Hello Sharon! Nope, I am not insulted at all!
Do you understand Phil Jones or Richard Black's premise? "What" statistics have now reached the ninety-five percentile? On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Sharon Fuentes <[email protected]>wrote: > oops cut and pasted wrong quote..... > > > Good morning Keith.... > > I don't want to insult you...I am not sure what you know about statistics. > Keep in mind that I have not seen these statistics and do not know what > methodology they used to measure the data. I also don't necessarily buy the > whole global warming issue so I am not going to offer an opinion. the gold > standard in statistcal methodology is to say that something does not happen > by chance is that the data has to prove that the hypothesis (global warming, > medicall illnesses in certain populations, accidents in youth drivers etc) > is happening not due to chance. When one does research, you collect the > data points and analyze them. In order to even begin to have the correct > numbers to make an analysis, you must have 11 (I am almost certain) > objects/subjects, data points so that you have the minimum of 10 degress of > freedom-which translates into the power. This means that there are enough > numbers to make a statistical measurement. Below this, statiscal analysis > can be fraught with error. So the larger the data set, the more power, and > certainty and confidence you can have when one has something that is > statistically significant p value <0.05-95% certainty that the hypothesis is > not due to chance. In the argument below, they are saying that they now > have a large enough set to accept the hypothesis that this does exist. I > just assume that whatever it is that they are measuring, this last set of > data that was added to the earlier goups, through their methodology, now > accepts the hypothosis that it does exist. I do not know what they are > measuring, how they are controling for variables or anything like that. And > I do not know what tests they are using and whether these tests are good > ones to measure this. > > I suppose the take home message is, the more data, the stronger the numbers > are to measure to either accept or not the hypothesis. When I read medical > journals and these big institutions start throwing statistically significant > this or that-I first ask-how many were in the study, what was the > hypothesis, did they do some off the wall statistical test and if they > did-it usually means that they had to search for a statistical test that > would make their data significant when another one should have been used. > > "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period > 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in > estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend > significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that > statisticians have used for many years. > > > This statement is misleading.....a trend at 90% is just a trend. it is not > a significant one. When it crossed to 95%. Then one can use > significant-otherwise-baloney. I would like to see the raw data and what > test they use....but i really don't have the time or inclination...we all > know the world is going to hell in a hand basket and I am just along for the > ride and occassional doomsday party. > > S > > > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Keith In Köln <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Uhm.....Call me a little slow, but I haven't a friggin clue what that >> meant. >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Bruce Majors <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 10 June 2011 Last updated at 13:59 >>> >>> Global warming since 1995 'now significant' >>> Richard Black By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News >>> >>> Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according >>> to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. >>> >>> Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - >>> a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate >>> change. >>> >>> But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually >>> used to assess whether trends are "real". >>> >>> Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for >>> analysis. >>> >>> By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to >>> assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, >>> rather than emerging by chance. >>> >>> If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of >>> it being down to chance are less than one in 20. >>> >>> Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; >>> but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. >>> >>> "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, >>> but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," >>> Professor Jones told BBC News. >>> >>> "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period >>> 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in >>> estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend >>> significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that >>> statisticians have used for many years. >>> >>> "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short >>> time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a >>> much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a >>> consistent basis." >>> >>> Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, >>> is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's >>> surface temperature is not rising. >>> Globally consistent >>> >>> The dataset that Professor Jones helps to compile - HadCRUT3 - is a >>> joint project between the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University >>> of East Anglia (UEA), where he is based, and the UK Met Office. >>> >>> It is one of the main global temperature records used by bodies such as >>> the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). >>> >>> HadCRUT shows a warming 1995-2010 of 0.19C - consistent with the other >>> major records, which all use slightly different ways of analysing the >>> data in order to compensate for issues such as the dearth of measuring >>> stations in polar regions. >>> >>> Shortly before the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Phil Jones found >>> himself at the centre of the affair that came to be known as >>> "ClimateGate", which saw the release of more than 1,000 emails taken >>> from a CRU server. >>> >>> Critics alleged the emails showed CRU scientists and others attempting >>> to subvert the usual processes of science, and of manipulating data in >>> order to paint an unfounded picture of globally rising temperatures. >>> >>> Subsequent enquiries found the scientists and their institutions did >>> fall short of best practice in areas such as routine use of professional >>> statisticians and response to Freedom of Information requests, but found >>> no case to answer on the charges of manipulation. >>> >>> Since then, nothing has emerged through mainstream science to challenge >>> the IPCC's basic picture of a world warming through greenhouse gas >>> emissions. >>> >>> And a new initiative to construct a global temperature record, based at >>> Stanford University in California whose funders include "climate >>> sceptical" organisations, has reached early conclusions that match >>> established records closely. >>> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510 >>> >>> -- >>> Mario Huet >>> Libertarian Alliance Forum >>> List Administrator >>> >>> ********************************************** >>> Words cannot picture her; but all men know >>> That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought >>> ********************************************** >>> James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night >>> >>> __._,_.___ >>> Reply to >>> sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Global%20warming%20since%201995%20%27now%20significant%27>| >>> Reply >>> to >>> group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20Global%20warming%20since%201995%20%27now%20significant%27>| >>> Reply >>> via web >>> post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydHRnamRrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMzcxMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMTY5BG1zZ0lkAzExNzMwNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzMDc4MDQ5NTc-?act=reply&messageNum=117306>| >>> Start >>> a New >>> Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDBpdjFrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMzcxMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMTY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTMwNzgwNDk1Nw--> >>> Messages in this >>> topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum/message/117306;_ylc=X3oDMTM4OGF1ZXQzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMzcxMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMTY5BG1zZ0lkAzExNzMwNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMDc4MDQ5NTcEdHBjSWQDMTE3MzA2>( >>> 1) >>> Recent Activity: >>> >>> >>> Visit Your >>> Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMXUwdTByBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMzcxMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMTY5BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTMwNzgwNDk1Nw--> >>> Subscribe: [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: [email protected] >>> >>> NB - The Libertarian Alliance does not necessarily approve of the above >>> message. >>> [image: Yahoo! >>> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZW1kNnVkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyMzcxMjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwMTY5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzA3ODA0OTU3> >>> Switch to: >>> Text-Only<[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, >>> Daily >>> Digest<[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• >>> Unsubscribe<[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>• >>> Terms >>> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> >>> . >>> >>> __,_._,___ >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at >>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
