Searching \ for '[OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.ed' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=co2+peak+may+lag
Search entire site for: 'CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.ed'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.ed'
2007\10\14@201222 by Peter P.

picon face
Just happened to find this:

 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/icecore.html

Peter P.


2007\10\16@110640 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
I don't do much PIC development anymore, but lurk on this list to see what
new energy technology is available, how to glean energy using solar or
Peltier, what the best battery chemistry is, or just to get an idea about
what the rest of the world thinks.

I've stayed out of the GW fray because there are far too many experts here,
but this one begs a little insight.  If you do a little more research,
you'll find that this was one of the premises of a British Channel 4
docudrama, which challenged Al Gore's scare tactics.  In his film he had
sloughed off the disparity by saying that the relationship between
temperature and CO2 is "complicated".

Experts for Channel 4 (Carl Wunsch) said that it was a result of the air
heating first, then warming the oceans.  When the oceans are warmed they
begin giving up their stored CO2.  Cold water stores more CO2 than warm
water and evidently the process takes about 800 years before a noticeable
effect.  Presumably, some other mechanism kicked in to prevent thermal
runaway (plant growth?).

If you follow this logic and consider the fact that the current levels of
CO2 are higher than the 2 sigma levels derived from ice cores dating back
650,000 years, then there had to have been **one hell of a massive
temperature event 800 years ago**.  Something that large would surely have
been recorded.  It wasn't, and it wasn't because the current levels of CO2
are due to anthropogenic causes.

Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the past
to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels.  According to
the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year.  The US, Russia, and China
have the largest known coal resources.  We see evidences that the world's
large oil fields are depleting more rapidly than is comfortable, so we can
reasonably expect more coal usage and eventually more nuclear.  Energy needs
are not going down.

If at the same time, we decrease the natural CO2 removal mechanisms (trees,
tundra, etc), then levels will remain high.  Of course, global dimming from
particulates slows down the effect, but also decreases evaporation rates, so
there are fewer clouds.  And then there are the positive feedback mechanisms
of tundra decay producing methane and CO2, melting of reflective ices, and
hydrate releases, etc.  Or other natural negative feedback mechanisms such
as volcanic ash or slowing or stopping the great ocean currents.

In other words, the equation is so complicated that anyone who claims to
know the "real" outcome is either a liar or uneducated.  Looking for 95%
confidence levels is silly.  We *have* changed our planet.  We just don't
know how yet.  Until we do, I think most people on this list agree that
prudence makes sense.

If you're sawing off the limb you're sitting on, stopping to consider the
outcome might be the smart thing to do.

Ed
<rant off>

-----Original Message-----
From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu]On Behalf
Of Peter P.
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 7:12 PM
To: piclistspamKILLspammit.edu
Subject: [OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.edu source


Just happened to find this:

 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/icecore.html

Peter P.


2007\10\16@115412 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Ed Browne
>Sent: 16 October 2007 16:06
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: RE: [OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.edu source
>
>
>Experts for Channel 4 (Carl Wunsch) said that it was a result
>of the air heating first, then warming the oceans.  When the
>oceans are warmed they begin giving up their stored CO2.  Cold
>water stores more CO2 than warm water and evidently the
>process takes about 800 years before a noticeable effect.  
>Presumably, some other mechanism kicked in to prevent thermal
>runaway (plant growth?).
>

FWIW the Channel 4 program was widely regarded as being even more full of holes than Mr Gores political ramblings.

>If you follow this logic and consider the fact that the
>current levels of CO2 are higher than the 2 sigma levels
>derived from ice cores dating back 650,000 years, then there
>had to have been **one hell of a massive temperature event 800
>years ago**.

I'm not sure I understand why there would have had to be been a massive "temperature event" 800 years back?  *If* the 800 year lag theory is correct, then surely all this means is that the temperature was rising 800 years ago, and we are now seeing the effects of that.  It doesn't imply that the temperature suddenly jumped to some astounding value bfore falling back to normal.

I agree that man is likely having some effect on our climate, the question how significant it's contribution is compared to the natural climate cycles of the Earth, and wether running around shouting "carbon neutral" to anyone who will listen will actualy help anyone apart from those with a political/financial interest.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2007\10\16@132432 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face

>-----Original Message-----
>From: piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu [@spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Ed Browne
>Sent: 16 October 2007 16:06
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: RE: [OT]: CO2 peak may lag warming by 800 years ? *.edu source
>
>
>Experts for Channel 4 (Carl Wunsch) said that it was a result
>of the air heating first, then warming the oceans.  When the
>oceans are warmed they begin giving up their stored CO2.  Cold
>water stores more CO2 than warm water and evidently the
>process takes about 800 years before a noticeable effect.
>Presumably, some other mechanism kicked in to prevent thermal
>runaway (plant growth?).
>

FWIW the Channel 4 program was widely regarded as being even more full of
holes than Mr Gores political ramblings.

>If you follow this logic and consider the fact that the
>current levels of CO2 are higher than the 2 sigma levels
>derived from ice cores dating back 650,000 years, then there
>had to have been **one hell of a massive temperature event 800
>years ago**.

I'm not sure I understand why there would have had to be been a massive
"temperature event" 800 years back?  *If* the 800 year lag theory is
correct, then surely all this means is that the temperature was rising 800
years ago, and we are now seeing the effects of that.  It doesn't imply that
the temperature suddenly jumped to some astounding value bfore falling back
to normal.

>>> If the lag theory is correct (despite the holes, Channel 4 made a
reasonable case for it) then there would have to have been a massive jump in
temperatures 800 years ago in order to justify the massive jumps in CO2 that
have occurred within the last century and continue to climb.  The point is
that the current levels have literally jumped above the levels of CO2
trapped within ice cores dating back 650,000 years.  Just like Carl Wunsch,
I'm making the assumption that the CO2 captured in the ice actually reflects
the levels existing at the time.

