrophysicist and developmental geologist with extensive experience in
North and South America Onshore, Russia, Yemen, Gulf of Mexico, North
Sea, Indonesia, Brazil offshore, West Africa offshore, and China. He
also has significant experience in evaluating wildcats, delineating
newly discovered oil fields, appraising domestic and international
acquisitions, and re-appraising older oil and gas fields. Andy retired
from a 42-year career in petrophysics in 2016."

During which he worked for Exxon from 1980 to 1985. So here is a
geologist who has worked all his life for the fossil-fuel industry, and
is still dancing to their tune.

C r a i g I d s o

Again has strong links to well-known denialist organisations, receiving
$11,600 per month from the H e a r t l a n d I n s t i t u t e, is
involved with several denialist organisation receiving funding from
ExxonMobile, and is the denialist son of the denialist father below ...

S h e r w o o d I d s o

Is listed by DeSmog for his denialist activities ...

https://www.desmog.com/sherwood-b-idso/

.... but the Wikipedia article on him is more telling, because it lists
predictions that he has made, virtually all of which have turned out to
be wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_B._Idso#Climate_science

"In 1980, Idso published research which concluded that climate
sensitivity was probably only about 0.3 °C.[9] The following year, he
criticized NASA's global warming predictions, saying they were "about 10
times too great," adding that, in his view, global warming would have a
beneficial effect on agriculture.[10]"

What are not given there are the precise details of his claim which were
that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would only raise
temperatures by 0.26degC, but in fact within a year of his claim NASA
had actually *measured* an increase of 0.5degC from just a 40-50ppm
increase in CO2 over the previous century [back from that time].

"In 1984, Idso, along with A.J. Brazel, published a study in Nature
which concluded, contrary to a report the National Academy of Sciences
released the previous year, that rising CO2 levels would increase
streamflow.[11] The study's authors argued that the NAS report came to
the opposite conclusion because it neglected the effect of rising CO2
levels on plants.[12]"

Again, time has shown this to be false, worldwide, streamflow has not
increased; perhaps it has become more unpredictable, but it has not
significantly, and perhaps more importantly, usefully, increased.

"In the 1997 book, Global Warming: The Science and the Politics Idso
said: "I find no compelling reason to believe that the earth will
necessarily experience any global warming as a consequence of the
ongoing rise in the atmosphere's carbon dioxide concentration."[13]"

Yet since then temperatures have continued to rise in step with CO2.

"In the 1998 paper, CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of
potential climate change Idso said: "Several of these cooling forces
have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of
opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a
doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net
temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of
CO2 in Earth's atmosphere."[14]"

Yet again, simply hasn't happened.

More generally, note that all three of these individual have direct or
indirect links to Exxon Mobil, and we all know about Exxon's decades
long role in climate denialism:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/search?term=exxon

"Exxon Mobil faces trial over allegations of misleading investors on
climate crisis"

"Supreme Court rejects Exxon Mobil appeal in climate case"

"New York sues Exxon Mobil, saying it deceived shareholders on climate
change"

"'Clean coal' does not mean what Trump thinks it means, Exxon
deliberately mislead public on climate change, say researchers"

.... etc, etc, but particularly also their funding of it ...

"Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top
10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysing-the-900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-9-out-of-top-10-authors-linked-to-exxonmobil

And so to the article itself, which is about autocorrelation:

https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-resources/autocorrelation/

"Autocorrelation

Autocorrelation refers to the degree of correlation between the values
of the same variables across different observations in the data. The
concept of autocorrelation is most often discussed in the context of
time series data in which observations occur at different points in time
(e.g., air temperature measured on different days of the month). For
example, one might expect the air temperature on the 1st day of the
month to be more similar to the temperature on the 2nd day compared to
the 31st day. If the temperature values that occurred closer together
in time are, in fact, more similar than the temperature values that
occurred farther apart in time, the data would be autocorrelated.

[...]

How to Detect Autocorrelation

A common method of testing for autocorrelation is the Durbin-Watson
test. Statistical software such as SPSS may include the option of
running the Durbin-Watson test when conducting a regression analysis.
The Durbin-Watson tests produces a test statistic that ranges from 0 to
4. Values close to 2 (the middle of the range) suggest less
autocorrelation, and values closer to 0 or 4 indicate greater positive
or negative autocorrelation respectively."

.... and ...

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1343

"Uncertainty increases with autocorrelation

The two contributions to uncertainty described above are widely known.
If for example you use the matrix version of the LINEST function found
in any standard spreadsheet program, you will get an estimate of trend
and uncertainty taking into account these factors.

However, if you apply it to temperature data, you will get the wrong
answer. Why? Because temperature data violates one of the assumptions of
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression - that all the data are
independent observations.

In practice monthly temperature estimates are not independent - hot
months tend to follow hot months and cold months follow cold months.
This is in large part due to the El Nino cycle, which strongly
influences global temperatures and varies over a period of about 60
months. Therefore it is possible to get strong short term temperature
trends which are not indicative of a long term trend, but of a shift
from El Nino to La Nina or back. This ‘autocorrelation’ leads to
spurious short term trends, in other words it increases the uncertainty
in the trend.

