Their rationale:Basically, the choice of intervals is ultimately arbitrary but is structured around the data sets themselves. The starting point (1900) is where direct observations are most reliable (however, I would assert that indirect observations have a comparable level of reliability prior to that period, as well) and the end point (1960) is where climate "stability" was most notably disrupted. By comparing that particular reference period with a relatively recent time interval, it draws attention to the distinct difference between what we ourselves have experienced in the immediate past and what was historically recorded before most of us were probably born.
It's just one of many ways to convey the basic message that average temperatures have increased over a relatively short period of time. It's not meant to trick you into believing something that isn't demonstrably true but rather meant to communicate a comprehensive set of observations in a terse, relatable (and media-friendly) way.
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
This is why statistics should be more widely taught, starting in high school or earlier. All you really need is an understanding of algebra.
Regression testing is very common. Creating a data baseline to compare if something is statistically significant is done all the time. OLS, the workhorse of so many industries.
As Raveal pointed out hypothesis testing can be done incorrectly; methodologies could be crap, underlying assumptions could skew results, data could be sampled/cleaned incorrectly, etc.
I think the more people who have had to actually setup an experiment and write a paper explaining their data and methodolgy sections, we might have less stupid arguments. Not less arguments, just more informed ones.
Regression testing is very common. Creating a data baseline to compare if something is statistically significant is done all the time. OLS, the workhorse of so many industries.
As Raveal pointed out hypothesis testing can be done incorrectly; methodologies could be crap, underlying assumptions could skew results, data could be sampled/cleaned incorrectly, etc.
I think the more people who have had to actually setup an experiment and write a paper explaining their data and methodolgy sections, we might have less stupid arguments. Not less arguments, just more informed ones.
[+]
Must be true. They have graphs and everything.
Bahamut.Kara said: »
This is why statistics should be more widely taught, starting in high school or earlier. All you really need is an understanding of algebra.
Well, algebra is all you need for basic statistics at least. I think a statistics class should be required in high school, but I'm a tad biased.
Quote:
Regression testing is very common. Creating a data baseline to compare if something is statistically significant is done all the time. OLS, the workhorse of so many industries.
As Raveal pointed out hypothesis testing can be done incorrectly; methodologies could be crap, underlying assumptions could skew results, data could be sampled/cleaned incorrectly, etc.
I think the more people who have had to actually setup an experiment and write a paper explaining their data and methodolgy sections, we might have less stupid arguments. Not less arguments, just more informed ones.
As Raveal pointed out hypothesis testing can be done incorrectly; methodologies could be crap, underlying assumptions could skew results, data could be sampled/cleaned incorrectly, etc.
I think the more people who have had to actually setup an experiment and write a paper explaining their data and methodolgy sections, we might have less stupid arguments. Not less arguments, just more informed ones.
Holy crap yes. On top of that, I think one of the most important things that can be taught early on in school is just general skepticism. Not outright doubt, but skepticism. Towards everything. It doesn't matter if your mom said it, your teacher said it, some doctor said it, or the smartest guy you know said it. I had several friends who would cling to false information no matter what contrary evidence was shown to them, simply because someone they trusted told them otherwise and "Why would they lie?" And I'm not talking specifically about politics either. I have a friend whose dad sunk all 15 billiard balls on a single break. Yup, screw the laws of physics and probability, that really happened because his dad said so.
[+]
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
So is global warming real or not?
Depends on how you define the issue.
Is the planet getting hotter? Undeniably.
Is it a Significant Threat? To Some, not to others.
Is it Accelerated by Mankind to a significant degree? Data Insufficient.
Can we do anything about it?
So, when is the planet going to explode again?
And do we blame Bush for it?
And do we blame Bush for it?
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
lol, I have no idea where that first link got that 31,487 number since it's completely uncited. For all I know, they made it up.
This is what hypothesis testing is designed for - to test if two (or more) values, in this case average temperature, are actually (that is, statistically) different from each other and provide an estimate of how reliable those results are.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Altimaomega said: »
ffs dude why are you totally ignoring the fact that 1901-1960 and 1991-2012 will have a different avg. no matter what! When you avg. out 59yrs your gonna have a more reliable avg. from what you get when you avg. out 11yrs. IF they was BOTH the same MAYBE we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that and they still only have a 2 degree difference its surprising its not more if the earth is really warming so much.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Why not just take 1902-1942 and 1972-2012 and leave out the Assumption.
that's not how an average works...
Odin.Jassik said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
lol, I have no idea where that first link got that 31,487 number since it's completely uncited. For all I know, they made it up.
This is what hypothesis testing is designed for - to test if two (or more) values, in this case average temperature, are actually (that is, statistically) different from each other and provide an estimate of how reliable those results are.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Altimaomega said: »
ffs dude why are you totally ignoring the fact that 1901-1960 and 1991-2012 will have a different avg. no matter what! When you avg. out 59yrs your gonna have a more reliable avg. from what you get when you avg. out 11yrs. IF they was BOTH the same MAYBE we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that and they still only have a 2 degree difference its surprising its not more if the earth is really warming so much.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Why not just take 1902-1942 and 1972-2012 and leave out the Assumption.
that's not how a selective average works...
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
So, when is the planet going to explode again?
And do we blame Bush for it?
And do we blame Bush for it?
[+]
It is going to be 82 today is that enough climate change for a Friday or does it have to hit 84 ?
Breaking news today Tom: The temperate in Chicago is going to reach 212 we caution you to wear a light jacket. And to drink water at least once in a while.
Breaking news today Tom: The temperate in Chicago is going to reach 212 we caution you to wear a light jacket. And to drink water at least once in a while.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
So, when is the planet going to explode again?
And do we blame Bush for it?
And do we blame Bush for it?
Bush was around when the Earth was just forming getting ready to invade what would soon become Iraq.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
lol, I have no idea where that first link got that 31,487 number since it's completely uncited. For all I know, they made it up.
This is what hypothesis testing is designed for - to test if two (or more) values, in this case average temperature, are actually (that is, statistically) different from each other and provide an estimate of how reliable those results are.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Altimaomega said: »
ffs dude why are you totally ignoring the fact that 1901-1960 and 1991-2012 will have a different avg. no matter what! When you avg. out 59yrs your gonna have a more reliable avg. from what you get when you avg. out 11yrs. IF they was BOTH the same MAYBE we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that and they still only have a 2 degree difference its surprising its not more if the earth is really warming so much.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Why not just take 1902-1942 and 1972-2012 and leave out the Assumption.
that's not how a selective average works...
no, averages are a way to compare different volumes of data, you can choose any year range, and the data is available. he's arguing that the difference in sample size instantly makes the average different, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of math.
don't misquote me again.
[+]
On behalf of the entire north coast of the united states, I move to stall any action on global warming until the winters near lakes erie and michigan suck about 65%-75% less... and if it costs us florida in the process, you won't hear any complaining from us...
thank you.
thank you.
[+]
Nothing's going to happen legislatively, so let's all just sit back, relax and wait for the impending armageddon.
"It's snowing in winter; global warming is debunked!"
"It's snowing in winter; global warming is debunked!"
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
lol, I have no idea where that first link got that 31,487 number since it's completely uncited. For all I know, they made it up.
This is what hypothesis testing is designed for - to test if two (or more) values, in this case average temperature, are actually (that is, statistically) different from each other and provide an estimate of how reliable those results are.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Altimaomega said: »
ffs dude why are you totally ignoring the fact that 1901-1960 and 1991-2012 will have a different avg. no matter what! When you avg. out 59yrs your gonna have a more reliable avg. from what you get when you avg. out 11yrs. IF they was BOTH the same MAYBE we wouldn't be having this discussion. All that and they still only have a 2 degree difference its surprising its not more if the earth is really warming so much.
2 degrees on average across an entire country is a big difference. This isn't like setting your thermostat from 70 to 72. I don't know how else to explain this.
Why not just take 1902-1942 and 1972-2012 and leave out the Assumption.
that's not how a selective average works...
no, averages are a way to compare different volumes of data, you can choose any year range, and the data is available. he's arguing that the difference in sample size instantly makes the average different, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of math.
Not only did they skew the timeframe by increasing the number of years by the "control" average, but there was a large gap between the "control" average and the "testing" average. Therefor, the results will be skewed for it.
