LOL lees thought he (or rather WUWT or NoTricksZone) found a great paper: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1725075673

As I did tell poor old lees once before: you look for correlations you will find them and furthermore, some of the correlations you think you find are wrong. Such is the case here.

PubPeer comments:

Quote:

One possibility is that what the analysis has found is a correlation between temperature and short-term variations in atmospheric CO2. However, this isn’t counterintuitive, because it is well understood and is largely a result of seasonal variations in vegetation. What the paper seems to be implying is that the long-term rise in atmospheric CO2, that started in the mid-1800s, has been caused by the increasing temperatures, and – hence – that this rise in atmospheric CO2 has not driven the increase in global temperatures. This is not counterintuitive, it is simply wrong. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely due to human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. Similarly, it is the increase in atmospheric CO2 that is driving global warming. Both of these are results for which there is a huge amount of supporting evidence and which are unlikely to be overthrown by a statistical method for determining causality.

Another commenter:

Quote:

The error made by Koutsoyiannis et al (hereafter K22b, K22a referring to doi:10.1098/rspa.2021.0835 and K22 referring to both papers) is not too difficult to identify as it is a mistake that has been made before to argue that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is a natural phenomenon, for example Murry Salby and Humlum et al (see comment papers by Richardson and Masters & Benestad). In this case, it provides a salutary lesson in the dangers of strictly statistical conceptions of causality - if we are not extremely cautious in interpreting the results, we can easily be misled. The method of K22 shares a feature with Grainger causality in that it determines the direction of causality according to whether future values of one time-series signal are best explained by past values of a second time-series signal or vice versa (or "Hen or Egg" - HOE, see figure 1 of K22a). The approach taken by K22 is different, but this is still a key feature of the method. A limitation of this approach is that no causal association can be inferred between two linearly increasing or decreasing signals:

Another comment:

Quote:

K22a contains an interesting discussion of philosophical views on causality, but I think it missed the opportunity of highlighting the mismatch between common sense and statistical conceptions of causality.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/7828A34E1F905217D557E4F8E93CC1?

Maybe lees should leave science to others better qualified?

Quote:

Maybe lees should leave science to others better qualified?

lee is not experienced as you or I. But I think lee has a better grasp of things than most people his age.

I don't think you know what you are talking about, Monk. Allegedly.

In fact, those comments in the post you quoted are quite reasonable.

lees is a high school dropout like TVI™. He is a diehard conservative but was born into a period of rapid change—climate and AI to name but two sources of change.

I booted him from here when I realised we were arguing a point already argued two or three times before. I want to explore what AGW is doing and will do over a bit of time, not argue something already argued about. He cannot help himself from trying to, not refute a bit of science so much as to shut down debate about it.

He needs to man up, admit AGW is real and is turning from benign to threatening.

"lee" is not a high school drop out. You can tell that he is a bit of a professional student.

Just admit that you missed a decimal point in your post. I saw it earlier.

UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 14^th, 2024 at 3:49pm:

"lee" is not a high school drop out. You can tell that he is a bit of a professional student.

Good grief, how can you misread people so much? lees just clutches at whatever he thinks might support his fear of change!

Did you write that average world temperatures are likely to rise by as much as 25 degrees? Or did you mean world temperatures?

I quoted an article.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2024 at 6:37pm:

I quoted an article.

In other words, you accidentally missed a decimal point.

Copy and paste.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2024 at 4:25am:

Copy and paste.

I checked the sources of that article. The website is written by wowser climate fascists. An oxymoron, if ever there was a better term for such a website.