I agree that man is likely having some effect on our climate, the question
how significant it's contribution is compared to the natural climate cycles
of the Earth, and wether running around shouting "carbon neutral" to anyone
who will listen will actualy help anyone apart from those with a
political/financial interest.

>>>Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the
past to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels.  According
to the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year.  The US, Russia, and China
have the largest known coal resources.  We see evidences that the world's
large oil fields are depleting more rapidly than is comfortable, so we can
reasonably expect more coal usage and eventually more nuclear.  Energy needs
are not going down.

but I repeat myself.

Think about where coal, gas and oil come from.  They come from dead plant
(primarily) and animal matter that has been cracked by the intense pressure
and heat of the earth to create the hydrocarbons that we burn.  Oil is
formed where the matter is buried in still water; i.e.., it is an anaerobic
process so would require a shallow sea or a swamp.  This process takes
millions of years.  The material isn't broken into smaller components, so it
is taking the carbon that it drew from the atmosphere with it.  Without
something to balance the O2 lost when hydrocarbons are burned, we alter the
relative percentages of the earth's gas mix.  I work in O&G.  My livelihood
depends upon your burning the oil that we find.  There is considerable
science involved in finding oil, yet discoveries have been lagging
production for a while now.  Reducing energy usage, hence carbon footprint,
makes sense for a lot of reasons.

BTW so many have maligned the efficacy of the climate models that I wanted
to say that I agree with you - they are flawed.  The models predicting polar
ice melting have already been proven to be off by at least thirty years.
Ice has melted much faster than predicted.  And it really doesn't matter
what the US and Europe do to slow CO2 because whatever China and India do,
with a combined population of 2.3 billion people, will determine what
happens to the rest of us.  If they increase their per capita energy usage
to match ours, or about 17X, your use of a hybrid vehicle would be
insignificant.  Does that mean that I should *not* decrease my carbon
footprint?  Not if I want to set an example and be a world leader.  Not if I
have kids.

This is why I lurk, rather than participate, because invariably I have to
explain or defend a statement.  Time is precious.





2007\10\16@143924 by James Newton
face picon face
>Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the past
>to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels.  According to
>the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year.  

I would really like to see a reference for those figures. A quick google for
"Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year"  did not return anything that
looked like a source.

--
James.

2007\10\16@145428 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>  >Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the past
>>to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels.  According to
>>the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year. 
>
>I would really like to see a reference for those figures. A quick google for
>"Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year"  did not return anything that
>looked like a source.

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/feature.html
Energy Information Administration

This page sez total US coal consumption
*decreased* 1% from 2005, to 1114.2 million short
tons.

1,161 tons is quoted, as the US coal *production* value, an increase of 2.6%

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\10\16@152635 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face

>  >Burning any mined hydrocarbon is bringing sequestered carbon from the
past
>>to the present, so logically increases existing CO2 levels.  According to
>>the Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year. 
>
>I would really like to see a reference for those figures. A quick google
for
>"Energy Information Administration, the US used 1,161M tons of coal in
>2006, a 2.6% increase over the previous year"  did not return anything that
>looked like a source.

www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/feature.html
Energy Information Administration

This page sez total US coal consumption
*decreased* 1% from 2005, to 1114.2 million short
tons.

1,161 tons is quoted, as the US coal *production* value, an increase of 2.6%

>>>That's the correct reference.  Electric utility usage of coal was down
1.1%, but overall production was up 2.6 percent to a new record.

to forestall request for the other link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6310869.stm

--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2007\10\16@155138 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
On 2007-10-16 13:06:13, Ed Browne wrote:

> In other words, the equation is so complicated that anyone who claims to
> know the "real" outcome is either a liar or uneducated.  Looking for 95%
> confidence levels is silly.  

Maybe -- but how silly is it then to talk about two-digit precision in
probability forecasts if the confidence levels of these forecasts are so
low? Somewhere the whole talk should make sense. Faking high-precision
results doesn't.

Gerhard

2007\10\16@164931 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
On 2007-10-16 13:06:13, Ed Browne wrote:

> In other words, the equation is so complicated that anyone who claims to
> know the "real" outcome is either a liar or uneducated.  Looking for 95%
> confidence levels is silly.

Maybe -- but how silly is it then to talk about two-digit precision in
probability forecasts if the confidence levels of these forecasts are so
low? Somewhere the whole talk should make sense. Faking high-precision
results doesn't.

>>> We totally agree, but logic and reason sometimes don't prevail.  In
spite of our undying believe in the *truth* of statistics, we both know that
proper manipulations can provide enough doubt or support to sway people.
Regardless the actual science, some people need numbers to make their world
make sense.  People on this newsgroup have complained that there are not
enough such numbers.  They should give it up.  Any numbers that you get for
GW will be best guesses and one Krakatoa will render them meaningless.

Here is a comment that I posted in another discussion of this matter some
time ago.  My point in placing it here is that the IPCC gives some numbers
that show the variability of the climate.  I would think them insane to use
double precision, but you can see that they didn't:

The IPCC report takes into account the Global Dimming effect from
particulates and their associated cloud formation.

Quote:
Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon,
black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a
total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an indirect
cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now
better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ,
satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modeling, but
remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also
influence cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}

The effect of Global Warming with deviations:
Quote:
The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane,
and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of increase
during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more
than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2). The carbon dioxide
radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for
any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4}


for a total average heating of 2.5 - 0.5 -0.7 = 1.3Wm-2. If the deviations
in the numbers fall just right, particularly the cloud effect, particle
cooling can cancel or reverse the heating effect -0.9-1.8+2.07=-0.63Wm-2


So be aware when you ask for cleaner air that you may also contribute to
global warming.  :-) A recent news article said that 25% of LA pollution was
drifting over from China -- probably from building 1 coal fired power plant
per week.  That's phenomenal growth -- growth so fast that the IPCC models
and numbers are probably already out of date.  So which will win,
particulate reflection of sunlight or the greenhouse effect?  The IPCC
numbers suggest that either scenario is within the realm of possibility.
Both are manmade.  Does that suggest that the way to control greenhouse
warming is to use particles in the upper atmosphere with known decay rates?
Why not?  Maybe because we would really need to understand how climate works
before we muck it up any worse. ;-)

2007\10\17@004506 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Quote:
> The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide,
> methane,
> and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of
> increase
> during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented
> in more
> than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2). The carbon dioxide
> radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest
> change for
> any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4}

Let me rephrase that in Science speak.
As 95% of it is in SS already changing the extra 5% back again seems
"very likely" to be worthwhile.

{Quote hidden}

The great thing about this new Science speak is that it gives
scientists a new freedom to say things that they would have been
stoned for until someone thought of this idea.

eg "There is no statistically significant indication that your giving
me $10,000 will be profitable for you, so, when can I expect your
check.

ie they can now make statements which USED to mean "fails" and present
them so that Joe Public thinks thy mean yes.

If I've got this wrong, by all means do point out my error.

Key assertion on my part:

Very likely = = = not statistically significant.
By IPCC definitions.

I do rather believe that the spirit of Deuteronomy 19:14 has been
broken and that the curse of Deuteronomy 27:17 applies.
Amen?*

Not to mention the metaphor of Deuteronomy 25:13 and 25:15.




           Russell

* That that question is meant to be funny may require the correct
translation. ?



2007\10\17@015711 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
The great thing about this new Science speak is that it gives
scientists a new freedom to say things that they would have been
stoned for until someone thought of this idea.

eg "There is no statistically significant indication that your giving
me $10,000 will be profitable for you, so, when can I expect your
check.

ie they can now make statements which USED to mean "fails" and present
them so that Joe Public thinks thy mean yes.

If I've got this wrong, by all means do point out my error.

Key assertion on my part:

Very likely = = = not statistically significant.
By IPCC definitions.

I do rather believe that the spirit of Deuteronomy 19:14 has been
broken and that the curse of Deuteronomy 27:17 applies.
Amen?*

Not to mention the metaphor of Deuteronomy 25:13 and 25:15.




           Russell


>>> Well, yes, I do believe you've got it wrong.  The point is that there is
uncertainty - a lot of it - but there is significant consensus in the
scientific community that there is cause for alarm.  The effects of
greenhouse gases are well understood and calculable, but those of clouds and
manmade or natural particulates have tremendous deviations.  Nevertheless,
the general trend is clearly towards warming.  Even so, a major volcanic
eruption or a nuclear war would dramatically alter that trend and the
effects of long-term injection of soot into the upper atmosphere is not well
understood.

Even as we study the effects of GW - or perhaps because we are studying it -
we have uncovered the relationships between sunlight and evaporation,
between cloud particle size and IR reflections, uncovered mechanisms that
allow water to lubricate whole sheets of ice, and the relationship of man to
his environment.  We have seen remarkably rapid loss of ice at the caps -
you can now sail over the North Pole - and industrialization in China with
unprecedented rapidity.  As China and India seek to emulate the Western
standard of living, we shall see how much Man can affect his environment.  I
do not mean to imply that China or any other country should be denied
industrialization, just that if it is done without thought about
sustainability or energy conservation, we will all be in trouble.

Russell, I really think you've violated some of your own standards for
rational, logical thought.  This is bordering on nonsense, and I'm a great
fan, but it is.  I have some idea what your point of the Bible verses is,
but I may be wrong, so I copied them below so that you can explain.

This is enough time wasted for me and I apologize for wasting other people's
time as well.

Deuteronomy 19:14
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time have
set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD
thy God giveth thee to possess it.

Deuteronomy 27:17
Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. And all the people shall
say, Amen.

Deuteronomy 25:13
Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.

Deuteronomy 25:15
But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure
shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD
thy God giveth thee.

2007\10\17@060118 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Ken and maybe Rod may actually find this worth wading through.
Ed probably should too alas.

________________________

Russell said:
{Quote hidden}

And Ed Browne, entirely reasonably, replied:

>>>> Well, yes, I do believe you've got it wrong.  The point is that
>>>> there is
> uncertainty - a lot of it - but there is significant consensus in
> the
> scientific community that there is cause for alarm.

My apologies for not being totally clear about which aspect I was
referring to.
I am referring to the manner in which scientists are conveying their
findings to the piopulace at all levels (and are, apparently,
informing themselves)

Your reply is an excellent one for me to address on this matter

> The effects of greenhouse gases are well understood and calculable,
> but
> those of clouds and manmade or natural particulates have tremendous
> deviations.  ...

I have no problem at all with the idea that people are measuring
things and seeing that things seem to be changing. I also have no
mandate for saying what is or isn't causing each effect or how much of
each effect. That's what the scientists are (or should be) trying to
find out.

I seek truth and I'm very pleased when people go about researching it
for me.

> Nevertheless, the general trend is clearly towards warming.

Seems likely. How long and how much and why is in need of research -
and research IS happening. Which brings us to my key issue.

... snip ...  lots of good stuff on human expansion and possible
effects - no problems ...

but

> Russell, I really think you've violated some of your own standards
> for
> rational, logical thought.  This is bordering on nonsense, and I'm a
> great
> fan, but it is.  I have some idea what your point of the Bible
> verses is,
> but I may be wrong, so I copied them below so that you can explain.

Let's see if I can get you back on board :-)

First I'll address the entirely valid question of "what do you mean by
those references?".

> Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old
> time have
> set in thine inheritance, ...

> Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.

> But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just
> measure
> shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land ...

Translation in this context:

DO NOT
- change the way you measure things without telling people that you
have or
- change or obfuscate what you mean when you say things or
- Find ways of saying things that look like they are trying to make
things clear but are really doing just the opposite.

Google said it well, even if they seem to be forgetting they said it a
little

       Don't be evil.

SO:

Science has for a long long long time had a "hurdle level" of when a
measurement seemed liable to be accurately representing some fact.
Scientists knew about normal distributions, distribution tails,
standard deviations, runs, "coincidence" and all that stuff.
They KNEW that if you throw 12 coins at once repeatedly and count the
heads that sometime you'll get 12 heads, or 10 or 9. And they knew
that if this happened, by itself it had no meaning at all.

Scientists and statisticians looked at distributions and established
some rules.
They introduced a concept that they termed "statistical significance".

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

They decide that there were levels or degrees of statistical
significance.
They measured them in terms of the number of standard deviations up
the tail.
The first distance up the tail that they would ever deign to even
think about thinking about giving the label "statistically
significant" was when 5% of the possible non results lay in the tail.
This was P=0.05. This REALLY meant something like

   "We are confident that we can say that the result is a meaningful
one and doesn't represent an aberration or random fluctuation in the
data (BUT we really would have rather that it was a bit more
definitive than this - but we have to start somewhere and this is
often a reasonably good indication, so we'll start here)"

They followed that with the next level of P=0.01.
Because of the shape of the normal curve this is quite a lot Better
than P=0.05 - more than it may appear from the numbers. It's quite a
jump, and a scientific committee considering putting money into
something would be rather happier seeing P=0.01 on their investment.
Scientists seeing this would probably interpret it as meaning
something like

   "The chances that we're not onto something here is so low that
I'll be able to sleep tonight without worrying about it".

After that we get to P=0.001 or whatever. P = 0.001 is liable to mean
something like

   "What's the bookies phone number?, quick ..."

Obviously you can go back up the curve towards the centre, getting
more and more in the tail. After P=0.05 you "soon" arrive at P=0.1. To
the lay mind that may not seem too too far away. From 1 in 20 to 1 in
10.
BUT if you had EVER submitted a research paper, funding application,
thesis or whatever and said something like

   "The results on which this whole shebang hinges were shown to be
statistically significant (P=0.1) ... "

you'd have found yourself out the door in the snow so fast you'd not
have had time to put you coat on.

Scientists KNEW that P=0.1 was just not good enough. They knew that
tossing coins, surfing .. er measuring waves, assessing diets in a
normally distributed population etc needed a hurdle rate that was
better than P=0.1

- Real Science has never ever in living memory used P=0.1 as an
indicator of statistical significance.

- Even P=0.05 is a bit in the grey, but it's a start.

NOW, back to "reality".
Chug through the IPCC and other, it seems, statements.
Note that they are commonly going "very likely" all over the place.
Even if we ignore the fact that the data will almost certainly have
been sanitised as much as possible, all outliers which don't fit the
desired result and which can be explained away have been explained
away. All tolerances which one may entirely legitimately swing have
been entirely legitimately swung etc. Accept all that as OK.

It's even OK of sorts of they do the following:
Say I have data of"

   0.14    0.13    0.12    0.11    0.10    0.09    0.08    0.07
0.06    0.05    0.04

AND the guidelines say < 0.1              = "very likely"
(NOT <= 0.1 note)
THEN which of the data above would fit "very likely"
Properly it's obvious that only <= 0.09 would.

BUT we know that when measuring to 1 significant place then

       0.15 > X >= 0.05  = 0.1

Note the inequalities and equalities carefully.

The temptation is to say that when they say < 0.1 they mean <= 0.1
And from there it's an quick shuffle to say that as < 0.15 = 0.1 to 1
significant digit then ANYTHING
in the range

           0.15 > X > 0.05  = 0.1

can legitimately be quoted as "very likely"

NOW I am not saying that people are doing that, but I'd be immensely
surprised if they were not.

HOWEVER, one thing is clear.
When they say "very likely" they do NOT mean, EVER

       <=0.05.

If they did they would have crossed the magic hurdle rate and would be
using the next term up and would have achieved statistical
significance by at least some standard measure, even if not a
stunningly convincing one.

BUT it is absolutely clear and certain from their own writ that the
results we see that are qualified by "very likely" are ones that in
the scientific not so past (and still if you are seeking funding for
something outside proving AGW climate change) would have seen you
outside in the snow with no coat.

BUT by changing the wording to "plain English that the common people
can understand" the Scientists have found a way of changing their own
rules, moving their own boundaries and, worst of all, as Feynman
notes, fooling themselves into thinking that they are still obeying
the same old rules of science and not lying to themselves.

They have "removed the landmarks".
They "have in their bag divers weights, a great and a small"
They have managed to not "have a perfect and just weight, a perfect
and just measure"

They are lying to YOU.
They are lying to themselves.
They have changed the rules without calling an international press
conference to explain it in plain english.

They have decided to shrug off the shackles of the old rules of
science that bound them and establish a new science that reads eg "P =
very likely".
When you have "very likely" under the tail of your normal curve you
can decide anything you want.

And they do.
I don't care how much consensus there is.
I don't care how many scientists have hunches about what they are
seeing and what they might measure in future if they massage the data
even more they may achieve a little more.
When they stop being scientists and don't tell you and don't tell me,
but you think they are fine fellows and you (plural) tend to think
that

> ... But Russell's obviously made
> up his mind, and no amounts of facts will change it.

when what I REALLY want is for Sci ... er scientists to either use the
same rules and bag of weights that they always have OR tell us all
plain and clear that they have decided to replot the normal curve,
reassess centuries of experience and introduce new nicer easier more
friendly levels of statistical significance.

If they change their rules but don't tell us then I'll keep standing
on the table and yelling.

__________

A rejoinder of sorts to all this is that "statistical significance" is
a dangerous tool and toy and that by itself and used poorly it can
lead you to some totally wrong and/or misleading conclusions. This is
true. BUT in the past scientists didn't therefore say that the tool
should be thrown out, but instead found ways to beat the analyses and
data to death to make sure they were not fooling themselves. They
largely didn't, except if they worked for Enron, change the whole
rules of reality and make up new terminology to make the problem go
away.

SO

That's why  I don't think that I've violated my own standards, don't
think that I'm being irrational or not thinking logically, don't think
that this is bordering on nonsense and do think that the Bible verses
are entirely apposite.

If you've waded through to here I congratulate you, thank you and
invite comment of any sort. I don't have to be correct on all or any
of this, but I really really really can't see how I'm wrong. The
change in how science is done and the sleight of hand in communicating
to the public seems clear. By all means disabuse me of my errant
notions. I'd be sad to have wasted people's time if that happens, but
happy not to have to stand on the table yelling any longer.

Until then, "The emperor has no clothes on ..." :-)




       Russell








2007\10\17@085201 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
Hmmm. If I believed what you believe they said, then I would be upset too,
BUT I cannot find what you're talking about.  Their definitions of value
uncertainties and structural uncertainties seems entirely reasonable to me.
Your dyslexic view of the probabilities has me confused.  Here's what I
read; please give me a document and page number so that I can read yours:
______________________________________________________________
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf

Box TS.1: Treatment of Uncertainties in the Working Group I Assessment

The importance of consistent and transparent treatment of uncertainties is
clearly recognised by the IPCC in preparing its assessments of climate
change. The increasing attention given to formal treatments of uncertainty
in previous assessments is addressed in Section 1.6. To promote consistency
in the general treatment of uncertainty across all three Working Groups,
authors of the Fourth Assessment Report have been asked to follow a brief
set of guidance notes on determining and describing uncertainties in the
context of an assessment.2  This box summarises the way that Working Group I
has applied those guidelines and covers some aspects of the treatment of
uncertainty specific to material assessed here.

Uncertainties can be classified in several different ways according to their
origin. Two primary types are 'value uncertainties' and 'structural
uncertainties'.  Value uncertainties arise from the incomplete determination
of particular values or results, for example, when data are inaccurate or
not fully representative of the phenomenon of interest.  Structural
uncertainties arise from an incomplete understanding of the processes that
control particular values or results, for example, when the conceptual
framework or model used for analysis does not include all the relevant
processes or relationships.  Value uncertainties are generally estimated
using statistical techniques and expressed probabilistically. Structural
uncertainties are generally described by giving the authors' collective
judgment of their confidence in the correctness of a result.  In both cases,
estimating uncertainties is intrinsically about describing the limits to
knowledge and for this reason involves expert judgment about the state of
that knowledge.  A different type of uncertainty arises in systems that are
either chaotic or not fully deterministic in nature and this also limits our
ability to project all aspects of climate change.

The scientific literature assessed here uses a variety of other generic ways
of categorising uncertainties.  Uncertainties associated with 'random errors
' have the characteristic of decreasing as additional measurements are
accumulated, whereas those associated with 'systematic errors' do not. In
dealing with climate records, considerable attention has been given to the
identification of systematic errors or unintended biases arising from data
sampling issues and methods of analysing and combining data.  Specialised
statistical methods based on quantitative analysis have been developed for
the detection and attribution of climate change and for producing
probabilistic projections of future climate parameters. These are summarised
in the relevant chapters.

The uncertainty guidance provided for the Fourth Assessment Report draws,
for the first time, a careful distinction between levels of confidence in
scientific understanding and the likelihoods of specific results.  This
allows authors to express high confidence that an event is extremely
unlikely (e.g., rolling a dice twice and getting a six both times), as well
as high confidence that an event is about as likely as not (e.g., a tossed
coin coming up heads).  Confidence and likelihood as used here are distinct
concepts but are often linked in practice.  The standard terms used to
define levels of confidence in this report are as given in the IPCC
Uncertainty Guidance Note, namely:

Very high confidence        At least 9 out of 10 chance
High confidence                About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence        About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence                About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence        Less than 1 out of 10 chance

The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an
outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:

Likelihood Terminology                Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain                > 99% probability
Extremely likely                        > 95% probability
Very likely                        > 90% probability
Likely                                > 66% probability
More likely than not                > 50% probability
About as likely as not                33 to 66% probability
Unlikely                                < 33% probability
Very unlikely                        < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely                < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely                < 1% probability

The terms 'extremely likely', 'extremely unlikely' and 'more likely than not
' as defined above have been added to those given in the IPCC Uncertainty
Guidance Note in order to provide a more specific assessment of aspects
including attribution and radiative forcing.

Unless noted otherwise, values given in this report are assessed best
estimates and their uncertainty ranges are 90% confidence intervals (i.e.,
there is an estimated 5% likelihood of the value being below the lower end
of the range or above the upper end of the range).  Note that in some cases
the nature of the constraints on a value, or other information available,
may indicate an asymmetric distribution of the uncertainty range around a
best estimate.  In such cases, the uncertainty range is given in square
brackets following the best estimate.

2007\10\17@093051 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
A second bite from a (slightly) different direction

> The great thing about this new Science speak is that it gives
> scientists a new freedom to say things that they would have been
> stoned for until someone thought of this idea.

> If I've got this wrong, by all means do point out my error.

>>>> Well, yes, I do believe you've got it wrong.  The point is that
>>>> there is
> uncertainty - a lot of it - but there is significant consensus in
> the
> scientific community that there is cause for alarm.

No. That's not the point :-).
It's another point and an entirely good area to be looking at.
But what I was trying to say (and I apparently did it poorly :-( ) is
that they have not only changed the rules but are now acting as if the
new rules were always there.

> ...  and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate
> of
> increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been
> unprecedented
> in more than 10,000 years  ...

and it's surrounding material *feel to me* to have been written by a
scientist for scientists. If we lesser mortals come and look at it we
sort of feel that we are on hallowed ground as observers. Maybe.

BUT in the middle of the 'science speak' (radiative forcing and the
rest) we find "very likely".
Now, in the not at all distant past I feel (and maybe this is the Rip
van Winkle effect) that that term would not have been there at all.
The terms in the toolkit were, AFAIR things like " ... a statistically
significant ..." and " ... no statistically significant ..." with a P
value in brackets. I don't recall that in the dark ages they ever used
to say "tending towards significance" or similar but just maybe they
did. My wife deals with scientific reports all day every day (an
editor for a medical reports reports publishing company) and she says
that they now do use a term like 'tending towards significance' or
indications of significance. Whatever.

My point is (if I remember it :-) ) that in the past the passage above
would almost certainly NOT have been written at all as it appears now
BECAUSE he would have had to write " ... there was no statistical
significant indication that ...". As the whole point of what he is
saying is that the data tends to support a premise of a much larger
rate of occurrence of whatever than in kiloyonks. And he could not
have said that.
He would have had to say either that it didn't appear to be so OR that
there was perhaps some indication that the figures might support the
premise.

BUT now they have been given a whole gradation of terms to use which
can fit into the sentences they write and give a graded probability
curve right down to P=0.5 !

In fact !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They can now write with a straight face eg

> ...  and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate
> of
> increase during the industrial era is more likely than not to have
> been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years  ...

and actually MEAN between P=0.5 and P= 0.33

cf

IPCC speak table (courtesy some PICList poster) which the above
rapporteur was (presumably) using.

> Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence,
> Extremely likely> 95%,
> Very likely > 90%,
> Likely > 66%,
> More likely than not > 50%,
> Unlikely < 33%,
> Very unlikely < 10%,
> Extremely unlikely < 5%.

This is utter travesty.
P=0.5 is so close to the mean it matters not a whit.
P=0.33 is one standard deviation out.
The Azores butterfly could push any global warming indicator out to 1
SD from norm with a single wingflip.

I haven't yet SEEN any 'scientist' saying "more likely than not' in
such a context BUT it is as legitimate to do that as it is to say
"very likely".

50% < X <=  66% DOES NOT mean "more likely than not" in statistics. It
never has and it never never never will. It means far far far inside
the are of the normal curve where random variation let's this sort of
thing happen as of right and with no essential meaning at all.

And having > 66% (about 1 SD) is worse.

But when Joe/Josephine Sheeple hears a scientist say "it is likely
that ..." he/she THINKS they know what the scientist mean. They don't
know that nowadays when a scientist says "likely" they really mean
"random noise".

ALL of this is lies and moving of markers and unequal weights in the
weighing bag. It's just a matter of scale between "very likely" and
"more likely than not".

Do you think that something is broken.
I think it more likely than not that it is.


       Russell


.








2007\10\17@093051 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
A (to me) stunning thought.

Tell someone of scientific bent that a hypothetical experiment
indicated that it was "likely" that some event passed some criteria or
other.
Then ask them how that answer would need to rate relative to the
criteria for statistical significance.

I hadn't thought of it that way but its stunning.
In the real past I'd say that if you'd asked a science spokesman to
produce a common english phrase for meeting P=0.05 they'd have thought
a while and would "quite probably" have offered "likely" as an
equivalent.

eg P=0.05         = = =         "likely"

Nowadays P= 0.33 is  "likely

Quite a shift.



           R




> Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence,
> Extremely likely> 95%,
> Very likely > 90%,
> Likely > 66%,
> More likely than not > 50%,
> Unlikely < 33%,
> Very unlikely < 10%,
> Extremely unlikely < 5%.


2007\10\17@122754 by Martin

face
flavicon
face
FWIW the energy information administration is a great source for..
energy information
http://www.eia.doe.gov/
--
Martin K

James Newton wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\17@132018 by Ed Browne

flavicon
face
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) doesn't actually do the
science - merely reports it to policy makers.  There are summaries and more
technical information, but it is all written to be used (eventually) by
politicians.  Thus it seems reasonable to me to take a single scientific
data point and attach a lesser "feel good" confidence than one that has been
corroborated 16 times.  Policy makers need to know if they might be dealing
with a wild point in the data or one that is solidly proven by peer review
and duplication - or if the result was arrived at from a multitude of
corroborating angles.  Personally, I applaud the international community for
forging ahead despite our (US) corrupt and dishonest administration.  Talk
about scientific dishonesty!

As for being on or off topic, the OP brought up the 800 year lag between
temperature and the CO2 curve and I presented what I consider to be a
relevant posit for why it doesn't apply to the current data, so you have,
indeed, missed the point again.  As far as I know, no one has stated it the
way that I did, which to me at least, proves the disconnect between natural
CO2 and manmade; i.e., there would need to have been a massive temperature
event 800 years ago to cause the equivalent massive CO2 shift today.  There
wasn't, so there is a different mechanism at work.

{Original Message removed}

2007\10\17@180911 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> ... politicians.  Thus it seems reasonable to me to take a single
> scientific
> data point and attach a lesser "feel good" confidence than one that
> has been
> corroborated 16 times.  Policy makers need to know if they might be
> dealing
> with a wild point in the data or one that is solidly proven by peer
> review ...

I absolutely agree with what you are saying.
AND my concern is that is EXACTLY what is not happening due to the new
terminology.
If anyone can be bothered reading the following I hope that they will
see [tm] that the above intention is being undermined by the new
method of reducing probability ranges to words.

We seem to be talking somewhat at cross purposes, and through each
other, which is unfortunate but what tends to happen when two (or
more) people wish to be objective but have bees in their bonnets and
the bees are different :-). If it was the same bee they'd tend to be
more jointly targeted :-).

I am concerned at the shift in the way information is being conveyed
to the greater community - certainly including but not limited to
information to politicians.

I contend, and I feel more and more certain of my ground as I go
(danger Will Robinson ... ;-) ), that material that was once only able
to be reported as happenstance or worthy of noting as a guide to
future study is now being sold as apparent holy writ, by using
language which is apparently intended to clarify but is in fact
misleading people. And it is clear that it will mislead people if they
are not educated in the new terminology.

IPCC

       "likely"

actually means

       "is the sort of occurrence which happens all the time in
normally
        distributed populations and for the purposes of scientific
study
        is so close to average that no significance whatsoever should
        be assigned to it".

To demonstrate without endless digging for precise wording that this
is happening

IPCC

   >> Likely > 66%,

Websters third New International Dictionary 1961 (chosen because it is
the largest paper dictionary to hand - 2700A4 fine print pages)
p2117

   Term:    Statistically significant

   Example of use:    ... statistically significant correlation
between
                                 vitamin deficiency and disease.

   Explanation:    Probably caused by something other than mere
chance.

In the layman's mind the terms "probably" and "likely" are, I think,
close enough to synonymous to allow this example to ring alarm bells
if it doesn't actually convince outright. If it did neither I'd
probably be concerned. (Or, likely be concerned).

Here, IPCC are using the word "likely" in contexts where in the past
scientists were meaning 'that's the sort of minor variation that
happens all the time in a randomly distributed population, move
along".

_____________

As to

           > IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
           > doesn't actually do the science ...

What they do do is provide guidelines to scientists as to how they
should present their results. They say that scientists "should" say eg
"likely" when they mean ">66%" and, as your cited example shows,
scientists have taken note of these guidelines and are using them.

So, while IPCC may not be doing the science they are managing to
manage how the results should be presented. "The hand that rocks the
cradle ..." as it were.

________________

And, finally (phew)

> ... CO2 and manmade; i.e., there would need to have been a massive
> temperature
> event 800 years ago to cause the equivalent massive CO2 shift today.
> There
> wasn't, so there is a different mechanism at work.

The whole point of conventional statistical treatment of scientific
results was to give formal process to analysing results that may
APPEAR to be well correlated examples of some effect or other. It was
(and is) obvious that human nature, hopefulness and normal
fluctuations in the data could produce results that appeared to even a
careful observer to have meaning above what was actually there. So the
concept of statistical significance was born. It's an arbitrary point
in the tail (or, a series of points) but they are founded on all past
experience. The first hurdle point at 0.05 has been long long ago set
as the lowest at which you can "risk" attributing causality etc to
even what may be an apparent avalanche of proof.

So eg
   > " ... there would need to have been a  ..."
is another way of saying
   "the data appears to me to show".
But, the standard scientific tests say
   " ... using the standard tests, the data does not show  ...
(although there are indications that there may be something along
those lines happening)"

By supplying the toolkit of 'likely / very likely / extremely likely'
the IPCC has allowed a scientist to take what would used to have been
a rejected hunch and report it as a probable confirmation.

While I can understand that researchers might be glad to have this new
more continuously graded means of presenting their data, it has tilted
the playing field massively.

While I agree totally with your

{Quote hidden}

Words below in [...] have been added by me to make your summarised
quote still read as YOU intended it to after I have summarised it

What is in fact happening is that the long time honoured filter of, as
you put it -

> " ... corroborated 16 times ... [not] dealing with a wild point in
> the data
>   ... [but] one that is solidly proven by peer review and
> duplication -
>  [and that] the result was arrived at from a multitude of
> corroborating angles."

which is P <= 0.05

has been broken through by wordsmiths who now allow the impressive
enough "likely" and "very likely" to present results which DO NOT meet
the above tests. Just as the data in your example did not meet the
traditional tests.

And, scientists have taken up the "suggestions" and are using them (as
your example shows) to present data in a different light than the same
data would have been presented in the past.




       Russell





2007\10\17@181507 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> IPCC speak table (courtesy some PICList poster) which the above
> rapporteur was (presumably) using.
>
>> Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence,
>> Extremely likely> 95%,
>> Very likely > 90%,
>> Likely > 66%,
>> More likely than not > 50%,
>> Unlikely < 33%,
>> Very unlikely < 10%,
>> Extremely unlikely < 5%.
>
> This is utter travesty.
> P=0.5 is so close to the mean it matters not a whit.
> P=0.33 is one standard deviation out.

Russell, I think you may be confusing probabilities with confidence levels
-- if I understand you correctly (and if I understand confidence levels
correctly :). Note that they also have a suggested wording for confidence
levels, which is different from the above.

For probabilities (not confidence levels), 50% does /not/ mean it's close
to the mean. If I can give a probability of 50% for rain this afternoon,
this is a meaningful data; the mean of rain or not (here at least) is quite
different, and even if it were not different, the prediction that this
afternoon the probability is close to the mean does add information.

There's nothing that says how the events these probabilities describe are
distributed and what the mean is. (In fact, these number are exactly what
the models are supposed to calculate.)

However, this probability doesn't yet say what the confidence level of such
a prediction is. And I think that's where things get interesting, as the
IPCC doesn't state a single confidence level with any of its probability
predictions.

