close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Climate Change. Statistics 101 says its BS.

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by hamster, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. hamster

    hamster NRA Life Member

    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    29
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    If I were trying to run a political poll by asking 200 people out of the 300 million in the US, everyone would tell me you can't draw conclusions from such an unrepresentative poll.

    Why then is it OK when climate "scientists" draw conclusions on weather patterns based on 150 years of recorded data (maybe 2000 years of extrapolated tree-ring data) out of 4.7 Billion?

    No matter how you feel about the environmental issues, the basic fact is we don't have enough data to draw a meaningful conclusion either way.
     
  2. Zagato

    Zagato

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    preaching to the choir.
     

  3. hamster

    hamster NRA Life Member

    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    29
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Well people get bogged down into the minutia of the argument. I rarely hear people stating the indisputable fact that we simply don't have enough data to decide either way.
     
  4. Puppy

    Puppy

    Messages:
    1,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Of course the "man-made global warming" science is bunk.

    Our planet is currently in what is known as an "interglacial period" - which of course are warmer than "glacial periods" which are also known as "ice ages".

    Mankind plays no role in these natural planetary temperature cycles.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  5. PlethoraGreen

    PlethoraGreen

    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    It's a very good question. I raise the "statistics" argument every single time someone tries to tell me that "scientists" have proven global warming is real.

    So far I haven't had anyone come close to refuting that fine little tidbit.
     
  6. Zagato

    Zagato

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    i think its extremely egotistical for man to think they can have such a huge impact on the planet in such a short period of time. im not talking deforestation or smog, but a global effect on how the earth works. crazy.
     
  7. PlethoraGreen

    PlethoraGreen

    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Location:
    Cheyenne, WY
    Scientist and "ego" pretty much go hand in hand. Walk into any college science class and you'll see what I mean. I love science, but you have to keep in mind that scientists are the ones that told us the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

    It's amazing how far we've come yet nothing is truly any different. We still think we have it all figured out.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  8. Kkille1LSU

    Kkille1LSU

    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Location:
    Baton Rouge/New Orleans
    Preface: I do not believe in global warming. I do believe that we as a world need to clean up our act, specifically china. There are proven effects of pollution.

    The problem, we will never have 4.7 billion years of data. So scientist have to take what information is available -200 years. Their studies are just trying to show the record for that recorded time. In some of their OPINIONS it means climate is changing more drastically. They are called theories for a reason and you can't not try/study them just because there is not enough information. Scientist have to make educational guesses.
     
  9. devildog2067

    devildog2067

    Messages:
    16,569
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    That's not true at all. As long as it's a random sample you can certainly draw conclusions from a sample that size; you will just have large statistical uncertainty.

    "Weather" hasn't been around for 4.7 billion years, first of all. Secondly, it depends on what one is trying to do. If you're trying to establish what the average temperature for a particular date in a particular region is, for example, would you argue that you need to know all 4.7 billion values of that number to calculate the mean? Of course not.

    Trying to extrapolate what will happen in the long term from a data sample that only goes back 150 years is, of course, problematic and highly dependent on the particular model one uses.

    That is absolutely not a true statement. There certainly is enough data to draw conclusions and establish confidence limits on those conclusions.

    HOWEVER, that's not the same thing as saying that the climate change people are right. I'm just saying there is a lot of valid science one can do from a dataset that size.

    EDITED TO ADD: And of course, as a later poster pointed out, there is a much larger data set than that. Isotope data goes back to 100 Mya+
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  10. devildog2067

    devildog2067

    Messages:
    16,569
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    Not really. "Science" as we know it didn't develop as a discipline until much later. The flat earth and the center of the universe was given to us by "philosophers," which is not at all the same thing.

    By the time science rolled around, it was the Church who insisted those things were true, and burned people at the stake for suggesting that the Earth might revolve around the Sun.

    No real scientist thinks we have anything figured out.
     
  11. devildog2067

    devildog2067

    Messages:
    16,569
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    Do you understand statistics? Sampling errors and confidence limits?

    I'm not trying to challenge you or anything, I am genuinely curious. I find that few people really do.
     
  12. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    Messages:
    17,981
    Likes Received:
    5,895
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    Been years since I have done any statistical calculations - and I am too lazy to mess with it now-

    But when ever you see statistics reported -

    Like 45% approve 55% disapprove

    The margin of error should also be presented -

    Normal political poll will be 1,000 people sample with a margin of error of 3% (whatever)

    Which of course means that the actual numbers could be

    42-48% approve 52-58% disapprove

    If you see statistics presented and they do not give the margin of error - or in some cases it may be presented as confidence interval - then they have not really given you any usable information.

    It is possible to use very small samples and still have valid results -

    Another way to look at it -(I am GUESSING) --

    If you increase the sample size from 1,000 to 2,000 your margin of error may drop from 3% down to 2.995%

    So the statistician must ask - is the extra effort of making the sample size larger worth it - does it reduce the margin of error enough to justify the extra expense?

    The surprise is how little impact increasing the sample size has on reducing the margin of error.
     
  13. devildog2067

    devildog2067

    Messages:
    16,569
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    The error on the mean decreases as 1/(sqrt(n)) for a random sample. So going from 1k to 2k gives you a factor of 1 over root 2 improvement assuming your sampling techinique is truly random. Expressed in a dimensionless parameter like percent, doubling your sample size takes you from 3% to ~2.12%
     
  14. G36's Rule

    G36's Rule Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,373
    Likes Received:
    85
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Location:
    Spring, TX.
    There is MUCH more data than just the last 150 years:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  15. hamster

    hamster NRA Life Member

    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    29
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    I also agree that we need to clean up our act. Climate change aside, there are proven and very real effects of pollution on human health.

    That being said, I hope China tells the environmental-treaty folks to go to hell. We in the western world have spent the better part of the last 100 years polluting the crap out of the world, using up every resource we can get our hands on and in the process becoming the richest countries in the world.

    Now finally after years of poverty, China has finally begun 15 years of industrialization and is slowly growing and prospering, and now we in the west are all high and mighty and tell THEM not to pollute?

    If I was them I'd give us all the collective finger.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  16. Kkille1LSU

    Kkille1LSU

    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Location:
    Baton Rouge/New Orleans
    It pollutes OUR air.
    http://geology.com/nasa/monitoring-pollution-by-satellite.shtml

    http://onigirisensei.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/china-most-polluted-country/
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  17. hamster

    hamster NRA Life Member

    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    29
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    But all the years we and the Europeans were polluting "their" air is just fine.
    We spent the last 100 years polluting and raping the land... its only fair to hold them to the same standards. Lets see. They didn't start mass-industrialization till about 30 years ago. By my calculations they have 70 more years to shape up.

    PS. The Japanese who live directly downwind of all of this pollution have the longest lifespans of anyone in the world.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2010
  18. Mike2

    Mike2

    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Location:
    South MS but wanna be in TN
    Back in the 70's wasn't the mantra "The ice age is coming by the year 200" in the 80's and 90's it was " We are all going to burn because of Global warming" Now its Climate Change, hotdog finally something that we can all agree on, the climate does change. Simple as that.DUH Yesterday it rained and today its warm and dry, been that way for millions of years, heck who knows it may snow tomorrow....
     
  19. hamster

    hamster NRA Life Member

    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    29
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2010
    Your chart shows 400,000 out of 4.7 Billion years. Is that a statistically significant sample?

    And again, 400,000 years... even if it were statistically significant only proves the climate is changing. We all know that... duh. The assertion that HUMANS are causing the change is simply not provable. We have only been farming for the last 10,000 years for goodness sake.
     
  20. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    Messages:
    17,981
    Likes Received:
    5,895
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Location:
    Texas

    I trust your calculations -:faint: like I said its been years -

    I do recall going through some analysis - where you increase the sample size to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable level - is the cost of a greater sample size worth the extra $ to reduce your margin of error.

    So if going from 1K to 2K sample takes you from 3% to 2.12% margin of error

    What sample size would it take to get the margin of error down to 1%? or .5%?

    I seem to recall getting to a point where increasing the sample size by a lot only decreased the margin of error by a little. :dunno: