cameronfen

Yes but the idea is you trade every single stock, every commodity, every currency pair and derivative contracts. After all a neural network that can follow one trend has an easier time of generalizing to other assets. With that you can manage a lot of assets. Making money through stats arb doesn’t mean they use neural network or even any sophisticated AI. The neural network is actually a pretty new thing. Any alpha/ideas employed by hedge fund human traders can be automated by Stats arb. But it’s not easy to apply most ideas in equity to other assets. AFAIK rentech is not stat arb typically (although at this point they probably do a bit of everything). I think stat arb is not just programming hedge fund ideas. It is but is grounded in mathematical or at least statistically valid arbitrage opportunities ie actual situations where the same asset has different prices. Rentech is mainly a trend following quant shop, which means they use techniques to identify then follow trends. While you don’t have to use cutting edge machine learning to identify those trends, most of the big quant shops have teams that apply machine learning and deep learning to these problems. I know for sure that Rentech hires machine learning phds. I’m not saying generalizing a statistical model is easy, but it’s much easier if you have one model the follows trends to extend that to other assets and even asset classes. While they might pick up fundamentals, to some extent when you are trading based on trend a lot of that is probably picking up subtle behavioral reactions to price movement and that generalized across any asset class.

Yes but the idea is you trade every single stock, every commodity, every currency pair and derivative contracts. After all a neural network that can follow one trend has an easier time of generalizing to other assets. With that you can manage a lot of assets.

^ also in a redux i think the other commenters were confused and thought you were talking about Aircastle again.

I may be wrong but I don't think arb trading scales all that well, which I think all the big names are trend followers, or at least even the big firms that started off arb trading jave branched into trend following.

Again I think you people have warren darrangement syndrome. Also like European derrangement syndrome. Like I said before, worse case scenario we end up like Germany or France and apprently to you guys that future wasunbareable. You might really dislike those countries but the average citizen there believes their way of life (not just economy-wise) is significantly better than the United States, so its not like they are begging to live in our system of government and politics. I'm not saying their system is better than ours, but it helps to be open minded to other points of view especially if they are as happy as you are with what they have. Anyway, I think you'll probably regret hedging as much as you are saying. Sure buying a little more international stocks would be good, but this idea that she's going to cause the downfall of the US system seems ridiculous.

I feel like all of you are way overestimating the role of the president on the economy. If you follow one rule: goverment spending during a recession, you will do about as well as an average president in a cycle. Warren can't propose her more leftwing policies without consent from congress and republicans will likely control the senate. It's unlikely she will politicize bureaucratic roles as the current state of the world is abnormal for politicians of any stripe. So while she might encourage anti-trust to go after big tech firms in her speeches, the general hands off policy over the last 20 years will be more the norm with maybe a little reversal. Healthcare is a huge bogeyman, but again, Obamacare didn't do anything huge to the stock market in general and again she needs a dem senate. Tax raises for corporations, whoop-de-do, the market has been on a 10 year bull market and most of it was before tax cuts. Might see some effect, but that doesn't change the long term competiveness of American firms. As Buffet says always stay invested if you can find good valuations in corps to buy and trust in American businesses, true when Trump took office and will be true if Warren does. the brilliance of our constitution is that it is hard for any one branch of govt to screw things up totally...but POTUS comes the closest. unless you have been under a rock, you may have noticed that there is a substantial portion of our society that has embraced victimization, and shirked responsibility as a primary civic objective. my big issue with warren would be that she would absolutely entrench this slackerism bordering on socialism as official govt policy, and as POTUS, she can absolutely get much of her policies ingrained into the bureaucracy...an example is the extent to which Obama reformed universities to eliminate due process rights for those accused of sexual misconduct, simply as an adjunct to receiving federal funds. now, back to the market. almost every industry will become a battleground...increase corporate taxes, eliminate private health insurers (I cant even imagine the disruption that this will cause over 20% of the US economy), tech (break them up), banks (breaks them up) etc. she doesn't have to accomplish this in order to wreck the economy. just proceeding as the big and beautiful POTUS would be enough. obama for all of his faults was a relative neophyte in matters financial and economic, so he tended to rely on advisors (who were relatively mainstream). warren thinks she knows better than any one in matters financial and economic, and is absolutely inclined to concentrate power in a massively undemocratic bureaucracy (think CFPB, her baby). this is not a political rant, this is a market rant. the market will observe these prospects and vomit. on the day after the election of warren. Putting this another way. At worst the US will become a bigger version of Germany or France if Warren gets her way on everything. The economy in France especially is worse then the US, but honestly nothing to freak out over.

I feel like all of you are way overestimating the role of the president on the economy. If you follow one rule: goverment spending during a recession, you will do about as well as an average president in a cycle. Warren can't propose her more leftwing policies without consent from congress and republicans will likely control the senate. It's unlikely she will politicize bureaucratic roles as the current state of the world is abnormal for politicians of any stripe. So while she might encourage anti-trust to go after big tech firms in her speeches, the general hands off policy over the last 20 years will be more the norm with maybe a little reversal. Healthcare is a huge bogeyman, but again, Obamacare didn't do anything huge to the stock market in general and again she needs a dem senate. Tax raises for corporations, whoop-de-do, the market has been on a 10 year bull market and most of it was before tax cuts. Might see some effect, but that doesn't change the long term competiveness of American firms. As Buffet says always stay invested if you can find good valuations in corps to buy and trust in American businesses, true when Trump took office and will be true if Warren does.

I don't know about Canada, but if a corporation did something akin to this (violating the spirit of the law, not the letter) in the US they would probably get away with it. Which I think is unfair in how courts rule proper behavior differently for individuals and corporations (due in part to the latter having more high power lawyers).

Let me correct that for you. Libertarian Science The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress. Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well. So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above? https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression. I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k. But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex) The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward. So it turns out government return on R&D funding (mainly giving money to universities has high rates of return): https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/ Why? Govt is likely bad at picking winners and losers, but most research has little payoff to the discoverer. For example, the invention of the internet, GPS, Satellites/rockers, many times doesn't inventors rich, it later made the companies that commercialize the idea, rich. This is why things like basic science research, defense research etc, have such high ROI. Researches benefit very little, but the externality benefit to others is massive. Thus there is an underinvestment into basic research (ie research not designed at improving an existing product or service). Wartime spending is often extreme and reckless. We also hired plenty of Nazis after WWII (operation paperclip). Again, I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in any capacity. There have been benefits (internet etc). But even that is difficult to quantify because you can’t really say the private sector wouldn’t have been able to accomplish it. Your bias seems extreme in favor of govt. Govt funding has also given us ridiculous research spending on trivial things such as treadmills for shrimp....it’s easier to waste money of tax payers. Imagine the outrage of shareholders if companies wasted millions on stuff like in the below link. https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/wasteful-government-spending/ I don't have an extreme favor of government spending, but my point is sometimes government spending is net positive with high returns on investment because for whatever reason industry won't do it. For example, no private industry would build the interstate system in the US (or pay for infustructure spending), because even if we let them charge money for it they is a.) no good business model for how to do that and b.) because there are no good compitors with good business models you can run the risk of monopolies and anti competitive practices (like for example when Canada offered to entirely fund and build another bridge to Detroit, there was a push against it funded by the people that owned the main current bridge) and c. it costs 128 billion dollars and no company has the money to do some high npv yielding project that is entirely orthogonal to the companies mission. A counter example seems to be charter schools. Government seems to be less effective in especially in cash constrained urban area in providing good education. Thus we should open up and allow more charter schools as there are improvements in education. The point is to not be dogmatic and say all govt spending is bad or good for this reason or that and look at the evidence. (edits : took out not that useful additional example)

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources. Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun. Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence). All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women. In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples. So there is no doubt that current climate changed is influenced by the liberal agenda, however as mentioned earlier, if one had a discovery that suggested with a good deal of certainty that climate change was caused by factors other than humans, the researcher would immediately become famous, potentially win a Nobel Prize, and journals would be stepping over themselves to get it published. No they wouldn't. There's lots of (published AND statistically significant) research the sun cycles have high correlation with the historic temperature fluctuations on Earth. This not ground braking or new. It's just impopular right now because it doesn't help the socialistic large government political agenda. Are you saying climate scientists are ignoring sunspots and aren't taking into account this fact?

Zerohedge and Mike Sherlock - you need better sources. Their data is correct. Human caused climate change doesn't exist, it's all normal "natural" cycles mostly caused by the sun. Mainstream "scientific" evidence is just a bunch of scammers/incompetents extrapolating a rising temperature from an extremely small sample (last century) while ignoring the context of the milenia before that. On top of that they blindly conclude humans are the cause, without presenting any evidence (not even faulty evidence). All politically influenced "science" becomes unscientific. In the current age that's economics (Keynsianism), climate change and studies to do with minorities or women. In the Middle Ages the church had political control of much "scientific" research as well. I would be called a "flat Earth denier" and "Earth is the center of the universe denier" back then I guess. In the future people will look back at the politically influenced science from today with the same shame as we do now for those examples. So there is no doubt that current climate changed is influenced by the liberal agenda, however as mentioned earlier, if one had a discovery that suggested with a good deal of certainty that climate change was caused by factors other than humans, the researcher would immediately become famous, potentially win a Nobel Prize, and journals would be stepping over themselves to get it published.

Let me correct that for you. Libertarian Science The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress. Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well. So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above? https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression. I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k. But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex) The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward. So it turns out government return on R&D funding (mainly giving money to universities has high rates of return): https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/ Why? Govt is likely bad at picking winners and losers, but most research has little payoff to the discoverer. For example, the invention of the internet, GPS, Satellites/rockers, many times doesn't inventors rich, it later made the companies that commercialize the idea, rich. This is why things like basic science research, defense research etc, have such high ROI. Researches benefit very little, but the externality benefit to others is massive. Thus there is an underinvestment into basic research (ie research not designed at improving an existing product or service).

No we don't have these algorithms. Your wrong and the paper you demonstrated doesn't show this. It shows that significant progress has been made on particular problems with particular numerical schemes. They have taken a relatively simple and easy benchmark problem with close to laminar (smooth) flow for an incompresible fluid because their purpose to compare the efficiency of numerical schemes. They are really saying "Hey guys isn't it crazy that our discretization of the compressible Navier-Stokes works better on incompressible fluid problems than the discetization of the incompressible Navier-Stokes". Its like saying isn't it crazy that this guy who trained in basketball is actually better in volleyball than guys who trained specifically for volleyball. But there is no ability to deal with the general problem for arbitrary geometries and flows and there probably won't be for a very long time. The paper discusses performance on a particular reference problem where Reynold number is 1600...atmospheric Reynold numbers can go up to 1 billion. Their purpose is to compare performance on incompressible fluids...the air is not an incompresssible fluid. None of this will work for Reynolds number of lets say 100,000. Here is a diagram showing where the smooth regime ends and the turbulent regime begins (note that cumulous cloud formation occurs at Reynolds numbers of 250 million!): https://physics.info/turbulence/ Finally none of what you have said makes any sense. If what you are saying is true why can't climate models predict when and where a hurricane will happen with this perfect accuracy you spoke of? Not even climatologists believe what you are saying. The IPCC itself states: The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. The IPCC proposes that though they can't predict climate states, they can obtain probability distributions for climate states using an ensemble of models/model runs. The analogy they are implicitly invoking is thermodynamics where its possible to obtain very accurate predictions of statistical averages using ensemble methods even though you have no clue about the actual specific motions of the particles. This works in thermodynamics...its doesn't mean it works for a climate system. Feynman wasn't interested in talking about stability and uniqueness proofs. He didn't care because he didn't value mathematical proofs (a bias of his). He was talking about solving the Navier-Stokes equation in a practical manner that was actually useful for real world predictions. Here is a fuller context: You can read this thread whether they talk about this more: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15738/have-we-figured-out-how-to-analyze-turbulent-fluids I was in academia more than a decade ago. When I was in grad school, a friends paper was being presented at a conference. A plagiarized paper with the same idea as my friends' paper was presented just before my friends by a graduate student working for a relatively powerful professor. We knew it wasn't a coincidence because my friend had a specifically chosen resistor value (e.g. 6.23k) and the plagiarized paper used exactly the same value. Naturally my friend could not present. We knew there were certain places we could not publish because they were controlled by our plagarizing competitor. You would often get situations where a two page paper would get ridiculous unrealistic reviewer comments designed to be impossible to satisfy in order to spike the paper. We complained about the plagarism through back-channels but my professor was very careful because he knew the competing professor was extremely powerful and had many powerful friends. I followed up on the field years later after I graduated and I found out that there were these older professor very critical of the fad field we were working in (meta-materials) and they pointed out that all the stuff we had done had been done years earlier under other names (filter theory). These guys could never get published. So finally one of them wrote a book that was published after he died, where he basically tore into the whole meta-material field and complained about how peer review was used to prevent his papers from being published. Mostly he was right. As far as I'm concerned Academia is a cesspool filled with shit. You said your experience was not like my experience. Every single time I meet someone in Academia I ask them about their experience. I ALWAYS get a bunch of stories like mine which are completely unsolicited (plagarism, peer review spikes, peer reviewers forcing you to cite their papers etc). My cousin parrots the same line as yours about climate change and when I asked him about his research experience I was shocked at how bad his stories were. I found that online I always encounter people like you that I never encounter in person. People who have experience that run completely counter to anything I've seen in the real world. I'm not saying you are lying but I am saying nothing in my experience relates to yours. We are living in very different worlds. I just randomly searched for one paper to show you. I should have spent more time finding the right one. I know little about it, but from what knowledge I have I am pretty sure (not entirely sure though...) you don't really know what you are talking about. It might be hypocritical of me because maybe sometimes I do this, but I hate when people don't know what they are talking clearly double down when there caught. There is no shame in not being a climate scientist, the world needs investors or whatever it is you do. Just fess up when you make a mistake. I realize I'm doubling down on this, and I could be wrong, but I don't really think so. First you say we don't have the algorithms to approximate NS to arbitrary precision. This is wrong, see here: https://berkeleysciencereview.com/article/toolbox-global-climate-models/ In particular note this line: The reason we can't calculate these models to arbitrary precision is that we need more computing power to get the numerical approximation better and better, at some point we run out. However, if we had infinite computing power we could. There are indeed issues with complex systems and strange attractors which puts some upper bound on climate models performance, however, the only thing that is stopping the NS part of the model from being better than they currently are is more compute. Climate models like the one you get for your weather report already are extremely effective, but again I am not even sure those short term meteorological models are the workhouse element in climate change models that forecast global temperatures 20 years out. I appreciate you providing context for the Feynman quote, unfortunately you again misunderstood his point and using what was written in your own source (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/15738/have-we-figured-out-how-to-analyze-turbulent-fluids)verifies that Feynman was indeed talking about stability/existence and uniqueness. From the answer that the OP selected as the best: Again from the context it is clear the reader, who is much more knowledgable about this than me, is saying the central problem is the Clay Institute problem, namely of "showing that the limit as the grid goes to zero is everywhere sensible and smooth". Note he is not saying how to calculate such a solution, but that a solution always exists. He later follows up by explaining the Clay problem more precisely, "If I were writing the Clay problem, I would not have asked for existence/uniqueness." If you are curious about the Clay Institute problem here is a description of the problems: https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems Notice it says: The above quote even implies that some would consider a existence/uniqueness proof to not matter. Why do some people hold that view? Because we have algorithms that can calculate solutions to arbitrary precision. Sorry I feel like I'm coming off as a douche, but you have gotten under my skin a bit, which is partly because of your boldness, but also, to your credit, partially because you do come across as knowledgeable, even if you are somewhat out of your element and not able to admit it. As far as academic experiences go, it is clear ours have differed. I have no doubt there are lots bad eggs who could be really powerful and the rent seek and I could also share a few minor stories, but if a paper is excellent, ultimately the person who discovered it may not get credit, but eventually, people will know about it, because someone will publish.

That isn't the way science currently works. If you go against the prevailing consensus you will not get published PERIOD. And most likely you will be black-listed from future publication especially in the case of sensitive areas like climate change or nutrition. There is also no way to "prove" anything regarding climate since the theory is in such a poor state that no one can demonstrate either that something is true or that it is false. The fundamental problems in climate are related to the understand of clouds which can't be modelled and fluid dynamics which also can't be modelled. Here is Richard Feynma's quote on the Navier-Stokes equation which governs climate and is in fact what most climate models spend all their time trying to solve: In GCM's typical cell sizes are 100kmx100km. They discretize equations of physics on the grid cells...meaning that they convert a differential equation into a difference equation. In essence think of it as something like the pixels of a television where there is only one color for each pixel. In GCMs the "pixels" are the 100kmx100km cells where there is only a single value along the whole cell for the direction and speed of the wind. Thus the assumption of a GCM is that in a 100km x 100km cell the wind blows in only one direction at a specific speed. A tornado, for instance, can't be modeled the air changes direction and speed very dramatically over a distance of 10's of meters in this situation. The question is whether a grid size of 100km x 100km is sufficient for climate predictions. Nobody knows...because no one really understands the equations of fluid dynamics. One thing that is known though is that the equations are highly non-linear. There is coupling between low and high frequency modes. Think of a low frequency mode as something that changes very slowly over long distances and a high frequency mode as something that changes rapidly over short distances. This means that you can't simulate the low frequency modes independently of the high frequency modes. Of course its impossible to simulate high frequency modes if your grid size is 100km x 100km...there is no way to model them. But this implies the low frequency modes can be modeled properly either since there is no way to simulate low frequency independently of high frequency modes. So than how do climate models work...well I would say they can't work and they don't work. Separating out low and high frequency modes is a bit like a surgeon splitting a baby in half. You might have some ambitious surgeon tasked with splitting a baby in two (not talking about Siamese...just normal baby). He might find artificial ways to support one half a baby...maybe he uses a pacemaker for the heart and he simulates the circulatory system using a complicated apparatus. Does the "half" a baby act and behave like the real thing...its freaking absurd and ridiculous to think it would. Climate models are basically like half a baby...they cut a baby in half and now they are trying to artificially simulate the other half and pretend they have a real baby...What the actually have is a monstrosity. The way they simulate the other half the baby is the dark arts known as sub-grid scale parameterized models....which aren't real physics...they are essentially some curve-fitted statistical garbage. Christopher Essex (a skeptic) and Tim Palmer (a believer) both provide good descriptions of the problems in climate models: Essex: Palmer: I don't mean to be critical (as I am guilty of this all the time with stocks) but I am reminded of the quote about using the light post for support rather than illumination. I also wonder if you are in academia, as I currently am, and find your characterization off. While I do agree that if you going against the prevailing wisdom it is harder to get published, ultimately journals and conferences want papers that will be highly cited. I do think it is harder to get published in climate change journals if you think that the effects are less rather than more, however, at this point no one disagrees that climate change is not only happening but is man-made. Why? Because literally people tried to disprove it, could have gotten probably a Nobel Prize if they succeeded, and weren't able to. That being said, journals publish papers critical of the methodology of climate change all the time. Here is one by William Nordhaus who recently won the Nobel Prize in Economics: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Nordhaus2007b.pdf. It's got 1.9k citations. So even if you want to publish something critical, you not only can, but it can still be highly cited. What a surprise: the scientific method as we use it now might be flawed, but it's not broken. It's the people telling you the flaws are lethal that are lying to you and trying to confuse you. Now even though Nordhaus is critical of these modeling assumptions, he does believe that climate change is man-made. The reason no one in academia can get away with not assuming that, is because it has basically been verified beyond a reasonable doubt and at some point, you just have to accept proven facts so that science can progress and build upon settled fact. So regarding your modeling example, I will go back to my example of demand and supply. It's easy to prove without a reasonable doubt that when you increase price demand goes down. It is much harder to predict by how much. Climate models still do an inadequate job on how much, but that doesn't mean they can't be extremely confident in the direction. Your analogy regarding Navier-Stokes is faulty. Namely, because we have very good algorithms that can solve the equations numerically up to arbitrary precision, see for example this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.03095 . What Feynman is actually referring to (likely because I don't know the actual context), is that we still don't have existence and uniqueness proofs as well as stability proofs. What this means is that while we can calculate a path for the fluid given any parameter setting, we don't know why solutions do exist, why the are (or are not) unique, and why solutions don't blow up (i.e. go to infinity). For someone modeling the atmosphere, they give 0 shits about existence and uniqueness. They can model the flow of fluid using standard techniques to solve differential equations. Why does a solution not blow up? Well, the current solution you solved for doesn't so who cares. I don't understand how climate models actually work, so I'm not going to lecture you on why its like half a baby or whatnot <-- (I thought that comment was clever and wrote it for that reason, am sorry if that seemed a little harsh). Rather I think the simplest explanation that explains the data is most often the right one. That is humans are causing global warming. Scientists are in agreement because they can't find any alternative explanation. Their models are faulty and in some cases, people are catastrophizing or provided false certainty, but that doesn't change the consensus.

So you are telling me because every physicist agrees that gravity is a fundamental force that invalidates it? The reason no one is challenging CO2 = global warming is that no explanation makes more sense. It's important to know that, climate models are continually improving, so while they all generally agree that carbon causes global warming, they have taken into account more factors like the melting ice caps, Siberia, gulf stream etc (this is not my area of expertise so I don't pretend to know these things well), so they are improving. At some point attempts to falsify climate change caused by carbon have failed and so the refinements all take that as given. That is also how science progresses. Once given enough evidence, some things are taken as given and further theories build upon these facts to model even more nuanced phenomena. The existence of gravity and its theory are not just based on scientific consensus/agreement, but they can be objectively confirmed (or refuted) using empirical evidence. The model (law) of gravity can predict forces/motions of objects with 99% accuracy (e.g., we get rockets on the Moon). The climate change theories and models (horribly inaccurate), as of now, are mostly based on subjective consensus and insufficient data; therefore, inferences made based on them should not be taken as scientific facts. Global warming is also confirmed and could have been disconfirmed by empircal evidence. Global tempratures have been getting warmer since the industrial revolution. Even if we can't get the exact magnitude of some hidden phenonenom, doesnt mean we can't say with high certainty what the direction is. For example demand is downward sloping ie when price goes up quantity, goes down. The elasticity of demand with respect to price cannot be accurately measured, but economist are sure to the point that it has become axiomatic that, generally, demand is downward sloping. Someone commented about how when politics effects science, science can't be trusted. I think many of these models were developed before there was such political controversy in these topics. Keep in mind it wascthe scieintist who first pushed this movement. What changed is the former tobacco lobbiest who told you not to believe what basically every climate scietlntist will tell you is true. Academics have liberal biases generally yes, but if you can demonstrate that a theory such as man made climate change is false, this would get you fame in the academic community equivalent to something like a Nobel. Thus there is hige incentive for people to challenge the prevailing wisdom. The fact that no one can do this, means that scientists are all in agreement and the fact is likely true.

The ozone layer is 3 millimeters thick on average in the atmosphere, yet we agree that it has significant effects in blocking UV rays. The entire atmosphere is 8Km high. source: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson_SH.html What’s your point? The Ozone makes up .00000038% of the total atmosphere by your numbers. So what, 9mm of pollution a year? No idea what the distribution of this is in the 8km layer. Sorry I was unclear. My point is something with 1/1000000 of the atmospheric volume of earth can have large impacts on us as humans, so your argument that CO2 being such a small part of the atmosphere and thus can't cause a noticable impact is wrong by analogy.

The ozone layer is 3 millimeters thick on average in the atmosphere, yet we agree that it has significant effects in blocking UV rays. The entire atmosphere is 8Km high. source: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson_SH.html

So you are telling me because every physicist agrees that gravity is a fundamental force that invalidates it? The reason no one is challenging CO2 = global warming is that no explanation makes more sense. It's important to know that, climate models are continually improving, so while they all generally agree that carbon causes global warming, they have taken into account more factors like the melting ice caps, Siberia, gulf stream etc (this is not my area of expertise so I don't pretend to know these things well), so they are improving. At some point attempts to falsify climate change caused by carbon have failed and so the refinements all take that as given. That is also how science progresses. Once given enough evidence, some things are taken as given and further theories build upon these facts to model even more nuanced phenomena.

again i am quoting any category 5 in the atlantic. doesnt have to land in florida. Again it seems arbitrary to use a criteria of hitting florida to measure an effect of global warming. Nothing suggests global warming will make hurricanes more likely to hit florida (conditional on them forming). Rather look at all hurricanes that have formed in the atlantic in a given year. Heres the third time I provide a different source for my claims: http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm As you can see, the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes show a consistent uptrend if you look starting for the late 1800s early 1900s. I'm too lazy to perform a hypothesis test, but I would be shocked if the mean number of hurricanes from 2000 onward or 2010 onward or 2005 onward wasnt significanttly different than the mean at the 1% level. That test will only confirm that the number of major hurricanes varies across different time periods, but nothing about the effect of climate change on such number. Yes but there are no such statistical methods that prove causality in any definitive way. The best you can do is an unbiased conditional estimator. However, once you string together lots of correlation arguments along with a consistent theory, that's as close to proving causality as we can get.

Am I missing something? Relatively costless policy changes???? Aren't the proposals massively costly? In the trillions in terms of the US economy. The real question is what are the costs of doing nothing? If sea levels were to rise 10-20 feet, CAT 5 hurricanes become the norm, more extreme droughts, etc., what is the price tag of that? Additionally, if you read about mass extinsions throughout world history, it's commonly theorized that sudden climate change (warming and cooling) has been a major factor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event. This isn't a 50-100 year problem (more like 50-100 million yrs), but illustrative of the potential scope. Remember the same group of scientists call this global cooling in the 70s then changed it to global warming and now climate change. Seems fishy to me of all their predictions Scientists aren't generally monolithic and those who are saying that are misleading you. Some scientists believed there was global cooling, most were unsure or critical. With global warming, almost all climate scientists are in agreement. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

This feels like a politics thread? Should/can the mods move it there?

Again no major hurricanes hit florida during that period but lots of minor hurricanes as well as tropical storms did. That's why I thought you were referring to catagory 5 storms. source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes_(2000%E2%80%93present)

again i am quoting any category 5 in the atlantic. doesnt have to land in florida. Again it seems arbitrary to use a criteria of hitting florida to measure an effect of global warming. Nothing suggests global warming will make hurricanes more likely to hit florida (conditional on them forming). Rather look at all hurricanes that have formed in the atlantic in a given year. Heres the third time I provide a different source for my claims: http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm As you can see, the number of named storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes show a consistent uptrend if you look starting for the late 1800s early 1900s. I'm too lazy to perform a hypothesis test, but I would be shocked if the mean number of hurricanes from 2000 onward or 2010 onward or 2005 onward wasnt significanttly different than the mean at the 1% level.

Yes you are using an anecdote and I'm discussing real data from 1900-2017. Between 1938 and 1953 no Catagory 5 hurricane occurred. Between 1961 and 1967 the same thing. 1980-1988... Thus it's not rare that category 5s don't appear once every 10 years. Of course, there will be noise year. But you look at long term data: between 1886-2005 there was an average of 9 hurricanes a year. In 1945-2005 11 hurricanes per year, in 1990-2010 14 hurricanes per year. Of course, you get variation across time but the trends stay consistent. source: http://la.climatologie.free.fr/cyclone/hurricane1.htm

wildfires: https://www.sciline.org/evidence-blog/wildfires again note the statement of facts and lack of global warming influncing their discussion of trends in the summary.