The Global Warming Conspiracy

[glockmail]

Define "unknown statistically significant variable"

You haven't specifically stated what your problem with the method is, you've only made general remarks. I sort of have the feeling you aren't at all even familiar with the method. Can you state in a paragraph or less how the method works? Probably not. Yet you dismiss it as flawed. This is because you have decided the method must be wrong since it does not lead to the conclusions you'd like it to, without having even investigating how the method works.

Do I have it right?

1. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics. Take a course and ask your prof.
2. As you’ve described it. As I’ve described it, it takes a lot of research to analyze a single station, and again, and was so clearly demonstrated to you, day by day unknown statistically significant variables can affect the data.

[SpidermanTUba]

1. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics. Take a course and ask your prof.

Oh, I see, you don't know the definition. You'd think if it were an actual phrase used by statisticians, it would show up in a google search. But it doesn't.

2. As you’ve described it. As I’ve described it, it takes a lot of research to analyze a single station, and again, and was so clearly demonstrated to you, day by day unknown statistically significant variables can affect the data.

Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

[Said1]

Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

Are you? Please define and name - no need for cut and paste, your own words will do fine as I'm sort of familiar with the gist and terminology.

[SpidermanTUba]

Are you? Please define and name - no need for cut and paste, your own words will do fine as I'm sort of familiar with the gist and terminology.

Karl, T.R., and C.W. Williams, Jr., 1987: An approach to adjusting climatological time series for discontinuous inhomogeneities, J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 26, 1744-1763.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...26-12-1744.pdf

glockmail is apparently unable to tell me what's wrong with the method, except that he knows its wrong.

The method, in brief, involves taking pairs of stations in the same region and differencing their sychronous measurements. If the resulting series of differences make up a random set of numbers, the two stations are relatively homogenous. If the set of differences is not entirely random (say one station always registers a temperature higher than the other, plus some random distribution on top of it) - then the stations are not relatively homogenous. By taking every possible pair in the region, its possible to determine what the errors are for each station without having to know their cause.

[glockmail]

Oh, I see, you don't know the definition. You'd think if it were an actual phrase used by statisticians, it would show up in a google search. But it doesn't.



Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

I sse that you're a "google scientist". That explains why you don't understand my own original words.

I'm interested in a your response from Said1 as well, in your own words.

[SpidermanTUba]

I sse that you're a "google scientist".

Pretty much every scientist uses google or some internet service to track down references. I'm sorry I don't go to the library and use a card catalogue to find the physical journal so I can take it to the copy machine and copy 20 pages one at a time any more, I like to do research quicker than that.

That explains why you don't understand my own original words.

You don't understand your original words. You make up phrases like "unknown statistically significant variable" and then you're incapable of defining it.

I'm interested in a your response from Said1 as well, in your own words.

Ok. Then READ the above post.


Now you can answer my question:
Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

Until you respond, i'll just assume the answer is "no" and that you did in fact dismiss a method that you know nothing about because you don't like the conclusions it leads to.

[glockmail]

Pretty much every scientist uses google or some internet service to track down references. I'm sorry I don't go to the library and use a card catalogue to find the physical journal so I can take it to the copy machine and copy 20 pages one at a time any more, I like to do research quicker than that.

You don't understand your original words. You make up phrases like "unknown statistically significant variable" and then you're incapable of defining it.

Ok. Then READ the above post.

Now you can answer my question:
Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

Until you respond, i'll just assume the answer is "no" and that you did in fact dismiss a method that you know nothing about because you don't like the conclusions it leads to.

1. Thanks for verifying my assumptions about your capabilities. Before google we had card files, but they are basically the same thing.
2. If you can’t understand how “unknown” and “statistically significant” modify “variable” then I can’t help you.
3. Oh lookie here, it appears that the scientist who wrote the paper that you cited agrees with me:

1) Accurate and complete station history information is essential to this method. Unfortunately, even with the detailed station histories compiled for the HCN, some stations do not have complete station histories as shown in section 4;
2) station histories rarely include information on environmental changes around the station;

[SpidermanTUba]

1. Thanks for verifying my assumptions about your capabilities. Before google we had card files, but they are basically the same thing.

You can safely assume that everyone knows how to use google now. As for card catalogues, I'm old enough I actually know how to use one - but barely. By the time I finished high school they were obsolete.
I use http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html for my research usually.

What do you use to track down papers?

2. If you can’t understand how “unknown” and “statistically significant” modify “variable” then I can’t help you.

I understand what all those words mean individually. You used them in a phrase. Please define precisely what it means. If you don't want to define it, then don't - but don't use it in your arguments. One of the very basic rules of debate is to not use terms you are incapable of defining.



3. Oh lookie here, it appears that the scientist who wrote the paper that you cited agrees with me:[/QUOTE]

1) Only "some stations do not have complete station histories". As described in Hansel et al 1999 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/...ansen_etal.pdf), stations with insufficient completeness of historical data are eliminated from the survey.

2) This is true, but these stations can also be eliminated by quality control. Stations which experience sudden changes in the monthly mean compared to the long term mean for that month in the area are eliminated. (if they are over a certain number of variances from the mean, I think its 5). Also, the predominant cause of environmental bias - urbanization - is adjusted for as described in the Hansen paper.

[glockmail]

I'll give you the opportunity to fix your messed up quotations. Your last post is as confused as you obviously are!

[SpidermanTUba]

You seriously can't figure out which words are your own? Wow. OK.

1. Thanks for verifying my assumptions about your capabilities. Before google we had card files, but they are basically the same thing.

You can safely assume that everyone knows how to use google now. As for card catalogues, I'm old enough I actually know how to use one - but barely. By the time I finished high school they were obsolete.
I use http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html for my research usually.

What do you use to track down papers?

EDIT: Google and card catalogues are not basically the same thing.

Quote:
2. If you can’t understand how “unknown” and “statistically significant” modify “variable” then I can’t help you.

I understand what all those words mean individually. You used them in a phrase. Please define precisely what it means. If you don't want to define it, then don't - but don't use it in your arguments. One of the very basic rules of debate is to not use terms you are incapable of defining.

3. Oh lookie here, it appears that the scientist who wrote the paper that you cited agrees with me:

1) Only "some stations do not have complete station histories". As described in Hansel et al 1999 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/...ansen_etal.pdf), stations with insufficient completeness of historical data are eliminated from the survey.

2) This is true, but these stations can also be eliminated by quality control. Stations which experience sudden changes in the monthly mean compared to the long term mean for that month in the area are eliminated. (if they are over a certain number of variances from the mean, I think its 5). Also, the predominant cause of environmental bias - urbanization - is adjusted for as described in the Hansen paper.

[glockmail]

Again, according to your citation: "Accurate and complete station history information is essential to this method. Unfortunately, even with the detailed station histories compiled for the HCN, some stations do not have complete station historie... station histories rarely include information on environmental changes around the station."

[SpidermanTUba]

Again, according to your citation: "Accurate and complete station history information is essential to this method. Unfortunately, even with the detailed station histories compiled for the HCN, some stations do not have complete station historie... station histories rarely include information on environmental changes around the station."

Here, in case you missed it the first two times:

1) Only "some stations do not have complete station histories". As described in Hansel et al 1999 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/...ansen_etal.pdf), stations with insufficient completeness of historical data are eliminated from the survey.

2) This is true (station histories rarely include information on environmental changes around the station), but problem stations can also be eliminated by quality control. Stations which experience sudden changes in the monthly mean compared to the long term mean for that month in the area are eliminated. (if they are over a certain number of variances from the mean, I think its 5). Also, the predominant cause of environmental bias - urbanization - is adjusted for as described in the Hansen paper.



And



What do you use to track down papers?




And



Please define "unknown statistically significant variable"

[glockmail]

I don't need to track down papers, TU-bee. I have actual knowledge.

I can see that you are upset about that, with the repetitive nature of your posts and all.

[SpidermanTUba]

I don't need to track down papers, TU-bee. I have actual knowledge.

I can see that you are upset about that, with the repetitive nature of your posts and all.

Here, I'll fix your quote for you:

I don't need to track down papers, TU-bee, because I don't read any. I simply decide what is scientific truth and what isn't from reading conservative blogs and watching FOX News. I have no idea how modern scientists do research, I just thought I'd make fun of you for using Google because I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about.

I can see that you are confused, because I've been pretending to be so smart, yet have yet to demonstrate knowledge of anything. But I'm smarter than all the world scientists because I watch FOX News and think sometimes about stuff. Their specialized knowledge and experimental results are nothing compared to my brilliant mind's ability to simply divine what the truth is by thinking hard enough and reading conservative blogs. I'm so smart! So much smarter than you, I don't even have to demonstrate evidence of my intelligence!

Is that about right?

Seriously, you know everything? Its all in your head, every piece of knowledge possible to know? You really think anyone will believe that? Are you as stupid as you think everyone else is?


OK, you've already answered my question about what you use to find papers (you apparently believe NOT finding papers is the best way to find papers, pretty stupid if you ask me.)

There's still this one:



Please define "unknown statistically significant variable"

[Said1]

I'm interested in a your response from Said1 as well, in your own words.

I know he's banned, but I'd like to comment anyway. Firstly, he did give a brief, accurate blurb in his own words and provided a decent link for those who might be interested. Thankfully, because I sure as hell didn't feel like doing it.

I was going to offer this http://www.met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id...&tfi=boroneant if anyone cares to take a look at it.

Secondly, anyone who needs to do research uses google or some internet data base or another, get over it.