Remember me
▼ Content

"The temperature record is unreliable!"



Page 1 of 5123>>>
"The temperature record is unreliable!"11-10-2016 01:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
This thread is about the reliability of the temperature record, as the name would imply.

GISS:

HADCRU:


Here are two different organizations, both with subtly different but very similar anomaly data. How likely is it that the same errors would be repeated in the same way for both?

But even ignoring surface measurements, we have...

Go ahead, put aside the direct surface temperature measurements — global warming is also indicated by:

Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere
Weather balloons show very similar warming
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Declining arctic sea ice
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Rising ocean temperature


Each of which can definitely be attacked on their own - but all of them need to be. And furthermore, since all of these are showing AGW, the chances of all of them being wrong is far less than the chances of just one of them being wrong. It's basic statistics - increase the sample size, decrease the 95% (for instance) confidence interval.

It's settled - the Earth is warming.


"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!
11-10-2016 03:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
This thread is about the reliability of the temperature record, as the name would imply.

GISS:

HADCRU:


Here are two different organizations, both with subtly different but very similar anomaly data. How likely is it that the same errors would be repeated in the same way for both?

But even ignoring surface measurements, we have...

Go ahead, put aside the direct surface temperature measurements — global warming is also indicated by:

Satellite measurements of the upper and lower troposphere
Weather balloons show very similar warming
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Declining arctic sea ice
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Rising ocean temperature


Each of which can definitely be attacked on their own - but all of them need to be. And furthermore, since all of these are showing AGW, the chances of all of them being wrong is far less than the chances of just one of them being wrong. It's basic statistics - increase the sample size, decrease the 95% (for instance) confidence interval.

It's settled - the Earth is warming.


It's not settled. You are only showing your math skills suck. It is not possible to calculate a global temperature.

Instead, you would rather believe the propaganda from the government and the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 03:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Why not? I take the average of the measured temperatures. (Of course, there's anomalies and UHI adjustment and adjustment for distribution of thermometers... but that's just improving the average.)
11-10-2016 04:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Why not? I take the average of the measured temperatures. (Of course, there's anomalies and UHI adjustment and adjustment for distribution of thermometers... but that's just improving the average.)


Wrong. You don't know statistics. You suck at math.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 04:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Baseless assertion. Back it up, or back it up. (The first: support it with data. The latter: redo your thoughts. Neither are in the computery sense.)
11-10-2016 11:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Baseless assertion. Back it up, or back it up. (The first: support it with data. The latter: redo your thoughts. Neither are in the computery sense.)


I already have. You suck at math. You do not know the first thing about probability, random number generation, or statistics. I'm beginning to see you have some serious problems understanding calculus also.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 12:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.
11-10-2016 15:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
jwoodward48 wrote: Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!
I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.

Have you ever specified what margin of error you consider to be acceptable for calculating a Global Average Temperature?

If not, is it because Surface Detail hasn't told you what to think on the issue? (hint: you get to determine what your opinion is. What is an acceptable margin of error for you?)


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
11-10-2016 17:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
For me? I'd be fine with a=95%, and with a confidence interval of...

Well, as an absolute limit, the confidence interval shouldn't "cover up" the observed change, if we want to claim that AGW is happening. So since we've measured roughly 1C of warming (according to the WACKY priests - I mean, scientists), the confidence interval should be less than 1C.
11-10-2016 18:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
jwoodward48 wrote:
For me? I'd be fine with a=95%, and with a confidence interval of...

Well, as an absolute limit, the confidence interval shouldn't "cover up" the observed change, if we want to claim that AGW is happening. So since we've measured roughly 1C of warming (according to the WACKY priests - I mean, scientists), the confidence interval should be less than 1C.

1. Confidence level is irrelevant. Only the margins of error matter. I will insist on knowing all the margins of error and I won't care one iota about anyone's "confidence level."

I know, I know, Marxist warmizombies are all about how "confident" they are in their faith. I don't care. I just don't care.


2. Did you actually mean a 5% margin of error? A 95% margin of error isn't even worth the time and effort to take the measurement.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
11-10-2016 18:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For me? I'd be fine with a=95%, and with a confidence interval of...

Well, as an absolute limit, the confidence interval shouldn't "cover up" the observed change, if we want to claim that AGW is happening. So since we've measured roughly 1C of warming (according to the WACKY priests - I mean, scientists), the confidence interval should be less than 1C.

1. Confidence level is irrelevant. Only the margins of error matter. I will insist on knowing all the margins of error and I won't care one iota about anyone's "confidence level."

I know, I know, Marxist warmizombies are all about how "confident" they are in their faith. I don't care. I just don't care.


2. Did you actually mean a 5% margin of error? A 95% margin of error isn't even worth the time and effort to take the measurement.

Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool. A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to. A confidence level of 95% is commonly used when calculating margins of error.
11-10-2016 19:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
Surface Detail wrote: Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool.

They can be. Unfortunately warmizombies have hijacked the term "confidence" to mean their level of conviction. I still don't care about them, dumbass. The IPCC uses "confidence" levels exclusively so as to maintain the complete worthlessness of their reports. They will not publish all the margins of error so they can't be pinned down on their bulslhit.

Surface Detail wrote: A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to.

No, dumbass, the margins of error are what are important for understanding the measurements.

Warmizombies are required to avoid all margins of error so as to not reveal the embarrassing truth about their WACKY religious dogma.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
11-10-2016 19:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool.

They can be. Unfortunately warmizombies have hijacked the term "confidence" to mean their level of conviction. I still don't care about them, dumbass. The IPCC uses "confidence" levels exclusively so as to maintain the complete worthlessness of their reports. They will not publish all the margins of error so they can't be pinned down on their bulslhit.

Surface Detail wrote: A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to.

No, dumbass, the margins of error are what are important for understanding the measurements.

Warmizombies are required to avoid all margins of error so as to not reveal the embarrassing truth about their WACKY religious dogma.

It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science. Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?
11-10-2016 20:10
Solarwind
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
The Earth is transitioning from a Solar Grand Maximum cycle, where there were two record El Ninos to a Solar Grand Minimum cycle, which could mirror either the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum of 150 years ago. This Planet is starting to cool, Arctic ice rebounding at record levels, Satellite temperatures (true temp) show a "Pause" for the last 19 years and Antarctica at close to record levels of ice. Just to name a few of the tell tale signs.

Full impact of this cooling will start around 2020, we have about 3 years to prepare, get your Parka ready.
11-10-2016 20:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
Solarwind wrote:
The Earth is transitioning from a Solar Grand Maximum cycle, where there were two record El Ninos to a Solar Grand Minimum cycle, which could mirror either the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum of 150 years ago. This Planet is starting to cool, Arctic ice rebounding at record levels, Satellite temperatures (true temp) show a "Pause" for the last 19 years and Antarctica at close to record levels of ice. Just to name a few of the tell tale signs.

Full impact of this cooling will start around 2020, we have about 3 years to prepare, get your Parka ready.

The cooling is probably already occurring. In about twenty years we should see noticeably cooler temperatures as opposed to today.

Probably and should.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
11-10-2016 20:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
11-10-2016 20:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.

We weren't talking about calibration. That's a different topic completely. You really are at sea here, aren't you?
11-10-2016 21:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4919)
Surface Detail wrote: We weren't talking about calibration. That's a different topic completely. You really are at sea here, aren't you?

No, idiot, we were talking about "margin of error" vs. "confidence level" and you tried to shoehorn the topic into statistics.

Your welcome to come back and join us in our "Margin of Error" discussion, dumbass, but try to contribute something intelligent.

We were at the point of "margin of error" being absolutely critical but dishonest warmizombies (I know, redundant) like yourself are obligated to struggle to the death to ensure they are always omitted so the true WACKY nature of your faith remains concealed.

...and you were saying what?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
11-10-2016 22:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For me? I'd be fine with a=95%, and with a confidence interval of...

Well, as an absolute limit, the confidence interval shouldn't "cover up" the observed change, if we want to claim that AGW is happening. So since we've measured roughly 1C of warming (according to the WACKY priests - I mean, scientists), the confidence interval should be less than 1C.

1. Confidence level is irrelevant. Only the margins of error matter. I will insist on knowing all the margins of error and I won't care one iota about anyone's "confidence level."

I know, I know, Marxist warmizombies are all about how "confident" they are in their faith. I don't care. I just don't care.


2. Did you actually mean a 5% margin of error? A 95% margin of error isn't even worth the time and effort to take the measurement.

Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool. A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to. A confidence level of 95% is commonly used when calculating margins of error.


You also suck at math. You don't know anything about probability, random number generation, or statistics either.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 22:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool.

They can be. Unfortunately warmizombies have hijacked the term "confidence" to mean their level of conviction. I still don't care about them, dumbass. The IPCC uses "confidence" levels exclusively so as to maintain the complete worthlessness of their reports. They will not publish all the margins of error so they can't be pinned down on their bulslhit.

Surface Detail wrote: A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to.

No, dumbass, the margins of error are what are important for understanding the measurements.

Warmizombies are required to avoid all margins of error so as to not reveal the embarrassing truth about their WACKY religious dogma.


It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science. Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?


Q.E.D. You know nothing about statistics.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-10-2016 22:12
11-10-2016 22:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For me? I'd be fine with a=95%, and with a confidence interval of...

Well, as an absolute limit, the confidence interval shouldn't "cover up" the observed change, if we want to claim that AGW is happening. So since we've measured roughly 1C of warming (according to the WACKY priests - I mean, scientists), the confidence interval should be less than 1C.

1. Confidence level is irrelevant. Only the margins of error matter. I will insist on knowing all the margins of error and I won't care one iota about anyone's "confidence level."

I know, I know, Marxist warmizombies are all about how "confident" they are in their faith. I don't care. I just don't care.


2. Did you actually mean a 5% margin of error? A 95% margin of error isn't even worth the time and effort to take the measurement.

Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool. A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to. A confidence level of 95% is commonly used when calculating margins of error.


You also suck at math. You don't know anything about probability, random number generation, or statistics either.

Have you ever contributed anything remotely informative to this forum, ITN?
11-10-2016 22:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For me? I'd be fine with a=95%, and with a confidence interval of...

Well, as an absolute limit, the confidence interval shouldn't "cover up" the observed change, if we want to claim that AGW is happening. So since we've measured roughly 1C of warming (according to the WACKY priests - I mean, scientists), the confidence interval should be less than 1C.

1. Confidence level is irrelevant. Only the margins of error matter. I will insist on knowing all the margins of error and I won't care one iota about anyone's "confidence level."


It's been said, but the margin of error is equal to the radius of the confidence interval. Note how I said interval, not level.

I know, I know, Marxist warmizombies are all about how "confident" they are in their faith. I don't care. I just don't care.

That explains a lot.
2. Did you actually mean a 5% margin of error? A 95% margin of error isn't even worth the time and effort to take the measurement.

Ah, you're right. I meant a 95% chance that the error results in the true value being within the confidence interval. Another way of saying that is that there is a 95% of the true value being less than the margin of error away from the measured value. These are equivalent.

I thought that a was the chance of not being wrong about the interval, but it seems it is the chance of being wrong. Thanks.


"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!
11-10-2016 23:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool.

They can be. Unfortunately warmizombies have hijacked the term "confidence" to mean their level of conviction. I still don't care about them, dumbass. The IPCC uses "confidence" levels exclusively so as to maintain the complete worthlessness of their reports. They will not publish all the margins of error so they can't be pinned down on their bulslhit.

No, IB.
1. They are statistical terms, and only idiots are using them to mean "I'm really really sure about this!" I'm certainly not.
2. The margin of error is the radius of the confidence interval at the same confidence level.
Surface Detail wrote: A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to.

No, dumbass, the margins of error are what are important for understanding the measurements.


IB, no. Please stop. You're making every statistician in the universe cry out in pain. I have a good comic for this, but I can't find it. I'll post it later.

The margin of error for my measurements are 0.01K!

...for a=0.99. Which is useless. We want something like a=0.05, and then we might get something like 2K (I don't know, I haven't done the math, but it'll be larger).

Warmizombies are required to avoid all margins of error so as to not reveal the embarrassing truth about their WACKY religious dogma.


Bulverism.


"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!
11-10-2016 23:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Solarwind wrote:
The Earth is transitioning from a Solar Grand Maximum cycle, where there were two record El Ninos to a Solar Grand Minimum cycle, which could mirror either the Maunder Minimum or Dalton Minimum of 150 years ago. This Planet is starting to cool, Arctic ice rebounding at record levels, Satellite temperatures (true temp) show a "Pause" for the last 19 years and Antarctica at close to record levels of ice. Just to name a few of the tell tale signs.

Full impact of this cooling will start around 2020, we have about 3 years to prepare, get your Parka ready.


Even if we went back to a Maunder Minimum solar input, we'd be warmer than pre-industrial times, AFAIK.

As for the "pause", if you look at the last few hundred years and fit some curves, we haven't actually shown a pause. The warming has decreased, yes, but that's because we recently warmed very quickly (large El Nino etc.), and the cooling-down of "going down the other side" of a large El Nino partially counteracts the warming - but the average warming is the same.


"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!
11-10-2016 23:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

How about all of them?
Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

The confidence level, say, a=0.05, is how likely it is that the true value is outside the given confidence interval.

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


But... you...

You seem like you've gone through Stat, but you don't even know what a confidence level is! How?!


"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!
11-10-2016 23:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: We weren't talking about calibration. That's a different topic completely. You really are at sea here, aren't you?

No, idiot, we were talking about "margin of error" vs. "confidence level" and you tried to shoehorn the topic into statistics.

Those are statistical concepts!

Your welcome to come back and join us in our "Margin of Error" discussion, dumbass, but try to contribute something intelligent.

He has. You haven't.
We were at the point of "margin of error" being absolutely critical but dishonest warmizombies (I know, redundant) like yourself are obligated to struggle to the death to ensure they are always omitted so the true WACKY nature of your faith remains concealed.

...and you were saying what?


Are you kidding? I'm all about the confidence interval and confidence level. Any statistical analysis would be stupid to not include them.


"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!
11-10-2016 23:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


You keep saying that. You keep using bullying and Bulverism. It's not super effective.

(yes, I did that on purpose)


"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!
11-10-2016 23:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For me? I'd be fine with a=95%, and with a confidence interval of...

Well, as an absolute limit, the confidence interval shouldn't "cover up" the observed change, if we want to claim that AGW is happening. So since we've measured roughly 1C of warming (according to the WACKY priests - I mean, scientists), the confidence interval should be less than 1C.

1. Confidence level is irrelevant. Only the margins of error matter. I will insist on knowing all the margins of error and I won't care one iota about anyone's "confidence level."

I know, I know, Marxist warmizombies are all about how "confident" they are in their faith. I don't care. I just don't care.


2. Did you actually mean a 5% margin of error? A 95% margin of error isn't even worth the time and effort to take the measurement.

Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool. A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to. A confidence level of 95% is commonly used when calculating margins of error.


You also suck at math. You don't know anything about probability, random number generation, or statistics either.

Have you ever contributed anything remotely informative to this forum, ITN?


Quite a bit, actually. It's not my fault you suck at math.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For me? I'd be fine with a=95%, and with a confidence interval of...

Well, as an absolute limit, the confidence interval shouldn't "cover up" the observed change, if we want to claim that AGW is happening. So since we've measured roughly 1C of warming (according to the WACKY priests - I mean, scientists), the confidence interval should be less than 1C.

1. Confidence level is irrelevant. Only the margins of error matter. I will insist on knowing all the margins of error and I won't care one iota about anyone's "confidence level."


It's been said, but the margin of error is equal to the radius of the confidence interval. Note how I said interval, not level.

Your trouble is you can't calculate the confidence interval.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I know, I know, Marxist warmizombies are all about how "confident" they are in their faith. I don't care. I just don't care.

That explains a lot.
2. Did you actually mean a 5% margin of error? A 95% margin of error isn't even worth the time and effort to take the measurement.

Ah, you're right. I meant a 95% chance that the error results in the true value being within the confidence interval. Another way of saying that is that there is a 95% of the true value being less than the margin of error away from the measured value. These are equivalent.

No, they are not. That is not how you determine the confidence interval.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I thought that a was the chance of not being wrong about the interval, but it seems it is the chance of being wrong. Thanks.


You don't know the how the confidence interval itself is calculated. You are failing to take standard deviation into account completely. You can't just use the deviation among measured points.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool.

They can be. Unfortunately warmizombies have hijacked the term "confidence" to mean their level of conviction. I still don't care about them, dumbass. The IPCC uses "confidence" levels exclusively so as to maintain the complete worthlessness of their reports. They will not publish all the margins of error so they can't be pinned down on their bulslhit.

No, IB.
1. They are statistical terms, and only idiots are using them to mean "I'm really really sure about this!" I'm certainly not.
2. The margin of error is the radius of the confidence interval at the same confidence level.
Surface Detail wrote: A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to.

No, dumbass, the margins of error are what are important for understanding the measurements.


IB, no. Please stop. You're making every statistician in the universe cry out in pain. I have a good comic for this, but I can't find it. I'll post it later.

The margin of error for my measurements are 0.01K!

...for a=0.99. Which is useless. We want something like a=0.05, and then we might get something like 2K (I don't know, I haven't done the math, but it'll be larger).

Math error. You can't just pick a confidence level and assume that is the confidence interval. You can't just pick biased data and assume its a valid statistic either. Garbage in, garbage out.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Warmizombies are required to avoid all margins of error so as to not reveal the embarrassing truth about their WACKY religious dogma.


Bulverism.


You do not know what this word means. Go ask Alice.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-10-2016 00:17
12-10-2016 00:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

How about all of them?
Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

The confidence level, say, a=0.05, is how likely it is that the true value is outside the given confidence interval.

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


But... you...

You seem like you've gone through Stat, but you don't even know what a confidence level is! How?!


You suck at statistics. You don't know what you're doing.

Let's start with the raw data itself. What is required to sample the raw data?


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: We weren't talking about calibration. That's a different topic completely. You really are at sea here, aren't you?

No, idiot, we were talking about "margin of error" vs. "confidence level" and you tried to shoehorn the topic into statistics.

Those are statistical concepts!

Your welcome to come back and join us in our "Margin of Error" discussion, dumbass, but try to contribute something intelligent.

He has. You haven't.
We were at the point of "margin of error" being absolutely critical but dishonest warmizombies (I know, redundant) like yourself are obligated to struggle to the death to ensure they are always omitted so the true WACKY nature of your faith remains concealed.

...and you were saying what?


Are you kidding? I'm all about the confidence interval and confidence level. Any statistical analysis would be stupid to not include them.


And you fail to include them.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


You keep saying that. You keep using bullying and Bulverism. It's not super effective.

(yes, I did that on purpose)


I keep saying it because you keep showing it.

You also don't know what 'bulverism' is.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


You keep saying that. You keep using bullying and Bulverism. It's not super effective.

(yes, I did that on purpose)


I keep saying it because you keep showing it.

You also don't know what 'bulverism' is.


It is a fallacy. Regardless of how obviously moronic I appear to be, that is not a valid argument.


"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!
12-10-2016 00:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

How about all of them?
Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

The confidence level, say, a=0.05, is how likely it is that the true value is outside the given confidence interval.

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


But... you...

You seem like you've gone through Stat, but you don't even know what a confidence level is! How?!


You suck at statistics. You don't know what you're doing.

Let's start with the raw data itself. What is required to sample the raw data?


You don't sample the raw data. You sample the population, and receive your raw data. There are many ways to do this. It's called "testing", and you don't believe that it has any place in science, apparently.


"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!
12-10-2016 00:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool.

They can be. Unfortunately warmizombies have hijacked the term "confidence" to mean their level of conviction. I still don't care about them, dumbass. The IPCC uses "confidence" levels exclusively so as to maintain the complete worthlessness of their reports. They will not publish all the margins of error so they can't be pinned down on their bulslhit.

No, IB.
1. They are statistical terms, and only idiots are using them to mean "I'm really really sure about this!" I'm certainly not.
2. The margin of error is the radius of the confidence interval at the same confidence level.
Surface Detail wrote: A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to.

No, dumbass, the margins of error are what are important for understanding the measurements.


IB, no. Please stop. You're making every statistician in the universe cry out in pain. I have a good comic for this, but I can't find it. I'll post it later.

The margin of error for my measurements are 0.01K!

...for a=0.99. Which is useless. We want something like a=0.05, and then we might get something like 2K (I don't know, I haven't done the math, but it'll be larger).

Math error. You can't just pick a confidence level and assume that is the confidence interval. You can't just pick biased data and assume its a valid statistic either. Garbage in, garbage out.


Confidence level =/= confidence interval.

The confidence level can be plugged into it. I can change it all I like. I could make it a=0.0000001. I could make it a=0.999999. But these wouldn't be useful, so we tend to go with a=0.90 or a=0.95 or a=0.99.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Warmizombies are required to avoid all margins of error so as to not reveal the embarrassing truth about their WACKY religious dogma.


Bulverism.


You do not know what this word means. Go ask Alice.


Who is Alice?


"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!
12-10-2016 01:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Stop that! Stop using that escape hatch!

I was referring to your "averages cannot be computed" statement.


You suck at math. You do not understand probability, random number generation, or statistics.


You keep saying that. You keep using bullying and Bulverism. It's not super effective.

(yes, I did that on purpose)


I keep saying it because you keep showing it.

You also don't know what 'bulverism' is.


It is a fallacy. Regardless of how obviously moronic I appear to be, that is not a valid argument.


I am making valid arguments.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 01:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It looks like you're as ignorant about statistics as you are about science.

Could you point to a post in which you were correct about something?

How about all of them?
Surface Detail wrote: Tell me, how could you define a margin of error without giving a confidence level?

You have to be a moron to ask that question. Calibration is all about accuracy/margin of error and nothing about "confidence level."

The confidence level, say, a=0.05, is how likely it is that the true value is outside the given confidence interval.

Back at you: how can you have any confidence without knowing the accuracy?

Too funny.


But... you...

You seem like you've gone through Stat, but you don't even know what a confidence level is! How?!


You suck at statistics. You don't know what you're doing.

Let's start with the raw data itself. What is required to sample the raw data?


You don't sample the raw data. You sample the population, and receive your raw data. There are many ways to do this. It's called "testing", and you don't believe that it has any place in science, apparently.


Now you want to redirect to populations as raw data instead of temperatures?

You can't to seem to stay on task.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 02:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9581)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Confidence interval and confidence level are statistical terms, you fool.

They can be. Unfortunately warmizombies have hijacked the term "confidence" to mean their level of conviction. I still don't care about them, dumbass. The IPCC uses "confidence" levels exclusively so as to maintain the complete worthlessness of their reports. They will not publish all the margins of error so they can't be pinned down on their bulslhit.

No, IB.
1. They are statistical terms, and only idiots are using them to mean "I'm really really sure about this!" I'm certainly not.
2. The margin of error is the radius of the confidence interval at the same confidence level.
Surface Detail wrote: A margin of error figure is useless unless you know what confidence level it is referring to.

No, dumbass, the margins of error are what are important for understanding the measurements.


IB, no. Please stop. You're making every statistician in the universe cry out in pain. I have a good comic for this, but I can't find it. I'll post it later.

The margin of error for my measurements are 0.01K!

...for a=0.99. Which is useless. We want something like a=0.05, and then we might get something like 2K (I don't know, I haven't done the math, but it'll be larger).

Math error. You can't just pick a confidence level and assume that is the confidence interval. You can't just pick biased data and assume its a valid statistic either. Garbage in, garbage out.


Confidence level =/= confidence interval.

The confidence level can be plugged into it. I can change it all I like. I could make it a=0.0000001. I could make it a=0.999999. But these wouldn't be useful, so we tend to go with a=0.90 or a=0.95 or a=0.99.

That is not how you calculate confidence interval or margin of error.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Warmizombies are required to avoid all margins of error so as to not reveal the embarrassing truth about their WACKY religious dogma.


Bulverism.


You do not know what this word means. Go ask Alice.


Who is Alice?

Apparently you are unaware of the works of C.S. Lewis?


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 5123>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
▲ 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