Sorry to butt in, but wouldn’t it behoove you to understand the advanced principles, jargon, physics and statistics that the “Actual Science” contains?
Your opinion on the subject probably isn’t worth a lot unless you’re a climate scientist… Like my opinion on quantum physics is pretty irrelevant.
Unless you’re an expert, what intelligent decisions do you think you can make? Your eyes would glaze over and you’d understand nothing useful of the “Actual Science”.
Do you pop in randomly to the airforce base and tell the guy calibrating the targeting systems on the f-22s how to do his job?
So you’re trotting out the “we can’t explain it, so it must be CO2” theory again. Please, please think about the claim you are espousing. If you can’t see the gaping hole in it, then please take a course in logic.
The null hypothesis is that climate changes are natural. If they are not, we should be able to show this by showing that the recent changes are outside the statistical bounds of the historical data. In other words, we need to show that there is unusual climate, before we try to determine why it is unusual. If you have a citation showing that the recent climate is statistically unusual, please bring it up. I have never found one. Until you can show us that the climate is unusual, that it is not natural, there’s no need to explain anything.
Is CO2 a factor in the recent warming? I believe it is. On the other hand, is it a “significant factor”? Not without the totally unproven combination of feedbacks used in the climate models. Without that, it’s a very minor factor. The basic science says it’s a small factor. You need to justify why it is a major factor by showing that the feedbacks which are claimed to amplify the CO2 warming are in fact correct.
If you have any evidence that the particular feedbacks used (and not used) by the models adequately represent reality, bring it on. There are no cloud feedbacks in the models for example, because the models don’t know how to handle clouds so they parameterize them. This has recently been dramatized by the models incorrect projection of decreased albedo from decreasing Arctic snow and ice … which stemmed from the models lack of cloud feedback increasing the albedo. I await your citation showing that the models include all feedbacks in an accurate manner.
Here’s an example of why the IPCC doesn’t represent the dissenting positions … because it ignores them. This is how a dissenting comment by a clearly knowledgeable scientific reviewer is addressed by the IPCC. The comment to the IPCC FAR concerns a very fundamental, basic question, that of how to determine the statistical significance of trends in datasets containing long term persistence, such as climate datasets. This was the comment:
There are a couple of things to note here. One is that the Cohn and Lins paper is cited by the IPCC in the chapter, so the IPCC thinks it’s good science. Another is that the problem is clearly described in the reviewer’s comment, with appropriate citations, and a couple of solutions to the problem are proposed - either compute the error estimates correctly, or omit them entirely. Finally, as the reviewer points out, the IPCC itself recognizes the problem the reviewer was addressing.
Now, here’s how the IPCC was “reluctant to listen”, as I said, to this very clear and relevant comment. Here’s the IPCC response to the reviewer, in its entirety:
A couple of things to note about this response to the comment. First, there is no paper or study cited. The reviewer merely says “it is apparent” that Cohn and Lins, a peer reviewed paper cited by the IPCC itself, is wrong. “It is apparent”?!? What kind of science is that? This is the kind of “expert opinion” that the IPCC is built on — don’t bother citing anything to support your point, just trot out the “expert opinion” option and say “it is apparent”.
Second, there is a peer-reviewed paper that shows that “these are improved models” and the REML model is inadequate … the peer-reviewed Cohn and Lins paper under discussion. (There are also others, references upon request for the mathematically inclined. In fact, another reference is cited by the reviewer as being in the IPCC report itself. This is a well studied problem.) The author offers no studies (peer reviewed or not) showing that the Cohn and Lins paper is incorrect, so the reviewer’s statement about improved models is totally unsupported. He’s just offering his “expert opinion” … which, unfortunately, is turns out not to be expert in the slightest.
Third, the Durbin-Watson statistic is not an appropriate test for long-term persistence as the author claims. It is purely a test for lag-1 (short term) persistence. The reviewer does not even understand basic statistics … expert opinion, my ass.
Fourth, the IPCC itself has said that the simple models are in error … yet the author simply waves this away, giving his “expert opinion” that models are NOT in error … right.
From this example alone, it is clear that IPCC reviews, in which all comments are supposed to be addressed rigorously, are not rigorous or scientific at all. They are merely a quashing of opposing views, without even a thin veneer of science to justify them.
And this particular statistical ignorance, that of overestimating the significance of the trends, is of crucial importance. It is why people mistakenly think that the recent climate is unusual or unnatural. It is not, but bad statistics makes it seem so. Nature naturally contains trends, even extreme trends.
So you’re saying that spending billions and billions and billions of dollars, with no effect on the temperature and with nothing actually produced, will also have no effect on the economy? That’s a pretty radical claim. Perhaps you could explain how that is going to happen.
Are the people who advocate carbon taxes and caps “motivated solely or chiefly by greed for personal gain?” I never said that. I said Al Gore stands to make lots of money from carbon caps …
Hey, I care, Kimstu, it’s always good to hear from you. Best of luck with your finals.
What you apparently don’t understand is that nobody understands the advanced principles, jargon, physics and statistics that the “Actual Science” contains. Nobody in the entire world.
And no, I’m not being glib, or vague. I am stating a simple and undisputed fact. Nobody has the necessary knowledge to undertand the advanced principles behind AGW. That is because AGW isn’t physics. It is physics, and geology, and biology, and economics, and chemistry, and sociology, and meteorology. And nobody on the planet has even graduate level degrees in all those fileds, let alone the postgraduate qualifications necessary to understand the advanced principles within those fields that pertain to global wamrng. And those are only the broadest possible descriptions of the fields involved.
Within biology, my own field, you would need to have qualifications in forestry, savanna ecology, sediment microbiology and plant physiology and palaeobotany at the very least just to understand the major issues just as they pertain to the carbon accounting aspect of AGW. To understand AGW as it is applied to models you would need qualifications in another half dozen fields of biology as well. The we can move into physcis, chemistry, sociology and so dorth where we would have similar demand.
IOW for a person to understand the advanced principles of AGW as the hypothesis exists today they woudl need qualifictaion in dozens if not hundreds of different fields.
So if you want to claim that someone’s opinion isn’t worth much because they don’t undertsand the advanced principles of AGW then you are claiming that everyone’s opinion is worthless. That might be a defensible enough position but it certainly isn’t a valid rebuttal of brazil84’s argument.
Nobody understand AGW because it is such a massively multidisciplinary field. The position of a climate scientist has no more credibility then that of a limnologist or a forester because the climate scientsits work is based on the findings of limnologists and foresters amongst many others. The climate scientists doesn’t actually undertsand the technical details of the forester’s work and my experience is they don’t even understand the basics. They just take the data and use it, and since it’s GIGO the opinion of the forester is just as valid as that of the climate scientist.
Blake, I think you’re going a bit too extreme with your claims. It sounds like you’re saying that nobody understands AGW, because nobody understands *every single individual field * relevant to it. Is that right?
If so, then I don’t understand your reasoning. Just because I don’t have the expertise in computer hardware that an Electrical or Computer Engineer does, doesn’t mean that I can’t develop good, workable, efficient software. (It would certainly help, but it’s not necessary.) Likewise, scientists are at their best when they’re working in their own respective fields, and they rely on other scientists in their own respective fields to do the necessary “relevant” work for them. Then, they work in large groups to start piecing all that scattered information together.
Why are you trying to hold these scientists to an unreasonably high standard?
LilShieste
After re-reading your post a third time, I think I may have misunderstood the point you were making, Blake. You’re not claiming that scientists need to be experts in all fields in order to understand and explain the theory of AGW, are you?
LilShieste
Qute simply if Lobohan wants to claim that all opinions on global warming are worthless because nobody understands the advanced principles then he is free to do so then. He could probably even make a reasonable defence of such a position.
What he can not do is what he has done: impose a double standard. He has declared Brazil84’s input as worthless because b]Brazil84** lacks understanding of the advanced principles involved, but he considers the input fomr a climate scientist valid despite the scientist having no more understanding of 99.9999% understanding of the advanced principles involved.
I have never made that argument about peoples motives. My claim is that climate scientists are no different than anyone else. Their motives are the usual all-too-human mix of a desire for (in no particular order) professional recognition, power, money, status, intellectual satisfaction, funding, curiousity, public visibility, job promotion, and a host of others.
One huge unacknowledged problem in the field, in my opinion, is what is called “noble cause corruption”. This is doing unethical acts because they advance what is seen as a noble cause. The term was originally coined to describe the actions of police, who might for example shade evidence to obtain a conviction, because they know that the person who is charged is actually guilty, but they can’t prove it.
The same thing exists in climate science, and for exactly the same reasons. Climate scientists sometimes shade the evidence because they know that CO2 is actually guilty, but they can’t prove it. A good description of the dilemma is the statement by Stephen Schneider:
Unfortunately, all too often it seems that climate scientists are so convinced of the noble nature of their quest to rid the world of the evils of CO2 that they don’t end up being both effective and honest, opting for effective instead …
Me, I disagree with Schneider 100%. I don’t see one single problem with scientists telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the truth contains, as Schneider says, “all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts”, then so be it, the public deserves to know that. Anything else is a lie. I don’t want scientists to “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” I just want them to tell me the truth as best they know it. We’re all adults here, just tell us the plain facts, warts and all.
jshore keeps arguing that the statements of the NAS and the IPCC and the like are a good guide for action, but the truth is, they all appear to have been fatally infected with the dread Schneider virus. They leave out the doubts, they omit or minimize the error bars, they pretend that the science is settled, that we understand the climate, and that a consensus exists. They are undoubtedly doing this for noble reasons, in the main … but that’s exactly how we get “noble cause corruption”.
Again, Kimstu, welcome back. Sounds like your schedule is very full, post when you get the chance and don’t worry if you don’t post, best of luck in all of your endeavors.
I would propose that policymakers borrow a page or two from the rules of civil procedure. By hearing from representatives of both sides; requiring full disclosure of relevant documents and information; by asking tough questions of each side; and by confronting each side with the arguments and statements made by the others.
Of course I’m not in a position to demand disclosure of information from people. However, I can draw a negative inference from a failure to disclose.
If he wants me to spend a few gigabucks for a new calibrating device, then he’d better be able to explain to me exactly what is wrong with the one he’s got.
Well, it sounds like you are then making the case (or at least extending Lobohan’s logic to make the case) that we ought not to believe any one scientist but ought to look at what a large collection of scientists who get together and study the issue conclude, say like the IPCC! (I guess one would in particular argue that the opinion of one person, like Lomborg, is worthless.)
I do think, however, that your statement about how little each scientist understands of the full problem is greatly exaggerated. I would argue that each individual scientist has a very good understanding of a small percentage of the advanced principles involved (but much, much greater than your 0.0001%) and a fairly good understanding of a decent percentage of the principles involved, at least relative to someone like brazil84 who has read almost none of the peer-reviewed literature.
Unfortunately, this is looking at only one side of the equation. I.e., it is considering “noble cause corruption” on one side but not on the other. It is in fact an excellent argument for not taking at face value everything that environmental groups say about climate change. However, it ignores that on the other side of the issue, there are those who think that it is a “noble cause” to prevent big government from interfering with a free market system…and these noble-causers also have access to money from industries who stand to benefit from this alignment of thinking.
In fact, it ignores everything that we have learned from previous analogous cases such as the case of how the tobacco industry and its allies (some of whom, like Steven Milloy of JunkScience.com are now part of the AGW doubters) used exactly the same sorts of arguments about doubt and uncertainty to claim that the science regarding tobacco was too unsettled to take any significant policy actions. It ignores the similar sorts of arguments about doubt and uncertainty and biased science that are made by proponents of intelligent design in sowing doubt about evolutionary theory. The fact is that on both sides of any issue there will be people who, for a combination of noble and less noble reasons, are pushing their agenda on the science.
However, it seems to me that the way you are using these arguments is to “poison the well”, i.e., to argue that the center position between these two extremes is not the position of reputable organizations like the National Academy of Sciences but rather those who think there is still too much uncertainty to say anything. The reality of the situation, however, is that these doubters are in fact on one extreme…an extreme that is now so far off the scale that even many of its philosophical and industry breathren (e.g., BP, Shell, many major power companies in the U.S.) can no longer subscribe to it.
Your position is not some sort of compromise between the extremes of biases on either side…It is essentially indistinguishable from nearly all the other “skeptics” which, as I noted in a post above, have been investigated here. Note that Desmogblog did not cherrypick who they looked at…They have looked at nearly all (all but 5 by my quick count) of the “skeptics” who signed on to the letter from scientists about climate change and Kyoto sent to the Canadian Prime Minister. What you are really telling us is that things have gotten so extreme in climate science that it turns out that almost the entire scientific community can’t be believed for various reasons and that the truth coincidentally corresponds with what the scientists associated with right-wing and libertarian think-tanks argue.
