It's of course correct that rejecting a hypothesis at the 5% level doesn't mean that there is a 95% confidence in the alternative. However, in the case of global warming, we really only have two options (natural, not-natural/anthropogenic). If we can reject with 95% confidence that more than 50% of the observed warming was natural, then we can say that it is extremely unlikely that more than 50% of the observed warming was natural. Is it then strictly correct to say that it is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming was anthropogenic? Maybe from a strictly statistical perspective this is wrong, but given that there isn't an alternative in reality, it's hard to see how it's all that misleading (i.e., if we're very confident that nature can't be responsible for more than 50% of the observed warming, then we can be pretty confident that more than 50% of it is anthropogenic/man-made).
There is an alternative in reality, it's called evidence based science. You don’t need the confidence in a probability of a guess, if you have evidence. Like with Covid, there is an awful lot of evidence censored about the Atmospheric Physics of carbon dioxide warming. Analysing the carbon dioxide content of the Earth’s Atmosphere a paper found that about 4 percent of the 400ppm of CO2 was man-made and volcanic. That was then divided into 6ppm for Man-made CO2, and 12ppm for Volcanic CO2. That meant that only 6ppm of an increase of 224ppm was man made emissions. But the most damming destructive and dangerous evidence for the Climate Scam comes from the Magellan mission to Venus. This is because Venus has a quarter of a million times more carbon dioxide than the Earth, and the temperature can be understood as correlating with a ‘Pressure-induced Thermal Inertia Greenhouse Effect’ as is also found for the Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan and Triton, and the one bar atmospheric pressure points on each of the planets, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus. But like Norman Fenton and the mRNA jab, this science is under enormous attack from easily rebutted rebuttals and mainstream media censorship. But you can look it up on Google Scholar, Tallblokes Talkshop or on the Mensa Debating Forum.
Wow, there's quite a lot there. I have indeed seen these arguments on numerous occasions elsewhere. Here's something to ponder. Pressure doesn't do work (or generate heat) when the system is static. It will only generate heat under compression. For example, Jupiter radiates slightly more energy back into space than it receives from the Sun. This is because Jupiter is still slowly contracting which leads to gravitational potential energy being converted to thermal energy and then radiated into space. However, an Earth-like terrestrial planet does not have much gravitational potential energy in its atmosphere. So, if you want some similar process to explain the elevated temperatures on the Earth, Venus, Mars etc then where this energy is coming from? The atmospheres of the terrestrial planets are clearly not contracting in anyway that would provide the energy required to maintain these elevated surface temperatures. The answer, of course, is that the elevated surface temperatures on the terrestrial planets is not due to some pressure-induced thermal inertia greenhouse effect'.
You are almost correct about pressure, although the increase in temperature is due to the compression of the space between the molecules due to pressure. In no case is gravitational potential energy being converted to thermal energy on any Planet, as the movement of molecules is primarily dependent on the distance from the Sun. The heat rises because there are more molecules per square inch. According to a NASA technical report, the excess heat radiated by Jupiter is simply a remnant of the heat generated when the planet coalesced from the solar nebula. In fact this is part of the pressure/temperature gradient of all the planets. The fact is that the one bar pressure points on all of the planets, proves the point that instead of gravitational potential energy being converted to thermal energy. Only the Sun and Radioactive decay generate the heat, and that this heat rises with a gradient as the molecules are compressed by pressure. All this is equal for all the planets with the highest pressure and temperature being at Jupiter’s core. After reading “The Theory of Heat Radiation (1914) by Max Planck” many times over. To simplify on the understanding of heat. There is evidence that radiative heating does not occur for a gas. The reason being that the random nature of the movement or vibration of gas molecules means that half of the molecules moving towards the radiation are slowed down or cooled. So then radiative forcing is real because the frequency is lowered, but only positive for half of the molecules. So in reality no heat is created in this process for gas molecules.
You seem to be where I was ten years ago. I remember that the virial theorem was mentioned in “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres, Ferenc M. Miskolczi, (2007)” The problem was that Miskolczi failed to solve the Venus problem. Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller solved the Venus problem in 2011 with empirical findings which replace the Clausius virial theorem with two static gradients, temperature and pressure. The virial theorem may not be relevant because all things cancel each other out. For instance the random nature of the movement of molecules means that half of the molecules moving towards or away from the gravity field, are heated up or cooled. Gravitational compression with molecules vibrating at the same rate can also give the illusion that gravity is producing the heat. I think the thermal time constant is more relevant for Jupiter and all the planets.
What's P(H) for the target problem, doc, and how would you represent "The consistency of observed and modeled changes across the climate system, including warming of the atmosphere and ocean, sea level rise, ocean acidification and changes in the water cycle, the cryosphere and climate extremes points to a large-scale warming resulting primarily from anthropogenic increases in GHG concentrations"?
It only takes one scientist to solve a problem. I think the most interesting development on this issue came up on Tallbloke’s Talkshop and the Mensa Debating Forum. So what is the probability that man-made warming was ‘zero percent’ if the ‘Climate Change’ problem was solved in 1871 by James Clerk Maxwell when he mentioned the Poisson curve for gravity in ‘Theory of Heat (1871)’. The same curve used by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller in the ‘Unified Theory of Climate (2011)’ for the ‘Pressure-induced Thermal Inertia Greenhouse Effect’ on the surface of Venus, Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan and Triton. And then what is the probability for the repeated coincidence that the average temperature at the one bar pressure points on each of the planets, is the same, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus, which is also located on the Poisson curve for gravity. Gravity causes the Pressure. Does this produce a probability that Climate Change is 100% natural. From the Tallbloke website. The most important lesson in Climate science you are ever likely to watch: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/09/06/ned-nikolov-demystifying-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect
A must-read op-ed in the WSJ has the eye-opening headline “Covid censorship proved to be deadly.” I added my own thoughts on this superlative, important and profoundly-true essay. The link to the WSJ article is available in the Reader Comments if you can’t access the pay-walled version.
What the author (and I) are really saving is that Norman's writing - if it had been seen by many more people - could have saved countless lives and prevented misery of an epic scale.
Your coin example is excellent and accurately represents the current state of The ScienceTM.
Evidently, if you want to find out if a coin is double headed, you don't toss it five times. You simply take it and look at both faces. It doesn't require knowing the Bayes' theorem, or a prior probability, and provides an unequivocal answer.
Using models to estimate if the Earth is warming, and if the culprits are us, is as stupid as tossing a coin five times to estimate if a coin is double-headed.
Of course, with the coin, there is an absolutely correct and scientific way to test the hypothesis. With the anthropogenic climate change, there is no scientific way of estimating the human contribution. The uncertainty is too high.
A 2009 survey by Peter Doran found 97.4% publishing scientists agreed humans influence temperature, 2010 Bill Anderegg found 97% among most active publishing scientists agreed that humans caused warming and endorsed by organisations from 80 countries
Humans affect the gravitational pull of planet Earth, given the collective mass of 8 billion people. But, suggesting we are responsible for the bulk of gravitational pull would be shear nonsense - the gravity was there long before humans. Likewise, the planet has warmed and cooled, with far greater variability, long before humans produced CO2 emissions.
97% of scientists agreeing humans influence temperature is a deliberately misleading statement. To what degree 0.00000001%, or, 100%?
PS 97% of climate scientists rely on the belief in Anthropogenic warming to get their funding. Just a coincidence, I'm sure...
Hello, I don't think the 2013 consensus paper has been debunked by the article that you link. The non relevant papers were rejected from the 21 years of scientific papers and in those remaining there was a 97% consensus. Three other studies also found majority agreement. The question as to what degree has human activity changed the climate was not really relevant as it is virtually impossible to assess as so many factors such as solar, pollution, volcanoes and el nino and la nino affect warming. We only need to know if humans are affecting climate even if only in a small way (as we in a period of solar cooling and la Nina even a little warming means a lot of anthropogenic warming), on which there is consensus, yes humans affect the climate. Unless you survey non-climate scientists and manage to get 0.3% of them to sign a headline grabbing Petition Project rejecting the consensus.
Whether the stats on the 95% that more than half of climate change is human made are flawed or not doesn't change anything either as I have shown above. The proportion of climate change at this point is not relevant and is difficult to assess.
You haven't debunked anthropogenic climate change in any way shape or form. Just maybe educated some as to what stats and claims of percentages can and can't show.
As does a basic understanding the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. Specifically, the former follows the latter ~ not the other way 'round:
I worry that you show no interest whatsoever in how was that consensus you believe in (as opposed to "know to be true") achieved. In my view, even if 99.9% of scientists agreed, a person interested in the truth of the matter would ask: How has every one of the 99.9% reached his (I do not mention the other gender, because I do not accept the woke changes to our language, I mean "his or her") conclusions? I know of many reasons why scientists go with what they believe to be a consensus opinion. Don't you?
You science denier you! How dare you! Why won't you do yourself a favour and prudently follow the crowd? Perhaps you are one of those backward - most likely - racists, misogynists bigots and haters who believes that truth remains truth even if not one single so called scientist (or anyone else) expresses it? It is time to accept that the vast majority of humanity has accepted that it is correct about everything. Do not ask how the majority has arrived at this collective wisdom. Be prudent. The majority "follows science". The majority is enlightened. Just ask the majority.
@Krzeszny ~ I thought you meant the video link, but in my experience, none of the text or video links work in the original incoming email. However, they all work once I click through to the browser display on Substack. Your mileage may vary.
Professor Fenton, painstakingly helping the world to understand statistical legerdemain, one inquiring mind at a time.
Thanks for another helpful and informative exposition, Professor. The learning curves can be awfully steep, and a bit of guidance is greatly appreciated.
I remember seeing a photograph of a weather station in the middle of a field of grass and a subsequent photograph of it in a parking lot next to a building built long after the first photograph was taken. Same data acquisition point in a radically modified environment, producing just the long term temperature tread that the IPCC thrives on.
That would have been 20 years after "Heathrow Airport began in 1929 as a small airfield (Great West Aerodrome) on land southeast of the hamlet of Heathrow from which the airport takes its name." Wikipedia
That’s melted my brain!!! Not being a mathematician or statistician I had to read that a couple of times! In my course language the IPCC and their scientists are bullshitting the world with their scaremongering!!!
A Climate expert that did not go along with the narrative.
https://youtu.be/7LVSrTZDopM
It's of course correct that rejecting a hypothesis at the 5% level doesn't mean that there is a 95% confidence in the alternative. However, in the case of global warming, we really only have two options (natural, not-natural/anthropogenic). If we can reject with 95% confidence that more than 50% of the observed warming was natural, then we can say that it is extremely unlikely that more than 50% of the observed warming was natural. Is it then strictly correct to say that it is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming was anthropogenic? Maybe from a strictly statistical perspective this is wrong, but given that there isn't an alternative in reality, it's hard to see how it's all that misleading (i.e., if we're very confident that nature can't be responsible for more than 50% of the observed warming, then we can be pretty confident that more than 50% of it is anthropogenic/man-made).
There is an alternative in reality, it's called evidence based science. You don’t need the confidence in a probability of a guess, if you have evidence. Like with Covid, there is an awful lot of evidence censored about the Atmospheric Physics of carbon dioxide warming. Analysing the carbon dioxide content of the Earth’s Atmosphere a paper found that about 4 percent of the 400ppm of CO2 was man-made and volcanic. That was then divided into 6ppm for Man-made CO2, and 12ppm for Volcanic CO2. That meant that only 6ppm of an increase of 224ppm was man made emissions. But the most damming destructive and dangerous evidence for the Climate Scam comes from the Magellan mission to Venus. This is because Venus has a quarter of a million times more carbon dioxide than the Earth, and the temperature can be understood as correlating with a ‘Pressure-induced Thermal Inertia Greenhouse Effect’ as is also found for the Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan and Triton, and the one bar atmospheric pressure points on each of the planets, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus. But like Norman Fenton and the mRNA jab, this science is under enormous attack from easily rebutted rebuttals and mainstream media censorship. But you can look it up on Google Scholar, Tallblokes Talkshop or on the Mensa Debating Forum.
Paul,
Wow, there's quite a lot there. I have indeed seen these arguments on numerous occasions elsewhere. Here's something to ponder. Pressure doesn't do work (or generate heat) when the system is static. It will only generate heat under compression. For example, Jupiter radiates slightly more energy back into space than it receives from the Sun. This is because Jupiter is still slowly contracting which leads to gravitational potential energy being converted to thermal energy and then radiated into space. However, an Earth-like terrestrial planet does not have much gravitational potential energy in its atmosphere. So, if you want some similar process to explain the elevated temperatures on the Earth, Venus, Mars etc then where this energy is coming from? The atmospheres of the terrestrial planets are clearly not contracting in anyway that would provide the energy required to maintain these elevated surface temperatures. The answer, of course, is that the elevated surface temperatures on the terrestrial planets is not due to some pressure-induced thermal inertia greenhouse effect'.
