Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 6^th, 2017 at 10:37pm:



No DICK it is the null hypothesis. Why do you think so many alarmists want it changed?

Did you read what I posted from Phil Jones CRU?

"Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office.

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?"

"Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

Oh but you say it is AGW from the Industrial Revolution. Back before CO2 increased. How did that work?

best you say nothing if you've got nothing Monk.

JM, We know you area fantastic fabulist. I believe it is in your DNA. Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to separate actual truths and fabulist truths.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 10:55am:



See wrong again. The temperature of the earth has never been "stable". Ice ages, warm periods- definitely not stable. Actually that reminds me of you.

lee wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 12:02pm:

AGW: 1850–2017

Quite an increase in temperature in that time.

Now, Lees, theory, implications, alternate hypothesis, null hypothesis and test for natural variation please.

Where is your theory, implications, alternate and null hypotheses and test for natural variation?

Lees mission is to drive people away from this board, to kill discussion of AGW. To do that he will even look like a complete clown if need be.

I mentioned AGW, Lees drags in the 4Bn year history of the planet. Not very honest—or not very bright of Lees.

If the theory being tested is AGW then the alternative hypothesis, the result of AGW, is that temperatures have increased 1850–2017 (or whatever year.)

To test this we formulate a null hypothesis that we try to falsify and for AGW it is obviously:

H0: temperatures (1850–2017  ) are stable.

We know temperatures have risen, any statistical test would see the null hypothesis fail. So we accept the alternate hypothesis: AGW is happening.

All straightforward enough, but Lees seems to be having trouble working out theory–implication-H1–H0-test for his “theory” of natural variation causing temperatures to rise.

Emma wrote on Aug 7^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:


Emma, Perhaps you need to have Bex and a good lie down.

JM is constantly saying AGW is real.

His saying  "for AGW the null hypothesis could be "temperatures are stable" ", means that because temperatures are NOT stable, the null hypothesis is nullified. It actually means there is no AGW.

For AGW to be true warming has to be happening. There is, no doubt about that. We know the mechanism too.

Glad you were paying attention. Now:

Natural variation—expand on that excuse theory:

Theory–mechanism—implication

H1:

H0:

Test:

Come on Lees, you said it was the obvious, the natural explanation. Or did you not really mean that? Was it just more obfuscation? Surely not?