Arctic Ice Cap (Global Warming)

• Devils Advocate

  

  jmog;1502427 wrote: FYI, 90% confidence level in statistics is crap, in case you wanted to know.
  
  Fail again.

  So..... If 43% do not favor obama care....
• QuakerOats

  87% do not favor obamaKare, and the majority of The People want it repealed in its entirety.
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;1502448 wrote:87% do not favor obamaKare, and the majority of The People want it repealed in its entirety.

  Lol, I'd love to see your source for that. Both that 87% do not favor it and that >50% want it entirely repealed.
  
  Should be pretty good.
• fish82

  

  The average poll on Obiecare is about 53/43 against.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1502428 wrote:In that case, I would not pretend that my layman's reading of the literature has more validity than your professional expertise.

  Given your posting style/history I imagine it is unlikely that you would react in the calm manner that you suggest in this post. Your comments would probably be more along these lines if I had to venture a guess.
  

  queencitybuckeye;1471119 wrote:Your fallacy is that you are not a source. You may be (probably not but not impossible) an expert on something, but not in anything discussed on this forum. The opinion cited in the OP's link has validity whether you agree or not. You do not have the bona fides to get the same respect.

  And either way, I disagree. Rational and intelligent posters like many who post on this forum are perfectly capable of using an informed layman's understanding to challenge claims made by an expert when they readily deviate from the widely accepted point of view.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1502427 wrote:You do realize that the wiki article you just posted is someone saying that THEY are 90% confident GW is Anthropogenic, they did NOT say that 90% of scientists believe this.
  
  FYI, 90% confidence level in statistics is crap, in case you wanted to know.
  
  Fail again.

  The "They" is based on systematic reviews of the evidence stemming from research on the matter.
  

  This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

• Devils Advocate

  

  14% of r's favor obabacare. a whopping 22% favor the Affordabke heath care act of 2010! A 35 % increase!
  
  They like it a whole bunch more when BHO's name isnt on it.
• Heretic

  

  I Wear Pants;1502458 wrote:Lol, I'd love to see your source for that. Both that 87% do not favor it and that >50% want it entirely repealed.
  
  Should be pretty good.

  quakerhearsvoices dot com
• ts1227

  

  I Wear Pants;1502458 wrote:Lol, I'd love to see your source for that. Both that 87% do not favor it and that >50% want it entirely repealed.
  
  Should be pretty good.

  Columbiana County GOP chair likely just made shit up, and as his #1 minion Oats is obligated to disperse the propaganda. Sadly most of the county buys it
  
  Oh well, he's burnt enough bridges that they can't even get a GOP candidate to run for anything in Salem anymore. They all run as Independents
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1502475 wrote:The "They" is based on systematic reviews of the evidence stemming from research on the matter.

  "They" are still giving statistical confidence levels. That 90% was NOT 90% of scientists.
  
  You had it wrong.
• gut

  jmog;1502427 wrote: FYI, 90% confidence level in statistics is crap, in case you wanted to know.

  I believe most pharma/medical research goes with 99% CI's.
  
  It is truly garbage to overfit a model and STILL need a 90% CI to claim significance. That's only reinforced by how quickly and completely these models fail going forward.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1502509 wrote:"They" are still giving statistical confidence levels. That 90% was NOT 90% of scientists.
  
  You had it wrong.

  Like I said, we covered that previously. The rest of this is all available in the link;
  
  
  
  Attempts to figure out what percent of scientists agree with AGW, they routinely yield numbers at or above 90%.
  
  The 97% number comes from here:
  

  A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[INDENT](i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[SUP][118][/SUP]
  [/INDENT]A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
  [INDENT]Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[SUP][119][/SUP]
  [/INDENT]Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
  Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

  It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes

  Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
• QuakerOats

  ts1227;1502501 wrote: Oh well, he's burnt enough bridges that they can't even get a GOP candidate to run for anything in Salem anymore. They all run as Independents

  If I'm not correct, Salem's council and administration are dominated by republicans, from the mayor on down. And the last mayoral candidate that defected and ran as an independent got whipped, badly. Sorry that you missed all that; the facts are sometimes inconvenient.
• QuakerOats

  And then there is BS peddling his 'opinions' again, with fancy bar charts and such ....refusing to address prior posts and historical facts. Ahh, the life of the snake oil salesman ....always a buyer somewhere.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1502532 wrote:I believe most pharma/medical research goes with 99% CI's.
  
  It is truly garbage to overfit a model and STILL need a 90% CI to claim significance. That's only reinforced by how quickly and completely these models fail going forward.

  I don't think a 90% CI is "crap" when it comes to Anthropogenic climate change. You're talking about a difference of virtually certain --- 99% CI, Extremely likely, 95% CI and Very Likely at 90% CI according to the IPCC. So we're still talking about Very Likely at 90% CI.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1502472 wrote:
  And either way, I disagree. Rational and intelligent posters like many who post on this forum are perfectly capable of using an informed layman's understanding to challenge claims made by an expert when they readily deviate from the widely accepted point of view.

  They can, but I'd argue it's far more likely the "been there done that person" knows more.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1502549 wrote:And then there is BS peddling his 'opinions' again, with fancy bar charts and such ....refusing to address prior posts and historical facts. Ahh, the life of the snake oil salesman ....always a buyer somewhere.

  Why haven't all of these scientists who are way smarter than I am thought of all of these nail in the AGW coffin's that you, Quakeroats, have thought of???
  
  Lemme guess...a seat at the table of librul power....a hate of capitalism......warehoused by green librulzz....etc. etc. etc.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1502552 wrote:They can, but I'd argue it's far more likely the "been there done that person" knows more.

  I disagree...the world is aplenty with people who have "been there done that".....when 3 people who've been there done that think X while 97 of the people who've been there and done that think Y.....a rational bystander can reasonably question the assertions made by the 3 people. The burden is on them to claim why they have the monopoly on veritas while the other 97 don't and a reasonable interlocutor who is not a member of those 97 can properly evaluate claims and need not merely accept..."Oh you've been there done that...ok then, you must be right".
• gut

  BoatShoes;1502551 wrote:I don't think a 90% CI is "crap" when it comes to Anthropogenic climate change. You're talking about a difference of virtually certain --- 99% CI, Extremely likely, 95% CI and Very Likely at 90% CI according to the IPCC. So we're still talking about Very Likely at 90% CI.

  90% CI's are rarely used in what is considered to be fundamentally sound, compelling scientific research. In almost all cases, a 90% CI (accompanied by a rash of justifications for "lowering the bar") is used because the gold standard 95% CI would lead to a failure to reject the null hypothesis.
  
  You are placing a lot of confidence in "very likely" given the reality of how often and the pace with which these models are needing revision, data being transformed to account for "unexpected and unexplained anomalies", etc...
  
  And why might that be? Well, for starters it requires a deeper understanding than the layman's interpretation of "very likely", not to mention a grasp of what a confidence interval actually is and how it is calculated. Suffice to say if these 90% "very likely" outcomes were remotely close to that in the real world we wouldn't have even a small fraction of revisions and evolution of the theories we've seen in just the past 10-15 years.
• gut

  Let me clarify where I'm coming from on all this:
  1) The earth is in a warming phase
  
  2) Man is having some effect, as consistently measured at the 90% level.
  
  3) A 90% level is rather small and trivial, because a 95% level would fail to determine an effect
  
  4) Given the complexity of the issues, anything less than a 99% CI does not justify the damaging economic costs attempting to address the issue
• BoatShoes

  gut;1502559 wrote:90% CI's are rarely used in what is considered to be fundamentally sound, compelling scientific research. In almost all cases, a 90% CI (accompanied by a rash of justifications for "lowering the bar") is used because the gold standard 95% CI would lead to a failure to reject the null hypothesis.
  
  You are placing a lot of confidence in "very likely" given the reality of how often and the pace with which these models are needing revision, data being transformed to account for "unexpected and unexplained anomalies", etc...
  
  And why might that be? Well, for starters it requires a deeper understanding than the layman's interpretation of "very likely", not to mention a grasp of what a confidence interval actually is and how it is calculated. Suffice to say if these 90% "very likely" outcomes were remotely close to that in the real world we wouldn't have even a small fraction of revisions and evolution of the theories we've seen in just the past 10-15 years.

  In the IPCC's third assessment report in 2001 they had a 66% CI w/ regard to AGW and then in 2007 it was revised to a 90% CI in the fourth assessment report in 2007. I find that to be significant and do not dismiss it out of hand as "crap" and indicative of crap, biased science, etc. because it is not 95% or 99%. The next assessment report is due in 2014 so we'll see if it changes.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1502565 wrote:Let me clarify where I'm coming from on all this:
  1) The earth is in a warming phase
  
  2) Man is having some effect, as consistently measured at the 90% level.
  