You are almost correct about pressure, although the increase in temperature is due to the compression of the space between the molecules due to pressure. In no case is gravitational potential energy being converted to thermal energy on any Planet, as the movement of molecules is primarily dependent on the distance from the Sun. The heat rises because there are more molecules per square inch. According to a NASA technical report, the excess heat radiated by Jupiter is simply a remnant of the heat generated when the planet coalesced from the solar nebula. In fact this is part of the pressure/temperature gradient of all the planets. The fact is that the one bar pressure points on all of the planets, proves the point that instead of gravitational potential energy being converted to thermal energy. Only the Sun and Radioactive decay generate the heat, and that this heat rises with a gradient as the molecules are compressed by pressure. All this is equal for all the planets with the highest pressure and temperature being at Jupiter’s core. After reading “The Theory of Heat Radiation (1914) by Max Planck” many times over. To simplify on the understanding of heat. There is evidence that radiative heating does not occur for a gas. The reason being that the random nature of the movement or vibration of gas molecules means that half of the molecules moving towards the radiation are slowed down or cooled. So then radiative forcing is real because the frequency is lowered, but only positive for half of the molecules. So in reality no heat is created in this process for gas molecules.
Paul,
Have you ever heard of the Virial Theorem?
You seem to be where I was ten years ago. I remember that the virial theorem was mentioned in “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres, Ferenc M. Miskolczi, (2007)” The problem was that Miskolczi failed to solve the Venus problem. Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller solved the Venus problem in 2011 with empirical findings which replace the Clausius virial theorem with two static gradients, temperature and pressure. The virial theorem may not be relevant because all things cancel each other out. For instance the random nature of the movement of molecules means that half of the molecules moving towards or away from the gravity field, are heated up or cooled. Gravitational compression with molecules vibrating at the same rate can also give the illusion that gravity is producing the heat. I think the thermal time constant is more relevant for Jupiter and all the planets.
Paul,
You might like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/no-pressure-alone-does-not-define-surface-temperatures/
Looks like you've been missing out on a few years of Climateball episodes!
What's P(H) for the target problem, doc, and how would you represent "The consistency of observed and modeled changes across the climate system, including warming of the atmosphere and ocean, sea level rise, ocean acidification and changes in the water cycle, the cryosphere and climate extremes points to a large-scale warming resulting primarily from anthropogenic increases in GHG concentrations"?
Nicely written!
It only takes one scientist to solve a problem. I think the most interesting development on this issue came up on Tallbloke’s Talkshop and the Mensa Debating Forum. So what is the probability that man-made warming was ‘zero percent’ if the ‘Climate Change’ problem was solved in 1871 by James Clerk Maxwell when he mentioned the Poisson curve for gravity in ‘Theory of Heat (1871)’. The same curve used by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller in the ‘Unified Theory of Climate (2011)’ for the ‘Pressure-induced Thermal Inertia Greenhouse Effect’ on the surface of Venus, Earth, Mars, Europa, Titan and Triton. And then what is the probability for the repeated coincidence that the average temperature at the one bar pressure points on each of the planets, is the same, adjusted for distance from the Sun, despite the different main gases, Nitrogen for the Earth & Titan, Hydrogen for Jupiter, Neptune, Saturn & Uranus and Carbon Dioxide for Venus, which is also located on the Poisson curve for gravity. Gravity causes the Pressure. Does this produce a probability that Climate Change is 100% natural. From the Tallbloke website. The most important lesson in Climate science you are ever likely to watch: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/09/06/ned-nikolov-demystifying-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect
A must-read op-ed in the WSJ has the eye-opening headline “Covid censorship proved to be deadly.” I added my own thoughts on this superlative, important and profoundly-true essay. The link to the WSJ article is available in the Reader Comments if you can’t access the pay-walled version.
What the author (and I) are really saving is that Norman's writing - if it had been seen by many more people - could have saved countless lives and prevented misery of an epic scale.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/covid-censorship-proved-to-be-deadly?
Thanks Sir. That blew my simple mind's fuse! But 2nd read was better!
Your coin example is excellent and accurately represents the current state of The ScienceTM.
Evidently, if you want to find out if a coin is double headed, you don't toss it five times. You simply take it and look at both faces. It doesn't require knowing the Bayes' theorem, or a prior probability, and provides an unequivocal answer.
Using models to estimate if the Earth is warming, and if the culprits are us, is as stupid as tossing a coin five times to estimate if a coin is double-headed.
Of course, with the coin, there is an absolutely correct and scientific way to test the hypothesis. With the anthropogenic climate change, there is no scientific way of estimating the human contribution. The uncertainty is too high.
A 2009 survey by Peter Doran found 97.4% publishing scientists agreed humans influence temperature, 2010 Bill Anderegg found 97% among most active publishing scientists agreed that humans caused warming and endorsed by organisations from 80 countries
100% Irrevocable proof! That the majority of do called "scientists" are in fact. RsClowns!
Humans affect the gravitational pull of planet Earth, given the collective mass of 8 billion people. But, suggesting we are responsible for the bulk of gravitational pull would be shear nonsense - the gravity was there long before humans. Likewise, the planet has warmed and cooled, with far greater variability, long before humans produced CO2 emissions.
97% of scientists agreeing humans influence temperature is a deliberately misleading statement. To what degree 0.00000001%, or, 100%?
PS 97% of climate scientists rely on the belief in Anthropogenic warming to get their funding. Just a coincidence, I'm sure...
97% do not agree:
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/a1e37ffa79f1
More importantly, science is about evidence, not consensus.
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/8708f52c5274
Hello, I don't think the 2013 consensus paper has been debunked by the article that you link. The non relevant papers were rejected from the 21 years of scientific papers and in those remaining there was a 97% consensus. Three other studies also found majority agreement. The question as to what degree has human activity changed the climate was not really relevant as it is virtually impossible to assess as so many factors such as solar, pollution, volcanoes and el nino and la nino affect warming. We only need to know if humans are affecting climate even if only in a small way (as we in a period of solar cooling and la Nina even a little warming means a lot of anthropogenic warming), on which there is consensus, yes humans affect the climate. Unless you survey non-climate scientists and manage to get 0.3% of them to sign a headline grabbing Petition Project rejecting the consensus.
Whether the stats on the 95% that more than half of climate change is human made are flawed or not doesn't change anything either as I have shown above. The proportion of climate change at this point is not relevant and is difficult to assess.
You haven't debunked anthropogenic climate change in any way shape or form. Just maybe educated some as to what stats and claims of percentages can and can't show.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked
Jo
Greenland ice cores tell the story:
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/v_4c7cbf2a828a_00d4b65c090c_c3cc
As does a basic understanding the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. Specifically, the former follows the latter ~ not the other way 'round:
> https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ
I worry that you show no interest whatsoever in how was that consensus you believe in (as opposed to "know to be true") achieved. In my view, even if 99.9% of scientists agreed, a person interested in the truth of the matter would ask: How has every one of the 99.9% reached his (I do not mention the other gender, because I do not accept the woke changes to our language, I mean "his or her") conclusions? I know of many reasons why scientists go with what they believe to be a consensus opinion. Don't you?
99% of experts agree with those paying them as we have learnt about ConVid. The Climate Change scam is at least 150 years old.
You science denier you! How dare you! Why won't you do yourself a favour and prudently follow the crowd? Perhaps you are one of those backward - most likely - racists, misogynists bigots and haters who believes that truth remains truth even if not one single so called scientist (or anyone else) expresses it? It is time to accept that the vast majority of humanity has accepted that it is correct about everything. Do not ask how the majority has arrived at this collective wisdom. Be prudent. The majority "follows science". The majority is enlightened. Just ask the majority.
A recovering liberal here. Thank you for opening my eyes to this, Prof. Fenton.
The hyperlink for "prosecutors fallacy" is broken or the website has been removed.
Worked for me. Might not work if you click on the video link in the email.
Are you talking about a hyperlink or about a video link?
The link is http://www.agenarisk.com/resources/probability_puzzles/prosecutor.shtml
@Krzeszny ~ I thought you meant the video link, but in my experience, none of the text or video links work in the original incoming email. However, they all work once I click through to the browser display on Substack. Your mileage may vary.
Professor Fenton, painstakingly helping the world to understand statistical legerdemain, one inquiring mind at a time.
Thanks for another helpful and informative exposition, Professor. The learning curves can be awfully steep, and a bit of guidance is greatly appreciated.
The data was and is tainted by bad science.
I remember seeing a photograph of a weather station in the middle of a field of grass and a subsequent photograph of it in a parking lot next to a building built long after the first photograph was taken. Same data acquisition point in a radically modified environment, producing just the long term temperature tread that the IPCC thrives on.
A bit like Heathrow in the 1950s, perhaps?
https://i2-prod.mylondon.news/incoming/article22564421.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200b/0_p_00457162.jpg
That would have been 20 years after "Heathrow Airport began in 1929 as a small airfield (Great West Aerodrome) on land southeast of the hamlet of Heathrow from which the airport takes its name." Wikipedia
NASA: CO2 Greening Earth
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zOwHT8yS1XI&pp=ygUNbmFzYSBncmVlbmluZw%3D%3D
That’s melted my brain!!! Not being a mathematician or statistician I had to read that a couple of times! In my course language the IPCC and their scientists are bullshitting the world with their scaremongering!!!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
And, get paid danged well to do so, Dang It!