Remember me
▼ Content

"The temperature record is unreliable!"



Page 3 of 5<12345>
13-10-2016 18:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jerrylh wrote: Thanks for your reply. However, it appears that you didn't address my question.

Help me out here. You asked about reliability. I explained why you can't rely on it whatsoever.

How did I not answer your question?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 18:55
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
The global temperature is based on a myriad of readings across the globe. Are these readings what you consider unreliable.
13-10-2016 19:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jerrylh wrote: The global temperature is based on a myriad of readings across the globe. Are these readings what you consider unreliable.

Hello? Can you read this? Am I writing above your level?

I clearly explained that your delusion is not the case.

I'll tell you what. List your myriad of readings that go into the average global temperature. You can just copy-n-paste them from the list of the average global temperature reading list.

Also, who compiles these supposed readings and computes the average? There isn't anybody, is there?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 19:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:So you agree that raw data is the result of observation?

Observation is passive, yes? It's not a cause, correct? With the exception of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, observations don't have "results," correct?

Observation is not passive. If I read my thermometer, I get the result of 21C - that could be wrong. Maybe my thermometer is broken. The act of observation results in a collection of data.
Question: If every fifteen minutes a suite of remote sensors automatically sends twenty weather parameters digitally over a fiber network to be entered into a weather history archive ... is there raw data in that file? Or is the file devoid of data because no human ever made any observations? [Emphasis mine.]


You don't understand what observation is. Computers with sensors attached can observe. They can perceive. They can record the data. This is observation.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 19:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hahaha, I am the Ninja Scientist! Thanks, I needed a laugh.

IB, you are making an extraordinary claim (all the temperature data was fabricated). Guess what kind of proof is needed for an extraordinary claim. Go on. (Hint: It needs to be extraordinary.)
13-10-2016 19:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: IB, you are making an extraordinary claim (all the temperature data was fabricated).

I didn't say "all" of it.

Oh, and my claim isn't extraordinary. It's just ordinary.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 20:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: IB, you are making an extraordinary claim (all the temperature data was fabricated).

I didn't say "all" of it.

Oh, and my claim isn't extraordinary. It's just ordinary.


.


Okay. A significant amount.

Where is your proof for this claim?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 20:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: Where is your proof for this claim?

What proof would you require to show that my claim is "ordinary"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 20:49
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Hi Ibda Mann
These readings are taken all over the globe some on land, some on oceans, some on oceans, etc. For the most part, these are weather stations. You can determine the temperature at any given time in the town you live in. Scientists who measure these temperatures are sure that these readings average are accurate to with in 0.05 degrees Celsius. The reason for this is the increased numbers of stations reporting around the globe (for example there are 73 stations in the northeast). We see the temperature curve was relatively flat from 1960-1900. Starting with the 20 century the temperature began to rise and then in the last 3 decades of the 20th century the rise accelerated and continues to this day. This just cannot be explained without a human influence on climate. I should add that the change in the land temperature is much greater than the mild increase in the ocean temperatures.
My questions is--What is unreliable?? Are you saying that the hundreds if not thousands of readings around the globe are unreliable?? As to who compiles these readings--numerous climatologists compile these temperatures and analyze them. There are published readings and an average global temperature is calculated. This average value is not as important as is what is happening to it compared to previous decades.
13-10-2016 21:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jerrylh wrote:Hi Ibda Mann

Hello.

jerrylh wrote: These readings are taken all over the globe some on land, some on oceans, some on oceans, etc.

Who compiles the "readings" and computes the global average temperature?

jerrylh wrote: Scientists who measure these temperatures are sure that these readings average are accurate to with in 0.05 degrees Celsius.

Great. That's not particularly important among all the things to be considered.

jerrylh wrote: My questions is--What is unreliable?? Are you saying that the hundreds if not thousands of readings around the globe are unreliable??

I'm saying that they probably don't exist. Who compiles these "readings"? Let's you and I get a listing of the data and do the math ourselves. If you'll tell me who does this I'll contact them.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 21:15
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Hi again, as I stated before these readings come from weather stations all over the globe. I am perplexed that you would say that these readings "probably don't exist." My next question to you would be this. If you live in New York City and you turn on the TV and the announcer states that it is currently 56 degrees F, at the Weather Station at LaGuardia Airport, do you believe him??
There are climatologists who look at these readings from all over the earth compile them and calculate the average global temperature. Many of them publish in peer reviewed journals.
13-10-2016 23:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Where is your proof for this claim?

What proof would you require to show that my claim is "ordinary"?


.


What proof do you have? If you show me what proof you have, I can tell you if it meets my requirements.

There are many things that could prove that something has been fabricated, and I don't feel like listing them all.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 00:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Absolutely correct. Neither theory is falsifiable. They therefore remain just a theory and not a scientific one.

Aaaaaaugh, why? Why would you say that?
The reason is clear.

Well why don't you give the reason? Especially for evolution, which we haven't discussed before.

Actually, we have.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 00:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
]
Well, yes, but there's usually a 5% chance or so that the test has incorrect results. No test is perfect, and error and bias are always present. So the chances of the observations being wrong after one supporting study are 5%, while the chances of two such supporting studies both being wrong are 0.25%.

You are pulling 5% numbers out of the air, and ignoring observational bias. You also not understanding where the test for falsifiability comes from. That test comes from the model itself. That test need not involve an observation at all. If it does, you must consider observational bias. It cannot be ignored.

You are also using probability math incorrectly here, since the given values are already probabilities. They cannot be combined as you have done without specifying the source of that probability. Since a statistical summary is not a valid source of probabilities, you have committed a math error.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote
jwoodward48 write
Into the Night wrote
To put it simply, we just don't know what the global temperature is doing.


We do. We can know this. I've explained why before, so I shouldn't have to repeat myself, right?

We don't. Your explanation violated the rules of statistics and demonstrated you have no understanding of probability or random number generation. You suck at math.

You say a lot of things. It's a shame you never back any of them up or explain them, or people might take you seriously.

I have backed them up. You keep making math and logic errors. You suck at math and logic.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is nothing to study with climate. Climate is a word with a vague meaning.

So there are no trends in weather? It's just "flip a coin, 50% chance it rains, 50% chance it doesn't", no matter where you are? Interesting.

You are confusing probability with trend. Trend is not part of probability.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You are saying that from a scientific point of view, evolution is unfalsifiable. This is completely false. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We've witnessed it in a lab! We have piles upon piles of evidence. How do you call that unfalsifiable?

The one test of falsifiability of the Theory of Evolution is to go back and look. We don't have a time machine.

The test is not available. Therefore, the Theory of Evolution remains a circular argument.

Supporting evidence means nothing in science.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Absolutely correct. Neither theory is falsifiable. They therefore remain just a theory and not a scientific one.

Aaaaaaugh, why? Why would you say that?
The reason is clear.

Well why don't you give the reason? Especially for evolution, which we haven't discussed before.

Actually, we have.

We have discussed evolution? As in, you and me? Could you link to that?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 01:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Internal inconsistencies, as in errors or fallacies?
External inconsistencies, as in "does not correspond to reality"?
Hmm, evolution has neither.


Internal inconsistencies: No theory may be based on a fallacy. Whether scientific or normal theory.
External inconsistencies: A theory MUST conform to existing scientific theories, or show the mechanism of changing existing theories.

Evolution Theory is not based on a fallacy. It is a valid theory.
It does not have any conflict with any existing scientific theory. So far...so good.

It is the test of falsifiability that can't be conducted. This is the sole reason the Theory of Evolution remains an unscientific one. It is just a plain old theory.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
What I meant was: what do Relativity and QM have that evolution don't? No shitty brief answers like "proof", either.


Tests for falsifiability that are available and have been conducted.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

Well, yes, but there's usually a 5% chance or so that the test has incorrect results. No test is perfect, and error and bias are always present. So the chances of the observations being wrong after one supporting study are 5%, while the chances of two such supporting studies both being wrong are 0.25%.

