June 17, 2024

Human or Not?

Lyle Hancock Sr.

This post adds an important perspective to the climate debate rarely discussed.

A key point often overlooked in discussions about climate change is the statistical significance of human contributions. If human impact is negligible, climate change is simply natural variations in our climate system. However, if human activities significantly contribute, it can be claimed we are facing serious issues.

Agencies like the MET, BoM, and the IPCC use a non-integrative , first-order autoregressive model (AR(1)) to assess the statistical significance of human contributions. This model claims to show that human activity is the primary cause of climate change. But does it really?

The AR(1) model is under-parameter ized and has a poor Goodness of Fit (GOF) to the temperature data. It is a single-order autoregressive model that assumes no relationship between today's temperature and that of two or more years ago, despite known cyclical trends spanning many years. This choice of model makes no sense. Additionally, because it is a stationary model, it drifts when applied to the non-stationary temperature datasets, becoming less reliable over time. In short, the AR(1) model cannot determine the statistical significance of human contributions to climate change.

Dr. Doug Keenan proposed an integrative model using third-order autoregression, the ARIMA(3,1,0) model, which I validated in my paper presented to the UK Parliament as testimony. This model has an excellent GOF and impressive predictive skills. So, why don't MET, BoM, the IPCC, and others use this model? Because it shows that human contribution to climate change is not statistically significant.

In a surprising admission, MET acknowledged their AR(1) model is flawed, yet claimed they don't need models to determine statistical significance—th ey can make this determination by simply eyeballing the data. Despite acknowledging the AR(1) model's inadequacies, they continue to use it, maintaining it shows statistical significance of man's contribution to climate change -- a claim not at all supported in their choice of model.

The attached image is a test I made of the AR(1) model and it's predictive skills. It has no predictive skills whatsoever. I might go into why this is important. But for brevity, I'll table that discussion for now.

May be an image of text

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.




What colour is a green orange?




21kb generated in CPU 0.1263, elapsed 0.6045 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.5878 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black Borngino Report
Canada Free Press
Common Sense and Wonder < br/ > Christian Daily Reporter
Citizens Free Press
Climatescepticsparty,,a>
_+
Daren Jonescu
Dana and Martha Music On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Infidel Bloggers Alliance
Let the Truth be Told
Newsmax
>Numbers Watch
OANN
Real Climate Science
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
Ready Rants
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 82843
  • Files: 14147
  • Bytes: 4.4G
  • CPU Time: 112:42
  • Queries: 2964801

Content

  • Posts: 28987
  • Comments: 129467

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0