/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6007272]

Hey /sci/

So lately I've been thinking a bit about climate change. I've been trying to find evidence for anthropogenic climate change but to my surprise none seems to be publically available, which makes me wonder if such evidence even exists. What's going on here? Does anyone know of any studies that support the claim? Why is it so hard to find, and why is the issue taken so seriously in the culture if there's no evidence for it?

I'm talking specifically about the proposed link between <span class="math">CO_2[/spoiler] and global temperature, I can find a few articles that establish a correlation (pic related), but they either take no steps to support a claim of causation, or show that there is unlikely to be a causal relationship. This can't be the "science is out" science that policymakers tout to support their <span class="math">CO_2[/spoiler] policies, so where is it?

[Anonymous No.6007290]

>>6007272
no one publishes their data for anything. but most people will share it if you send a nice letter.

[Anonymous No.6007317]

>>6007290
While its true that no one publishes their entire data sets, that's not an excuse for there to be no actual articles supporting what is apparently scientific fact. I don't even want data sets, I'm not out to do climate research myself, I just expected there to be some studies out there. At this point anthropogenic climate change is a myth to me. I thought it was a real thing I guess because of social trust or something, but if there's no evidence then its as real as zeus.

The closest thing I found was a ipcc report which made claims but never backed any of them up. It included a single reference for the claim that CO2 increases temperature, but that reference was not on the same topic. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but is anthropogenic climate change just a big conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.6007354]

>>6007317
For some things it is hard to find references. The example I am most familiar with is flourine. Most of the experiments that were conducted to determine what fluorine does in a body were done 100 years ago.

The results have become basic facts. They have entered the common knowledge. Everyone knows that the body cannot use calcium for bone strength without flourine, and that flourine changes the enamel of teeth into hydroxyfluorapatite.

This is quoted by people and textbooks, and everywhere. But the original research is lost in time. 1+1=2 we all know this. why? most people can't answer, it just is the way it is. It is known. You do not argue with the know. It was proven over hundreds of studies and recreations, over dozens of years. Yet people argue the basics. As they should we need them to be properly referable, and if not we need to recreate the experiments.

The same goes for climate change. We are basing much of the science on (arguably correct) science that is assumed. The doubters are correct in stating the claims are not referenced. Not because the facts are necessarily incorrect, but because they should be referencible regardless.

[Anonymous No.6007379]

>>6007354
That's not acceptable in the context of climate change. The science isn't hundreds of years old, and its extremely relevant in the culture today. If there's no evidence for it, there's no reason to believe its true, whatever you say about just accepting so-called 'facts'.

Also see
Dean HT, Elvovo E (1935). Studies on the minimal threshold of the dental signs of chronic endemic fluorosis (mottled enamel).

[Anonymous No.6007390]

>>6007379
Except that there have been plenty of studies showing that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic problem. Mottled teeth are the strongest teeth and the least likely to develop cavities.

The study you link agrees with this.

[Anonymous No.6007404]

>>6007390
I was merely showing that there exist studies which deal with the issue of dental fluorosis. If there're many showing that its a cosmetic problem then that kind of proves my point, matters of science are studied, and studies dealing with them are out there. The same is not true of anthropogenic climate change, it is not science.

[Anonymous No.6007409]

>>6007404
I do not agree, there has been plenty of debate about climate control over the last 60 years.

In my mind the basic premise is well established "co2 levels in the atmosphere effect global temperatures"

Any further debate about the effects, or lack of effects is fine. But denying climate change itself, denies the basis, which is scientifically sound.

[Anonymous No.6007435]

>>6007409
that ignores issues of orders of magnitude, to what extent does anthropogenic co2 compare in output to current levels in nature and how sensitive is this system to this parameter (in terms of average global temperature).

everyone knows that the co2 cycle plays a role in this. that's not even what the discussion is really about.

[Anonymous No.6007457]

>>6007409
Well denying climate change would be stupid, the climate has never stopped changing, and there's plenty of evidence out there for that. There's also plenty of evidence that CO2 levels are increasing. However, the premise "CO2 levels in the atmosphere effect global temperatures" is unfounded. As you say there has been plenty of debate, the problem is that none of the date has been evidence driven and is instead purely philosophical.

Even if the premise that CO2 levels effect global temperatures had been scientifically established (and I cannot stress enough the fact that it has not been), that would not be sufficient evidence to support anthropogenic climate change.

Even if the premise of anthropogenic climate change had been scientifically established (again, completely unestablished) that would not be enough to support changing policy to counter it.

If we further assume that anthropogenic climate change has set the earth on a relatively worse path that it would be on without it (again, there is no evidence for this, which is unsurprising given that there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change itself...) then its time to start thinking "We should do something about this."

But what do we do? You don't just reduce the amount of CO2 you put out, there's no reason to believe that that is a solution, we're talking about a highly non-linear dynamical system, they're extremely sensitive to changes and change is irreversible. What we're doing is introducing another change, the effects of which we are unable to predict, maybe better, maybe worse, maybe the same. Who knows? We certainly don't because no one has actually studied the science of it.

Fortunately for everyone there's no reason to believe that making such changes will have any effect at all, because there's no established effect of CO2 in the first place. So its really no worse than sacrificing sheep or whatever the religious practices of the past were.

[Anonymous No.6007460]

>>6007457
>none of the date
none of the debate*

[Anonymous No.6007497]

>>6007435
>It isn't what the discussion is about

Correct, the effects are what are under debate. everyone agrees about the premise.

Except for climate change deniers. They say climate change is a hoax. Which implies that the premise of climate change is wrong. Which makes them seem stupid and or crazy.

[Anonymous No.6007506]

>>6007497
Could you give me a quick rigorous outline of what the premise is? Because if its

>the basic premise is well established "co2 levels in the atmosphere effect global temperatures"

I'd really, really like to see evidence for it. I do not agree with it as it stands, I'd like to be able to agree with it, but I'm a skeptic and all I'm seeing is dogma.

[Anonymous No.6007532]

>>6007506
way too many studies and reviews to list. so here is a aggregate
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

[Anonymous No.6007546]

>>6007497
>Except for climate change deniers
No one denies that the climate changes outright, so there is no such thing as a 'climate change denier'. Instead 'climate change denier' is typically used as a label given to anyone who won't accept anthropogenic climate change on faith as a kind of strawman argument. "Look at this guy! He doesn't even believe in weather! Don't listen to what he's saying!" (I'm not saying climate change is equivalent to weather, just stressing the point.)

I'm going to use a form of argument I'm not proud of, but I really need to illustrate the point here. I can point out that the number of cars has increased substantially in the last 200 years, and so has the number of visits to 4chan. So far this is fair enough. It gets hazy when I say
>"Therefore cars cause people to visit 4chan!"
(CO2 causes warming).
Then I might say
>"oh and visiting 4chan is no good, they're social rejects those 4channers"
(warming is no good)
and finally conclude
>"So we should stop making cars, end the 4chan problem once and for all"
(we can solve warming by reducing CO2 emissions).

Now, if I could provide evidence of the causal link, and that what's being caused is bad, and that my proposed plan will fix the problem, NOW I have an argument. This is not the case for anthropogenic climate change! It has all the same strength as the cars cause 4chan argument.

