Quote:
Originally Posted by Splorf22
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Anyway, I read your Nature article. I can only say . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me see if I can explain to your mongoloid brain why those authors should be taken out and beaten with a hose. Google the name of the paper (its free to download) and skip down to 'methodology'. Then see if you can tell me with a straight face that a 3-layer neural network with 10 nodes and 12 input parameters can represent our Earth, the sun, its atmosphere, and so on. All of this stuff ends up being the same BS: when you train on data since 1850, both CO2 and temperature have increased. If you throw any statistical measure at this of course it will say they are correlated. Now, repeat after me: correlation is not causation!
|
Yeah, except that a simulation only needs to be as complex as will produce consistent and predictive results, you fucking tool.
Read the last paragraph, and see if your fancy letters can help you ferret out the reason why this study is valid rather than invalidated by lack of infinite complexity, as you seem to desire:
Here we have shown that for global temperature the fundamental principle of conservation of energy, combined with knowledge about the evolution of radiative forcing, provides a complementary approach to attribution. Our results are strongly constrained by global observations and are robust when considering uncertainties in radiative forcing, the observed warming and in climate feedbacks. Each of the thousands of model simulations is a consistent realization of the ocean atmosphere energy balance. The resulting distribution of climate sensitivity (1.7–6.5 °C, 5–95%, mean 3.6 °C) is also consistent with independent evidence derived from palaeoclimate archives11. Using a more informative prior assumption does not significantly alter the conclusions (see Supplementary Information). Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing. The discrepancy between the total and the sum of the two contributions (14% on average) arises because the total ocean heat uptake is different from the sum of the responses to the individual forcings. Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07 °C (0.03–0.13 °C) to the warming since 1950 (see Fig. 3c). The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as palaeoclimate evidence leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times.