What I do have genuine concern about is if the data is interrogated using the rigours of statistical analysis used in six sigma, it falls apart. Athough I do concede the application differs somewhat.

Yes.

Six Sigma is concerned with failure rates. The 99.99966% it quotes has **** all to do with statistical confidence levels.
It is the expected yield rate when ensuring the mean value of your component is 6 sigma values away from being out of spec.

BTW

Ah the default position of mockery of anyone who dares question the consensus.

I’m not mocking anything. I’m pointing out that 95% confidence level is the default standard used across the world in statistical estimates of this type. If they had used anything else then no doubt the naysayers would be raising eyebrows and accusing them of massaging the data.

I’m sure a Sigma6 Black Belt can manage that

? I’m not a 6sigma black belt- you took what you thought was evidence and came to conclusions based on assumption… I’m seeing a pattern emerging. 😉

So all we need to do is jump in a time machine, go back 200 years, place one weather station every 5km around the world, then come back and collect the data, which should now be “good enough”

Data we have access to is skewed with too much variability because of primative collection methods. In the future methods will improve and data will be more reliable… back to my initial point, we are far from having a thorough understanding of what is happening.

he never said you were a black belt I can see a pattern emerging here aswell 😉

Yes.

Six Sigma is concerned with failure rates. The 99.99966% it quotes has **** all to do with statistical confidence levels.
It is the expected yield rate when ensuring the mean value of your component is 6 sigma values away from being out of spec

What is six sigma precisely then?

It is a common misconception that the discipline is applicable only to engineering/manufacture. Not going to have a discussion about six sigma. Think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I’m not a 6sigma black belt

Didn’t say you were. (Not with any stated confidence anyway)

Data we have access to is skewed with too much variability because of primative collection methods.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

In the future methods will improve and data will be more reliable

More likely in another 200 years your great ancestor will be complaining that the data from the 2000’s is too primitive and can’t be trusted as it doesn’t measure to 97 decimal places (and besides most of those weather stations are now underwater).

That’s the thing with measurements from the past – they are generally “primitive”.

back to my initial point, we are far from having a thorough understanding of what is happening.

As said earlier, the aim of this study was not to understand causes. It was to determine if global warming is happening at all. And it turns out we can be very certain that it is.

Not going to have a discussion about six sigma

you could have achieved that better by simply not bringing it up 😛

what areas of scientific research is it used in then ?

What is six sigma precisely then?

I think I just explained the basis of it. You have a component. It has an operating value. If you keep the mean of the operating values of your components six “sigma” values away from the operating tolerances then you should have a successful yield of 99.99966%

Now, can you explain what a confidence level (in relation to a confidence interval) is precisely then?

what areas of scientific research is it used in then ?

None. It’s a process for making management consultants rich by “encouraging quality”

GrahamS you really are a pain in the arse when i am trying to argue 😉
I knew that by the way [ i can read Wiki 😀 ] I was just waiting for them to say it.
I see the point they are trying to make but it is not a wise/appropriate comparison.
I liked your line about past measures being primitive

None. It’s a process for making management consultants rich by “encouraging quality”

Thats why I’m not a ‘Black Belt’ its a bit gimmicky for me. The statistical methods it uses though are proven, rigorous and valid and I use them on a daily basis.

The basis of these methods are to gain confidence that the data is valid, accurate and pertinent.

who gives a f***, climate change is happening, it always has and always will, thing is world population is predicted to be 15billion by 2100 and that mixed with peak oil and the massive reliance on oil for the production of food means the sh** may well be hitting the fan in a big way.

ho hum.

The statistical methods it uses though are proven, rigorous and valid and I use them on a daily basis.

I’m sure they are and I’m sure you do.

But they don’t relate to this work in the way you are stating.
Specifically a “99.99966% confidence level” is pretty meaningless, not to mention unachievable if you want any level of precision.

and yet no one questions their oncologist when they recommend a certain treatment

the same peer review process and statistical rigour will have been used to determine that

no other branch of science has been so publicly and relentlessly attacked – id normally dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand and in this case i can see no way in which a climate scientist would benefit from this

the multi-trilion dollar oil industry however, i can maybe imagine that there may be a teeny weeny vested interest there

and yet no one questions their oncologist when they recommend a certain treatment
the same peer review process and statistical rigour will have been used to determine that

Yep, I just mentioned this discussion to Mrs(Dr)GrahamS and she remarked that pretty much all medical papers use 95% confidence levels. And she should know as she’s written quite a few.

