CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION* *except for evolution,

>>8590979
I know you're baiting, but we haven't discovered the Graviton yet, but Gravity works.

>>8590979
if there is no cause, what is there?

>>8590983
I don't think it works due to a particle. It's a literal function of space stretching imo

>>8590979
evolution = libtardism

sorry bro, you know that those cool race studies on /pol/ are based on darwinism, right?

>>8591170
>if you believe one "side" is wrong, that means you believe in the other side and everything else they believe in!
What's your IQ, 80? There are actual people in the world that think like that moronic poster and consider themselves smart. Having every single problem be yes/no isn't enough, you have to group all the answers to every problem and have one team represent each side, that way your brain doesn't have to deal with the proposition of making more than one simple thought.

>>8590979
>libtards
Talk to me when you want an actual debate, you faggot. Nowadays every single fucking SJW starts debates with "YOU FUCKING WHITE MALES..." and every conservative starts debates with "YOU FUCKING KEKS...". It is like they want to immediately turn off their opposition so that only people from their side will join their discussion.

Who would have known, centrism is the true thinking man's political identity. When you reach the age of 18 the government should make you take an ideology test and if you lean too hard to either side you should be executed. Ideology is the cancer killing modern society.

>>8590979

braindead argument by a braindead retard

Being liberal is a mental disorder

>>8591187
>if you lean too hard to either side you should be executed.

And we should add fundamentalist scientific materialists, proponents of a philosophy which enabled science to develop without reference to vitalism and dualism, but which is now holding back progress becuz muh science duh.

>>8590979
>scientific rigor
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8591203
Wait a mo, anon is preparing a considered scientific response and will post again shortly.

>>8590979
>correlation dub fun imply causation
>u can't know NUFFIN
>fuckin librals

>>8590979
Not a libtard, but correlation is always evidence of causation unless you knew in advance that the outcomes were going to correlate.

>>8590979
Global warming has other arguments than just correlation.

>>8590979
I disagree with OP on everything except for global warming meme. So does everyone else.

>>8590979
You realize there are computer models of the effect of human activity on the climate right? "Switch" human activity off and you get average temperatures and CO2 concentration, switch it on and you get increased temperatures and CO2 concentration very close to actual measured values.
You're right on account of evolution and nonexistence of God though.

This is not even good bait. Morons.

>>8591187
Why would they execute useful idiots?
A bit of an idealistic opinion of govt m80

>>8591844
>correlation is always evidence of causation
not a statistically significant line of reasoning.

>>8591844
you don't know much statistics, do you?

File: 1414543025718.gif (728KB, 500x341px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 500x341px

>>8590979
>If these things are so important and they are so sure of them why can't they prove them with scientific rigor?

We didn't prove causation, we simply falsified every other competing theory until those were the only ones left.

>>8592740
I've always wondered, is evolution falsifiable? How would you go about proving evolution wrong?

Everything (news, data, memory...) should be questioned; choosing only to accept what is reasonable but with continued uncertainty.

I accept it is reasonable that no one can prove negative or positive: of anything or anyone.

All of us have only opinion based on data: such as "santa" that requires at least one more brain circuit to discredit the bad data.

>>8592756
its falsifiable, but everything seems to fit.
I'm not sure how to put it to the test, because everything seems to fit so well. Creationists have been trying for centuries. Darwin's own book is a massive, intricate, and detailed argument of his case, because he knew creationists wouldn't bite. now we have even more evidence.

>>8592921
Exactly my point. You can't come up with a single scenario that evolution wouldn't be able to explain away. It's not a falsifiable theory and therefore not scientific.

Just like using God to explain everything. There isn't a single scenario you can come up with that can't be explained by God.

Both theories are just as valid in my opinion, and neither are scientific. I'm not saying evolution is false, it most certainly exists, it's been observed. But using it to explain the origin of man isn't as scientific as everyone touts it to be.

>>8591176
You just used your own "muh correlation" counter-argument.

Go back to >>>/8gag/

>>8590979
what does correlation and causation have to do with the nonexistence of God?

there's no substantial proof for it, period.

>>8592756
>I've always wondered, is evolution falsifiable? How would you go about proving evolution wrong?
A rabbit fossil from the precambrium would do the job nicely. So would pigs that started to grow wings in the next hundred thousand years (without human meddling).

>>8591187
>every1 is dum but me :^)

>humans caused the nonexistence of God
doesn't even makes sense.

>>8591176
Exactly. You pretty much summed it up

>>8593170
Actually there's nothing inherently impossible about pigs evolving wings if the environment favors it
Though if a pig gave birth to a pig with functioning wings that would be hard evidence against evolution

>>8593236
>Actually there's nothing inherently impossible about pigs evolving wings if the environment favors it
True -- but there is a lot wrong with it happening in this short a timeframe. Complex machinery takes ages to emerge due to evolution; that is a true and hard prediction of evolution as a theory. There is math on time limits involved, and that math says that it's absolutely not going to happen in a hundred thousand years. Such an observation (in the absence of human meddling) would disprove evolution as we know it outright.

>>8591909

Let Co represent "Thing B correlates with thing A"
Let Ca represent "Thing A causes thing B"

P(Co|Ca) = 1 # if thing A causes thing B then B will always correlate with A

P(Ca|Co) = P(Co|Ca)*P(Ca)/P(Co)
=> P(Ca|Co) = P(Ca)/P(Co)

Now, if you know in advance that B will correlate with A, P(Co) is 1 and P(Ca|Co) = P(Ca) i.e the probability that A causes B did not change when you observe B correlate with A. Otherwise, P(Co) is less than 1 and P(Ca|Co) > P(Ca) i.e. the probability that A causes B has increased when you observed B correlate with A.

>you don't know much statistics, do you?
Do you?

I don't think anyone has pointed this out yet, but correlation does imply causation, it just doesn't definitively mean causation. Right?

>>8592933
you're an idiot.
to falsify it you simply find evidence that contradicts it.
currently there is no such evidence.
therefore, it remains the dominant theory.

>>8593275
>P(Co|Ca) = 1 # if thing A causes thing B then B will always correlate with A
False. This would be true if A was the only thing which affects B. A lack of correlation is completely possible even if A causes B, because other factors might make B not occur, and thus no correlation is observed.

>>8593424
I was thinking "cause" as in logical implication, but if that's what we want to look at fine:

Let Co represent "Thing B correlates with thing A"
Let Ca represent "Thing A positively effects B but other factors might make B not occur"

If you don't know in advance that B will correlate with A, then B is merely more likely to correlate with A than with some unknown thing:

P(Co|Ca) > P(Co)
=> P(Co|Ca)/P(Co) > 1
=> P(Co|Ca)*P(Ca)/P(Co) > P(Ca)
=> P(Ca|Co) > P(Ca)

Same result. Happy?

>>8593525
>P(Co|Ca) > P(Co)
This is also false. P(Co|Ca) can be equal to P(Co) if P(Co|-Ca) = 0

But nice try.

>>8590979
dis bait lel

File: 5612857.jpg (19KB, 564x317px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 564x317px

>>8591187
my gott, pure ideology!

this thread definitely needs more cute feet

>>8593609
If P(Co|!Ca) = 0 then

P(Co) = P(Co|Ca)*P(Ca) + P(Co|!Ca)*P(!Ca)
=> P(Co) = P(Co|Ca)*P(Ca)
=> P(Co|Ca)*P(Ca)/P(Co) = 1
=> P(Ca|Co) = 1

So again P(Ca|Co) > P(Ca), unless you already knew absolutely that there was a causal relationship.

So I will amend my original statement: correlation is always evidence of causation unless you knew in advance that the outcomes were going to correlate OR YOU KNEW IN ADVANCE THAT THERE WAS CAUSATION

Happy?

>>8592756
Evolution is a fact. You can observe it happening. Just look around if you have a cat or dog.

>>8590979
Take two groups of males, one has males with big penises (whatever the criteria for that is), other one has males with penises smaller than that.
Give everyone an IQ test.
Group with big penises has a bigger average IQ.
So, either:
>correlation doesn't imply causation
or
>OMG GUISE STUDIES SHOW THAT HAVING A BIG PENIS MEANS THAT YOU HAVE BETTER CHANCES AT HAVING A HIGHER IQ HEHEHEHEHE

dumbass

All scientific evidence is correlative.

The job of the scientist is to construct their experiments such that causation is the only reasonable explanation for observed correlation.

>>8594901
>Microevolution is a fact. You can observe it happening.
ftfy

>>8590979
>drumpf voters

File: Evolution.jpg (154KB, 875x402px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 875x402px

>>8594950
all distinctions between micro- and macroevolution are arbitrary

Honestly this looks like a Reddit poster who went on /pol/ for the first time, or someone who is doing a bad impression. People take all of the shit they say jokingly serious and vice versa.

>basing your """theory""" on deductive """"""reasoning""""""
ayyyyyyy lmaaooooooooooo

causation is the invention of man

>>8590979
>prove them with scientific rigor
>prove ... rigor
Lrn2science fgt pls

>>8590979
Why don't you have your magical ghost *appear*, so that memes and shit end

>>8594879
everyone that has ever died drank water at some point in their life, therefore water kills people

File: apu.jpg (34KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 655x527px

>>8590979
epic

>>8594879
I made a mistake. I should have said that P(Co|Ca) can be equal to P(Co) if P(Co|Ca) = P(Co|-Ca). This in essence is the idea behind correlation does not imply causation.

So your still wrong, you keep assuming what you're trying to prove.

File: 1457215303280.gif (109KB, 300x375px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 300x375px

>>8590979

>>8594879
It has nothing to do with knowing in advance. Certain things are necessarily going to be correlated without causation, regardless of whether you know they will correlate. For example it just so haired that everyone who pays taxes dies. This does not mean taxes causes death because their lack of causation had no effect on their chance of correlating.

Another issue with your math is that it appears to argue that both A causes B and B causes A in every case where they are correlated, since correlation is transitive.

>>8591876
source or bullshit on the computer model

"correlation does not imply causation" is a definite example of mount stupid, because hardly anyone who says this phrase seems to understand that correlation, when other variables are either controlled for or blocked for ( i.e.e spread out randomly and evenly over a large enough number of data) does provide strong evidece of causation.


If liberal arts are considered a general education requirement in USA universities then some experimental design and statistics DEFINITELY should be

>>8593236
Actually there is. Pigs arent built for flying. If they evolved to fly they would have to xhange so much you might aswell not call it a pig.

>>8592933
Thats only if u use evolution like an idiot. There is plenty falsifiable about evolution. No theory is immune to adhoc ammendment

>>8598582

>>8590979
>CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION*
>*except for evolution, human caused global warming, and the nonexistence of God
None of those imply causation from correlation.

>>8592756
Showing DNA having zero relation to ancestry would have been a great way to falsify common ancestry.

>>8590979
These people are out there, and they vote. I'm so extremely happy they'll be the ones losing their healthcare.

>>8590979
>>>>/pol
>>>/x

>>8599251
I can't decide which board is worse, /pol/ or /x/. On one hand, /x/ doesn't seem too concerned with supporting evidence. They're basically telling stories, a type of digital folklore. Now, /pol/, being one collective mass of idiocy, demagogy, and cuckolding (they claim to hate Jewish people but vote for an extremely pro-Israel candidate who is going to fill his cabinet with Jewish folks) likes to pretend they understand things.

>>8598553
First, something can be evidence without being conclusive evidence. Second, this would surely be a case where you knew in advance that the things would correlate.

>>8598606
Just like the guy above you are giving a bad example because presumably you know in advance that tax paying and dying are going to correlate. Pick an example that actually gives what I ask for: a correlation where you don't know in advance that the things will correlate or that there is a causal relationship.

Or if you are somebody who doesn't know that tax paying and dying are going to correlate, then you are simply failing to adjust your beliefs properly if you do not increase your belief in causation when you observe the correlation.

>Another issue with your math is that it appears to argue that both A causes B and B causes A in every case where they are correlated, since correlation is transitive.
Why is that an issue?

>>8598581
>I should have said that P(Co|Ca) can be equal to P(Co) if P(Co|Ca) = P(Co|-Ca)
But P(Co|Ca) = P(Co|-Ca), which is the same as saying P(Co) = P(Co|Ca), is not consistent with what Ca represents.

>Let Ca represent "Thing A positively effects B but other factors might make B not occur"

Because those other factors might make B not occur the chance that B will correlate with A doesn't increase to 100%, but you are saying that the chance B will correlate with A literally doesn't increase at all.

Let's consider a concrete example. Flipping a light switch positively effects the lightbulb lighting up but other factors might make the lightbulb not light up (e.g. a mouse could have chewed up the wiring, the bulb could have burned out on you, etc.). Saying that P(Co) = P(Co|Ca) in this case is saying that if you knew nothing at all about the light switch and the light bulb and then learned this fact about the relationship between the switch and the bulb, your assignment of likelihood that the light bulb will light up when the switch is flipped should not increase at all.

Do you actually agree with that?

>>8591151
but what stretches the space? what is the link between *thing* (particles) and force? because force acts on things, and things don't just magically act differently on their own.

File: Hansen Model Fail.gif (288KB, 1114x548px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1114x548px

>>8592740
Love it when SimpletonScience rewrites history to hide the utter failure of Climate "Science" predictions.

Here are the actual predictions of James Hansen, former director of NASA GISS. Which show an utter failure; Scenario C is where there's a huge cutback in CO2 production (best fit, but this didn't happen with CO2 production); Scenario A doesn't fit the data at all. Yet that's what happened in terms of CO2. An increase in anthropogenic CO2.

File: 03 - AR4 Fig 10-26.png (40KB, 560x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 560x480px

>>8592740
And why does SimpletonPseudoScience start the graph in 1990? Oh yeah, because the divergence of temperatures was already beginning, and SkS wanted to hide it. To cover up this fraudulent behavior SkS and Gavin Schmidt said much baseline is wrong. Even Though They Changed the Baseline! The UN IPCC diagram clearly shows the baseline to be 1979. Pic related, from UN IPCC AR4, Fig 10-26.


Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
Graph In the lower left hand corner of the page, enlarged with updated data.hide that. Pic related. The actual predictions from the IPCC AR4, with added instrumental data (and enlarged).

File: 02 IPCC AR5 Censored.gif (668KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 500x376px

>>8599699
>much baseline is wrong.
"muh the baseline is wrong."

SkS and Schmidt have been thoroughly debunked on their bogus "muh baseline" excuse.

Gavin Schmidt gets roasted:
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/

Nuttercelli destroyed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/

>nb4 denier blog. Don't care. Try facts and logic instead of ad hominem. If you can.

>>8599605
>But P(Co|Ca) = P(Co|-Ca), which is the same as saying P(Co) = P(Co|Ca), is not consistent with what Ca represents.
It's not consistent with what you incorrectly believe Ca represents.

>Because those other factors might make B not occur the chance that B will correlate with A doesn't increase to 100%, but you are saying that the chance B will correlate with A literally doesn't increase at all.
Wrong. I'm saying it doesn't necessarily increase. You assumed it does.

>Flipping a light switch positively effects the lightbulb lighting up but other factors might make the lightbulb not light up (e.g. a mouse could have chewed up the wiring, the bulb could have burned out on you, etc.). Saying that P(Co) = P(Co|Ca) in this case is saying that if you knew nothing at all about the light switch and the light bulb and then learned this fact about the relationship between the switch and the bulb, your assignment of likelihood that the light bulb will light up when the switch is flipped should not increase at all.
You are getting very confused here. Learning of the causal relationship would make P(Ca) = 1, which would mean P(Co) = P(Co|Ca)(1)+P(Co|-Ca)(0) = P(Co|Ca). Before you know of the causal relationship, whether P(Co) = P(Co|-Ca) is dependent on several factors which your example does not elucidate.

>>8599601
>Just like the guy above you are giving a bad example because presumably you know in advance that tax paying and dying are going to correlate.
I said they just happen to correlate. This has no bearing on the argument, which is that it is possible for causation to have no effect on correlation. You assumed this is never the case, so only one example is necessary to disprove your assumption.

And try to remember what we're arguing about, "correlation does not imply causation." The correlation is already known.

>>8599682
>Love it when SimpletonScience rewrites history to hide the utter failure of Climate "Science" predictions.
So you aren't going to respond to the fact that IPCC projections from 1990 are accurate? Yeah that's what I thought.

Instead you focus on Hansen's 1988 predictions which used a high climate sensitivity and you claim that scenario A describes true emissions when it doesn't. In fact, none of the scenarios describe the emissions that actually occurred. Climatologists don't make predictions, they make projections based on certain variables like solar activity, GHG emissions, and volcanic activity. Judging a model based on the wrong variables is misleading.

>>8599699
>And why does SimpletonPseudoScience start the graph in 1990?
Because that's when the projection was made.

>The UN IPCC diagram clearly shows the baseline to be 1979. Pic related, from UN IPCC AR4, Fig 10-26.
How exactly did you determine the baseline from that blown up graph? You didn't, you just made up the baseline. And the data you overlayed can't even stay inside the blown up line.

>https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
So this argues that the baseline doesn't matter since the only point is to compare trends. If that's the case then why did the original graph not have trendlines? The point was to create divergence between the data and the models by adding the heat from an anomalous year to the models. So this doesn't respond to the criticism.

>>8599706
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/20/the-guardians-dana-nuccitelli-uses-pseudo-science-to-libel-dr-john-christy/
This makes the same non-response as above. It then responds to the fact that the graph shows no error bars with the non sequitur that the IPCC 1990 predictions are inaccurate, which we already know from >>8592740 is false. It then responds to the fact radiosonde data is improperly averaged by talking about... satellite data. It then responds to the fact that the graph uses data from high in the troposphere by saying that the IPCC says things about the upper troposphere. Monckton fails to justify the use of high troposphere data to judge surface temperature projections because he gets caught up in a tangent repeating one of his denier memes. He then makes the same misrepresentations about IPCC projections that you made by using false scenarios as strawmen. All in all, a bunch of debunked memes and non-sequiturs that make Monckton look senile.

>>8599969
>>Love it when SimpletonScience rewrites history to hide the utter failure of Climate "Science" predictions.
>So you aren't going to respond to the fact that IPCC projections from 1990 are accurate? Yeah that's what I thought.
There not. see the gif here: >>8599706

This is how pathetic the warmists are. They first had a 1979 baseline which failed miserably. So in preparation for IPCC AR5 they used a 1990 baseline. But those failed miserably. So that added an incredible amount of variance to the models; making the 'predictions' go all over the place and thus guaranteeing unfalsifiability. Finally, SimpletonScience tells a bogus story here: >>8591909

Which is debunked by the IPCCs own graphs, >>8599706 >>8599699

>>8599858
>Wrong. I'm saying it doesn't necessarily increase. You assumed it does.
Can you describe a concrete example where it wouldn't?

I gave an example that models the situation and asked you if you agree with it. Do you?

>You are getting very confused here. Learning of the causal relationship would make P(Ca) = 1, which would mean P(Co) = P(Co|Ca)(1)+P(Co|-Ca)(0) = P(Co|Ca)
No, seriously, you're the one who is confused. In the expression "P(Co) = P(Co|Ca)", "P(Co)" is the prior probability of Co. As in prior to learning anything about Ca. The expression is saying that the probability of Co before learning about Ca is the same as the probability of Co conditional on Ca being true.

What you've done above is move the situation forward in time to a point after we've learned that Ca is true and then derive the tautology that after we know that Ca is true, the probability of Co is the same as the probability of Co conditional on Ca being true. Well duh. Obviously once you know something conditioning on it again isn't going to change anything.

>Before you know of the causal relationship, whether P(Co) = P(Co|-Ca) is dependent on several factors which your example does not elucidate.
Like what? Again, can you give a concrete example of a situation in which two things A and B have a causal relationship, yet learning about this relationship should not increase the probability of B correlating with A?

(Other than ones where, like I've said, you already have definite knowledge of the correlation)

>>8599969
>>And why does SimpletonPseudoScience start the graph in 1990?
>Because that's when the projection was made.
Wrong, that's what the projection was changed to, after the utter failure of the original prediction from UN IPCC AR4 which starts at 1979. "hindsight" is not "prediction."


>>The UN IPCC diagram clearly shows the baseline to be 1979. Pic related, from UN IPCC AR4, Fig 10-26.
>How exactly did you determine the baseline from that blown up graph? You didn't, you just made up the baseline.

You idiot, the zero point of that graph is at about 1979. The starting value of temperature anomaly predictions is, of course, zero. That makes the baseline 1979.

>And the data you overlayed can't even stay inside the blown up line.
Gosh, what is smoothing.

So Nice to talk to an autist.

>>8592756
First this >>8599203
Second, evolution defined broadly as "change of allele frequency over time" is observable in anything with a short enough lifespan. MRSA is probably the most commonly cited such example, we saw it happen. It's also a fair proof for natural selection, because we saw the mutations happen and we saw them proliferate because of an advantageous trait. Evolution describes nothing beyond that which is already observable with the right technology.

>>8599977
>Can you describe a concrete example where it wouldn't?
I already did. Can you just prove mathematically that P(Co) < P(Co|Ca) instead of making examples? you can't prove a blanket statement like this with examples.

>I gave an example that models the situation and asked you if you agree with it. Do you?
I already explained that your example lacks the information to calculate the relevant probabilities, so I neither agree nor disagree. You also make the same mistake of representing my argument as "it won't increase" when it should be "it doesn't have to increase."

>No, seriously, you're the one who is confused. In the expression "P(Co) = P(Co|Ca)", "P(Co)" is the prior probability of Co. As in prior to learning anything about Ca.
No, P(Co) is simply the probability of A correlating with B. Nowhere did we say anything about it being prior, that would depend totally on context. And I already talked about both cases of before and after learning about the causation, so this seems like an irrelevant point.

>What you've done above is move the situation forward in time to a point after we've learned that Ca is true and then derive the tautology that after we know that Ca is true, the probability of Co is the same as the probability of Co conditional on Ca being true. Well duh. Obviously once you know something, conditioning on it again isn't going to change anything.
So what? I don't see what the point is in repeating what I said.

>Like what? Again, can you give a concrete example of a situation in which two things A and B have a causal relationship, yet learning about this relationship should not increase the probability of B correlating with A?
I already described the situation completely, which is whenever P(Co|Ca) = P(Co|-Ca). An example of this would be when P(Co|Ca) = 1/2 and P(Co|-Ca) = 1/2. If you would like to prove this is impossible, go ahead. Until then, your argument is non-mathematical.

File: Growth Rate of CO2.jpg (19KB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x287px

>>8599969
>Instead you focus on Hansen's 1988 predictions which used a high climate sensitivity and you claim that scenario A describes true emissions when it doesn't. In fact, none of the scenarios describe the emissions that actually occurred.

Now you're just flat out lying. CO2 output has GROWN almost every year in the past 50 years or so. That's scenario A. Pic related; CO2 emission GROWTH per year.

Data Source: http://www.wri.org/resources/data_sets

P.S. The fact that you'll just brazenly make up crap to defend an unfalsifiable belief system is a sure sign of a paid shill.

>>8599998
>Wrong, that's what the projection was changed to, after the utter failure of the original prediction from UN IPCC AR4 which starts at 1979. "hindsight" is not "prediction."
You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. AR4 was in 2007. So is hindsight a prediction or not? Did the "prediction" start at 1979 or 2007?

>You idiot, the zero point of that graph is at about 1979. The starting value of temperature anomaly predictions is, of course, zero. That makes the baseline 1979.
You idiot, "the zero point" or starting value of the graph is not the baseline. A baseline is normally the average of a range of temperatures. It will cross the data at some point, but where it cross the data is not necessarily the baseline. And you can't even tell where it crosses the data, since you blew up a tiny graph. So either you purposefully made up the baseline being 1979, or you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is it?

>Gosh, what is smoothing.
Smoothing wouldn't make some part more extreme and others less extreme. Nice deflection dumbass.

>>8599980
>This makes the same non-response as above. It then responds to the fact that the graph shows no error bars with the non sequitur that the IPCC 1990 predictions are inaccurate, which we already know from >>8592740 is false

You "know" from a post-hoc rewrite by Simpleton Science? Sorry buddy, the IPCC said it themselves here
>>8599706

Stop referencing that dishonest clod John Crook. He has no credibility

JOHN COOK DEBUNKED:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

JOHN COOK LIES
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

File: Climate Change is TRUE.jpg (351KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1024x768px

>>8600021
>Smoothing wouldn't make some part more extreme and others less extreme. Nice deflection dumbass.
You're the dumbass. I'm talking about the smoothness of the originally graphed data vs. The higher variability of the (less smoothed) overlaid data.

You really are an autist.

File: Hansen88_forc.jpg (31KB, 563x463px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 563x463px

>>8600015
>Now you're just flat out lying. CO2 output has GROWN almost every year in the past 50 years or so. That's scenario A.
so the scenarios only describe CO2 emmissions? No, it's about all GHG forcings! So again we must ask, did you know that and only mentioned CO2 to be misleading, or did you not know that and are you just making arguments from rank ignorance?

But yeah, I'm clearly the liar since you utterly misunderstand what Hansen's scenarios are.

>P.S. The fact that you'll just brazenly make up crap to defend an unfalsifiable belief system is a sure sign of a paid shill.
The pot calling the kettle black, and I just proved it.

File: Predictions.jpg (116KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x531px

>>8600021
>You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. AR4 was in 2007. So is hindsight a prediction or not? Did the "prediction" start at 1979 or 2007?
Autist Boy, the graph, of course, starts with hindsight and ends with a projection. Stop getting your panties in a bunch. And leave the basement more often.

>>8600035
>I'm talking about the smoothness of the originally graphed data vs. The higher variability of the (less smoothed) overlaid data.
So am I, dumbass. The original data is more extreme that the overlaid data in some places and less extreme in others.

>>8600042
>Autist Boy, the graph, of course, starts with hindsight and ends with a projection.
>Wrong, that's what the projection was changed to, after the utter failure of the original prediction from UN IPCC AR4 which starts at 1979.
Arguing with yourself is a clear sign of confused thinking. It's hard to keep track of the facts when you keep making shit up, like the prediction "starting at 1979." Why even mention 1979?

>>8594901
Duh, I even said I agreed with that. Using evolution as an explanation for the origin of man is not observable and I thought not falsifiable.

However
>>8593170
Has a point about finding a fossil before it's time. I wonder if scientists would admit evolution isn't the source of life if they found such a fossil.

>>8600009
>I already did.
No you didn't. Concrete as in a plausible real world example. Like I gave with the light switch example.

>Can you just prove mathematically that P(Co) < P(Co|Ca) instead of making examples? you can't prove a blanket statement like this with examples.
The problem is our dispute isn't entirely mathematical. It's like if we were modelling a train that moves at one hundred miles an hour and so I wrote down "trainSpeed = 100" and you asked me to prove mathematically that trainSpeed = 100 rather than 200 or 7.

>I already explained that your example lacks the information to calculate the relevant probabilities, so I neither agree nor disagree.
Please name the missing information. What would that information have to be so that you would agree with what I wrote?

>You also make the same mistake of representing my argument as "it won't increase" when it should be "it doesn't have to increase."
Fair enough. But again, can you give a real world example where it would not increase?

>No, P(Co) is simply the probability of A correlating with B. Nowhere did we say anything about it being prior, that would depend totally on context.
What? Firstly, there is no such thing as a probability without context. Probabilities change as you learn information about the world. That's what we're talking about: how the probability of a causal relationship between two things changes as you learn about their correlation. So secondly, of course P(Co) is the prior, with P(Co|Ca) being the posterior. You're manipulating the symbols of conditional probability, but you seem to not understand what they represent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

>So what? I don't see what the point is in repeating what I said.
So what you wrote there doesn't apply to what I had said in my light switch example because what you wrote was based on a different state of knowledge than the one at hand.

File: Untitled.png (689KB, 925x611px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 925x611px

>>8600042

File: ar4mods[1].jpg (281KB, 1024x667px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1024x667px

>>8599998
>>8600042
do you realize that what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever?
conclusions from the AR4 models were published in 2007. they're pretty accurate through 2009, including a long backcast and a brief assessment of forecast, pic related.
but you claimed that AR4 failed badly after 1979. and when it was pointed out to you that AR4 didn't make any predictions about the interval you spoke of, your response was to call the guy who pointed it out names. presumably this is because you don't actually have any evidence to back up your claim on account of you just spouting whatever bullshit sounds good to you. the models are actually pretty good, for the most part, but that's never stopped deniers from hysterically screaming otherwise.

>>8600077
>No you didn't. Concrete as in a plausible real world example. Like I gave with the light switch example.
OK, two black boxes are tested in a lab. one has a switch which causes a light on the box to turn on. The other has a switch which is not connected to a light on the box. It is observed that 1/2 of the time the first box's switch is turned on, the light turns on. It is observed that 1/2 the time the second box's switch is turned on, the light turns on. Happy?

>The problem is our dispute isn't entirely mathematical. It's like if we were modelling a train that moves at one hundred miles an hour and so I wrote down "trainSpeed = 100" and you asked me to prove mathematically that trainSpeed = 100 rather than 200 or 7.
No it isn't. This isn't an empirical matter. You made a mathematical claim that you have yet to prove. That's it.

>Please name the missing information.
What is P(Co|Ca) and what is P(Co|-Ca)? Or give information that would allow us to calculate these.

>What? Firstly, there is no such thing as a probability without context.
Not what I said. I said whether it describes the probability before or after learning about the causation is dependent on context.

>That's what we're talking about: how the probability of a causal relationship between two things changes as you learn about their correlation.
I already described what would happen before and after given the information. You keep ignoring this and then using the lack of what you're ignoring to claim I don't understand conditional probability. This is laughable.

>So what you wrote there doesn't apply to what I had said in my light switch example because what you wrote was based on a different state of knowledge than the one at hand.
*sigh* you made a claim here >>8599605 about whether P(Co) would increase after knowing about the correlation, so clearly it applies. If you are going to say that something increases, you have to know what it was before and after, don't you?

File: Hansen 1988 other gases2.png (152KB, 645x689px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 645x689px

>>8600040
>>Now you're just flat out lying. CO2 output has GROWN almost every year in the past 50 years or so. That's scenario A.
>so the scenarios only describe CO2 emmissions? No, it's about all GHG forcings! So again we must ask, did you know that and only mentioned CO2 to be misleading, or did you not know that and are you just making arguments from rank ignorance?
>But yeah, I'm clearly the liar since you utterly misunderstand what Hansen's scenarios are

> Look at my post-hoc "fit the data" emmissions values I got from realbogusclimate.org
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

Not impressed by your shilling or your shill sites. What did Hansen actually say?
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf

"Scenarios A assumes the growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely"

And see attached graph for the influence of other gases than Co2 (from Hansen). The only significant trace gas that has had a big decrease is CFCs. But even SkS admits they have little effect. https://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm

On the other hand, coal use went through the roof via China. So no buddy, Scenario A is the most accurate description. You've really got to stop drinking the SkS/RealFakeClimate kool-aid.

>>8600009
>>8600077
Let me try another approach. Let's say we have two things, A and B. In situation 1, A has a causal relationship with B, and A happens. In situation 2, A doesn't have a causal relationship with B, and A happens.

If that's all we know about the world, do you agree that in situation 1, B has a higher chance of happening?

>>8600045
>So am I, dumbass. The original data is more extreme that the overlaid data in some places and less extreme in others.

No its not dumbass. Go back and look at the original graph.

>>8600108
>What did Hansen actually say?
Well let's see, the abstract says that the scenarios describe the emissions of CO2, methane, N2O, CFCs, and aerosols. So your attempt to pretend that the scenarios are only about CO2 is debunked. So did you not know this or did you purposefully lie? Answer the question already, liar.

>"Scenarios A assumes the growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely"
Yes, and they didn't. Methane for example, slowed considerably.

>So no buddy, Scenario A is the most accurate description.
You just proved it's not the most accurate. It overestimates all the other GHGs which leads to a big overestimation of forcing. If the other gasses had no significant effect, they would have no significant effect on the forcing. But they do. You lose.

>>8600050
>Arguing with yourself is a clear sign of confused thinking. It's hard to keep track of the facts when you keep making shit up, like the prediction "starting at 1979." Why even mention 1979?

Gosh if I pretend he never said: >>8599998
>You idiot, the zero point of that graph is at about 1979. The starting value of temperature anomaly predictions is, of course, zero. That makes the baseline 1979.

And then to look really stupid, you pretend that setting a start point for measurements/modeling, which is to say a 0 point has nothing to do with the start data:

>>8600021
>A baseline is normally the average of a range of temperatures.
Clearly, you don't understand math. A zero point is a zero point is a zero point. Doesn't matter subtractive value is used to compute the temperature anomalizes. They are all equivalent to deviations from the zero point.

THE ZERO POINT YEAR MARKS THE POINT WHICH IS EQUAL IN TEMPERATURE TO THE BASELINE TEMPERATURE.
No matter what the years averaged are to reach a baseline subtractive value. That subtractive value is mathematically equivalent to setting that year to 0.
Yeah, I know that the clowns over at SimpletonScience don't get that. Maybe you don't either.

And it was 1979 as shown by UN IPCC AR 4. lrn2math.

File: Reality vs Climate Change Fantasy.gif (138KB, 1015x699px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1015x699px

>>8600092

Oh noes! Another member of the Rapid Response Team!
Q: What basement boy texted you? How well are you getting paid.
But anyway, what was that you said?
>conclusions from the AR4 models were published in 2007. they're pretty accurate through 2009,

"2 years not completely off, Climate Change is TRUE!"

But what of the models starting from a date more than two years in the past. A date reasonably close to 1979?

Utter Failure. pic related.

File: be neighborly.png (464KB, 797x540px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 797x540px

>>8600058
>I wonder if scientists would admit evolution isn't the source of life if they found such a fossil.
the hypothetical precambrian rabbit has been used as an example of something that would falsify current theories of evolution for a few decades now. just ask any paleontologist or evolutionary biologist.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

>>8600108
>Scenario A is the most accurate description
okay you imbecile, I encourage you to read pp.9343, 9345 of the document that you yourself linked to. choice excerpts:
>The range of climate forcings covered by the three scenarios is further increased by the fact that scenario A includes the effect of several hypothetical or crudely estimated trace gas trends (ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and minor chlorine and fluorine compounds) which are not included in scenarios B and C.
>Scenario A reaches a climate forcing equivalent to doubled CO2 in about 2030, Scenario B reaches that level in about 2060, and Scenario C never approaches that level.
(note that doubled CO2 refers to a concentration increase from 315 ppm to 630 ppm. current trends have it at only ~400 ppm, still a drastic increase but far less than Scenario A)
and here's the real kicker: you're claiming that Scenario A is close to reality based solely on CO2 emissions, disregarding the fact that over HALF the predicted warming under Scenario A comes from trace gases OTHER THAN CO2! (see figure 2)
WHEN YOUR OWN LINKED SOURCE CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM, IT MIGHT BE TIME TO STOP POSTING.

>>8600121
>And then to look really stupid, you pretend that setting a start point for measurements/modeling, which is to say a 0 point has nothing to do with the start data:
But that's wrong. The first x value is not necessarily the baseline, nor is it where the model crosses the data. I already explained this to you moron. There is no way to tell what the baseline is from looking at this blowup. Ignoring this fact doesn't make it go away. You made shit up, admit it.

>Clearly, you don't understand math. A zero point is a zero point is a zero point.
"Zero point" appears to be a phrase you just made up. We're talking about the baseline.

>THE ZERO POINT YEAR MARKS THE POINT WHICH IS EQUAL IN TEMPERATURE TO THE BASELINE TEMPERATURE.
THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WHAT THE BASELINE TEMPERATURE IS FROM THIS GRAPH MORON.

>No matter what the years averaged are to reach a baseline subtractive value.
This isn't English.

So, what you're saying is, essentially NASA and everyone else is lying about climate change?

File: haha.jpg (41KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 562x437px

>>8600132
>Surface data shows the projections of surface temperature are accurate
>NUH UH LOOK AT THIS BALLOON DATA

>>8600092
>but you claimed that AR4 failed badly after 1979. and when it was pointed out to you that AR4 didn't make any predictions about the interval you spoke of, your response was to call the guy who pointed it out names.
> AR4 didn't make any predictions

Exactly what is this purple area on the graph. >>8599699 That's a hind-cast + a forecast. Which is to say, showing how well the models (fitted to the past) continue in their predictive value. The answer of course, is they're crappy especially is you use (less tampered) satellite data instead of the HadCRU surface data.

Sorry that an autist "argues" that since the models are run starting at an historical date, they don't make any predictions. But they do. Both hind-casting (weak prediction) and forecasting; strong prediction.


P.S. Did your fellow paid shill text you to join the Rapid Response?
P.P.S. Not impressed with your nit-picking, tangential "arguments" to sideline the debate. Standard shill technique.

File: goalposts.jpg (160KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 500x400px

>>8600132
>AR4 completely failed!
>>um, actually AR4 is quite accurate for the few years since its publication
>yeah well AR4 has only been making predictions for a few years!
pic related

let's leave aside the fact that your latest pic has literally no citation whatsoever (literally just a bunch of unlabeled squiggly lines on a plot) and address this issue:
how does the success or failure of OTHER models relate to your claim that AR4 has failed? riddle me THAT.

>>8600137
Yes, they are also lying about evolution and vaccines and the earth being round.

>>8600149
Those bastards.

>>8590979
Science has become a social construct

>>8600155
Facts are hate speech.

>>8600155
Evolution is a social construct.

File: Methan Usage.png (31KB, 328x221px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 328x221px

>>8600115
>>"Scenarios A assumes the growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely"
>Yes, and they didn't. Methane for example, slowed considerably.

Still making up crap. Pic related; from NOAA data. Methane increased appreciably, slowed a bit then sped right back up. Seems you forgot about the last decade.

See https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Or do you really care? After all this all about helping the United Nations get genuine powers of governance. Do you realize that, or are you just a useful idiot?

PS Gosh, you forgot to talk about Chinese coal usage. Why?

>>8600159
...helping the United Nations get genuine powers of governance

There we go, that's what I was waiting for!

File: Bitch please.gif (3MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x169px

>>8600144
let's try it with the full quote
>AR4 didn't make any predictions about the interval you spoke of
please show me which predictions AR4 made "start[ing] at 1979" like you claimed >>8599998

yes I know, pesky little shill tangential arguments like bringing up the fact that you just make up bullshit off the top of your head. meanwhile, you're throwing a tantrum instead of just admitting you got caught in a dumb lie and moving on to the next.

P.S. you really don't know what a baseline is, do you? let me make it clear:
a baseline is WHAT we're measuring from, not WHEN we're measuring from. a common baseline is the global temperature averaged across the 1880-2010 interval. they take that temperature and set it as the baseline to which reported temperature anomalies are relative. that is, an anomaly of +0.5C means that the temperature measured at that time is half a degree warmer than the average for that entire span.
where you and people like Christy get into trouble is by misaligning graphs that use different intervals as their baselines. to make a hypothetical example, if one temp anomaly is relative to the 1880-2010 global mean, and another is relative to the 1979-2000 global mean, you can't compare them directly. (this is because the global mean temperature is not necessarily the same across those two different intervals.)
make sense to you?

>>8600159
Your graph shows methane slowed considerably and is still slower than it was in the 80s. But nice try, liar.

>MUH UN
>MUH NWO
>MUH GRASSY KNOLL
Embarassing...

File: Much Butthurt.jpg (9KB, 266x189px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 266x189px

>>8600133
>and here's the real kicker: you're claiming that Scenario A is close to reality based solely on CO2 emissions, disregarding the fact that over HALF the predicted warming under Scenario A comes from trace gases OTHER THAN CO2! (see figure 2)

> 'cause massive chinese coal usage can be ignored.
'Cause i'm doing a bait and swich; "saying equivalent to doubling of CO2" and then ignoring other greenhouse gas effects and pretending that its only the doubling of CO2 that we need to worry about.

>HALF the predicted warming under Scenario A comes from trace gases OTHER THAN CO2!

I'll pretend that CFCs are powerful; they're not. Even SkS agrees
I'll pretend that methane has increased significantly in the past decade; it has.>>8600159
I'll pretend there wasn't a massive uptick in Chinese coal usage.

Back to your basement paid shill.

WHEN POSTING STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS THAT CONTRADICT/IGNORE THE FACTS OF THE MATTER YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK TO YOUR BASEMENT.

>>8600167
MMMMmmmm all that deflection because you have no answer to the mathematical fact that the forcings are not the same or even close.
>BUT MUH CFCS AREN'T POWERFUL.

You're delusional shitposts are laughable.

>>8600162
>a baseline is WHAT we're measuring from, not WHEN we're measuring from. a common baseline is the global temperature averaged across the 1880-2010

Christ your inability to grasp mathematical basics is incredible.
If a date shows a zero point, then that date's temperature is equal to the "WHAT"; the baseline value. So any temperature anomaly from that zero point (e.g., 1979) is equivalent to subtracting the WHAT from the value. Doesn't matter what the actual baseline value; the "WHAT" is or how it was calculated.

You're mathematical ignorance is absolutely astonishing. I'm beginning to think you're an actual Climate "Scientist" or perhaps your work for SkS.

File: AR5_SYR_Figure_1.3[1].png (130KB, 2000x1775px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 2000x1775px

>>8600159
>Methane increased appreciably, slowed a bit then sped right back up.
one, that graph doesn't show atmospheric CH4 concentrations before 1970, which rose quite rapidly. (pic related from AR5 synthesis report, Fig. 1.3). the increase during the 1980s actually represents a slowdown in the rate of increase compared to the 1970s.
two, I dunno if you're just shit at reading graphs or something, but the rise during the past decade is significantly slower (factor of ~0.7) than the previous increase.

keep making shit up to try and prove your opinions, and then posting sources that actually contradict you. it's oddly humorous.

>>8600163
>>8600159
>Your graph shows methane slowed considerably and is still slower than it was in the 80s. But nice try, liar.

> I'll ignore that massive uptick of the last decade.

LIAR

>PS I'll ignore the massive "not business as usual" uptick in Chinese coal usage.

>>8600176
>Lookee! no actual data points on my graph for the last decade!

You post a graph purporting to disprove the recent uptick in methane use.
Said graph has no data from the last decade.

Not impressed. Back to your basement.

>>8600186
Are you the one accusing people of helping the NWO and UN? If that's the case, the basement comment is delightfully ironic.

>>8600169
>MMMMmmmm all that deflection because you have no answer to the mathematical fact that the forcings are not the same or even close.
>>BUT MUH CFCS AREN'T POWERFUL.

>RealBogusClimate said forcing are not the same!
Nice strawman buddy. That's irrelevant. The question is, did the trace gas production scenario as described by Hansen occur? Overall, yes it did.

But the temperature increase didn't occur.

So what are you saying? James Hansen's "the sky is falling" forcings predictions WERE WRONG!
And I completely agree with you. The sky is not falling. Quit your shill job and go get an honest living.

>>8600180
> I'll ignore that massive uptick of the last decade.
Where did I ignore it? Methane slowed down considerably and is still slower than the 80s when this projection was made. There is no way to argue that methane exponentially increased as scenario A describes.

So once again you lied about what I said and what Hansen said. How many times are you going to lie in this thread? Someone who was following the evidence and not some preconceived ideologogical conclusion would not need to lie to argue.

File: IPCC Authoritarian.png (415KB, 907x587px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 907x587px

>>8600196
Christ, you're naive and ignorant. A veritable useful idiot. Do you really think that by labeling something "conspiratorial" it renders it false?

I hope you're aware that the U.N. has had a long-term goal of real powers of global governance. Sorry buddy, calling that conspiratorial doesn't make that fact go away.

And yes, the United Nations wants to redistribute global money. Pic related.

Original Language:
"Climate Policy Redistributes World Wealth"

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fklimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227&edit-text=&act=url

>>8600197
>The question is, did the trace gas production scenario as described by Hansen occur?
No it did not.

Hansen 1998: "Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth," specifically "the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emmissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially."

>>8600211
Everyone point and laugh at the conspironut.

>>8600197
>The question is, did the trace gas production scenario as described by Hansen occur? Overall, yes it did.
No, I already showed it didn't here >>8600040
The forcings most closely match B, and the temperature most closely matches B.

>So what are you saying? James Hansen's "the sky is falling" forcings predictions WERE WRONG!
Yes, his projections were wrong. If he had used the current estimate of climate sensitivity, 3 degrees, then they would be very accurate. So what are you saying? That the IPCC projections are right? Yes I completely agree, and we should listen to what the effects of such warming will be in the future. No the sky is not falling, we are just slowly incurring trillions of dollars of future damage. It's the exact opposite of a sudden catastrophe, which is why it's so easy for you to deny it.

>>8600175
are you actually claiming that the hodgepodge graph from >>8599699 is aligned properly?
not only are the data series misaligned (note how the orange HadCRU peaks are consistently below the black dataseries) but THE SCALES ARE DIFFERENT ON THE TWO Y-AXES. 0.4 C on the left is slightly less than 0.4C on the right; this can be verified by LOOKING at the graph.
oh, and there's the fact that this was one projection (out of six, with none given primacy) cherry-picked and blown up to the point of near-illegibility.

>>8599682
meanwhile isn't much better. by pinning different series from different baselines at an arbitrary year, you've neglected the actual offset.

>>8600211
>Pic related
Wew, the mother of all conspiracies.
Ottmar is a Jesuit priest of the Catholic Church. The largest political cult on the planet by far. The Jesuits are manufactured for one primary objective, concentrate power back into their order and it is the largest order in the largest church, highly compartmentalized and hierarchical. There are tens of thousands of Ottmars in all corners lurking about in the halls of power. Most as repulsive as Ottmar no doubt.

A devout Catholic is heading up the UN starting this year. Dark ages incoming unless another Reformation can challenge this beast with their billion legion in tow.

File: vileplume.png (223KB, 675x675px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 675x675px

>>8600186
I posted that graph to show you the trend in atmospheric CH4 during the 1970s, you biscuit. amazingly enough, I'm capable of reading two graphs and keeping both of them in my mind long enough to draw conclusions from them together. are you?

>>8600211
LOL, even WUWT's translation makes it clear "we" refers to industrialized countries, not the IPCC. loosen your tinfoil a little.
>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/

>>8591187
>travels back in time

"Who would have known! Absolute Monarchy is the true thinking man's political identity. All of those 'extremists' fighting for democracy should be executed."

Wew lad. Centrism is the unthinking man's political identity. It's the default.

Guys, should we tell President Xi that climate change is a lie so the Chinese can stop investing so much in solar energy and buy our coal?

>>8590979

Your examples are very retarded, but you are right.


Not everything has been rigorously proven to have a causal relationship.


Even when we demonstrate causal relationships, we rely on statistics and an almost arbitrary measurement of significance.


You are free to do or believe whatever you would like.


Probably you will still use your computer, still take your anti-depressant meds, and probably drive your car to work.


But those things will just be magic to you, and you won't understand anything because you are fucking dumb.

File: 05 Global Equivalent Emissions Arnell 2013.png (60KB, 492x305px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 492x305px

>>8600212
>>8600197
>>8600221
>>8590979

>>The question is, did the trace gas production scenario as described by Hansen occur?
>No it did not.
>Hansen 1998: "Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth," specifically "the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emmissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially."

Wrong, Arnell et al. (2013) show total growth of GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalents) from 1990 to 2015 of about 50%; pic related. Solving for the annual growth rate:

1.5 = (1+r)^25 or
exp(ln(1.5)/25) -1 = r
= 1.6%

More than 1.5%.


Arnell, Nigel W., et al. "A global assessment of the effects of climate policy on the impacts of climate change." Nature Climate Change 3.5 (2013): 512-519.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n5/fig_tab/nclimate1793_F1.html


Hansen made the grave mistake of assuming a one-to-one relationship between anthropogenic emissions and increases in the atmospheric concentration. The real world is rarely that simple.

>>8600225
>>8600175
>>8590979

>are you actually claiming that the hodgepodge graph from >>8599699 is aligned properly?
>not only are the data series misaligned (note how the orange HadCRU peaks are consistently below the black dataseries) but THE SCALES ARE DIFFERENT ON THE TWO Y-AXES. 0.4 C on the left is slightly less than 0.4C on the right; this can be verified by LOOKING at the graph.

> I got caught being a mathematical ignoramus, so I'm changing the subject.
Pathetic. No basic algebraic understanding of how a baseline temperature yields 0 on the baselined data at the date which has a temperature equal to the baseline value.

>>8600225
>>8599682
>>8590979

>meanwhile isn't much better. by pinning different series from different baselines at an arbitrary year, you've neglected the actual offset.

Still don't get it do you? Hansen set 1960 as the zero point which is equivalent to the baseline temp (you still don't understand that???). So the correct baseline value is the temperature at 1960. Which is equivalent to setting the temperature anomalies to 0 at 1960.

File: 100 Billion is all we want - IPCC.jpg (169KB, 1537x715px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1537x715px

>>8600236
>>>8600211
>>8590979

>LOL, even WUWT's translation makes it clear "we" refers to industrialized countries, not the IPCC. loosen your tinfoil a little.
>>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/

So? Who do you think is bullying those countries? Who wants to perform the redistribution? Pic related. U,.N. wants $100,000,000,000 a year.

clear bait, but once you accept that:

1) mutations exist
2) some mutations lead to organisms unapt to the environment, who don't survive or don't reproduce
3) other mutations lead to organisms apt to the environment, who survive and reproduce

then the truth of evolution becomes bloody obvious

>>8602224
>Wrong, Arnell et al. (2013) show total growth of GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalents)
Hansen wasn't talking about CO2 equivalents of human emissions. For the purpose of the model, emission means addition to the atmospheric concentration from any source. This is why I have only discussed the actual growth in concentration in the atmosphere or the change in GHG forcing, not the anthropogenic forcing. Scenario A neither describes the true amounts of emissions correctly, nor do we see GHG forcing increasing exponentially, which is the actual variable input into the model.

>Hansen made the grave mistake of assuming a one-to-one relationship between anthropogenic emissions and increases in the atmospheric concentration.
No he didn't, you just assumed he meant anthropogenic emissions when that makes no sense in the context of the model being used.

>>8602230
>No basic algebraic understanding of how a baseline temperature yields 0 on the baselined data at the date which has a temperature equal to the baseline value.
This is hilarious. You actually think this word salad fools anyone? You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

File: alola.jpg (50KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x450px

>>8602224
did you just treat projections of future emissions as if they were actual records? bad denier! bad!
the other issue is that, as Hansen admitted at the time, Scenario A relied on factoring in emissions of other trace gases whose levels and trends were not well known at the time.

>>8602236
>UN is bullying countries
if the UN had the power to bully anyone, we'd be living in a different world. the UN can't even get its shit together enough to stop ethnic cleansing from happening.

>>8602236
>Pic related. U,.N. wants $100,000,000,000 a year.
You post that shit in every thread, and fail to provide a source every single time. It looks more and more like you just made it up yourself.

>>8591187
This desu, the whole right-wing vs left-wing stuff is just another retarded "us vs them" mentality - politics shouldn't be about 2 sides, it should be about offering different solutions regardless of political identity.

File: 1484011851775.jpg (503KB, 1908x2000px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1908x2000px

>>8590979
find the differences

File: Strawman Argument.jpg (138KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 333x500px

>>8602369
>Hansen wasn't talking about CO2 equivalents of human emissions. For the purpose of the model, emission means addition to the atmospheric concentration from any source.

I knew you were going to post this strawman argument:

So let's look directly at the paper, P. 9342 (journal paging), section 4.1, first paragraph:
"Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas EMISSIONS typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely."
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf


Definition: EMISSION - "the production and discharge of something, especially gas or radiation." Nothing in that definition about change in atmospheric concentration.

So what are you doing? You, of course, are doing the John Cook/RealClimate Strawman argument:
1. Rewrite the actual prediction with a "post-diction" based on 20/20 hindsight.
2. Create a new graph that illustrates and/or proves your strawman post-diction >>8600040
3. Claim, "Climate Change is PROVEN!"

This is why you warmists are such contemptible creatures; trying to "prove" your belief system by using strawman arguments to rewrite the past.

>>8602861
>>8602224
>did you just treat projections of future emissions as if they were actual records? bad denier! bad!
>the other issue is that, as Hansen admitted at the time, Scenario A relied on factoring in emissions of other trace gases whose levels and trends were not well known at the time.
>look at my Appeal to Vaguery AKA unfalsifiability. Not impressed.

Idiot, not even paying attention. Do you think you're being clever by working with your fellow "rapid responder." You pretend to be the "bad cop" (reality: autist boy), he plays the "good cop" (reality: basement boy).

The graph of the paper shows the end point of measurements (before projections) of about 2015. Since the paper was published in 2013 I'll assume the actual year is 2013. Redoing the calculation:

1.5 = (1+r)^23 or
exp(ln(1.5)/23) -1 = r
= 1.8%

Significantly more than 1.5%.

lrn2math warmist.

>>8603088
>>8602236
>>Pic related. U,.N. wants $100,000,000,000 a year.
>You post that shit in every thread, and fail to provide a source every single time. It looks more and more like you just made it up yourself.

Are you pretending to be stupid or is it a reality? With warmists, I can never be sure. But look here, took all of one minute on Google:

http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/climate-change/Documents/climate-finance-roadmap-to-us100-billion.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/Projecting%20Climate%20Change%202020%20WEB.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/han-chen/countries-release-100b-climate-finance-roadmap-2020
https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/getting-to-100-billion-final.pdf (site sometimes is down)

>>8600175
>>8602387
>>No basic algebraic understanding of how a baseline temperature yields 0 on the baselined data at the date which has a temperature equal to the baseline value.
>This is hilarious. You actually think this word salad fools anyone? You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

Translation: I got caught being a mathematical imbecile
Here: >>8600162
And here: >>8600162

Why don't you take a remedial algebra class? I'm sure you'll have time to study while you're babysitting your wife's son.

lol causation doesn't even exist you fucking plebeians

arbitrary and unfounded concepts are applied to determining causation, for instance there must be some "law" of physics that acts locally (or nonlocally) between the two perceived events, but these laws do not reflect reality as it is, only how we perceive it.

We cannot prove that the arrow of causation is linked to a particular action. We can only observe the frequency of events that occur in CONSTANT CONJUNCTION.

And thats all it ever is. Things occurring in constant conjunction. There is no proof of actual causation and there never will be.

>Causation is a mental tool created by the human brain to simplify living, just like religion.

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-15 at 10.08.11 PM.png (224KB, 1938x970px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1938x970px

>>8605983
>pic related

File: The Feel of Marat.jpg (326KB, 624x650px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 624x650px

>>8605952
>The graph of the paper shows the end point of measurements (before projections) of about 2015. Since the paper was published in 2013 I'll assume the actual year is 2013.
You might want to actually read the paper, because it was submitted and accepted in 2012. This means it could only have used 2011 emissions figures at the latest and possibly just 2010 data (since it takes a while to compile the data). This is obvious from a cursory glance at the paper's heading, but you somehow missed it. (This is because deniers prefer not to actually READ the literature and instead skim papers for pictures that they think will bolster their viewpoints.)

>The graph of the paper shows the end point of measurements (before projections)
Except it actually doesn't. It shows six different modeled curves, which are coincident up until 2015 because they're calibrated using actual records from the time (and because it takes a few years for models using different forward-looking assumptions to diverge significantly). The divergence point you visually identified does not, I repeat, DOES NOT correspond to the end of records.
They graphs, strictly speaking, are NOT of measurements followed by projections; they are of backcasts followed by forecasts. We can, for our current purposes, treat the backcasts as measurements.

File: a guy got to sometimes.png (206KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 320x320px

>>8605952

>exp(ln(1.5)/23) -1 = r
now what you've done here is simply backdate a projection to fit your agenda, compressing 25 years of (real and predicted) emissions into 23 years. Of COURSE the yearly rate of increase you get is higher than the one you got before; you dishonestly shortened the timespan in question!
let's actually do the calculation correctly, using the 1990-2010 span (since we can be reasonably sure that the models used data running through 2010, I hope). now the models do differ slightly at 2010, so I'll use both the highball and lowball values.
>e^(ln(1.2)/20)-1 = r1
>e^(ln(1.3)/20)-1 = r2
>r1 = 0.916%, r2 = 1.320%
so when we do the actual math using close proxies for actual measurements (and the reason we're using those close proxies is because you linked to them instead of actual measurements themselves), we find that annual growth over the span in question has been SIGNIFICANTLY lower than 1.5%

telling someone to lrn2math and then committing an egregious mistake (indicative of intellectual dishonesty) in your own calculations isn't a very good look for you, dearie.

File: Ben.jpg (211KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1280x720px

>>8605952
>look at my Appeal to Vaguery AKA unfalsifiability
um, I don't think anyone's trying to defend Scenario A. Hansen himself admitted at the time that it was conjectural, based on rough estimates of gases whose emissions were not reliably known at the time. You seem to be the one trying to prove it accurate for describing current trends.

>>8605957
>UN wants developed countries to commit $100B/yr towards fighting climate change
>zOMG UNITED NATIONS WANTS US TO GIVE THEM ALL OUR EMONE
sigh

>>8605958
>Here: >>8600162
>And here: >>8600162
You may be dimly aware that you just linked to the same post twice. Do you need the difference between one and two explained to you?
You seem to keep clinging to this fantasy of establishing a baseline at a single date, allowing you to make a projection seem less reliable than it is by rooting it to the temperature record at a single year where the projection performed poorly rather than over a span of years. And whenever you're called on it, you simply repeat your string of pseudo-jargon and insist that anyone pointing out the liabilities in your treatment of the data is simply an idiot. It's cute, in the sense of a small animal that hasn't been housetrained yet, but it's not convincing.

>>8590979
Kys>>8591151
Holy shit people care about your opinion !!! XD

>>8605949
>I knew you were going to post this strawman argument:
Mmm no, the only strawman here is your assumption that Hansen meant something that we know from context he did not mean.

>Definition: EMISSION - "the production and discharge of something, especially gas or radiation." Nothing in that definition about change in atmospheric concentration.
The change in atmospheric concentration is the amount "emitted" in Hansen's model. It's very simple: various scenarios have various growth rates in the concentration which are then multiplied by the relevant radiative forcing value.That's what happens in the paper. You are arguing that we should interpret what Hansen means by emission based on semantics rather than what the word refers to in the paper. Then you use this STRAWMAN to argue that the scenario described in the paper happened. This is incredibly misleading and you should be ashamed of yourself. Then you accuse me of making a strawman when I am describing what the paper actually did. You hypocrite.

>>8590979

I don't think you even understand the concept of correlation as you immediately jump to ad hominem, the worst kind of logical fallacy.

Look at all the data (no cherry picking), ALL of it, then find a competing hypothesis (or if you are really rigorous, multiple hypotheses) and then present it/them publicly. Of they have merit, they will stand a change against the Theory of Evolution and the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Concerning the God thing, that is not a scientific theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But you will be hard pressed to find evidence for a deity. And since God is not even a testable hypothesis, it remains outside of the realm of science.

>>8590979
What? How is evolution a "correlation"?

Random mutations in biological replicators are empirical.
Natural selection is mathematical. It's a fitness function.
Together they form the theory of evolution. It's hardly possible to get a theory more solid than that.

Even without the fossil record or dna this would be solid. Those are just a confirmation.

Same for global warming. Greenhouse effect is imperial. Carbon cycle is mathematical. Measurements are confirmation.

As for god, there is neither evidence nor correlation.