What Carbon

[Pushka]

As a fence sitter in this thread, I can see one side insult and post little in the way of rebuttal.
A bit ironic if you ask me.

Careful there. I posted similarly waaay back which earned me lots of carbon flame throwing. Now that truly is ironic. .

 

[medhead]

From you Moody being called deceitful is in fact praise.
You still have not accepted the science I posted very early in this thread from the scientific working party to input the latest IPCC report.I have provided the link before.

But I will state it again the consensus view of those scientists,the majority of whom do believe in AGW,was that the change in the Earth's temperature for the 10 years up to 2013 was +0.05C +/- 0.10C.
As you obviously do not understand what this means I will point out that the confidence interval crosses Zero.Therefore the most you can say from that result is that there has been a tendency for the planet to warm in the last 10 years which is not statistically significant.
It is equally valid to say that there is a chance that the planet cooled in the last 10 years.
So Moody keep up your personal attacks.It makes it so much easier for to ignore your opinions.

Umm, actually the uncertainty of a measurand relates to the dispersion of measured values. It is not a test of statistical significance. It is also not an expression of the confidence interval.

If we assume that the uncertainty in this case is based on a probability distribution (not sure if that is a valid assumption but it matches your statistical inference); then that number actually means there is a 75% chance the result is between 0 and 0.15 degrees and 25% chance it is between -0.05 and 0. As such it is not equally valid to claim the number is less than zero.

As a fence sitter in this thread, I can see one side insult and post little in the way of rebuttal.
A bit ironic if you ask me.

I know. Someone asks to quote where they wrote something. You quote that exactly and then suddenly you're verballing them.

 

[RAM]

I see we have another case where you are going to deny the very words you've written. As with your claim that China is doing nothing, your words are all there in black and white. You are correct about one thing, there is no more to say to someone who can't even own their words.

It is unfortunate that their appears to be a comprehension issue.

You assert China is doing much to REDUCE its carbon emissions. I say that whilst some talk big their 'ACTions' are making bigger carbon emissions.

I provide hard data (sourced from China, UN IPCC and other sources) that proves China is increasing its emissions on a rolling quarterly basis (which is worse than just on an annual basis).

The denial is all of your own making.

You apparently misread, misunderstand or just choose to ignore what is written as it is an "Inconvenient Truth" that disproves much of the spin bandied around by the snouts-in-the-trough bridge - certainly some state that China is reducing emissions but in reality is rapidly increasing the quantum of carbon emissions to such an extent that it is negating much of the rest-of-the-world's reductions (including Australia). It is a bit like the claims made from 2007-2012 that once Aust, the US etc pulled out of Iraq all the violence would stop - shown to be groundless claims made by vested interests.

BTW - did you know that China now emits more carbon PER CAPITA than the EU! Based on its current rate of deterioration - it will emit more per capita than Australia sometime between 2020 and 2025. Based on the Carbon Atlas figures - China will emit more carbon than the EU and the US combined at that point.

You criticise the current Fed Govt's policy despite the fact that carbon emissions continue to fall in Australia (unlike in the US, Germany or China) and have done since the start of 2009 so that on current projections Australia will meet its target.

It is amusing how the comments you attempt to vilify others with actually discredit yourself further.

I see we have another case where you are going to deny the very words you've written. As with your claim that China is doing nothing, your words are all there in black and white. You are correct about one thing, there is no more to say to someone who can't even own their words.

You counter hard data (with sources) with either abuse or create a contorted litany supposedly representing what has been said.

 

[RAM]

Putting text in red lettering amuses small children and keeps the churls amused (apparently), but does not hide the fact that you have failed to make a single coherent point or successfully refuted one of mine.

Epic fail, even by your low standards.

In my attempt (obviously a failed one) to highlight key points, as there is nothing else I have written that you can actually rebut successfully you then resort to your favoured approach of denigration.

Much like dealing with a spoilt toddler, I will continue to simply say no, present the reality and wait for the tantrums to subside.

Just as with a spoilt toddler who refuses to acknowledge their wrongs you chose to ignore or respond directly with logic.

It certainly is a privilege to reside in a democratic country.

 

[medhead]

It is unfortunate that their appears to be a comprehension issue.

You assert China is doing much to REDUCE its carbon emissions. I say that whilst some talk big their 'ACTions' are making bigger carbon emissions.

I provide hard data (sourced from China, UN IPCC and other sources) that proves China is increasing its emissions on a rolling quarterly basis (which is worse than just on an annual basis).

The denial is all of your own making.

You apparently misread, misunderstand or just choose to ignore what is written as it is an "Inconvenient Truth" that disproves much of the spin bandied around by the snouts-in-the-trough bridge - certainly some state that China is reducing emissions but in reality is rapidly increasing the quantum of carbon emissions to such an extent that it is negating much of the rest-of-the-world's reductions (including Australia). It is a bit like the claims made from 2007-2012 that once Aust, the US etc pulled out of Iraq all the violence would stop - shown to be groundless claims made by vested interests.

BTW - did you know that China now emits more carbon PER CAPITA than the EU! Based on its current rate of deterioration - it will emit more per capita than Australia sometime between 2020 and 2025. Based on the Carbon Atlas figures - China will emit more carbon than the EU and the US combined at that point.

You criticise the current Fed Govt's policy despite the fact that carbon emissions continue to fall in Australia (unlike in the US, Germany or China) and have done since the start of 2009 so that on current projections Australia will meet its target.

It is amusing how the comments you attempt to vilify others with actually discredit yourself further.



You counter hard data (with sources) with either abuse or create a contorted litany supposedly representing what has been said.

The only comprehension issue would be yours. You've already presented this diatribe about china that is big in opinion and lacking in facts. When I asked you the hard questions to clarify your implied position based on this stuff I received a torrent of abuse in return, eg verballing you. I quoted your exact, precise words and was again accused of verballing you. It is funny how your exact words become a "contorted litany" when they prove your wrong. Then to falsely accuse me of abuse is an obvious form of bullying designed to stop me from pointing out your inconsistencies.

I'm not even going to bother with your obvious verballing here or ask you to quote any of this abuse I've apparently put out.

Let's ignore your denial that carbon emissions in Australia fall because of the carbon tax. That tax has only just be removed and has not been replaced with anything. It is far too early to know the effect of current government policy. But it is nice of you to try to claim create for the carbon tax on behalf of the current government.

The only inconvenient truth is your own words. When those words are pointed out you try to distract with rants about verballing and abuse.

How about you try answering the valid questions I asked you much much further back than 10 pages in this thread. No doubt asking you to do so will be labelled as abuse.

 

[RAM]

Umm, actually the uncertainty of a measurand relates to the dispersion of measured values. It is not a test of statistical significance. It is also not an expression of the confidence interval.

If we assume that the certainty in this case is based on a probability distribution (not sure if that is a valid assumption but it matches your statistical inference); then that number actually means there is a 75% chance the result is between 0 and 0.15 degrees and 25% chance it is between -0.05 and 0. As such it is not equally valid to claim the number is less than zero.

I know. Someone asks to quote where they wrote something. You quote that exactly and then suddenly you're verballing them.

Quoting mathematical terms and understanding them are clearly two different matters.

When a mathematical result is presented as in the hard data presented by;

But I will state it again the consensus view of those scientists,the majority of whom do believe in AGW,was that the change in the Earth's temperature for the 10 years up to 2013 was +0.05C +/- 0.10C.

Then quite correctly DrRon interpreted it. Equally in your rebuttal you made some mistakes in your interpretation.

Before dealing with those; a brief 'primer' for you. Any results presented in the above fashion leave zero doubt (100% confidence) that it represents a one standard deviation representation of a data series. As it was not stated it is unknown whether the result was achieved using parametric or non-parametric statistics. Equally we do not know the kurtosis or skew which in this case IS VERY RELEVANT.

{Australia has a strong claim to fame with the maths of statistics with the original works in 1928 Biometica where kurtosis was defined and established by an Australian who then sketched pictures of two kangaroos and two platypuses to describe the two extremes of Kurtosis - Leptokurtosis and Platykurtosis. In the 'sensible days' UNSW had the complete collection of virtually every scientific periodical going back to 1901 and they were available for anyone to read (within the library that is)}

Just as with any results until you know the full underlying assumptions then those results should be suspect.
From the mean to 1 Sd = 34.1% of the underlying distribution approximated by this result is within this range
From 1 Sd to 2 Sd = 13.6%
From 2 Sd to 3 Sd = 2.1%

...then that number actually means there is a 75% chance the result is between 0 and 0.15 degrees and 25% chance it is between -0.05 and 0. As such it is not equally valid to claim the number is less than zero.

Wrong - 75% chance the result is between 0 and 0.15 degrees
Correct - approx 55.3% - working 0.05 to 0.15 = +1Sd from mean = 34.1%, from 0 to 0.05 is less than -1sd from mean and is approximately 21.2%==>34.1+21.2= 55.3%

Wrong - 25% chance the result is between -0.05 and 0 degrees
Correct - approx 12.9% - working -0.05 to 0.0 = is less than -1sd from mean and is approximately 12.9%

99% chance that the world's temperature change was between a fall of 0.25 degrees and a rise of 0.35 degrees (= Mean +/- 3Sd) whether this is statistically significant cannot be determined from what was provided.

 

[whatmeworry]

Solar power is growing so fast that older energy companies are trying to stop it - Vox

 

[Moody]

In my attempt (obviously a failed one) to highlight key points, as there is nothing else I have written that you can actually rebut successfully you then resort to your favoured approach of denigration.

Much like dealing with a spoilt toddler, I will continue to simply say no, present the reality and wait for the tantrums to subside.

Just as with a spoilt toddler who refuses to acknowledge their wrongs you chose to ignore or respond directly with logic.

It certainly is a privilege to reside in a democratic country.

Is this how you reason with spoilt toddlers??!?? God forbid you have any children, as their communication skills will have had a very poor start.

But let me help you to get into the swing of things. You make the valid point that China's per-capita emissions now surpass the EU's. Leaving aside that this makes a mockery of your denigration of Germany's efforts, you would think that this would be a strong reason to impose moral and economic sanctions on this reckless behaviour.

Only it won't happen while Australia and the US trounce China's emissions per-capita - in fact they are double the amount.

Now I will leave it there so you can come back at me with figures and trends per GDP, which are arguably a truer measure of CO2 "responsibility".

Keep trying and you will get the hang of it eventually.....

 

[RAM]

The only comprehension issue would be yours. You've already presented this diatribe about china that is big in opinion and lacking in facts. When I asked you the hard questions to clarify your implied position based on this stuff I received a torrent of abuse in return, eg verballing you. I quoted your exact, precise words and was again accused of verballing you. It is funny how your exact words become a "contorted litany" when they prove your wrong. Then to falsely accuse me of abuse is an obvious form of bullying designed to stop me from pointing out your inconsistencies.

I'm not even going to bother with your obvious verballing here or ask you to quote any of this abuse I've apparently put out.

Let's ignore your denial that carbon emissions in Australia fall because of the carbon tax. That tax has only just be removed and has not been replaced with anything. It is far too early to know the effect of current government policy. But it is nice of you to try to claim create for the carbon tax on behalf of the current government.

The only inconvenient truth is your own words. When those words are pointed out you try to distract with rants about verballing and abuse.

How about you try answering the valid questions I asked you much much further back than 10 pages in this thread. No doubt asking you to do so will be labelled as abuse.

Dear Medhead if you look back at post#495, 520, 522, 565, 572, 622, 629 amongst others and you'll find that there are links and hard data provided not rants. Most of the sources are the IPCC, the Carbon project, The American Geophysic society, the EU CCC, the EIA amongst others.

In contrast in your posts:

there is no more to say to someone who can't even own their words.

Indeed. A flawed set of stories that ignores the elephant in the room and has almost nothing to do with the thread topic.

Well ok then, because cherry picking 1998 is sooooo much better.
But you must be right, scientists just do it for the money. They are so stupid they're not going to properly review the methodology of a paper on something they support just so they can get the money. Ohohoh, I just woke up.

Have you forgotten Climategate and the other revelations of data tampering, coercion and threats against Periodical editors?

When that is you position it is laughable to call me wrong. Rate of change can indeed be a constant. But if you read very carefully you will see that I never claimed that the rate of change was a constant. I said the rate of change is much much larger than it has been historically. When the rate of change is, say, 100 times the normal observed range of rate of change that certainly suggests another influence besides Mother Nature.
Seriously this has nothing to do with predicting the exact date and time of the next cyclone. What an utterly ludicrous suggestion.

You seem to forget what you say from one post to the next. In your recent mistaken mathematical post the rate of change was 0.05 degrees, are you really claiming that it is 100x the historical rates given the likely range for the true result covers both negative (climate cooling) as well as positive?

Glad to see you didn't allow your principles, such as you objection to the government, stand in the way of profiting.

Instead you just bang on about the so called fraud, while things are happening in the short term that don't seem to match natural cycles.

Loose para-phrasing, misrepresenting but not providing a point by point (with links or citation) rebuttal does not signify either logical nor scientific rebuttal.

They certainly do not represent questions.

 

[RAM]

Solar power is growing so fast that older energy companies are trying to stop it - Vox

And the homeowner gets a 30% tax credit from the US Federal Govt.

Some of the biggest fights are over "net metering" policies, found in 43 states and DC, that essentially require utilities to buy excess rooftop solar power from homes and businesses at retail prices. (These retail prices are higher than the wholesale prices that utilities typically pay for electricity generation.)

This is the bit that hurts - unlike in Aust with the typical (currently available) FIT 1/4 to 1/3rd the retail price.

Due to the large proportion of electricity lost in the transmission process then roof-top solar can be immensely more effective for offsetting peaking daylight demand. Not so for the end-of-work peaking though.

 

[ketsuzei]

Any results presented in the above fashion leave zero doubt (100% confidence) that it represents a one standard deviation representation of a data series.

Interesting claim. Still, *way* closer to being correct than the "analysis" you're responding to.

 

[medhead]

Quoting mathematical terms and understanding them are clearly two different matters.

When a mathematical result is presented as in the hard data presented by;



Then quite correctly DrRon interpreted it. Equally in your rebuttal you made some mistakes in your interpretation.

Before dealing with those; a brief 'primer' for you. Any results presented in the above fashion leave zero doubt (100% confidence) that it represents a one standard deviation representation of a data series. As it was not stated it is unknown whether the result was achieved using parametric or non-parametric statistics. Equally we do not know the kurtosis or skew which in this case IS VERY RELEVANT.

{Australia has a strong claim to fame with the maths of statistics with the original works in 1928 Biometica where kurtosis was defined and established by an Australian who then sketched pictures of two kangaroos and two platypuses to describe the two extremes of Kurtosis - Leptokurtosis and Platykurtosis. In the 'sensible days' UNSW had the complete collection of virtually every scientific periodical going back to 1901 and they were available for anyone to read (within the library that is)}

Just as with any results until you know the full underlying assumptions then those results should be suspect.
From the mean to 1 Sd = 34.1% of the underlying distribution approximated by this result is within this range
From 1 Sd to 2 Sd = 13.6%
From 2 Sd to 3 Sd = 2.1%



Wrong - 75% chance the result is between 0 and 0.15 degrees
Correct - approx 55.3% - working 0.05 to 0.15 = +1Sd from mean = 34.1%, from 0 to 0.05 is less than -1sd from mean and is approximately 21.2%==>34.1+21.2= 55.3%

Wrong - 25% chance the result is between -0.05 and 0 degrees
Correct - approx 12.9% - working -0.05 to 0.0 = is less than -1sd from mean and is approximately 12.9%

99% chance that the world's temperature change was between a fall of 0.25 degrees and a rise of 0.35 degrees (= Mean +/- 3Sd) whether this is statistically significant cannot be determined from what was provided.

It is such a shame that you decided to make a personal attack on me over this instead of playing the ball. I have taken issue with 3 of drron's claims. 1) that the temperature is equally likely to have fallen, 2) that the quoted number tells us the confidence interval, and 3) that the quoted number tells us the statistical significance.

It is simply your assumption that number is 1 SD and there is nothing to suggest that assumption is correct. Scientific treatment of errors and uncertainties will serve you better than knowing about mathematical notation. Propagation of errors from multiple measurements is not based on 1 SD. ASME have a good set of current standards addressing measurement uncertainty. Does the Usyd library hold copies of those? They are probably more relevant than something from last century.

But putting aside the fact that you're wrong to assume that the uncertainty quoted is one standard deviation. The numbers you present do not support the claim that the temperature is equally likely to have fallen.

Also as I previously stated the quoted number does not tells us about confidence intervals or statistical significance contrary to the claims of drron. You seem to agree with me as I've bolded in your post. But I certainly won't make such a claim for fear of being accused of misrepresenting your exact words.

Personally, as I alluded to, I'm not sure it is valid to assume the underlying measurements are simple probability distributions. In which case the quoted uncertainty could be an interval in which the measurement lies. But that yet again disproves the claim that the temperature is equally likely to have fallen.

Edit: just to address your next little incoherent rate 0.5 degrees is not a rate of change. I've certainly never claimed it was a rate of change. And if you actually bother to read you will find that was a number presented by drron not me. Pointless going further when there is a fundamental lack of knowledge about what is a rate of change. BTW the rate of change can be constant, without being a constant. You quote maths journals at me. How about reading about physics?

Also pointless when you are attributing someone else's number to me. Add in a whole heap of quotes from parts of sentences in my posts that are completely out of context and we get a whole heap of verballing and misrepresentation.

You also need to go back much further to find my questions. But I'll give you a tip, what you've quoted were not questions asked of you, if even questions at all. You can see that by the way they are written in response to a completely different person.

 

[medhead]

Interesting claim. Still, *way* closer to being correct than the "analysis" you're responding to.

Yes it is an interesting claim. Pretty sure my analysis based on a rectangular probability distribution is correct.

In any case, my conclusion is that the temperature, based on that one number, is not equally likely to have fallen. Please feel free to point out the error in my conclusion. RAM's interesting numbers even seem to support it.

 

[juddles]

Guys,

the general level of debate here is not sound. The words used, the emotion, do not allow a clear and proper discussion.

The general flavour of the arguments reminds me of people I know who are in the divorce process. And as per them, i suspect that without a mediator, everything expresse is a means to justify themselves, with no real intention of finding common ground. This is why this thread (and messy divorces) go for so long. At least here there are not a hoard of lawyers getting fat on the conflict.

 

[medhead]

Guys,

the general level of debate here is not sound. The words used, the emotion, do not allow a clear and proper discussion.

The general flavour of the arguments reminds me of people I know who are in the divorce process. And as per them, i suspect that without a mediator, everything expresse is a means to justify themselves, with no real intention of finding common ground. This is why this thread (and messy divorces) go for so long. At least here there are not a hoard of lawyers getting fat on the conflict.

What emotion?

I'll tell you what impairs a clear discussion is someone who can't even tell the difference between a quoted post and the response.

 

[JohnK]

As a fence sitter in this thread, I can see one side insult and post little in the way of rebuttal.
A bit ironic if you ask me.

And which side would that be?

I have much better things to do with my time than be flamed for an opinion that you feel may be idiotic (in reality it may be a case of differing opinions, not stupidity as you suggest).

Never mind. The answer is here. LOL.

 

[medhead]

You seem to forget what you say from one post to the next. In your recent mistaken mathematical post the rate of change was 0.05 degrees, are you really claiming that it is 100x the historical rates given the likely range for the true result covers both negative (climate cooling) as well as positive?
.

Ok so there is a fundamental lack of understanding of rate of change. The 0.5 degrees number is not a rate of change. The possibility of a negative change does not impact my previous statement that rate of change can be constant. That statement does not exclude negative change. Gravity is a nice example of a constant rate of change.

That bit where I wrote "say 100x" that isn't actually a statement of the actually comparison. Most people can understand that. But if we look at a random representation of the temperature record for the pliocene/early Pleistocene eras there is about a 4-6 degree change over about 6 to 7 million years. So something like 0.000007 degrees every 10 years. Times by 100 => 0.0007. Actually let's take the maximum case of 6 degrees in 6 million years. That would be 0.00001 degrees every 10 years and 100x is 0.001.

How does that compare to 0.05?

Oh and guess what those are negative changes. My point is about comparing the rate of change not the direction of change.

 

[RAM]

While it is some time back - I have done scientific research that was peer reviewed, awarded First Class Honours and taken on for further research by Columbia. I have used the package still used for the statistical analysis of scientific research both in Australia and globally (although admittedly my description of the CI relationship was sloppy)

It is such a shame that you decided to make a personal attack on me over this instead of playing the ball.

There is a large difference between pointing out a mathematical error and a personal attack. When something is wrong - then pointing that out is not a personal attack just error-correcting.

I have taken issue with 3 of drron's claims. 1) that the temperature is equally likely to have fallen,

Either you incorrectly paraphrased or misinterpreted what DrRon said;

It is equally valid to say that there is a chance that the planet cooled in the last 10 years.

DrRon says "A chance" and then you restated it as "Equally likely." That is clearly not the same - hence people's claim of you verballing them - you have changed the meaning completely yet attributed as what they said.

2) that the quoted number tells us the confidence interval,

I will point out that the confidence interval crosses Zero

Wrong interpretation.
DrRon was correct in the statement. With just a +/- 1Sd confidence interval the range does indeed cross zero.

A confidence interval does not predict that the true value of the parameter has a particular probability of being in the confidence interval given the data actually obtained. Confidence interval - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and 3) that the quoted number tells us the statistical significance.

Therefore the most you can say from that result is that there has been a tendency for the planet to warm in the last 10 years which is not statistically significant.

This time what DrRon says is based on what was produced in the piece and what was left out. As there was no reference to a level of statistical significance then it is reasonable to assume (although not foolproof) that there is no statistical significance - because if there was then the researchers would claim it for all its worth.

It is simply your assumption that number is 1 SD and there is nothing to suggest that assumption is correct. Scientific treatment of errors and uncertainties will serve you better than knowing about mathematical notation. Propagation of errors from multiple measurements is not based on 1 SD. ASME have a good set of current standards addressing measurement uncertainty. Does the Usyd library hold copies of those? They are probably more relevant than something from last century.

The formulae for the various statistical calculations have not changed just because the century or millennium has. The formula for kurtosis (tangential reference in my prior post) is the same today as when it was first published in 1928 Biometrika. Note the direct linkage Science & Mathematics.
Biometrika: Oxford Journals | Science & Mathematics

You also seem to be confusing the terms statistical calculation with measurement error - they both exist and are independent.

But putting aside the fact that you're wrong to assume that the uncertainty quoted is one standard deviation. The numbers you present do not support the claim that the temperature is equally likely to have fallen.

No not wrong, mathematics is a universal language with strict interpretation and requirements for its presentation.

Again you create a straw man - that was not what was written by DrRon, just what you claimed. That claim was wrong.

Also as I previously stated the quoted number does not tells us about confidence intervals or statistical significance contrary to the claims of drron. You seem to agree with me as I've bolded in your post. But I certainly won't make such a claim for fear of being accused of misrepresenting your exact words.

An incorrect inference as discussed above on Confidence Intervals.
Also as I've discussed above ( -4). What I said was;

whether this is statistically significant cannot be determined from what was provided

Which is correct. But not necessarily to then draw the inference that you did. If it was indeed statistically significant then the researchers would have claimed and published that significance. That they did not (by the null hypothesis) suggests it was not statistically significant.

Personally, as I alluded to, I'm not sure it is valid to assume the underlying measurements are simple probability distributions. In which case the quoted uncertainty could be an interval in which the measurement lies. But that yet again disproves the claim that the temperature is equally likely to have fallen.

Neither I nor DrRon made the claim you are attempting to invalidate. Just that the results are presented in a mathematical format which can be interpreted according to the mathematical rules.

An approximate confidence interval for a population mean can be constructed for random variables that are not normally distributed in the population, relying on the central limit theorem, if the sample sizes and counts are big enough. The formulae are identical to the case above (where the sample mean is actually normally distributed about the population mean). The approximation will be quite good with only a few dozen observations in the sample if the probability distribution of the random variable is not too different from the normal distribution (e.g. its coughulative distribution function does not have any discontinuities and its skewness is moderate).

You then incorrectly make the 'equally likely to have fallen' claim - that was not what Dr Ron stated but what you mis-stated.

Edit: just to address your next little incoherent rate 0.5 degrees is not a rate of change. I've certainly never claimed it was a rate of change. And if you actually bother to read you will find that was a number presented by drron not me. Pointless going further when there is a fundamental lack of knowledge about what is a rate of change. BTW the rate of change can be constant, without being a constant. You quote maths journals at me. How about reading about physics?

The statistics presented described the change in the global temperature over the period. Your comment from a post several hundred back referred to the change in temperature over a period of years, and you called it the rate of change. In the interests of correctly representing what you previously stated - that was how it was described for your benefit. If you have now changed your mind then that is fine.

Also pointless when you are attributing someone else's number to me. Add in a whole heap of quotes from parts of sentences in my posts that are completely out of context and we get a whole heap of verballing and misrepresentation.

Wrong just attributing your comment's about other posts to you.

You also need to go back much further to find my questions. But I'll give you a tip, what you've quoted were not questions asked of you, if even questions at all. You can see that by the way they are written in response to a completely different person.

For once I agree you are correct. Unfortunately so am I.

Dear Medhead if you look back at post#495, 520, 522, 565, 572, 622, 629 amongst others and you'll find that there are links and hard data provided not rants. Most of the sources are the IPCC, the Carbon project, The American Geophysic society, the EU CCC, the EIA amongst others.

In contrast in your posts:

Nowhere did I state that the list of your posts were in response to mine. I just listed posts that you had made where you responded to people's detailed (often with references/links) with obfuscation or vilification not logic - you misinterpreted what was written. Comprehension is important.

Eagerly awaiting the next serve!

 

[ketsuzei]

Pretty sure my analysis based on a rectangular probability distribution is correct.

Of course it is. But I cannot for the life of me imagine any sensible estimator that would follow a uniform distribution.

 

[medhead]

While it is some time back - I have done scientific research that was peer reviewed, awarded First Class Honours and taken on for further research by Columbia. I have used the package still used for the statistical analysis of scientific research both in Australia and globally (although admittedly my description of the CI relationship was sloppy)


There is a large difference between pointing out a mathematical error and a personal attack. When something is wrong - then pointing that out is not a personal attack just error-correcting.

Either you incorrectly paraphrased or misinterpreted what DrRon said;

DrRon says "A chance" and then you restated it as "Equally likely." That is clearly not the same - hence people's claim of you verballing them - you have changed the meaning completely yet attributed as what they said.



Wrong interpretation.
DrRon was correct in the statement. With just a +/- 1Sd confidence interval the range does indeed cross zero.

A confidence interval does not predict that the true value of the parameter has a particular probability of being in the confidence interval given the data actually obtained. Confidence interval - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This time what DrRon says is based on what was produced in the piece and what was left out. As there was no reference to a level of statistical significance then it is reasonable to assume (although not foolproof) that there is no statistical significance - because if there was then the researchers would claim it for all its worth.



The formulae for the various statistical calculations have not changed just because the century or millennium has. The formula for kurtosis (tangential reference in my prior post) is the same today as when it was first published in 1928 Biometrika. Note the direct linkage Science & Mathematics.
Biometrika: Oxford Journals | Science & Mathematics

You also seem to be confusing the terms statistical calculation with measurement error - they both exist and are independent.



No not wrong, mathematics is a universal language with strict interpretation and requirements for its presentation.

Again you create a straw man - that was not what was written by DrRon, just what you claimed. That claim was wrong.


An incorrect inference as discussed above on Confidence Intervals.
Also as I've discussed above ( -4). What I said was;

Which is correct. But not necessarily to then draw the inference that you did. If it was indeed statistically significant then the researchers would have claimed and published that significance. That they did not (by the null hypothesis) suggests it was not statistically significant.


Neither I nor DrRon made the claim you are attempting to invalidate. Just that the results are presented in a mathematical format which can be interpreted according to the mathematical rules.

An approximate confidence interval for a population mean can be constructed for random variables that are not normally distributed in the population, relying on the central limit theorem, if the sample sizes and counts are big enough. The formulae are identical to the case above (where the sample mean is actually normally distributed about the population mean). The approximation will be quite good with only a few dozen observations in the sample if the probability distribution of the random variable is not too different from the normal distribution (e.g. its coughulative distribution function does not have any discontinuities and its skewness is moderate).

You then incorrectly make the 'equally likely to have fallen' claim - that was not what Dr Ron stated but what you mis-stated.



The statistics presented described the change in the global temperature over the period. Your comment from a post several hundred back referred to the change in temperature over a period of years, and you called it the rate of change. In the interests of correctly representing what you previously stated - that was how it was described for your benefit. If you have now changed your mind then that is fine.



Wrong just attributing your comment's about other posts to you.



For once I agree you are correct. Unfortunately so am I.



Nowhere did I state that the list of your posts were in response to mine. I just listed posts that you had made where you responded to people's detailed (often with references/links) with obfuscation or vilification not logic - you misinterpreted what was written. Comprehension is important.

Eagerly awaiting the next serve!

You did indeed make your post very personal attack on my knowledge that failed to consider the content of my post.

As you quote, drron used the word equally. Equally valid to say the temperature cooled. It is not equally valid, that number does not give an equal possibility for less than zero. There are more possible results that are greater than zero than are less than zero.

Otherwise there are a whole lot of assumptions on your part. Assumptions with nothing to support them. Assumptions that are critical for your attack on my knowledge. There is no statement that the uncertainty presented is 1 SD. As a physicist, with only 3 degrees, it is equally valid to say that measurements are presented with an uncertainty that is based on propagation of errors from the underlying measurements. As you correctly state this is a different matter and that number is a presentation of a result with measurement error.

Without that 1sd assumption there is no knowledge of the confidence interval. The statistical significance has not been stated in drron's post. Again you make assumptions.

Finally you are making assumptions about the distribution of underlying results. That is difficult to support given the nature of what has been measured.

As for being able to use a statistical package. That doesn't tell me too much. Surely the great Usyd heard of the saying garbage in garbage out.

Precisely what is the relevance of my previous statement about rate of change. Now it seems you are claiming it is not relevant. I haven't changed my mind. You make no sense on this point. It is complete nonsense. 0.5 is not my number. In quoting it I've made no statement about rate of change. It also does not change my previous statement that rate of change can be constant. Since you are so good with words, perhaps you might appreciate that I did not say rate of change must be constant. It can be, it can also be variable. Big deal. But precisely how does point out the false assumptions of someone about a number have anything to do with it. What is your point beyond innate idiocy, argument for the sake of arguing with me.

As for my posts you tried to link them to the questions I've asked of you about your china rant. Notice that bit where you attacked me for not asking a question. An open request. Answer my questions.