Global Warming?

markmarc

Tony:
I give out a historical outline and scientific facts, and you reply with a personal attack. May I recommend you do some honest research. Matter-of-fact, go to any basic college science lab. You can prove the effects of CFC's on ozone quite easily using a sealed clear tube of colored ozone. Introduce just a small amount of CFC and watch what happens.

As for the Africa comment, Nigeria has a fairly substantial industrial base. Lagos is one of the world's most populated cities. In addition, if you read the CIA website you will find reference to Nigeria's chemical industry (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ni.html). The imagery is quite fascinating, and does lead to some variety in speculation as to other causes. The impressive thing is looking at the world image, how very little aerosol is being released. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Over 150 countries signed on to the Montreal protocol. If you look at the imagery again, it shows the good this treaty has provided.

unc2701

Actually, I was doing this thing a few months ago, maybe some of you guys could help me out with it.

So I was approached to do this analysis for a couple MD's who had hospital admission data for a few cities across the US and they were curious whether it correlated with the daily air pollution data. SO2, NO2, CO, PM 2.5, PM 10, O3, the usual suspects. So I check out the data- like you'd expect, it's pretty close to a poisson- a little overdispersion, but nothing that can't be parameterized... So I pull the pollution data off the EPA AQS database server, run it through this cool imputation algorithm for the pollutatants with strong diurnal variation (gotta get around to publishing that), then make a surface for each hospital's catchment area using this krieging process. I did a poisson regression with the exposures from the krieging against those hospital admissions, threw on an autoregressive correlation matrix to take care of the whole repeated measures thing... checked the residuals, everything looked kosher so I checked out the beta hats.

Cardio pulmonary hospital admissions significantly increased on days with higher NO2, SO2 and PM 2.5. [Edit:O3, too! forgot about that...] For SO2, there were 1.5 times as many admissions for each IRQ increase.

So, you guys seem to know a lot about this stuff, maybe you could suggest some changes? I was thinking maybe a negative binomial might work better.

MrNightly

PolkThug wrote:

Club Polk Scientists Rule!!

Hell, I've learned a lot by reading this thread!! Keep it coming boys... now I've gotta just figure out who is right.

faster100

Its amazing what google can come up with

jdhdiggs

unc2701 wrote:

Actually, I was doing this thing a few months ago, maybe some of you guys could help me out with it.

So I was approached to do this analysis for a couple MD's who had hospital admission data for a few cities across the US and they were curious whether it correlated with the daily air pollution data. SO2, NO2, CO, PM 2.5, PM 10, O3, the usual suspects. So I check out the data- like you'd expect, it's pretty close to a poisson- a little overdispersion, but nothing that can't be parameterized... So I pull the pollution data off the EPA AQS database server, run it through this cool imputation algorithm for the pollutatants with strong diurnal variation (gotta get around to publishing that), then make a surface for each hospital's catchment area using this krieging process. I did a poisson regression with the exposures from the krieging against those hospital admissions, threw on an autoregressive correlation matrix to take care of the whole repeated measures thing... checked the residuals, everything looked kosher so I checked out the beta hats.

Cardio pulmonary hospital admissions significantly increased on days with higher NO2, SO2 and PM 2.5. [Edit:O3, too! forgot about that...] For SO2, there were 1.5 times as many admissions for each IRQ increase.

So, you guys seem to know a lot about this stuff, maybe you could suggest some changes? I was thinking maybe a negative binomial might work better.

Watch out, you might just fall off that high horse!!!

Your a mathematician working for a company and getting paid to find correllations in the data. I've worked enough with statistic modeling to know that you will find correlations between anything as long as you choicely pick and choose your factors. The only weakness is the relative strenght of the correlations. Just from this post alone shows that you are trying to find anything to corrleate (positive bias).

If tomorrow you were getting paid to find holes in the same studies you are doing, you would be able to do that as well. I'm sure you know enough that if you added more random variables, say sun intensity, relative humidity, saturated fat the person had in the morning, phase of the moon, and so on....you could find something else that could be correlated if you had a negative bias.

BTW, I think I will believe the person with a geophysics and environmental engineering degrees working as an environmental consultant over a statistician with and axe to grind. And, what the hell does your discussion have to due with global warming?

PolkThug

jdhdiggs wrote:

Watch out, you might just fall off that high horse!!!

Your a mathematician working for a company and getting paid to find correllations in the data. I've worked enough with statistic modeling to know that you will find correlations between anything as long as you choicely pick and choose your factors. The only weakness is the relative strenght of the correlations. Just from this post alone shows that you are trying to find anything to corrleate (positive bias).

If tomorrow you were getting paid to find holes in the same studies you are doing, you would be able to do that as well. I'm sure you know enough that if you added more random variables, say sun intensity, relative humidity, saturated fat the person had in the morning, phase of the moon, and so on....you could find something else that could be correlated if you had a negative bias.

BTW, I think I will believe the person with a geophysics and environmental engineering degrees working as an environmental consultant over a statistician with and axe to grind. And, what the hell does your discussion have to due with global warming?

pot kettle black

jdhdiggs

Yeah, eat me! At least I mentioned global warming...

UNC: I would run the data set against a (d) + (d-1) data set. By offsetting the days and allowing two days exposure affect to the analysis I would guess you could tighten correlation a bit. Of course you'd need to check t-stats and the like.

ND13

Nerds!!!;)

ohskigod

my god, if we were in high school, I would so be beating the **** out of you people for lunch money right now

Strong Bad

I really wish I would get abducted by an Alien race. You guys have made me so depressed about living on Earth!

I'm going to DJ tonight, watch hot naked strippers and have a nice cool brew. That should ease the pain somewhat about my status on this doomed planet.


John

Strong Bad

ohskigod wrote:

my god, if we were in high school, I would so be beating the **** out of you people for lunch money right now

Effin hilarious!!!

bikezappa

john d. strong

I wish lived near you, because I'd love to go with you and have a cold one and throw dollars at naked women.

As F Zappa said, "Tities and Beer"

ND13

john d. strong wrote:

I really wish I would get abducted by an Alien race. You guys have made me so depressed about living on Earth!

I'm going to DJ tonight, watch hot naked strippers and have a nice cool brew. That should ease the pain somewhat about my status on this doomed planet.


John

If that happened you might have to DJ for some Klingon type women:eek:

bikezappa

Another true story.

On BBC News in London last week a computor technicain named Guy Goma was waiting for a job interview when a producer mistook him for an "expert" guest scheduled to go on the air. Confused, the Congolese immigrant was led before BBC Cameras to comment, live, on a legal dispute between Apple Computer and Apple Corps record label. The interviewer not only did not realize he had the wrong talking head; he nodded eagerly and thanked Goma for his keen observations. Goma's performance has proved what we all suspected: Virtually anyone can dispense the conventional wisdom and vapid truisms that pass TV analysis and opinion. In fact, as the usual roster of pundits proves every day, " the less you know, the more forceful you can be."


Lesson: don't listen to Rush's wisdom on anything.

unc2701

jdhdiggs wrote:

Your a mathematician working for a company and getting paid to find correllations in the data. I've worked enough with statistic modeling to know that you will find correlations between anything as long as you choicely pick and choose your factors. The only weakness is the relative strenght of the correlations. Just from this post alone shows that you are trying to find anything to corrleate (positive bias).

Actually, I work for a pizza delivery place, but it's just a front for a shadow liberal group/ coke ring. I get $30,000 for every correlation I find. The first guy to find 10 correlations in a calandar year gets a **** from a vegas stripper... last year I came in second, so I only got a handjob from a tranny. BTW- the word you're looking for in Bonferroni, and yeah, we took care of that. In this case Bonferroni would slightly bias us to find nothing, not what we did. Oh and we weren't thowing just anything in there- it was 6 pollutants and four worked. lets see you do some binomial **** with that.

jdhdiggs wrote:

If tomorrow you were getting paid to find holes in the same studies you are doing, you would be able to do that as well. I'm sure you know enough that if you added more random variables, say sun intensity, relative humidity, saturated fat the person had in the morning, phase of the moon, and so on....you could find something else that could be correlated if you had a negative bias.

I do get paid to take these things down. Since Fox news looses its **** everytime something like this comes out, we're inthe habit of trying to break these things every way we can. Sometimes it breaks and we gotta rethink what we're doing. In this case I threw everything I had at it and it still worked...

jdhdiggs wrote:

And, what the hell does your discussion have to due with global warming?

ahhhh, tiny grasshopper, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You must feeeeeeeel the post before you reach enlightenment. Or read bikezappa's last post.

jdhdiggs wrote:

I would run the data set against a (d) + (d-1) data set. By offsetting the days and allowing two days exposure affect to the analysis I would guess you could tighten correlation a bit. Of course you'd need to check t-stats and the like.

Dude, you're a smart guy. I'm not being sarcasitic here, I can tell from your posts- so think about it. Clearly I'm not looking actually for help on my last post. What you wrote is giberish to most the people here, and clearly you're not gonna impress me... especially with that. But to answer your question, we did polynomial distributed lags and unrestricted lags up to 7 days. Which would span that two day mean. Oh and we checked the t-stats, f-stats, wald stats, score stats, residual stats, tea leaves and I even asked the tranny, but s/he just mumbled something about needing bigger hands.

oh and one lsast thing- you should really stop questioning my ethical integrity as a statistician. Makes you come off as a total asshat, and it's hard to leave that behind when we're talking about the fun stuff- audio and such.



mmmm... now for the titties and beer.

ND13

cowbell:o

faster100

ego's and brains at full tilt...

petrym

More commonly called cranial/rectal inversion...

unc2701

I've got a fever... and the only cure...


is more cowbell

Ron-P

mrbigbluelight

If you run that same data through a LaPlace Transform, thereby reversing the view, you will see that the width of the skid marks on those drawers decreases at a constant rate. This proves that the earth is actually cooling down.







P.S. That was an awesome pic.

...and don't forget: I'm the guy who figured out Fermat's Enigma.

aaharvel

I believe global warming exists.

I also believe that man's ability to determine how bad the phenomena is or isn't have been overly exaggerated.

There's ignorance on both sides.

MacLeod

aaharvel wrote:

I believe global warming exists.

I also believe that man's ability to determine how bad the phenomena is or isn't have been overly exaggerated.

There's ignorance on both sides.

I agree with this. Its obviously getting warmer here but this global climate is not static and since its 4 billion years old, a 20 year warming period is barely a tick on the global clock and far from being a "trend".

HBombToo

I wonder what Sig "The deadliest catch" would have to say about all this? Probably those guys would welcome global warming...:D

HBomb

jdhdiggs

Crap, I forgot about this thread over the weekend... Oh well, too bad I actually have to work this week. FAK!

ClemmonsHoo

I look at it this way. We can call it all junk science and do nothing, and if we're wrong, we all die. Or, we can make minor insignificant sacrifices by putting need ahead of want, and if we're right, at least we have a fighting chance.

George Grand

It shouldn't hurt too much to err on the safe side.

Demiurge

HBombToo wrote:

I wonder what Sig "The deadliest catch" would have to say about all this? Probably those guys would welcome global warming...:D

HBomb

Hah, I loved that show. We got the 1st season on DVD. Just nuts....

MacLeod

George Grand wrote:

It shouldn't hurt too much to err on the safe side.

I definitely agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with conserving where we can, recylce what we can, look for new and more effecient sources of energy, try to make cars more fuel effecient and so on. These are all very wise things to do even if we had definitive scientific proof global warming did NOT exist.

What we shouldnt do however is cripple our industry and the global economy to the extent they cant function over an absurd assumption that has no scientific evidence to support.

bobman1235

Well, there are some benefits to Global Warming :

Global warming has been getting a bad rap lately. But what's so terrible about having more oceans, no winters, and year-round sun tans? Before you write off the coming climate change, check out our 25 reasons why there's nothing like a nice warm globe.

1. Minnesota can change its license plate slogan from "**** hole" to "The State with Two Coasts."

2. Kansas will finally get what it deserves: a hurricane.

3. Saying "I hate winter" will be like saying "I hate Father's Day", cause it only lasts 24 hours.

4. No more penguins.

5. The hotter it is, the colder beer'll taste.

6. "Sunny Alaska" will replace "Burny Florida" as the new winter vacation destination.

7. It will take a lot less time to boil water.

8. You'll finally get some use out of that ark you got for Christmas.

9. Hot Tubs will be replaced with Ice Tubs—which will mean lots and lots of hard nips.

10. Everyone will be so tan that we'll all look like Arabs. And then there won't be any more racism.

11. One word: Waterworld.

12. Another great excuse to hang out in your underwear 24/7/365.

13. Mexicans will start heading south instead of north.

14. You'll be able have engine block eggs without starting your engine.

15. The Olympic torch will never go out.

16. Due to the lack of ice, hockey will finally become the the sport it was meant to be: a bunch of guys hitting each other with sticks under water.

17. There's no forest fires in the ocean.

18. The phrase "hot as hell" will no longer be hyperbole.

19. You'll be able to roast your nuts without an open fire.

20. Since they're called the "Boys of Summer", baseball will be played year round.

21. You'll be able to really put your Degree deodorant to the test, just like in the commercial.

22. It'll be as hot as the south everywhere, so naturally, everyone will become as funny as Jeff Foxworthy and Larry The Cable guy. We'll laugh ourselves into world peace.

23. You'll be able to give hot rock massages to ladies you just met in the park.

24. If the entire world floods and we're forced to live underwater, maybe we'll meet Poseidon.

25. We'll all figure out there's nothing beneficial about global warming.