The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[itfitzme]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

while I believe CO2 has had some small part in the warming trend, I know that your graphs exaggerate both the magnitude and the correlation by choosing the optimum offsets and scales to maximise the visual effect. you are taking one factor out of many and theorizing that it is the main controlling agent of temperature. not only does CO2 not totally control temperature but to a large extent temperature controls CO2.

They exaggerate nothing. *It is simply scaling. Any "exaggeration", or lack thereof, is an artifact of your own mind.

This the correlation.

There is no exaggeration there. And it demonstrates the time dependent graph.

It looks like it is causal because it is causal. *When things are causal, they appear correlated. *Causality proves correlation.

It is one thing to say, "you are taking one factor out of many and theorizing that it is the main controlling agent of temperature. " *It is another thing to demonstrate it. *

You are quite welcome to pull down data on solar variances, sum spots, earth orbit, methane, cow farts, volanic eruptions, and whatever you cam think of. *Others have done that work. *I've gone through the effort. *You haven't.

*You may claim that temp drive CO2. *But then you have to demonstrate what drive temp. *Oh, wait, but CO2 still does drive temp. *That fact doesn't change. *And now all you have is feedback.

Oh, but fossil fuel does release CO2, so there is no need for temp to increase atmospheric CO2, unless you mean the actual burning of the fuel.

So you've demonstrated nothing and added nothing. *Except to say you don't like the obvious facts, so you choose to not know.

You are, as usual, making the argumemt that if you don't know it, then it is inherently, and magically unknowabled. *Far from it, the knowledge requires to things; that nature makes it knowable and that we choose to know it. *Either one will make it unknowable. *But your failing is not nature's failing. *

 

[RollingThunder]

I found this article which is kind of good news / bad news.

Major methane release is almost inevitable - environment - 21 February 2013 - New Scientist

1) permafrost will not melt just yet.
2) It will melt when we get a rise of 0.7 degrees in the global temperature ( some 50-70 years in the future.

... so we still have time to take some measures to cover ourselves from this upcomming disaster.

Oh my gosh, the fact that the temps during the Holocene Thermal Maximum were 8 degrees warmer (at minimum) than today, and nothing bad happened back then doesn't give you pause?

Well, actually no.....but that is because you're a liar who just makes up your nonsensical pseudo-scientific "facts" as you go along.

The Holocene Thermal Maximum did not happen globally at the same time like the current anthropogenic global warming. It had recognized causes that are definitely not what is causing the current abrupt warming trend. Different areas warmed at different times and during the time when some areas were warmer than the present, other areas were cooler than now. The Arctic regions, due the change in axial tilt, showed the most warming compared to current temperatures while the mid latitudes showed little or no warming and the Southern Hemisphere was mostly cooler than the present temperatures within the recognized HTM time period for northern hemisphere warming.

Holocene climatic optimum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.

Global effects

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right. Note that the recent warming is not shown on the graph.

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole. The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]

This climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period.

The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time. There does seem to have been the predicted southward shift in the global band of thunderstorms called the Intertropical convergence zone.

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. This delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations. At some locations, climate changes associated with this event may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago, or persisted until 4,000 years before present. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the North.

 

[skookerasbil]

I found this article which is kind of good news / bad news.

Major methane release is almost inevitable - environment - 21 February 2013 - New Scientist

1) permafrost will not melt just yet.
2) It will melt when we get a rise of 0.7 degrees in the global temperature ( some 50-70 years in the future.

... so we still have time to take some measures to cover ourselves from this upcomming disaster.

Oh my gosh, the fact that the temps during the Holocene Thermal Maximum were 8 degrees warmer (at minimum) than today, and nothing bad happened back then doesn't give you pause?

Well, actually no.....but that is because you're a liar who just makes up your nonsensical pseudo-scientific "facts" as you go along.

The Holocene Thermal Maximum did not happen globally at the same time like the current anthropogenic global warming. It had recognized causes that are definitely not what is causing the current abrupt warming trend. Different areas warmed at different times and during the time when some areas were warmer than the present, other areas were cooler than now. The Arctic regions, due the change in axial tilt, showed the most warming compared to current temperatures while the mid latitudes showed little or no warming and the Southern Hemisphere was mostly cooler than the present temperatures within the recognized HTM time period for northern hemisphere warming.

Holocene climatic optimum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.

Global effects

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right. Note that the recent warming is not shown on the graph.

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole. The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]

This climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period.

The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time. There does seem to have been the predicted southward shift in the global band of thunderstorms called the Intertropical convergence zone.

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. This delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations. At some locations, climate changes associated with this event may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago, or persisted until 4,000 years before present. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the North.

So exactly who cares about this shit except for the OCD climate crusaders?

 

[westwall]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

Wrong. That is correlational, not empirical. Learn the difference dummy.

 

[itfitzme]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

Wrong. *That is correlational, not empirical. *Learn the difference dummy.

*empirical

"1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data> 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory"

Merriam-Webster Search

Theoretical is the speed of electromagmetic waves being a concequence of Maxwells equations. *Emprical was measuring the speed of light. Theoretical electromagnetic wave speed plus empirical light speed is empirical demonstration that light is likely an electromagnetic wave.*

Empirical measured CO2 absorption plus empirical correlation of temp anomoly and CO2 equals emprical proof of CO2 causing temp anomoly.*

Correlation is, by definition, empirical. It can't be anything else. *It is two observed and measured physical quantities. It is exactly what empirical means. Anything less would be measuring only one variable and saying, "it changes for some unknown reason." *"Correlation" equals "Empirical", *you moron. *

You can't redefine words to change reality. *It don't work that way. You simply demonstrate yourself as being psychotic.

BTW, how are you doing with the other stupid things you've said

what a laugh. The ams in their political statement claim that "science based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty" which is code for the e science of agw "theory" is so bad that "every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway"

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Got proof yet?

 

[RollingThunder]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

Wrong. That is correlational, not empirical. Learn the difference dummy.

You are the dummy, walleyed, and your profound misunderstanding of science is once again apparent. While it is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it is also true that events that have a causal link are almost always strongly correlated.

Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Usage

In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "to be a sufficient circumstance." This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of logical implication: if p then q symbolized as p &#8594; q. That is "if circumstance p is true, then q necessarily follows." In this sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation."

However, in casual use, the word "imply" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed to be real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.

Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[1] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:[4]

"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[21] – they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[21]
In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence... But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship...


****************************************

 

[PMZ]

Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.

 

[itfitzme]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

Wrong. *That is correlational, not empirical. *Learn the difference dummy.

You are the dummy, walleyed, and your profound misunderstanding of science is once again apparent. While it is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it is also true that events that have a causal link are almost always strongly correlated.

Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Usage

In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "to be a sufficient circumstance." This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of logical implication: if p then q symbolized as p &#8594; q. That is "if circumstance p is true, then q necessarily follows." In this sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation."

However, in casual use, the word "imply" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed to be real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.

Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[1] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:[4]

"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[21] &#8211; they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy &#8211; dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[21]
In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence... But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship...


****************************************

You confused me with a bunch of fonts. (Or I got confused).

Correlation is, inherently, empirical. Two quantities are measured with respect to time. This is as basic as it gets. *The two are then correlated. There is no theory, simply that they are correlated.

The same two quantities are maniputated in a laboritory test tube. *They are correlated and shown to be causal.

The first correlation is demonstrated to be causal by the second correlation.

AS CO2 ABSORBES IR RADIATION IN THE LABORATORY, IT ABSORBS IT EVERYWHERE. CO2 DOESN'T MAGICALLY CHANGE IT'S PROPERTIES OUTSIDE. IT IS A TWO STEP EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION. *THIS IS A FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SCIENCE. IT IS CALLED REALITY.

1 + 1 = 2

It is that simple. *The whole thing is based on empirical evidence. *The second empirical causal correlation relationship demonstrates that the first is causal.

It is that simple. *Anything simpler, and we just abandon science as having no application.

The fonts, following my post, felt like I was being yelled at.

And this statement, "That is correlational, not empirical" is about as fundamemtally stupid as they come.

 

[westwall]

Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

 

[itfitzme]

Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

So you have a magic crystal ball that tells you there is " cold trend we're about to enter." Please share, with the world, this magic. Is it your magic crystal cherry ball picker? The one where you keep doing the same thing, hoping for different results?

Prove "a cold trend we are about to enter." Add that to the list of other bs you can't prove.

 

[itfitzme]

Oh my gosh, the fact that the temps during the Holocene Thermal Maximum were 8 degrees warmer (at minimum) than today, and nothing bad happened back then doesn't give you pause?

Well, actually no.....but that is because you're a liar who just makes up your nonsensical pseudo-scientific "facts" as you go along.

The Holocene Thermal Maximum did not happen globally at the same time like the current anthropogenic global warming. It had recognized causes that are definitely not what is causing the current abrupt warming trend. Different areas warmed at different times and during the time when some areas were warmer than the present, other areas were cooler than now. The Arctic regions, due the change in axial tilt, showed the most warming compared to current temperatures while the mid latitudes showed little or no warming and the Southern Hemisphere was mostly cooler than the present temperatures within the recognized HTM time period for northern hemisphere warming.

Holocene climatic optimum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.

Global effects

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right. Note that the recent warming is not shown on the graph.

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole. The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]

This climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period.

The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time. There does seem to have been the predicted southward shift in the global band of thunderstorms called the Intertropical convergence zone.

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. This delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations. At some locations, climate changes associated with this event may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago, or persisted until 4,000 years before present. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the North.

So exactly who cares about this shit except for the OCD climate crusaders?

Everyone who can read and write more than one sentence. So not you.

 

[gslack]

Stop trolling web forums and go and harness the amazing energy waiting in CO2... Just build it and you can call it a day.. No more fake personas, no more trolling, no more googling obscure terms or vernacular you don't understand... You can just build the CO2 enery doubling heat engine and there's your proof...

Go on expert, build it...

 

[gslack]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

Wrong. That is correlational, not empirical. Learn the difference dummy.

You are the dummy, walleyed, and your profound misunderstanding of science is once again apparent. While it is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it is also true that events that have a causal link are almost always strongly correlated.

Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Usage

In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "to be a sufficient circumstance." This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of logical implication: if p then q symbolized as p &#8594; q. That is "if circumstance p is true, then q necessarily follows." In this sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation."

However, in casual use, the word "imply" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed to be real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.

Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[1] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:[4]

"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[21] – they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[21]
In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence... But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship...


****************************************

BLUNDER!!

You're back dude... What's up with the disappearing act? And the rep? I think you ran off and got some trolls..They reek of your influence; lying, making bold claims they do not defend, inability to defend a position, Crying, insulting, proclamations of their brilliance despite they never show anything but ignorance...

I got a few days to kill now, so I think maybe I will spend a bit more time here..LOL

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

 

[westwall]

Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

Your theory has some problems. Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.



http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

 

[IanC]

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

Your theory has some problems. Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.



http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

At least CC's idea has some plausibility. Unlike Trenberth's theory that the missing heat magically appears under 700 meters of ocean. Of course the one thing going for Trenberth is that the rise in ocean temperatures down there is only thousandths of a degree, leaving lots of room to adjust the numbers. Do any of the warmers want to defend our ability to measure that in the ARGO era, let alone back to the 50's?

 

[RollingThunder]

Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

Explaining your denier cult myths and misunderstandings is very easy, walleyed. You're a deluded, brainwashed retard.

There is no "pause" in the Earth's warming, there is just a temporary slowdown in the rate of increase in surface air temperatures, as more of the extra heat that the increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are trapping has been transferred into the oceans. Global warming is actually still accelerating.

And we're not "about to enter" any "cold trends" either, you poor bamboozled moron.

 

[RollingThunder]

Wrong. *That is correlational, not empirical. *Learn the difference dummy.

You are the dummy, walleyed, and your profound misunderstanding of science is once again apparent. While it is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it is also true that events that have a causal link are almost always strongly correlated.

Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Usage

In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "to be a sufficient circumstance." This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of logical implication: if p then q symbolized as p &#8594; q. That is "if circumstance p is true, then q necessarily follows." In this sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation."

However, in casual use, the word "imply" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed to be real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.

Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[1] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:[4]

"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[21] &#8211; they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy &#8211; dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[21]
In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence... But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship...


****************************************

You confused me with a bunch of fonts. (Or I got confused).

Correlation is, inherently, empirical. Two quantities are measured with respect to time. This is as basic as it gets. *The two are then correlated. There is no theory, simply that they are correlated.

The same two quantities are maniputated in a laboritory test tube. *They are correlated and shown to be causal.

The first correlation is demonstrated to be causal by the second correlation.

AS CO2 ABSORBES IR RADIATION IN THE LABORATORY, IT ABSORBS IT EVERYWHERE. CO2 DOESN'T MAGICALLY CHANGE IT'S PROPERTIES OUTSIDE. IT IS A TWO STEP EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION. *THIS IS A FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SCIENCE. IT IS CALLED REALITY.

1 + 1 = 2

It is that simple. *The whole thing is based on empirical evidence. *The second empirical causal correlation relationship demonstrates that the first is causal.

It is that simple. *Anything simpler, and we just abandon science as having no application.

The fonts, following my post, felt like I was being yelled at.

And this statement, "That is correlational, not empirical" is about as fundamemtally stupid as they come.

Sorry if you got confused about that but, in fact, I was talking to the walleyedretard, not you. He's the ignorant fool who imagines that correlation somehow denies causation just because correlation doesn't necessarily mean that there is a causal link. He is very ignorant about science but, like many of the denier cultists who post on this forum, he is a sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, so he falsely imagines that he understands way more than he actually does.

 

[skookerasbil]

One might notice that all of the posts put up by Rolling Thunder are littered with many of the following terms......

"assumption"

"may be the result of....."

"prediction"

"has been calculated"

"possible"

"likelihood of..."

"possible causative relationship"

"surely hints at...."


Ummm......only the dummies see this stuff and use "science" in the same sentence!!!!!


But don't take my word for it.......go check any of the Rolling Thunder posts ( cant miss them.....done in 72pt font!!). But all of his stuff is slam dunk science......any evidence to the contrary = nothing but fabrications.


Indeed........when people start connecting the dots on this shit, it makes perfect sense!! Nobody knows shit about shit!!!


Yet tomorrow, these mental cases would have us go back to 18th century lifestyles!!! Only heres the thing.......I don't see it happening!!! Do you??






This debate about warming.......did it stop.......has it gotten worse.......is it in a holding pattern?? Its nothing more than an exercise in group navel contemplation......a veritable science hobby. Internet Romper Rooms!! Hundreds of thousands of posts in this forum and what has changed in the public policy domain? DICK.......in fact, coal is now booming in Europe, Cap and Trade is dead, renewable subsidies have all but ended in England and France and act as life support here in the US......... and also in the US, fracking is exploding as natural gas vaults decades into the future and most notable, investment in green markets has plummeted in the last 3 years!!! In EVERY SINGLE assessment of energy 2-3 decades out, renewables continue to be a sliver of the energy market.( less than 10%)







Nobody cares about the science s0ns!!!

 

[skookerasbil]