Yep, 1.96 is the standard in science.

Ahh… but what do the Black Belt scientists use? 😉

Ok! been brow beaten enough. 😆

For anyone interested read Black Swan – Nicholas Nassim Taleb about what we know, what we think we know, and what we don’t know we don’t know. It was a revelation for me and shaped the way I view subjects such as this- thats not to say it’ll change your mind, but it may just open it.

edit: this is from a recent paper of his.

Abstract:
Ex ante predicted outcomes should be interpreted as counterfactuals (potential histories), with errors as the spread between outcomes. But error rates have error rates. We reapply measurements of uncertainty about the estimation errors of the estimation errors of an estimation treated as branching counterfactuals. Such recursions of epistemic uncertainty have markedly different distributial properties from conventional sampling error, and lead to fatter tails in the projections than in past realizations. Counterfactuals of error rates always lead to fat tails, regardless of the probability distribution used. A mere .01% branching error rate about the STD (itself an error rate), and .01% branching error rate about that error rate, etc. (recursing all the way) results in explosive (and infinite) moments higher than 1. Missing any degree of regress leads to the underestimation of small probabilities and concave payoffs (a standard example of which is Fukushima). The paper states the conditions under which higher order rates of uncertainty (expressed in spreads of counterfactuals) alters the shapes the of final distribution and shows which a priori beliefs about conterfactuals are needed to accept the reliability of conventional probabilistic methods (thin tails or mildly fat tails).

you are gonna have to translate that into something approaching plain English

Yep, it can be tough going!

but very basically; even very small error rates result in unreliable data when extapolated.

Though it does obviously depended on the type and frequency of extrapolation you’re trying to do.

Philosophical objections are fine but you need to prove/demonstrate it has occurred not just tell us that if it did occur it would result in poor conclusions. Everyone knows the later and the former seems to be disproved again/not supported. The raw data is there for you to prove/demonstrate this philosophical position with data – that is what science does.
The latest research was specifically to look at the data – see conclusions cited above – but even that has not stopped people saying the same philosophical point even though the data does not support the view [ the data is poor etc]
We have proxy measures of temp like size of polar ice caps tree rings etc that also support the view of the data – its getting warmer.

The data is readily available so get some evidence to support your view
Good luck

For anyone interested read Black Swan – Nicholas Nassim Taleb about what we know, what we think we know, and what we don’t know we don’t know.

Not read it but I’ve seen the film. My main conclusion was that Natalie should eat more 😀

Jackson, your argument seems to have shifted from “the data is wrong” to “basic statistics as used throughout the world is wrong“!
I’m not really sure how to answer that.

With regard to errors on errors, take a another look at the graph:

The grey bits are the potential error.

Hopefully you can see that even if the error was several orders of magnitude larger there would still be a noticeable rise.

Yes there is a notable rise, but the grey band should get wider.

My position hasn’t changed. I say that the data is not robust enough to draw concrete conclusions.

On a general note, just because X is not proved, does not mean that the opposite is proved.

Anyway I give up

You just cant beat deniers – no offence you seem bright and articulate like many deniers- when even with independent research on the very issue you remain unconvinced. Unfortunately your view is not based on science as we know it as you appear to be ignoring the evidence and sticking with your unsupported philosophical position.
The evidence does not support your position and yet you want to attack the science

Thats a bit disingenous Junkyard. I’m certainly not a ‘denier’ and resent the label. By the same token you are a ‘beliver’ this is your new religion but *patronising mode* you seem fairly articulate and bright!

I don’t attack the science at all. The data in my view (not philosophical BTW but empirical) when put under the microsope leaves more questions unanswered.

Yes there is a notable rise, but the grey band should get wider.

Why should it get wider? Do you mean get wider as we move from 1800 to 2000??

As you pointed out, the accuracy of “primitive” readings is less reliable and they had far fewer sample points, hence the error band is wide there. In more recent times they had more accurate readings at many more sample points. Hence it gets narrower as we reach the present day.

I say that the data is not robust enough to draw concrete conclusions.

You just said there was a notable rise. Are you planning to make the error band so wide that it will encompass the entire graph?

It is robust enough for the worlds statisticians and climatologists, but feel free to email them your own statistical analysis.

But their maths is published at http://berkeleyearth.org/resources.php under “Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process” and they have contact details here: http://berkeleyearth.org/contact.php I’m sure they’d welcome any improvements you can make to their analysis.

Thats a bit disingenous Junkyard. I’m certainly not a ‘denier’ and resent the label. By the same token you are a ‘beliver’ this is your new religion but *patronising mode* you seem fairly articulate and bright!

Aye fair point, clumsy use of language, I apologise and retract it. A nice retort which I deserved. I did not mean to patronise you, you get people who are illogical [ swivelled eyed loons as TJ would say] and talk incoherent stuff on this, you are not one of them so it was compliment [ if rubbish] but again point taken.

I don’t attack the science at all. The data in my view (not philosophical BTW but empirical) when put under the microsope leaves more questions unanswered.

You say this but as Graham notes this research was designed specifically to answer this question. It used independent physicists and statisticians [ one climatologist I assume for technical reasons] to re-evaluate all the data and reached the same broad conclusion as others have re the rise. You have given no actual data to support your view and ignore the data that conflicts with your view
I think it is reasonable to call your position philosophical rather empirical as the empirical evidence does not support your view and you offer none to substantiate your [philosophical] view.

Sorry I have not been clear. (finding it hard to articulate my point).

I don’t deny that there is a change in climate (the evidence is clear)

However to fully understand the effects we need to know the causes. It is here where the data is not robust enough to say one way or another. I’m unconvinced as to the (supposed significant) effect of man. As too am I unconvinced that it is merely cyclical. I just do not know (and the data to support either is not strong enough to stand rigorous scrutiny).

This I feel is hugely important because, we cannot find solutions to problems if we do not understand the causes. We will only get to greater understanding through questionning, interogation of data and rigorous scrutiny.

I see your point but it is not disputed that C02 is rising – obvioulsy burning fossil fuels releases stored carbon, it is not disputed that it is a green house gas and i assume cause and effect is not disputed. The real question is what effect this will have not whether it will have an effect
If people wish to claim it will have a minimal or no effect then they also need to explain a credible mechanism for negating the thermal forcing effect of C02. A priori I would say the case is fairly sound before data is collected never mind afterwards.
The IPCC report covers the cycles – as we have a good idea what these are and we model them then – as well as the thermal forcing effect of C02 and other possible causes. It does not just go oh look C02 is rising temperature is rising therefore it is C02
The models match observed data so it seems reasonable to assume we have a good understanding account- if you remove the thermal forcing effct of C02 from the models they no longer match the observed data. You can try other causes if you wish – people have but not found the answer.
It is not free of the risk of error but nothing is.

The models match observed data so it seems reasonable to assume we have a good understanding

I think this is where we’ll have to agree to disagree. If you choose fifty models, and in hindsight cherry pick the only one of them that is close to the observed data, ignoring the rest which were nowhere near, then the models are not accurate – its like Derren Brown predicting the lottery numbers after they’ve been announced…

In the words of the professionals: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” and “Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.”

Lets just nip back in to the predictions of where we’d be by now:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53023/the-origins-of-the-50-million-climate-refugees-prediction/

There are more repeats on STW than TF1.

…but it is not disputed that C02 is rising – obvioulsy burning fossil fuels releases stored carbon, it is not disputed that it is a green house gas and i assume cause and effect is not disputed. The real question is what effect this will have not whether it will have an effect.
If people wish to claim it will have a minimal or no effect then they also need to explain a credible mechanism for negating the thermal forcing effect of C02. A priori I would say the case is fairly sound before data is collected never mind afterwards.

JY – the problem with this line of though (dare I say it) is as follows: (1) the greenhouse effect is a necessary phenomenon designed to regulate the earth’s temperature and (2) CO2 is a side show. The concentration of CO2 is minimal in relation to water vapour which is the main driver. So what we really need to explain is why are we spending so much time focusing on CO2 when it is a minor factor in the greenhouse effect?

Plus, this is a very simple and possibly very stupid question. But, if I understand this data correctly – what these graphs are showing is that the deviation of temperatures from a thirty year average (how was this determined BTW?) has risen by just under 1 degree. Given the “magnitude of the change” and the high levels of variability/statistical errors in data collection, how are we expected to jump up and down about this?

(and that doesn’t meant deny – merely get excitied!)