It is still possible to obtain an estimate of the trend uncertainty, but
more sophisticated methods must be used. If the patterns of correlation
in the temperature data can be described simply, then this can be as
simple as using an ‘effective number of parameters’ which is less than
the number of observations. This approach is summarised in the methods
section of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) [Note that the technique for
correcting for autocorrelation is independent of the multivariate
regression calculation which is the main focus of that paper].

This is the second effect in play in the difference in uncertainties
between the raw and adjusted data in Figure 1: Not only has the noise
been reduced, the autocorrelation has also been reduced. Both serve to
reduce the uncertainty in the trend. The raw and corrected uncertainties
(in units of C/year) are shown in the following table:

Raw uncertainty (σw) N/Neff (ν) Corrected uncertainty (σc=σw√ν)
GISTEMP raw 0.000813 9.59 0.00252
GISTEMP adjusted 0.000653 4.02 0.00131"

Here's how to do this sort of thing properly (I'm not going to quote
from it, because you need to read it all, and the article only covers
removing the autocorrelations in the temperature, it doesn't deal with CO2):

https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

Given the above, it is worth mentioning here that, following M a y ' s
link to his previous post, to which the one linked above is a
follow-up, we find unmistakeable errors related to his misunderstanding
of the above:

"Conclusion

I’m not impressed with Rohde’s display. The coefficient of correlation
is decent, but it does not show that warming is controlled by changes in
CO2, the temperature reversals are not explained. The reversals strongly
suggest that natural forces are playing a significant role in the
warming and can reverse the influence of CO2. The plots show that, at
most, CO2 explains about 50% of the warming, something else, like solar
changes, must be causing the reversals. If they can reverse the
CO2-based warming and overwhelm the influence of CO2 they are just as
strong."

This is precisely what the Skeptical Science articles above are
discussing, that each series is autocorrelated, being influenced by such
perturbing factors as volcanic eruptions and ENSO, and therefore you
can't draw conclusions from short-term perturbations in the data, but
above M a y is doing just that in complaining that the graph being
discussed doesn't explain them.

To return to this article, note particularly in the first link given
above the phrase "between the values of the same variables", in other
words, the problem is that each of the variables CO2 and temperature
tend to be individually autocorrelated, and it is necessary to remove
this autocorrelation from each series, as was done for temperature alone
above, when testing for correlation between them, because otherwise the
correlation co-efficient measured may be too high. However, he's not
actually doing that, what he's actually doing is feeding the output of
the R-language's 'lm' linear regression function, with CO2 & temperature
as inputs, into the test for autocorrelation, and despite searching for
some time with a variety of search terms, I haven't been able to find a
single other example of that being done anywhere else on the web, and
consequently I don't believe it's a valid statistical technique, more a
case of:
"Garbage In => Garbage Out"
.... or ...
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

> Good luck.

You may need it, I don't.

>>> Got you off banging on about Wuhan, though, didn't it.
>
>> You're still not producing any relevant *EVIDENCE* about that, nor
>> indeed about this, so no need.
>
> You're the one making the claims; you provide the evidence.

I have provided the evidence for my claims, you have not provided any
evidence for yours, and as it is you that is going against the balance
of scientific evidence, whereas I am supporting that balance, it is up
to *YOU* to provide evidence to justify your claims.

>>>> FALSE! It doesn't:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
>>>
>>> So when the Climate Change Industry puts out a rendition of a combusting
>>> globe speckled in red splotches, we can say that Global Warming doesn't
>>> exist because the warming wasn't global or even even.
>>>
>>> You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
>>> and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
>>> millennial cycle, or you wouldn't quote a Wikipedia entry as being
>>> scientifically robust.
>>
>> Opinion stated as if it were fact, yet again unsupported by *EVIDENCE*.
>> Why am I not surprised!
>
> You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
> and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
> millennial cycle. Here's a summary for you:
>
> <h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / s u b j e c t / d / s u m m a r i e s / r w p d a c p . p h p>

Again, resorting to a fake science denialist site, here's the relevant
real science for you:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=227&&a=4

>>>>> [3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
>>>>> warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when
>>>>> their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
>>>>> CO2 now keeping the planet cool?
>>>>
>>>> Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen
>>>> Raymo's graph already linked.
>>>
>>> Why don't *you* examine Maureen Raymo's graph, and explain it?
>>
>> I thought you said that my mentioning of Milankovic cycles was
>> irrelevant? If you claim enough knowledge to be able to declare them
>> irrelevant, why do I need to explain to you, when really there should be
>> nothing further to explain, that the graphs shows that previous
>> interglacials were predicted to be warmer by Milankovic's own calculations?
>
> Then having jumped in with the subject, you need to explain, If
> Milankovitch controls the interglacial temperature peaks, what CO2 has
> got to do with it.

