In article , Jonno
writes
Dave Liquorice scribbled


On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:17:52 -0000, Brian-Gaff wrote:

The problem is that when it happened before nobody was around to
actually record and watch the situation.

Hum, 2005, 2009 together with the recent one makes three "100 year"
floods in 10 years(*) and well within living memory. Bear in mind
that since the 2009 flood the Carlise defences were raised in height
and flood gates fitted. These heightened defences were overtopped at
the weekend... The same applies to some of the other towns also
flooded again.

Some of the river gauges have been reported as giving readings 1 to 2
METRES above the highest ever recorded levels.

It ****ed it down solidly for about 36 hours up here at around 1/4"
per hour. But we are in the Tyne catchment area so flooded Hayden
Bridge, Haltwhistle, Hexham, Corbridge ...


Apparently 14 inches of rain in the Carlise area.

It has rained here every day for around a month. That isn't normal
weather.

It did that when I moved to Cheshire Nov 68 or was it 69?
--
bert

In article , Jonno
writes
The Natural Philosopher scribbled


On 07/12/15 10:49, Jonno wrote:
Dave Liquorice scribbled


On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:17:52 -0000, Brian-Gaff wrote:

The problem is that when it happened before nobody was around to
actually record and watch the situation.

Hum, 2005, 2009 together with the recent one makes three "100 year"
floods in 10 years(*) and well within living memory. Bear in mind
that since the 2009 flood the Carlise defences were raised in height
and flood gates fitted. These heightened defences were overtopped at
the weekend... The same applies to some of the other towns also
flooded again.

Some of the river gauges have been reported as giving readings 1 to 2
METRES above the highest ever recorded levels.

It ****ed it down solidly for about 36 hours up here at around 1/4"
per hour. But we are in the Tyne catchment area so flooded Hayden
Bridge, Haltwhistle, Hexham, Corbridge ...


Apparently 14 inches of rain in the Carlise area.

It has rained here every day for around a month. That isn't normal
weather.

"Some general figures for average weather in the Lake District are 200
wet days/year"

FACT


http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/learn...otoresources/k
s2climate

So what. I don't live in the Lake District. Any mention in your
homework about 14 inches falling in a couple of days?




The question of normal weather referred to raining every day for a month
not to 14 inches of rain in two days.
--
bert

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 12:40:44 -0000, Jonno wrote:

Apparently 14 inches of rain in the Carlise area.

Not so much Carlisle as the Eden catchment

It has rained here every day for around a month. That isn't
normal
weather.

It's been pretty wet up here, the "normal places that flood" where
flooded about two weeks ago. More rain since making the ground
saturated and behave like a sponge full of water not a dry one.

"Some general figures for average weather in the Lake District are
200
wet days/year"

FACT

So what. I don't live in the Lake District. Any mention in your
homework about 14 inches falling in a couple of days?

Less than 48 hours, nearer 36, it's that short duration that is the
problem. 14" of rain over seven days wouldn't get the rivers out of
their normal range. Might be getting a bit full but not flooding
apart from perhaps Keswick Campsite and Rickerby Park that flood if
you flush the loo too often...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:06:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It has rained here every day for around a month. That isn't
normal
weather.

In Carlisle? Yes it is.

I beg to differ as someone who goes to Carlisle fairly often and
lives only 30 miles away.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 07/12/2015 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:45:40 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


Based on one of your recent posts, you place great trust in satellite records. Yeah, they are *really* reliable aren't they. Which set do you go for BTW? RSS or UAH? I seem to recall the nutjobs switched when one started showing less warming that the other.

You think there's a difference? http://tinyurl.com/j3qu788
(from http://tinyurl.com/nhuqxtc )

You're propagating untruths to try and ridicule those who find the
hypothesis of AGW somewhat lacking in credulity. Pah!


There have been well-documented divergences between UAH and RSS in
recent years. Unlike most graphs that so-called skeptics show, that
graph is actually showing the trend over a longer period and hardly
bolsters the skeptic claims of no warming. The usual tactic is to cherry
pick 1998 as a starting point which, as we all (should) know, is a
highly dubious practice. (This is effectively what TNP is doing verbally
when he says that there has been no warming for 18 years or whatever it
is.) Furthermore, that graph only goes up to 2010.

If one is inclined to focus on short intervals, UAH was showing cooler
temperatures up to about 2010 and was the 'preferred' data set for
skeptics. Since then UAH has started overtaking RSS. Therefore if you
are inclined to cherry pick data you are probably better off with RSS to
show a flatter trend over the whole period.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or so as El
Ninos tend to get emphasised in satellite records (hence the very high
peak in 1998).