Gerhard

2007\10\17@191203 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Russell, I think you may be confusing probabilities with
> confidence levels
> -- if I understand you correctly (and if I understand
> confidence levels
> correctly :). Note that they also have a suggested wording
> for confidence
> levels, which is different from the above.

I'll need to word and put all this far more tightly in due
course I can see :-)

How do you feel that the above applies when a scientist says
(as per the quoted example that this conversation is based
on) ?

     "  ...  and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W
m-2, and
       its rate of increase during the industrial era is
very likely to have
       been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years  ... "


       Russell

2007\10\18@065248 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> Russell, I think you may be confusing probabilities with confidence
>> levels -- if I understand you correctly (and if I understand confidence
>> levels correctly :). Note that they also have a suggested wording for
>> confidence levels, which is different from the above.

Maybe a clarification here. It seems to me that you assume models that
output "hard" data, with a given confidence that this data is correct. I
assumed models that output probabilities of events, with a given confidence
that these probabilities are correct. It depends on what you consider the
output data.

> How do you feel that the above applies when a scientist says (as per the
> quoted example that this conversation is based on) ?
>
> "  ...  and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate
> of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been
> unprecedented in more than 10,000 years  ... "

For me, it's impossible to say whether this is a case of "very likely"
being a transcription of the results of applying a model to the data (in
which case the confidence data would be missing) or whether the "very
likely" is a transcription of the confidence level.

I wonder why they added the suggested terminology for confidence levels if
they don't use it.

Gerhard

2007\10\18@081930 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Preamble:     I believe that this issue is crucially
important to science as a whole. I believe that very very
naughty things are "very probably" being done and that
scientists are fooling not only the public but themselves.
How likely this is has only become increasingly clear as I
have rambled on over the last while and been abused in
various ways by a number of people. Abuse is oft enough the
fuel which keeps one at a lost cause until it's suddenly
won, so I sincerely thank those who have kept my nose to the
grindstone :-)

I believe that I can now, with quite a lot more checking to
avoid the errors that Gerhard has pointed out in my
assumption set, make a near waterproof case that both an
intelligent layman or dispassionate disinterested scientist
would acknowledge as wholly valid that

Science speak of the " ... likely / very likely ..." type
(absolutely regardless of the intentions in introducing it)
has done a vast disservice to the areas in which it is being
used and is misleading not only the general public and
politicians but also the scientists who are using it. I am
arrogant enough to believe that if this case is clearly and
competently made in the appropriate quarters then it will
cause a major change in how information is promulgated.
However, I may wake up at any  moment ... :-)

___________________

{Quote hidden}

_________________________


I try to assume nothing - but I manage to do so all the time
:-). :-(.
Your point is understood. I'm not sure that it is one that
the person who wrote the paragraph under discussion gave
enough attention to. But, more work needed on that
'sometime".

BUT I have not done the dog with a bone shaking that this
needs yet. And it may be a wee while before I get to it as
work and other demands are very heavy here. Going on holiday
with my wife next week is a necessary demand (albeit a
pleasant one) and I'm playing at sole wedding photographer*
as soon as I get back (among the more high pressure tasks
around - blink and you miss it, get it wrong and there's no
coming back) and ...

{Quote hidden}

To me it SEEMS clear what is being said.
In any past era the words "very likely" in that statement
would have been substituted with an indication of the P
value that had been determined for the result he is
suggesting. Here (if one accepts the translation from the
table I gave which may be a questionable one) then he is
saying P = 0.1 He certainly isn't saying anything more
probable than P=0.1 If he had been restricted to using a P
value (I suggest that) he would not have made the statement
at all because it would have been an admission in the one
sentence that what he was saying didn't stand up to
scientific scrutiny. But, by having access to the new
toolkit of likely/very likely/... (even if it's the wrong
toolkit for whatever reason :-) ) then he is able to make
statements which SOUND like they statistically support his
case while simultaneously demonstrating that by all past
standards the case fails.

ie
1.    A layman will think that he has said something
precisely the opposite of what he has said

and

2.    He feels he can say it meaningfully. ie he actually is
believing the false impression that he is giving the layman
as to the scientific rigour of his findings.

So - he isn't lying to the layman - rather he is misleading
both them and himself.

I ran his paragraph past a competent commentator and asked
what they thought it meant in formal terms. They did not
know what my point was in advance. They are
*vastly*experienced in areas of probabilistic treatment of
data but had not till then been exposed to the
.../likely/...
translations.

More on the Q&A anon, but they assumed he was indicating
statistical significance and were amazed when I said that I
believed it meant P=0.1 (or possible as high as 0.1(or, just
possibly) as high as 0.229 or so
as sqrt(90*66) = ~77.07 and 1-.770714 = 0.229286

So P = 0.229 = ~77.1% when quoted at one figure significance
is closer to 90% than 60% geometrically so can (perhaps) be
quoted as "very likely".

If so, then a one in 4 and a bit chance is "very likely".
As per the table I quoted (whatever it's meant to apply to
:-) ) we know that a 1 out of 3 chance is "likely".

In 1961 "probably" was " statistically significant" sez
Websters edition 3  = 95% or P=0.05 so we've come a long
way.

I think that it's probably fair to say that probably and
very likely are close enough to being synonymous OR that
very likely is more like "very probably", which makes my
case very very very well indeed,  but it's extremely likely
that some people will try to defend an alternative position.



       Russell

> I wonder why they added the suggested terminology for
> confidence levels if
> they don't use it.

For later study :-)



* Not my day job.
For "fun" occasionally.
I may be able to do without such panic inducing fun in
future.


2007\10\19@015714 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Waiting eagerly here ...

Seriously.


       Russell

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...