3 ms·

> The correlation with CO2 output is very very good. Sorry to recite a common wisdom that "correlation does not mean causation".

• mhh__ 4y ago
  Ergo all causal hypotheses are unfalsifiable? After all if a model fits the data well, that's just correlation. Do you have a competing theory? No one has been able to propose one that fits as well as greenhouse gases, and god knows people have tried.
• ok_computer 4y ago
  However, there is a strong first principles model on greenhouse gases effects in the atmosphere: CO2, Methane, and others. All produced as byproducts of agriculture and industrial revolution technologies with ballpark accounting going back to 1800s. In addition there are mass balances accounting for carbon uptake by biomass from satellite imagery. This isn’t a shot in the dark using excel linest(atmospheric _co2, global_average_temperature) trend plots and calling it a day. There is sound first principles model to solar thermal energy retention. It may not predict the global average temperature in the next 15 years within 0.2C but you have got to be kidding me bringing up that intro to statistics caveat “correlation!=causation”. Like do you know how inaccurate most physics modeling is and still tends to be useful?