The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[kerbiloid]

About the scientific majority consensus.

Spoiler

"5 scientists of 6 have proven that the Russian Roulette is safe."

 

[kerbiloid]

Idk if it was here.

https://www.floodmap.net

1. Enter water elevation level, press Set.

2. Drag, zoom,

P.S.
It's also fine to set "-120" and watch the Mediterranean + Black Sea borderline of the Ice Age epoch.

Edited June 29, 2023 by kerbiloid

[Codraroll]

On 6/27/2023 at 3:18 AM, darthgently said:

For what it is worth, this is the paper that moved me to what I think is a healthy skepticism of the current scientific apparatus.  It is a short read, with no major flaws I'm aware of. 

Science is crucial and it pains me to see where we are now and that problems seem to have increased rather than decreased:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

I wouldn't say the paper has any major flaws, but I would be very careful with when to consider its conclusions applicable.

As far as I can tell, it exclusively cites biomedical research for examples, where most studies follow a rather set and rigid pattern of the type "Does A correlate with B? Given the number of interactions between A and B, a correlation would be C percent likely to be observed. We did D and E to A and B, and observed a correlation that is F percent likely to be a coincidental product of random chance, with a margin of error of G ...". Then it sets up a mathematical model (which has been critizized for exaggerating the reduction of the "credibility" of the research results) to show that the study result is H percent likely to be wrong if C, E, and F are so-and-so large, and due to the methodology H is almost always a pretty big number. It also leaps to some strange conclusions elaborated in the criticism paper.

It doesn't say outright that "most science is wrong". Nor does it give any basis for overthrowing conclusions in any scientific fields. There is also a rather large leap from "statistically speaking, most science results are likely to be wrong" to "any study presented is likely to be wrong", and yet a larger one to sweeping conclusions about the state of science in general.

[kerbiloid]

"correlates with" doesn't necessary mean "caused by"

it can be just "both are caused by the same reason, but not necessary correlate each other directly"

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:55 AM, kerbiloid said:

water elevation level

No matter how often I try that or the NOAA maps, I just can't get my house to become beach front property. 

[mikegarrison]

When I push down on the accelerator pedal of my car, it accelerates. Now, this is just a correlation. It doesn't prove causation. But I have a physics-based model of how the pedal sends a signal to the throttle body (a cable), and a physics-based model of how the engine reacts to the throttle being opened, and etc. until the wheels apply force to the road which then accelerates the car. The correlation is not the reason why I am confident of the causation. It is simply confirmation that my physics-based model is correct.

Every time someone whines about climate science and how correlation is not causation, it makes me suspect they have no idea about the philosophical theory of how science and engineering actually work. Either that or they have no idea that climate scientists are not just guessing about the physics of the Earth's climate.

[farmerben]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

 until the wheels apply force to the road which then accelerates the car. 

 

That force accelerates the road, but there is an equal and opposite force to the car from the road.

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Every time someone whines about climate science and how correlation is not causation, it makes me suspect they have no idea about the philosophical theory of how science and engineering actually work. Either that or they have no idea that climate scientists are not just guessing about the physics of the Earth's climate.

It has been more than ok to state a reminder that "correlation does not equal causation" in a science discussion for many, many generations of scientists without fear of reprisal or disparagement.

One could more fruitfully direct statements away from one's suspicions about other people's inner thoughts, emotions, and state of intelligence. 

 

[mikegarrison]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

It has been more than ok to state a reminder that "correlation does not equal causation" in a science discussion for many, many generations of scientists without fear of reprisal or disparagement.

One could more fruitfully direct statements away from one's suspicions about other people's inner thoughts, emotions, and state of intelligence. 

"Correlation not equaling causation" is a perfectly valid warning when you don't have a testable, theoretically sound model for the causation. It's a warning to not just assume "then the magic happens". But if you DO have a testable, theoretically sound model of the causation, then it's no longer magic. It's science.

Edited July 2, 2023 by mikegarrison

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

When I push down on the accelerator pedal of my car, it accelerates. Now, this is just a correlation. It doesn't prove causation. But I have a physics-based model of how the pedal sends a signal to the throttle body (a cable), and a physics-based model of how the engine reacts to the throttle being opened, and etc. until the wheels apply force to the road which then accelerates the car. The correlation is not the reason why I am confident of the causation. It is simply confirmation that my physics-based model is correct.

1. The output car acceleration has the only input value in your example, the pedal angle.

For example, you can get hot from different reasons:

• by having the window opened too long;
• by having the window closed too long;
• by reading financial news;
• by talking to somebody;
• by taking a medicine;
• by sitting on a stove;
• etc.

Various reasons, same result.

If you are sitting on the switched off stove, and reading financial news under the opened fly in cold weather, there are several reasons at once.
The stove is obvious, but unreal (as it's off). The news and the cold air from the fly can make you hot both, try to guess what will be first.

2. A teslacar doesn't care, what are you doing to the controls.
If you are sitting on the rear seat and turning a toy wheel, the car turns simultaneously to your playing, but is not caused by it at all.

Edited July 2, 2023 by kerbiloid

[darthgently]

8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

"Correlation not equaling causation" is a perfectly valid warning when you don't have a testable, theoretically sound model for the causation. It's a warning to not just assume "then the magic happens". But if you DO have a testable, theoretically sound model of the causation, then it's no longer magic. It's science.

Exactly.  So it is aspects of the models, artifact/distortions in the data, and cherry picking that are in dispute.   Not theoretical whining or sub-par intelligence at all

[kerbiloid]

The diagram of the skirt length proves the global warming theory.

Spoiler

Also, it correlates with the effective thickness of layer of global garbage.

The mini-bikini strings are same as the tribal loincloth of equatorial regions.

[farmerben]

To say that A caused B, means if B had not happened then A would not have happened.  That's why in medicine blind controlled trials are about the only acceptable way to prove a therapy's effectiveness.  In other fields like geology, we almost never get a controlled trail.  

Maybe geoengineering will have unexpected side effects.  But, you'll have a damn hard time proving that the engineering caused it.

[kerbiloid]

57 minutes ago, farmerben said:

To say that A caused B, means if B had not happened then A would not have happened. 

No.
B may be caused by A or C. A may cause B only together with D.
Thus, it's not the same.

[farmerben]

Pulling the trigger (A) caused the gun to go off (B).  

 

The gun was loaded (D)

Heating a loaded gun to 3000 degrees will also cause it to go off (C)

 

In an ordinary sense, as well as a legal sense, the first statement is true.  A jury knows the difference between a loaded and an unloaded gun.  In the event of the gun going off it is unnecessary to say it was loaded.  In many cases C and D can be enormously large sets.   In a medical trial they try to control for D.  They attempt to create two sets of people who are on average the same.  Or at least as random and unbiased as possible.  

 

Saying A caused B is making a statement about counterfactual history.  If I wanted to say "Only A can cause B." or "A always causes B" those are different statements.  

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by farmerben

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

Saying A caused B is making a statement about counterfactual history.  If I wanted to say "Only A can cause B." or "A always causes B" those are different statements.  

The revolver misfired, while a director assistant had occasionally loaded another revolver with real bullet, and thus the victim was shot from another weapon.

So, the shot-hole correlation stays correct, but the wound was not caused by this reason.

[Gargamel]

I think we can all agree that causation usually requires correlation, and that correlation implies causation, but needs confirmation. 
 

We’ve all seen the graphs where stuff like the price of butter in Wisconsin directly correlates to the divorce rate in Maine.    We know what this means, or doesn’t.  
 

Let’s just move along before we start squabbling again and it gets personal.    

[kerbiloid]

Not exactly the sea levels, but related to the "green" products and ecology in whole .

Quote

The (Russian) government approved the idea to equate products labeled "green", "eco" and "bio" with organic. It will be possible to write “green” on the product packaging if it means color or degree of ripeness

https://www-rbc-ru.translate.goog/business/03/07/2023/649eb8539a7947a4c799b382?from=from_main_1&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

[FleshJeb]

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 7/6/2023 at 3:42 PM, FleshJeb said:

Grin! 

Although moderate counterpoint:

"Scientists" proposing GeoEngineering 'solutions' to climate change are like the College Party Expert saying, "When you're starting to pass out from too much alcohol and narcotics, the only solution is more cocain!" 

 

[RevanX_LSR]

On 8/5/2023 at 8:54 PM, AlamoVampire said:

Its becoming a yearly thing. Though yesterday was the most extreme instance. Last year it tripped the float but it would stay off 30-60 minutes before draining enough, yesterday took 6 hours. The last 3 years have seen an increase in algae or something in the drip pan causing discharge out of the secondary weep port, and as a result the build up hits a point where both primary and secondary ports get blocked. This year has seen a huge spike in humidity and i guess its worse. But why is it just mine having this issue? Something i plan on asking the tech. House was built in late 76 early 77 and only used to be rare to see the secondary weep drip, but again since 2019 or so has it started being a yearly thing.

075408052023

075508052023

ngl this years worldwide heatwaves are the worst ever.

[AlamoVampire]

6 hours ago, JNSQFan said:

ngl this years worldwide heatwaves are the worst ever.

Next year sadly will be worse. Our planet is in so much trouble.

135508102023

[tater]

17 hours ago, JNSQFan said:

ngl this years worldwide heatwaves are the worst ever.

We had ~15 days >100°F this year in ABQ. In 1980 we had 28, and ~15 the years around it. The last 10-20 or so we've had ~4-5 per year (per national weather service page).

It was hot in summer when I was a kid, and no one had central AC in the 70s, maybe a couple window units (and a mom with a box fan set up to try and cool the whole house with said 2 AC units—it was not cool, but at least less humid (that was in CT).

So at least in NM where I have now lived for 40 years, there's been effectively zero change. Some summers incredibly super hot, others only super hot (it's NM, lol, it's always super hot in summer).

Edited August 11, 2023 by tater

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, tater said:

We had ~15 days >100°F this year in ABQ. In 1980 we had 28, and ~15 the years around it. The last 10-20 or so we've had ~4-5 per year (per national weather service page).

It was hot in summer when I was a kid, and no one had central AC in the 70s, maybe a couple window units (and a mom with a box fan set up to try and cool the whole house with said 2 AC units—it was not cool, but at least less humid (that was in CT).

So at least in NM where I have now lived for 40 years, there's been effectively zero change. Some summers incredibly super hot, others only super hot (it's NM, lol, it's always super hot in summer).

I think @JNSQFan is confusing “heatwaves” with global average temperature, which is indeed the hottest on record (in the Holocene, since record keeping began).

[RevanX_LSR]

yeah

4 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think @JNSQFan is confusing “heatwaves” with global average temperature, which is indeed the hottest on record (in the Holocene, since record keeping began).