"The temperature record is unreliable!"

jerrylh wrote: Thanks for your reply. However, it appears that you didn't address my question.

jerrylh wrote: The global temperature is based on a myriad of readings across the globe. Are these readings what you consider unreliable.

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?

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.]

jwoodward48 wrote: IB, you are making an extraordinary claim (all the temperature data was fabricated).

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.


.

jwoodward48 wrote: Where is your proof for this claim?

jerrylh wrote:Hi Ibda Mann

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

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

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

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: Where is your proof for this claim?

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


.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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?

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Internal inconsistencies, as in errors or fallacies?
External inconsistencies, as in "does not correspond to reality"?
Hmm, evolution has neither.

jwoodward48 wrote:
What I meant was: what do Relativity and QM have that evolution don't? No shitty brief answers like "proof", either.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

jerrylh wrote:
Thanks for your reply. However, it appears that you didn't address my question.

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?

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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%.

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.

Into the Night wrote:
Margin of error is calculated from confidence interval, which is calculated from confidence level.

You are making a circular argument.

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.

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.

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.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:IB: AGW is unfalsifiable.
Me: It's not.