Climate Change - The Scientific Debate - Vol II

Discussion

wc98 said:

apologies if you took that reply (and those of others i see) as an ad hominen. this will no doubt be taken as another when it is not intended but you must have led a very ,very sheltered life if that is the case.

you keep mentioning other people doing things better.a brexit term would be a good analogy here imo. no deal is better than a bad deal. if the only thing you have in your fridge is a plate of dogst, are you going to have it for your dinner ?

how about people accept that accurate temperature data for the last thousand years is just not available and work on improving our data recording for the future.

Very nicely put, and the only response was a rather 'cop out' SS Number 8.you keep mentioning other people doing things better.a brexit term would be a good analogy here imo. no deal is better than a bad deal. if the only thing you have in your fridge is a plate of dogst, are you going to have it for your dinner ?

how about people accept that accurate temperature data for the last thousand years is just not available and work on improving our data recording for the future.

kerplunk said:

Any evidence that the USCRN is giving different results to the regular stations yet? Quite the opposite I believe. If USCRN doesn't give different results then that kind of undermines the imperative to do it doesn't it.

it has only been running since 2004 so not a length of time anyone would be happy to conclude indicative of climate.my understanding is there is no statistically significant warming in that time period. looking at the data there is no warming trend in it as i am not fussed about the statistically significant part https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national...

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Any evidence that the USCRN is giving different results to the regular stations yet? Quite the opposite I believe. If USCRN doesn't give different results then that kind of undermines the imperative to do it doesn't it.

it has only been running since 2004 so not a length of time anyone would be happy to conclude indicative of climate.my understanding is there is no statistically significant warming in that time period. looking at the data there is no warming trend in it as i am not fussed about the statistically significant part https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national...

Click again to see USCRN and USHCN data on the same graph:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national...

kerplunk said:

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Any evidence that the USCRN is giving different results to the regular stations yet? Quite the opposite I believe. If USCRN doesn't give different results then that kind of undermines the imperative to do it doesn't it.

it has only been running since 2004 so not a length of time anyone would be happy to conclude indicative of climate.my understanding is there is no statistically significant warming in that time period. looking at the data there is no warming trend in it as i am not fussed about the statistically significant part https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national...

Click again to see USCRN and USHCN data on the same graph:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national...

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

ludo said:

wc98 said:

it's just a chosen methodology (pha method is not smoothing afaiui ?) that is neither right or wrong.

simple, we don't have a time machine to go back to the start of the instrumental record and replace the WEATHER stations with pristine climate monitoring stations optimally space across the planet. Sometimes you have to make the best of what you have (and discuss the uncertainties).**what is wrong with having a record of individual pristine stations and monitoring their results ?**in fact that appears to be what is being created with uscrn ,so someone thinks it's a good idea.This is why it is not worth trying to discuss science here.

wc98 said:

my understanding is there is no statistically significant warming in that time period. looking at the data there is no warming trend in it as i am not fussed about the statistically significant part

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national...

... and then goes on to imply a conclusion from the record that is too short. Statistical hypothesis tests are not symmetric. A lack of statistically significant evidence for warming does not imply that there is no warming, it isn't even necessarily evidence that it isn't warming. Climate skeptics have been demonstrating their ignorance of statistics on this one for years. For a more detailed explanation, see here (waits for ad-hominem against the source).https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national...

robinessex said:

Statistics. Mathematical guessing. So I was told at the start of my statistics stuff at college many years ago!

Unfortunately statistics is sometimes taught by someone that doesn't really understand it (c.f. Haller and Krauss). robinessex said:

Statistics. Mathematical guessing. So I was told at the start of my statistics stuff at college many years ago!

I've never heard that. I agree that the misuse of statistics is something to be guarded against but "guessing"?You'd have to prove that and simultaneously remove a whole branch of mathematics from the globe.

LoonyTunes said:

robinessex said:

Statistics. Mathematical guessing. So I was told at the start of my statistics stuff at college many years ago!

I've never heard that. I agree that the misuse of statistics is something to be guarded against but "guessing"?**is**a misuse of statistics. But for some reason skeptics don't seem too concerned about "mathematical guessing" in that case ;o)

ludo said:

LoonyTunes said:

robinessex said:

**is**a misuse of statistics. But for some reason skeptics don't seem too concerned about "mathematical guessing" in that case ;o)

“Correlation does not imply causation.”

https://www.fastcompany.com/3030529/hilarious-grap...

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

She didn't say this but it summarizes my grasp of what she said to me.

"Statistics play a very important role in any clinical trial from design, conduct, analysis, and reporting in terms of controlling for and minimising biases, confounding factors, and measuring random errors. A grasp of statistical methods is fundamental to understanding randomised trial methods and results.

Statistical methods provide formal accounting for sources of variability in patients’ responses to treatment. The use of statistics in clinical trials allows the clinical researcher to form reasonable and accurate inferences from collected information, and sound decisions in the presence of uncertainty. Statistics are key in preventing errors and biases in medical research."

So the next time you are offered a pharmaceutical solution to what ails you I'd suggest you either rethink your attitude to statistics or turn the remedy down.

robinessex said:

ludo said:

LoonyTunes said:

robinessex said:

**is**a misuse of statistics. But for some reason skeptics don't seem too concerned about "mathematical guessing" in that case ;o)

“Correlation does not imply causation.”

https://www.fastcompany.com/3030529/hilarious-grap...

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

GroundEffect said:

Yet all of science relies on it. And it has this really monotonous ability to work as well. A colossal bore.

All of science? Hardly. And I would happily bet that modern reliance on it is well correlated with the fall in reproducibility."If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to do a better experiment."

grumbledoak said:

GroundEffect said:

Yet all of science relies on it. And it has this really monotonous ability to work as well. A colossal bore.

All of science? Hardly. And I would happily bet that modern reliance on it is well correlated with the fall in reproducibility."If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to do a better experiment."

However, in the context of data science this might help

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41060-0...

In short anyone dismissing statistical mathematics is a fool.

grumbledoak said:

GroundEffect said:

Yet all of science relies on it. And it has this really monotonous ability to work as well. A colossal bore.

All of science? Hardly. And I would happily bet that modern reliance on it is well correlated with the fall in reproducibility."If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to do a better experiment."

**hilarious**that you use that quote from Rutherford, given that there is no science that relies on statistics more than modern particle physics (ask CERN). LOL.

More importantly, Guinness wouldn't be what it is today without statistics.

Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff