- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 99.999% likelihood GW is man made.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 4:07 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 9/8/14 at 4:07 pm to SpidermanTUba
Earth's climate has changed dramatically over Earth's history prior to humans being numerous enough to have an impact. There is no way to determine the causes of those changes with any certainty, but we know man was not the cause of the changes.
The Earth's climate is constantly changing now, and there is consensus that human activity is having some influence on the change. However, there is simply no way to isolate the influence of human activity from natural causes. Anyone claiming they can isolate the impact of human activity is lying. All they can do is make an educated guess since the current conditions are within the ranges that occurred before human activity could have had an impact on the climate.
The Earth's climate is constantly changing now, and there is consensus that human activity is having some influence on the change. However, there is simply no way to isolate the influence of human activity from natural causes. Anyone claiming they can isolate the impact of human activity is lying. All they can do is make an educated guess since the current conditions are within the ranges that occurred before human activity could have had an impact on the climate.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 4:24 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
quote:Not the logic of a "PhD"
There still is a 0.001% chance this isn't man made.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 4:25 pm to SpidermanTUba
100% certainty that SpidermanTUba is full of shite.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 4:32 pm to LSURussian
quote:pretty sure the sea is part of the globe.
so now it's not global warming but sea warming? Do I have that right?
Motherfrick these threads have people asking more questions than a helicopter parent at a Harvard tour.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 4:35 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:and they have fewer answers than Otto the Wise in an IQ quiz.
Motherfrick these threads have people asking more questions than a helicopter parent at a Harvard tour.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 4:46 pm to SpidermanTUba
You are correct. Global warming was created in the minds of environmental wackos, so it is man made.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 4:49 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:Stop asking science questions and just believe what I believe!
Motherfrick these threads have people asking more questions than a helicopter parent at a Harvard tour.
Be careful not to ever make fun of religion on here. You kind of just screwed yourself.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 5:15 pm to SpidermanTUba
Let me make sure I get this.... the 19 year 'pause' in temp increases, even though we are pumping more and more CO2 into the air, is too immaterial and ridiculous to consider in the grand scheme of things.. barely a single data point if anything.....
But this 304 month period - that is nothing short of sufficient to make a 99.999% conclusion? I love the consistency.
And what is the starting basis of the study?:
Ok so we are starting by eliminating all but a few potential causes from the equation and assigning no percentage to the rest.... then from our 4 or 5 we kept allocating the 100% basically to 1.
Where in this paper (I read it), does it conclude that 0.000% should be allocated to any other factor or more specifically why in the name of science we should completely ignore any other factor while trying to calculate a finite percent.
The scientific method is dead and gone.
But this 304 month period - that is nothing short of sufficient to make a 99.999% conclusion? I love the consistency.
And what is the starting basis of the study?:
quote:
"There is strong physical evidence that the critical factors which influence global temperatures in the time-scale of human decision-making are atmospheric GHGs, aerosol and particulate concentrations, the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, solar radiation, and volcanic activity(IPCC, 2007, IPCC, 2013, Meinshausen et al., 2011, Allan, 2000, Benestadt and Schmidt, 2009, Gohar and Shine, 2007 and Wang et al., 2005)'
Ok so we are starting by eliminating all but a few potential causes from the equation and assigning no percentage to the rest.... then from our 4 or 5 we kept allocating the 100% basically to 1.
Where in this paper (I read it), does it conclude that 0.000% should be allocated to any other factor or more specifically why in the name of science we should completely ignore any other factor while trying to calculate a finite percent.
The scientific method is dead and gone.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 5:28 pm to SpidermanTUba
We're part of the planet. We're allowed to affect it.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:16 pm to SpidermanTUba
Man made GW/Climate Change is a redistributive scam.
Anybody stupid enough to fall for it deserves to be fleeced.
Anybody stupid enough to fall for it deserves to be fleeced.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:47 pm to doubleb
30 years...out of BILLIONS of years of the Earth's paleoclimatic history.
Definitely a valid sample for statistical purposes.
Definitely a valid sample for statistical purposes.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:51 pm to udtiger
quote:
30 years...out of BILLIONS of years of the Earth's paleoclimatic history.
Definitely a valid sample for statistical purposes.
Exactly, the 18 year pause.... how can someone think 18 years out of billions is enough to conclude anything. Now 30.... somewhere between 18 and 30 we go from zilch evidence to 99.99999999% percent.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 6:59 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
There still is a 0.001% chance this isn't man made. We shouldn't act until we are certain.
quote:
SpidermanTUba
.......don't give a rat dog dick if it's man made or naturally occurring......you and the federal government cannot have one more fricking cent of my money for wealth redistribution!! Get it through y'all's thick skulls .....not one more red cent!!!
Posted on 9/8/14 at 7:22 pm to Jim Ignatowski
I've come to two conclusions reading this thread.
1) tuba is a dick
2) I seriously doubt the accuracy of any modeling on global warming.
I do FEA analysis for a living. It's incredibly hard to capture all of the inputs and reactions on very small scale stuff and obtain accurate results. The people and man hours and computing power it would take to accurately model and predict global climate are not feasible today.
1) tuba is a dick
2) I seriously doubt the accuracy of any modeling on global warming.
I do FEA analysis for a living. It's incredibly hard to capture all of the inputs and reactions on very small scale stuff and obtain accurate results. The people and man hours and computing power it would take to accurately model and predict global climate are not feasible today.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 7:54 pm to SpidermanTUba
The big-assed ball of flaming Hydrogen!
It's god's fault!
It's god's fault!
Posted on 9/8/14 at 8:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
and they have fewer answers than Otto the Wise in an IQ quiz.
I can't believe I am the first person to upvote this comment. You, sir, just made my night.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:00 pm to SpidermanTUba
Although this is a very thoroughly analysis, my understanding, albeit limited, of ARIMA modeling (or just ARMA in this case) with covariates makes me believe that the procedures of model identification is flawed.
The authors appear to model the covariates then identify the ARIMA parameters. I was under the impression that you identify a stationary time-series process for both the the DV and IV variables then find the cross-dependence of the variables. In this case, the ARIMA parameters are modeled with the covariates.
I don't find this especially problematic until they remove the CO2 as a predictor; this assumes that these are the same ARIMA parameters as the previous mode, when that may not be the case. I think this is why fitting the time-series models first, then adding the predictors is a better procedure. Regardless, not attempting to verify, and possibly reidentify, the ARIMA process seems suspect to me. Therefore, the comparison with the model without CO2, and their subsequent interpretations, may be based on a misidentified model. And although I'm a big fan of bootstrapping, jackknifing, and whatever other resampling or simulations techniques one can use to improve their study, they still require careful modeling by the researchers. Using resampling based on a misidentified model will lead to a robust estimate of the parameters, but misidentified parameters.
Anyways, this is just my evaluation of their modeling techniques. They may be generally correct, but I think their methodology could be improved before feeling as confident as the authors are, not to mention I'm sure some will misinterpret what the authors meant by 99.999% (i.e., p-values and effect sizes may be related but are surely not synonymous).
The authors appear to model the covariates then identify the ARIMA parameters. I was under the impression that you identify a stationary time-series process for both the the DV and IV variables then find the cross-dependence of the variables. In this case, the ARIMA parameters are modeled with the covariates.
I don't find this especially problematic until they remove the CO2 as a predictor; this assumes that these are the same ARIMA parameters as the previous mode, when that may not be the case. I think this is why fitting the time-series models first, then adding the predictors is a better procedure. Regardless, not attempting to verify, and possibly reidentify, the ARIMA process seems suspect to me. Therefore, the comparison with the model without CO2, and their subsequent interpretations, may be based on a misidentified model. And although I'm a big fan of bootstrapping, jackknifing, and whatever other resampling or simulations techniques one can use to improve their study, they still require careful modeling by the researchers. Using resampling based on a misidentified model will lead to a robust estimate of the parameters, but misidentified parameters.
Anyways, this is just my evaluation of their modeling techniques. They may be generally correct, but I think their methodology could be improved before feeling as confident as the authors are, not to mention I'm sure some will misinterpret what the authors meant by 99.999% (i.e., p-values and effect sizes may be related but are surely not synonymous).
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:13 pm to SpidermanTUba
Scientist have already said that we are likely too late to stop the effects of global warming. Do you not believe them?
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:22 pm to Qwerty
quote:
This is circular reasoning. They're using their model of past data to predict past data. Then they take out variables and the "predictions" of past data change.
quote:
The shortcomings of the model are clear when you look at the abysmal record for predicting future temperatures
Is this like when Captain Picard was traveling backward and forward time and accidently had three different enterprises fire off tachyon bursts that inadvertently created an "anti-time" anomaly that got bigger as time went backwards and threatened to wipe out all of humanity?
Posted on 9/9/14 at 2:38 am to buckeye_vol
quote:Thanks for the contribution to the tribal echo chamber! I'm not sure they were searching for cross dependency as much as they were trying to eliminate it as a possibility. Keep that in mind.
buckeye_vol
The problem I have with this is the choice of input parameters. They chose a whopping four variables to model the climate with. Only one displays an exponential response (CO2). Then go through the ruminations of saying it correlates best to the presumed temperature anomaly.
Conceptually, that's kind of a "duh". In reality, they could have chosen population (below) and shown that it was the best fit of the four.
Corn crop yields would probably have worked too.
Perhaps the housing price index?
Maybe too flat at the beginning...
I realize I'm dumbing this down a lot. But it is a 4-variable model. Conceptually, I don't see how it could have come to a different conclusion given the inputs. GIGO is a risk.
I wish there were more discussion on residuals. I *do* see a spike c.1940 (good!), but the duration is much shorter than the 40s Bump. And I'd expect to see a rise at the end accounting for "the pause". Those are pretty solid landmarks for when the CO2/temperature correlations have have gone wonky. I'd expect the modeling to go wonky too, or, have a suitable input. Could be as simple as a time slice issue, or washed out with regression( ), tho.
This post was edited on 9/9/14 at 2:56 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News