You are pulling 5% numbers out of the air, and ignoring observational bias. You also not understanding where the test for falsifiability comes from. That test comes from the model itself. That test need not involve an observation at all. If it does, you must consider observational bias. It cannot be ignored.

It's not being "pulled out of the air" - there is normally a 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence level used.

"A confidence level refers to the percentage of all possible samples that can be expected to include the true population parameter. For example, suppose all possible samples were selected from the same population, and a confidence interval were computed for each sample. A 95% confidence level implies that 95% of the confidence intervals would include the true population parameter."

We can figure out the confidence level of a given confidence interval, or vice versa.

All tests involve observation. And observational bias proves my point - a given study has a chance of being wrong. One study that doesn't support Theory A doesn't mean that Theory A has been falsified.

You are also using probability math incorrectly here, since the given values are already probabilities. They cannot be combined as you have done without specifying the source of that probability. Since a statistical summary is not a valid source of probabilities, you have committed a math error.


Oh yes I can.

If two individual, independent events each have a 5% chance of occurring, then the chances of both occurring are 5% * 5% = 0.25%.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 01:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
My point is they're fake. I have already explained why.

Because of the evil Marxists corrupting our government and forcing the good scientists to fabricate their data, right. Why hasn't a single scientist spoken out about this?

Take the bungs The Church of Global Warming gave you out of your ears and listen. A lot of scientists have.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
[quoteInto the Night wrote:
We can't {measure or calculate global temperature}. The rules of statistics says we can't. Your attempt at a double negative noted.


Statistical Rule #1: Global warming is unfalsifiable.

yeah, no.

You have to derive your statement from rules and laws, not just state that they can be derived. You know how you accuse me of "violating the laws, then insisting that I haven't"? I've actually demonstrated how your use of the laws is incorrect, so I've done more than insist, but the inverse of the statement ("stating something not derivable from the rules and laws, then insisting that it is derivable from such") applies well to you.

1. That wouldn't be a double negative, that'd be a self-contradictory statement.
2. We can [measure temperature], and it isn't [unfalsifiable]. The two applied to different things.[/quote]

The demands of data fed into statistics are not addressed by your answer.

English lesson: The use of double negatives, such as "is not unfalsifable" is considered poor sentence form. The preferred method is to say "is falsfiable".

Observations do not need to be tested for falsifiability. They simply are.

Yes, we can measure temperature at certain locations (wherever we happen to have a thermometer). We cannot use them to create a statistical global temperature because of the demands of statistical data. There is no way to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable value with the instrumentation we have.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 01:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.


Don't try to use big words. You don't know the difference between confidence level, confidence interval, and margin of error.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 02:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.


Don't try to use big words. You don't know the difference between confidence level, confidence interval, and margin of error.

Actually, I do. You might want want to have a quiet word with IBdaMann, though. He seems to think that "confidence level" is some sort of arty-farty IPCC invention rather than a statistical term. I'm sure you can put him straight.
14-10-2016 02:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jerrylh wrote:
Thanks for your reply. However, it appears that you didn't address my question.


The basic problem is the demands of data used in statistical analysis. That's why there are a lot of conversations about statistics here.

I'm going to explain it here again, so this is something the others (who keep saying I never explain it) can watch as well.

Statistics can be a confusing area of mathematics. It involves the use of probability math and random number generation. For the purposes of this discussion, I won't go into the details of random numbers themselves, but for now just consider a source of random numbers that do not repeat, such as dealing a deck of shuffled cards. Once the card is dealt, it will not be dealt again. This type of number is known as a randN.

Statistics start with raw data. This is data that has not been manipulated in any way. This area of mathematics is a summarization tool, used to make sense of a lot of data in summary form.

The first step is to select the data for analysis from the raw source. This selection process must be done according to a few rules:

a) The data must be selected randomly by randN.
b) The random element must be completely independent of the data itself.

Failure to use these rules result in biased data, and the resulting summary will be similarly biased. If is b) that gives the most trouble for people. The rule at a) is generally followed by people naturally.

The summarization process makes use of a term called the 'population'. This is the overall possible data. Most of the time, this is simply the raw data itself. When trying to summarize a thing like temperature readings, however, there is a problem.

One thermometer does not measure anything but right where the thermometer is located. Essentially no thermometer can measure anything bigger than the area of the sensing element (the bulb on a traditional stick thermometer). Since this is the case, what do we use as a valid population?

We do know some things through observation that might help us. We know that temperature can vary as we move from place to place. Through this observation, we know this variance can be as high as 20 degrees in a single mile. Living in the desert for a time, I have personally seen this. On one end of a mile long runway it was a pleasant 72 deg F. On the other end was a hailstorm that reduced surface temperature to about 50 deg F. I have experienced similar transitions driving along a level road near the mountains of the Pacific Northwest, where a localized compression wave was descending out of the mountains due to offshore winds (we call them Chinook winds here).

We also know by observation that temperatures can range from -128 deg F to +134 deg F. These are the highest and lowest observed temperatures. They may be higher or lower ones that haven't been observed. The mean between these two is about 3 deg F.

This means if we placed thermometers every square mile in a hexagonal pattern across the surface of the Earth, we could get readings that would vary by no more than 20 deg F between any two.

The Earth spins also, shifting a given spot on Earth from day to night and back. This means time is an element that must be eliminated, since it is not randomly independent of the data. This can be accomplished by reading all thermometers at the same time. Theoretically this could be coordinated by telecommunications. The same effect of storms and their positions at the time is also compensated for this, since storms move (sometimes rapidly!).

With this extensive setup, we could generate a statistic. The accuracy of this result will be the accuracy of what we started with: +-20 deg F. By selecting a sufficient sample from the population, using the rules above, we can get a result with a margin of error to within a few degrees of this accuracy. Essentially, we will be able to say we have a good confidence that our +- 20 deg F will be properly reflected in the resulting summary.

The fewer the samples, the less accurate our summary will be in declaring that summary is within that +- 20 deg F accuracy, or in other words +-20 deg F of 3 deg F, or anywhere from 23 deg F to -17 deg F. Depending on our sample size, the margin of error will be within a few degrees of this range. This is added to the range of accuracy to produce a total margin of error. Assuming our statistical margin of error is +- 3 deg F, due to our sample size, the resulting total is from 26 deg F to -20 deg F, or 3 deg F +- 23 deg F. (I am using the simple mean between the two extremes as the starting mean. That can be determined from the sample data itself, using an equation of confidence in the accuracy of that mean, or by examining ALL the thermometers in use (using ALL the data).

Big problerm: We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to even get this close. Those thermometers we do have are not evenly spaced, and therefore the random selection process will be biased by position of concentration. Adjusting this by weighting the data is imposing bias into the selection process.

All of this is assuming we are only measuring the surface, and not including the air above it, the ground under it, the depths of the sea, etc. So another problem is WHAT constitutes a measurement to be included in some kind of global temperature?

The actual mechanics of the process of statistics is fairly simple and straightforward. The kicker is the input data and how to prevent bias, as well as determining actual population as opposed to an assumed one.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 03:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either.

Absolutely correct. Neither theory is falsifiable. They therefore remain just a theory and not a scientific one.

Aaaaaaugh, why? Why would you say that?
The reason is clear.

Well why don't you give the reason? Especially for evolution, which we haven't discussed before.

Actually, we have.

We have discussed evolution? As in, you and me? Could you link to that?


I'm not going to bother to. If you want to search it out somewhere on this forum, be my guest.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 03:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

Well, yes, but there's usually a 5% chance or so that the test has incorrect results. No test is perfect, and error and bias are always present. So the chances of the observations being wrong after one supporting study are 5%, while the chances of two such supporting studies both being wrong are 0.25%.

You are pulling 5% numbers out of the air, and ignoring observational bias. You also not understanding where the test for falsifiability comes from. That test comes from the model itself. That test need not involve an observation at all. If it does, you must consider observational bias. It cannot be ignored.

It's not being "pulled out of the air" - there is normally a 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence level used.

"A confidence level refers to the percentage of all possible samples that can be expected to include the true population parameter. For example, suppose all possible samples were selected from the same population, and a confidence interval were computed for each sample. A 95% confidence level implies that 95% of the confidence intervals would include the true population parameter."

We can figure out the confidence level of a given confidence interval, or vice versa.

All tests involve observation. And observational bias proves my point - a given study has a chance of being wrong. One study that doesn't support Theory A doesn't mean that Theory A has been falsified.

You are also using probability math incorrectly here, since the given values are already probabilities. They cannot be combined as you have done without specifying the source of that probability. Since a statistical summary is not a valid source of probabilities, you have committed a math error.


Oh yes I can.

If two individual, independent events each have a 5% chance of occurring, then the chances of both occurring are 5% * 5% = 0.25%.


Invalid probability calculation. You have not shown the source of probability.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 03:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.


Don't try to use big words. You don't know the difference between confidence level, confidence interval, and margin of error.

Actually, I do. You might want want to have a quiet word with IBdaMann, though. He seems to think that "confidence level" is some sort of arty-farty IPCC invention rather than a statistical term. I'm sure you can put him straight.


Don't need to. He knows what a confidence level is. You don't.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 03:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.


Don't try to use big words. You don't know the difference between confidence level, confidence interval, and margin of error.

Actually, I do. You might want want to have a quiet word with IBdaMann, though. He seems to think that "confidence level" is some sort of arty-farty IPCC invention rather than a statistical term. I'm sure you can put him straight.


Don't need to. He knows what a confidence level is. You don't.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the margin of error. That's why a margin of error is meaningless unless you specify the confidence level. Obviously.
14-10-2016 03:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.


Don't try to use big words. You don't know the difference between confidence level, confidence interval, and margin of error.

Actually, I do. You might want want to have a quiet word with IBdaMann, though. He seems to think that "confidence level" is some sort of arty-farty IPCC invention rather than a statistical term. I'm sure you can put him straight.


Don't need to. He knows what a confidence level is. You don't.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the margin of error. That's why a margin of error is meaningless unless you specify the confidence level. Obviously.


Wrong.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the standard deviation, as typically built by a paired randR (that 'bell' curve you keep seeing).


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 03:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.


Don't try to use big words. You don't know the difference between confidence level, confidence interval, and margin of error.

Actually, I do. You might want want to have a quiet word with IBdaMann, though. He seems to think that "confidence level" is some sort of arty-farty IPCC invention rather than a statistical term. I'm sure you can put him straight.


Don't need to. He knows what a confidence level is. You don't.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the margin of error. That's why a margin of error is meaningless unless you specify the confidence level. Obviously.


Wrong.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the standard deviation, as typically built by a paired randR (that 'bell' curve you keep seeing).

That's not right. The probability that a value lies within one standard deviation is, by definition, 68%. The confidence level for a particular margin of error may, or may not, be one standard deviation. For example, margins of error are often given to confidence levels of 2 standard deviations, i.e. 95%.
14-10-2016 03:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.


Don't try to use big words. You don't know the difference between confidence level, confidence interval, and margin of error.

Actually, I do. You might want want to have a quiet word with IBdaMann, though. He seems to think that "confidence level" is some sort of arty-farty IPCC invention rather than a statistical term. I'm sure you can put him straight.


Don't need to. He knows what a confidence level is. You don't.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the margin of error. That's why a margin of error is meaningless unless you specify the confidence level. Obviously.


Wrong.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the standard deviation, as typically built by a paired randR (that 'bell' curve you keep seeing).

That's not right. The probability that a value lies within one standard deviation is, by definition, 68%. The confidence level for a particular margin of error may, or may not, be one standard deviation. For example, margins of error are often given to confidence levels of 2 standard deviations, i.e. 95%.


Margin of error is calculated from confidence interval, which is calculated from confidence level. You are making a circular argument.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2016 03:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jerrylh wrote:
Hi IBda Mann
For my benefit, could you clarify why you feel that the temperature record is unreliable. Presently, the temperature is based on averages of several readings around the globe. Then an average is taken. Now that number by itself, doesn't mean much, but it is the changes that occur during decades that are meaningful. Are you saying that the readings are wrong?? If so, what do you attribute that to?? Are they readings being intentionally falsified?? I would just like you to clarify your position so I could better understand it. Thanks

I don't think you stand any more chance of getting any sense out of IBdaMann than the rest of us do. Go on, though, ask him for any evidence to support his contentions and watch the spittle fly. 3, 2, 1...

Edit: P.S. Don't try to explain to him what a "confidence level" actually is. It's one of his trigger words.


Don't try to use big words. You don't know the difference between confidence level, confidence interval, and margin of error.

Actually, I do. You might want want to have a quiet word with IBdaMann, though. He seems to think that "confidence level" is some sort of arty-farty IPCC invention rather than a statistical term. I'm sure you can put him straight.


Don't need to. He knows what a confidence level is. You don't.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the margin of error. That's why a margin of error is meaningless unless you specify the confidence level. Obviously.


Wrong.

The confidence level is the probability that a value lies within the standard deviation, as typically built by a paired randR (that 'bell' curve you keep seeing).

That's not right. The probability that a value lies within one standard deviation is, by definition, 68%. The confidence level for a particular margin of error may, or may not, be one standard deviation. For example, margins of error are often given to confidence levels of 2 standard deviations, i.e. 95%.


Margin of error is calculated from confidence interval, which is calculated from confidence level. You are making a circular argument.

I'm not making an argument, circular or otherwise. I'm simply giving the usual definitions for these terms.

The confidence level, expressed as a percentage or as a multiple of the standard deviation, is the probability that a measured value lies within the given confidence interval. If the confidence level is specified as 2 standard deviations, for example, then 95% of the measurements will lie within the confidence interval. The margin of error is usually defined as half of the width of the confidence interval.
Edited on 14-10-2016 04:00
14-10-2016 14:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
Margin of error is calculated from confidence interval, which is calculated from confidence level.

Well, sort of. The margin of error and the observed statistic together tell you the same information as the confidence interval. If the observed statistic is c and the margin of error m (for a confidence levelof j), the confidence interval be [c-m, c+m]. If the two ends of the confidence interval are a and b (for a confidence level of j), then the margin of error is (b-a)/2, and the observed statistic is (a+b)/2.

So the margin of error and the confidence interval are basically the same thing, and both are calculated from the confidence level.
You are making a circular argument.


???

It is possible to calculate the confidence level for a particular margin of error, statistic, data, and distribution, etc. It's also possible to calculate the margin of error for a particular confidence level, statistic, data, and distribution, etc.

So it is a circle, yes. This needs some place to start, though. Usually we start with a confidence level of 90%, 95%, or 99%, and go from there.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 15:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
All this ignores the fact that the IPCC and warmizombies alike use the hijacked meaning of "confidence level" i.e. "the extent of my devotion and faith." The fact that "confidence level" is a common natural language expression wrt statistical results is the primary reason for the weaseling, by using no more than the common English usage, e.g. "we are confident," but implying that there is complex objective math behind it.

Pick an IPCC report, any IPCC report and notice that no unaltered, unfudged, untweaked, undoctored raw datasets are provided along with the margins of error. Only their "confidence level" in their Nostrodamus prophecies.

IPCC reports are absolutely worthless except for bamboozling the gullible and the trusting.


.
14-10-2016 15:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:

Well, yes, but there's usually a 5% chance or so that the test has incorrect results. No test is perfect, and error and bias are always present. So the chances of the observations being wrong after one supporting study are 5%, while the chances of two such supporting studies both being wrong are 0.25%.

You are pulling 5% numbers out of the air, and ignoring observational bias. You also not understanding where the test for falsifiability comes from. That test comes from the model itself. That test need not involve an observation at all. If it does, you must consider observational bias. It cannot be ignored.

It's not being "pulled out of the air" - there is normally a 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence level used.

"A confidence level refers to the percentage of all possible samples that can be expected to include the true population parameter. For example, suppose all possible samples were selected from the same population, and a confidence interval were computed for each sample. A 95% confidence level implies that 95% of the confidence intervals would include the true population parameter."

We can figure out the confidence level of a given confidence interval, or vice versa.

All tests involve observation. And observational bias proves my point - a given study has a chance of being wrong. One study that doesn't support Theory A doesn't mean that Theory A has been falsified.

You are also using probability math incorrectly here, since the given values are already probabilities. They cannot be combined as you have done without specifying the source of that probability. Since a statistical summary is not a valid source of probabilities, you have committed a math error.


Oh yes I can.

If two individual, independent events each have a 5% chance of occurring, then the chances of both occurring are 5% * 5% = 0.25%.


Invalid probability calculation. You have not shown the source of probability.


The... source? What? My statement is entirely true. It might not be applicable to everything, but it is true. That's how you calculate probability.

From Wikipedia:

If two events, A and B are independent then the joint probability is

P(A and B) = P(A ∩ B) = P(A)P(B),

for example, if two coins are flipped the chance of both being heads is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4.


(That thing in the middle part of the expression is the intersection symbol, in case it doesn't show up.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 14-10-2016 15:37
14-10-2016 21:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We can't {measure or calculate global temperature}. The rules of statistics says we can't. Your attempt at a double negative noted.


Statistical Rule #1: Global warming is unfalsifiable.

yeah, no.

You have to derive your statement from rules and laws, not just state that they can be derived. You know how you accuse me of "violating the laws, then insisting that I haven't"? I've actually demonstrated how your use of the laws is incorrect, so I've done more than insist, but the inverse of the statement ("stating something not derivable from the rules and laws, then insisting that it is derivable from such") applies well to you.

1. That wouldn't be a double negative, that'd be a self-contradictory statement.
2. We can [measure temperature], and it isn't [unfalsifiable]. The two applied to different things.


The demands of data fed into statistics are not addressed by your answer.

How so?
English lesson: The use of double negatives, such as "is not unfalsifable" is considered poor sentence form. The preferred method is to say "is falsfiable".

Indeed, but note that my double negative was the result of an clarification of a short negative response. It was unavoidable.

IB: AGW is unfalsifiable.
Me: It's not.
Into: ?
Me: It's not [unfalsifiable].

Observations do not need to be tested for falsifiability. They simply are.

I never said that, but I was vague, so I won't claim that you're purposefully misinterpreting me or anything. Let's move on.
Yes, we can measure temperature at certain locations (wherever we happen to have a thermometer). We cannot use them to create a statistical global temperature because of the demands of statistical data. There is no way to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable value with the instrumentation we have.


Do you know how the margin of error is calculated? If so, could you use math to support your statement of "it's just too inaccurate"?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 21:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:IB: AGW is unfalsifiable.
Me: It's not.

This is great news! Please post the falsifiable AGW model. I'd like to test the null hypothesis.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 22:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If we're done with the semantics, then by all means, let's go back to the actual discussion.

I don't have any models on hand. I'm not the source for that. I agree that you do not have the burden of proof for showing that the models are falsifiable.

But you do have the burden of proof for showing that climate scientists have fabricated data and used random number generators as models. That is academic dishonesty to the extreme, and if there is no evidence for such, there's no reason to believe that this is the case.
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate "The temperature record is unreliable!":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
Temperature207-08-2019 05:59
Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris6730-07-2019 00:02
record high temp in france7808-07-2019 06:18
There is no evidence CO2 increases temperature128-06-2019 05:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact