FLASH!! NOAA drives stake through heart of alarmists!!!

[flacaltenn]

Here is a good page that explains the confidence interval for the slope


Regression Slope: Confidence Interval

That's nice.. I'll use all that when I'm trying to establish a process as a natural linear function.

 

[IanC]

A safe assumption is that the newer dataset is more accurate. That would be the paranoia-free position.

The difference between the two, as explained by the people who did the adjusting, is that such adjustments correct for errors and differences such as time-of day, location changes, analog to digital and general magic ;-),

Why go back and alter data from over 50 years ago? What is the reason for altering it?

The biggest problem I see is that what the algorithms arre claimed to do is not what they do in fact. Australia and New zeland have both been questioned but instead of answering they redesigned new methodologies which they then 'peer reviewed' for each other.

 

[SSDD]

A safe assumption is that the newer dataset is more accurate. That would be the paranoia-free position.

The difference between the two, as explained by the people who did the adjusting, is that such adjustments correct for errors and differences such as time-of day, location changes, analog to digital and general magic ;-),

Why go back and alter data from over 50 years ago? What is the reason for altering it?

I have been asking for a rational scientifically valid reason for changing pre 1960 temperatures for some time now...haven't heard one yet.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm wondering why you deniers bother. You can keep loudly proclaiming the glorious victory of the denier cult here, but the world just goes on laughing its ass off at you all.

Given that, how long do you plan to keep up the crazy? Oh wait, I know the answer. You'll be crazy for as long as your political cult orders you to be crazy. It's not like any of you can think independently.

s0n.....hoping that for a moment you're feet are actually ON the ground, but just took a gander over at your last thread.......

Know how many "views" it got????


76 s0n


laughable.


Nobody cares about AGW k00k shit anymore, so really, who are the "cultists" here??


There are thousands of USMB members and how many come into this forum promoting the alarmist extreme view??


2


you and that guy Abe........


Looks to us like you both are nothing more than a circus sideshow Not that IM complaining mind you!! This place would suck without you bozo's to make fun of......plus, for the curious who come in here, they can instantly identify far left religious k00ks when they see them!! And guys like me, Frank, Dave, SSDD, Ian, West, JC, Henry and FlaCal et. al. have superior skills at being able to paint you dolts as such!!

 

[daveman]

A safe assumption is that the newer dataset is more accurate. That would be the paranoia-free position.

The difference between the two, as explained by the people who did the adjusting, is that such adjustments correct for errors and differences such as time-of day, location changes, analog to digital and general magic ;-),

...and it's just COINCIDENCE that those magic adjustments "prove" the planet is getting warmer.

You sure are a sucker.

 

[skookerasbil]

A safe assumption is that the newer dataset is more accurate. That would be the paranoia-free position.

The difference between the two, as explained by the people who did the adjusting, is that such adjustments correct for errors and differences such as time-of day, location changes, analog to digital and general magic ;-),

...and it's just COINCIDENCE that those magic adjustments "prove" the planet is getting warmer.

You sure are a sucker.

No truer words were ever spoken on this forum my friend.......guys like him are feasted upon by entrepreneurs, like the guys who sell all that shit on late night cable to the suckers ( ie clap-on lights, fake TV's and Turbonators ). Of course Dave....we should be doing the same......we'd be sipping frozen margaurita's on some beach in the south pacific!!! Funny shit.......


I have never spent a single nano-second trying to change the k00ks in this forum.........its a no can do......ever. They'll go to their box clinging to this shit.......but Im in here to educate others who don't have any thought processing issues......just need to be enlightened since they've always been naïve thinks to the msm. And Dave......who has more fun in here than me and you??!!!! Well.......SSDD and FlaCal gets some good laughs too hanging around in here!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Dave....bookmark this guy and check him out regularly >>>

The Church of Progammed Perception « Jon Rappoport's Blog


Guy is a genius.......writes all the time about what is known as "consensus reality" and "programmed perceptions" and how clever people dupe bubble dwellers like Crick and Mamooth. Real interesting stuff.......talks a lot about the "Reality Manufacturing Company" and how easy it is for these perception engineers to dupe the suckers hook, line and stinker. Dave.....much of what all of us have come to know is methodically spoon fed to us......this matrix. Most interesting? The hopelessly duped cling desperately to consensus reality because to face the real reality is terrifying........finding out that the "official reports" from "official news sources" are nothing but a load of total BS.......engineered reality. Take a close look at 9/11 or Sandy Hook......total snow jobs if you take a close look. Elaborate hoaxes put on like a Broadway play and bought by the suckers. Hard to swallow......but its all plain as the nose on your face if you have the balls to face it.

 

[daveman]

I'm wondering why you deniers bother. You can keep loudly proclaiming the glorious victory of the denier cult here, but the world just goes on laughing its ass off at you all.

Given that, how long do you plan to keep up the crazy? Oh wait, I know the answer. You'll be crazy for as long as your political cult orders you to be crazy. It's not like any of you can think independently.

Is projection your superpower?

 

[daveman]

A safe assumption is that the newer dataset is more accurate. That would be the paranoia-free position.

The difference between the two, as explained by the people who did the adjusting, is that such adjustments correct for errors and differences such as time-of day, location changes, analog to digital and general magic ;-),

Why go back and alter data from over 50 years ago? What is the reason for altering it?

Because it doesn't support our predetermined conclusion! /AGW Cultist

 

[itfitzme]

I can't.. I won't.. Because it's not neccessary to abuse mathematics like you do..
NOW -- you've gone from BABBLING to ABUSE of mathematics. Why the GRAPH is meaningless? It's not. It WILL ALWAYS be a plot of US (not Global -- dummy) temperatures from 2005 to 2014.. Not matter how dirty you talk to it --- YOU can't change the meaning of the graph or call it meaningless. Secondly, there is no REQUIREMENT to test a TREND LINE. It will always be the BEST linear approximation to the chart. Lowest error bar fit to the equation F(X) = aX + b. Plenty of data points to make that determination. Knock yourself and weep and wring your hands about the variance of US Temperatures over time.. It won't change a damned thing.. It IS -- what it is... It's not a linear function that's for sure. So it won't fit.

Now why it's plotted to BEGIN in 2005 is mighty suspicious.. I suppose if you can "cherry-pick" a cooling trend line by doing so --- SOMEONE might think that's meaningful, because it allows them to state that the linear trend in temps since 2005 indicate a slight cooling for the United States. Guess they didn't want to start that graph EARLIER for a reason..

Enough honesty for ya Clyde?? Enough original thought? You just go on faking your math chops and pretending that the normal variance of temperature data sets has some significance in it that allows you to DISMISS a simple graph and trend line calc..

It's real simple. Every regression requires the test for statistical significance for it to have any meaning. When the regression is run, then p-value is also provided. It's just real basic stuff. Not doing it, not presenting with the graph is because of a) a lack of understanding of the fundamentals or b) it doesn't support the the bs.

Linear regression ALWAYS REQUIRES that the coefficients be tested significance. The reason is obvious. The complete equation that represents the data is F(X) = aX + b + e. e is the error, the diffence between the model and the data. The error term has a variance. Can you explain what the mean of the error is?


So, seeing as you are lacking the basic knowlede, I will explain it for you. There are two coeficients that linear regression calculates. These are the slope of the line and the constant. Whe these are calculated, the program also calculates the p-value. The p-value is used to determine if the coefficients are statistically significant. These are comared to the alpha which sets the level of statistical significance that is desired for the test to be interpreted as acceptable. The alpha valuesbate the cuttoff points for acceptance of the coefficient. Typical alphas that are used set the cuttoff value at 90%, 95%, and 99%.

Without th p-value, the linear trend line has no meaning.

The probem with regession slopes near zero is that the p-value is nearly always to large and the coeffcient meaningless.

I can guarantee from inspection that the p-value, for the graph in question, is to large for the regression line to have any meaning. There are not enough data points and the variance is to great.

But you don't have to take my word for it. You can do it yourself. But you won't, and Watt didn't because the result will invalidate what you want to believe. This is what you always do.

You couldn't carry a pencil for a real mathematician.. The purpose of a trend line is to estimate the 1st derivative of a data set. That is always a USEFUL estimate in that sense.. Even in the presence of data with high deviation or noise. No different than a selective filtering operation to accentuate different derivatives of the process.. Problem with poor math education is that they tell you WHAT TO DO -- but rarely explain what the tools are actually for.. Where your "education" failed you is that nobody is ATTEMPTING to find the underlying equation for the Earth temperature versus Time curve BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE.... So the "errors" in fit are MEANINGLESS. It is simply to establish the dtemp/dtime.... Go be a victim...

Or better yet -- go bug the market analysts on Wall Street for applying trend lines to high variance data.. Tell THEM they can't do that unless their p-values are appropriate..

@Flac

And yet, for allll your ranting, you've said nothing that changes the fact that the OP and the article that it highlights are irrelevant because the graph is meaningless. It is mesningless because the regression has no meaning.

Every statistic that is calculated using sum of squares has an associated p-value that defnes the significance of the statistic. And every coefficient has a conficdence imterval. Lacking those, the regression line is meaningless. And everything hinges on that. The line is insignificant. Watt's conclusions are insignificant. The OP is insignificant. And your opinions are insignificant.

If you cannot address the fundamentals of the science correctly, then nothing you have to present has any significance.

And it is obvious to everyone here that all you can do is whine.

 

[itfitzme]

The webpage that explains linear regression is

Regression Slope: Confidence Interval

It is perfect for the discussion here. At the end of the lesson, it has a practice problem that I repeat here;

Test Your Understanding of This Lesson
Problem 1

The local utility company surveys 101 randomly selected customers. For each survey participant, the company collects the following: annual electric bill (in dollars) and home size (in square feet). Output from a regression analysis appears below.

Regression equation: Annual bill = 0.55 * Home size + 15
Predictor........Coef.........SE Coef....T...........P
Constant........15.............3..............5.0.....0.00
Home size....0.55 ...........0.24........2.29.....0.01

What is the 99% confidence interval for the slope of the regression line?

(A) 0.25 to 0.85
(B) 0.02 to 1.08
(C) -0.08 to 1.18
(D) 0.20 to 1.30
(E) 0.30 to 1.40

The table is the typical format for a complete linear regression. Each coefficient is presented with its standard error, the t statistic and the p-value.

The p-value for the slope is 0.01 which is acceptable at the 99% level of confidence.

What makes this example so perfect for the discussion at hand is that the solution is (C). Appropriately, the confidence interval ranges from -0.08 to 1.18.

The regression line for Watts graph is no different. The slope, which some would like to believe is a single value, is given as a range over which the regression is valid.

If the graph presented were genuine then the slope would be given with the standard error and the confidence interval.

The reason it isn't, is simple. The confidence interval for the slope varies from positive to negative exactly like the example presented.

 

[itfitzme]

Dave....bookmark this guy and check him out regularly >>>

The Church of Progammed Perception « Jon Rappoport's Blog


Guy is a genius.......writes all the time about what is known as "consensus reality" and "programmed perceptions" and how clever people dupe bubble dwellers like Crick and Mamooth. Real interesting stuff.......talks a lot about the "Reality Manufacturing Company" and how easy it is for these perception engineers to dupe the suckers hook, line and stinker. Dave.....much of what all of us have come to know is methodically spoon fed to us......this matrix. Most interesting? The hopelessly duped cling desperately to consensus reality because to face the real reality is terrifying........finding out that the "official reports" from "official news sources" are nothing but a load of total BS.......engineered reality. Take a close look at 9/11 or Sandy Hook......total snow jobs if you take a close look. Elaborate hoaxes put on like a Broadway play and bought by the suckers. Hard to swallow......but its all plain as the nose on your face if you have the balls to face it.

You can only be discussing yourself as you've never once demonstated any capacity for umderstanding the science. You have no capacity for knowing who does or does not fit the description. Without the ability to do the science, you know nothing about the subject.

 

[itfitzme]

Dave....bookmark this guy and check him out regularly >>>

The Church of Progammed Perception « Jon Rappoport's Blog


Guy is a genius.......writes all the time about what is known as "consensus reality" and "programmed perceptions" and how clever people dupe bubble dwellers like Crick and Mamooth. Real interesting stuff.......talks a lot about the "Reality Manufacturing Company" and how easy it is for these perception engineers to dupe the suckers hook, line and stinker. Dave.....much of what all of us have come to know is methodically spoon fed to us......this matrix. Most interesting? The hopelessly duped cling desperately to consensus reality because to face the real reality is terrifying........finding out that the "official reports" from "official news sources" are nothing but a load of total BS.......engineered reality. Take a close look at 9/11 or Sandy Hook......total snow jobs if you take a close look. Elaborate hoaxes put on like a Broadway play and bought by the suckers. Hard to swallow......but its all plain as the nose on your face if you have the balls to face it.

You can only be discussing yourself as you've never once demonstated any capacity for umderstanding the science. You have no capacity for knowing who does or does not fit the description. Without the ability to do the science, you know nothing about the subject which makes you the "hopelessly duped."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See, when there's a discrepancy between reality and the AGWCult Model, it's obvious that reality is a DENIER! in need of adjustment

 

[itfitzme]

See, when there's a discrepancy between reality and the AGWCult Model, it's obvious that reality is a DENIER! in need of adjustment

And your opinion is good for what?

 

[skookerasbil]

Dave....bookmark this guy and check him out regularly >>>

The Church of Progammed Perception « Jon Rappoport's Blog


Guy is a genius.......writes all the time about what is known as "consensus reality" and "programmed perceptions" and how clever people dupe bubble dwellers like Crick and Mamooth. Real interesting stuff.......talks a lot about the "Reality Manufacturing Company" and how easy it is for these perception engineers to dupe the suckers hook, line and stinker. Dave.....much of what all of us have come to know is methodically spoon fed to us......this matrix. Most interesting? The hopelessly duped cling desperately to consensus reality because to face the real reality is terrifying........finding out that the "official reports" from "official news sources" are nothing but a load of total BS.......engineered reality. Take a close look at 9/11 or Sandy Hook......total snow jobs if you take a close look. Elaborate hoaxes put on like a Broadway play and bought by the suckers. Hard to swallow......but its all plain as the nose on your face if you have the balls to face it.

You can only be discussing yourself as you've never once demonstated any capacity for umderstanding the science. You have no capacity for knowing who does or does not fit the description. Without the ability to do the science, you know nothing about the subject which makes you the "hopelessly duped."

Like I care?


Show me where the science is mattering in the real world s0n??


Nobody in this forum who is also an AGW k00k has been able to come up with one answer.........ever.


But here is close to 100 links that say unequivocally.........nobody is caring about the science!!!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


And here is the graph that pretty much sums it up........oh....and it comes straight from your messiah too!!! s0n.....its an internet hobby!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

nOt wInNiNg

 

[flacaltenn]

It's real simple. Every regression requires the test for statistical significance for it to have any meaning. When the regression is run, then p-value is also provided. It's just real basic stuff. Not doing it, not presenting with the graph is because of a) a lack of understanding of the fundamentals or b) it doesn't support the the bs.

Linear regression ALWAYS REQUIRES that the coefficients be tested significance. The reason is obvious. The complete equation that represents the data is F(X) = aX + b + e. e is the error, the diffence between the model and the data. The error term has a variance. Can you explain what the mean of the error is?


So, seeing as you are lacking the basic knowlede, I will explain it for you. There are two coeficients that linear regression calculates. These are the slope of the line and the constant. Whe these are calculated, the program also calculates the p-value. The p-value is used to determine if the coefficients are statistically significant. These are comared to the alpha which sets the level of statistical significance that is desired for the test to be interpreted as acceptable. The alpha valuesbate the cuttoff points for acceptance of the coefficient. Typical alphas that are used set the cuttoff value at 90%, 95%, and 99%.

Without th p-value, the linear trend line has no meaning.

The probem with regession slopes near zero is that the p-value is nearly always to large and the coeffcient meaningless.

I can guarantee from inspection that the p-value, for the graph in question, is to large for the regression line to have any meaning. There are not enough data points and the variance is to great.

But you don't have to take my word for it. You can do it yourself. But you won't, and Watt didn't because the result will invalidate what you want to believe. This is what you always do.

You couldn't carry a pencil for a real mathematician.. The purpose of a trend line is to estimate the 1st derivative of a data set. That is always a USEFUL estimate in that sense.. Even in the presence of data with high deviation or noise. No different than a selective filtering operation to accentuate different derivatives of the process.. Problem with poor math education is that they tell you WHAT TO DO -- but rarely explain what the tools are actually for.. Where your "education" failed you is that nobody is ATTEMPTING to find the underlying equation for the Earth temperature versus Time curve BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE.... So the "errors" in fit are MEANINGLESS. It is simply to establish the dtemp/dtime.... Go be a victim...

Or better yet -- go bug the market analysts on Wall Street for applying trend lines to high variance data.. Tell THEM they can't do that unless their p-values are appropriate..

@Flac

And yet, for allll your ranting, you've said nothing that changes the fact that the OP and the article that it highlights are irrelevant because the graph is meaningless. It is mesningless because the regression has no meaning.

Every statistic that is calculated using sum of squares has an associated p-value that defnes the significance of the statistic. And every coefficient has a conficdence imterval. Lacking those, the regression line is meaningless. And everything hinges on that. The line is insignificant. Watt's conclusions are insignificant. The OP is insignificant. And your opinions are insignificant.

If you cannot address the fundamentals of the science correctly, then nothing you have to present has any significance.

And it is obvious to everyone here that all you can do is whine.

Half my day is spent working with people that have a correct answer.. But they are working the wrong problem.. WHEN to apply certain tests and how to INTERPRET those tests is more important than mindlessly following the functions offered in Excel..

So --- If I run a 3 or 4 year low pass filter over the temp chart data to "smooth" the high frequency data --- Have I affected the 1st derivative (slope) estimate? (remember that error term of the regression is ASSUMED to have specific properties for the P-test)

After I filter and the variance is REDUCED -- fit that to the best trend line.. Is the P-Value BETTER or WORSE?

Actually -- the number of samples is far more important to the significance of the slope estimation in this case than goodness of the raw linear fit of the data.

 

[Crick]

A safe assumption is that the newer dataset is more accurate. That would be the paranoia-free position.

The difference between the two, as explained by the people who did the adjusting, is that such adjustments correct for errors and differences such as time-of day, location changes, analog to digital and general magic ;-),

Why go back and alter data from over 50 years ago? What is the reason for altering it?

Wow...

If you don't care whether its accurate, why do you care if it even exists?

 

[daveman]

A safe assumption is that the newer dataset is more accurate. That would be the paranoia-free position.

The difference between the two, as explained by the people who did the adjusting, is that such adjustments correct for errors and differences such as time-of day, location changes, analog to digital and general magic ;-),

Why go back and alter data from over 50 years ago? What is the reason for altering it?

Wow...

If you don't care whether its accurate, why do you care if it even exists?

How do you know it's inaccurate?