How convenient that the article forgot to mention that the Japan Meteorological Administration independently released similar results a few days earlier.
How convenient that the article forgot to mention that the Japan Meteorological Administration independently released similar results a few days earlier.
No Way wrote:
July4 wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/Where does it say anything was falsified? All measurements have uncertainty. If you measure two pieces of wood with a steel tape to the nearest 1/32 of an inch your margin of error might be 3/32 of an inch. If one is 111/32 and the other is 113/32, you can be pretty sure one is longer than the other but you're still within the margin of error. It doesn't mean it isn't longer.
No Way, two things:
1) What do you mean it is within the margin of error? NASA's margin of error, the article states, is 5 times the claimed increase.
2) The article cites the absurdity in calculating Global Temps to 100ths of degrees. 70% of the Earth (oceans) has little data as does too the deserts and mountainous areas, as well as Antarctica.
Small changes mean the same thing as data falsification!
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:
;) wrote:Probably the one that won't bring about massive coastal flooding and extinctions.
Apparently we have never been at the right temperature then. Is there a temperature at which evolution does not happen?
I thought you guys didn't believe in evolution??
But seriously, I'm not talking about a "correct" temperature, I'm talking about one that doesn't incur billions of dollars in damages and preventative measures.
And the fact that extinctions have always occurred doesn't mean we should be speeding them up.
When will the madness stop?
Sally V wrote:
No Way wrote:Where does it say anything was falsified? All measurements have uncertainty. If you measure two pieces of wood with a steel tape to the nearest 1/32 of an inch your margin of error might be 3/32 of an inch. If one is 111/32 and the other is 113/32, you can be pretty sure one is longer than the other but you're still within the margin of error. It doesn't mean it isn't longer.
No Way, two things:
1) What do you mean it is within the margin of error? NASA's margin of error, the article states, is 5 times the claimed increase.
2) The article cites the absurdity in calculating Global Temps to 100ths of degrees. 70% of the Earth (oceans) has little data as does too the deserts and mountainous areas, as well as Antarctica.
1) It's just as likely that it was actually even warmer than it was cooler.
2) The number of significant figures used has to do with the measurements themselves. When you're comparing the same measurements month to month and year to year this works.
Here's a pretty basic explanation of significant figures.http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Chemistry/courses/chem104/experiment1/statistics/statistics_1.htm
Thats not at all how margin of error works. Of you have a ruler that far off then you have just as much chance of the measured values being equal as not.
ya..... wrote:
Thats not at all how margin of error works. Of you have a ruler that far off then you have just as much chance of the measured values being equal as not.
Exactly
ya..... wrote:
Thats not at all how margin of error works. Of you have a ruler that far off then you have just as much chance of the measured values being equal as not.
Keep in mind that the ruler was just an example. It's not a matter of the ruler being off, its a matter of uncertainty in measurement.No matter what you're measuring and what tool you're using there is uncertainty. I used a ruler for the example because most people have used one. If you look at 1/32 of an inch, it's pretty small. You can measure the same thing twice with the same ruler and have it be 1/32 of an inch different.
Margin of error is the result of measuring the same thing many times and receiving slightly different values each time.
You average them and calculate the standard deviation and then use that to calculate the margin of error for whichever confidence interval you're using.
The data will typically fit a bell curve, with most of the measured values sitting towards the middle. The true value is likely in the center of the curve, but is just as likely to be greater as it is to be lesser.
The actual margin of error for the measurements in my example with a 95% confidence interval is 0.06 or about 2/32 of an inch. With a 99% confidence interval it is 0.08 or about 5/64 of an inch.
No Way wrote:
ya..... wrote:Thats not at all how margin of error works. Of you have a ruler that far off then you have just as much chance of the measured values being equal as not.
Keep in mind that the ruler was just an example. It's not a matter of the ruler being off, its a matter of uncertainty in measurement.No matter what you're measuring and what tool you're using there is uncertainty. I used a ruler for the example because most people have used one. If you look at 1/32 of an inch, it's pretty small. You can measure the same thing twice with the same ruler and have it be 1/32 of an inch different.
Margin of error is the result of measuring the same thing many times and receiving slightly different values each time.
You average them and calculate the standard deviation and then use that to calculate the margin of error for whichever confidence interval you're using.
The data will typically fit a bell curve, with most of the measured values sitting towards the middle. The true value is likely in the center of the curve, but is just as likely to be greater as it is to be lesser.
The actual margin of error for the measurements in my example with a 95% confidence interval is 0.06 or about 2/32 of an inch. With a 99% confidence interval it is 0.08 or about 5/64 of an inch.
And at a 95% confidence level of confidence, 5% of the time you would get results falling outside of that sampling error range.
Sally V wrote:
And at a 95% confidence level of confidence, 5% of the time you would get results falling outside of that sampling error range.
The data is what it is. You can by 95% certain that the data falls within that range.
For what it's worth, 95% confidence is the standard confidence interval for scientific research. You can question the measurements if you want, but the statistics here are good. 95% is very good. There's nothing sketchy about having a margin of error.
Here is an explanation
http://www.biostathandbook.com/confidence.htmlNo Way wrote:
Sally V wrote:And at a 95% confidence level of confidence, 5% of the time you would get results falling outside of that sampling error range.
The data is what it is. You can by 95% certain that the data falls within that range.
For what it's worth, 95% confidence is the standard confidence interval for scientific research. You can question the measurements if you want, but the statistics here are good. 95% is very good. There's nothing sketchy about having a margin of error.
Here is an explanation
http://www.biostathandbook.com/confidence.html
I was only adding to what you wrote. I was not disagreeing with you.
I'd like to know who does the mapping at the Washington Times--Dr. Kip maybe? According to them there's a new shortcut between Ottawa and Myrtle Beach that cuts about 200 miles off the route.
Er... wrote:
I'd like to know who does the mapping at the Washington Times--Dr. Kip maybe? According to them there's a new shortcut between Ottawa and Myrtle Beach that cuts about 200 miles off the route.
Remember, civil engineering is a discipline, not a science.
Sally V wrote:
No Way wrote:The data is what it is. You can by 95% certain that the data falls within that range.
For what it's worth, 95% confidence is the standard confidence interval for scientific research. You can question the measurements if you want, but the statistics here are good. 95% is very good. There's nothing sketchy about having a margin of error.
Here is an explanation
http://www.biostathandbook.com/confidence.htmlI was only adding to what you wrote. I was not disagreeing with you.
Wow. This deserves mention on the front page.
No Way wrote:
The data is what it is. You can by 95% certain that the data falls within that range.
The data is what it is, that is true. But you are not 95% certain that the DATA falls within that range. You already know the data. No confidence necessary. What you are estimating (and therefore, establishing a confidence about) is the *true parameter* ...
In this case, that is the increase in temperature, I presume.
;) wrote:
No Way wrote:The data is what it is. You can by 95% certain that the data falls within that range.
The data is what it is, that is true. But you are not 95% certain that the DATA falls within that range. You already know the data. No confidence necessary. What you are estimating (and therefore, establishing a confidence about) is the *true parameter* ...
In this case, that is the increase in temperature, I presume.
Yes sorry. I didn't mean to type data again. It was contradictory to say the data is what it is and then speak of confidence in it.
No Way wrote:
Sally V wrote:I was only adding to what you wrote. I was not disagreeing with you.
Wow. This deserves mention on the front page.
I always respected your views. You never personally attacked anyone here.
Sally V wrote:
I always respected your views. You never personally attacked anyone here.
I know we've always had civil discussions, even if it is the same one over and over again. I just think that's the first time you didn't disagree with me!
There are few people in these climate discussions that can debate without resorting to attacks. This problem obviously isn't going to be solved on LetsRun, but like any issue the only way to get through it is to act like adults and be civil.
I work in environmental science (definitely not climate science), so I have a firm grasp on the facts and the science behind them. However I've learned a lot about how people perceive science and scientists and science literature by participating in these discussions. I suspect that you and others have learned a lot as well. I've actually stopped debating with most folks on here other than you, DiscoGary and a few others. It just isn't worth it.
I suspected that you meant that, given the phrasing of "The data is what it is ..." but since I teach statistics for a living, I couldn't help but clarify, just in case.