>>6007532
This website doesn't appear to include any of the three key pillars I've listed above. If you can support just the first one, the causal link between CO2 and global temperature there is at least some credence here, you can just assume that its bad, (actually this is a pretty out there assumption, considering that high CO2 environments have greater carrying capacity), and then assume that reducing CO2 output fixes the problem (again, climate is a highly non-linear dynamical system, so there's no reason to think this would be the case).

[Anonymous No.6007585]

>>6007532
>way too many studies and reviews to list
If you could list just one that would be ideal. Don't need them all, I can follow citations myself, as long as it shows evidence that increased CO2 -> increased temperature I'll be thrilled.

I've seen explanations of mechanisms by which it could do it, which is good, but no evidence that the effect they explain actually occurs. Again the climate is a highly non-linear dynamical system, so mechanistic explanations are in no way sufficient as evidence.

I am an experienced researcher, I've searched the web of science, scopus and google's scholar looking for anything that shows this, but turned up nothing. Everyone claims there're all these studies out there proving it, but no one ever turns one up. So please, don't withhold this list of articles you've found, share just one! If you can't do that then you need to take a step back and reevaluate your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.6007601]

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8370.full

>Changes in global average temperatures and of the seasonal cycle are strongly coupled to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I estimate transfer functions from changes in atmospheric CO2 and from changes in solar irradiance to hemispheric temperatures that have been corrected for the effects of precession. They show that changes from CO2 over the last century are about three times larger than those from changes in solar irradiance. The increase in global average temperature during the last century is at least 20 times the SD of the residual temperature series left when the effects of CO2 and changes in solar irradiance are subtracted.

[Anonymous No.6007616]

>>6007601
And if you read the following paragraph...
>Although it is generally conceded that the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 0.6°C during the last century, there is little agreement on the cause of this warming. The primary cause of this disagreement is uncertainty about the relative contribution to this warming of atmospheric CO2 and changes in solar irradiance. The purpose of this paper is to describe some data analysis that may help to discriminate between solar and CO2 effects, and to give estimates of the relative magnitudes of these two effects.

And if you go on to read the rest of the paper its full of lovely evidence that CO2 and temperature are correlated, and in fact there's even some evidence that increasing global temperatures cause an increase in CO2!

>It has been shown (29) that, considered as a pair, changes in temperature and CO2 were coherent, with changes in temperature leading those in CO2, instead of vice-versa, as popularly supposed.


There are LOTS of studies out there like this one, I've been through hundreds of them. What there aren't are studies that show that CO2 leads to increase in temperature! They do not exist, there is precisely as much evidence for the literal truth of the bible as there is for this claim. That or the evidence is hidden away somewhere... Which is not really reasonable.

Effects do not give rise to causes. The continued view that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomena is purely social, it is not scientific. It stands proud among the religions of the world, the old wives tales and unfounded beliefs, but that doesn't make it real. There needs to be some evidence.

[Anonymous No.6007659]

>>6007616

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Citations

[Anonymous No.6007670]

>>6007616
>What there aren't are studies that show that CO2 leads to increase in temperature!

Try looking for articles from the 1800s stupid.

>durrr I can't find any modern articles that show matter is made of atoms, I guess it's not true

[Anonymous No.6007689]

>>6007670
I understand the greenhouse effect. What you don't seem to understand is that this is not sufficient as evidence that increasing CO2 increases temperature. I believe I've talked briefly about this earlier in the thread, mechanistic explanation of how CO2 can cause increased temperature is not evidence that it does in fact do so. I certainly agree that CO2 has the potential to lead to warming, but once again we are talking about a highly non-linear dynamical system, you can't just say "CO2 traps light therefore earth gets hotter". If you are unfamiliar with dynamical systems theory, have a bit of a look into it.

>Try looking for articles from the 1800s stupid.
>durrr I can't find any modern articles that show matter is made of atoms, I guess it's not true

Please try to be civil, you show a lack of understanding of evidence based inference, yet I don't plan to call you stupid.

[Anonymous No.6009347]

Well I was hoping someone would have posted something substantial in this thread by the time I returned to it. I guess it was a bit much to hope someone could find a even single shred of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change considering the effort I've put in searching for it has turned up nothing.

Maybe this bump will lead to someone with the holy grail that is absolutely any evidence supporting the claim that CO2 leads to warming noticing it.

It really bothers me though that everyone believes the claim yet there exists no evidence in favour of it.

[Anonymous No.6009354]

>>6007616

Why do GW skeptics claim that CO2 follows temperature?

If you examine the following 2 plots from 1960-Present:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

You'll see that atmospheric CO2 and global temperature are increasing at the same time, with temperature lagging slightly behind CO2 increase.

The logic is that because CO2 followed temperature increases in the past, it must always follow in that order, but that's a logical fallacy. Of course CO2 can cause a temperature change because it's a greenhouse gas! 1 more plot worth examining:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png


The massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere compensate for its relatively low GW potential. As for water vapor:

"Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

[Anonymous No.6009381]

>>6009354
Thanks for the input. I don't know why people assume it follows temperature, I haven't assumed anything though, just looked for research. Its important to note that refuting a wrong argument against your point does not prove your point, so refuting the argument that CO2 follows temperature is not sufficient to establish the causal relationship.

What I'm looking for is not refutations of arguments against warming, I'm not really familiar with any of these arguments and I'm sure they're mostly wrong - just like most arguments disproving the existence of God are wrong. But that doesn't mean God exists, its up to the believers to prove their point, not the non-believers to disprove it. Somehow this paradigm has been reversed when it comes to global warming. What I want to see is evidence that CO2 leads to increased temperatures, but no such evidence seems to exist. Why is this taken on faith?

>Of course CO2 can cause a temperature change because it's a greenhouse gas!

And I agree with this absolutely, there exists a mechanism by which CO2 could cause warming, no doubt. But this does not support the claim that CO2 actually DOES cause warming. Its all going well up to this point, but then the ball drops. No one actually shows that CO2 leads to warming, the phenomena is not observed. We have an explanation of how the phenomena works coming from the molecular theory, and its quite reasonable to use that as a justification to look for the phenomena occuring in the dynamical system that is the weather, but it is NOT sufficient as evidence that the phenomena does actually occur. This goes against everything we know about evidence based inference as well as everything we know about the mathematics of dynamical systems.

Claiming that greenhouse effect -> CO2 leads to warming is a fundamental failure to understand statistics at the most basic level, and a failure to understand dynamical systems theory more specifically.

[Anonymous No.6009384]

>>6009347
The reason you're not finding any articles that 'prove' rising CO2 levels exacerbate the greenhouse effect is because it's basic science at this point. We can observe the greenhouse effect or lack thereof on other planets and moons. You might want to read up on CO2 absorption spectra if you're really that skeptical

Here are some articles/abstracts
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

[Anonymous No.6009391]

>>6009384
Please see the post directly above yours. I cannot stress enough that the greenhouse effect is not sufficient as evidence. The greenhouse effect is what leads us to suspect that the phenomena might happen, but it provides no evidence either way as to whether it does actually occur or not.

In simple (and particularly linear) systems it would be enough. The climate is not such a system, applying this type of reasoning is wrong at every level.

