3 ms·

I am not negating the global warming issue here, but what I see is just a correlation of two time series, much like the correlation between "US Spending on scie

by fasteo 11y ago

I am not negating the global warming issue here, but what I see is just a correlation of two time series, much like the correlation between "US Spending on science, space and technology" and "Suicides by hanging, strangulation or suffocation" [1] [1] http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
The difference here is that the Y axis looks to be the same for both datasets being compared.
talideon 11y ago
Except unlike those, we actually know the effect that the likes of methane and carbon dioxide have on the atmosphere, and thus demonstrates more than just a spurious correlation.
drjesusphd 11y ago
There exists a physical mechanism by which relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Do you question this?
- fasteo 11y ago
  Of course not. What I question is that the increase in the average land-ocean temperature has a causal and unique relationship with the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And I question this based only in the charts and information presented here. >>> The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. - Is ModelE2 completely foolproof ? >>> ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland. - How many bugs could you find in 500.000 lines of code ? The "Excel depression" article came to my mind after seeing this [1] Again, I am not negating the global warning issue, but I am for critical thinking for these fundamental problems. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-...
Daishiman 11y ago
This is going to sound harsh, but what you are doing is exactly what climate denialists do. You question on correlation of variables has not only been asked; it has been reformulated tens of thousands of times by climate scientists and experts in all sorts of related fields. By asking a question like this you're directly undermining the quality of reasearch that has been extremely solid on the matter. Correlation of variables would be an issue if we were just looking at data to infer an explanation. Physicists have known the effects of radiative forcing of CO2 and methane because it has been observed in laboratory settings, and that knowledge has been extrapolated to models of the entire world. The equation of "heat in, heat out" corresponds exactly as predicted. Of course, the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are so complex that this effect is not seen uniformly. The challenge is in accounting what heats up and how quickly. We know, for example, that the oceans hold far more heat than the atmosphere. We're in the process of understanding how ocean currents affect and are affected by that. But overall there is no possibility of debate as to how CO2 affects the atmosphere and oceans. The thing is that the nuances are so significant for having a useful understanding of climate that many details are still missing. What we do know has been extremely useful and clarifying of how these events are going to play out.
- fasteo 11y ago
  >>> This is going to sound harsh By no means. Note that I am not a climate denialist, but I generally find very little critical thinking when scientists presents climate forecasts for the next 20, or 50 or 100 years. Please see my response to drjesusphd below for a more balanced response to this particular NASA chart.

by fasteo 11y ago

knowaveragejoe 11y ago

The difference here is that the Y axis looks to be the same for both datasets being compared.

talideon 11y ago

Except unlike those, we actually know the effect that the likes of methane and carbon dioxide have on the atmosphere, and thus demonstrates more than just a spurious correlation.

drjesusphd 11y ago

There exists a physical mechanism by which relatively small amounts of greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Do you question this?

fasteo 11y ago
Of course not. What I question is that the increase in the average land-ocean temperature has a causal and unique relationship with the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And I question this based only in the charts and information presented here. >>> The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation. - Is ModelE2 completely foolproof ? >>> ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland. - How many bugs could you find in 500.000 lines of code ? The "Excel depression" article came to my mind after seeing this [1] Again, I am not negating the global warning issue, but I am for critical thinking for these fundamental problems. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-...

Daishiman 11y ago

This is going to sound harsh, but what you are doing is exactly what climate denialists do. You question on correlation of variables has not only been asked; it has been reformulated tens of thousands of times by climate scientists and experts in all sorts of related fields. By asking a question like this you're directly undermining the quality of reasearch that has been extremely solid on the matter. Correlation of variables would be an issue if we were just looking at data to infer an explanation. Physicists have known the effects of radiative forcing of CO2 and methane because it has been observed in laboratory settings, and that knowledge has been extrapolated to models of the entire world. The equation of "heat in, heat out" corresponds exactly as predicted. Of course, the Earth's atmosphere and ocean are so complex that this effect is not seen uniformly. The challenge is in accounting what heats up and how quickly. We know, for example, that the oceans hold far more heat than the atmosphere. We're in the process of understanding how ocean currents affect and are affected by that. But overall there is no possibility of debate as to how CO2 affects the atmosphere and oceans. The thing is that the nuances are so significant for having a useful understanding of climate that many details are still missing. What we do know has been extremely useful and clarifying of how these events are going to play out.

fasteo 11y ago
>>> This is going to sound harsh By no means. Note that I am not a climate denialist, but I generally find very little critical thinking when scientists presents climate forecasts for the next 20, or 50 or 100 years. Please see my response to drjesusphd below for a more balanced response to this particular NASA chart.