|
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
I'll be adding a new feature to my monthly world temperature
analysis, an evaluation of the confidence of nonzero correlation. This "F ratio" inferential statistic tests whether the slope of the correlation is zero. This procedure is well known. Even "CO2 Scientists," use it. Consult any good statistics text for more information. (You may also find information on, or may already be aware of, a "t test," which evaluates whether the slope of the correlation is positive or negative. I would have used the "t test" to test for a positive warming slope, but to avoid confusing some people I chose to follow the lead of the "CO2 Scientists" and use the "F ratio." (Actually, "F" and "t" are largely the same, both use the Incomplete Beta Function, but with different arguments.)) I would have added this feature earlier, but the 124-year record shows warming so very strongly that special attention is required to evaluate the "F distribution function" correctly. In most cases, a simple table listing "F" values for 95% and 99% confidence will do. (For an example, see this table from the "CO2 Science" site: http://co2science.org/ushcn/ftable.htm) However, the positive slope regression lines of global warming in temperature data series have been more than 99% certain for over a half-century now. (The positive correlation from 1880 to 1954 in the GISS land and sea data set is about 99.9999999999% certain, with 73 degrees of freedom and F = 75.92.) I have therefore used the "BETAI" routine from "Numerical Recipes" by William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukolsky, and William T. Vetterling in 1986. My results pass the test routines provided by the authors, and they match the table from "CO2 Science" as well. I've also checked my more extreme results, with their long series of "9"s, against Wolfram Research's "Mathematica" version 3.0 for Macintosh. I used variations on these three commands: Statistics'ContinuousDistributions' $MaxExtraPrecision = 2000 N[CDF[FRatioDistribution[1, insertdegreesfreedomhere], Fratiogoeshere], 500] This computation uses symbolic representations for numbers to simulate many digits of precision, and is therefore a very slow process. A single evaluation by "Mathematica," like the one needed to test the case below, can take hours on my 266 MHz Mac G3 Power PC. In most cases I tested, "Mathematica" and my implementation of "BETAI" agreed on the number of "9"s; occasionally, they differed by a single 9 digit. Here are the results for 124 years of GISS global land and sea data: Rxy 0.833087 Rxy^2 0.694034 TEMP = 13.666145 + (0.004797 * (YEAR-1879)) Degrees of Freedom = 122 F = 276.73745 Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 (32 nines), which is darn close to 100%! These globally averaged yearly temperature data come from NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update...LB.Ts+dSST.txt They represent the results of hundreds of millions of readings taken at thousands of stations around the globe over the last 124 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be. There are few urban centers in the sea. -- "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE -.-. --.- Roger Coppock ) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message ... I'll be adding a new feature to my monthly world temperature analysis, an evaluation of the confidence of nonzero correlation. This "F ratio" inferential statistic tests whether the slope of the correlation is zero. This procedure is well known. Even "CO2 Scientists," use it. Consult any good statistics text for more information. (You may also find information on, or may already be aware of, a "t test," which evaluates whether the slope of the correlation is positive or negative. I would have used the "t test" to test for a positive warming slope, but to avoid confusing some people I chose to follow the lead of the "CO2 Scientists" and use the "F ratio." (Actually, "F" and "t" are largely the same, both use the Incomplete Beta Function, but with different arguments.)) I would have added this feature earlier, but the 124-year record shows warming so very strongly that special attention is required to evaluate the "F distribution function" correctly. In most cases, a simple table listing "F" values for 95% and 99% confidence will do. (For an example, see this table from the "CO2 Science" site: http://co2science.org/ushcn/ftable.htm) However, the positive slope regression lines of global warming in temperature data series have been more than 99% certain for over a half-century now. (The positive correlation from 1880 to 1954 in the GISS land and sea data set is about 99.9999999999% certain, with 73 degrees of freedom and F = 75.92.) I have therefore used the "BETAI" routine from "Numerical Recipes" by William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukolsky, and William T. Vetterling in 1986. My results pass the test routines provided by the authors, and they match the table from "CO2 Science" as well. I've also checked my more extreme results, with their long series of "9"s, against Wolfram Research's "Mathematica" version 3.0 for Macintosh. I used variations on these three commands: Statistics'ContinuousDistributions' $MaxExtraPrecision = 2000 N[CDF[FRatioDistribution[1, insertdegreesfreedomhere], Fratiogoeshere], 500] This computation uses symbolic representations for numbers to simulate many digits of precision, and is therefore a very slow process. A single evaluation by "Mathematica," like the one needed to test the case below, can take hours on my 266 MHz Mac G3 Power PC. In most cases I tested, "Mathematica" and my implementation of "BETAI" agreed on the number of "9"s; occasionally, they differed by a single 9 digit. Here are the results for 124 years of GISS global land and sea data: Rxy 0.833087 Rxy^2 0.694034 TEMP = 13.666145 + (0.004797 * (YEAR-1879)) Degrees of Freedom = 122 F = 276.73745 Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 (32 nines), which is darn close to 100%! Great. Now carry out pi as far as you can. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
"James" wrote in message ...
