|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 9, 2011 12:57:34 GMT 1
"Estimate of a level of certainty of 95%"?
No such creature, I'm afraid. Its just a pseudo scientific way of trying to wrong-foot the sceptics and impress the gullible. And it doesn't work (except in nickrr's case).
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 13:13:23 GMT 1
Ah, but you've already shown you've got no understanding of statistics my dear. I suggest you don't worry your pretty little head about hard sums, and continue to believe in your nice fairy stories...................
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 9, 2011 13:28:28 GMT 1
Perhaps YOU would like to unpack this pseudo scientific "level of certainty of 95%" that nickrr deems fit to attach to the IPCC reports?
Carry on, STA, we're all ears.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 13:34:26 GMT 1
Standard error bars, as far as I can see. What's so mysterious? Any data you input has assocaited errors, so hence so has any output. Except crap journalists often omit to quote the error bars. 95% is standard range to quote, that's all. tyou should misinterpret the certainty figure as in the everyday meaning of the word, they are just talking stats here, NOT some cosmic certainty. Hence here comes another strawman................................
So, just replace certainty with 'statistical certainty based on input', and you won't have to worry your pretty little head any further (whilst I, I will admit, have a great big ugly lump of a head, and worry with it constantly...................)
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 9, 2011 14:25:40 GMT 1
But nickrr wasn't talking about statistical error was she? She was talking about 95% certainty about the opinions expressed in the IPCC reports - which is indeed how the IPCC describes its opinions in an attempt to attach "scientific" respectability to them.
How do you apply a "percentage certainty" to a massive tome of opinion?
No, don't bother to answer. I think I might have been confusing you with someone who was capable of an atom of objectivity.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 15:07:50 GMT 1
Actual words: Doesn't say statistical explicitly, but any scientist looking at that would take it as meaning statistical. Plus if you look at the actual report, how uncertainty is being assessed is clearly and openly explained: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote.pdf Since they've supplied us with their guidelines, seems obvious how to convert. Why? how sure are YOU that AGW is wrong? 10%, 90%, 100%, 99%, we ALL use stuff like that to quantify exactly what we mean, even when it isn't really quantifiable. They just tried to tie-down the usage a bit, as far as I can see, to relate it to terms that various people may have been using to try and explain their level of certainty about things that weren't totally statistical. Would you have prefered statements such as -- it's gone from likely, to VERY likely? What do they MEAN by likely as opposed to very likely, go look at the appendix........................ Tedious, trivail points, and you have the gall to accuse em of nit-picking. AT least I have the courtesy to answer your points, you seem reluctant to do that with mine (isotopic analysis of carbon in seawater would be one great big glaring example..............) |
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jun 9, 2011 18:49:18 GMT 1
Only just looked at this thread since my last post. I see that STA has already exposed MR's inability to come up with a coherent argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 9, 2011 20:56:50 GMT 1
Nick Let's put this to bed once and for all. Of course weather and climate are not exactly the same, but they are connected. Next you'll be telling me that mahogany isn't wood. From wiki "Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements and their variations over shorter time periods" Let's take it step by step. Weather systems occur which affect the day to day conditions of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloud cover etc. Not all the causes of these systems are fully understood. These "manifestations" of weather produce, over a long period, a climate record. However, as the drivers of the weather systems are not fully known it is impossible to ACCURATELY model any future climate especially when one important factor (cloud cover) is currently difficult to quantify in models ( www2.ucar.edu/staffnotes/research/549/climate-models-and-clouds ) Maybe in the near future we will be able model such cloud cover accurately using satellite imagery and even to "reverse engineer" weather systems and find the exact cause/s but not yet. So, I repeat climate science is in its infancy, as was Karl Benz's ideas of a car over 100 years ago. No amoutn of trying to say that mahogany isn't wood is going to alter that fact. If you get my drift.  P P |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 11, 2011 17:10:49 GMT 1
What’s to Be Done With 15 Feet of Snow in June? Utah KnowsTom Smart The New York Times  The Rieders family, Josh, left, Brandon and their father, Brad, also planned to golf while in Utah. LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYON, Utah — At the base of a slope that at this time of year usually tests the skills of mountain bikers, roughly 60 skiers and snowboarders, hoping to get first tracks on the mountain, waited for the 8 a.m. opening of the tram at Snowbird resort. Eric Jucker, 75, is among the many skiers attracted to Snowbird. The resort is scheduled to stay open for snow sports until July 4. Snowboarders are also enjoying the resort, which had 775 inches of snow this season. It averages 500.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 12, 2011 17:08:55 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 12, 2011 20:59:38 GMT 1
"Year Without a Summer" " The Year Without a Summer (also known as the Poverty Year, Year There Was No Summer, and Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death[1]) was 1816, in which severe summer climate abnormalities caused average global temperatures to decrease by about 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F),[2] resulting in major food shortages across the Northern Hemisphere.[3][4] It is believed that the anomaly was caused by a combination of a historic low in solar activity with a volcanic winter event, the latter caused by a succession of major volcanic eruptions capped off by the Mount Tambora eruption of 1815, the largest known eruption in over 1,300 years. Historian John D. Post has called this "the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world".[5] " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer---- " Records from the past also suggest that June could be a very unsettled and volatile month in terms of its weather. Thunderstorms, some very damaging such as the one in 1729, were common, although the level of damage is perhaps less surprising in the days before the installation of lightning conductors on tall buildings. Hailstorms were also not uncommon, often causing damage to growing crops as in 1715. " www.staffspasttrack.org.uk/exhibit/weather/june.html---- www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=other;type=winthist;sess=---- Confidence Level... What constitutes reasonable certainty? in most situations, the confidence level is set at 95% or 90%, partly because of tradition and partly because these levels represent (to some people) a reasonable level of certainty. The 95% (or 90%) level translates into a long-run chance of 1 in 20 (or 1 in 10) of not covering the population parameter. This seems reasonable and comprehensible, whereas 1 in 1000, or 1 in 10,000 is too small. The tolerable error depends heavily on the context of the problem, and only someone who is familiar with the situation can make a reasonable judgement about its magnitude. From: An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis By Lyman Ott, Michael Longnecker books.google.co.uk/books?id=ka9ClH2fZc4C&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=level+of+certainty+of+95%25&source=bl&ots=TwqiZwf-Ah&sig=nVzRkeEMMrWaG2E0EmrmKtOMG9U&hl=en&ei=Xwj1TcLYOo24hAeKxbTFBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=level%20of%20certainty%20of%2095%25&f=falseHere's how it looks from a manufacturer's point of view... [they do oscilloscopes, spectrum analysers and the like] "Uncertainty & Confidence in Measurements" www.agilent.com/metrology/uncert.shtmland... "Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation" "APLAC is a cooperation of accreditation bodies in the Asia Pacific region that accredit laboratories, inspection bodies and reference material producers. It is recognized by the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) as one of five Specialist Regional Bodies (SRBs)." "GENERAL INFORMATION ON UNCERTAINTY OF MEASUREMENT" www.aclasscorp.com/media/2065/tc010%20-%20measurement%20uncertainty.pdf---- "Up a GUM tree? Try the Full Monte!" www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/up_a_gum_tree.pdfJCGM_104_2009 www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_104_2009_E.pdfStuartG |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 27, 2011 11:21:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 7, 2011 14:57:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 7, 2011 15:07:07 GMT 1
Ian E says:
Oh dear, another "unprecedented" event – well, unprecedented for 20 years: better all sign up to Greenpiss!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 7, 2011 15:07:58 GMT 1
|
|