I don't need to explain it again, because I have already done so, the
ice-ages are caused by changes in insolation on different parts of the
earth as predicted by Milankovic, CO2 and other long-term greenhouses
are part of a feedback loop that can be triggered either by such
changes, or by man releasing them into the atmosphere.

>> When are you going to produce some *EVIDENCE* for what you claim?
>
> Your deflections, ground-shifting, abuse, and false arguments in this
> thread are there for all to see.

Except that the rest of us can only see *YOUR* deflections, *YOUR*
ground-shifting, *YOUR* abuse, and *YOUR* false arguments; where is your
*EVIDENCE* for what you claim?

>>>>> [4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
>>>>> unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101
>>>>> skills, such as they are...
>>>>
>>>> It's not a quote, it's my own description base on my own knowledge from
>>>> S233 'Geology & The Environment' and a great deal of interested
>>>> investigation since, and was intended to be merely a taster to give a
>>>> flavour of the complexity of the process rather than a complete
>>>> description, if you want that, go do some work for yourself, and look in
>>>> the scientific literature.
>
> Try this, it's a bit long but should give you some of the science you need:
>
> <h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / / e d u c a t i o n / r e p o r t s / h a n s e n / h a n s e n c r i t i q u e . p h p>

Old false arguments base on old data, which long since have either been
debunked or simply not come true, for example ...

Sea level rise is not slowing down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Methane concentrations are not stabilising (click graph for figure 2):
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases

Climates of the Past section is missing the point entirely. We know
that the climate has been hotter than now in earth's past, but we humans
weren't around then, and as far as we know we didn't evolve to cope with
significantly higher temperatures than today.

The section on CO2, temperature, and photosynthesis fails to take
account of other factors that are accompanying increases in CO2, for
example:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops

Increasing CO2 and temperature affects plants, including human crops, in
three ways:
- Climatic effects from increasing temperature;
Direct effect on transpiration of increasing CO2, which:
+ Directly increases yields;
+ Reduces water demand.

"Results show that yields for all four crops grown at levels of carbon
dioxide remaining at 2000 levels would experience severe declines in
yield due to higher temperatures and drier conditions. But when grown at
doubled carbon dioxide levels, all four crops fare better due to
increased photosynthesis and crop water productivity, partially
offsetting the impacts from those adverse climate changes. For wheat and
soybean crops, in terms of yield the median negative impacts are fully
compensated, and rice crops recoup up to 90 percent and maize up to 60
percent of their losses."

So, when all three factors are taken into account for four staple food
crops, two are net unaffected, but one is slightly affected, and one is
seriously affected.

CO2-Induced Extinctions of Calcifying Marine Organisms

More false claims:

Ocean Acidification Reduces Growth and Calcification in a Marine
Dinoflagellate
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065987

.... and in the intro we read further that ...

"Ocean acidification has been shown to reduce calcification of various
key calcifying organisms such as corals [5], foraminifera [6], and
coccolithophores [7], [8]."

.... and here is a meta analysis of other studies ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3664023/

"The results reveal decreased survival, calcification, growth,
development and abundance in response to acidification when the broad
range of marine organisms is pooled together."

Etc, etc. I see no need to analyse every single one of their claims
about Hansen's claims to the House of Representatives in 2007, because
it's all largely historical and we now have more recent data, as above.

>>> Then your own 'description base' is missing something. Your research
>>> appears to be poor.
>
>> Still no *EVIDENCE* for what you claim!
>
> Silly boy! You have to look for what *isn't* in your description base.

Still no *EVIDENCE* for what you claim!

> It's more difficult than finding a Wikipedia article but does assume you
> know something about the topic.
>
> [Snip abuse showing that you've lost the substantive argument]

You've lost the substantive argument by not producing any worthwhile
*EVIDENCE*; as I said in what must be over 100 posts ago now, we've seen
all this crap before, and none of it has stood the test of a rigorous
examination and/or the test of time.

>>> I'll leave it as an exercise for your research skills to find out which
>>> IPCC member admitted that 'climate change' wasn't about environmental
>>> policy, it was about transfer of wealth. I take it you noted how many
>>> times during COP26 you heard mention of '$100bn a year to poorer countries'.
>
>> I leave it as an exercise for your research to discover what he actually
>> said in what context, which is rather different from what you've tried
>> to imply above.
>
> Evasion.

Evasion. Hint, he didn't say what you imply above.

>>> And keep in mind that In the Dangerous Unprecedented Catastrophic
>>> Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Code Red Emergency Alarm
>>> Justice system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being
>>> revised
>>
>> And keep in mind that due to the sustained efforts of bigoted and
>> dishonest idiots like you and the people you read online over more than
>> twenty years, that consequential lack of earlier effective action by
>> many governments, who allowed themselves to be conned thereby, means
>> that we've got twenty years' *EXTRA* emissions to deal with that we
>> could easily have avoided simply through people being honest.
>
> Emotive drivel. Dry your eyes and grow up.

But nevertheless true, learn to grow up and accept when you're wrong;
after all, you've had twenty years to get used to the idea.

Still no scientifically robust *EVIDENCE* for anything you claim, put up
or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk