A great Twitter thread from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Originally tweeted by The Honest Broker by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on April 7, 2023.
🧵If you were ever curious about the effects of RCP8.5 on home runs . . .
Great example of how climate reductionism is itself causing bad science . . .
There is an obvious control group, AAA baseball (completely ignored in this new paper)
And home runs are down in AAA
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-juiced-balls-the-new-steroids/
Maybe climate change only has effects in the major leagues?
Silly science is still fun!
Climate change did not lead to more home runs in Japan 1977-2003
Attribution science is tricky like that
And climate change has not caused more home runs in NCAA D1 baseball
Climate attribution is a tricky business, I tell ya
So let me summarize the state of play
Climate changes causes more home runs in MLB
But it does not in AAA, Japan or NCAA D1
It took me all of 5 minutes to gather this data
On a more serious note,
Science? Peer review? Journalists?
WYD?
Originally tweeted by The Honest Broker by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on April 7, 2023.
Just a guess, Sarah gets to the plate with two balls on em.
Something else to compare, if anybody really wanted to. Around these parts, it’s hottest in August. Do these extra home runs peak around the same time, and simmer down afterwards?
I kinda doubt it, I’m sure not interested in doing any actual “research” on the matter, and I definitely won’t believe any such conclusion coming from a climate catastrophist.
Yes, and they utterly collapse around October, which is consistent with the theory; then they start up around in springtime. It all seems to make sense except for what Pielke brings up.
Further proof is that in the past five years there have been zero MLB home runs in December. The correlation with temperature is so strong, only a Trump-voting troglodyte would deny it!! IT’S THE SCIENCE!
Pielke picked the wrong control group. it controls for nothing
What a surprise! Mosh defends junk science.
Also 50% compliance with capitalization and punctuation rules? (Up from the usual zero). Impressive! Must be another effect of Climate Change ™
Ah! Mr. Mosher’s ‘Michael E. Mann’ (Alfred E. Newman) excellent approach to creative statistics: We’ll control for things until we get the results we want. That way the politicized government grants just keep rolling in.
a control group should control for the basic things that drive the metrics.
like Stadium, pitcher, batter.
in fact, thats what the Study did!!!!
exactly what I prescribe.
see the graph.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/10/04/weather-influence-baseball/
You dont compare AAA ball with Proball because
same game, ya sure, but the factors that drive homeruns need to be controlled for
because
Simple physics explain that balls tend to fly farther on warmer days because the air is less dense. On warmer days, air molecules in outdoor stadiums are pushed farther apart from one another because they have more energy. The lower air density means the ball will encounter less air resistance than it would on a cooler day and can travel farther.
“The baseball carries better in warm weather than in cold weather. That’s no secret,” said Alan Nathan, a baseball physicist who was not involved in the study. But Nathan said this is an “excellent study” and is the first, to his knowledge, to comprehensively quantify how far the ball will carry under warmer temperatures.
Simple physics explain that balls tend to fly farther on warmer days because the air is less dense.
Then it should be quite easy to show that the number of home runs directly correlates with the temperature, right?
As for your objection to AAA as a control group – if everything else remained the same for them and the only thing that changed was the temperature, that’s a valid control because only one variable was changed. If you changed them to use the same stadiums as pro, that’s multiple changes.
But let’s see your home run/temperature correlation first, that should prove your assertion, right?
You’re a week late.
And he appears to be serious, super serious.
That’s the art of a superior April Fools prank. If somebody falls for the initial premise, keep playing it straight to ramp it up.
He’s just a week late.
Simple physics explain that balls tend to fly farther on warmer days because the air is less dense. On warmer days, air molecules in outdoor stadiums are pushed farther apart from one another because they have more energy. The lower air density means the ball will encounter less air resistance than it would on a cooler day and can travel farther.
“The baseball carries better in warm weather than in cold weather. That’s no secret,” said Alan Nathan, a baseball physicist who was not involved in the study. But Nathan said this is an “excellent study” and is the first, to his knowledge, to comprehensively quantify how far the ball will carry under warmer temperatures.
i dont control moderation.
You’re only supposed to play the game on the 1st. Strictly speaking, it only counts before noon, but since The Internet is global there is 1 day’s leeway.
Magazines and journals had sufficiently long lead times that the pranks just appeared in the April issue, but they couldn’t have immediate feedback.
Dr Pielke’s article was posted on the 7th – nothing to do with moderation. What was the date of the original “study”?
Journalism is so passé. Now we have hacktivists to push narratives
Less boring baseball games is a problem? Just like how the beneficial mild warming is a
C R I S I S !
and an
E M E R G E N C Y !
There is an obvious control group, AAA baseball (completely ignored in this new paper)
not at all a good control group.
AAA contract is typically 7 years, which means batters and hitters are changing rapidly.
a good control group should stabilize all factors, the batter, the pitcher, the stadium.
rank the stadiums by increased temperture.
best would be to follow hitters in pro ball, 1 stadium home field, against 1 pitcher, across time.
I assume from your comment that you find the original premise of the study to be plausible.
Doesn’t seem like a good way to design a control group to me. Confine it to players of 25 years of age would be much better, or perhaps a slightly wider age cohort so as not to reduce sample sizes too far. Over 7 years or more the athletic abilities of individual players will change measurably.
Well, let’s see what we can learn from a long and illustrious career. Perhaps Babe Ruth didn’t like playing for the Red Sox, since he only really got into his stride after he transferred to the Yankees. Or perhaps the air was thick and heavy in WW I. Things obviously lightened up in the toe tapping twenties. But what’s this? When the temperatures got hotter as we move into the thirties his success declined sharply.
heres guessing that pitchers figured him out. This is why a single plyer is not a good control group.
jesus, guys. think. if you want to look at Babe, then you have to use the right controls
control for the most important factors.
jesus.
I love how you get all critisizy about only one study.
I love how you make things personal. its just numbers.
Funnily enough higher temperatures should make the air less dense. That should make the ball travel further, if hit correctly.
False attribution is the foundation for the pseudoscientific nonsense being promoted.
Once idiots accept that CO2 is the control knob for climate, circular reasoning kicks in which rejects any facts contrary to the false belief they blindly accepted without critical inquiry.
The idea that CO2 is the control knob for climate is circular thinking.
thats why nobody thinks its THE knob
“thats why nobody thinks its THE knob”
Don’t get out much?
CO2 is ONE knob. there are many knobs.
strawman much
“CO2 is ONE knob.”
Yes, the one being promoted as the most important variable in the media. I’ve been censored many times for pointing out that natural variation dwarfs the human forcing. It isn’t a straw man argument. It’s the basis for the false attributions being presented as unquestionable fact.
A lot of them seem to post on Judith’s blog
I tried to resist. Really, I did.
So that’s why Boston has such trouble winning. Too cold.
Don’t see that. It’s the colour of the Sox.
Sometimes, the most entertaining part of WUWT that posts, is wondering what the heck the prompt was for the AI picture at the top.
After paying a monthly fee to muck around with images like Chas The Mod does, I wanted to do other things and asked for a cancellation of the contract. The AI imagery provider noted my request then after a couple more emails asking again for cancellation, accused me of a snarky tone. It looked like it was written in AI language.
That was a couple of months ago. The AI supplier continues to bank the monthly fee when I have asked for it to cease. My bank says that they will not stop the payments unless the vendor has agreed.
If this is a measure of future AI at work, stop the bus in mid journey, I want to get off.
use DALE its not per month, its per prompt.
so you get 100 free and then its like 15 bucks per 100
https://labs.openai.com/c/WAxlCdEr1GkEZ7cfp5duIoZ3
click on the photo to see the Prompt
Some fun here.
The new paper was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, so must be authoritative. The WaPo, Newsweek, and NBC all said so. Coauthor Justin Mankin is a Dartmouth climate scientist who researched this carefully (the WaPo explained) studying over 100,000 games with 220,000 dingers (2,2 per game on average). By 2100 climate change will account for a 10% increase in home runs per season according to RCP8.5.
Except:
And MSM wonders why they are losing trust. And ‘climate scientists’ wonder why we increasingly just laugh at them. This is why.
Rising temperature is also causing all major stock indexes to rise.
Someone (an idiot, most likely) could probably make a similar argument for the number of sixes scored in professional cricket at the highest levels.
In reality every body knows it is due to shorter boundaries, improved bat technology, and a higher level of trained physicality by the players.
I’m no baseball expert but I used to be surprised some of the corpulent sluggers could even walk out to the crease or whatever it’s called.
and T20 🙁
I recall when Gary Sobers became the first player to hit 6 6s in an over in a first class match. Fortunately the cameras had been there to capture the feat. He was almost caught on the boundary twice.
The increase in major league baseball home runs is entirely due to the salary structure. Players are well aware that those who hit the most home runs get the most lucrative contracts. That’s also why there are more strike-outs than in the past. Players swing for the fences. A light-hitting second baseman will be paid a lot of money but peanuts compared to a slugging outfielder. Then there’s constant rumors and some evidence that the balls have been juiced. Mr. Manfred seems to think that spectators want home runs and he might be right.
The Acronym Free Dictionary says:
WYD WorldYouthDay
WYD WithYourDestiny(video game)
WYD What’sYourDeal?(coupons)
WYD Who’sYourDaddy?
WYD WaterfordYouthDrama(Waterford, Ireland)
WYD WhatYouDoing?
WYD WestfaelischerYachtclubDelecke(German yacht club)
Here’s the Buzz Lightyear clip with sound.
The Acronym Free Dictionary seems to have a lot of acronyms in it.
(I’ll get my coat).
It should be obvious by now that so-called “peer review” is utterly worthless. Particularly when worthless garbage like this can be reviewed and published under the rubric of “peer reviewed research”.
This also provides some evidence that scientific education at Boston College is worthless. This baseball story makes as much sense as any of this self-advertised nonsense.
Spurious Correlations (tylervigen.com)
‘This work was supported by National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
#1840344 to C.W.C. and grants from Dartmouth’s Neukom Computational Institute and the
Nelson A. Rockefeller Center to J.S.M.’
Your tax dollars at work?
Even Roger Pielke Jr. can fall for April Fools Day pranks 🙂
No, this is Gia’s way of getting back at those who make the most money playing baseball.
Surely there is another study explaining why home run rates also went down due to CO2 emissions.
And another which showed how CO2 emissions also made home run rates stay the same.
It’s called covering your bases.
If Professor Junkscience knew anything at all about sports, this chart would be easy to read.
1990s: Increase in steroid use, more effective steroids. More home runs at all levels.
2000s: Crackdown on steroid use, some regression to the old mean, but…
2010s: Increase in analytics focused on run production. Home runs are in vogue. Hitters are trained to swing differently, and those who succeed find themselves promoted. So regression to mean continues in AAA, but at the Major League level, the GMs are looking for much more power.
Easy explanation for even the most casual sports fan. Doesn’t require any change in the climate or the weather.
Meanwhile, there are always “journalists” and “scientists” willing to sell their integrity for the sake of their religion.
I doubt if any team would consider hitting more home runs a “crisis”. Besides, more hot air would effect both teams equally. (Unless the EPA starts subtracting runs from the team whose players own the most SUVs!)
PS Was there a surge in home runs in the 30’s? The article says they only went back to 2010.
it wasnt warmer in the 30s, you cant trust the data
Leaving “adjusted data” aside, it was warmer in the 30’s than the 20’s.
If the hot air about homeruns increasing holds water, then there should have been a surge in homeruns in the 30’s in the majors, the minors and college.
Yes well statistics aside, from a pure physics perspective this is rank pig manure! Does a change in air density cause a change in wind resistance of the ball? YES it does. I did an analysis using actual numbers and correct formulae yesterday, but I’ve deleted it. However here are the salient points:
Using identical altitude and standard pressure of 29.92 inHg, correct ball frontal area, correct ball coefficient of drag and home run ball exit velocity (120 mph leaving the bat) it turns out the aerodynamic drag force on the ball is on the order of 0.048N at 65F to 0.089N at 87 F.
That is with no wind. Add a 10 MPH head or tailwind and you raise/lower those values by 40% though, so the notion of a 1 to 3 degree F rise in average temps cause more home run balls is kinda full of manure. No one has corrected for wind. Or for swirling winds in city center ballparks, nor for day vs night games which can have a 20-30 degF difference in temps, nor for spring vs summer vs fall games which also can have wide swings of temperature. Nor for altitude of the parks, nor for playing while under a high pressure system or a low pressure weather system.
But wait, there’s more! The force of impact of a home run ball is on the order of 36,000N. so the aerodynamic drag force is 3-5 orders of magnitude less than the force of impact between the ball and bat. Ergo the pitch speed, the bat speed, and the contact angle are far more impactful (pun intended) than is aerodynamic drag. To the point where drag is not possibly a factor in incidence of home runs!
The final nail though is the Magnus Effect. Which is that a spinning sphere (especially one with protruding laces) will cause lift in a direction perpendicular to the axis of spin, which is why a pitcher can throw a curve ball. So if a batter can impart the correct spin to the ball, it adds lift to the otherwise ballistic trajectory, again this lift being an order of magnitude or two more of an effect on ball distance than is aerodynamic drag.
So these idiots can’t even do basic math or physics it would seem!
I did an analysis using actual numbers and correct formulae yesterday, but I’ve deleted it. However here are the salient points:
telll me the margin was too small fermat
you lose
http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/index.html
So my understanding is that Major League Baseball is concentrated in large metropolitan areas rather than in corn fields as we saw in Field of Dreams. Those large metropolitan centres experience several degrees of urban heat island warming compared to the unmodified rural landscape. So if warming is playing any role in increase major league home runs (as opposed to say, changes in training, equipment, performance enhancing substances etc.) there is no reason to assume it has anything to do with CO2 or climate change.
Those large metropolitan centres experience several degrees of urban heat island warming compared to the unmodified rural landscape.
nope. Wrigley field is Chilly and ATT park is by the Bay
urban areas have Cool parks.
I doubt it has any thing to do with the rule changes in the majors that put pitchers on a timer.