Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 116 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#17385 - 12/20/06 04:20 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: Count Iblis II]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
count I agree with you in part,
firstly, I agree that we should stop bantering about academic records and things like this, however please note that I am not bantering about this but rather defending myself from Morgans completely false and unsubstantiated accusations. These only occur because he has no scientific and reasonable argument against my findings. I applaud you for your reasoned response.

Secondly, I have not claimed that Australia is not warming at the rate of the rest of the world. Never have. Mainly because I have not tested the rate of which the rest of the world has apparently warmed.

I understand how hypothesis testing works, and I have said that there is no evidence to prove that Australia is increasing or decreasing in temperature, which is the correct conclusion to draw from such testing.

"Your objection seems to be that this is contrary to the scientific method."

No my objection was that if you see an increase of 0.6 degrees per century then you should not claim that the world is heating up if the 0.6 degree increase is not statistically significant. Whilst confidence intervals are more appealing, and probably more meaningful for a lay-statistician, it basically says the same thing as the p value. I'm sorry if I have only quoted p values in the past, but this is the common practise of statisticians, however as said before they are one and the same.

"I'm not an expert in data analysis and I don't know a lot about how the trend of 0.6 ?C per century was measured."

This is very interesting. The data was calculated from maximum and minimum temperatures only. Such analysis I believe is flawed because it allowed the variable time, to, well, vary. An analysis at certain times of the day, hence keeping time constant would far be better, but this has yet to be done for some unknown reason??

Furthermore, the method of which it is analysed is hardly in depth. The maximum and minimum temperatures are basically added up and divided by 2 to find the average daily temperature.

This I am afraid is nowhere near substantial, and is basically one of the major reasons why I entered the area - because of the complete lack of proper statistical analysis into the temperature data.

As for your comments about different stations. We look at the overall picture, not individual stations. SO we don?t conclude, no increase at station #1, and #2 etc. By looking overall, we increase the data, and get a more realistic view of the world (or Australia in my case). Even if Australia in general was increasing by 0.6 degrees per century, there would probably be evidence that half the stations had not increased significantly in temperature, but this is not what we are looking at. We are looking at the overall temperature of Australia.

It is just, seriously, it is absurd to me, that my statistical analysis of Australia?s temperatures is more in depth than any peer-reviewed journal paper, and yet, as Morgan so fondly says, it's just a blog.

How can the world spend billions of dollars on fixing a problem, if a blog can provide more in depth statistical analysis of Australia?s temperatures than any and all peer-reviewed journal articles on the matter.

Top
.
#17391 - 12/20/06 06:31 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
JLowe asks:
"How can the world spend billions of dollars on fixing a problem, if a blog can provide more in depth statistical analysis of Australia?s temperatures than any and all peer-reviewed journal articles on the matter."

Because your blog, which I have had reviewed by a couple of PostDocs here generated nothing but derisive laughter.

Perhaps this link will help:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17402 - 12/21/06 01:33 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
nothing but derisive laughter.


Considering that you have yet to suggest the slightest reason why this is so, statistically speaking that is, it seems as though you are the only person in the world who thinks this.

Can you type the reviews that was given? Strange that you couldn't give one yourself. Maybe because you are not qualified enough to give one. If that being so, it is strange that you were so quick to wrongly criticse it.

Once again:
Now, at least I answer the questions that you raise. How about you raising the one's that I have questioned of you:

1. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever.
2. You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so.
3. You challenged me to provide details of my academic record, because you had serious doubt of it, quite possibly because my results disagreed with your thought pattern. You lost this challenge as well.
4. Despite my reponses to your pedantic challenges, you refuse to answer mine.

I'm looking forward to the reply from the 4 comments above.

Top
#17414 - 12/21/06 09:57 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
JLowe wrote:
"1. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever."

Where have you posted the actual statistical methods used?

Where have you posted the validation that the data is representative?

Where have you posted discrepancies between your methodology and that accepted in climatology?

Where have you posted an explanation of why and how you results differ from those of CSIRO and NASA?

Where have you posted citations to prior art?

In climatology that equates with pseudoscience.
In physics that equates with pseudoscience.
In chemistry that equates with pseudoscience.
In biology that equates with pseudoscience.

I'm not the one making a claim that conflicts with climatologists world-wide: It is you. Thus the onus is upon you to establish (A) that you are aware of prior art, (B) that you are using the established methodology or can explain the flaws in current methodology, (C) can pass peer review of your methodology. You've done none of these ... thus sir ... it is pseudoscience.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17472 - 12/24/06 05:21 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it [Re: anyman]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
The subject of this thread is: "Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it" and I have disputed it since the day it was posted. Railed against it as unsupported and unsupportable pseudoscience and otherwise, hopefully, demonstrated how one can recognize numbers masquerading as value.

Well today we have something of substance on the subject and here's the link: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6204141.stm"> Click Here </a>.

The source is:
Professor Andy Pitman from Macquarie University in Sydney who unlike JLowe has a real PhD and unlike JLowe is truly a subject matter expert. He states:

"Rainfall in many eastern and southern regions has been at near record lows. On top of that, the weather has been exceptionally warm."

Exceptionally warm? Gee. I wonder how he could have drawn that conclusion if, "Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it"?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17477 - 12/25/06 02:28 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it [Re: DA Morgan]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
More on Dr. Pitman including his email address:
http://www.els.mq.edu.au/research/CORE/ClimateRisk/staffs/apitman.htm

From the Macquarie Globe:
"The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a real issue, and that it is the result of human activities and not a natural occurrence. One of those scientists is leading climate modeller Professor Andy Pitman, who is a member of the Australian Research Council Research Network for Earth System Science (ARCNESS).

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a real issue, and that it is the result of human activities and not a natural occurrence.
One of those scientists is leading climate modeller Professor Andy Pitman, who is a member of the Australian Research Council Research Network for Earth System Science (ARCNESS)."

Source:
http://www.international.mq.edu.au/globe/default.aspx?id=244&EditionID=125

_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17487 - 12/27/06 07:14 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
What we are posting newspaper reports now? I thought that was banned? Is this a joke?

so someone with a Phd who reckons it's pretty warm and not much rain is proof?

"Rainfall in many eastern and southern regions has been at near record lows"

Nope not true:


link: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

In reply to the first of the 4 points that I made (still waiting on your reply to the other 3)

Where have you posted the actual statistical methods used?
- I have already answered this question on this thread. I'll do it again, http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/11/analysis.html

Where have you posted discrepancies between your methodology and that accepted in climatology?
- I haven't. Itusesthe same methodology as those done by climatologists.

Where have you posted an explanation of why and how you results differ from those of CSIRO and NASA?
- To an extent they do not. I have discribed this before. However my analysis has gone beyond maximum and minimum temperatures in an attempt to look more deeply at this. The CSIRO and NASA have not done this.

pseudoscience is the method that claims to be scientific but doesn't follow the proper scientific method of investigation. this includes propose specific hypotheses and designing experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. All of which I have done,

so therefore, the point number 1 still stands, as for the others:

2. You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so.
3. You challenged me to provide details of my academic record, because you had serious doubt of it, quite possibly because my results disagreed with your thought pattern. You lost this challenge as well.

Top
#17498 - 12/27/06 10:07 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I asked:
"Where have you posted the actual statistical methods used?"

JLowe responded:
"- I have already answered this question on this thread. I'll do it again, http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/11/analysis.html"

Excuse me. That is a statistical method? You couldn't get through grade-school math class with what is on your blog.

For example you wrote:
"From these averages we calculated the deviations from the mean for every month of every year for each station."

"calculated the deviations"?
"calculated the deviations"?
"calculated the deviations"?

Where, other than in a pub, would anyone find that acceptable as a description of a statistical methodology.

What would your analysis have shown if in a 365 day year the temperatures were unchanged 364 days out of the year but 10% higher on one day of the year?

I'm trying really hard to be nice here but you don't seriously believe you could turn in a paper to one of your profs with the explanation you have provided except on April first.

JLowe wrote:
"You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so."

I didn't say you manipulated data. I question the value of an analysis done in a closet by someone who acknowledges not being knowledgeable in the subject.

"JLowe wrote:
"You challenged me to provide details of my academic record, because you had serious doubt of it"

And I still do. Because so far you've yet to demonstrate even a basic understanding of statistical analysis. Let me quote you:

"we calculated the deviations from the mean for every month of every year for each station. These were then summed to get the average deviation from the mean for every station for every year."

Do you see a problem here? If not perhaps you should show this to one of your professors and let them point it out to you. Then show it to someone with expertise in climatology.

It may be that someone in the lay public will be impressed with verbiage such as 'mean' and 'deviation' but anyone with a background in the sciences will be far less amused. I can, for example, write 'linear algebra' and 'chi square' but that doesn't do anything except impress small children.

Can you do better?


Edited by DA Morgan (12/27/06 10:08 PM)
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17546 - 01/01/07 01:44 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Thankyou at last for addressing my comments.
You said:
"JLowe wrote:
"You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so."

I didn't say you manipulated data. I question the value of an analysis done in a closet by someone who acknowledges not being knowledgeable in the subject."

You didn't say I manipulated data. Well lets look at the quote:

"Meaning you substituted the ability to marshall numbers for actual subject matter expertise. Sad!
Very sad. That you would think manipulating numbers in a computer substitute for the reality of the laws of physics. And the laws of physics are quite clear on the matter."

So, tell me if I'm wrong here, please do, but didn't you say that I marshelled numbers, and I manipulated numbers? Seems pretty clear to me.

And with regards to my credentials. I suppose a scanned version doesn't pursuade you. I guess if you turned up to my graduation then you still wouldn't believe yes?

And your comment as why you don't, because you said:

"Where, other than in a pub, would anyone find that acceptable as a description of a statistical methodology."

Well, damn, exactly, and only, the analysis performed on temperature maximum and minimum data globally. Believe it or not, this is how lame the statisticall analysis on data has been for temperature analysis.

so I ask you again, if you feel that the whole issue is all but solved:

'Please tell me of a paper that looks at Australian temperatures at different times of the day, thus keeping the time variable constant. Is the maximum temperature occurring at different times today than in the past? What about different areas? Are we heating up at the heat of the day, or is there a constant increase in temperature throughout the day? How has Australia been heating up at say, 3am? What about in the different months/seasons/areas? How has Australia been going in temperature for days that have a large section of cloud cover as opposed to not? What about times the relationship between cloud cover and temperature at a certain season at say?..6pm? or midnight, or 3am? Is solar radiation a significant factor in increased temperatures when there is cloud cover during the heat of the day? Why has Australia in the last 5 years only increased in temperature when the sun is out?

I?d love you to point me to the supposed multitude of peer-reviewed journal papers that have already answered the above questions. We surely would know all the answers to these before we start spending billions of dollars. Would hate to spend so much money without knowing the full scale of it all.'

Fact is you can't. No in depth analysis has been performed on Austlralian and even, to my knowledge world wide, temperatures as such that I have on my simple blog. And the analysis that previous research has performed, is exactly what I have done and quoted in the past.

It's a masive problem when you start spending god-zillions of dollars on a problem that hasn't even had the decency to analyse the situation to its full value. That is the problem here.


Top
#17551 - 01/01/07 07:18 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
You really are a sad case for someone, who I presume, has English as a first language. "That you would think manipulating numbers in a computer substitute for the reality of the laws of physics." Does not mean what you interpret it to mean. Perhaps you should find an English prof. in addition to a Math prof. to help you.

JLowe wrote:
"Believe it or not, this is how lame the statisticall analysis on data has been for temperature analysis."

No it isn't. It may be what you did. It may be the methodology you used. But then you aren't a climatologist and you have already acknowledged your lack of expertise in the discipline. No one I have ever seen publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal has ever written what you wrote: Not once. And not once on your methodology page is there even an acknowledgment that confidence limits might be appropriate or that comparison to the methodology used by subject matter experts might be appropriate.

You proclaim that all university and government researchers, those with PhDs and professorships and Crays are hacks. And that you, a professional gambler with a degree in statistics are the only one capable of doing a proper analysis. Has it occurred to you how credible that is?

JLowe wrote:
"I?d love you to point me to the supposed multitude of peer-reviewed journal papers that have already answered the above questions."

I don't need to. I'm not being paid to be your tutor. All I have to do is demonstrate to any member of the lay public following this thread that you are unqualified, used an improper methodology, and have drawn an incorrect conclusion. If you want research done ... go to the library and start with the citation indexes.

JLowe wrote:
"No in depth analysis has been performed on Austlralian and even, to my knowledge world wide"

And there is the operative phrase: "... to my knowledge ...." That pretty much says all that need be said on the subject. Perhaps you should do something about the state of your knowledge.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17620 - 01/12/07 05:14 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it [Re: JonathanLowe]
Anonymous
Unregistered


anyone know why air pollution will heat up the earth's surface??
enlighten me please

Top
#17621 - 01/12/07 05:20 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it [Re: ]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
It may heat up the surface ... it may not: Depends on the type of pollution.

Some may increase the absorption of infrared radiation and some may increase reflectivity and thus decrease absorption. It is the ratio between the two that matters.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17719 - 01/18/07 04:11 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
mcbanne Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/18/07
Posts: 3
Hey Morgan with what precision Can Scientists really predict the future effects of global warming on earth?

Anybody with two eyes and a working brain can see that global warming is real and we are only beginning to see its effects on humanity. The effects of global warming on animals has been there for years now but now when its starting to impact humanity it is when people start to notice, sad but true. My point is that those who have been primarily focusing their studies on Glaciers are amazed at the rate in which they have melted and are continuing to melt, can science really predict nature and its behavioral patterns? specially with something so new and never experienced before as global warming.

Top
#17728 - 01/18/07 07:38 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: mcbanne]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
mcbanne asks:
"Hey Morgan with what precision Can Scientists really predict the future effects of global warming on earth?"

Not possessing 20:20 foresight I can't answer that question. What I can tell you is that so far the predictions have been well within the margin of error and are getting better.

If you are correct there are a lot of two-legged creatures on this planet lacking eyes, or a brain, or both. But you know what my opinion is.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17804 - 01/22/07 11:16 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Personally I'm over this, but I feel the need to defend myself.

lets look at the quote in full shall we. You said

"The short answer can be found in something Samuel Clemens wrote 150 years ago.

"There are three types of liars. Liars, damned liars and statisticians."

Meaning you substituted the ability to marshall numbers for actual subject matter expertise. Sad!
Very sad. That you would think manipulating numbers in a computer substitute for the reality of the laws of physics. And the laws of physics are quite clear on the matter."

Firstly Samuel Clemens only popularised the phrase, it was given by Benjamin Disraeli. Secondly, either you are completly ignorant and stupid or you purposely mis-quoted the very famous quote to put me down. I hope for your sake, it's the first.

That you would think of manipulating a very famous quote in order to character assignate myself as well as every other statistican is the lowest of the low. It says a lot about you, that you are happy to change history to suit your own needs and denounce others. And you accuse me of marshalling numbers or at least thinking of manipulating numbers when it is quite clear that you just manipulated a quote to suit your own needs. "Sad! Very sad." Unfortunetly that is you.

Jlowe:"Believe it or not, this is how lame the statisticall analysis on data has been for temperature analysis."

You: "No it isn't."

Wrong again. It is. The ABM says that it uses a weighted average. That is all one needs to say. I could have easily just said the same thing and done the same analysis, but I chose to outline exactly how it is done so that it is transparent and able to be replicated. The methodology that I used, is the same as those that have studied Australian temperature.

JLowe wrote:
"No in depth analysis has been performed on Austlralian and even, to my knowledge world wide"

Morgan wrote: "and there is the operative phrase: "... to my knowledge ...." That pretty much says all that need be said on the subject. Perhaps you should do something about the state of your knowledge.

I am sorry I have not read every single article onn climate change inside and out? Have you? Has anyone? no. The fact is, that my analysis of Australian temperatures is more in depth than any scientific research on the area. All in a couple of weeks and on a blog. I don't need to prove to you that it is, because I know that it is.

I should not have to waste my time defending myself against someone who refuses to believe evidence that contradicts his scientific religious agendas.

Top
#17809 - 01/22/07 07:03 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
JLowe wrote:
"I should not have to waste my time defending myself against someone who refuses to believe evidence that contradicts his scientific religious agendas."

Please don't. Waving your hands wildly in the air while shouting "I have proven" and "everyone other than me is wrong" is not evidence of anything unless you've had a dozen stubbies.

I strongly urge you to use the phrase "scientific religious agendas" in your thesis if you get back to school. No doubt you will reap a well deserved level of recognition.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17822 - 01/23/07 01:54 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
DA wrote:

'I strongly urge you to use the phrase "scientific religious agendas" in your thesis if you get back to school.'

Now the idea the world is going to end sometime is deep-rooted in Western religion. Disaster is always just waiting to strike. Some stuff I read on climate change reminds me of the doomsayers view. I'd just like to mention again that what we believe about the past influences our view on the present. Perhaps it would be interesting to consider the advantages and disadvantages climate change has had for our species' evolution and our role in those climate changes.

Top
#17831 - 01/23/07 12:49 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: terrytnewzealand]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
completly agree terrytnewzealand, and morgan, you didn't reply to any of my comments given above. I shall repeat. "Sad! Very sad."

And morgan once again you misquote. I have never ever said even anything close to "everyone other than me is wrong"

Can you please stop misquoting on purpose for the sole agenda to suit your own needs and character assignate others. I really feel sorry for you that you have to stoop so low.

Top
#17840 - 01/23/07 06:17 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
You mean this low?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html

or this low?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/

Perhaps you should again go to:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
and read item #1, #3, #4, #11, #12, especially #16, #18, #19 (yeah all those people with PhDs are wrong), and #23.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17847 - 01/23/07 11:10 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
once again morgan: you didn't reply to any of my comments given above. I shall repeat. "Sad! Very sad." Once again you misquote. I have never ever said even anything close to "everyone other than me is wrong"

Can you please stop misquoting on purpose for the sole agenda to suit your own needs and character assignate others. I really feel sorry for you that you have to stoop so low.

Also I thought referencing media outlets was taboo? I could easily give you similar references with the opposite opinion.

Can you please tell me where I said quote "everyone other than me is wrong"

and please tell me why you on purpose misquoted the famous statistics quote.

YOU ARE THE DEFINITION OF SAD IF YOU HAVE TO MISQUOTE TO SUIT YOUR AGENDA AND PUT OTHERS DOWN. That if the opposite of science.

Top
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.