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

[mamooth]

Skook, don't be a spamming asswipe. Nobody really cares if you've humiliated yourself again on a different thread.

 

[IanC]

itfitzme's biggest problem with trying to claim CO2 causation of temperature increase is the 'hidden factor fallacy (or fraud)'.

it's like a wife saying that the family is going into $250 debt per month because her husband spends $250 on booze every month. perfect correlation. but then the husband says it's her fault because she spends 250 bucks a month on cigarettes. again perfect correlation. it depends on who defines the factors to be analyzed, and even whether all the factors are known. CO2 doesnt work so well in explaining the MWP or the LIA. but for the 80's and 90's it was perfect. now, not so much.

I'm not claiming anything except,watts,graph is ,wrong and west westwall doesn't know what he's talking about.

Oh, and you as well.

back when you first joined this MB you spent endless posts declaring that the correlation between temps and CO2 was ~0.8, and therefore CO2 was responsible for most of the increase.


is this the graph that you are stating is wrong?

it is simply a plot of CRN data. how can it be 'wrong'? it has triple redundant thermometers and no adjustments because of the excellent siting conditions. you can, as Watts did, say that it is not yet statistically significant because of the short time frame, but what are you saying is wrong about it?

 

[SSDD]

itfitzme's biggest problem with trying to claim CO2 causation of temperature increase is the 'hidden factor fallacy (or fraud)'.

it's like a wife saying that the family is going into $250 debt per month because her husband spends $250 on booze every month. perfect correlation. but then the husband says it's her fault because she spends 250 bucks a month on cigarettes. again perfect correlation. it depends on who defines the factors to be analyzed, and even whether all the factors are known. CO2 doesnt work so well in explaining the MWP or the LIA. but for the 80's and 90's it was perfect. now, not so much.

I'm not claiming anything except,watts,graph is ,wrong and west westwall doesn't know what he's talking about.

Oh, and you as well.

back when you first joined this MB you spent endless posts declaring that the correlation between temps and CO2 was ~0.8, and therefore CO2 was responsible for most of the increase.


is this the graph that you are stating is wrong?

it is simply a plot of CRN data. how can it be 'wrong'? it has triple redundant thermometers and no adjustments because of the excellent siting conditions. you can, as Watts did, say that it is not yet statistically significant because of the short time frame, but what are you saying is wrong about it?

My bet is that if the entire earth were covered by a network like CRN, the wackos would be back to ice age scares and somehow trying to make CO2 responsible. It is obvious that the earth's hot spots...those places whose temperatures are so high that they drive up the global mean are places that have next to no coverage and require much infilling which allows for much fabrication.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Half my day is spent working with people that have a correct answer.. But they are working the wrong problem..


So everyone at work think you're an idiot too.

They love me for my unlimited patience and humor..

How about we approach this from neutral ground.. I'll concede that that there IS a probability test for significance of that data, but you'd have to search the deep statistics lit for the PROPER way to handle it. AND I'll concede that the data shown in the graph NEEDS to be tecsted for significance. But the assumptions of a p-test for linear regression that you get out STANDARD Stat pkgs is not appropriate.

Here's the reason.. And I think I caught several people saying the same thing over the years --- It's bloody STUPID to be testing significance of the fit of ANY process that is HIGHLY SUSPECTED to have higher order components OR does not meet the limiting requirements of a p-test on slope. You can see this from folks that put R(sq) values on the same linear regressions of temperatures. You KNOW it's not linear -- why are you CORRELATING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE !!!

In the end the real problem that everyone wants to know here is when to declare that a temperature record has trendline that reaches significance. You are NOT testing an H(0) hypothesis on possible other slopes in a Normal distribution assuming that REAL temperatures are well behaved noise. So that problem is better solved by adding more degrees of freedom (more points) and using careful filtering to reduce the inherent variance BEFORE running a linear regression.. The problem is to estimate the 1st derivative --- NOT find the polynomial that describes the process. And that particular temp snippet is not long enough to run an adequate filter.

BUT -- that doesn't mean the GRAPH is garbage. Or the Trendline is garbage. It is what it is.... It would be much harder than you or Anthony Watts or even many of the climatologists think to test the REAL significance of these snippets..

That ^^^^^^^^ is why the folks I work with end up loving my crotchedy ass..

"but you'd have to search the deep statistics lit for the PROPER way to handle it".

Uh..no you don't. It's just introductory statistics.


"It's bloody STUPID to be testing significance of the fit of ANY process that is HIGHLY SUSPECTED to have higher order components OR does not meet the limiting requirements of a p-test on slope. "

Uh...the p-value IS the test for significance. What you just said is that it is stupid to test for significance if it isn't significant."

Uh... higher order components? You mean as in x^2? Now that's incorrect. The whole point of linear regression is to find the best fit for whatever components are worth consideration. This includes higher ordered components which are easily handled by performing the regression on x^2, x^3, even log(x). Once done, the residuals are tested to be sure they are entirely random.

" You can see this from folks that put R(sq) values on the same linear regressions of temperatures. You KNOW it's not linear -- why are you CORRELATING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE !!! "

Because it tweezes out the linear part. The R^2 is the percentage of the dependent variable that is accounted for by the independent variable.

"BUT -- that doesn't mean the GRAPH is garbage. Or the Trendline is garbage."

Sure it does. Without the test for the level of significance, the adj-R^2, and the confidence interval, the graph has no meaning.

Another problem is that the starting point Watt uses is entirely arbitrary.

 

[skookerasbil]

Skook, don't be a spamming asswipe. Nobody really cares if you've humiliated yourself again on a different thread.

s0n....of course I posted THIS up in the current events forum!!! A significant kick to the nut sacks of the global warming k00ks. Actually.......its fucking hysterical s0n!! This is k00k meltdown type stuff. Ive moved up to "spamming asswipe"......cool.....tells me and every other non-k00k that the religion is sitting home banging the shit out of their keyboards and their heads ready to pop!!! Its called Realville s0n.......but keep up the posts of anger and misery!!! They scream, "IM LOSING!!!"

 

[skookerasbil]

This is exactly why the AGW people are losing HUGE!!! They need to muzzle idiots like this >>>

Tyra Banks Says Beauty in the Future Will Mean Looking Different - WSJ

Im serious......most people look at this and say to themselves, "WTF!!?? Another Hollywood freak on climate change!!!". Its shit like this that makes people look at climate change as a joke.......but they keep sending these morons out there.