Maggie's Farm

I forget where that pirates chart is from, because I saw it once before in a discussion on correlation vs. causation.

It is not too dissimilar from the claim that "kneeling on the ball" will lead to victory in football because if you do a correlation chart on how many times the winning team kneels, there is overwhelming evidence that this will lead to victory.

Sadly, few people recognize that correlation is NOT causation. Not even close.

That's true. And even AGW believers will cede that fact, at the start.

However, they will then alter their point of view and say while Carbon Dioxide rises after warming at the start, soon it becomes a vicious cycle and the Carbon Dioxide becomes "the cause".

It's outlandish, but they believe it.

I've built models (for finance) for years. All are built on causative models.

I can make them say whatever you want them to say.

The idea that CO2 starts out as a result of warming, then becomes the cause, is very hard for me to accept. If each additional unit of CO2 provided equal warming value to the process, I'd be more likely to believe it. However, each additional CO2 unit undergoes a process of diminishing value. So if an additional 100 ppm adds .1 degree in warming, to get the next .1 degree of warming we'd have to add 200 ppm. For the next .1 degree, we'd need 400 ppm.

The discussion, really, has very little relationship with CO2. It just happens that's where the discussion started years ago and hasn't budged. H2O is a far more plentiful greenhouse gas, and all the models they've built do not do a good job accounting for the water cycle. In addition, there are other greenhouse gases which are increasing at a faster rate and warm far more than CO2. Methane, for example.

But the problem remains one of "we have to wait and see" because there is no clear linkage between anything. I can put together charts all day long that show an economic recovery, but that won't make it so. Once the model is built, you can plan to it, but the model can also prove you wrong. Unfortunately, I've seen that happen too many times. People think a model "proves" their belief. All it does is self-reinforce.

So far, the models haven't lived up to their hype. Sure, it's been a short time frame, less than 20 years, and the models are improving, but they still are in their infancy as far as understanding it. Which is precisely why the East Anglia email scandal was so damaging to their cause because it exposed the flaws in some of their arguments, as well as how they have prevented peer review of articles which are skeptical of the theories.

I'm firmly in the camp that warming is taking place, but I believe it's natural. I don't see how it can be any other way, at this point.
Now, if by 2050 we are 5 degrees warmer, as the alarmists suggest, then I'd worry. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say if we have 5 years of increases to global temperature that amount to 1.2 degrees, then I'd admit I'm wrong.

Until then? I'll stick with my belief that there is a political power agenda taking place.

I don't do climate models, but I'm aware of how they work, because every model works the same way. You provide the data, and derive an outcome based on the inputs.

The problem is what you don't know. What you don't know is always what makes the model inefficient. Which is precisely why models of this nature, with so many changing variables, uncertainties, and potential missing data, are the most inefficient.

I'm aware that climatologists are familiar with all the factors which I mentioned. I worked at the Weather Channel for a period of time, and Heidi Cullen is their chief climatologist. I don't happen to be a fan, but I am familiar with her work. Even if they are familiar with it, it doesn't mean they understand it 100%. I am very familiar with the effects of supply and demand, but I don't claim to know 100% about the price elasticity of my product, because there are many variables which come into play. I make many guesses....just like climatologists.

I'm also aware that the IPCC has removed language from their documents which discusses the speculative nature of the link between man and the climate.

I have no problem people when believe what they want, but I do have a problem with unquestioning acceptance. I find it odd that people who accept the AGW argument because "experts" are working on it. These same people are often unwilling to accept the advice of "experts" in other fields, such as finance, economics, sociology or any other science which has a high degree of uncertainty involved.

We are, and should be, skeptical by nature until the facts are fully available. I haven't seen any facts yet. Just some speculation about how things might turn out. Yet, so far, things haven't turned out at all the way we've been told they would.

In fact, it's caused the "experts" to go back and refit their data. That, to me, sounds like self-reinforcing behavior.

Imagine if I built a model that says the economy is improving for XYZ reasons. After 12 months, the economy is still struggling. So I go back and refit my data and I step up and say "well I did ABC wrong, but the model still shows the economy is improving, so just give it time."
My credibility would diminish. Interestingly, that doesn't happen with climatologists.

But, if luck holds, and the economy suddenly jumps 4% one quarter, I kick back and claim victory, even if it slumps over the following 5 quarters.

Models are a hard to win game because the only thing they tell you is what you wanted to hear to begin with.

In the case of warming, if the natural state is already warming (and there's data to suggest this), then nature is doing most of the work for you before you even got a chance to play your games and you have to filter out the effects.

As I said, when the data comes in and proves that I was wrong to be skeptical, that man made (as opposed to the natural increase which occurs as a result of a warming climate) CO2 clearly and abundantly caused warming in excess of expectations, then I'll believe it. The data isn't there yet.

Warming? Yes, I believe in it. Man made? Very questionable.

Then you've got Doc's discussion point on whether it's even all that bad to be undergoing warming....but that's a whole different ball of wax.

I'm looking for the part where I said climate change isn't real. I didn't.

I agree the data is not something you can easily see. You have basically completely made my point.

Like any very uncertain science, the data is apparent only after the fact. As you run up to the event, however, you are working primarily on speculation. Climatology is as well-defined a science as Economics, a science I'm fairly well informed on.

And while I have disagreements with economists, let's say like Paul Krugman, I recognize that sometimes even he is correct about a thing or two. What differentiates us is how we choose to speculate about things, and what our motivating factors are.

What's interesting to me is the complete avoidance of the political agenda that is playing out with climatology. If anything, the East Anglia email scandal should have (and for some did) cause them to rethink the approach. There was clear evidence that data was doctored. There was also clear evidence that skeptics were outcast and attempts to gag them professionally were made.

I was told by "experts" that the economic stimulus would create or save jobs and keep unemployment under 8.0%, based on their models. That didn't work out so well, did it? And these guys know their job as well as I know mine, but I didn't think the stimulus would do diddly. Does that make me smarter than them?
No, it just means that my speculation about how the economy works was more accurate. I have plenty of other models which I made where I wasn't quite as good.

As I pointed out, so far the models aren't living up to the hype. I'm not surprised by this.

I'm not sure what you mean by Nature is not a mechanism. If you mean nature doesn't cause anything, I agree. That doesn't mean what is occurring isn't part of a natural process.