3 ms·

I'd like to take your word for it but I'm not a statistician. With what confidence do 2 mega ninos in 17 years reject the hypothesis that anomalies are happenin

by tinco 11y ago

I'd like to take your word for it but I'm not a statistician. With what confidence do 2 mega ninos in 17 years reject the hypothesis that anomalies are happening at their usual pace? (Should nt be hard to calculate right?)

Daishiman 11y ago
It's not a matter of confidence, but the fact that climatologists understand very well how increased ocean temperatures affect air currents. What we're seeing is the consequences of greater ocean thermal mass. I would agree that the statistics are easy to calculate, but it's completely irrelevant in the fact that the physical models have predicted this behavior, and the only question now is what new, unpredicted feedback effects await us.
- saosebastiao 11y ago
  Even bad models can predict the future by accident. Your statement is no different than a horoscope believer's confirmation bias. Climate models may have predicted this behavior, but the confidence of this happening in non-anthropogenic CO2 climate is absolutely relevant.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    When the predicted phenomena are myriad, and the predictions are consistent and keep getting more precise, throughout an ensemble of models. The models are based on explanations of phenomena that are known because they are observed and understood physically. Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. There is no explanation that is barely even close to explaining the enormous cluster of observed global phenomena. For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. I won't provide links here; everyone should be competent in googling that up.
    - saosebastiao 11y ago
      > For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. And yet you have a very well known meteorologist who is claiming that it isn't anthropogenic. I totally agree that the general increase in aggregate anomalous events cannot be explained away beyond a reasonable. You can't, however, look at a single event and know without a doubt that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 without some sort of bounds on that claim. > Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. But see, for this specific event, there is a chance of falsifiability. If there is any evidence of two mega El Nino events within a 17 year time span anywhere between 1700 and 1970, you have falsifiable evidence. And that is what is being asked...you made a claim that this specific climate event is without a doubt due to global warming and you were asked to provide some basis for that assertion.

by tinco 11y ago

Daishiman 11y ago

It's not a matter of confidence, but the fact that climatologists understand very well how increased ocean temperatures affect air currents. What we're seeing is the consequences of greater ocean thermal mass. I would agree that the statistics are easy to calculate, but it's completely irrelevant in the fact that the physical models have predicted this behavior, and the only question now is what new, unpredicted feedback effects await us.

saosebastiao 11y ago
Even bad models can predict the future by accident. Your statement is no different than a horoscope believer's confirmation bias. Climate models may have predicted this behavior, but the confidence of this happening in non-anthropogenic CO2 climate is absolutely relevant.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  When the predicted phenomena are myriad, and the predictions are consistent and keep getting more precise, throughout an ensemble of models. The models are based on explanations of phenomena that are known because they are observed and understood physically. Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. There is no explanation that is barely even close to explaining the enormous cluster of observed global phenomena. For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. I won't provide links here; everyone should be competent in googling that up.
  - saosebastiao 11y ago
    > For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. And yet you have a very well known meteorologist who is claiming that it isn't anthropogenic. I totally agree that the general increase in aggregate anomalous events cannot be explained away beyond a reasonable. You can't, however, look at a single event and know without a doubt that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 without some sort of bounds on that claim. > Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. But see, for this specific event, there is a chance of falsifiability. If there is any evidence of two mega El Nino events within a 17 year time span anywhere between 1700 and 1970, you have falsifiable evidence. And that is what is being asked...you made a claim that this specific climate event is without a doubt due to global warming and you were asked to provide some basis for that assertion.