Odin.Jassik said: »
please continue to correct me if I make a mistake.
Odin.Jassik said: »
no, averages are a way to compare different volumes of data, you can choose any year range, and the data is available. he's arguing that the difference in sample size instantly makes the average different, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of math.
True, but by the same token, you could say that the average temperature of 1312-1948 is less than the average temperature of 2012. The statement might be correct, but it isn't a fair comparison of sample sizes.
[+]
Bismarck.Magnuss said: »
Nothing's going to happen legislatively, so let's all just sit back, relax and wait for the impending armageddon.
"It's snowing in winter; global warming is debunked!"
"It's snowing in winter; global warming is debunked!"
Armageddon that was a terrible film.
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
On behalf of the entire north coast of the united states, I move to stall any action on global warming until the winters near lakes erie and michigan suck about 65%-75% less... and if it costs us florida in the process, you won't hear any complaining from us...
thank you.
thank you.
No weather controlling devices or death-rays yet please Nik.
"Control" is not there to "control" you.
They used 59 years as a baseline. They have stated why they used it as a baseline. The 30 years they chose to show they also stated why.
Then they they regressed it to check for statistical significance.
This is simple statistics. (Not the regression they did, but the basic processes)
They used 59 years as a baseline. They have stated why they used it as a baseline. The 30 years they chose to show they also stated why.
Then they they regressed it to check for statistical significance.
This is simple statistics. (Not the regression they did, but the basic processes)
On a side note, I always have to question the data when they compare periods of different length. Why compare the average of a 60 year period against the average of a 20 year period?
Either they don't have enough data to compare two 60 year periods, or they do, but doing so would disprove their argument.
Either they don't have enough data to compare two 60 year periods, or they do, but doing so would disprove their argument.
[+]
I don't wanna close my eyes... I don't wanna faaaaaaaaall asleep, 'cause I miss you, baby; and I don't wanna miss a thang!
[+]
Fenrir.Atheryn said: »
On a side note, I always have to question the data when they compare periods of different length. Why compare the average of a 60 year period against the average of a 20 year period?
Either they don't have enough data to compare two 60 year periods, or they do, but doing so would disprove their argument.
Either they don't have enough data to compare two 60 year periods, or they do, but doing so would disprove their argument.
I'd also recommend you review time series regression for any time period analysis questions
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: »
"Control" is not there to "control" you.
They used 59 years as a baseline. They have stated why they used it as a baseline. The 30 years they chose to show they also stated why.
Then they they regressed it to check for statistical significance.
This is simple statistics. (Not the regression they did, but the basic processes)
They used 59 years as a baseline. They have stated why they used it as a baseline. The 30 years they chose to show they also stated why.
Then they they regressed it to check for statistical significance.
This is simple statistics. (Not the regression they did, but the basic processes)
Maybe I used the word wrong?
Edit: Doesn't look like it
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Pleebo already gave their reasoning. First post on this page.
Heck, even I could see the BS for what it is, and I'm not a climate scientist.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Fenrir.Atheryn said: »
On a side note, I always have to question the data when they compare periods of different length. Why compare the average of a 60 year period against the average of a 20 year period?
Either they don't have enough data to compare two 60 year periods, or they do, but doing so would disprove their argument.
Either they don't have enough data to compare two 60 year periods, or they do, but doing so would disprove their argument.
I'd also recommend you review time series regression for any time period analysis questions
I'd rather just kick them a clue: The Petrol-Industrial Revolution is only 75yrs old. Let them figure it out from there.
[+]
Why not just say "It's Bush's fault" and get it over with and move on?
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Why not just say "It's Bush's fault" and get it over with and move on?
Because you would cry, that all we ever do is blame Bush.
I blame Al Gore. Because Man-Bear-Pig. And he created the environment.
And he's super cereal.
And needs a friend.
And he's super cereal.
And needs a friend.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Why not just say "It's Bush's fault" and get it over with and move on?
Because you would cry, that all we ever do is blame Bush.
No, I can't make that claim. Bush was just the puppet; Cheney was the nightmarish fiend pulling the strings.
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Why not just say "It's Bush's fault" and get it over with and move on?
[+]
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.