Give me strength! Right…

I don’t deny that there is a change in climate (the evidence is clear)

You’ve changed your tune! Didn’t you just spend the past two days blethering that this data was useless because it doesn’t have wide enough errors and it wasn’t 6sigmaed by a Black Belt who has read Black Swan and understands recursive recursive errors???

If that’s the case then how is the evidence clear now? Very confused.

we can’t account for the lack of warming… it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.”

Yes, you mentioned this earlier in the thread Zulu and I gave you a direct quote from the report that deals with this point. I take it you read it?

The concentration of CO2 is minimal in relation to water vapour which is the main driver. So what we really need to explain is why are we spending so much time focusing on CO2 when it is a minor factor in the greenhouse effect?

Because we’re not adding over a billion of tonnes of water vapour to the atmosphere every fortnight?

risen by just under 1 degree

1°C rise in 20 years is a pretty steep rise!

Given the “magnitude of the change” and the high levels of variability/statistical errors in data collection, how are we expected to jump up and down about this?

Because the “variability/statistical errors in data collection” are accounted for and the rise is still very clear.

Permian CO2 levels will equal a Permian climate which will equal Permian-style extinctions. We might struggle to reach Permian levels but I’m sure we can get to Cretaceous levels soon.

(1)The greenhouse effect is a necessary phenomenon designed to regulate the earth’s temperature

DESIGNED?? 😯

and (2) CO2 is a side show. The concentration of CO2 is minimal in relation to water vapour which is the main driver.

Well it depends I need fuel in my car for it to work but if I introduce more air it runs faster even though it is not the main driver.

So what we really need to explain is why are we spending so much time focusing on CO2 when it is a minor factor in the greenhouse effect?

I am not debating noise again when a study has just been done to disprove this with all its data and methodology freely available. Please dont just give another philosophical outpouring about data. Actually use the data and show it is happening. The latest evidence again supports the view that the observed temp rise is real. Its out there the sceptics will be trying as we type. If you choose to not accept yet another study showing this then that is your choice but it is not good science…its probably not even science.
Present some data please

I am not debating noise again when a study has just been done to disprove this with all its data and methodology freely available. Please dont just give another philosophical outpouring about data.

That is not what I am doing. My point is about the role of CO2 itself.

95% of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by water vapour. The remaining 5% includes other gases including CO2 and methane.

CO2 represents 4/100 of 1% of atmospheric gases – it is not a major gas.

CO2 levels and temperatures rose together long before cars, industrial revolution etc. Wonder why?

Maybe rising global temperatures (caused possibly by changes in solar activity) caused the earth’s oceans (quite big!!) to surrender CO2. Basic science – warm liquids hold less CO2 than cold ones. Hmm, no that sounds far more sense!!!

Teamhurtmore

You need to look at the data a bit more. In the past co2 levels rose after warming – now the co2 level is rising ahead of the warming. I e in the past the rise in co2 was a consequence of the warming, now its a cause

c02 acts as a greenhouse gas very strongly

read the IPCC report they have thought about this and the factors you mention.

Again I note the complete and utter absence of any data in your philosophical attack …this is not science.

95% of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by water vapour. The remaining 5% includes other gases including CO2 and methane.

Source that is just not true its not quite the levels you state [ ps its in the IPCC report ]

CO2 represents 4/100 of 1% of atmospheric gases – it is not a major gas.

well not in terms of % of the atmosphere but we are discussing its effects [on climate and temperature] so the percentage is neither here nor there in the sense you mean.
What percentage of me is the venom when I am stung by snake? Consume arsenic Do you want more where % and consequences are non linear?Specious argument

CO2 levels and temperatures rose together long before cars, industrial revolution etc. Wonder why?

Who on earth disputes the fact we have natural cycles? Its the same science you attack that found this out. The issue is whether releasing vast amounts of C02 will affect these cycles – in fact given cause and effect the real question is how it will affect them not if. Again I would ask for your evidence to support your view that it wont – what mechanisms etc.

Maybe rising global temperatures (caused possibly by changes in solar activity) caused the earth’s oceans (quite big!!) to surrender CO2. Basic science – warm liquids hold less CO2 than cold ones.

Tips:

• climatologists are aware of solar activity, measure it and account for it. The global warming we see now is NOT caused by solar activity.

• climatologists know that the oceans are quite big.

• climatologists can do basic science.