Proffessor Brian Cox vs Conspiracy theorist Australian Senator

Surface Detail wrote:

You obviously don't understand the difference between noise and a trend. You'd best learn some basic statistical analysis before you make yourself look any more of an idiot.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

You obviously don't understand the difference between noise and a trend. You'd best learn some basic statistical analysis before you make yourself look any more of an idiot.

Trend; the general line of a graph. A projection of the numbers so far.

Noise; The degree of varibility of the numbers which will fluctuate about the place and make idiots see things that are not there.

Ask yourself this question; There is a range of temperature which would be considered more than 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be below 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be considered more or less the same as 1998. What range would you give for this middle bit?

Not being able to answer this means that you cannot consider anything to do with any statistics at all as you need to have a sense of proportion.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Yes. As I said not significant. Lost in the noise. Easy.

Understand what honesty is. [/color]

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

You obviously don't understand the difference between noise and a trend. You'd best learn some basic statistical analysis before you make yourself look any more of an idiot.

Trend; the general line of a graph. A projection of the numbers so far.

Noise; The degree of varibility of the numbers which will fluctuate about the place and make idiots see things that are not there.

Ask yourself this question; There is a range of temperature which would be considered more than 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be below 1998. There is a range of temperatures which would be considered more or less the same as 1998. What range would you give for this middle bit?

Not being able to answer this means that you cannot consider anything to do with any statistics at all as you need to have a sense of proportion.

It's a stupid question. It makes no sense to pick one particular year and determine whether the temperature has risen or fallen since then. What we are interested in is the overall trend in temperature, which we determine by finding lines of best fit to long series of data. The series needs to be long enough for the trend to become obvious amid the year-to-year noise - in this case about 30 years or so. You cannot pick out turning points on scales shorter than this.

Hank wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Yes. As I said not significant. Lost in the noise. Easy.

Understand what honesty is. [/color]

So from your reply I take it you are not concerned about a 1.5 – 2 C rise above pre-industrial temperatures. Would that be correct?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hank wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Yes. As I said not significant. Lost in the noise. Easy.

Understand what honesty is. [/color]

So from your reply I take it you are not concerned about a 1.5 – 2 C rise above pre-industrial temperatures. Would that be correct?

Yes.

Leafsdude wrote: Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited.

Hank wrote: The little ice age was a drop in temperature of 0.5 to 0.75 degrees

False. The "confidence" one has in a number, i.e. the extent to which that number makes one feel all warm and tingly, is completely irrelevant.

"Margin of Error" is the main figure of importance surrounding data, and you avoid it like the plague.

All warmizombies and climate lemmings avoid "Margin of Error" because it forces them to abandon their claims of "science" for their WACKY religion.

Leafsdude wrote: Uh, no. You clearly don't know anything about statistics.

Leafsdude wrote: In fact, I've used margin of error before here when presenting facts and had people completely misunderstand it.

Leafsdude wrote: Which is why most scientific papers on AGW include margins of error in their statistical analysis. *shrug*

Leafsdude wrote:Your false accusations don't pass basic reasoning.

*Snip long, rambling, incoherent rant*

I don't remember that occurring but I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, what is your acceptable margin of error for an average global temperature?

There aren't any scientific papers on WACKY, unfalsifiable religious dogma.

Would you care to show me a "scientific" paper on AGW? I'll bet there isn't any science in it. Science violations possibly but science, no.

You simply cannot support your assertions.

Too funny.

Leafsdude wrote:*Snip long, rambling, incoherent rant*

Leafsdude wrote: First off, again, AGW papers do cite margins of error regularly.

Leafsdude wrote: Secondly, again, the IPCC is a political policy maker, not a scientific authority. Their statements and language are not required to follow scientific procedure.

Leafsdude wrote: I cited a paper with a margin of error for sea level rise in the "CO2 lags" thread (first page). The 0.7mm after the ± symbol in this paper is the quantified number.

Leafsdude wrote: Being that I'm not adept in statistical analysis even slightly, I don't have a margin of error.

Leafsdude wrote:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8n71j831
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00865514
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00209343
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0921818192900337

Margins of error are required for presented data, not for the predetermined conclusions

Surface Detail wrote: WTF, for example, is

Margins of error are required for presented data, not for the predetermined conclusions

supposed to mean?

Surface Detail wrote:Why would margins of error not be required for conclusions?

Surface Detail wrote:
More incoherent rambling from IBdaMann, I see.

WTF, for example, is

Margins of error are required for presented data, not for the predetermined conclusions

supposed to mean? What are "predetermined" conclusions? Why would margins of error not be required for conclusions?

Hank wrote:
Margins of error are not meant to be any specific number but are used to determine how reliable the results are. The IPCC does not calculate any margin of errors but they do use the research by scientists all over the world and those scientists do have margins of errors on their research which are then published in those papers and when the IPCC reproduces those papers and in their summarys. There is no predetermined conclusions, the researchers just get the data from the reporting stations and then calculate the resulting global temperature. The data is available for anyone to look at and do their own calculations if they don't like what they see. But so far no one that has done those calculations have found much difference between what has already been done. And as reporting stations become more reliable the adjustments to some of the temperatures become fewer and fewer.

Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.

I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

Hank wrote:Margins of error are not meant to be any specific number but are used to determine how reliable the results are.

Hank wrote:The IPCC does not calculate any margin of errors...

Hank wrote:but they do use the research by scientists all over the world

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.

I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.

I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.

Which is why I do not say that there has definately been zero warming. I say there may have been a slight warming but essentially it's too close to call.

I do state that there has been no significant warming since 1998.

Hopefully you will now get over the idea that the use of the word significant is wrong in this case.

If the temperature is to reach that predicted by the IPCC's higher levels then we would need to be warming at the rate of 0.32c per decade. Given that the temperatures of the last couple of years have been so close to the 1998 level that it's too close to call the hotest with any real confidence the rate of warming is slight to none.

Still not significantly different to zero.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.

I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.

Which is why I do not say that there has definately been zero warming. I say there may have been a slight warming but essentially it's too close to call.

I do state that there has been no significant warming since 1998.

Hopefully you will now get over the idea that the use of the word significant is wrong in this case.

If the temperature is to reach that predicted by the IPCC's higher levels then we would need to be warming at the rate of 0.32c per decade. Given that the temperatures of the last couple of years have been so close to the 1998 level that it's too close to call the hotest with any real confidence the rate of warming is slight to none.

Still not significantly different to zero.

You are talking complete crap, Tim, and you know it. Why the obsession with 1998? It is quite clear that the Earth's temperature has been rising at a rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade for the last 50 years or so, with spikes every now and then when we have an El Nino. There is no indication whatsoever that this trend has changed or is about to change. Why are you so reluctant to believe the evidence?

See, for example:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/to:2016

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Leafsdude wrote:
Tim, I think you are completely misunderstanding the concept of significance here.

Significance isn't a number that is "so close to zero", it's a confidence level, specifically a confidence that the result from statistical analysis is not random or caused by something other than what is being posited. A 0.00000001% increase can be just as significant as 100% increase.

The confidence in the warming since 1998 is over 95%, which is the standard significance level. Just because the number is relatively low (~0.25*C in this case) doesn't change that.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary 'hiatus' in global warming.

I'm sure you can explain that to the fools who wrote this then.

They seem to be under the impression that the 0.05 increase is less than the 0.08 uncertainty range thus the increase is insignificant statistically.

That would be statistically insignificant as opposed to just plain insignificant. That is a value that is so low that it is not ****ing significant. That would be a different idea.

That paper was written in 2012. It is now 2016, and we have had a record hot year in 2014, a new record in 2015, and we are very likely to have a new record in 2016. We now have the benefit of hindsight. The hiatus is no more. The pause is dead. Warming continues unabated.

Which is why I do not say that there has definately been zero warming. I say there may have been a slight warming but essentially it's too close to call.

I do state that there has been no significant warming since 1998.

Hopefully you will now get over the idea that the use of the word significant is wrong in this case.

If the temperature is to reach that predicted by the IPCC's higher levels then we would need to be warming at the rate of 0.32c per decade. Given that the temperatures of the last couple of years have been so close to the 1998 level that it's too close to call the hotest with any real confidence the rate of warming is slight to none.

Still not significantly different to zero.

You are talking complete crap, Tim, and you know it. Why the obsession with 1998? It is quite clear that the Earth's temperature has been rising at a rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade for the last 50 years or so, with spikes every now and then when we have an El Nino. There is no indication whatsoever that this trend has changed or is about to change. Why are you so reluctant to believe the evidence?

See, for example:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1960/to:2016

So you have retreated from your accusation of lying????

1, If the rate of warming os 0.15c per decade what are you worried about?

2, What caused the 1950's warming? If it was CO2 then we should be in a situation of very rapid warming now with the comparitive massive amounts of CO2 produced.

Surface Detail wrote: The problem is, Tim, that you are not even wrong (google it).

Surface Detail wrote: There has indeed been a significant rise in temperature since 1998,

Surface Detail wrote:1. The problem, Tim, is that the Earth's temperature has been stable to within about 1 C for the last 10,000 years.

Surface Detail wrote: A changing temperature of 0.15 C per decade is absolutely unprecedented since prehistoric times.

Surface Detail wrote: It means sea rising at rates comparable to the end of the ice age.

Surface Detail wrote: 2. We are in a situation of very rapid warming.

Surface Detail wrote:
Let me counter IBdaMann's bone-headed denial with some actual science reporting:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Let me counter IBdaMann's bone-headed denial with some actual science reporting:

There was no science.

Oh wait, you don't know what science is.

Too bad.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Let me counter IBdaMann's bone-headed denial with some actual science reporting:

There was no science.

Oh wait, you don't know what science is.

Too bad.

Lame, IBdaMann, lame. Your employers are paying you to do better than this.

IBdaMann wrote:

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

Hank wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hank wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

Surface Detail wrote: The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm.

Surface Detail wrote: By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: The Jason-2 satellite is capable of measuring sea levels to an accuracy of 2.5 cm.

A non-gullible, science-minded individual would immediately question that value. Did you?

The vertical accuracy of high-quality GPS SPS receivers is ~3.2 meters.

You're going to have to explain how the Jason-2 is somehow more than an order of magnitude more accurate than GPS (its sole purpose for existing)despite Jason-2 not being able to bring an entire fleet of satellites to bear like GPS.

Any thoughts?

Surface Detail wrote: By using data from this satellite and its predecessors, scientists have determined that the average global sea level is currently rising at a rate of 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm per year.

Of course, if the accuracy is actually in the "meters" range then the only valid conclusion is that we're measuring noise and that sea levels could actually be lowering as far as we know.

Would this explain why the claimed uber-accuracy of Jason-2 is quietly mentioned but not explained before quickly moving on to other topics? Do you realize that pilots cannot land aircraft based on GPS due to its vertical accuracy limitations? Yet you would have me believe that there is a satellite in orbit that is so vertically accurate that pilots could use it to land aircraft, but that it is being wasted on just telling us the sea level?

I'm having a little trouble with this.


.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hank wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Ocean level is not changing perceptibly. The Maldives blow a hole through your assertions. We do not even have the means to be certain of the precise sea level.

So do you not accept the satellite and tidal gauge data?

What degree of accuracy do you think the satellites have?

What degree of accuracy do you think the tidal guages have for the water level of the whole world's oceans?

What degree of accuracy do you think is possible to measure day length to? If this is very good do you think that we could measure the change in mass distribution of ice from the poles to water at the equator with a high precision? Would this cost as much as a satellite? Would the director of the research group get the same sallery?

Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

Surface Detail wrote:TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

This *is* a direct measurement. GPS has always worked this way and is a great way to get an accurate read on position, specifically via triangulation, and the more satellites involved the more accurate. Jason-2 suffers from trying to measure something a vast distance away. I don't buy your story.

Surface Detail wrote:TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position

GPS satellites send out timing information.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

This *is* a direct measurement. GPS has always worked this way and is a great way to get an accurate read on position, specifically via triangulation, and the more satellites involved the more accurate. Jason-2 suffers from trying to measure something a vast distance away. I don't buy your story.

Surface Detail wrote:TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position

GPS satellites send out timing information.

What do you mean, you don't buy my story? What story? I've just given a basic outline of the way in which satellite altimetry works and how this differs from GPS location. What don't you understand?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:They don't measure anything. It is then up to a GPS receiver to work out its own position from those signals.

This *is* a direct measurement. GPS has always worked this way and is a great way to get an accurate read on position, specifically via triangulation, and the more satellites involved the more accurate. Jason-2 suffers from trying to measure something a vast distance away. I don't buy your story.

Surface Detail wrote:TL;DR: Jason-2 uses radar to measure the level of the ocean below it; GPS satellites don't measure anything - they simply broadcast their own position

GPS satellites send out timing information.

What do you mean, you don't buy my story? What story? I've just given a basic outline of the way in which satellite altimetry works and how this differs from GPS location. What don't you understand?

I think it's pretty obvious. He doesn't buy your story of how these satellite systems work. I don't buy your story either.