2010-08-10 10:21:25 | Draft post about statistical significance | |

Alden Griffith agriffit@wellesley... 65.96.213.148 |
If you're interested, feel free to provide some feedback on this post before it goes up. This is in response to the comments at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Global-Warming-Stopped.html.
My previous post, “Has Global Warming Stopped?”, was followed by several (well-meaning) comments on the meaning of statistical significance and confidence. Specifically, there was concern about the way that I stated that we have 92% confidence that the HadCRU temperature trend from 1995 to 2009 is positive. In particular, my statement might be interpreted that there is a 92% probability that the 1995-2009 temperature trend is positive. This is not technically correct when using classical statistics. My purpose in using “92% confidence” was to try to communicate something that people could more easily grasp without a background in statistics. In hindsight, I was attempting to simplify something that really cannot be simplified. I admit that this was perhaps unwise, but at least it now provides for a good opportunity to discuss what statistical significance is really all about. Also, it’s important to note that this does not change the conclusions of my previous post at all. (Headline: So let’s think about the temperature data from 1995 to 2009 and what the statistical test associated with the linear regression really does. The procedure first fits a line through the data (the “linear model”) such that the deviations of the points from this line are minimized, i.e. the good old line of best fit. This line has two parameters that can be estimated, an intercept and a slope. The slope of the line is really what matters for our purposes here: does temperature vary with time in some manner (in this case the best fit is positive), or is there actually no relationship (i.e. the slope is zero)?
Looking at Figure 1, we have two hypotheses here regarding the slope of the regression line, and hence the relationship between temperature and time: 1) the slope is zero (blue line), or 2) the slope is not zero (red line). The first is known as the “null hypothesis” and the second is known as the “alternative hypothesis”. Classical statistics starts with the null hypothesis as being true and works from there. Based on the data, should we accept that the null hypothesis is indeed true or should we reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis? Thus the statistical test asks: In the case of the HadCRU temperature from 1995 to 2009, the statistical test reveals a probability of 7.6%. Thus there’s a 7.6% probability that we should have observed the temperatures that we did if temperatures are not actually rising. Confusing, I know… This is why I had inverted 7.6% to 92.4% to make it fit more in line with Phil Jones’ own unusual use of “95% significance level”. Essentially, the lower the probability, the more we are compelled to reject the null hypothesis (no temperature trend) in favor of the alternative hypothesis (yes temperature trend). By convention, “statistical significance” is usually set at 5% (I had inverted this to 95% in my post). Anything below is considered significant while anything above is considered nonsignificant. The problem that I was trying to point out is that this is not a magic number, and that it would be foolish to strongly conclude anything when the test yields a relatively low, but “nonsignificant” probability of 7.6%. And more importantly, that looking at the statistical significance of 15 years of temperature data is not the appropriate way to examine whether global warming has stopped. Ok, so where do we go from here, and how do we take the “7.6% probability of observing the temperatures that we did if temperatures are not actually rising” and convert it into something that can be more readily understood? You might first think that perhaps we have the whole thing backwards and that really we should be asking: “what is the probability that the Bayesian statistics is a fundamentally different approach that certainly has one thing going for it: it’s not completely backwards from the way most people think! (There are many other touted benefits that Bayesians will gladly put forth as well.) When using Bayesian statistics to examine the slope of the 1995-2009 temperature trend line, you can actually get a more-or-less straightforward probability that the slope is positive. That probability? 92% While this whole discussion comes from one specific issue involving one specific dataset, I believe that it really stems from the larger issue of how to effectively communicate science to the public. Can we get around our jargon? Should we embrace it? Should we avoid it when it doesn’t matter? All thoughts are welcome…
| |

2010-08-10 18:57:36 | Helpful | |

doug_bostrom dbostrom@clearwire... 184.77.83.151 |
This is a pretty nice explanation, something that will doubtless be useful many times. It's nice to see a direct and concise comparison between "classic" and Bayesian approaches. In terms of specific suggestions I think you can probably slice away quite a bit of the explanation/justification for why you're doing this post. Helps to know what stimulated it but leave the reasons why short, it stands by itself as useful, permanently so. | |

2010-08-11 06:26:44 | Updated into paragraph | |

Alden Griffith agriffit@wellesley... 149.130.195.225 |
Thanks Doug - here's a reworked intro paragraph: My previous post, “Has Global Warming Stopped?”, was followed by several (well-meaning) comments on the meaning of statistical significance and confidence. Specifically, there was concern about the way that I stated that we have 92% confidence that the HadCRU temperature trend from 1995 to 2009 is positive. The technical statistical interpretation of the 92% confidence interval is this: "if we could resample temperatures independently over and over, we would expect the subsequent confidence intervals to contain the true slope 92% of the time." Obviously, this is awkward to understand without a background in statistics, so I used a simpler phrasing. Please note that this does not change the conclusions of my previous post at all. However, in hindsight I see that this simplification led to some confusion about statistical significance, which I will try to clear up now. | |

2010-08-11 08:45:28 | Looks good! | |

doug_bostrom dbostrom@clearwire... 184.77.83.151 |
That is all! |