Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Statistical analysis versus computer modeling

  1. Aug 3, 2007 #1
    See here

    Also here

    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 3, 2007 #2
    Don't underestimate the skeptics and their capacity for denial.
  4. Aug 4, 2007 #3
    You do realize that statistics do not count as proof, they can only help indicate a possible solution which may or may not be correct?
    Furthermore, 150 years (the reported time period of the statistical analysis) is a pathetically short time for testing a particular model. Try thousands or millions of years.
    Lastly, the scientist who performed this analysis is not claiming that his report in any way is conclusive proof that anthropogenic global warming exists (atleast according to the news reports). All he said is that his report should “enrich the continuing debate on the future of our climate.”

    There is a strong statistical correlation between the number of pirates in the world and the average temperature but that does not mean that the amount of pirates determines the average temperature of the world!

    If statistics were so powerful, then scientists wouldn't spend their entire lives looking for explanations of natural phenomenon.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2007
  5. Aug 4, 2007 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That is true, however the significance of this is that an alternate approach supports the existing conclusions.

    This seems to ignore the nature of the evidence. The test was to identify a forcing function that agrees with the data over that span of time.

    If we have a forcing function that runs in 100 year cycles, for example, it would not be necessary to look at millions of years of data to see it. Also, if we have an irregular function that has uniquely identifiable characteristics, it might easily be identified when compared to the observed variations in the data.

    Oh really?

    Not only do I doubt that the pirates graph is accurate, there is serious doubt that the profile would match the required forcing function. :wink:

    Oh yes, many scientists and engineers use statistics successfully on a daily basis.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2007
  6. Aug 4, 2007 #5
    Math and Global Warming

    Math always has a place in the universe and vice versa. If anything can be predicted without direct physical observation of the factors involved, then math can do it. Of course, anything that is predicted by math remains as theory unless proven physically. The same goes for statistical data that can lead to conclusions to possible outcomes.

    I believe that math can and does give a fairly accurate way of predicting things if the factors involved remain constant for a period of time beyond the expected outcome. However, there are likely too many variables in this global warming phenomenon that are unaccounted for.

    You might want to read about this item from TheNewsRoom on how math is used to assess climate change: http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/561532?c_id=wom-bc-ar

    I'm writing from TheScienceDesk at TheNewsRoom. We have a group of users into global warming who have found great news from us which they have used for their sites. If you're interested, email mail jtowns@voxant.com. We'll be glad to entertain your inquiries.

    - Alvin from TheScienceDesk at TheNewsRoom.com
  7. Aug 4, 2007 #6
    It's proven scientific fact that the temperature has been on a rising trend. It is proven scientific fact that CO2 levels have increased in the atmosphere. We don't need some complex statistical analysis to see these things. The debate isn't over whether or not a global warming trend exists or whether or not humans have led to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, etc. the debate is over whether or not this issue even matters.

    Yes, quite absurd. Everyone knows that the average temperature of the world is determined mainly by the mating patterns of penguins.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2007
  8. Aug 4, 2007 #7
    Use of Debates

    Renge's right. Debates are beside the point. Whether or not global warming is caused by natural fluctuations or anthropogenic, there's still the fact that weather patterns are changing and ice is melting. Global warming aside, I still would want the pumping of carbon dioxide into the air, along with other hydrocarbon emissions that constitute air pollution, to cease. I also would want the harvesting of forest trees stopped and that people just resort to tree farming. I'd rather have a world with clean air and trees than one that's foul and bare.

    Interestingly, here's news item link from the Investor's Business Daily, courtesy of TheNewsRoom about trees and global warming from the critic's point of view:

    - Alvin from TheScienceDesk at TheNewsRoom.com
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Statistical analysis versus computer modeling
  1. Climate Models (Replies: 7)

  2. Tsunami Model? (Replies: 2)

  3. "Why models run hot" (Replies: 51)