Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (sci.geo.meteorology) For the discussion of meteorology and related topics. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! =----- |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Haytor - a metre of rain now certain | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Easterly now looking more certain | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
What if we knew T240 for certain? | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
A certain paper at it again.... | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Name for a certain kind of wind storm. | alt.talk.weather (General Weather Talk) |