[Anonymous No.6009398]

>>6009391
The climate isn't as chaotic as you're painting it - that's why we don't look for evidence of AGW in less than, say, 15 year periods. Chaotic behavior in the climate (ie El Nino, fluid turbulence) does exist, but it is not as important as radiative forces. Also you clearly didn't read any of the articles I posted.

[Anonymous No.6009403]

There is a fundamental failure in climate science to correctly apply mathematical principles, particularly in terms of statistical inference to their studies. I'm not sure why its the case, but we as scientists and mathematicians should be deeply concerned about this.

The issue is not restricted to climate science either, insufficient statistical training is rife in all areas outside of mathematics and physics. From business to finance to gender studies, sociology, chemistry, and biology there is an overwhelming abundance of researchers who do not understand the most basic principles that underpin all evidence based inference.

Awareness of this issue is paramount if we want to live in a world where rationality trumps superstition. The anthropogenic climate change issue is a perfect illustration of this elephant in the room. It is founded on bad science, yet is one of the most widely accepted popular scientific theories. I'll eat my words on this issue if someone can show me evidence supporting its fundamental claims, I am not some 'climate denier' looking for reasons its wrong and poking holes, I am using it as an example to paint the larger issue.

[Anonymous No.6009405]

>>6009398
I haven't read any of them yet, but you did only post a few minutes ago. I will be reading them, and if they indeed can establish the link, I'll be very glad.

[Anonymous No.6009421]

>>6009384
I was only able to get a complete copy of one paper;

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Which shows the increasing greenhouse effect, something we all know to be occuring. It references two other studies which it claims show the link between the greenhouse effect and the actual temperature of the earth (which is the thing that I'm claiming needs to be established)

The papers are
Mitchell, J., Johns, T., Gregory, J. & Tett, S. Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases
and sulphate aerosols. Nature 376, 501±505 (1995).
Tett, S., Stott, P., Allen, M., Ingram, W. & Mitchell, J. Causes of twentieth century temperature change
near the Earth's surface. Nature 399, 569±575 (1999).

The first of which can be found in part here
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Em6zdCJv6cgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA192&dq=Climate+response+to+increasing+levels+of+greenhouse+gases+and+sulphate+aerosols&ots=fMxQ6ijuGq&sig=cCzqmeFE0zQEaDSeTKy17LcV2p4#v=onepage&q=Climate%20response%20to%20increasing%20levels%20of%20greenhouse%20gases%20and%20sulphate%20aerosols&f=false

And it actually develops some evidence for CO2 -> warming! Which is exciting stuff. I'm going to follow the citation trail to see if I can find more like this. The second I could only get an abstract for.

[Anonymous No.6009426]

>>6009421
You should be able to get the full article for the first and third links for free.

[Anonymous No.6009439]

>>6009403
On average, physicists are no better or worse than any of those other groups you mentioned when it comes to statistical literacy, and I'd be willing to bet that the average economist knows much more about the subject considering the useful parts of the field involve the development and application of statistical methods, compared to the physicist who probably calls a resident statistician for help.

[Anonymous No.6009449]

>>6009426
Hmm okay. I've found sufficient evidence to convince me that CO2 leads to warming now from the citation trail of the paper I did get anyway. So I am satisfied. I'm still concerned by the fact that most of the reference trails I followed from recent papers, and papers on the broader climate science didn't lead to similar finds though. I feel like this should be an easier road to follow, I know in my research it is never this difficult.

I still haven't seen any evidence that global warming is a bad thing yet, but I think I'll take that on faith for now and step away from the web of misinformation that seems to exist in climate science for a while. Unless you happen to have some good sources for this.

>>6009439
You're probably right.

[Anonymous No.6009457]

>>6009398
>The climate isn't as chaotic as you're painting it

Yes it is. That's why we can't predict the weather more than 3-4 days in advance. If it's really not that chaotic, how come 100% of the world's top climate models (44 in all) failed to predict that temperatures would stall over the last 15-17 years?

You'd think one of them would be able to predict such a not-so-chaotic-as-you-might-think climate.

[Anonymous No.6009469]

>>6009457
> how come 100% of the world's top climate models (44 in all) failed to predict that temperatures would stall over the last 15-17 years?

Got links?

[Anonymous No.6009478]

>>6007272
People don't publish it and when they do they will put it in what's called scientific journals if at all. Gale Cengage, JSTOR, and many other services gather those journals. Also most of them are done by scientists backed by universities You can go there any day and ask to see that data and you will get it. You're making a big deal and believe me there is plenty of evidence. No scientist would put their findings in a newspaper because newspapers aren't scientific enough. Fox news will get any jab at it, get the data and make conclusion after conclusion till they get a point they want. That's not what the data is for, it's to make ONE conclusion. We don't measure the density of a rock, and use that to forecast the mass of the Earth and then use that to calculate the distance from Earth to Pluto. That is unscientific. For something to be regarded as true, multiple experiments must be conducted in very different manners that lead to the same conclusion. If that happens, then you may use that conclusion to draw yet another one.

[Anonymous No.6009481]

>>6009469
Because if you do then I'm back to square one 'anthropogenic climate change is not well founded'. Which will be disappointing, but I'm more interested in reality than in being well appointed.

[Anonymous No.6009484]

>>6009478
I'm an active researcher. I know about journals. Where do you think I'm looking for evidence, under my bed?

It seems like a pretty common theme among believers to assume that neutrals exist in a completely different universe. This is a science forum, not a pub. Why would you assume that I've been desperately collecting newspapers searching for evidence?

Please leave. That or actually read the thread.

[Anonymous No.6009492]

>>6009484
You're a fucking idiot then if you can't find anything. You're a fucking gigantic idiot and should head right back to /pol/ dipshit. All you do is want to disprove global warming on a case of lack of evidence. There is evidence, head on down to any major university and talk to the Science chairperson. I've done it at CalTech, I've done it at UCLA and it has worked well.

[Anonymous No.6009493]

>>6009478
>That's not what the data is for, it's to make ONE conclusion. We don't measure the density of a rock, and use that to forecast the mass of the Earth and then use that to calculate the distance from Earth to Pluto. That is unscientific. For something to be regarded as true, multiple experiments must be conducted in very different manners that lead to the same conclusion. If that happens, then you may use that conclusion to draw yet another one.

Also considering that the whole thread is me pointing out that climate scientists are routinely misusing data, me arguing that claims must be supported by evidence, me arguing that climate scientists are failing to account for the nature of the climate as a non-linear dynamical system in their (already statistically incorrect) inferences and me desperately searching for actual evidence for the claims that're being taken purely on faith... I think you really have no place telling me about data analysis.

I'm the neutral one here, you're the religious one. Stop telling me all about your (frankly fucking pathetic) understanding of evidence based inference and start ACTUALLY DOING SOME OF IT.

Fuck you. You stand for everything that is wrong in science. Yes I am mad.

To everyone who isn't a fuckhead though I'm still interested in seeing any studies related to climate modeling, its successes and its failures. I realise that I was >>6009449 too quick to accept the evidence I found in favour of anthropogenic climate change, having now found more recent studies dismal model failure of the type that occurs when you assume your non-linear system is linear. Surprise surprise.

[Anonymous No.6009502]

>>6009493
Who's talking about religion? You purposely came on here to seek to start a troll thread. You are beyond incompetent. And you are an idiot if you are looking at it from a dynamic point of view. CO2 is a gas, that could never be considered enough of a macroscopic pressure on the climate. Instead it is a gas and it holds pressure so it should be treated as such and you should focus on that, not the dynamics of it.

[Anonymous No.6009504]

>>6009492
>You're a fucking idiot then if you can't find anything
Please, use your vastly superior intellect to show me the evidence. And talking to people who's research interests do not include climate science doesn't exactly prove your point. Head to your local church and ask about Jesus, you're in some good science learning my friend. If your only source of evidence is "This bloke who doesn't really know much about it told me so" then I think you need to lift your game.

I hate to let this degenerate into a flame war but again, you are the problem with modern science. You're perfectly welcome to trust people on areas other than your field of research, that's fine. I do it too, I did it for climate change until I decided to actually look into it (being a mathematician I find research interests in all areas of science) and at first it looks good, but as you start to read more you find something you don't usually find in science. People believe the fundamental premise of the modern theory based on faith, not on evidence. I take issue with this and so here I am pointing it out. Stop telling me there's all this evidence because you fucking 'talked to a Science chairperson', that is not evidence you stupid little cunt.

[Anonymous No.6009508]

>>6009502
>And you are an idiot if you are looking at it from a dynamic point of view
Oh okay. Tell that to 100% of climate scientists, they'll be pretty shocked. How do you get this insight that goes against literally every piece of evidence, intuition and conventional knowledge?

I'm not a troll, this is a serious issue that I think people should be aware of. But with the above quote I'm pretty sure you're a troll now, so I should calm my shit.

[Anonymous No.6009526]

>>6009504
over in this post:
>>6009493

you claimed very clearly you believe climate scientists are abusing data.

and now you are claiming that, after looking at the research yourself, (presumably from scientists who have studied the climate), you have determined that global climate change is a hoax.

so which is it? are climate scientists abusing data or should he be listening to climate scientists?

[Anonymous No.6009530]

>>6009502
>that could never be considered enough of a macroscopic pressure on the climate

i don't follow your reasoning for this premise of your argument.

[Anonymous No.6009539]

>>6009502
>Who's talking about religion?
I'm using religion as a stand in for comparison. You believe in anthropogenic climate change not because you've been shown evidence for it, but because you've been told its happening, and you've been told the people telling you know all about it. We all take a lot of things on faith, even within science. We can't study everything ourselves, so its quite reasonable to do so.

But if you're experienced in probability models, statistics and dynamical systems then you're in a nice spot to take a look at something like climate science and judge for yourself. And if you then find that everyone is doing everything wrongly, its a little bothersome, so you stop believing what they've told you and start trying to get to the bottom of it. When that leads to a maze of misinformation and bad maths you think "What the fuck is going on here?" and you make a thread on 4chan to see if anyone here knows.

When all anyone here has to say is "Its real because the professor told me so! you shutup with your questions and your science and your reasoning, I know for a fact that you're wrong because I heard it as chinese whispers. You're not a real scientist if you don't believe everything your told" that's annoying.

>>6009526
Yes, they're abusing data, I 'determined its a hoax' (this is not how I'd put it myself) because they've abused data in such a way that their claims (global warming) are invalid. I think I'm going to be starting to do research in climate science myself if I can get it funded and continuing to research the literature in my spare time to figure out what's going on. What I have determined so far is that the fundamental claim behind global warming has not been supported by any analysis I've found which is not itself wrong. I'm still looking for valid analysis that makes the same claim.

So what I know is a lot of the so-called evidence for global warming is invalid. There may still be real data for it, and I hope to find some.

[Anonymous No.6009545]

>>6009530
CO2 is not dynamic, since dynamic implies that CO2 is pushing or pulling against something which it is not, rather the most common theory is that CO2 is keeping the energy emitted by the sun in the Earth. That's not a dynamic process, as there is no force. Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.6009555]

>>6009539
what about all the studies that show a trend of warmer temperatures over the past century?
clearly, temperature measurements are evidence that the climate is warming.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

[Anonymous No.6009557]

>>6009545
Yeah but you're not looking at the bigger picture. We're not applying dynamical systems theory to carbon molecules, we're applying dynamical systems theory to the climate.

[Anonymous No.6009564]

>>6009555
>clearly, temperature measurements are evidence that the climate is warming.
Yep, you're right, climate is always changing. What I'm disputing is the idea that its warming because of CO2 emissions. Let me give a quick rundown for you guys, starting with what I don't disagree with.

It is well known that temperatures are rising, and that CO2 levels are rising alongside them. These things are correlated.

It is also well known that the greenhouse effect leads to less longwave radiation escaping the earth (hence less cooling) and that increasing levels of greenhouse gases increase the magnitude of this effect.

It is therefore reasonable to think that increasing CO2 levels will lead to increasing temperatures, therefore climate scientists make models which include this as a parameter. This is not unlike what I do in my own model development and I completely agree with the development of such models, however it is important to note that this effect itself is NOT evidence that CO2 leads to warming, we use the models to test that.

Climate scientists now follow two lines of reasoning in confirming their hypothesis. The first is that the greenhouse effect proves it. This is completely wrong-minded. It would work for very simple systems (linear systems which have no capacity for self reference) the climate is not such a system, this is universally agreed upon, yet somehow in climate science there is a failure to realise that this line of reasoning does not apply to systems of its type (non-linear dynamical systems).

The other route is that we can test our hypothesis that CO2 levels lead to increasing temperatures by seeing if the various models incorporating it in all sorts of different ways can accurate pastcast or futurecast temperature changes. They cannot. The hypothesis is not supported.

So we have two lines of reasoning which don't support the hypothesis. Surely then there is one out there that does? No, there is not. Its assumed true.

[Anonymous No.6009567]

>>6009557
You're still not pushing anything? What are you pushing? All you are doing is increasing anarchism in particles? They are blasting everywhere with the rise in temperature.

[Anonymous No.6009569]

>>6009564
I know I'm treading on bad ground here. There're a plethora of 'deniers' out there who come out with bad reasoning for why global warming isn't happening, or isn't a problem if it is happening, or should be ignored regardless. This is not what I'm doing, I agree that these people are idiots. The problem is that the other side of the debate, I now realise, are also applying faulty reasoning.

Its important to realise here that the people making the claim are the climate scientists, it is up to them to support their claim, not up to anyone else to dispute it. What I am pointing out is that they haven't actually supported the claim. I think most climate scientists don't even know this because their research is so far past this most basic premise, it has been accepted as factual based on faulty reasoning some time in the past.

I might be wrong and there might be evidence out there to be found. I'm actively searching for it, which is why I made this thread the other day. If anyone else can find some I would really like to see it. At this point I'm quite convinced that it doesn't exist. Before we get back to "evidence won't be in newspapers" I'd like to reiterate that I am an active researcher and I am experienced in digging through scientific journals. I've been searching a wide array of databases and found nothing.

[Anonymous No.6009568]

>this whole thread
Holy shit read the fucking IPCC report and its hundred of citations, what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.6009571]

>>6009568
I have read the IPCC reports and followed their citations. To reiterate, they are not handling data properly in any of the one's I've examined so far. I think this is a symptom of the use of statistics packages in place of actual statisticians.

[Anonymous No.6009573]

>>6009567
You're completely off topic. I don't really know what you're talking about. I'm not talking about pushing or pulling of carbon molecules, the CO2 molecules are not considered in modelling, rather the greenhouse effect is considered. It would be highly impractical to develop a climate model which worked at the molecular scale. Please read this wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_systems_theory

[Anonymous No.6009578]

>>6009571
Then don't be passive-aggressive faggot, and start your thread with "eyh here is the problem with IPCC method" instead of spending 3/4th of the thread in a retarded debate.

>do a model with everything we know assuming carbon dioxide is the prime cause, fit it to the data
>do a model assuming solar variance is the prime cause
>etc
>see which one has the best fit
>it's carbon dioxide

If you have a better method, please come forward.

[Anonymous No.6009586]

>unironically using the weather argument
Please familiarize yourself with the math of fluid mechanics.
You can't get all the short term variations, but the long term trends are completely knowable.

And no, 15 years is not a long time.

[Anonymous No.6009587]

>>6009586
politicians use the weather argument unironically all th time.

[Anonymous No.6009588]

>>6009578
>>6009578
I'm not being passive-agressive, I'm being blunt. I was being plain aggressive at one point, but you can't fault me for getting pissed off on 4chan occasionally.

>If you have a better method, please come forward.
As I said I'm going to look to start a research project in the area. Its difficult to go against the flow in the field though because of the firm belief in the current theory. So the first step is to expose the problems with it.
>do a model assuming solar variance is the prime cause
>etc
>see which one has the best fit
>it's carbon dioxide

Being the best fit in a class of models that don't fit the data is not really impressive.

[SciDropout No.6009589]

It's an interesting subject, this man made global warming theory. The idea is that mankind is doing something that increases the insulation property of the atmosphere for heat going out from earth without increasing it for heat coming in.

I looked at a lot of satellite data on infrared emission from the earth to space. I looked at data on sunlight intensity. I played around with black body radiation theory and with selective absorption and emission bands of various substances, absorptivity and reflectivity. I integrated sunlight intensity minus black body radiation at various latitudes to model temperatures. I even took a look at how greenhouses are used.

So based on a smattering of optics, thermodynamics and physical chemistry, I concluded the data was inconclusive. Sorry about that.

[Anonymous No.6009592]

>>6009588
My lab just published a paper that challenged the results of an older Nature paper. Everyone accepted the results of that paper until ours came along. Certainly they held our feet to the fire, they had us take more data points and the reviewers made us add a section explaining why we thought our data was right and theirs was wrong. But, in the end it was still published, because we were right we could stand up to the scrutiny.

Science isn't biased against people who go against the status quo, it's biased against people who go against the status quo and are wrong; but, think they are right. If you are really onto something and you are very rigorous showing what's wrong, you'll get your results published.

[Anonymous No.6009595]

>>6009592
You're forgetting about funding. No one funds anti-global warming research.

[Anonymous No.6009596]

>>6009595
That said I'm becoming pretty passionate and I can certainly do a review without the need for funding. Its just a matter of choosing to use my spare time doing what I spend pretty much all of time doing already anyway.

[Anonymous No.6009597]

>>6009595
No, no one funds anti-*anything* research because that's not scientific. No one will respect your research because you have formed the conclusion already.

You are saying that the statistical methodology is questionable. The scientific approach would be to *ask the question* what happens if I used this other statistical methodology on the data? Then proceed from there and form new conclusions based on the results. That would get funded if no one else truly has done what you propose to do already.

[Anonymous No.6009599]

>>6009588
If you were blunt, you would have started your thread with IPCC criticism instead of intentionally playing dumb for dozen of posts.
Also you would have mentioned it without someone needing to point it to you.

You never read any of it, nor do you have any sort of project.
You don't get funding based on your results. If you have a new way to test AGW, and you are qualified, you'll get funding somewhere.

>being the best fit is not impressive
Nobody cares if you're impressed. If you're gonna pretend to be a scientist at least talk like one.

[Anonymous No.6009601]

>>6009597
>no one funds anti-*anything* research because that's not scientific
I'm not saying I'm going to go and write a proposal that reads like "fuck CO2 -> warming" or "climate change is wrong" or something. But the topic of interest is one that is well established, there's only one reason to do that and that's to show that the establishment is wrong. Its like trying to get funding for research on newtonian mechanics. There're no papers published on it these days, haven't been for some time.

[Anonymous No.6009603]

>>6009601
But there are people who publish research on Newtonian Mechanics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics_(MoND)

Nothing is taboo in science if you actually contribute something of value. The reason no one publishes much counter to global warming is not because there is a bias or conspiracy trying to suppress the research, it's because no one has figured the right question to ask that would change the conclusions in a meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.6009604]

>>6009599
Go read any IPCC report, see if you can find from its references a paper that deals with this question. I started the thread saying I couldn't find any data on a particular aspect of climate theory. Someone mentioned the IPCC report, I told them I'd already been there and it doesn't have anything related to the topic. Initially the idea of the thread was to see if anyone knew of any research in the area, I was perplexed that I'd been unable to find it.

Last night I finally found papers on it. Found them to be mistreating data. Found more on it, reasonable papers that were inconclusive (like mine would be if I were to write one, no doubt...) The thread has progressed into something different between then and now.

[Anonymous No.6009607]

>>6009601
You're insane, there are new models being developed all the fucking time by various institutions a over the world.
There are journals dedicated to climate science. Read the theory&simulation sections.
The IPCC is still going on, they will continue agregatting those results.

You couldn't be more mislead, and you need to learn how to use a search engine.

[Anonymous No.6009608]

>>6009603
>Nothing is taboo in science if you actually contribute something of value
You're very idealistic. Sure some people might publish papers on Newtonian Mechanics, but that doesn't mean its easy to get funding for it. I have said that I don't suspect I will get funding for it, and I stand by that. Still, I'll try. Perhaps if its proposed as sufficiently climate sciencey I'll get funding. People do like to fund climate science papers after all, just not about this particular aspect of it. Else there'd be more papers, I suspect.

[Anonymous No.6009612]

>>6009607
I'm not really mislead, since I'm working on assumption. I assume I won't get funding because there're no other papers on the topic. The opposing force is that there're lots of papers about climate science as a whole.

[Anonymous No.6009615]

>>6009612
>there're no other papers on the topic
You're so wrong it makes my head hurt.
http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?as_ylo=2009&q=climate+model&hl=fr&as_sdt=0,5

[Anonymous No.6009621]

>>6009568
>Holy shit read the fucking IPCC report and its hundred of citations, what the fuck is wrong with you?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.UihFORY-zms

This, jesus christ.


>>6007272
>I can find a few articles that establish a correlation (pic related), but they either take no steps to support a claim of causation
In general, established correlation is support of causation. Experimental studies are impossible for this, we can't exactly create a perfect duplicate of the Earth and Sun and manipulate just the atmospheric CO2 to see what happens. All we can do is correlational studies and computer models.

[Anonymous No.6009623]

>>6009604
>Go read any IPCC report, see if you can find from its references a paper that deals with this question.
You're beyond help.

[Anonymous No.6009625]

>>6009608
Do you have experience in academia? I am actually a grad student with published papers.

You do know that funding for a PhD. is not based on your research topic at all, it's based simply on you getting admitted and keeping your grades up. They give you a bunch of time to work on your idea before you have to propose it to your thesis committee.

[Anonymous No.6009627]

>>6009608
You won't get funded, because you have nothing new to contribute, otherwise you would have mentioned it already instead of making vague claims.

[Anonymous No.6009628]

>>6009615
Oddly enough, I have in fact searched for 'climate models' in google scholar previously. You may be right that it'll be easier to get funding than I think though. It was perhaps not the most well reasoned idea. But take a look at some of the hits you got in your search, and you'll see that they're operating on a completely different level to what I'm talking about.

>All we can do is correlational studies and computer models.
That's not true.

>>6009623
I don't see how this tackles question "Does increasing CO2 lead to warming?" at all.

>>6009627
What I have to contribute is to point out that there is no evidence supporting the claim that CO2 leads to warming.

[Anonymous No.6009629]

>>6009628
>I don't see how this tackles question "Does increasing CO2 lead to warming?" at all.
>"guys there is no reference in the IPCC to evidences of climate science"
>link to 23 different models
>"what does this has to do with CO2?"
Jesus this is painful.

>Oddly enough, I have in fact searched for 'climate models' in google scholar previously.
And yet you still claim there is nothing published on the topic? Your condition is worse than I thought.

>What I have to contribute is to point out that there is no evidence supporting the claim that CO2 leads to warming.
So you have nothing, no new method or anything? That's what I thought.

>they're operating on a completely different level to what I'm talking about.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
You should really stop pretending to be a scientist.

[Anonymous No.6009630]

>>6009628
>That's not true.
Then come forth with your better method.

[Anonymous No.6009634]

>>6009630
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis

>>6009629
>I don't see how this tackles question "Does increasing CO2 lead to warming?" at all.
>"guys there is no reference in the IPCC to evidences of climate science"
>link to 23 different models
>"what does this has to do with CO2?"
>Jesus this is painful.

Indeed it is. I'm not saying it has nothing to do with CO2, why would you think that? I'm saying its not actually examining the relationship between CO2 levels and warming. It is a class of models which account for the greenhouse effect, yes. Which is good. But I'm not really talking about model development here. Though I am certainly interested in model development. I'm talking about investigating the assumptions of the models and testing their validity at a lower level.

A certain amount of this can be done with the models themselves, but the problem with that is that CO2 is closely correlated to temperature historically, so of course you can include it as a model parameter and past cast, if you couldn't do that you'd be questioning yourself fundamentally. But they're failing to futurecast, which even if CO2 is indeed playing in a causative relationship with temperature is quite possible, their failure to futurecast is not an issue.

But they are working on an assumption which is not founded. The assumption is the problem. The assumption is CO2 -> warming.

Can you see how these papers aren't dealing with that?

[Anonymous No.6009637]

>>6009634
>But they are working on an assumption which is not founded.
To be clear here to anyone who isn't familiar with model development, they build their models out of these assumptions. The models model a world in which CO2 -> warming, but no one is actually showing that to be the case.

[Anonymous No.6009640]

>>6009634
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis

That's a method of analyzing relationships between variables, not a method of study. Performing RA doesn't magically transform a correlational study into something else.

[Anonymous No.6009642]

>>6009634
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis
Good lord...

>Can you see how these papers aren't dealing with that?
You were already explained that there are multiple models, some of them assuming CO2 doesn't play a major role.
Those do not fit the past temperature data as well as CO2-driven models.

>The assumption is CO2 -> warming.
No, the assumption is CO2 -> forcing.

[Anonymous No.6009645]

>>6009637
Physical parametrization of models have been done by hundred of studies like the ones of the atmospheric radiation measurement program.

[Anonymous No.6009655]

>>6009642
>Those do not fit the past temperature data as well as CO2-driven models.
This is because CO2 is historically correlated to temperature...

>No, the assumption is CO2 -> forcing.
Well yes, forcing is a more appropriate term, but you're not actually disagreeing with me here, you're just changing my language because you don't like me. No doubt feeling quite pompous "This guy isn't even using the right word! Ha! It changed from that years ago when people started respecting the fact that the climate was actually a non-linear dynamical system and they changed the word but kept all the linear results"

>>6009640
That's what you asked me for. You suggested that all you can do is correlate variables and then start making models, as though that were the complete statistical toolbox. That was stupid, so I gave you a very simple answer "There's plenty of stuff out there, here's some of it."

[Anonymous No.6009662]

>>6009655
>Well yes, forcing is a more appropriate term, blahblahblah blah blah blah blah bitching about your hurt pride
The fact that there is a forcing is basic absorption/reemission physics.

The value of the forcing, like other physical parameters, has been investigated by programs like the ARM.

[Anonymous No.6009670]

>>6009637
>but no one is actually showing that to be the case.
I think that it was shown to be the case over a century ago.
It is a well known and established piece of science.
The experiment has been done repeatedly in school science projects. Look up "science project CO2".

[Anonymous No.6009681]

>>6009662
>The value of the forcing, like other physical parameters, has been investigated by programs like the ARM.
Of course it has! Why would it not have been? Why do you think that I don't know this? You need to stop focusing on things that're unrelated.

Once again, what I am saying is that there is no evidence to support the claim that CO2 -> warming. Let's really break it down here

IPCC says reduce carbon output. The reason they say it is because their models tell them its a good idea. The reason their models tell them its a good idea is because the models which account for CO2 as a main driving force is accurately predict the past. The reason the models accurately predict the past is because CO2 is closely correlated to temperature historically. BUT no causal effect is established.

Now what if, say, CO2 had followed temperature in the past just because that's how it happens that things go, not because one is causing the other to change. Or perhaps the effect of CO2 is balanced by some other effect, but remain correlated.

Then your models that're all CO2 heavy would still predict the past perfectly well, because it was following it in the past. But now things have changed, (anthropogenic climate change remember, we're pumping out CO2) they're not following eachother anymore. Models fail to futurecast as a result.

The problem is that no one has shown that this is not the case. No one has shown that yes, they are causally related. We know that less heat can escape the earth because of it, through physics, but we don't know that that effect isn't somehow mitigated by some hidden variable or some other known variable. But we make our inferences from models that say "This is our #1 culprit"

So the CO2 levels and the temperature have gone off and done different things now, so hey, maybe the models that're all about it just aren't that good, since they were guaranteed to past cast successfully and they're not futurecasting successfully.

[Anonymous No.6009684]

>>6009681
>maybe the models that're all about it just aren't that good

Again, I'm aware that people are making different models. Most of which work with this assumption, some don't. But no one is out there going "Why do we believe in this assumption anyway?"

[Anonymous No.6009686]

>>6009681
>they're not futurecasting successfully.
You need to stop believing 15 years is a significant amount of time.

>But we make our inferences from models that say "This is our #1 culprit"
Yes. If you know a better method, come forth.

If that's what you were gonna say, you might as well have started the thread with that.

[Anonymous No.6009688]

>>6009681
>>6009681
>they're not futurecasting successfully.
You need to stop believing 15 years is a significant amount of time.

>But we make our inferences from models that say "This is our #1 culprit"
And also from models that say it isn't the #1 culprit.
Then we compare them.
And the ones which place CO2 as the main drive are more successful.
If you know a better method, please come forth.

If that's what you were gonna say, you might as well have started the thread with that.

[Anonymous No.6009690]

So we have examples for : Strawman , false cause, slippery slope, ad hominem, bandwagon, begging the question ,composition/Division, the fallacy fallacy , tu quoque , burden of proof and ambiguity

I'm really proud /sci/

[Anonymous No.6009693]

http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/globalwarmingexperiment.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4

[Anonymous No.6009692]

>>6009573
So you're going to bring in a mathematical topic to a scientific topic? Nice. Welp there's your error, now you will have to restart because basing your whole research on a mathematical topic is wrong already. As I have stated previously, this is not a dynamic case, which in scientific terms, is a system where there is an existing force propagating change.

[Anonymous No.6009694]

>>6009690
That's nothing

I've seen more in three /pol/ posts

[Anonymous No.6009696]

>>6009688
>You need to stop believing 15 years is a significant amount of time.
You need to stop believing that I'm saying the models are bad because of that. I have said that failure to futurecast does not show that the models are wrong. I've said its good that they're developing models based on the assumption to futurecast with. I'm not saying people should suddenly stop doing the research they're doing.

What I am saying is that everyone seems to believe that this assumption has been validated already, they state it frequently. But no where in the literature is it actually validated. I mention the futurecasting because IF they were futurecasting successfully, that would provide preliminary evidence to validate the assumption, but they are not, so no such evidence exists. I'm not saying that's evidence to the contrary, I'm saying its no evidence.

There has never been any OTHER evidence for it either. But its assumed true. Could well be true, should certainly make models like it, should certainly make models not like it too.

[Anonymous No.6009695]

Holy shit this thread is still here

[Anonymous No.6009698]

>>6009696
Next time read the whole post.
I'm not repeating myself again.

[Anonymous No.6009699]

>>6009690
We have no use for such words. GTFO /pol/
I have already said, if you want to talk about climate science go to a nearby 4 year university that is accredited and you will get all the proof you need.

[Anonymous No.6009701]

>>6009696
lol futurecast weren't you just talking about the English language. I believe you mean "forecast".

[Anonymous No.6009702]

>>6009696
Quantitative comparison shows that of all the advanced explanations, CO2 is the most likely with a 95% probability.
That's what is written in the IPCC. If you wanted to make a point about the nature of knowledge or something like that, you should have started with it...

And also actually shown that you had some knowledge of the matter instead of spouting "but of course I knew that" everytime someone points something out to you.

[Anonymous No.6009704]

>>6009698
Just because I reply to one of your points, doesn't mean I haven't read your post. There's no need for you to repeat yourself at all.

Perhaps where we don't see eye to eye is in that I consider it more important that the conclusion is drawn fallaciously than you do. You realise that the CO2 models outcompeting the others does not confirm the hypothesis I assume? As you say, 15 years is not enough data. In fact 23 years is not either. Nor 30. But the conclusion is already drawn. Can you see the problem with this?

[Anonymous No.6009705]

>>6009704
Then why didn't you reply to
>If you know a better method, please come forth.

> You realise that the CO2 models outcompeting the others does not confirm the hypothesis I assume?
>If you wanted to make a point about the nature of knowledge or something like that, you should have started with it...

[Anonymous No.6009706]

>>6009702
People are pointing out things that're completely unrelated to my point. I'm not going to layout every little piece of vaguely related information for you.

Again I started the thread because I started reading the literature and I couldn't find amongst it something to support the universal claim that existed throughout it. I was perlexed by this. Later in the thread, I found literature to support it, which I was excited by. But that literature turned out not to be very good. So I have been continuing to search for literature and trying to enlist the help of other 4channers in doing so. But all they do is point out vaguely related things and say "I bet you didn't know this!"

[Anonymous No.6009709]

>>6009704
>You realise that the CO2 models outcompeting the others does not confirm the hypothesis I assume?
>HURRRR U CANNOT NO NUTHIN
And that's what it all comes down to...
Good show m8.

Natural science is quantitative, you'll have to live with it. Did you just discover the problem of induction too?

[Anonymous No.6009710]

>>6007272
Maybe this will help you out, /pol/lution
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/

[Anonymous No.6009712]

>>6009706
>People are pointing out things that're completely unrelated to my point.
No that's not what's happening.
What's happening is that you make factually false claims and backtrack at every corner.

>guys I can't find paper on the matter
>links to hundreds of papers

>guys there is no new research in climate modeling
>points to dozens of new models

>guys they just assume CO2 -> warming
>they assume CO2 -> forcing

>guys we don't know CO2 causes forcing
>it's basic physics and the values have been measured

Stop dancing around and you'll get all the answers you want.

[Anonymous No.6009713]

>>6009705
I came forth with a better method for him, but he didn't like it.

> You realise that the CO2 models outcompeting the others does not confirm the hypothesis I assume?
>If you wanted to make a point about the nature of knowledge or something like that, you should have started with it...

I'm not making a point about the nature of knowledge jesus fucking christ do they not teach you anything? Let's model coin tosses. One model is P(heads) = 1. The other is P(tails) =1. Flip a coin. It comes out heads. You now know that P(heads) does indeed = 1, your model predicted that outcome nicely. There is NOT ENOUGH DATA to draw a conclusion like that. And if there was, the conclusion you would draw would be that all your models are pretty bad, because they predict heaps of stuff that's not true. But in reality they've predicted a tiny amount of stuff and its not turned out to happen, but they've done better so far than some of the other competitors. Who will win in the end? We'll know when we have some data.

[Anonymous No.6009714]

>>6009706
>Later in the thread, I found literature to support it,
You know, that simple fact should have hinted to you that you really are not knowledgeable about the field at all and maybe you should start having a more modest approach about it for now, one of a student, not an analyst.

[Anonymous No.6009715]

>>6009713
>I came forth with a better method for him
You did not, you linked to a wikipedia article...

[Anonymous No.6009716]

>>6009712
>links to hundreds of papers
None of the papers linked here were on the topic. I found some papers yesterday, they were inconclusive.

[Anonymous No.6009719]

>>6009713
>You now know that P(heads) does indeed = 1, your model predicted that outcome nicely.
Jesus Christ, was the point of that post just to show that you don't know any statistics?

If I were to give a margin of error for that analysis, it wouldn't be 5%, unlike what's done by the IPCC.

[Anonymous No.6009718]

>>6009714
>You know, that simple fact should have hinted to you that you really are not knowledgeable about the field at all and maybe you should start having a more modest approach about it for now, one of a student, not an analyst.

Your missing the point, the literature was manipulating data badly. Yes I'm new to the field, but I'm not new to statistics and they did that wrongly.

[Anonymous No.6009720]

>>6009718
>Your missing the point
No, I'm really not.

>the literature was manipulating data badly
Yeah it's amazing how you reached that conclusion in less than 4 hours about the whole literature.

[Anonymous No.6009721]

>>6009715
Which describes a method of finding relationships between variables. I don't have better models if that's what he wants, I've just started looking into the field.

>>6009719
The point was to demonstrate that a model fitting best to a statistically insignificant data set does not prove its validity.

[Anonymous No.6009724]

>>6009721
>The point was to demonstrate that a model fitting best to a statistically insignificant data set does not prove its validity.
It's not statistically insignificant, there is a century of exploitable data.

>I don't have better models if that's what he wants,
So you want to replace complex physical models with a rough factors correlation analysis?
Not only it has been done as you can imagine, you won't learn anything from it.

And how the fuck would it improve on any of what you said?
Models regression isn't good enough for you, but a simple factors correlation bypass your criticism of "HURR A CORRELATION DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING"?

[Anonymous No.6009725]

>>6009720
>Yeah it's amazing how you reached that conclusion in less than 4 hours about the whole literature.

Again, the whole point here is that no real literature exists dealing with this, and that which does is no good. Its not hard to see a lot of errors. Read the paper. Did they do something super fucking retarded? Yes. Results are probably invalid.

Is drawing conclusions based on fuck all data retarded? Yes, discount those studies.
Is drawing conclusions based on linear reasoning in a highly non-linear system and then implementing those conclusions into your highly non-linear models retarded? Yes, discount those studies.

So far all the studies do this. Please look into it yourselves. This is what I am here to say. You don't need the big expanations about all the nitty gritty of climate modeling.

There is no evidence to support the claim, and its not hard to see it. I don't feel like I need to explain all these details of climate modeling I just want to make people aware that there appears to be no evidence to support this conclusion that's already been drawn, and is widely accepted.

[Anonymous No.6009726]

>>6009721
>The point was to demonstrate that a model fitting best to a statistically insignificant data set does not prove its validity.
Hence why the IPCC did calculate the margin of error and gave it in its report...
You're so transparent...

[Anonymous No.6009728]

>>6009725
>Is drawing conclusions based on linear reasoning
You don't know the first thing about climate models, do you?

[Anonymous No.6009727]

>>6009725
>Did they do something super fucking retarded?
Yeah amazing how you did that for the whole litterature in less than 4 hours.
Simply amazing.

[Anonymous No.6009729]

>>6009724
>there is a century of exploitable data.
Of course, the time scales used in past casting are of the order 10^5, and is often mistakenly thought to be able to predict the accuracy of these models.

[Anonymous No.6009730]

>>6009725
>Is drawing conclusions based on linear reasoning in a highly non-linear system and then implementing those conclusions into your highly non-linear models retarded? Yes, discount those studies.
You did that for the 23 models linked an hour ago?

[Anonymous No.6009731]

>>6009729
What? You're gonna have to start to get quantitative.

[Anonymous No.6009734]

>>6009730
You can do it too. Is there on the order of 10^5 years worth of data since humans started altering the atmosphere? If not, then those models can't very well be using it, can they?

[Anonymous No.6009739]

>>6009731
I'm not getting quantitative for 4chan, but I am suggesting that people should take a look at these things for themselves, and once they have we should talk about it.

Have a look at this data set from the IPCC

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Now have a look at this graph of historical temperature. Now have a look at the picture.

Consider how much true data that is.

[Anonymous No.6009738]

>>6009734
>10^5
10^5 what? 10^5 years? Why? Why not 10^5 days.
Or hours.

You don't really know anything about statistics and you're just dropping a rule of thumb here.

[Anonymous No.6009741]

>>6009739
>I'm not getting quantitative for 4chan
ahahahaahah
4chan had to teach you how to use a search engine, don't get cocky now.

[Anonymous No.6009740]

>>6009738
it had already been established that we were talking about years. Forgot picture previously

[Anonymous No.6009742]

>>6009740
>it had already been established that we were talking about years.
What?
What does this has to do with your "10^5" rule.
It's a rule of thumb that you learned God knows where, for fuck's sake. That's not how you calculate an error margin.

[Anonymous No.6009743]

>>6009740
And then consider the next step up in scale.

>>6009741
That's plainly untrue.

[Anonymous No.6009745]

>>6009743
Yet you were unable to find widely available litterature.

[Anonymous No.6009746]

>>6009742
No not a rule of thumb... Just a guess at a lower bound on the amount of data you need. The earth is pretty old, and you can see that its climate has been varying quite a lot throughout the time. 100 years is plainly not enough data, just as the single sample for the heads or tails was not enough data. No calculation necessary you can just eyeball it being wrong.

[Anonymous No.6009747]

>>6009743
>>6009740
>statistics on a constant numbers of datapoints are less viable when pulled from a larger population
And now you've done convicing us you know shit about statistics.

You learn this is a fallacy in any statistics 101 class.

Good job.

[Anonymous No.6009749]

>>6009746
>The earth is pretty old
Absolutely nothing to do with the regression reliability.
See >>6009747

Too bad you just lost your last shred of credibility.

[Anonymous No.6009753]

>>6009747
>>6009749
Indeed they are if your sampling is massively biased like oh I don't know maybe picking a the first 200 data points. Like what has been done here... And ignoring the fact that their distribution is nothing like that for the rest of the data.

[Anonymous No.6009754]

>>6009753
The first 200 data points in a set of 10^9 data points I should mention.

You're so busy attacking me that you're not actually looking at what's going on. You say I don't know what I'm talking about, so how about you look at it yourselves? I'm not going to bash out an article and link you all to it.

[Anonymous No.6009763]

>>6009754
No no no.
Stop talking for a minute and read.

When you do statistics on, say 1000 individuals, it doesn't matter if the total population is 10000, one million, or one billion.
The reliability of your statistics only depend on the size of your sample, and NOT on the total size of the population.

I know it's a counter-intuitive result, but that's why it's useful to differentiate people who actually learned statistics and those who didn't.

Don't even try to contest that if you want to remain credible.

[Anonymous No.6009764]

apparently there's no evidence for the holocaust either

[Anonymous No.6009765]

>>6009763
No no no!

That is true of a random data sample but NOT of a non random data sample. If you do not know about statistics, do not preach about how to do it here please. Its like you learned it in "DUM 101: Statistics for making false conclusions"

[Anonymous No.6009766]

>>6009765
>That is true of a random data sample but NOT of a non random data sample.
What the fuck are you even trying to say?

The Earth could be 50 bajillions years old, it wouldn't make the climate models more or less accurate...

[Anonymous No.6009768]

>>6009765
>That is true of a random data sample but NOT of a non random data sample.
>look mom I'm making up shit on the Internet

[Anonymous No.6009785]

>>6007272

ok i read about a third of the thread and got bored lol. i'd just like to know how you think it may be that we could have such large amounts of a greenhouse gas like this and it NOT cause warming.

[Anonymous No.6009795]

>>6009449
good. bad. It is change, and change scares people.

We could all live in an underground paradise fuelled by thorium reactors regardless of the outside temp. But that is scary.

Or we could spent 10 billion building a carbon sequestering system. but the thought of saving the environment by cutting down every tree scares hippies.

[Anonymous No.6009797]

>>6009457
record highs.
record highs everywhere.

[Anonymous No.6009799]

>>6009478
no one has data solid enough for only one conclusion.

[Anonymous No.6009806]

>>6009539
I also believe that elephant skin feels slightly rough, and that you can feed a elephant a banana and he will eat it.

I've never met an elephant, or read a research paper on elephants.

[Anonymous No.6009810]

>>6009569
I support you. I don't think you are correct, but go digging. give us monthly updates, and draw nice pretty graphs so I can understand them.