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message ... I'll be adding a new feature to my monthly world temperature analysis, an evaluation of the confidence of nonzero correlation. This "F ratio" inferential statistic tests whether the slope of the correlation is zero. This procedure is well known. Even "CO2 Scientists," use it. Consult any good statistics text for more information. (You may also find information on, or may already be aware of, a "t test," which evaluates whether the slope of the correlation is positive or negative. I would have used the "t test" to test for a positive warming slope, but to avoid confusing some people I chose to follow the lead of the "CO2 Scientists" and use the "F ratio." (Actually, "F" and "t" are largely the same, both use the Incomplete Beta Function, but with different arguments.)) I would have added this feature earlier, but the 124-year record shows warming so very strongly that special attention is required to evaluate the "F distribution function" correctly. In most cases, a simple table listing "F" values for 95% and 99% confidence will do. (For an example, see this table from the "CO2 Science" site: http://co2science.org/ushcn/ftable.htm) However, the positive slope regression lines of global warming in temperature data series have been more than 99% certain for over a half-century now. (The positive correlation from 1880 to 1954 in the GISS land and sea data set is about 99.9999999999% certain, with 73 degrees of freedom and F = 75.92.) I have therefore used the "BETAI" routine from "Numerical Recipes" by William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukolsky, and William T. Vetterling in 1986. My results pass the test routines provided by the authors, and they match the table from "CO2 Science" as well. I've also checked my more extreme results, with their long series of "9"s, against Wolfram Research's "Mathematica" version 3.0 for Macintosh. I used variations on these three commands: Statistics'ContinuousDistributions' $MaxExtraPrecision = 2000 N[CDF[FRatioDistribution[1, insertdegreesfreedomhere], Fratiogoeshere], 500] This computation uses symbolic representations for numbers to simulate many digits of precision, and is therefore a very slow process. A single evaluation by "Mathematica," like the one needed to test the case below, can take hours on my 266 MHz Mac G3 Power PC. In most cases I tested, "Mathematica" and my implementation of "BETAI" agreed on the number of "9"s; occasionally, they differed by a single 9 digit. Here are the results for 124 years of GISS global land and sea data: Rxy 0.833087 Rxy^2 0.694034 TEMP = 13.666145 + (0.004797 * (YEAR-1879)) Degrees of Freedom = 122 F = 276.73745 Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 (32 nines), which is darn close to 100%! Great. Now carry out pi as far as you can. It appears that Crappock is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% certain of what climatologists have known for a very long time - that the earth has been (generally) in a warming phase since records began 124 years ago. In point of fact, all reliable ( and by reliable I don't mean Mann's tree ring nonsense) proxies put the warming trend to have started in the 17th Century, a century before the Industrial Revolution, and slap bang in the middle of the Maunder Minimum of solar activity. That the earth has warmed in the last 124 years is news to nobody. That Crappock doesn't know the difference between a monthly variation in mean temperature and climate we can only ascribe to a very low cranial capacity and lots of time on his hands. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Roger Coppock wrote in message ...
[snip] I would have added this feature earlier, but the 124-year record shows warming so very strongly that special attention is required to evaluate the "F distribution function" correctly. In most cases, a simple table listing "F" values for 95% and 99% confidence will do. (For an example, see this table from the "CO2 Science" site: http://co2science.org/ushcn/ftable.htm) However, the positive slope regression lines of global warming in temperature data series have been more than 99% certain for over a half-century now. (The positive correlation from 1880 to 1954 in the GISS land and sea data set is about 99.9999999999% certain, with 73 degrees of freedom and F = 75.92.) I have therefore used the "BETAI" routine from "Numerical Recipes" by William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukolsky, and William T. Vetterling in 1986. My results pass the test routines provided by the authors, and they match the table from "CO2 Science" as well. I've also checked my more extreme results, with their long series of "9"s, against Wolfram Research's "Mathematica" version 3.0 for Macintosh. I used variations on these three commands: Statistics'ContinuousDistributions' $MaxExtraPrecision = 2000 N[CDF[FRatioDistribution[1, insertdegreesfreedomhere], Fratiogoeshere], 500] This computation uses symbolic representations for numbers to simulate many digits of precision, and is therefore a very slow process. A single evaluation by "Mathematica," like the one needed to test the case below, can take hours on my 266 MHz Mac G3 Power PC. In most cases I tested, "Mathematica" and my implementation of "BETAI" agreed on the number of "9"s; occasionally, they differed by a single 9 digit. Here are the results for 124 years of GISS global land and sea data: Rxy 0.833087 Rxy^2 0.694034 TEMP = 13.666145 + (0.004797 * (YEAR-1879)) Degrees of Freedom = 122 F = 276.73745 Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 (32 nines), which is darn close to 100%! [snip] I can save you hours of computing time. Use the calculator at http://members.aol.com/iandjmsmith/FEX.HTM Set it to calculate 1 - F distribution. With X = 75.92 and Denominator df = 73 you get Cumulative probability = 6.429602941527236e-13, so the F value is 1-6.429602941527236e-13 With X = 276.73745 and Denominator df = 122 you get Cumulative probability = 3.644936641931845e-33, so the F value is 1-3.644936641931845e-33 I think you'll find lots of calculators can do the calculation this accurately if they can work with the complement of (i.e. 1 minus) the F distribution. Alternatively, if you set the calculator to calculate F distribution, then enter X = 1/276.73745, Numerator df = 122, Denominator df = 1 and you'll get the same answer. Now you can use a most F distribution calculators - even EXCEL gets it right! It calculates the complement of the F distribution in the first place so =FDIST(276.73745,1,122) gives 3.644936641694430E-33, a relative error of approx 6.5e-11. Ian Smith |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
