tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post6427915757312254244..comments2024-01-26T23:04:49.482+11:00Comments on Gust Of Hot Air: Significant Urban Heat Island in MelbourneJonathan Lowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-11703029061790181982010-02-06T21:15:29.555+11:002010-02-06T21:15:29.555+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-44679595480162814122007-11-10T08:33:00.000+11:002007-11-10T08:33:00.000+11:00nonoJonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-19069667612446518542007-11-10T08:28:00.000+11:002007-11-10T08:28:00.000+11:00Are you saying that you don't believe in the Steph...Are you saying that you don't believe in the Stephan Boltzmann equation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-68770370741830849172007-11-10T08:23:00.000+11:002007-11-10T08:23:00.000+11:00no of course not, but there is no experiemental ev...no of course not, but there is no experiemental evidence to prove how much of a difference it makes.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-76198429461980437122007-11-10T08:01:00.000+11:002007-11-10T08:01:00.000+11:00So are you saying that CO2 does not selectively ab...So are you saying that CO2 does not selectively absorb outgoing long wave radiation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-77377499343857342092007-11-10T07:58:00.000+11:002007-11-10T07:58:00.000+11:00well there is for starters not one piece of empiri...well there is for starters not one piece of empirical experiemental evidence that links CO2 greenhouse gases with GW. Junk science has a $125k prize if you come up with it.<BR/><BR/>That said, it is of course very hard to come up with experimental evidence for GW. The main evidence for man induced GW comes fr climate models, which, well, lol.<BR/><BR/>Almost every week new reports are coming out blaming different things on GW. Hardly convincing proof.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-25529533169902002862007-11-10T03:00:00.000+11:002007-11-10T03:00:00.000+11:00Well, if you don't see your internal contradiction...Well, if you don't see your internal contradiction I need to spell it out from example. As a skeptic, please confirm for me that the world is not a figment of you own imagination. List the empirical evidence to the contrary and show me how this premise leads to contradiction. Do you live in the real world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-49421855228159014242007-11-10T00:24:00.000+11:002007-11-10T00:24:00.000+11:00yes, i agree with both those 2 comments. Climate s...yes, i agree with both those 2 comments. Climate science is an immature science so should be dealt with a reasonable deal of healthy skepticism, which has defined by the previous one occurs when there is a lack of empirical evidence.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you are trying to say.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-69077917392754177532007-11-10T00:03:00.000+11:002007-11-10T00:03:00.000+11:00"And climate science, being an immature science, d..."And climate science, being an immature science, deserves a reasonable amount of skepticism, especially as there is a lac of empirical evidence and many contradictory research results."<BR/><BR/>And we have two here from Jonathon regarding skepticismAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-70735433742370351152007-11-09T21:30:00.000+11:002007-11-09T21:30:00.000+11:00No I said this about skepticism:"Scientific skepti...No I said this about skepticism:<BR/><BR/>"Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism is a scientific or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. Scientific skepticism utilizes critical thinking and attempts to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis."<BR/><BR/>You ask, what would a skeptic think of that? I presume you mean a "climate skeptic" or better, someone who doesn't believe in man made GW. I am not a skeptic by that terrible definition, however I am skeptical of man made global warming due to lack of empirical evidence.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-43815965687021378052007-11-09T17:28:00.000+11:002007-11-09T17:28:00.000+11:00But you said that skepticism was a methodology of ...But you said that skepticism was a methodology of reconciling contradictory evidence given the fact that climate science is a young science with many unknowns. You are now saying something else, ie a lack of evidence. What would a skeptic make of that? Should they be skeptical of your skepticism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-20526046441496911642007-11-09T17:16:00.000+11:002007-11-09T17:16:00.000+11:00I have a healthy dose of skepticism, mainly over s...I have a healthy dose of skepticism, mainly over statistical analysis. Eg, the CSIRO claiming how much water has decreased in southern and eastern australia, in part due to global warming since 1950, when analysis shows an increase in rainfall in the last 50 years compared to the 50 before that. <BR/><BR/>Some states showed a significant increase, whilst others showed that the only difference was due to random variation and noise.<BR/><BR/>This is a blatant misuse of the data and the statistical tests in their analysis was nowhere to be found.<BR/><BR/>I am skeptical of their findings because of the lack of empirical statistically sound evidence.<BR/><BR/>I am not skeptical of the data.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-52937086726628871612007-11-09T17:10:00.000+11:002007-11-09T17:10:00.000+11:00So where is that healthy dose of skepticism now?So where is that healthy dose of skepticism now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-32632593216163944462007-11-09T16:49:00.000+11:002007-11-09T16:49:00.000+11:00well thats why one should use statistical tests of...well thats why one should use statistical tests of significance to prove whether a relationship exists due to a certain factor or if it exists due to experimental error/natural variation or noise.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-21927132122952100662007-11-09T16:46:00.000+11:002007-11-09T16:46:00.000+11:00Well, if the combination of experimental and analy...Well, if the combination of experimental and analytical is never normally distributed that means that given the noisiness of atmospheric data any incomplete experimental design will lead to significant and potentially correlated residuals between prediction and observation. Now as a skeptic what would you make of these residuals?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-58351071607727103962007-11-09T16:20:00.000+11:002007-11-09T16:20:00.000+11:00i guess, why?i guess, why?Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-25128851365886229382007-11-09T15:52:00.000+11:002007-11-09T15:52:00.000+11:00it is obviously different for different variables....it is obviously different for different variables.<BR/><BR/>So never purely random with a normal distribution then?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-46057893400882375892007-11-09T15:39:00.000+11:002007-11-09T15:39:00.000+11:00I think we are talking about the same thing. the d...I think we are talking about the same thing. the distribution of experimental error, like faults in the experiment and design and like UHI are not by definition distributed in one particular way. it is obviously different for different variables.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-60849782181419132312007-11-09T15:32:00.000+11:002007-11-09T15:32:00.000+11:00Well, you must be the only statistician on earth w...Well, you must be the only statistician on earth who defines it that way. Most people define it as resulting from faults in the experimental design, due say to processes like an urban heat island. Is that Gaussian?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-45317076147698384882007-11-09T15:26:00.000+11:002007-11-09T15:26:00.000+11:00by analytical error I mean error based on misuse o...by analytical error I mean error based on misuse of statistical methodology, its distribution is obviously unknownJonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-90502591691472482642007-11-09T15:21:00.000+11:002007-11-09T15:21:00.000+11:00When is analytical error ever normally distributed...When is analytical error ever normally distributed? Give me one example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-65163471010030761492007-11-09T14:52:00.000+11:002007-11-09T14:52:00.000+11:00well all measurements have an experimental error, ...well all measurements have an experimental error, not technically the dataset. Analytical error is something else, and the error might or might not be normally distributed, hence the need for statistical tests to prove or disprove significance.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-26443238121151708582007-11-08T08:58:00.000+11:002007-11-08T08:58:00.000+11:00Well, as a statistician you will be able to answer...Well, as a statistician you will be able to answer this. All datasets have an experimental and analytical error component that when combined will have a residual from theoretical prediction which is not normally distributed. Correct?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-14565837348772035042007-11-08T08:42:00.000+11:002007-11-08T08:42:00.000+11:00well data is easily obtainable from just about any...well data is easily obtainable from just about anyone, and most datasets are fine in regards to their accuracy. Get 20 people together to analyse the dataset and you'll get 20 different results. Not because thats how it works, but because most people who are not statisticians do not apply to correct methods of statistics to the data and hence get wrong results.Jonathan Lowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13972477779077598483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36333052.post-12431952341264693822007-11-08T08:35:00.000+11:002007-11-08T08:35:00.000+11:00Analysis. OK, you use excel right? I'm sure you ...Analysis. OK, you use excel right? I'm sure you know about the excel bug<BR/><BR/>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/24/2339203&from=rss<BR/><BR/>So how many other bugs are out there? Why is data separate to analysis in terms of skepticism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com