Anyway, anyone who complains about adjustments to, and processing of,
surface temperature data hasn't got a leg to stand on if in the next
breath they are going to present satellite records as some sort of gold
standard. The amount of correction, manipulation and processing is
orders of magnitude greater than for surface temperatures. And at the
end of the day, the output is the troposphere temperature which, as you
might be aware, isn't where most of us live.

On 06/12/2015 23:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/12/15 21:45, wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:29:07 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
What the Greens profiteers and political left say
=================================================

You forgot to add every scientific institute on the planet to that.

They are owned by the political left dummy.

How does that work then?

That's the problem with trying to discuss anything with people like you.
You know you are always going to reach a point where they pull out the
giant conspiracy card.

Its effects would be mostly positive.

This seems to be one of the favourite claims of Matt Ridley and Nigel
Lawson and cronies. Big fan of them are you? Ridley bases his opinion
on Richard Tol's work, which is hardly watertight but even he admits
that it is only positive up to 1.5 deg C, something that Ridley and
that shower seem to gloss over.

Oh dear. All received wisdom. no science and ad hominem attacks.


Are you really so blind to your own approach? I'm only responding in kind.

OK, so where is the science that it will be mostly positive? As I said,
I am aware of some economic arguments from the likes of Tol, and as I
said, even he says, based on his own (disputed) analysis, that "The
initial impacts of climate change may well be positive. In the long run,
the negative impacts dominate the positive ones."

On 07/12/15 16:08, Jonno wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) scribbled


In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It has rained here every day for around a month. That isn't normal
weather.

In Carlisle? Yes it is.

So Carlisle is permanently flooded then?

Or did you actually have a sensible point to make?


Very unlikely.

I don't see plowomans posts as he is killfiled.

But as you can see he is indulging in the usual lefty**** trick of
taking something that is said, pretending it means something entirely
different and using that to ridicule, in the absence of any intellectual
argument.

You two should get married.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 07/12/15 18:34, bert wrote:
In article , Jonno
writes
The Natural Philosopher scribbled


On 07/12/15 10:49, Jonno wrote:
Dave Liquorice scribbled


On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:17:52 -0000, Brian-Gaff wrote:

The problem is that when it happened before nobody was around to
actually record and watch the situation.

Hum, 2005, 2009 together with the recent one makes three "100 year"
floods in 10 years(*) and well within living memory. Bear in mind
that since the 2009 flood the Carlise defences were raised in height
and flood gates fitted. These heightened defences were overtopped at
the weekend... The same applies to some of the other towns also
flooded again.

Some of the river gauges have been reported as giving readings 1 to 2
METRES above the highest ever recorded levels.

It ****ed it down solidly for about 36 hours up here at around 1/4"
per hour. But we are in the Tyne catchment area so flooded Hayden
Bridge, Haltwhistle, Hexham, Corbridge ...


Apparently 14 inches of rain in the Carlise area.

It has rained here every day for around a month. That isn't normal
weather.

"Some general figures for average weather in the Lake District are 200
wet days/year"

FACT


http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/learn...otoresources/k
s2climate

So what. I don't live in the Lake District. Any mention in your
homework about 14 inches falling in a couple of days?




The question of normal weather referred to raining every day for a month
not to 14 inches of rain in two days.

But lefty****s always change the argument as soon as they start looking
like losing it.

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 07/12/15 23:13, Bob wrote:
On 06/12/2015 23:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/12/15 21:45, wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:29:07 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
What the Greens profiteers and political left say
=================================================

You forgot to add every scientific institute on the planet to that.

They are owned by the political left dummy.

How does that work then?

That's the problem with trying to discuss anything with people like you.
You know you are always going to reach a point where they pull out the
giant conspiracy card.

Its effects would be mostly positive.

This seems to be one of the favourite claims of Matt Ridley and Nigel
Lawson and cronies. Big fan of them are you? Ridley bases his opinion
on Richard Tol's work, which is hardly watertight but even he admits
that it is only positive up to 1.5 deg C, something that Ridley and
that shower seem to gloss over.

Oh dear. All received wisdom. no science and ad hominem attacks.


Are you really so blind to your own approach? I'm only responding in kind.

OK, so where is the science that it will be mostly positive? As I said,
I am aware of some economic arguments from the likes of Tol, and as I
said, even he says, based on his own (disputed) analysis, that "The
initial impacts of climate change may well be positive. In the long run,
the negative impacts dominate the positive ones."


And nothing but p[roof by assertion to back it up.,

You may think science is a matter of faith, belief and opinion, but
reality will turn and bite your balls every time



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Monday, 7 December 2015 09:58:05 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 00:01:40 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

Why would you want to keep it apart for millennia?
If its highly radioactive it decays away quickly.
If it doesn't decay away quickly its not very radioactive.

Its simple physics.

No it's not.
Some materials remain dangerous after 100,000 years.

Which?


Are you so brain dead you can't Google for yourself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

On Monday, 7 December 2015 12:56:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The notion that it is the warmest summer ever is probably cock anyway.
How long do we have records for - not that long. And that the Romans
grew grapes here 2000 years ago is a bit of a giveaway.

Eh? You can grow grapes outdoors in several parts of the UK. But perhaps
not the best choice of crop with transport being so quick/easy now. Which
wasn't the case in Roman times.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Even in Yorkshire.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourc...re%20vineyards

Even Scotland.
http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/201...led-this-year/

On Sunday, 6 December 2015 23:05:56 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/12/15 21:20, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/12/2015 06:19, alan_m wrote:

The news seems to be full of reports that flood plains have flooded and
that areas that have been flooded regularly for the past 500 years are
flooded again. It's all due to global warming!


Worst floods for 100 years! It must be climate change!

I suppose they mean it's changed back to what it was 100 years ago...

Andy
The most significant thing is they are NOT saying its 'climate change'

Yes they are.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-12-08/c...d-devastation/

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I don't see plowomans posts as he is killfiled.

But as you can see he is indulging in the usual lefty**** trick of
taking something that is said, pretending it means something entirely
different and using that to ridicule, in the absence of any intellectual
argument.

Right. You publicly boast about killfiling someone but still want to
comment on their posts?

But, I suppose, only when they point out the nonsense of so much you say.

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian Gaff
writes
The world is warming overall, but this has happened in cycles over many
many years prior to now. Yes we are making it worse
Snip
Every model that has tried to demonstrate that has failed miserably.

Sure, but that might well be because it's a much
smaller effect than the other non man made ones.

It is clear that the area where major citys like London
are are considerably warmer than what was there
before them, and it would be a lot more surprising
if they weren't given the massive amount of energy
that is put into the area when it is a major city.

It must be a relatively small effect tho given that we
do know without any doubt at all that the CO2 levels
have increased dramatically, but temperatures haven't.

Presumably we will work out the
detail of what is going on eventually.

The other important question is whether it matters
even if it is warming up a little more than it would
otherwise do. IMO that is unlikely when we have
seen quite dramatic changes in only a bit more
than our lifetime like the Thames not freezing
anymore and things working out fine anyway.

On 07/12/2015 08:01, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2015 14:38:51 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/12/2015 10:15, Brian Gaff wrote:
Its like Nuclear power and what to do with the dangerous waste. Even though
its small in comparison to the other ways to generate power, it seems that
keeping it and the living world apart for millennia is something nobody has
thought much about even today.

Why would you want to keep it apart for millennia?
If its highly radioactive it decays away quickly.
If it doesn't decay away quickly its not very radioactive.

Its simple physics.

No it's not.
Some materials remain dangerous after 100,000 years.

Not from radioactivity.

Yes, plutonium is plain old poisonous, and there's cadmium and stuff
like that in there too - but it isn't the radioactivity, so it's no more
a problem than the soil in an old steelworks - which nobody panics over.
(though perhaps they should!)

Andy

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2015-12-08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

In fact none of the variations are actually statistically significant,
as has been discussed here http://tinyurl.com/pvfgn5d and here
http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf (thanks to TNP for those). I
don't pretend to understand the detailed statistical arguments, but
the gist is clear. It doesn't mean that the fluctuations didn't
happen: they clearly did, but in the grand scheme of things they're
not something to get too worked up about.

And then some people are surprised that some of us are skeptics. Note
carefully, though, what we are skeptical *about*. Not necessarily AGW
itself,

Eh ? "AGW itself" ?

I thought the point was that while some skeptics accepted that some
global warming was a possibility (GW), their skepticism rested on their
rejection of the claim that there's overwhelming evidence of this
being the result of human activity.(AGW)

but the *process* that seems to be being followed by those who
claim that AGW is real.

You do realise I take it that you're contradicting what the OP actually
posted ? While you're apparently prepared to accept that global warming
exists, the OP is claiming that in the context of the grand scheme of
things - in the long term - any short terms fluctuations as are being
experienced at present, in no way represent "global arming



*applause*


Figures


michael adams

....

On 07/12/2015 14:23, whisky-dave wrote:

or Scotland, but I'm afraid they might deep fry the grapes.


Only if they can get the batter to stick.
Maybe chocolate coating them first?

On 07/12/2015 08:01, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 6 December 2015 14:38:51 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/12/2015 10:15, Brian Gaff wrote:
Its like Nuclear power and what to do with the dangerous waste. Even though
its small in comparison to the other ways to generate power, it seems that
keeping it and the living world apart for millennia is something nobody has
thought much about even today.

Why would you want to keep it apart for millennia?
If its highly radioactive it decays away quickly.
If it doesn't decay away quickly its not very radioactive.

Its simple physics.

No it's not.
Some materials remain dangerous after 100,000 years.


So which ones are highly radioactive after 100,000 years then?

On 08/12/2015 07:04, harry wrote:
On Monday, 7 December 2015 09:58:05 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 00:01:40 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

Why would you want to keep it apart for millennia?
If its highly radioactive it decays away quickly.
If it doesn't decay away quickly its not very radioactive.

Its simple physics.

No it's not.
Some materials remain dangerous after 100,000 years.

Which?


Are you so brain dead you can't Google for yourself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste


If you actually read that you would notice it carefully avoids giving
any meaningful data. It carefully uses stuff like decays per unit so you
don't know if its very radioactive or if its a tonne of rock radioactive.

So the question stands which ones are still highly radioactive after
100,000 years.

On 08/12/2015 10:43, Chris Hogg wrote:

One can argue that to select any section of the available data is
cherry picking. For example, it's just as valid to argue that the
period from 2000 to present is flat as it is to argue that the period
from 1970 - 2000 showed significant warming.

No it isn't and you more or less got the reason why in what you said
later. If there is a lot of noise relative to the underlying trend, any
conclusions about trends or statistical significance will be more
unreliable. If you have a short period contained within a longer period
what you can do is to analyse whether that shorter period is consistent
with the overall trend and whether there is any evidence that the trend
might have changed. It is not sufficient to eyeball the graph and say
that that bit looks a bit flat. Even fairly simple techniques based on
linear regression show that the data post 1998 is well within the range
of variability around the same sort of continued trend, and more
involved change point analyses have come to a similar conclusion.

On the other hand, my understanding is that similar sorts of analysis do
pick out some changes in trend over the 20th century which you yourself
highlighted...

If cherry picking data is one's game, how about the warming period in
the thirty years from 1910 - 1940, when temperatures rose by about
0.45 deg.C. comparable to the thirty year period 1970 - 2000 which
exhibited a similar temperature rise. The former clearly wasn't due to
anthropogenic CO2, but doesn't seem to attract much attention. Or what
about the period of cooling from say 1958 to say 1976, shown here
http://tinyurl.com/qfkc78c taken from the same reference as above.

There's a logical fallacy in the it is possible to have similar
effects arising from different causes. For example, solar activity was
rising in the first part of the 20th century and aerosols peaked in the
decades following the war. On the other hand, solar activity is
relatively low now, aerosols have probably been relatively high in
recent years, there's no reason to expect temperatures to be increasing
because of Milankovitch cycles etc, and yet temperatures are on an
upward trend.

At the end of the day, you can throw your hands up and say it's all
random fluctuations or you can look for physically plausible
explanations. The skeptic in me says that you don't get random
fluctuations on the scale we are talking about and I'm also persuaded by
the fact that this was all predicted before it actually started being
measurable. It is possible to dig out the literature and confirm this
with ones own eyes, and I'm not sure that even TNP would argue that the
global conspiracy began in the 60s. Or maybe he would.


In fact none of the variations are actually statistically significant,
as has been discussed here http://tinyurl.com/pvfgn5d and here
http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf (thanks to TNP for those). I
don't pretend to understand the detailed statistical arguments, but
the gist is clear. It doesn't mean that the fluctuations didn't
happen: they clearly did, but in the grand scheme of things they're
not something to get too worked up about.


The problem with those references is that they are nothing *but*
statistical arguments. They boil down to data fitting without any physics.

On 09/12/15 00:07, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/12/2015 07:04, harry wrote:
On Monday, 7 December 2015 09:58:05 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 00:01:40 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

Why would you want to keep it apart for millennia?
If its highly radioactive it decays away quickly.
If it doesn't decay away quickly its not very radioactive.

Its simple physics.

No it's not.
Some materials remain dangerous after 100,000 years.

Which?


Are you so brain dead you can't Google for yourself?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste


If you actually read that you would notice it carefully avoids giving
any meaningful data. It carefully uses stuff like decays per unit so you
don't know if its very radioactive or if its a tonne of rock radioactive.

So the question stands which ones are still highly radioactive after
100,000 years.

None of course. The most dangerous materials around these days are
radon, which only is dangerous because the very very slow decay of
natural uranium creates radon fleetingly as a step on the process,
towards becoming polonium then bismuth and lead.

lead is dangerous forever, but not because it is radioactive, but
because its are bloody poisonous, like mercury.

Uranium occurs naturally of course.At a half life of half a million
years, there's still some left over from the creation of all the
elements in the nuclear supernovae events that create heavy elements.

And cannot be destroyed except by turning it into nuclear fuel and
burning it. Which is the best way of removing it from the environment.

It represents Natures long term nuclear waste, and it plays a nice part
in keeping the earth a bit warmer than it would otherwise be, as it
decays deep inside the crust and mantle



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

Bob posted
I'm also persuaded by the fact that this was all predicted before it
actually started being measurable. It is possible to dig out the
literature and confirm this with ones own eyes, and I'm not sure that
even TNP would argue that the global conspiracy began in the 60s.

But that too is a cherry-picking argument. From the myriad of
predictions made by climatologists in the 60s and 70s (many of which
predicted global *cooling*) you are picking out a few predictions that
turned out to be a reasonable match to what actually happened later, and
saying, "look, those models must be the ones that describe what's
actually going on".

Now I know the usual reply to this criticism is "well what else could
you possibly do when testing statistical hypotheses?" OK, maybe there
isn't anything else we could do, but that still doesn't make it a good
scientific method.

--
Les

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .


I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?



Meanwhile the articles whose links he posted are an eye-opener as to
the *process* - in particular the refusal of the Met Office to answer
the question about the statistical approach shows that they have closed
(and therefore non-scientific) minds, and that their pronouncements may
safely be ignored.

Two points.

The popular literature of pseudo science, everything from Ben Goldacre
to Michael Sharmer is replete with examples of how cranks and conspiracy
theorists use a refusal by those in authority to answer their detailed
"questions" as an tacit admission on their part, of a conspiracy and
a cover
up.

A quick perusal of the first quoted source http://tinyurl.com/pvfgn5d

for
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013...-rise-unt.html

shows the main bone of contention to be the relative benefits of the
trending autoregressive model as used by the MET Office as against
the driftless ARIMA(3,1,0) model as proposed by Keenan among
others.

The merits of this particular argument however pale into insignificance
when reading the following

quote

In statistics, significance can only be determined via a statistical model.
As a simple example, suppose that we toss a coin 10 times and get heads
each time. Here are two possible explanations.

a.. Explanation 1: the coin is a trick coin, with a head on each side.
b.. Explanation 2: the coin is a fair coin, and it came up heads every
time just by chance.
(Other explanations are possible, of course.)

Intuitively, getting heads 10 out of 10 times is very implausible. If we
have only those two explanations to consider, and have no other information,
then we would conclude that Explanation 1 is far more likely than Explanation
2.

A statistician would call each explanation a "statistical model" (roughly).
Using statistics, it could then be shown that Explanation 1 is about a thousand
times more likely than Explanation 2; that is, statistical analysis allows
us to quantify how much more likely one explanation (model) is than the
other.

quote

http://tinyurl.com/pvfgn5d

Now I hope its not necessary to point out the howlers in this extract
posted by a purported expert on the topic of statistics.

quote

a) "Intuitively, getting heads 10 out of 10 times is very implausible"

/quote

Getting 10 heads out of 10 is no more or less implausible than getting
any other sequence of heads and tails. The probability being 1 in 1024.
Quite where "intuition" comes into this I'm not sure, as any inuition
in people's minds has no influence on the actual probability

quote

"Explanation 1 [false coin] is far more likely than Explanation
2 [1 in 1024 probability].

/quote

Again this is drivel, certainly in the absence of any information
concerning the frequency of false coins.

quote

"Using statistics, it could then be shown that Explanation 1 is about
a thousand times more likely than Explanation 2;"

/quote

Yet more drivel, lent spurious credibility by the use of specific
figures.

Given which I won't lose to much sleep over the fact that I'm not
qualified to judge whether or not the trending autoregressive model
as used by the MET Office really is so much inferior as compared with
the driftless ARIMA(3,1,0) model


You have to be careful with statistics,

Don't you just.

Kahnemann and Taversky among others are/were very useful in pointing
out flaws in our everyday perceptions of probabilities and risks.
Even in situations where the actual statistics themselves are
not open to question.


michael adams

....

On 09/12/15 11:31, Big Les Wade wrote:
Bob posted
I'm also persuaded by the fact that this was all predicted before it
actually started being measurable. It is possible to dig out the
literature and confirm this with ones own eyes, and I'm not sure that
even TNP would argue that the global conspiracy began in the 60s.

But that too is a cherry-picking argument. From the myriad of
predictions made by climatologists in the 60s and 70s (many of which
predicted global *cooling*) you are picking out a few predictions that
turned out to be a reasonable match to what actually happened later, and
saying, "look, those models must be the ones that describe what's
actually going on".

Now I know the usual reply to this criticism is "well what else could
you possibly do when testing statistical hypotheses?" OK, maybe there
isn't anything else we could do, but that still doesn't make it a good
scientific method.

actually the rise - and the pause - in global temperatures is a far
better match to the growth in air traffic, if you put a 5 year lag in
between

Correlation is not causation, but total *lack* of correlation is strong
evidence that causation is non-existent. That is te current state of
AGW, there is absolutely NO correlation between temperatures and CO2
over the last 100 years apart from a brief period from 1978-1998

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 1:50:30 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/15 11:31, Big Les Wade wrote:
Bob posted
I'm also persuaded by the fact that this was all predicted before it
actually started being measurable. It is possible to dig out the
literature and confirm this with ones own eyes, and I'm not sure that
even TNP would argue that the global conspiracy began in the 60s.

But that too is a cherry-picking argument. From the myriad of
predictions made by climatologists in the 60s and 70s (many of which
predicted global *cooling*) you are picking out a few predictions that
turned out to be a reasonable match to what actually happened later, and
saying, "look, those models must be the ones that describe what's
actually going on".

Now I know the usual reply to this criticism is "well what else could
you possibly do when testing statistical hypotheses?" OK, maybe there
isn't anything else we could do, but that still doesn't make it a good
scientific method.

actually the rise - and the pause - in global temperatures is a far
better match to the growth in air traffic, if you put a 5 year lag in
between

Correlation is not causation, but total *lack* of correlation is strong
evidence that causation is non-existent. That is te current state of
AGW, there is absolutely NO correlation between temperatures and CO2
over the last 100 years apart from a brief period from 1978-1998

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

What happens if the 100 years flood in Cumbria happens again next weekend, does that be come the normal?

In article ,
zaax wrote:
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our
existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral
investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail
utterly to deal with what it actually is.

What happens if the 100 years flood in Cumbria happens again next
weekend, does that be come the normal?

The likes of turnip will only believe in man made climate change when it
happens in their village. Anywhere else is just a conspiracy.

--
*Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

....

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by apocalyptic
in this context.

....


[snip]

Getting 10 heads out of 10 is no more or less implausible than getting
any other sequence of heads and tails. The probability being 1 in 1024.
Quite where "intuition" comes into this I'm not sure, as any inuition
in people's minds has no influence on the actual probability

In the example, that of tossing a coin 10 times, we're not talking
about the likelihood of one sequence over another.

Oh yes we are.

We're talking about
the likelihood of getting 10 heads rather than approx 512 heads and
approx 512 tails. Which latter is *much* more likely.

You appear to be confusing two things.

Getting a sequence of 10 heads out of ten in ten tosses has a probability of 1 in
1024.

And as you say, the probability of getting a sequence which is not 10 heads
out of ten, has a much higher probability 1023 out of 1024 in fact.

However, the probability of getting any other particular sequence say
HTHHTTHTHT is again 1 in 1024.

The fact that ten heads in a row is memorable, and thus can assume an undue
significance in the minds of the unthinking, unlike say HTHHTTHTHT, in
no way affects its probability as against any other sequence, contrary to what
Keen, your quoted authority, appears to believe

a) "Intuitively, getting heads 10 out of 10 times is very implausible"

Basically this stuff is "Roulette for Dummies" page 1.



michael adams

....

..

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
et...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by apocalyptic
in this context.

No, dummy, don't ask me. Ask those who make the apocalyptic
pronouncements.

But you're the one who just now agreed that global warming

"*may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense that the warmists warn about"

Now you seem to be saying, that you don't actually know what
you were agreeing to.

snippage

The fact that ten heads in a row is memorable, and thus can assume an undue
significance in the minds of the unthinking, unlike say HTHHTTHTHT, in
no way affects its probability as against any other sequence, contrary to what
Keen, your quoted authority, appears to believe

a) "Intuitively, getting heads 10 out of 10 times is very implausible"


And so it is, intuitively.

Whereas in reality, its no more implausible than is any other sequence of ten
coin tosses. They're all equally "implausible" in fact.

So that in this instance one's first intuition, is clearly mistaken in the sense
that no conclusions can be drawn from any particular series of throws.
All of which are equally implausible.

The fact that both your chosen authority, and yourself apparently, still set so
much store by this discredited notion of "intuition", doesn't say much for the rest
of his/your argument I'm afraid.


michael adams

....

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:57:13 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:

Basically this stuff is "Roulette for Dummies" page 1.



michael adams

...

.

As I said further back in this thread, I don't pretend to understand
the statistics, but if Keenan's analysis is so basically flawed, I'm
surprised the statisticians at the Met Office didn't point it out, as
they don't seem to have done.

I'm not competent to judge on the specifics either. Only that Keenan
doesn't seem to have much grasp of basic probability.

Otherwise there's the general point which may or may not be relevant here,
which I made earlier. That the popular literature on pseudo science, everything
from Ben Goldacre to Michael Shermer is replete with examples of how cranks
and conspiracy theorists use a refusal by those in authority to answer
their detailed "questions" as a tacit admission on their part, of a
conspiracy and a cover up.

The problem is that answering questions posed by potential cranks and
conspiracy theorists only tends to lend them credibility; more especially
when most impartial observers are unable to distinguish genuine matters of
dispute from deliberate attemps at obfuscation by cranks.


michael adams

....












--

Chris

On 09/12/2015 11:31, Big Les Wade wrote:

But that too is a cherry-picking argument. From the myriad of
predictions made by climatologists in the 60s and 70s (many of which
predicted global *cooling*) you are picking out a few predictions that
turned out to be a reasonable match to what actually happened later, and
saying, "look, those models must be the ones that describe what's
actually going on".

It's true that there was some debate but only a minority of researchers,
even in the early 70s, were predicting cooling. By the end of the
decade, there was pretty much a consensus on warming. Spencer Weart's
"History of Global Warming" is quite a good read on this. I think it's
available in an online version.

On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:57:25 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

...

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by apocalyptic
in this context.


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?

On 10/12/2015 06:51, harry wrote:


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?


And how often have these one hundred year events happened in the past?

On 10/12/2015 11:09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:57:25 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen
so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by
apocalyptic
in this context.

How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?

And I already asked what is meant by a "hundred year event" and whose
definition it is. Any fool can come up with the phrase "hundred year
event" and any fool can label a flood as one and then say "Ooh look Ma,
three of them, just like busses, must be climate change"

From today's Times:

Ministers wrong to blame climate change
=======================================

Scientists have contradicted a claim by a minister that the Cumbria
flooding was unprecedented and linked to climate change. They say that
there have been 34 extreme floods in the last 300 years ...

(the scientist) said that analysis of deposits left by floods in the
17th, 18th, and 19th centuries showed they were the "biggest events".
These events happened long before the rise in man-made emissions,
undermining the claim that the floods were linked to climate change. He
said that the government relied too heavily on records dating back only
40 years.

(end of quote)

So how about you stop wetting yourself?


He is an alarmist.
Everything bad is due to climate change.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2015 06:51, harry wrote:


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?


And how often have these one hundred year events happened in the past?

when the news report says ".... within living memory" it usually means the
reporter is only about 20.

--
Please note new email address:

On 10/12/15 15:32, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2015 06:51, harry wrote:


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?


And how often have these one hundred year events happened in the past?

If the likelihood of a given town being flooded is once every hundred
years, and you have a hundred similar towns, then one will most likely
be flooded every year.

I remember several 'one in a hundred year events' back in the 50s - East
Anglia flooded, and so did Lynmouth. IN the 60s' I couldn't attend
school because of 'once in a hundred year' floods in Surrey.

I think they blamed the last one on global cooling which was fashionable
just then.

after the winter of 62/63..'coldest winter on record' etc etc etc.

Bleagh. Its always some record being broken. Always some 'once in a
hundred year' event that stops the trains.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:57:25 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

...

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by apocalyptic
in this context.


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?

What's apocalyptic about a bit of flooding ?

Where's that stiff upper lip ?

If there'd been a volcanic eruption with lava flowing everywhere,
along with an earthquake, which cause a total meltdown of
Sellafield, along with a tsunami then that admittedly might
be reasonably described as bordering on apocalyptic.

However after a nice cup of tea from the WVS mobile canteen
things will soon be looking up again.

Chin up !


michael adams

....

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
et...
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news:081220152250132617%timstreater@greenbee .net...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by apocalyptic
in this context.

No, dummy, don't ask me. Ask those who make the apocalyptic
pronouncements.

But you're the one who just now agreed that global warming

"*may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense that the warmists warn about"

Now you seem to be saying, that you don't actually know what
you were agreeing to.

Stop trying to be a smartarse. You're playing some kind of rhetorical
trick here which I don't have time to bother with. If you want to know
what sort of apocalypse the warmists propose, you can ask them.

But you're the one who agrees that they may be right. Not me.

I merely pointed out that whether a person regards something as "apocalyptic"
or not, is highly subjective and may largely depend on their own outlook
on life and experiences. So that people who've survived bombing,
earthquakes or similar natural calamities will have a different view
on the matter compared to others who haven't

I can't really see any reason for you to be throwing your toys out
of the pram over this.



a) "Intuitively, getting heads 10 out of 10 times is very implausible"


And so it is, intuitively.

Whereas in reality, its no more implausible than is any other sequence of ten
coin tosses. They're all equally "implausible" in fact.

You're still nodding off, I see. No one gathering stats by tossing
coins looks at the sequence. They look at how many of each they get and
that is what is being discussed.

Eh ? Why would anyone need to gather stats about tossing coins ?

The probablility of tossing any particular sequence of ten tosses, is 2 to the
power of 10, 1024


michael adams

....

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 10/12/15 15:32, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2015 06:51, harry wrote:


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?


And how often have these one hundred year events happened in the past?

If the likelihood of a given town being flooded is once every hundred
years, and you have a hundred similar towns, then one will most likely
be flooded every year.

I remember several 'one in a hundred year events' back in the 50s - East
Anglia flooded, and so did Lynmouth. IN the 60s' I couldn't attend
school because of 'once in a hundred year' floods in Surrey.

I think they blamed the last one on global cooling which was fashionable
just then.


after the winter of 62/63..'coldest winter on record' etc etc etc.

Bleagh. Its always some record being broken. Always some 'once in a
hundred year' event that stops the trains.



That big Thames freeze over back whenever it was?, do so with sunspots
and the Maunder minimum was it?....

--
Tony Sayer

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 9 December 2015 16:57:25 UTC, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. The OP says that what we have seen so far
isn't it, and I agree with him.

That would probably depend on what counts as "apocalyptic" nowadays.
As compared with say the Black Death. No more heated towel rails
perhaps?

Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making apocalyptic
pronouncements.

Because you're the one who's prepared to accept that global warming
may exist in the "apocolyptic" sense." Not me. I never mentioned
apocalypses. That was you.

And so its incumbent on you to explain exactly what you mean by apocalyptic
in this context.

How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?

What's apocalyptic about a bit of flooding ?

Where's that stiff upper lip ?

If there'd been a volcanic eruption with lava flowing everywhere,
along with an earthquake, which cause a total meltdown of
Sellafield, along with a tsunami then that admittedly might
be reasonably described as bordering on apocalyptic.

Ah, glad to see you've taken my advice and asked the warmists what they
mean by "apocalyptic". Well done.

So that unlike me, it seems you do in fact agree with Harry then ?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
news:081220152250132617

quote

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about.

/quote

And that these latest local difficulties are in fact evidence of global warming.


michael adams

....

I'm prepared to accept that it *may* exist, in the apocalyptic sense
that the warmists warn about. Tim Streater Dec 11th 2015

On 10/12/15 19:58, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 10/12/15 15:32, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/12/2015 06:51, harry wrote:


How about the recent floods in the NW?
Three "one a hundred year" events in ten years?


And how often have these one hundred year events happened in the past?

If the likelihood of a given town being flooded is once every hundred
years, and you have a hundred similar towns, then one will most likely
be flooded every year.

I remember several 'one in a hundred year events' back in the 50s - East
Anglia flooded, and so did Lynmouth. IN the 60s' I couldn't attend
school because of 'once in a hundred year' floods in Surrey.

I think they blamed the last one on global cooling which was fashionable
just then.


after the winter of 62/63..'coldest winter on record' etc etc etc.

Bleagh. Its always some record being broken. Always some 'once in a
hundred year' event that stops the trains.



That big Thames freeze over back whenever it was?, do so with sunspots
and the Maunder minimum was it?....

Well so they say, so they say. These days I am sceptical of every
'explanation'


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.