"Titan Point" wrote in message om... It appears that Crappock is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% certain of what climatologists have known for a very long time - that the earth has been (generally) in a warming phase since records began 124 years ago. Is this the same Titan Point who just a few years ago was claiming that there were warnings that the earth was in a cooling phase in the 70's? Now which is it Titan. Are you lying now, or were you lying then? |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Nicolas S wrote:
Now that is pretty much confidence. And the oil,aviation and automobile industry is working hard on the missing bit. The tricksters hired by the fossil fuel industry will just ignore this, and very many other truths. (Ian Smith) wrote in message . com... Roger Coppock wrote in message ... [snip] I would have added this feature earlier, but the 124-year record shows warming so very strongly that special attention is required to evaluate the "F distribution function" correctly. In most cases, a simple table listing "F" values for 95% and 99% confidence will do. (For an example, see this table from the "CO2 Science" site: http://co2science.org/ushcn/ftable.htm) However, the positive slope regression lines of global warming in temperature data series have been more than 99% certain for over a half-century now. (The positive correlation from 1880 to 1954 in the GISS land and sea data set is about 99.9999999999% certain, with 73 degrees of freedom and F = 75.92.) I have therefore used the "BETAI" routine from "Numerical Recipes" by William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukolsky, and William T. Vetterling in 1986. My results pass the test routines provided by the authors, and they match the table from "CO2 Science" as well. I've also checked my more extreme results, with their long series of "9"s, against Wolfram Research's "Mathematica" version 3.0 for Macintosh. I used variations on these three commands: Statistics'ContinuousDistributions' $MaxExtraPrecision = 2000 N[CDF[FRatioDistribution[1, insertdegreesfreedomhere], Fratiogoeshere], 500] This computation uses symbolic representations for numbers to simulate many digits of precision, and is therefore a very slow process. A single evaluation by "Mathematica," like the one needed to test the case below, can take hours on my 266 MHz Mac G3 Power PC. In most cases I tested, "Mathematica" and my implementation of "BETAI" agreed on the number of "9"s; occasionally, they differed by a single 9 digit. Here are the results for 124 years of GISS global land and sea data: Rxy 0.833087 Rxy^2 0.694034 TEMP = 13.666145 + (0.004797 * (YEAR-1879)) Degrees of Freedom = 122 F = 276.73745 Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 (32 nines), which is darn close to 100%! [snip] I can save you hours of computing time. Use the calculator at http://members.aol.com/iandjmsmith/FEX.HTM Set it to calculate 1 - F distribution. With X = 75.92 and Denominator df = 73 you get Cumulative probability = 6.429602941527236e-13, so the F value is 1-6.429602941527236e-13 .. . . or better than 12 nines, which is what my software reports. With X = 276.73745 and Denominator df = 122 you get Cumulative probability = 3.644936641931845e-33, so the F value is 1-3.644936641931845e-33 I think you'll find lots of calculators can do the calculation this accurately if they can work with the complement of (i.e. 1 minus) the F distribution. Alternatively, if you set the calculator to calculate F distribution, then enter X = 1/276.73745, Numerator df = 122, Denominator df = 1 and you'll get the same answer. Now you can use a most F distribution calculators - even EXCEL gets it right! It calculates the complement of the F distribution in the first place so =FDIST(276.73745,1,122) gives 3.644936641694430E-33, a relative error of approx 6.5e-11. . . . or better than 32 nines as my software reports. Thank you Ian! I never thought to use either a page on the Internet, or a calculator. It looks like everybody is in agreement. At these extremes, where we are so close to 100% certain, I'll just report the number of nines. The Incomplete Beta function is so nonlinear that it amplifies the smallest change in its inputs, so reporting any significant figures would be misleading. The folks at Heartland, Cato, CO2 'Science,' and other PR firms hired by the industry are already making more than enough misleading statements on this issue. I don't plan to add to the confusion. Ian Smith -- "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE -.-. --.- Roger Coppock ) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Roger Coppock wrote:
http://co2science.org/ushcn/ftable.htm) However, the positive slope regression lines of global warming in temperature data series have been more than 99% certain for over a half-century now. (The positive correlation from 1880 to 1954 in the GISS land and sea data set is about 99.9999999999% certain, with 73 degrees of freedom and F = 75.92.) The above numbers assume that the values for successive years may be considered independent. The actual number of degrees of freedom should be estimated from the lag-one autocorrelation of the data set (that auto-correlation is almost certainly 0). Second, while the trend in the data set itself might be highly certain, there remains some controversy over whether the data set accurately reflects the actual trend in global temperature, or whether the trend is an artifact of the measurements themselves (e.g. heat island effect, etc.) I say this as one who believes that the globe is probably getting warmer. But I want any claims to have *proven* this to be able to withstand close scrutiny. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Grant wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote: http://co2science.org/ushcn/ftable.htm) However, the positive slope regression lines of global warming in temperature data series have been more than 99% certain for over a half-century now. (The positive correlation from 1880 to 1954 in the GISS land and sea data set is about 99.9999999999% certain, with 73 degrees of freedom and F = 75.92.) The above numbers assume that the values for successive years may be considered independent. The actual number of degrees of freedom should be estimated from the lag-one autocorrelation of the data set (that auto-correlation is almost certainly 0). Then please take us step-by-step through the lag-one auto-correlation of the data set and produce your estimate of the number of degrees of freedom. The URL to the data set was listed in my original post, the part you snipped. Second, while the trend in the data set itself might be highly certain, there remains some controversy over whether the data set accurately reflects the actual trend in global temperature, or whether the trend is an artifact of the measurements themselves (e.g. heat island effect, etc.) As the snipped part of my original post said, the land data used were corrected for the Urban Heat Island effect; the sea data did not need to be. I say this as one who believes that the globe is probably getting warmer. But I want any claims to have *proven* this to be able to withstand close scrutiny. -- "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE -.-. --.- Roger Coppock ) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Roger Coppock wrote:
Then please take us step-by-step through the lag-one auto-correlation of the data set and produce your estimate of the number of degrees of freedom. The URL to the data set was listed in my original post, the part you snipped. Why me? I'm not the one asserting that global warming is 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain! Personally, I don't think it should make much difference to reasonable people whether it's 99.999999999999999999999999999999% certain or merely 99% certain. And the latter claim will be far easier to prove without the help of questionable assumptions. As the snipped part of my original post said, the land data used were corrected for the Urban Heat Island effect; the sea data did not need to be. Fair enough. Not sure how accurately the magnitude of the heat island effect is even known, though. I'm 99.9999% certain, however, that it's not known with 99.999999999999999999999999999999% confidence. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Grant wrote in message ...
Roger Coppock wrote: Then please take us step-by-step through the lag-one auto-correlation of the data set and produce your estimate of the number of degrees of freedom. The URL to the data set was listed in my original post, the part you snipped. Why me? I'm not the one asserting that global warming is 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain! No, you have asserted that there is a "lag-one auto-correlation" which produces your a number of degrees freedom which is different from the N-2=122 that I and others on this thread used. To back up that assertion, you should explain it. I've explained my assertion, and other people in this thread have understood my explaination and taken time to verify it. Personally, I don't think it should make much difference to reasonable people whether it's 99.999999999999999999999999999999% certain or merely 99% certain. And the latter claim will be far easier to prove without the help of questionable assumptions. Then, explain your assumptions to the groop and calculate your version for the certainty number. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Roger Coppock wrote:
Why me? I'm not the one asserting that global warming is 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain! No, you have asserted that there is a "lag-one auto-correlation" which produces your a number of degrees freedom which is different from the N-2=122 that I and others on this thread used. To back up that assertion, you should explain it. I've explained my assertion, and other people in this thread have understood my explaination and taken time to verify it. The N-2 assumes that all N of the measurements are statistically independent of one another. That is, it assumes that anomalies in one data point are uncorrelated with those in the next (or previous) data point in the time series. This is a poor assumption for most geophysical time series. In general, atmospheric records contain both low-frequency and high-frequency variability. For example, over the course of a year, the temperature on one day is highly correlated with that on the next day. This correlation tends to decay for pairs of days that are more widely separated. The point is, if you took (for example) the max temperature for 124 straight days, subtracted the average annual cycle, and fit a straight line to your resulting anomalies, your computed slope (as a measure of long term trend) would not have the small uncertainty that would be implied by 124 independent samples. In fact, your slope would have almost no meaning whatsoever for long-term trends in temperature anomalies, because you'd almost certainly be fitting your straight line to part of a longer term (low-frequency) fluctuation that is not related to a long-term trend. For annual rather than daily temperatures, the problem with low-frequency variability is less severe but not negligible. There's no perfect way to account for the effect of low frequency fluctuations on apparent long-term trends, but using the autocorrelation of your data set to estimate a reduced number of degrees of freedom will allow you to attach a somewhat more realistic uncertainty to your aparent trend. Personally, I don't think it should make much difference to reasonable people whether it's 99.999999999999999999999999999999% certain or merely 99% certain. And the latter claim will be far easier to prove without the help of questionable assumptions. Then, explain your assumptions to the groop and calculate your version for the certainty number. Sorry, I'm not interested enough in the question to take the time to download your data set, look up the exact formulas, and write the required program to read the data set and do the calculation. I can say that the relevant formula can be found in Schaum's Outline of Statistics, because I'm pretty sure that's where I found it last time I needed it some years ago. As I said earlier, I already believe it is *likely* that we are seeing global warming. I just believe that it cannot be shown with anywhere near the confidence you claim, for reasons that are only partly related to statistics. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Grant wrote:
Sorry, I'm not interested enough in the question to take the time to download your data set, The data set is only 14K bytes long. That shouldn't take more than a small fraction of a minute to download. You only need the January to December annual mean, which is in the 14th column, after the 13 columns that contain the year and 12 months. look up the exact formulas, That could take some time, because the formulas may only exist in your imagination. We are here to learn from each other, Grant. If you don't have the time to contribute something positive, then don't come here in the first place. You could, at least, publish the formulas clearly. -- "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE -.-. --.- Roger Coppock ) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
wrote:
In sci.environment Grant wrote: Roger Coppock wrote: No, you have asserted that there is a "lag-one auto-correlation" which produces your a number of degrees freedom which is different from the N-2=122 that I and others on this thread used. To back up that assertion, you should explain it. I've explained my assertion, and other people in this thread have understood my explaination and taken time to verify it. This is going back to the discussion we had much earlier. Yes, the discussion about the runs of months with above norm global temperatures. No one offered anything solid, a citation and an algorithm, in that discussion either. The closest we got were the two approximations from each of us, your simulation program and my calculation. Those two methods gave results that differed by a factor of 10^4. The N-2 assumes that all N of the measurements are statistically independent of one another... In general, atmospheric records contain both low-frequency and high-frequency variability... True so far... I can say that the relevant formula can be found in Schaum's Outline of Statistics, because I'm pretty sure that's where I found it last time I needed it some years ago. But this I disagree with. Lag-1 is just a first approximation to the "true" method of finding the effective d.o.f. (which is quite likely in itself just an estimate). Then William, would you carefully explain your method for calculation of the effective degrees of freedom and demonstrate its application to this case. The data are the 14Th column of this data file: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update...LB.Ts+dSST.txt I am quite interested in this, and, unfortunately, Mr. Petty doesn't want to communicate anything substantial. -- "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE -.-. --.- Roger Coppock ) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Roger Coppock wrote:
Grant wrote: Sorry, I'm not interested enough in the question to take the time to download your data set, The data set is only 14K bytes long. That shouldn't take more than a small fraction of a minute to download. You snipped out the other, vastly more important reasons. look up the exact formulas, That could take some time, because the formulas may only exist in your imagination. You have an interesting way of trying to elicit cooperation. We are here to learn from each other, Grant. Are you 99.999999999999999999999999999999% certain that that's why I'm here? For the record, about 50% or more of what I read in the sci.geo.meteorology newsgroup, especially with respect to global warming, ice meteors from space, and so forth, is written by people with only a superficial understanding of meteorology or climatology and surprisingly little recognition of what they *don't* know. One of my main reasons for coming to this newsgroup from time to time has been to try to inject the perspectives of a professional atmospheric scientist into discussions that seemed to me to be careening into the abyss of ignorant speculation. A few years ago, there were many other experts around. I think many or most of them decided at some point that they had better things to do than get drawn into "debates" with arrogant and argumentative laypeople who think they know better. If you don't have the time to contribute something positive, then don't come here in the first place. See above. You could, at least, publish the formulas clearly. At the risk of repeating myself, it would take me time that I don't have to find and post formulas that can probably be gotten from any reasonably complete textbook on statistical regression. Here's the operative topic: "estimating the number of degrees of freedom in a time series of non-independent (or correlated) measurements." If you're truly interested in accurately portraying the uncertainty in global warming trends, you'll do your own homework and not attack those who point out, however cursorily, the shortcomings in your arguments. On a side note, I completely agree with whoever pointed out (I saw only a response to that person's article) that the lag-one autocorrelation only allows you to get a *first-order* estimated correction to the number of degrees of freedom. That person may be better able than I to point to you to a source for more information. Though I would advise against *demanding* that he do so, as you have done with me. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
February 10, 2004
Grant wrote: At the risk of repeating myself, it would take me time that I don't have But you have enough time to post long, convoluted, content free, text arguments and baseless skepticism on the usenet, eh? Keep up the good work! Don't forget, we like citations and references. And we love http://www.google.com. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
February 10, 2004 Grant wrote: At the risk of repeating myself, it would take me time that I don't have But you have enough time to post long, convoluted, content free, text arguments and baseless skepticism on the usenet, eh? Keep up the good work! Don't forget, we like citations and references. Then you'll like http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/surface.pdf And we love http://www.google.com. which I just found via Google using search terms "serial correlation" "degrees of freedom" trend Happy reading. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Grant wrote:
Don't forget, we like citations and references. Then you'll like http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/surface.pdf And we love http://www.google.com. which I just found via Google using search terms "serial correlation" "degrees of freedom" trend Oh, and here's another one from the SAS manual (same Google search): http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/computing...hap8/sect3.htm |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Grant wrote:
Grant wrote: Don't forget, we like citations and references. Then you'll like http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/surface.pdf And we love http://www.google.com. which I just found via Google using search terms "serial correlation" "degrees of freedom" trend Oh, and here's another one from the SAS manual (same Google search): http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/computing...hap8/sect3.htm And one more (do you have a PostScript viewer?): http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/stats/manuscripts/trend.ps |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Grant wrote in message ...
At the risk of repeating myself, it would take me time that I don't have to find and post formulas that can probably be gotten from any reasonably complete textbook on statistical regression. Here's the operative topic: "estimating the number of degrees of freedom in a time series of non-independent (or correlated) measurements." If you're truly interested in accurately portraying the uncertainty in global warming trends, you'll do your own homework and not attack those who point out, however cursorily, the shortcomings in your arguments. You are wasting your time. I had a go at explaining the problem to Roger Coppock a few months ago, but he's too ignorant to even realise that there might be a problem. Frankly, I find the True Believers just as tiresome as the True Disbelievers, both of them seem to rely on revealed truth (ie their own prejudices) to the complete exclusion of any remotely competent or objective analysis of the problem. Indeed, as you say, most of them are too stupid to even realise how little they know. James |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
James Annan wrote:
Frankly, I find the True Believers just as tiresome as the True Disbelievers, both of them seem to rely on revealed truth (ie their own prejudices) to the complete exclusion of any remotely competent or objective analysis of the problem. Well said. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
James, you never gave us an algorithm.
James Annan wrote: Grant wrote in message ... At the risk of repeating myself, it would take me time that I don't have to find and post formulas that can probably be gotten from any reasonably complete textbook on statistical regression. Here's the operative topic: "estimating the number of degrees of freedom in a time series of non-independent (or correlated) measurements." If you're truly interested in accurately portraying the uncertainty in global warming trends, you'll do your own homework and not attack those who point out, however cursorily, the shortcomings in your arguments. You are wasting your time. I had a go at explaining the problem to Roger Coppock a few months ago, but he's too ignorant to even realise that there might be a problem. Frankly, I find the True Believers just as tiresome as the True Disbelievers, both of them seem to rely on revealed truth (ie their own prejudices) to the complete exclusion of any remotely competent or objective analysis of the problem. Indeed, as you say, most of them are too stupid to even realise how little they know. James -- "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE -.-. --.- Roger Coppock ) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
February 10, 2004
Grant wrote in message : which I just found via Google using search terms "serial correlation" "degrees of freedom" trend Wow, and while Grant fiddles, Earth burns. This we know. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...n%22+emissions Hey Grant, did you know that global warming is only one of the many very bad global biological and environmental ramifications of hydrocarbon combustion? Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Grant wrote:
Then you'll like http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/surface.pdf When I attempt to read this file, my Acrobat Reader 4.05a displays the message: "Unable to find or create the font 'TimesNewRoman'. Some characters may not display or print correctly." The file, except for some graphics, unreadable. I'll download Acrobat 6.01. All 21 MB should be done sometime tomorrow. -- "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE -.-. --.- Roger Coppock ) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Wow, and while Grant fiddles, Earth burns. This we know. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...n%22+emissions Hey Grant, did you know that global warming is only one of the many very bad global biological and environmental ramifications of hydrocarbon combustion? Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net To the rest of the readers: the above response proves that Thomas Lee Elifritz does not pay attention to what others are saying, only what he imagines that they're saying. I'm sure that includes this message. Where did he get the idea that I'm not deeply concerned about global warming and/or hydrocarbon combustion? From the fact that I pointed out shortcomings in Roger Coppock's statistical methods?? "You're either with us or you're against us?" Funny, I thought that was George W. Bush's line. In two short days it has become clear to me that Roger Coppock and Thomas Lee Elifritz are doing far more harm to the credibility of the case they are trying to make than they are helping it. Too bad, since I would like to see that case made both forcefully and credibly, based on sound data and bulletproof reasoning. This is my last posting in this thread. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
February 11, 2004
Grant wrote: In two short days it has become clear to me that Roger Coppock and Thomas Lee Elifritz are doing far more harm to the credibility of the case they are trying to make than they are helping it. Too bad, since I would like to see that case made both forcefully and credibly, based on sound data and bulletproof reasoning. Incredible. UW-Madison, eh? Welcome to the usenet, Grant. Half of the crackpots around here think there has been a manned base on the surface of the moon since the early 60's, and the other half think the entire moon program was faked. Most of the anti-environment crowd around here think the GW result is false, precisely because it uses statistical analysis. And you propose a more in depth statistical analysis of hydrocarbon combustion emissions and pollution? What we are interested in are your solutions to the problem, Grant, not of the problems of the statistical methods used, but of the fundamental hydrocarbon emission problem itself. Well, back to the combustion laboratory with you. Where was that now, out of the engineering library in the basement next to Union South, cross the railroad tracks, trying hard not to get run over by University Avenue traffic .... now I'm lost. It's hard to breathe here too. They need another overhead crosswalk for the pedestrians. So, got any solutions? This is my last posting in this thread. Darn. We were so hopeful you would enlighten us. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
(trimmed distribution) Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: Well, back to the combustion laboratory with you. Where was that now, out of the engineering library in the basement next to Union South, cross the railroad tracks, trying hard not to get run over by University Avenue traffic ... now I'm lost. It's hard to breathe here too. They need another overhead crosswalk for the pedestrians. It was so easy to cross Univ. Ave this past Summer when they rebuilt it. Alas, now it's back to a nightmare. But at least the street by the Met (oops -- Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences) building is easy to cross again now that the detoured traffic is gone. :) Scott, really at notscape det not |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
February 11, 2004
Scott wrote: (trimmed distribution) Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: It was so easy to cross Univ. Ave this past Summer when they rebuilt it. Alas, now it's back to a nightmare. But at least the street by the Met (oops -- Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences) building is easy to cross again now that the detoured traffic is gone. :) Sorry I missed it. I can't wait for the days of moving sidewalks and floating buildings. I used to go up to that side of campus on Sunday afternoons, most of the libraries were open and parking was easy after the churches let out. Usually, though, I'm a Gilman street park and walk kind of guy. I can't imagine anyone not getting enough exercise on that campus, it's all the fresh air and the quiet that just bugs me. ;-) They need to get some fuel cell buses in there, with regenerative braking. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
|
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:12:08 -0800, Roger Coppock
wrote: James, you never gave us an algorithm. James Annan wrote: Grant wrote in message ... At the risk of repeating myself, it would take me time that I don't have to find and post formulas that can probably be gotten from any reasonably complete textbook on statistical regression. Here's the operative topic: "estimating the number of degrees of freedom in a time series of non-independent (or correlated) measurements." If you're truly interested in accurately portraying the uncertainty in global warming trends, you'll do your own homework and not attack those who point out, however cursorily, the shortcomings in your arguments. You are wasting your time. I had a go at explaining the problem to Roger Coppock a few months ago, but he's too ignorant to even realise that there might be a problem. Frankly, I find the True Believers just as tiresome as the True Disbelievers, both of them seem to rely on revealed truth (ie their own prejudices) to the complete exclusion of any remotely competent or objective analysis of the problem. Indeed, as you say, most of them are too stupid to even realise how little they know. James "One who joyfully guards his mind And fears his own confusion Can not fall. He has found his way to peace." -- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada," ~5th century BCE That's very good advice, Roger. When do you think you'll apply it to yourself? |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
February 13, 2004
David Ball wrote: You're not the only ones who have noticed this. Mr. Elifritz has a bad habit of only reading what he wants to and selectively snipping the rest. No, I read everything, I just snip what I am not replying to. I'm not sure what Roger is trying to prove. We aren't trying to 'prove' anything, Science is demonstrative, and the evidence clearly demonstrates what hydrocarbon combustion is doing to this planet. [snip nonsense, no need to reply to it] The public needs honest open discussion on this subject, not the musings of a few extremists who are either trying to hide the truth or blow it out of all proportion. No, the 'planet' needs solutions, in lieu of discussion, which you decline to supply. Thomas Lee Elifiritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:54:22 GMT, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote: February 13, 2004 David Ball wrote: You're not the only ones who have noticed this. Mr. Elifritz has a bad habit of only reading what he wants to and selectively snipping the rest. No, I read everything, I just snip what I am not replying to. I wish that were true, but it isn't. I'm not sure what Roger is trying to prove. We aren't trying to 'prove' anything, Science is demonstrative, and the evidence clearly demonstrates what hydrocarbon combustion is doing to this planet. Not the way Roger is doing it. [snip nonsense, no need to reply to it] The public needs honest open discussion on this subject, not the musings of a few extremists who are either trying to hide the truth or blow it out of all proportion. No, the 'planet' needs solutions, in lieu of discussion, which you decline to supply. There is no solution, since part of the problem is natural. There is only mitigation. Try to pay attention, please. I make note, though, that you have proved my original point - you only read what you want to read - quite effectively here. This discussion is NOT about solutions but rather your taking liberties with other's posts. Since it is not about solutions, your statement about my declining to supply them is silly, especially since this is a problem without a solution. In future, please stay on topic and try not to put words in other people's mouths. |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
February 13, 2004
David Ball wrote: I'm not sure what Roger is trying to prove. We aren't trying to 'prove' anything, Science is demonstrative, and the evidence clearly demonstrates what hydrocarbon combustion is doing to this planet. Not the way Roger is doing it. Well, maybe he still confuses proof with demonstration. That's his problem. The public needs honest open discussion on this subject, not the musings of a few extremists who are either trying to hide the truth or blow it out of all proportion. No, the 'planet' needs solutions, in lieu of discussion, which you decline to supply. There is no solution, since part of the problem is natural. Let's think this through. Humanity's contribution to the problem exceeds the natural contribution, therefore humanity has the technology to change climate. That seems to be in direct conflict with your statement : 'there is no solution'. There is only mitigation. That would be a solution. As would remediation. Try to pay attention, please. I make note, though, that you have proved my original point - you only read what you want to read - quite effectively here. No, I have only demonstrated that what you claim : 'there are no solutions', is false. The statement of the problem clearly demonstrates that solutions exist. This discussion is NOT about solutions but rather your taking liberties with other's posts. I'm not discussing anything with you, I only comment that what you claim is not demonstrable. Since it is not about solutions, your statement about my declining to supply them is silly, especially since this is a problem without a solution. And I have clearly demonstrated you claim to be false. In future, please stay on topic and try not to put words in other people's mouths. Why bother, you are a crackpot, since you clearly continue to make false claims, after those claims have been clearly demonstrated to be false. I will continue to 'comment' on that interesting phenomenon. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
Warming 99.999999999999999999999999999999% Certain!
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:12:46 GMT, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote: February 13, 2004 David Ball wrote: I'm not sure what Roger is trying to prove. We aren't trying to 'prove' anything, Science is demonstrative, and the evidence clearly demonstrates what hydrocarbon combustion is doing to this planet. Not the way Roger is doing it. Well, maybe he still confuses proof with demonstration. That's his problem. No, his problem lies in trying to prove a pre-determined result. The public needs honest open discussion on this subject, not the musings of a few extremists who are either trying to hide the truth or blow it out of all proportion. No, the 'planet' needs solutions, in lieu of discussion, which you decline to supply. There is no solution, since part of the problem is natural. Let's think this through. Humanity's contribution to the problem exceeds the natural contribution, therefore humanity has the technology to change climate. That seems to be in direct conflict with your statement : 'there is no solution'. LOL. That doesn't invalidate my point, although your segue into areas having nothing to do with the original post certainly strengthens my point that you don't read what people say, but instead try to put words in their mouths. Here's a tidbit for you: you aren't smart enough to put words in other people's mouths. Concentrate instead on getting the ones coming out of your own mouth correct. Let's revisit the point you raised, even though it has nothing to do with the original post I made. A significant part of the observed warming is natural. Since we can only deal with that portion of the problem we are directly responsible for, there can be no outright solution. We can mitigate the warming by reducing our emissions. We cannot SOLVE the problem, because a significant portion is natural. There is only mitigation. That would be a solution. As would remediation. I suggest you pull out a dictionary and look up what the word mitigation means. We could reduce our emissions to zero and warming would still occur. Please pay attention. Try to pay attention, please. I make note, though, that you have proved my original point - you only read what you want to read - quite effectively here. No, I have only demonstrated that what you claim : 'there are no solutions', is false. The statement of the problem clearly demonstrates that solutions exist. A lie, but if it makes you feel better please feel free to cling to the illusion. This discussion is NOT about solutions but rather your taking liberties with other's posts. I'm not discussing anything with you, I only comment that what you claim is not demonstrable. On the contrary, you replied directly to a post I made concerning your bad habit of taking liberties with other people's posted comments. Since then, you have illustrated this behaviour admirably. A wonderful example of this is your statement about my not offering solutions. Since the original post I made had nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, indeed, the entire thread has nothing to do with it, you were taking liberties. Since it is not about solutions, your statement about my declining to supply them is silly, especially since this is a problem without a solution. And I have clearly demonstrated you claim to be false. A lie, but again, feel free to believe whatever you wish. In future, please stay on topic and try not to put words in other people's mouths. Why bother, you are a crackpot, since you clearly continue to make false claims, after those claims have been clearly demonstrated to be false. LOL. If you say so. I'm not the one who can't answer a simple post in a simple direct manner. Since you likely won't bother to even look at a dictionary, let me save you the time... Main Entry: mit·i·gate Pronunciation: 'mi-t&-"gAt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -gat·ed; -gat·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mitigatus, past participle of mitigare to soften, from mitis soft + -igare (akin to Latin agere to drive); akin to Old Irish moíth soft -- more at AGENT 1 : to cause to become less harsh or hostile : MOLLIFY aggressiveness may be mitigated or... channeled -- Ashley Montagu 2 a : to make less severe or painful : ALLEVIATE b : EXTENUATE To make less severe or painful. Seems pretty straightforeward. I will continue to 'comment' on that interesting phenomenon. What? That you selectively edit people's posts adding in your own bizarre version of events? Why bother? It's readily apparent that you do so. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk