Study: Temp Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming' in Climate Data

[Elim Garak]

What data? Just a boolean of whether it did for every day or not? Does it include extra properties like gravitational waves/pull? Other chemi-physical properties taht I personally don't know about, but might affect it? If a lot of that would be available(multivariate), you could make some very accurate predictions.

Nope, only omniscience can make predictions. I.e. you have to know exactly how universe works and at what point it is now and where it is going.
That's not statistics though, you won't need any trends, correlations, percentiles, etc - you will know it all as is.
That's exactly my point.

You cannot compare lottery ticket prediction, because we have no conclusive data for it. How 'random' it is, only the lottery owner really knows. For the rest we have very little data to build a model on.

As is always the case with statistics. Very little data.

However, this does not hold true for a lot of subjects. Basically everything where multiple variables (or 1 if the outcome is truly black and white) all affect an outcome, a very decent form of prediction can be made.

By "very decent form of prediction" you mean probability, obviously, so not a prediction, more like - likely continuation. And it might work for a couple of times even. The problem is there will be times it won't work, there are errors in every model.

[Endus]

Claiming I don't understand something without explaining what is it that I do not understand exactly - is attacking the person.

First, no, it isn't.

Second, I explained what you don't understand;
You're misrepresenting what the intent and purpose of modeling is.
You're misrepresenting the predictive capacity of statistical evidence.
You're misrepresenting the standards that science works to.
You're misrepresenting what constitutes scientific theory.

Now, if you want to argue that those misrepresentations are deliberate rather than due to an honest lack of understanding, by all means feel free, but there is no circumstance where your arguments hold validity. Because they misrepresent the facts and methodologies in question.

It applies to all vegetation. It is part of photosynthesis. 6CO2 + 6H2O + Light = C6H12O6 + 6O2

And that's not an unlimited process, because (again) once the plant dies, that carbon is almost always released. Not immediately, but rot and so forth end up releasing it. A mature forest, with a constant cycle of plant life within it, will sequester a certain amount of carbon, for a given surface area, but that amount doesn't increase over time once that forest has hit maturity (meaning that it is no longer growing, and old dead trees are being replaced by new).

[Elim Garak]

First, no, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It's a fancy way of saying "your stupid".

Second, I explained what you don't understand;
You're misrepresenting what the intent and purpose of modeling is.
You're misrepresenting the predictive capacity of statistical evidence.
You're misrepresenting the standards that science works to.
You're misrepresenting what constitutes scientific theory.

These are all unsubstantiated claims.
You explain what you don't explain basically.
I can do this too,
You completely fail to understand what science is you confuse it with religion and follow the current fad as dogma.
See?

Now, if you want to argue that those misrepresentations are deliberate rather than due to an honest lack of understanding, by all means feel free, but there is no circumstance where your arguments hold validity. Because they misrepresent the facts and methodologies in question.

Blah, blah, blah.
Same story as above. You say nothing of value here. Just being demeaning, which is against the rules, btw.

[Chrysia]

@Elim Garak

No. That the fundamental forces are fundamental is an assumption. They could, in fact, be the result of more fundamental processes we don't understand, they simply appear fundamental under our current understanding. Gravity is no more a fact than any other proposed and well-tested explanation of observed phenomena.

[Endus]

These are all unsubstantiated claims.

They were substantiated. You just don't want to admit they were, because that would involve acknowledging how wrong you are.

In pretty much every instance, you made up a false standard of expectations with no basis in reality, and then declared entire fields of math and science to be "wrong" because they failed to meet your arbitrary and baseless standards.

Well, you don't define those standards. All you're doing is establishing how unreasonable you've chosen to be.

[petej0]

And that's not an unlimited process, because (again) once the plant dies, that carbon is almost always released. Not immediately, but rot and so forth end up releasing it. A mature forest, with a constant cycle of plant life within it, will sequester a certain amount of carbon, for a given surface area, but that amount doesn't increase over time once that forest has hit maturity (meaning that it is no longer growing, and old dead trees are being replaced by new).

I never said that the amount would increase. I apolgize if I did or made it sound like I did. The amount would remain constant.

[Elim Garak]

@Elim Garak

No. That the fundamental forces are fundamental is an assumption. They could, in fact, be the result of more fundamental processes we don't understand, they simply appear fundamental under our current understanding. Gravity is no more a fact than any other proposed and well-tested explanation of observed phenomena.

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? Basically all science is an assumption.
There are people here claiming that climate science is based on facts and here you are unfacting gravity, which btw plays a role on planetary climate.

[Endus]

I never said that the amount would increase. I apolgize if I did or made it sound like I did. The amount would remain constant.

Fair enough, one of your earlier posts seemed to suggest you thought it would be an ongoing and increasing sink, which is what I was disputing.

[Ivanstone]

I don't care about all this climate change thing because I'll be dead long before anything drastic happens either way.
And I don't understand why some people care.

Climate change is only part of it. Pollution happens and that can directly impact you.

Or would you prefer that your town goes back to looking like Beijing does now?

[Elim Garak]

They were substantiated. You just don't want to admit they were, because that would involve acknowledging how wrong you are.