That isn’t what I said and you know it. Perhaps you should sit this one out if you feel compelled to outright lie.
/snark.
In any case, what I did say, if you care, is that one has to be equipped to handle the parlance of science to make any go of it. As I said very clearly, physics, statistics, jargon. You can’t read a scientific journal without a sound understanding of those and expect to be able to judge rationally its quality. Do you actually think a layperson can understand a complex journal article?
You think someone with no college education and a blue collar job is likely to understand that passage flawlessly? I’m not ragging on the non-scientific, I’m just saying if you don’t have a grounding it’s gibberish.
Good point, Lobohan. And, in reality it is all a sort of continuum. Someone with little grounding in the physical sciences and/or mathematics will read a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed journal and probably get very little out of it. Someone like me, with a good grounding in the physical sciences but not in climate science specifically will often be able to follow much of it…but there will be certain things specific to the field that will blow by us and we will also be missing more of the larger context that one has by having read and worked much more in the field. (And, of course, for me this has changed over time as I read more and more papers in the field. At the start, I was someone who had a good grounding in the physics but knew essentially none of the climate science whereas by now I am on significantly better ground on the climate science but still way short of where an actual expert in the field would be.)
And, Blake is technically correct that even the experts in the field are unlikely to be experts on every aspect of the science in the paper. However, that is still a far, far cry from what someone untrained in the physical sciences is going to get out of it.
No, that’s not what I’m saying, intention; again, please watch out for the tendency to exaggerate and hyperbolize. I’m certainly not saying that the AGW hypothesis must be correct simply because there’s currently no other scientific explanation that works equally well. I just pointed out that in the current state of the science, the AGW hypothesis is the best explanation we have.
Where’s the cite, please? AFAICT, what you referenced was nothing but brief excerpts from some unidentified publication(s), and I’m having a hard time getting a sense of the context.
In your exaggerated misstatement of it, it sure is. But, again, what you’re claiming I said is not what I actually said. I didn’t say that emissions-reductions measures will “have no effect on the economy”. I definitely think they will have some economic impact. I’m just skeptical about the hyperbole level of anti-carbon-cappers’ alarmist rhetoric, such as calling cap-and-trade schemes a “destructive fantasy”.
Oh, I certainly recognize that such corrupting factors can and do exist in all branches of science. This is one of the many reasons why the scientific process never works perfectly.
However, as I was discussing with brazil84, what many AGW skeptics appear to be claiming is that “noble cause corruption” and other human failings have essentially destroyed the proper functioning and credibility of an entire scientific discipline world-wide. They seem to believe that the proper institutional and procedural functioning of the scientific process, which is supposed to guard against fraudulent science and “junk science” trying to creep in through human fallibility, has totally broken down in the case of climate science, to the point where the overwhelming majority of the practitioners in the entire field have adopted a bad theory and are resisting and suppressing the valid dissenting arguments of a principled small minority.
As I said, this is really a very extraordinary claim. AFAICT, such complete corruption of an entire scientific discipline would be an unprecedented phenomenon in contemporary science.
Shouldn’t we be shown some more convincing evidence and explanations before we agree with the skeptics that the whole of mainstream climate science is simply not to be trusted? Isn’t it perhaps more plausible, as jshore suggested, that in fact mainstream climate science is functioning more or less correctly, while the small minority of anti-AGW skeptics are the ones who have been perverted by “noble cause corruption” and other human failings into supporting bad science?
Personally, I don’t really subscribe to the idea of wholesale “corruption” of either side in the argument. I tend to think that most of the people on both sides are probably about equally sincere and principled (although I think that on average the pro-AGW climate scientists are probably better informed and more likely to be right).
But if I were inclined to believe that one entire side of the debate had been “fatally infected” with some kind of credibility-destroying “dread virus”, as you put it, it seems much more probable that the infected side would be the small minority of naysayers, rather than the vast majority of mainstream researchers.
Thanks very much indeed, it’s good to chat with Dopers again!
I didn’t get the impression that Lobohan was making such a claim (and from review of recent posts, it appears I wasn’t mistaken).
I fail to see the double standard. Has brazil84 read a good portion of the peer-reviewed research/information regarding AGW? Climate scientists have, which is why their input is held in higher regard than his.
LilShieste
jshore, as always, a well thought out post. Your point is well taken, that “noble cause corruption” can exist on either side. However, I see only one side justifying it, as Schneider does, by saying and defending that it’s all right to lie in a noble cause.
NO! How many times do I have to say it? My position is neither for or against, it is that we don’t understand enough about the climate and the data is too short, too fragmentary, and too poor to make very many definitive statements about climate at all. This is not the position of either side in the climate debate, one of which says that we are on the primrose path to perdition, and the other of which says that there is no problem at all. I say neither. There may be a problem, and it definitely deserves proper scientific study, which it has not been getting. People keep getting stuck in attacking the other side’s motives, and ignoring their science. For example, your citation of the “study” of the scientists who signed the Canadian petition is long on who they work for, but abysmally short of any analysis of their scientific claims. Are a person’s scientific claims automatically suspect because they have written papers which are published by Greenpeace? That’s nonsense, and you know it. Enough with the ad hominem arguments, they are both childish and tiresome.
You keep holding up the bodies like the IPCC as the holy grail of science. I have posted in this very thread about how the IPCC has swept one of the major, central questions of climate science under the rug … perhaps you could address that?
The problem is the extreme reliance of climate science on statistics, and the lack of statistical understanding by the majority of the practitioners. Perhaps you could start by dealing with the science of the IPCC as exemplified by my post, rather than continuing with the ad hominems. It doesn’t matter who made a given claim, whether it’s the deSmogBlog, or the tobacco industry, or the IPCC. What matters is whether it is true or not.
Here’s a quick example. The upwardly rising curve of CO2 since say 1880, and the upward rising curve of annual global temperature during the same period, fit together rather well. In fact, the correlation of the two is very good, 0.84. Using standard i.i.d. statistics, this result is extremely statistically significant (p ~ 2^ -34)! So we can place a lot of reliance in that relationship.
Now, most skeptics deal with this by saying “correlation is not causation”, which is entirely true. However, that’s not my problem with the claim. There is a deeper problem, one that is pointed out by the reviewer I cited above, which is totally ignored by the IPCC. The problem is that we cannot use i.i.d. statistics when the datasets have autocorrelation.
When the proper statistical methods are used, as the reviewer recommended and the IPCC ignored, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). And this particular use of statistics is only one of thousands of incorrect claims that have been made in climate science.
When the IPCC decides to use proper statistical methods, and to use proper economic methods (PPP rather than MER, just like the rest of the world uses), then I will give their ideas some weight. I don’t disbelieve them because I think they have been infected with “noble cause corruption”. I disbelieve them because their science is demonstrably bad, because reviewers have pointed out exactly where and how their science is bad, and because they have ignored the reviewers and ignored the proper methods in favor of incorrect methods.
I ascribe this, in part, to ignorance (few of the IPCC participants are statisticians) and in part to “noble cause corruption”, but that’s a side question, that’s just an attempt to explain the causes of the real issue — their “science” is not science at all. Climate science is built upon statistics. We are looking for a miniscule signal (a few hundredths of a degree per year) buried in very poor and very noisy data, so we have no option but to use statistical methods to try to retrieve the signal. When the IPCC decided to use i.i.d. statistics on autocorrelated data, their work became worthless.
I hope this doesn’t sound too silly but…what exactly is autocorrected data and why is it bad? Could you just give a brief, thumbnail for idiots explaination? As always I’m enjoying the debate between jshore and intention on this subject, but I really am not grasping some of this stuff.
Thanks, intention for the interesting post. And, unlike some other people like Julian Simon, you at least gave the full uneditted quote from Stephen Schneider. However, your interpretation of the quote is still not what he says he had in mind in the larger context of what he was talking about:
As for what people on “the other side” have done, note that the OP gave an example of the sort of scientific distortion that one sees quite a bit…namely, trying to imply that the rise in CO2 levels is not really real or human-caused, something that I think you would agree is not really scientifically-defensible. There are of course many other examples, but this will do for now.
You know by now that I generally choose my words carefully (although I admit I will occasionally slip). Note that what I said was “Your position is not some sort of compromise between the extremes of biases on either side…It is essentially indistinguishable from nearly all the other ‘skeptics’ which, as I noted in a post above, have been investigated here.” [Bolding added this time.] Note that I did not claim that your position was that it is definitely decided. However, my argument is that your position of the science being too uncertain to make almost any conclusions whatsoever and to justify doing anything in regards to carbon taxes or limits on emissions puts you clearly in the skeptics camp.
I admit that there is in fact a range of “skeptic” views and there are some skeptics who claim to know with a fair degree of certainty that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is very low. However, I would say that many, if not most, skeptics are more saying things along the lines of what you are saying…and this has become more and more true over time as it has become harder and harder to hold to a credible scientific position of knowing that CO2 is not a problem.
I also think, quite honestly, that this is a good tactical move on the part of the skeptics. I.e., it is much easier to be in the position of not really having a scientific claim that you have to defend but to be able to be on the offensive and simply argue, “Look at all these problems with the current theory! How can we possibly know yet what is going to happen. We better go study it more.” Perhaps this is why this has also been, for the most part, the way in which debates about tobacco and about evolution have also proceeded. It is also worth noting that it is the approach that was specifically advocated by Republican pollster Frank Luntz in his infamous memo of a few years ago:
Now, I am not claiming that you have adopted this position for tactical reasons but that does not mean that your position is significantly different than those who have. I also must say that if you are truly as agnostic as you claim to be, I do have a hard time understanding a few things:
(1) Why you seem to be pretty uncritical in embracing certain papers on the skeptical side, such as the McKitrick paper about there being no global temperature.
(2) Why on the other hand, you seemed unwilling to even invest the time and energy to understand the claims that were being made in that paper by Santer et al. about the temperature rise in the tropical atmosphere. I know from your discussions here in this thread in regards to statistics that you are perfectly capable of working through difficult mathematical / scientific arguments and yet you seemed unable to even allow yourself to comprehend the argument that Santer et al were making, preferring instead to get focussed on little parts that bothered you that were essentially extraneous to the focus of their argument.
(3) Why you believe that the “no regrets” path is to not do anything in regards to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. After all, if I thought (for example) that the climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 might equally well lie anywhere between 0 and 5 C, I sure as hell wouldn’t be advocating a do-nothing approach like this. That would be the “Don’t buy fire insurance unless I am sure my house is going to burn down” approach, which is certainly not my approach to life although I admit that attitudes differ.
So, these things honestly tend to make me wonder if you are quite as agnostic on the subject as you say you are.
I had a few minutes here so I decided to type “PPP MER IPCC” into google and see what all the fuss is about. It seems to me that this issue is, at best, way way overblown. Here and here are a couple papers on this.
I think you are missing the forest through the trees here. The IPCC reports run to thousands of pages and they received thousands of comments on them. If you expect them to agree with your choice of how to do things and to respond to all the comments exactly in the way you would like in order to believe anything they conclude, then there is really no reason to have these long-winded discussions because that simply is not going to happen. You are certainly entitled to take the attitude of “It’s my way or the highway!” but I can tell you that you are going to find that highway to be increasingly lonely.
I can pretty guarantee to you that there is not a field at the forefront of science that you can go into and not find similar “faults”. (To tell you the truth, having done computational modeling for over 20 years, I am still amazed each time the modeling actually correctly predicts or explains something. I can always imagine hundreds of reasons why the model will fail…and sometimes they keep me up at night. It always seems like amazing good fortune to me that the modeling that I in particular, and science in general, does as well as it does.)
Some skeptics (like yourself as I understand it), who have never really delved into another field of science, may not realize this. Others (such as Fred Singer, Tim Ball, …) probably know better but have their own axes to grind and so are happy to deceive others (again, I am sure, in their minds for some higher noble purpose as you so eloquently described).
The term is “autocorrelated” not “autocorrected” and here is the Wikipedia page on autocorrelation. “Autocorrelated data” is not bad per se, but the essential idea is that traditional statistical analysis usually assumes each data point is an independent measurement so if this is not the case because there is significant autocorrelation then you, in a sense, have fewer data points than you think you have, which can then make a difference in test of statistical significance of trends or correlations.
intention can say where I’ve gone wrong and fill you in from there. It is not a topic I have ever had to study in any detail whatsoever.