Quote:
Originally Posted by onon
No it doesn't imply that. Many error ranges follow a normal distribution of probability where the liklihood decreases the further from the midpoint.
|
Yes, it does imply that. You still haven't read your source. I'll repeat it for you:
Two measurements are taken at exactly the same time in the same place. These two measurements are compared. As long as the measurements do not differ by more than .5ppmv they are included in the data set. Therefore, two measurements exist in the data set for one data point. It is possible these two measurements differ from each other by .5ppmv. Which measurement is the "true" measurement? They don't know, they only know the "true" measurement is somewhere within the range. It has nothing to do with probability, and everything to do with the inaccuracy of the data collection method.
Quote:
|
You used the very highest figure of 3.33 which is in the < 20%. That's what I mean by using a liberal error rate - you have taken the most extreme amount of error possible for the example.
|
Do you have a distribution for the data set? Mode? Median? Range? Standard deviation? If not, then you're just making shit up.
Quote:
|
As I have said before a particular year is subject to more uncertainty than a range of multiple years.
|
And as I have repeatedly tried to point out to you, we're not taking measurements every 10 years. We're taking measurements every hour. Ergo, every measurement has the very real possibility of being within .5ppmv of the reported value. That's why I went to great pains to show you multiple years. The fact remains that in 5 of those 10 years, 50% of the time, the rise in CO2 could be greater than the anthropogenic emisions.
Quote:
|
So the probability that the human emissions in 2006 were higher than the co2 rise in 2006 is more than 95%.
|
All values within the error ranges have equal probability of occuring. It is no more accurate to say that 7.1GtC is the correct figure for anthropogenic emissions than it is to say that 6.0GtC is the correct figure for anthropogenic emissions. Both have a 90% probability of occuring, according to your source. It is no more accurate to say that 2.33ppmv is the correct increase in CO2 concentrations than it is to say that 2.83ppmv is the correct increase in CO2 concentrations. Both have 100% probability of occuring, according to your source. All irregardless of how badly you want them to be something definite.
Quote:
|
I said above that "a particular year is subject to more uncertainty than a range of multiple years. So there is a small probability that cannot be written off that co2 emissions do not meet the co2 rise in a particular year."
|
Then we should just start taking measurements every 100 years, that way we can be certain.
Quote:
|
That figure gives an indication of how certain I think the recent co2 rise (100ppm) being attributable to humans is. Equally I could say I am also 99.99% sure that common descent of species is true, but no statistical data there either. The 99.99% is to emphasise that I see it as more certain than 80% or 90%.
|
You know what they call belief in the absence of evidence don't you, onon?
Quote:
|
But for a ten year period the error range is just 20ppm +- 2ppm, meaning the actual figure can only be as much as 10% off the estimate of 20ppm. So clearly it is better to use data with less error range no?
|
Oh, no doubt. As I wrote, let's take measurements every 100 years, then the estimate will only be off by 2%. Hell, we could approach fact by never taking measurements at all.
Quote:
|
Nope, we don't need to extrapolate - we have the data for the last 10 years so why are you so reluctant to use that? What's wrong with taking the rise over the past 10 years, and emissions over the past 10 years?
|
Don't be dishonest, onon. I've used the data you provided. I've used it as nearly in accordance with how the data is collected and how it was meant to be used. The data was meant to show
hourly variation in CO2 concentrations. Without the hourly data, and their concomitant error ranges, we can't make as accurate an analysis as the data would provide. We should go to the next best thing, which would be the monthly averages, which are provided. But I didn't need to go to all that trouble to prove your statements false. I only needed to use the third best option - the yearly averages - which is still a damn sight closer to the intent of the data set than 10 years of averages. You're implying an average of the average of the average of the average is a better indication of reality than an average of an average. The more you manipulate the data, the farther from reality you get.
Quote:
|
Look it's simple. We took measurements in 2006 with +-1ppm error, and took measurements in 1997 with +-1ppm error. So the co2 rise in 10 years is calculated as the measured level in 2006 minus the level in 1997, with the error rate being +-2ppm (the combination of both end year errors)
|
And yet 5 of the past ten years could have had an increase in CO2 concentrations greater than the estimated amount of anthropogenic emissions.
Quote:
|
If you look at the monthly data you can see the natural background noise, that does cause uncertainty in estimating the co2 level for a given year:
|
Doesn't matter. The two flasks are collected at the same time, in the same place. If there is background noise, it is not possible that one flask would contain it and the other would not.
Quote:
|
When the 90% confidence interval is between 3.1 and 3.5, how much confidence do you actually believe there is for a value below 0.1? It's very likely you are outside even the 99.9% confidence interval there.
|
Doesn't matter. It's still possible the entire anthropogenic emissions could be absorbed by non-atmospheric sinks.
Quote:
|
Well you are implicitly doing this by ignoring the land use change emissions. I am also arguing that it cannot be partitioned without using the atmosphere.
|
Land use changes aren't emissions, ergo they are not part of the amount that needs to be absorbed. That claim fits the data. Your claim does not fit the data because the researchers did not argue atmospheric absorption is a 100% certainty.
Quote:
|
Yes. The second part of the table is giving the ratios for the anthropogenic co2 emissions go into. The second part is dependent on the first. The first is not dependent on the second.
|
Ahhh, that's good science. Let's just plug in numbers that make our conclusion true.
Quote:
Just because it is possible for something not to be true doesn't mean it cannot be scientific fact.
Something might be possible, yet too improbable to entertain. Effectively a low enough probability event is treated as effectively impossible in science. Otherwise nothing could be a fact and be given in absolute and definitive statements.
|
I never argued anything definitive, so I don't have to prove anything is fact. Still, one fact remains: 50% of the time, your statements are false.
I'm done, onon. You're just repeating yourself and not providing any substantive new arguements. I've proven to you your statements are not necessarily true and that was the intent of engaging you. You can either accept the proof and add it to your knowledge of this subject, or continue dismising everything that contradicts what you want to be true. Either way it makes no difference to me. I don't debate deists and I won't debate AGW proponents. I've got nothing to gain, and nothing to lose either way.