Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Correlation does not imply causation - GW

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 7:05:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By using the data on CO2 PPM in the atmosphere, along with global ocean-land temperatures for the last decade, I was able to plot a chart to determine correlation.

See chart;
http://www.debate.org...

What I found was that there was a 82% correlation (r = 0.82), however correlation does not imply causation.

In addition to the correlation, I found that the sum of squared errors of prediction was 47% (SSE = 0.47); this means that there is a 47% chance of error using this model for predictions. Simply by looking at the chart you can see the error between the data points and the line.
Although there is a correlation between CO2 and temperatures, it is unlikely that CO2 is the cause.

Data source:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...
http://blogs.crikey.com.au...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 7:12:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Haha, I just did the same thing with guns and homicides.

The models we use are flawed, I don't know how we have people claiming to know how CO2 levels are going to affect the temperature with them. If we understood our planet so well, we would probably be able to predict storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, and droughts better than we can now.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:11:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the CO2 I found there was (r= 0.44).

For the sun I got (r = 0.57)

For the PDO/AMO I got (r = .83)

Actually, I was to lazy to get the numbers, so I googled it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:16:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas and trap some of the sun's rays and therefore heat, where is the debate?

Man has put large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think it is a good explanation.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:18:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:11:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
For the CO2 I found there was (r= 0.44).

For the sun I got (r = 0.57)

For the PDO/AMO I got (r = .83)

Actually, I was to lazy to get the numbers, so I googled it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com...

well I was just using data from the last decade. I had trouble finding raw data for temperature going back more than a decade. I'm sure that data is from a longer time frame.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:20:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:18:04 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/22/2012 9:11:35 PM, 16kadams wrote:
For the CO2 I found there was (r= 0.44).

For the sun I got (r = 0.57)

For the PDO/AMO I got (r = .83)

Actually, I was to lazy to get the numbers, so I googled it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com...

well I was just using data from the last decade. I had trouble finding raw data for temperature going back more than a decade. I'm sure that data is from a longer time frame.

Can you give me the data? I wanna try to calculate it as well.

And yes, that used data from the last century.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:16:53 PM, Contra wrote:
If CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas and trap some of the sun's rays and therefore heat, where is the debate?

Man has put large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think it is a good explanation.

you are making an awful lot of consumptions. CO2 has both heating and cooling effects, and there is nothing to prove that CO2 effects climate, or that man is the reason behind he CO2 PPM increase. The PPM of co2 in the atmosphere has naturally changed over time; at one point it was much higher than it is now.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:22:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:21:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/22/2012 9:16:53 PM, Contra wrote:
If CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas and trap some of the sun's rays and therefore heat, where is the debate?

Man has put large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think it is a good explanation.

you are making an awful lot of assumptions. CO2 has both heating and cooling effects, and there is nothing to prove that CO2 effects climate, or that man is the reason behind he CO2 PPM increase. The PPM of co2 in the atmosphere has naturally changed over time; at one point it was much higher than it is now.

typo, due to autocorrect
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:23:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:16:53 PM, Contra wrote:
If CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas and trap some of the sun's rays and therefore heat, where is the debate?

Man has put large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think it is a good explanation.

Not really. We are responsible for very little CO2.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:26:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:16:53 PM, Contra wrote:
If CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas and trap some of the sun's rays and therefore heat, where is the debate?

Man has put large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think it is a good explanation.

What you are saying is that although the math says the model is flawed, we should accept it because we are told CO2 causes global warming.

What I find funny is that greens argue that CO2 causes global warming because it adds to the green house gases, while also arguing that CFCs cause global warming because it reduces green house gases (O3 is a green house gas). Make up your mind! More or less green house gases!?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 9:31:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:26:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/22/2012 9:16:53 PM, Contra wrote:
If CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas and trap some of the sun's rays and therefore heat, where is the debate?

Man has put large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think it is a good explanation.

What you are saying is that although the math says the model is flawed, we should accept it because we are told CO2 causes global warming.

This is an honest question: How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere are we responsible for? (a somewhat accurate assumption would have to be made though).

What I find funny is that greens argue that CO2 causes global warming because it adds to the green house gases, while also arguing that CFCs cause global warming because it reduces green house gases (O3 is a green house gas). Make up your mind! More or less green house gases!?

CFCs = ozone hole

I don't argue on that idea. Just Co2 and other greenhouse gases such as Methane.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 10:58:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:31:33 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/22/2012 9:26:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/22/2012 9:16:53 PM, Contra wrote:
If CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas and trap some of the sun's rays and therefore heat, where is the debate?

Man has put large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think it is a good explanation.

What you are saying is that although the math says the model is flawed, we should accept it because we are told CO2 causes global warming.

This is an honest question: How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere are we responsible for? (a somewhat accurate assumption would have to be made though).

What I find funny is that greens argue that CO2 causes global warming because it adds to the green house gases, while also arguing that CFCs cause global warming because it reduces green house gases (O3 is a green house gas). Make up your mind! More or less green house gases!?

CFCs = ozone hole

CFCs did not cause the ozone hole. The fact that the Ozone hole started to heal already proves this, as the lifespan of CFCs in the atmosphere are much longer than the 23 years that had passed since the Montreal Protocol. This indicates that it's not CFCs, that are causing the hole.
I don't argue on that idea. Just Co2 and other greenhouse gases such as Methane.

Once again O3 is also a green house gas. The math indicates that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature changes. CO2 and other green house gases naturally fluctuate throughout history. During the late Paleogene and early Eocene Period CO2 levels were 1000-2000 ppm.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2012 10:59:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's no debate on whether co2 is a greenhouse gas or not. The question is how much an effect Co2 has at current levels. This is difficult to calculate considering how dynamic and stochastic the climate is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 12:41:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/22/2012 9:16:53 PM, Contra wrote:
If CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas and trap some of the sun's rays and therefore heat, where is the debate?

Just about everyone agrees that CO2 cause warming. The debate is over how much. If the simple physics of greenhouse gases is applied, doubling CO2 would cause about 1.5 degrees of warming. Alarmists claim the effect is multiplied by two or more. that's what the debate is about.

Another debate is about the effect of warming. If the average temperature of the earth increased from 58F to, say, 65F, wold that be good or bad?

Man has put large amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think it is a good explanation.

For the decade 2000-2009 there was no global warming, although CO2 continued to be dumped into the atmosphere. It may be that CO2 indeed caused warming, but something else counteracted it. So then the question is what counteracted it. We don't know.