Topic: This should give FirstAscent a stroke... - page 3. (Read 7373 times)

No stats in that paper...

 Look at this current paper and the source of the controversy, it really does prove my point. Previous work has attempted to reject the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2. This current work tests the null hypothesis that there is no autocorrelation. Surprise surprise, everyone proves their hypothesis true since there is always some correlation and (probably) always some degree of autocorrelation in any timeseries data set.

The proper thing to do (which the climate scientists have done with their models) is predict something and see if the model fits, then explain the deviations and make the model better. The current paper predicts nothing as far as i could tell so to me its kinda dumb regardless of how valid the method is. The climate models don't seem to be predicting the temperature all that well, meaning they can be improved.

What about genetics? Didn't Watson & Crick publish in '53?

Thats fine. All I'm saying is that if that is enough evidence for you to dismiss the paper you should dismiss pretty much every journal article in every field except physics since 1950. Read some quotes on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#Controversy

Example:

more on cointegration:

Well all I can say is these debunkers fail to do proper debunking as well (eg "I found some troubling info on conintegration techniques") . Just so you know you can find thousands of papers saying that about null hypothesis significance testing (most commonly used statistical strategy), so if you think finding a published paper criticizing a stats technique invalidates a paper you are in my camp of all science since 1950 is on shaky ground.

The "Still Not" link seemed the best but is debunking some other paper and all they guy/girl does is some half assed power analysis. I suppose what I would like to see is an actual power analysis... which I guess I could do myself.

Ooh ooh ooh! Can I refute this on FirstAscent's behalf?

"I am not a climate scientist, and neither are you!"

How's that?

I'll admit that I'm only somewhat literate at higher math, let me try to frame it again and give you a couple links that should make it clear in a few minutes of reading.

Essentially they are using a root unit which should have been rejected because the CO2 dataset is not a random-walk. This analysis method is only for non-deterministic systems, and generally the data is tested to ensure that it is random and not deterministic. The researchers in this managed not to run any of the checks in an effective manner, and there is signal showing through where there should only be a trend + noise. This link has a blog post that gets into the math: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/still-not/ and this one has some explanations and expansions on it: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/01/polynomial-cointegration-tests-of.html (the second one is more readable, but you get a better sense of the math from the first)


Edit, shorter option from comments on original article:

I might use that: Hey, Uranus is cooling, pull up your pants.

Thought I felt a chill.

Well hello there, I had to take you off ignore for this one (FYI, I found several of your comments in this thread insightful and thought provoking, I'm not sure what is wrong with me )

I'm pretty sure that the "other planets are warming too" thing came from a session where they just compared all the graphs to find several that went in the same direction.

Here is a good recap of the details: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-basic.htm

I like the Neptune one the best because most people have no concept of the speed seasons change with that 164 year orbital period. Not sure if they have SUV's or not, but if they have spring fashions like our coed's do, you might want to visit a Neptuntian University and take in the sights.

Also the earth solar forcing has been uncooperative since the temperature keeps going up when it goes up, or down, or stays the same.

(FYI, the intermediate tab has this gem: "On the other hand, Uranus is cooling")

Look at a graph of temperature (even the average of average of average ones). Pretty much none of the "niggles" are explained, and are therefore validly modeled non-deterministically (ie stochastically). There may be problems with using cointegration to describe climate, but I am confident you are not describing them well since it makes no sense.

Ah, an honest environmentalist. Yes, I think I can work with you. I, too, would like to preserve the species. That is the main reason I am so strongly in favor of setting up shop, at the very least, on the moon. There are other reasons I favor space research, such as moving the really nasty processes up into space, so as to not pollute our nice pretty planet, thus far the only one we've discovered capable of supporting human life in a shirtsleeves environment. We might even be able to generate or collect all our energy up there, and just beam it down, clean as can be.

But all that needs more technological progress, not a shrieking flight from it, like I see so often.

I don't think so. While the universe may also be ultimately deterministic (everything was decided at the moment of the big bang), our understanding of the laws of nature are incomplete and therefore we model the various unknowns as random processes. The idea is that as we discover more natural laws then we can reduce the amount of deviation from our model bit by bit.

So while I do not know enough about cointegration to really say anything in detail, the idea that the method is flawed because climate is not truly a random walk does not make sense to me.
[/quote]

Polynomial co-integration is a technique from the world of the Austrian School of Economics (http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/eco/es-264.pdf) that is used when you are trying to find correlations between a bunch of data that you THINK is related, but you don't know HOW.

It's not just a matter of degree like you are stating, we know some stuff, not every little niggle, but we still know enough to show that the climate DOES have forcings (multiple, not just 1) that influence things from one year to the next. We know the basic rules (even if Bill O'Riley thinks we don't know what causes tides. Yes, he really said that.) and we know that the movement from year to year is not in a random pattern.

I'm pretty sure if I was a climate scientist I'd either be laughing or crying about how inappropriate this analysis method is. As it is I'm pretty appalled.

I thought I'd post that for hilarity. Apparently there are SUVs on Neptune.
Oh and I researched the "debunking" too, the data on solar irradiance is supposed to be false. If it weren't for the Neptune chart that would be almost believable

Firstly, I never said that I did accept this paper as gospel. I merely stated that it would give FirstAscent a stroke, and that he would throw a conniption fit. He performed exactly as predicted. Secondly, nothing I stated contradicts the statement made by the paper.

I see quite a lot of negative impacts for the human species. Very few for the earth as a whole. You seem to have a very limited understanding of environmentalism. It's about saving Mother Earth, isn't it, not just people?

Thank you, I'll put that on my reading list. I warn you, though, it's a very long list. I may get to it some time in 2015.
[/quote]

He did so because you were putting it forward and defending it as if you believed in it's position. But the entire paper is patently invalid (which you should have been able to determine on your own before posting it) so this looks more and more like a troll-fest.

Honestly, my personal view is fuck the planet, this is about the species. Of course I also think that it would be really nice to eventually have an ancestral homeland that our future descendants can visit from the stars (<1000 years, peanuts in geologic and climate cycles) that is not a lesson i what NOT to do to a planet. We also only have 1 home until we colonize other planets, asteroids, etc in large numbers and even then earth is going to be critical to a large percentage of the human population unless/until we go interstellar. This is likely to take more than 100 years, and the cliamte change effects that are being predicted are significant enough that they present a danger before we can expand. So that's what I personally think.

But even if I was a naked green-painted whackjob driving a sustainable bio-diesel shoebox from destroying a GM farm to a tree-spiking party and then on to vandalize some SUV's with my tree-hugging, sandal wearing, dope smoking, patchouli smelling, whale loving, humanity apologists of an Environmentalist (please note this is not a typical model, I'm picking the most extreme environmentalist I can, no insult is intended to the vast majority, yes I was competing for most adverbs in a single sentence.) Even then I would have a huge objection - Destruction of BioDiversity. If Gaea is a living thing, then chopping off entire species must be painful. The fact that humans caused it (certainly in this guys mind) and we know how to feel guilty, is just icing on the cake.

Either way it's bad news, give it long enough and the planet will recover, but why not help it (and ourselves) along, instead of just letting the steamroller slowly crush us from the toes up.

That is a good, up to date primer, run through it earlier in the process and you will be better off.

I don't think so. While the universe may also be ultimately deterministic (everything was decided at the moment of the big bang), our understanding of the laws of nature are incomplete and therefore we model the various unknowns as random processes. The idea is that as we discover more natural laws then we can reduce the amount of deviation from our model bit by bit.

So while I do not know enough about cointegration to really say anything in detail, the idea that the method is flawed because climate is not truly a random walk does not make sense to me.

That's my point. The analysis method used by the author of the paper requires an assumption that is utterly and provably invalid.

I can't say anything about whether the paper is valid or not, but I highly doubt this accurately describes what is going on here. For example, by your definition what in the universe would not be a deterministic system?

Firstly, I never said that I did accept this paper as gospel. I merely stated that it would give FirstAscent a stroke, and that he would throw a conniption fit. He performed exactly as predicted. Secondly, nothing I stated contradicts the statement made by the paper.

I see quite a lot of negative impacts for the human species. Very few for the earth as a whole. You seem to have a very limited understanding of environmentalism. It's about saving Mother Earth, isn't it, not just people?

Thank you, I'll put that on my reading list. I warn you, though, it's a very long list. I may get to it some time in 2015.

would you understand conclusive proof?
i can safely say conclusive proof that human activity plays a significant role in climate change could bite me in the ass and i wouldnt notice. this is not like the physics of thrown objects, needing only a few formulas and allowing for simple self-made experiments. unless you intend to spend months digging into the topic, trusting the scientific consent is the only thing you can do. and there is consent.

So you just said you don't even believe this paper, because it's methods are deeply flawed and its findings are not the same as what you put forth above.

On point 1, WTF is WRONG with you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming tell me what in this is NOT bad?

Here, read this and you might have a better understanding of this issue. It is quite obvious that you either don't know or don't care what is going on. http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Booklets/Lines-of-Evidence

I can see why he didn't want to respond to your trolling, I'm about to bow out myself.