Sentences with phrase «on null hypothesis»

The first sentence in the Conclusion of Dr Curry's paper is the main point: This discussion on the null hypothesis has highlighted the fuzziness surrounding the actual hypotheses related to dangerous climate change and their falsifiability.

In a second paper Dr Judith Curry, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, questions this position, but argues that the discussion on the null hypothesis serves to highlight fuzziness surrounding the many hypotheses related to dangerous climate change.

But equally, from Bayes theorem, if an event is very improbable on the null hypothesis (say a 3.5 sigma event), then it's occurence is significantly stronger evidence for the hypothesis (that the mean is changing).

It is just very weak evidence, and weak because if it lies well within one standard deviation, it is a very probable event on the null hypothesis (no change).

Honestly, the p - values should be generated by constructing a Monte Carlo ensemble of model results, per model, and looking at the actual distribution of (and variance of, autocorrelation of, etc) the ensemble of outcomes where the outcomes ARE iid samples drawn from a distribution of model results, and then use a correctly generated mean / sd to determinea p - value on the null hypothesis.

Read up on null hypothesis & hypothesis testing.

As I keep explaining, it depends on how the statistical significance test is used, the assumptions, on the null hypothesis, and on the conclusion.

To counteract the undeniable fact that no significant warming has occurred since about 1997, Karlsson produces the breathtakingly self - interested assertion that ``... statistical significance relates to how probable the observe [d] data, or more extreme data, are on the null hypothesis, not the practical significance of the observed trend.

It puts a whole new light on the null hypothesis.

However, the error calculation is predicated on a null hypothesis which we know to be false; under such circumstances a better estimate of the error range is the FWHM in a Fourier transform.

Imagine, say, a bell - shaped curve based on the null hypothesis that climate change is not happening (and not having an impact on increasing extreme weather events), and there is this really long tail out to infinity; and supposing we get an off - the - charts category 7 hurricane in January, we still can not attribute it or its extra intensity or unusual seasonality to climate change, even if there is only a one in kazillion chance it might occur without climate change having an effect — that is, it is way out there in the very tiny tail of this null hypothesis curve that fades out into infinity — the tail that says, afterall, anything's possible.

Not exact matches

Or perhaps you can disprove the null hypothesis (the first step in any form on scientific inquiry) supporting the Aethist belief.

Next, for your experiment, I'm trying to understand that garbled paragraph, Your telling me you did an experiment on... something and you had a null hypothesis.

Test / Experiment Data can only Accept or Reject a certain null hypothesis based on set criteria.

For motor development, we can not reject the null hypothesis, even though we found borderline significant trends towards lower scores on motor developmental tests both at 13 months, and at 5 years of age (balance score).

The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it.

I am baffled by the following statement: «the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

That is why the classical hypothesis test places the burden of proof so heavily on the alternative hypothesis, and preserves the null hypothesis until the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

The null hypothesis is always a reflection of our current understanding of how the world works based on the evidence we have managed to unearth so far.

We can not reject the null hypothesis of continuation of the simple pre-1988 trend based on evaluation of model performance through 2005.

Starting with a null hypothesis and demonstrating statistical significance is far from perfect, but it prevents people (including those on the other side) from citing «basic physics» as proof something will happen in our complex world regardless of what the actual data say.

Because 5 % (depending on the specific field's convention for Type I statisitcal errors) of rejections of null hypotheses will generally be unwarranted across all studies, the journals with the highest rejection rates are likely to be publishing spurious rejections of null hypotheses more frequently than journals that aren't above publishing results that confirm the work of others.

For example, Trenberth's essay has re-focused attention on the fact that the null hypothesis has never been falsified.

Noah says: Given that global raining is «unequivocal», and the ark is sailing around the world, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

My take on his position is that on any climate issue whatsoever — if you can not prove there is no human influence (refute the null hypothesis by showing it is less than 5 % probable or 1 % probable or whatever), then we have to conclude that it (whatever the question is that is being looked at) is caused by human influence.

Perhaps the real division needs to be to create a subject which is the application of climate science — to create clear (melted ice) between climate science which is based on the scientific methodology and the null hypothesis and «climate prediction» where the «best» predictions are made based on the balance of evidence but there is no pretence that these predictions have or even can be tested (except by comparison to what happens... which I have to point out isn't climate «science's» / forecasters strong card!)

The proposal of Trenberth to invert the null hypothesis is just one way of expressing the opinion that the natural political action is to decide on a strong mitigation policy, and that those who oppose that should provide evidence that this is unnecessary.

The null hypothesis has been discussed at length on several Climate Etc. threads.

It espouses a ridiculous position — namely that the null hypothesis is presently that there is NO human influence whatever on climate.

The scientific issues on climate change are such that very few scientists would even mention null hypotheses except, when testing specific details.

Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

In the main text of the paper he says «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», and is «very likely» due to human activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

«The null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.»

For the first a systematic disassemble of the paragraph of his speech in which the comment appears and the one following would have him looking a fool (e.g. just read the nonsense about «placing the burden of proof on showing there is no human influence» and try and link that in some way to what scientists do wrt null hypotheses).

You forced me to do Google on [Fisher «null hypothesis» nullify] and turned up a number of references (including Wikipedia) but this one gives some explicit references to Fisher's work and is a useful discussion of some of the issues being discussed on this thread http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/2/Topic8c.pdf

To postulate a null hypothesis of «innocence», which states humans have had absolutely no influence on our planet's climate is silly as very few people would argue for this case.

If the as - stated formulation is correct, namely Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Trenberth would like to appropriate the vagueness of the null hypothesis to make AGW immune to cherry picking and put the onus on others to make testable theories.

Judith «my assignment as refuting Trenberth's statement» vis «the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence».

I think that debate of any null hypothesis less rigorous than the claim that «any human influence on climate is more catastrophic than any possible alternative action man might take» will ultimately be used by the CAGW forces as if that catastrophic version were indeed the one that had been debated and not falsified.

Trenberth's assertion that, in the past, the null hypothesis has been that «there is no human influence on climate» may be an example of such an attempt.

Given that global cooling is «unequivocal», to quote any magic report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

Clearly from the Trenberth statement, his implied null hypothesis currently is that there is no human influence on global warming.

«Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that «there is no human influence on climate» and the task was to prove that there was.

- Finally I'd address the duplicity (if I may call it that) in Trenberths statement: «Given that global warming is «unequivocal», to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.

My guess is that he will focus more on the question of why that null hypothesis, however phrased, should be abandoned in favor of its opposite, the existence of significant influence.

From most of the comments so far, it seems that it would be an unenviable assignment to defend the proposition that the null hypothesis that should be retained is one of zero human influence on climate.

The one on the left is the conditional probability of an event under the null hypothesis, H0, and the one the right is the same under H1.

I suspect Trenberth was intentionally being provocative, but I don't think taking such a casual attitude about the null hypothesis was helpful on his part.

The equivalent of the null hypothesis is that increasing CO2 has no effect on climate.