- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
What relevance does elevator flatulence have to the discussion at hand?
Do you seriously agree with the Sierra Club's contemptuous disregard for the satellite data that showed a recent period (approximately 19 years) of slight cooling?
On the topic of cat 5 hurricanes, 94 (not 100 !) years of historical data has been captured,and dependent upon how one slices the time intervals, those recent 30% could be considered to have occurred inside a larger than 15 year interval!
Despite the limitations imposed by a scant 94 years of historical data, over which the cat 5's are sporadically distributed, (and irrespective of whether the recently chosen interval is viewed as 15 or more years) it is still possible to produce a probability estimate of the likelihood that these were in line with what could be expected from natural causation. The estimate's reliability and meaningfulness, is however, limited by the sparsity of the available data.
So did you calculate an estimate of the probability of whether or not this was naturally caused?
If so:
(i) what was the percentage likelihood of that period occuring inside of 94 years history? and knowing this,
(ii) how can you seriously continue to claim that those cat 5's are evidence of CAGW?
Are you suggesting that no Atlantic cat 5's occurred prior to 1924?It's 94 years since the first recorded one with the then new hurricane measure/definition scale. It's not 94 years of Cat5 man.
How did you arrive at such a conclusion without knowing the statistical probability?And yes, if 33% of something occurred in the last 14/94=15% of the entire span under discussion, it's not "normal".
Do you "know how there are idiots", whom, whilst idiotically ignorant of their own idiocy, somehow arrive at the idiotic conclusion that there idiocy resides elsewhere?You know how there are idiots who know a lot about maths but doesn't know how to think? I'm pretty sure you know a lot about that, just you might not realise it.
After reading your posts, I'll be more than happy to shout your first drink!Yea mate, I'd take statistics from Cruz the same way I'd take a coolaid in Jonestown.
It's syllabus not syllables!It's a fart, not flatulent. I guess you were sent to the right school... too bad Critical Thinking weren't part of the syllables.
Your posts throughout these climate threads being a case in point.If something concentrated is foul and bad for you, diluting it far and wide does not mean it no longer exist. It's still there, just spread out.
Sounds like diluted thinking to me!Then, if more and more of the substance are added day after day, years after years... the dilution become less diluted. When the build up is faster than the natural breakdown, nothing will happen because it's all the Sun's fault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_scaleAre you suggesting that no Atlantic cat 5's occurred prior to 1924?
How did you arrive at such a conclusion without knowing the statistical probability?
From the available data, calculate the standard deviation, and then show me where that time interval is situated in respect to the bell curve!
Whilst doing so, also give due consideration to the bell curve positioning for the prior intervals, and then explain to me again, how it is that you justify defining this event, which is of limited statistical significance, as somehow not "normal"?
It is quite evident that you have neither comprehension, nor understanding of statistics, and analysis methods for same.
Now, based upon statistical analysis of the historical data, what is the probability (i.e. likelihood) that those cat 5's were of natural causation?
Do you "know how there are idiots", whom, whilst idiotically ignorant of their own idiocy, somehow arrive at the idiotic conclusion that there idiocy resides elsewhere?
A mirror, would prove a sound investment, for you, at this juncture!
After reading your posts, I'll be more than happy to shout your first drink!
It's syllabus not syllables!
Go back to FTSEing school and try and actually learn something this time!
Your posts throughout these climate threads being a case in point.
Sounds like diluted thinking to me!
Wouldn't it be better for everyone present, if, instead of diluting their intellect with deluded apocalyptic fantasies, people actually concentrated?
Earlier in the 94 year record span, there was a 14 year interval with none whatsoever!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_scale
Turns out the scale was established in 1971. Retrospectively define historical Cat5 hurricanes where there are available data.
I guess there were no instrument to measure wind speed before 1924, that and a sucked finger in the wind just won't do.
So yea, there were Cat5 hurricane/typhoon/cyclones in and around the tropics.
We're interested in the frequency of those here. Not weather or not [], not whether or not there's been any before.
Sooo... some 35 Cat5 over a 100 year span; 11 of those in the past 14 or so years.
The average is 1 every 3 years; the past 14 shows almost 1 every year.
...
Earlier in the 94 year record span, there was a 14 year interval with none whatsoever!
What do you make of that?
How far from the mean (in standard deviations)?
In statistical terms, what does that suggest the probability to be?
How does this compare to the probability of 11 (i.e. instead of none)?
In light of the answers to the aforementioned questions, tell me again how you determined that these cat 5's were not "normal"?
Says the man whom clearly doesn't understand the criticial importance of considering standard deviations, whilst observing variances from the mean.ermmm... the Cold War cooled the planet during those years? It's been hotter past decade or two because Al Qaeda and ISIS prayed to their Allah since the 90s?
See why there are things people should leave to 97% of the experts to tell them?
and dude, when the average is 1 per 3 years over the century... or let's remove the past 14 years and its Cat5... that's (94-14 years)/(34-11) = 80/23 = 3.4years per Cat5.
So there were decades without any Cat5. On average about 1 every 3.4 years for the first 80 years... now it's about 1 per year.
Yah, that's normal man. Look, 3.4 = 1.
Says the man whom clearly doesn't understand the criticial importance of considering standard deviations, whilst observing variances from the mean.
I shall try to put it in simpler terms for you:
How many 14 year periods can you see in that data where exactly 4 cat 5's occurred?
How many 28 year periods where 8 occurred?
How many 42 year periods where 12 occurred?
Considering the answers to those questions, can you now understand why your approach to this analysis is faulty?
Can you also understand how consideration of the standard deviation can aid in estimating the probability of such variatiances from mean?
So instead of persisting with your repetitious demonstrations of your statistical misconceptions, why not answer the FTSEing questions I have repeatedly posted!
Then we'll be able to have a meaningful discussion about why, the limited data available, actually suggests that these events are more than likely to have been naturally caused.
More like a Hans Christian Andersen fairytale:I never claimed to be a Mathsurgeon man; not a Statismethician either [neither?]
Of course these events are naturally caused. We humans just mined and pump and transport and refine the dam thing; burnt it up; convert it to energy; the waste and natural transformation floats into the atmosphere; block the sun's heat from escaping (naturally); the warmer ocean and air naturally, like magic, lifts the waters in the tropics and wooosh, mother nature washes and floods cities and buildings where people die naturally from being drowned or smash by flying debris or lack of food or drinking water or going broke because they've loss their job or not getting paid during the storm, the clean up; and not being paid enough that have their home repaired, their few possessions replaced.
That's how Mufasa tells it to Simba.
But that's the Disney version.
The Brothers Grimm version would go something like rich capitalist psychos with their fat fingers on the lever of power pulls a few strings, pay a few "scientist" and "journalist" to say it's all natural, the scientists are all wrong because they can't prove anything definitively.
Nothing to worry about there.So it looks like the weather is going to get very ugly, but who cares ?
I’ll need the SUV to drive through the flood waters and I’ll need the aircon to keep cool due to the rising temperature.Better scuttle your SUVs and decomission the aircon chaps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?