Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Just trying to be helpful, it's amazing how many people you run into on this forum who really don't seem to know the difference between their cornhole and a random hole in the ground.
Indeed, You and yours are a classic example of that. Yours is the only "science" that equates correlation with causation. No other science does that and the scientific method prohibits it. Yet that is the foundation of your field....
Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.
Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.
Are you saying that the IPCC predictions were wrong? Because if you are stating that, you are correct. They were far too conservative, we are seeing consequences right now that we did not expect until mid-century.
They had a lot of material to review, and did an inadaquete job of reviewing all of it. Nonetheless, their information and predictions are far closer to reality than the idiotic denial we see coming from the politics of the right wing.
Really???? WHERE?
Kind of all over the world. From the increase in the severity and area of wildfires, to the number of extreme weather events. From the alpine glaciers to the continental ice caps. From the outgassing of the Permafrost areas, particularly the yedoma, to the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.
And here at home, record wildfires in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. A significant heat wave and drought in the Mid-West. June, on the tail of a double La Nina and during a neutral ENSO, warmer than any month prior to 1997.
<<Ole RockyTop>>
Show me where I have ever posted that the 'end is near'?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5686478-post138.html
Just trying to be helpful, it's amazing how many people you run into on this forum who really don't seem to know the difference between their cornhole and a random hole in the ground.
Indeed, You and yours are a classic example of that. Yours is the only "science" that equates correlation with causation. No other science does that and the scientific method prohibits it. Yet that is the foundation of your field....
Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.
Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.
Just trying to be helpful, it's amazing how many people you run into on this forum who really don't seem to know the difference between their cornhole and a random hole in the ground.
Indeed, You and yours are a classic example of that. Yours is the only "science" that equates correlation with causation. No other science does that and the scientific method prohibits it. Yet that is the foundation of your field....
Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.
Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.
Really???? WHERE?
Kind of all over the world. From the increase in the severity and area of wildfires, to the number of extreme weather events. From the alpine glaciers to the continental ice caps. From the outgassing of the Permafrost areas, particularly the yedoma, to the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.
And here at home, record wildfires in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. A significant heat wave and drought in the Mid-West. June, on the tail of a double La Nina and during a neutral ENSO, warmer than any month prior to 1997.
I guess you missed the study that showed the wildfires are no worse than in the past huh?
Historical weather "events' were in fact more destructive and killed more people even with the urbanisation of the coastlines so that argument falls apart in the face of historical fact.
The glaciers are actually holding steady for the most part and increasing in some areas, which doesn't even address the fact that 90% of the glacial melting occured before the industrial era.
You guys only look at the last 30 years and yes when confined to that ridiculously small time frame your observations actually matter. But when placed in historical context they are revealed to be a lot of nothing. Just more religious "the end of the world is coming so repent BS"
Congrats, you're part of a religious cult who believes the world is ending yet again. So how many times do you have to be proven wrong?
"Scientists using field notes from surveys first conducted by the government before the Civil War believe theyve gained a better understanding of how Western wildfires behaved historically.
Researchers at the University of Wyoming studied historical fire patterns across millions of acres of dry Western forests. Their findings challenge the current operating protocol of the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies that todays fires are burning hotter and more frequently than in the past.
Combing through 13,000 firsthand descriptions of forests and retracing steps covering more than 250 miles in three states, where teams of government land surveyors first set out in the mid-1800s to map the nations wild lands, the researchers said they found evidence forests then were much denser than previously believed.
The 2007 Angora Fire ravaged the South Shore of Lake Tahoe. Photo/Lake Valley Fire
More highly intense fire is not occurring now than historically in dry forests, said William Baker, who teaches fire ecology and landscape ecology in Laramie, Wyo., where hes been doing research more than 20 years. These forests were much more diverse and experienced a much wider mixture of fire than we thought in the past, including substantial amounts of high-severity fire.
University study questions USFS beliefs about fires | Lake Tahoe News
Just trying to be helpful, it's amazing how many people you run into on this forum who really don't seem to know the difference between their cornhole and a random hole in the ground.
Indeed, You and yours are a classic example of that. Yours is the only "science" that equates correlation with causation. No other science does that and the scientific method prohibits it. Yet that is the foundation of your field....
Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.
Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.
The Wyoming study is far more detailed with actual data (not models!) than any of the studies you posted. An epic fail by any measure. Historical data of the Australian fires reveals that the fires today are no larger than those of old, the difference is there are a shitload more people living in the bush country than there ever were. A thinking person would realise that that was the significant factor in the increased damage.
But we know warmers don't think, don't we....
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/38218/PDF
The trend in global wildfire potential under the climate change due to the greenhouse effect is
investigated. Fire potential is measured by the Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI), which is calculated
using the observed maximum temperature and precipitation and projected changes at the end of this
century (20702100) by general circulation models (GCMs) for present and future climate conditions,
respectively. It is shown that future wildfire potential increases significantly in the United States, South
America, central Asia, southern Europe, southern Africa, and Australia. Fire potential moves up by one
level in these regions, from currently low to future moderate potential or from moderate to high
potential. Relative changes are the largest and smallest in southern Europe and Australia, respectively.
The period with the KBDI greater than 400 (a simple definition for fire season in this study) becomes a
few months longer. The increased fire potential is mainly caused by warming in the U.S., South America,
and Australia and by the combination of warming and drying in the other regions. Sensitivity analysis
shows that future fire potential depends on many factors such as climate model and emission scenario
used for climate change projection. The results suggest dramatic increases in wildfire potential that will
require increased future resources and management efforts for disaster prevention and recovery.
Published by Elsevier
According to another poster, its cold is Australia today...
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/38218/PDF
The trend in global wildfire potential under the climate change due to the greenhouse effect is
investigated. Fire potential is measured by the Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI), which is calculated
using the observed maximum temperature and precipitation and projected changes at the end of this
century (20702100) by general circulation models (GCMs) for present and future climate conditions,
respectively. It is shown that future wildfire potential increases significantly in the United States, South
America, central Asia, southern Europe, southern Africa, and Australia. Fire potential moves up by one
level in these regions, from currently low to future moderate potential or from moderate to high
potential. Relative changes are the largest and smallest in southern Europe and Australia, respectively.
The period with the KBDI greater than 400 (a simple definition for fire season in this study) becomes a
few months longer. The increased fire potential is mainly caused by warming in the U.S., South America,
and Australia and by the combination of warming and drying in the other regions. Sensitivity analysis
shows that future fire potential depends on many factors such as climate model and emission scenario
used for climate change projection. The results suggest dramatic increases in wildfire potential that will
require increased future resources and management efforts for disaster prevention and recovery.
Published by Elsevier
Only in the study of AGW are models given more credence than actual observations. The real physical sciences use models as a start point to lay out observational studies to be conducted in the real world. Those models are of course rarely accurate when compared with factual data. AGW "science" on the other hand almost exclusively bases it's findings on models. Models that have been proven so poor that random guesses are more accurate.
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/38218/PDF
The trend in global wildfire potential under the climate change due to the greenhouse effect is
investigated. Fire potential is measured by the Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI), which is calculated
using the observed maximum temperature and precipitation and projected changes at the end of this
century (20702100) by general circulation models (GCMs) for present and future climate conditions,
respectively. It is shown that future wildfire potential increases significantly in the United States, South
America, central Asia, southern Europe, southern Africa, and Australia. Fire potential moves up by one
level in these regions, from currently low to future moderate potential or from moderate to high
potential. Relative changes are the largest and smallest in southern Europe and Australia, respectively.
The period with the KBDI greater than 400 (a simple definition for fire season in this study) becomes a
few months longer. The increased fire potential is mainly caused by warming in the U.S., South America,
and Australia and by the combination of warming and drying in the other regions. Sensitivity analysis
shows that future fire potential depends on many factors such as climate model and emission scenario
used for climate change projection. The results suggest dramatic increases in wildfire potential that will
require increased future resources and management efforts for disaster prevention and recovery.
Published by Elsevier
Only in the study of AGW are models given more credence than actual observations. The real physical sciences use models as a start point to lay out observational studies to be conducted in the real world. Those models are of course rarely accurate when compared with factual data. AGW "science" on the other hand almost exclusively bases it's findings on models. Models that have been proven so poor that random guesses are more accurate.
There is not a single element of truth in your entire statement, unsurprising given the source, but you have moved beyond mere distortion and twisting into the complete fabrication of bald lies. Not that you were above such before, but there is a definite smell of desperation in their current bald application.
Only in the study of AGW are models given more credence than actual observations. The real physical sciences use models as a start point to lay out observational studies to be conducted in the real world. Those models are of course rarely accurate when compared with factual data. AGW "science" on the other hand almost exclusively bases it's findings on models. Models that have been proven so poor that random guesses are more accurate.
There is not a single element of truth in your entire statement, unsurprising given the source, but you have moved beyond mere distortion and twisting into the complete fabrication of bald lies. Not that you were above such before, but there is a definite smell of desperation in their current bald application.
Take a look at all the studies you have posted. Please note the percentage of those studies that are based on computer models. Get back to me when you have completed the review. Below is ONE example of how the models fail in their predictions. Something they seem to be extraordinarily good at...failure I mean...
Snowfall and Snow Depth in Switzerland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Marty, C. and Blanchet, J. 2012. Long-term changes in annual maximum snow depth and snowfall in Switzerland based on extreme value statistics. Climatic Change 111: 705-721.
Background
The authors write that "heavy snowfall and extreme snow depth cause serious loss of human life and property in many middle and high latitude countries almost every winter," and they say that "it can be argued that the most damaging and memorable winters are those with extremely large amounts of snow," since "heavy snowfalls are often accompanied by extreme snow storms and avalanches which cause hazardous conditions on roads, railways and airports - sometimes even leading to the interruption of major transport routes." And with these facts in mind, they note that "climate models predict a likely increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in a future warmer world," citing the IPCC (2007), while adding that such is also predicted by regional climate models, citing Frei et al. (2006) and Beniston et al. (2007).
What was done
To see to what extent these predictions may or may not have been in process of fulfillment in Switzerland over the past eight decades, Marty and Blanchet computed annual maximum snow depth (HSmax) and annual maximum new snow amount over three successive days (HN3max) for each of 25 measurement stations located at altitudes ranging from 200 to 2500 meters asl, based on data collected during the last 80 winters (1930/1931 to 2009/2010), after which, as they describe it, "the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution with time as a covariate [was] used to asses such trends."
What was learned
The two Swiss researchers from the Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research at Davos say their "analysis of extreme snow depth and extreme snowfall" revealed that "none of the stations, not even the highest one at 2,500 m asl, has experienced significant (p<0.05) increasing extreme amounts during the last 80 years." Quite to the contrary, in fact, they report that "almost half (44%) of the stations reveal a significantly decreasing trend of extreme snow depth," while "the other half showed no significant trends." In addition, their GEV analysis indicated that "all stations show decreasing tendencies for HSmax." And last of all, in harmony with these findings, they indicate that several other studies have shown that "mean snow depth and snow days have been decreasing in the Alps in the last 20 years (Marty, 2008; Durand et al., 2009; Valt and Cianfarra, 2010), especially at altitudes below 1,300 m (Laternser and Schneebeli, 2003; Scherrer et al., 2004)."
What it means
Clearly, the predictions of the IPCC regarding a propensity for more extreme precipitation events to occur in a warming world has not been seen in Switzerland. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case there.
CO2 Science
There is not a single element of truth in your entire statement, unsurprising given the source, but you have moved beyond mere distortion and twisting into the complete fabrication of bald lies. Not that you were above such before, but there is a definite smell of desperation in their current bald application.
Take a look at all the studies you have posted. Please note the percentage of those studies that are based on computer models. Get back to me when you have completed the review. Below is ONE example of how the models fail in their predictions. Something they seem to be extraordinarily good at...failure I mean...
Snowfall and Snow Depth in Switzerland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Marty, C. and Blanchet, J. 2012. Long-term changes in annual maximum snow depth and snowfall in Switzerland based on extreme value statistics. Climatic Change 111: 705-721.
Background
The authors write that "heavy snowfall and extreme snow depth cause serious loss of human life and property in many middle and high latitude countries almost every winter," and they say that "it can be argued that the most damaging and memorable winters are those with extremely large amounts of snow," since "heavy snowfalls are often accompanied by extreme snow storms and avalanches which cause hazardous conditions on roads, railways and airports - sometimes even leading to the interruption of major transport routes." And with these facts in mind, they note that "climate models predict a likely increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in a future warmer world," citing the IPCC (2007), while adding that such is also predicted by regional climate models, citing Frei et al. (2006) and Beniston et al. (2007).
What was done
To see to what extent these predictions may or may not have been in process of fulfillment in Switzerland over the past eight decades, Marty and Blanchet computed annual maximum snow depth (HSmax) and annual maximum new snow amount over three successive days (HN3max) for each of 25 measurement stations located at altitudes ranging from 200 to 2500 meters asl, based on data collected during the last 80 winters (1930/1931 to 2009/2010), after which, as they describe it, "the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution with time as a covariate [was] used to asses such trends."
What was learned
The two Swiss researchers from the Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research at Davos say their "analysis of extreme snow depth and extreme snowfall" revealed that "none of the stations, not even the highest one at 2,500 m asl, has experienced significant (p<0.05) increasing extreme amounts during the last 80 years." Quite to the contrary, in fact, they report that "almost half (44%) of the stations reveal a significantly decreasing trend of extreme snow depth," while "the other half showed no significant trends." In addition, their GEV analysis indicated that "all stations show decreasing tendencies for HSmax." And last of all, in harmony with these findings, they indicate that several other studies have shown that "mean snow depth and snow days have been decreasing in the Alps in the last 20 years (Marty, 2008; Durand et al., 2009; Valt and Cianfarra, 2010), especially at altitudes below 1,300 m (Laternser and Schneebeli, 2003; Scherrer et al., 2004)."
What it means
Clearly, the predictions of the IPCC regarding a propensity for more extreme precipitation events to occur in a warming world has not been seen in Switzerland. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case there.
CO2 Science
Why don't they just pick up an Iphone and ask Siri whether it's gonna snow in Switzerland in January? (anyone? Apple junkies?)
Just a full landscape of fails.. Even after you try to kill oysters with 5 times the pCO2 in the enviroment today and still don't get the correct result.
Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.
Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.
You just proved you're an ignoramous who doesn't even understand the meaning of the phrase "correlation is not causation."
Congratulations on being stupid!
"Correlation does not imply causation" (related to "ignoring a common cause" and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, it can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a hint)...
...Proving causation is a major challenge. There are no set "rules" or criteria for saying that a correlation is causation. In general, however, the more robust the correlations, the more likely they are to imply causation. An example of this is the link between smoking and cancer. Over the years, many studies have been conducted and the correlation between the incidence of cancer and smoking is strong enough that most today consider this to be a causal relationship. That is, smoking causes cancer. (Although as stated earlier, the reverse is not valid: cancer leads to smoking)...
...Correlation does NOT imply causation in any way. In other words, just because two events are correlated does not mean that one causes another, or has anything to do with the other - correlations deal only with observed instances of events, and any further conclusions cannot be inferred from correlation alone. Strong correlation, however, does often warrant further investigation to determine causation.
...Given the problems with interpreting correlational data, one might reasonably ask: why do we bother with them at all if it is a causal relationship that we seek? Why not just gather data that could provide a more definite answer, or otherwise just ignore correlations? The reason is pragmatism. Correlational data are usually relatively easy and inexpensive to obtain, at least in comparison to experimental data. Also, many cause-effect relationships are so subtle that we often first learn of them through correlations detected in observational data. That is, they are often useful.
As the the IPCC flagship, SS Goebbels Warming, takes yet another direct hit amidships....
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
Read more: Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation.
Like I said, I wouldn't eat that corn (again) if I were you.
You just proved you're an ignoramous who doesn't even understand the meaning of the phrase "correlation is not causation."
Congratulations on being stupid!
ROFLOL, you take arrogant ignorance to an entirely new level!
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but wiki is wiki so let's look at some more authoritative references:
http://www.grossmont.edu/johnoakes/s110online/Causation%20versus%20Correlation.pdf
correlation definition
...Correlation does NOT imply causation in any way. In other words, just because two events are correlated does not mean that one causes another, or has anything to do with the other - correlations deal only with observed instances of events, and any further conclusions cannot be inferred from correlation alone. Strong correlation, however, does often warrant further investigation to determine causation.
Correlations are hard to interpret
...Given the problems with interpreting correlational data, one might reasonably ask: why do we bother with them at all if it is a causal relationship that we seek? Why not just gather data that could provide a more definite answer, or otherwise just ignore correlations? The reason is pragmatism. Correlational data are usually relatively easy and inexpensive to obtain, at least in comparison to experimental data. Also, many cause-effect relationships are so subtle that we often first learn of them through correlations detected in observational data. That is, they are often useful.
The appropriate adage in science is "Correlation does not imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'."
In science, correlation studies are often used to test for the existence of interesting patterns, but they are never used exclusively to claim a cause. In order to make a causal claim you must run an experiment or perform observational surveys and researches to test to see if it really is a cause. This is in order to validate that one event is indeed directly influencing the other and is the reason behind the detected correlation.
Now, just to be clear, I would appreciate anyone who can point out the significant differences between what these sources are stating, and what I stated:
"Neither Science, nor Statistics (which is the more proper reference with regards to correlation and causation) prohibit the connection of correlation and causation, in fact, correlation is most often the first, or primary, trait observed that is considered indicative of potential causation. The only thing statistics cautions against, is assuming that every correlation is indicative of causation."