  3) A 90% level is rather small and trivial, because a 95% level would fail to determine an effect
  
  4) Given the complexity of the issues, anything less than a 99% CI does not justify the damaging economic costs attempting to address the issue

  I can sympathize with this. However, I think the conservative thing to do is to treat the 90% CI as warranting strategic action. Given widespread unemployment and excess capacity in our economy, we could do worse than to mobilize real resources to convert to a greener economy based on the assertion that is very likely that human consumption of fossil fuels/emitting greenhouse gases, etc. is causing climate change that will have negative economic effects.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1502572 wrote:I can sympathize with this. However, I think the conservative thing to do is to treat the 90% CI as warranting strategic action. Given widespread unemployment and excess capacity in our economy, we could do worse than to mobilize real resources to convert to a greener economy based on the assertion that is very likely that human consumption of fossil fuels/emitting greenhouse gases, etc. is causing climate change that will have negative economic effects.

  You are putting entirely too much faith and misunderstanding of a 90% CI. What you are proposing is not conservative, it's destructive. That's a lot of unwarranted faith in a bunch of lawyers as central planners.
  
  The reason so many of these models are failing and proving inadequate is because "very likely" tremendously overstates reality. The reason you go with a higher CI in such complex systems is because of the very real probability that you are measuring unaccounted for factors and not an impact of the test variable.
  
  A 99% CI means you are increasing your margin for error given the inherent issues with the models and data, that should be intuitive even for a layperson, but also obvious if you've been following this story for the last 15-20 years.
  
  A 90% CI is more accurately interpreted as evidence of a POSSIBLE relationship warranting further study. You should never put your money on that relationship actually existing - it is that tenuous. The "very likely" is specific to the model and data as represented, which is to say if the model and data DON'T accurately represent reality then the only thing very likely is that your model is junk. However politics (and more broadly than Dem/Repub) comes into play and grossly misrepresents the "certainty" of a relationship.
  
  Now what SHOULD happen, if there is truly a relationship, is models evolve and you get real power at a 95% or 99% significance. But that's not really been the direction. In fairness, computing power has been a fairly limiting constraint. Another real problem is we seem to be identifying NEW sources of NEW error, rather than closing the gap on the existing error. What that means is this model here that was "very likely" at the 90% level has been invalidated, and now here's a NEW model that is "very likely" at the 90% level.
  
  Wash, rinse and repeat. Then you being a rational and intelligent fellow, how many times are they going to get it wrong before you start to question the "strong scientific certainty" you've been led to believe exists?
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1502599 wrote:You are putting entirely too much faith and misunderstanding of a 90% CI. What you are proposing is not conservative, it's destructive. That's a lot of unwarranted faith in a bunch of lawyers as central planners.
  
  The reason so many of these models are failing and proving inadequate is because "very likely" tremendously overstates reality. The reason you go with a higher CI in such complex systems is because of the very real probability that you are measuring unaccounted for factors and not an impact of the test variable.
  
  A 99% CI means you are increasing your margin for error given the inherent issues with the models and data, that should be intuitive even for a layperson, but also obvious if you've been following this story for the last 15-20 years.
  
  A 90% CI is more accurately interpreted as evidence of a POSSIBLE relationship warranting further study. You should never put your money on that relationship actually existing - it is that tenuous. The "very likely" is specific to the model and data as represented, which is to say if the model and data DON'T accurately represent reality then the only thing very likely is that your model is junk. However politics (and more broadly than Dem/Repub) comes into play and grossly misrepresents the "certainty" of a relationship.
  
  Now what SHOULD happen, if there is truly a relationship, is models evolve and you get real power at a 95% or 99% significance. But that's not really been the direction. In fairness, computing power has been a fairly limiting constraint. Another real problem is we seem to be identifying NEW sources of NEW error, rather than closing the gap on the existing error. What that means is this model here that was "very likely" at the 90% level has been invalidated, and now here's a NEW model that is "very likely" at the 90% level.
  
  Wash, rinse and repeat. Then you being a rational and intelligent fellow, how many times are they going to get it wrong before you start to question the "strong scientific certainty" you've been led to believe exists?

  Quite right, this is opposed to the 99% CI level reports of those that say human activity has not and cannot ever have an effect on the environment or climate. Oh wait...
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1502602 wrote:Quite right, this is opposed to the 99% CI level reports of those that say human activity has not and cannot ever have an effect on the environment or climate. Oh wait...

  This demonstrates a complete ignorance of the scientific method.