No, they weren't. Just claims. Even now you try to put it on me for not admitting to your wild accusations being true as if it's my fault now.

In pretty much every instance, you made up a false standard of expectations with no basis in reality, and then declared entire fields of math and science to be "wrong" because they failed to meet your arbitrary and baseless standards.

I did nothing of the sort. You are going mental.

- - - Updated - - -

Climate change is only part of it. Pollution happens and that can directly impact you.

Or would you prefer that your town goes back to looking like Beijing does now?

I'll be long dead.

[Ivanstone]

I'll be long dead.

So you're saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong could happen in the near term? No pollution in your air or water? Are you dying next week?

I'm pretty sure that all those people in West Virginia thought the local companies had their best interests at heart until their rivers got suddenly flooded with coal mining by-products.

[Chrysia]

Do you really want to go down that rabbit hole? Basically all science is an assumption.
There are people here claiming that climate science is based on facts and here you are unfacting gravity, which btw plays a role on planetary climate.

I'm not "unfacting" the observable phenomena of attraction of objects with mass. I'm "unfacting" the assumption that that attraction is due to a fundamental force inherent to the universe.

Anthropogenic climate change is a scientific theory supported by every observable fact about the climate. It is, in layman's terms, a fact.

[Arenis]

Nope, only omniscience can make predictions. I.e. you have to know exactly how universe works and at what point it is now and where it is going.
That's not statistics though, you won't need any trends, correlations, percentiles, etc - you will know it all as is.
That's exactly my point.

As is always the case with statistics. Very little data.

By "very decent form of prediction" you mean probability, obviously, so not a prediction, more like - likely continuation. And it might work for a couple of times even. The problem is there will be times it won't work, there are errors in every model.

Predictions are based on probabilities... Sorry I'm not going in on this again man. If you have no trust in the massive, widely used field of statistics then that is your choice. The world of science will continue without you then.

[Chrysia]

@Elim Garak

I would like to point out the only person claiming perfect predictive power here is you. You've claimed, as fact, that every workable solution to climate change will unavoidably destroy civilization.

[Endus]

I'm not "unfacting" the observable phenomena of attraction of objects with mass. I'm "unfacting" the assumption that that attraction is due to a fundamental force inherent to the universe.

Anthropogenic climate change is a scientific theory supported by every observable fact about the climate. It is, in layman's terms, a fact.

Well, I mean, if you want to get really semantically specific, you can boil it down to (to paraphrase imperfectly and without intent to be complete);

1> CO2 creates a greenhouse effect
2> Human emissions contain CO2
3> Those CO2 emissions enter the atmosphere and remain there
4> Temperatures have begun warming rapidly over the last century, in an accelerating process

Those are "facts". Straight-up observed behaviour and data.

From those facts, this clearly follows;

5> Given the greenhouse effect, the known amount of CO2 in human emissions, and how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, the warming observed matches the effects of human emissions, demonstrating causation.

That's the "theory" part. It may not be technically a "fact", in that it itself is not an observation nor a measurement, but it's an obvious conclusion drawn from the facts, and there's no competing explanation that provides an alternative explanation for those same facts.

And unless someone can do so, there's no reason to dispute that conclusion. All the evidence supports that one explanation.

[Chrysia]

@Endus that's why i said "in layman's terms." It's not a fact, scientifically, but it is in common usage.

[Endus]

@Endus that's why i said "in layman's terms." It's not a fact, scientifically, but it is in common usage.

Right, and I just wanted to underscore how clear and obvious the connection between "facts" and "theory" were, if you wanted to draw that distinction. The point is, even if you want to argue that theory isn't "fact" in scientific parlance (it is, in non-scientific use), it's the only reasonable explanation of the facts. So it's a silly point to draw, since the reason to make the argument is to discredit the scientific body of theory, and it utterly fails to do so, because it's rooted in failing to understand what theory is.

[petej0]

Fair enough, one of your earlier posts seemed to suggest you thought it would be an ongoing and increasing sink, which is what I was disputing.

No, no, no. It is a ongoing consumer of CO2, but not increasing. I see the disconnect. Sorry I was confusing. haha

[roent]

That science is never "settled" does not mean that scientific theory is not considered fact. Are you arguing that gravity isn't a fact? Sure, it's possible that gravity doesn't exist, and everything is pushed "down" by invisible down-gnomes. But arguing that without evidence is ridiculous, and all the evidence supports the existing body of theory.

Which isn't a theory. I'll note. Scientific theory is a massive body of work; it isn't just a hypothesis.

I'm making the point that "truth," "fact," "proves" and other absolutes are not compatible with the scientific method. The closed mindset that goes along with that kind of terminology is when science is replaced with something else.

[Chrysia]

I'm making the point that "truth," "fact," "proves" and other absolutes are not compatible with the scientific method. The closed mindset that goes along with that kind of terminology is when science is replaced with something else.

Scientists still sometimes use this terminology when talking with laypeople, because it's the terminology they understand. If you start talking about probability factors and confidence intervals, most people are going to completely tune out.