TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Remember when I already answered your question? Your memory really sucks. "This data demonstrates that warming over that time period is more unlikely than likely. The only thing they can say with confidence is that the 5 hottest years are from 1998 to 2014." How is it more unlikely than likely if the 5 hottest years are from 1998 to 2014? Where is your pause? are you playing games? Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) "2014 only has about a 38% chance of being warmer than 1880 " What? Where does nasa and noaa say that? 1880 has infinitesimal chance of being hotter. Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) See post 975 "2014 only has about a 38% chance of being warmer than 1880" How does 2014 have about 38% chance of being warmer than 1880? Oh boy Remember, the years before 1998 (together) have less than 1% chance of being warmer than 2014. Final try, where is your so-called pause? you playing games? Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 The other years together make about 1%, what is so hard to understand about that?So that proves that it is more likely that the top four are from 1998 to 2014, you been reading too many skeptics websites. I have read 0 skeptics websites. Almost all of the arguments we have made is with data provided by you and TSS. I also like to think about this issue. So 1/2 the stuff comes from my own brain. I don't generally read blogs.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) 5th and final try. Can you refute it? I will not continue this debate until you answer the question. If people don't want to see it there is nothing you can do to make them see it. I think MFT is a smart guy but there is something else preventing him from seeing the point. Edited April 23, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) and only a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely) I was wondering where you got that number from, you don't subtract 38%-23% = 15%, to say that 2014 only has a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 is not accurate. That is not how you do the math, please do some research on calculating probabilities Remember? 2014 only has about a 38% chance of being warmer than 1880 (translation - unlikely) How does 2014 only have a 38% of being warmer than 1880?If you mean since 1880, the only relevant years are after 1998, the years before 1998 are very insignificant, together they make about 1%So that does not help your so-called pause theory Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) If people don't want to see it there is nothing you can do to make them see it.t. Even if I am wrong about GW, at least I didn't get my Math wrong. Did you see Pogi's math? He subtracted 23 from 38 to get 15, therefore he said that 2014 only has a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010. Is that right? Do you know how how to calculate probabilities? It is not complicated 2014 only 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely)2014 - 38%2010 - 23 %2005 - 17%1998 - 4% thesometimesaint, What do you think about Pogi's math? Is that right? ERayR, What do you think? Is that how you calculate the probability? Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Skeptical: Your math works fine. Thanks, but what about Pogi's math? Do you agree with it? Is that how you calculate the probability? See post 982 and 983 How does 2014 only have a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010? Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Thanks, but what about Pogi's math? Do you agree with it? Is that how you calculate the probability? See post 982 and 983 How does 2014 only have a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010? Its been a long time since I've done probability math. But IIRC temperatures on earth are within a range, about 100 degrees C., that allows for liquid water. Even within that range there are vast differences in the effects of those temperatures. What we have been doing for the last 250 years or so is changing the amount of heat retained in our atmosphere and water to reflect the new increased CO2 concentrations. In effect loading a 100 face dice by adding more weight so that increasingly higher numbers come up more often. Edited April 23, 2015 by thesometimesaint
pogi Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Skeptical: Your math works fine. How do you know? Has he presented any math or even a rebuttal to mine? Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi 1
pogi Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Its been a long time since I've done probability math. That is obvious. Rebut my math if you question it? TSS?
pogi Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Slot machine A gives me a 38% chance of winning $5. Slot machine B gives me a 23% chance of winning $5. How much greater are my chances of winning $5 by playing slot machine A? A) 38%B) 15%C) 23%D) 61%E) All of the above. Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) How do you know? Has he presented any math or even a rebuttal to mine? If 2014 has a better chance than 2010, how does 2014 only have a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010? LogicAccording to your conclusion 2010 has an 85% chance of being warmer than 2014, that contradicts your premise. Contradiction Premise: 2014 has a better chance than 2010Conclusion: Therefore 2010 has a better chance than 2014 Remember, you said, "2014 only 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely)" No need to show you the Math, but I will do it if you want me to do it, but I am not a Math tutor. Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Hehehe E. For sure. but he said "2014 only 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely)" How does that work? Here is a nonpatisan study that agrees with pogi on one point, but not really.
thesometimesaint Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Slot machine A gives me a 38% chance of winning $5. Slot machine B gives me a 23% chance of winning $5. How much greater are my chances of winning $5 by playing slot machine A? A) 38%B) 15%C) 23%D) 61%E) All of the above. To use your slot machine example it is like weighting the wheels so that the cherries come up more often than is the statistical mean over time. One pull on the lever(year) is statistically meaningless.
pogi Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 but he said "2014 only 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely)" How does that work? Here is a nonpatisan study that agrees with pogi on one point, but not really. Translation - it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010. Only a 15% greater chance.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Translation - it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010. Only a 15% greater chance. Which, any way you slice it it still has a low probability. Even looking at it in isolation it is still a low probability. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 If 2014 has a better chance than 2010, how does 2014 only have a 15% chance of being warmer than 2010? LogicAccording to your conclusion 2010 has an 85% chance of being warmer than 2014, that contradicts your premise. Contradiction Premise: 2014 has a better chance than 2010Conclusion: Therefore 2010 has a better chance than 2014 Remember, you said, "2014 only 15% chance of being warmer than 2010 (translation - very unlikely)" No need to show you the Math, but I will do it if you want me to do it, but I am not a Math tutor. Pretty sure you are forgetting to factor in the over all probability.
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Translation - it is "very unlikely" that 2014 was warmer that 2010. Only a 15% greater chance. The "Only a 15% greater chance" is much better, you didn't say that originally. but you still need to fix "it is very unlikely that 2014 was warmer that 2010"
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Pretty sure you are forgetting to factor in the over all probability. No, Pogi corrected part of his mistake in post 994 Pretty sure you still do not see his logical contradiction, but I am glad Pogi corrected part of it now. Edited April 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) The "Only a 15% greater chance" is much better, you didn't say that originally. but you still need to fix "it is very unlikely that 2014 was warmer that 2010" 15% is unlikely. If I only had a fifteen% chance of living through the weekend, I would be making my final good-byes for sure. That tells me that they are very uncertain about any warming at all. There is a small chance that there was warming, but even with all of the data in front of their faces, they are only 15% confident that 2014 was warmer than 2010 - sounds like a likely pause in warming to me. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1 Edited April 23, 2015 by pogi
pogi Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 No, Pogi corrected part of his mistake in post 994 Pretty sure you still do not see his logical contradiction, but I am glad Pogi corrected part of it now. Premise: 2014 has a better chance than 2010Conclusion: Therefore 2010 has a better chance than 2014 I never made that conclusion. No contradiction. I never corrected myself either. I have been saying the same thing all along.
Recommended Posts