Climate Change data may need revision.

[xelasnave]

Peter
I am lucky so much so I feel I should apologise to every other human for monopolising lifes blessings.
I enjoy a freedom like no one else and dark clear skys as well.
That's why I have devoted myself to saving humans one at a time.
Now what can you teach me about statistics I am thirsty for knowledge.

[xelasnave]

Thank you Marty I missed your last post and have been driving all day.
I will check it out.
Back in the Sydney rat race.
My house here is in a well to do suburb and all around have lights burning and even air conditioners blazing.
So I am going to have a fire outside and boil a cuppa.
It's raining but I am having one for sure.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Peter
I am lucky so much so I feel I should apologise to every other human for monopolising lifes blessings.
I enjoy a freedom like no one else and dark clear skys as well.
That's why I have devoted myself to saving humans one at a time.
Now what can you teach me about statistics I am thirsty for knowledge.

Statistics isn't exactly my area (either professionally or hobby wise)

The non deterministic stochastic illusion, whilst useful in some areas of science, sociology and mathematics, does however underpin much of the deranged lunacy of Quantum Mechanics.

I believe I have made my views on the pathetic and synthetic basis of QM abundantly clear in this forum. The discipline of Physics should be utterly ashamed of itself for trying to hoodwink the general public and for fraudulantly fabricating its under graduate Physics programs in Universities all around the world.

Unless you are seeking some assistance on Normal/Gaussian distributions or some "t" test, I dont think I can be of much help.

In any case, do you need statistical theory to operate your Telescope or to individually save humans??

[xelasnave]

I want to win money on the horses.
No not really.
I meet with a friend and chat.
I just want to know a little.
Anyhow I have read enough I feel.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

Statistics isn't exactly my area (either professionally or hobby wise)

The non deterministic stochastic illusion, whilst useful in some areas of science, sociology and mathematics, does however underpin much of the deranged lunacy of Quantum Mechanics.

It's ironic the microprocessor design of your computer is the technological outcome of the deranged lunacy of Quantum Electrodynamics that allows you to type and transmit ill informed comments.

I believe I have made my views on the pathetic and synthetic basis of QM abundantly clear in this forum. The discipline of Physics should be utterly ashamed of itself for trying to hoodwink the general public and for fraudulantly fabricating its under graduate Physics programs in Universities all around the world.

What's abundantly clear is that you don't know what your "talking" about.

In this very thread you initiated, the LHC, the particle detector designs and the experiment itself are all based on Quantum Mechanics.
Strange how such a "pathetic" and "synthetic" theory can lead to the production of particles and antiparticles.

Here is a question for you. The resolution of detail in a microscope depends on the wavelength of light used. The shorter the wavelength the greater the detail.
Microscopes using soft x-rays resolve more detail than visible light. Yet this relationship fails for even shorter wavelengths in the hard x-ray and gamma-ray range.
Why is this so?

Here is a hint, the answer lies in the probabilistic nature of Quantum mechanics as one goes to increasingly high energy photons.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I want to win money on the horses.
No not really.
I meet with a friend and chat.
I just want to know a little.
Anyhow I have read enough I feel.

...are you interested in theoretical or applied statistics?

One reference which I have used in the past is "Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists" (Walpole, Myers...)

It has a good balance of theory and practice and is also available online for free as a .pdf file (I paid quite a bit for my hard copy many moons ago)

http://folk.ntnu.no/jenswerg/40CEFd01.pdf

[xelasnave]

My friend says repeatedly
"there are lies, damn lies and statistics"
I point out that such a statement fails to recognise the science.
Moreover that a short, what was a political presentation, failed to recognise the work of the mathematicians who developed the science and failed to indicate the benefits the science of statistic delivered to humanity.
I had hoped to enlighten him, part of my saving one human at a time dedication.
However I conclude he has made his short statement a belief and as such I doubt anything I point out will cause him to change his belief that statistics is not even a science.
So I conclude that it does not matter how much I learn it will not benefit me to change his somewhat simple belief.
And for myself I know a little and question my desire to know more. I find in my answer no need to go further and realise that to bring myself up to speed would require years which would be a waste inn so far it would do nothing to educate him.
He upsets me as he tends to be dismissive of many things without having first developed more than a casual understanding.
I posted the reference to the science daily article because I was going to show it to him.
He believed climate change is real and I thought the article may change his dismissive approach to statistics in view that the science of statistics now have his belief support. The suggestion of a hiatus does not rest well with him.
Anyways I can not now show him this thread given all I have said.
We will meet and chat but I will tolerate his throwaway lines because I really am not responsible for his beliefs not should I want to change them.
The moral of my experience is ...
You can not defeat belief armed only with facts.

[bugeater (Marty)]

I did some pretty advanced stats about 10 years ago (I started a Master of Statistics), but can't remember much detail. I did theory of statistics, stochastic calculus and forecasting, amongst other units.

Statistics is a fascinating area. A good place to start is to understand just what statistical tests and statistical distributions mean. Which then helps with understanding just what statistical significance means. Understand what a normal distribution is and why it is so widely applicable (the central limit theorem is interesting here).

At the end of the day I think if you view things through a stochastic rather than a deterministic lens, you'll understand the world better.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

Statistics isn't exactly my area (either professionally or hobby wise)
...

I believe I have made my views on the pathetic and synthetic basis of QM abundantly clear in this forum. The discipline of Physics should be utterly ashamed of itself for trying to hoodwink the general public and for fraudulantly fabricating its under graduate Physics programs in Universities all around the world.
...

We're all waiting for your alternative theory that works.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Dave2042

We're all waiting for your alternative theory that works.

Yes but as you know Dave what is required is a theory that not only works but is better than the theory being replaced and preferably a theory that builds upon the body of work to date.

GR was a better theory but it didn't, on my understanding throw out Newton or Galileo equivalence.

Peter may I also ask a question?

Is there something that specifically you see as wrong and which you have the correct answer.
I am curious as to why you are so passionate in your position.

[xelasnave]

Or
An unsupported attack may or indeed will be seen by most as somewhat personal.
Steven is a most tolerate man who I have found very supportive even when I was exploring non mainstream views so I am concerned you upset him and others with your seemingly unsupported attacks.

[xelasnave]

And it seems you ignore Steven in so far as you do not answer his questions.
Do you ignore him and if so would you explain this behaviour to those of us who find such not very nice.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Yes but as you know Dave what is required is a theory that not only works but is better than the theory being replaced and preferably a theory that builds upon the body of work to date.

GR was a better theory but it didn't, on my understanding throw out Newton or Galileo equivalence.

Peter may I also ask a question?

Is there something that specifically you see as wrong and which you have the correct answer.
I am curious as to why you are so passionate in your position.

You know, I'd even be prepared to take seriously a theory that was only just as good as QM.

The fact is that the crowd who hate the 'indeterminacy' of QM have never been able to put up a coherent alternative that corresponds to how the universe seems to work.

Their point always seems to wind up looking like a simple insistence that the universe shouldn't work that way because they don't like it.

[eddiedunlop (Martin)]

Originally Posted by Visionary

Ok.... what really gets my goat is that every hot day is cited as proof of Global warming, yet every cold day is ignored. This winter has seen Sydney with a cold wet winter, nil comment. If Sydney had a hot, dry winter then the press would run wild. Please dont think of this as a denial of climate change. Its just aq simple observation that hot days sell papers, cold days dont sell papers. For example the start to this years ski season was awful, the awful start was blamed on climate change. Once the snows started falling and continued falling there was never again mention of climate change. Climate change sells!

But isn't this the same with everything David? It's more a case of 'bad news sells'.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

And it seems you ignore Steven in so far as you do not answer his questions.
Do you ignore him and if so would you explain this behaviour to those of us who find such not very nice.

who is Steven?

I don't and cant read every post in here - just the posts that catch my eye.

Who is "us" that you refer to? Are you part of a gang in here Alex?

What are you on about Alex?

[xelasnave]

I withdraw my enquirey.

[xelasnave]

I withdraw my enquiry also

[xelasnave]

Same here.

[Eratosthenes (Peter)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I withdraw my enquirey.

Now I am even more perplexed...

I suppose it cant be as bad as making sense of QM hey Alex?

[xelasnave]

In all probability in principle I am uncertain but we chose to except the benefits that models give us in terms of usable goodies.
Things just are, objects people institutions even religions we often make the choice in our observation to also attempt to qualify what we personally observe and as humans we will say something is good or bad, it is right or wrong so as to fit our observation conveniently and acceptably into our personal reality and in that attempt we lose sight and recognition that our personal attempt at qualification is useful in any way other than allowing us to accept or reject a greater external reality of which we can only remain ignorant about nevertheless we are personally satisfied our personal observation and personal qualification is a reliable and somewhat concrete reality which of corset it can not be and so to observe and qualify anything is somewhat isles because all we are then working with is only an assembly of determinations from an unrecognised assembly of probabilities that moreover we have not considered in the attempt to truthfully qualify from observation and of course we can only do this from a human perspective wherein we invariably fail to take into account the limits being human places upon reasonable observation must limited by matters we fail to consider unless perhaps pointed put after our attempt such as our limitation on regions that are observable to us without additional equipment and here the electromagnetic spectrum comes to mind and our limited ability to observe it to it's full extent but if we recognise the limitations of our ability to qualify reality we are struck with a possibility that probability and the accompanying alternative realities perhaps provide a closer look at what may be reality and of course more importantly what may not be reality.
Does that mean we can include what we chose to include in our personal reality by tossing a coin to surname the inclusion or exclusion