I fully understand your simplistic statistical analysis - we learned that in high school math. But the point is you've applied it incorrectly - it doesn't disprove global warming, as your initial post claims it does.





First of all, I agree that my argument doesn't disprove global warming. I don't think I ever said that it did. I simply said that this statistical analysis is yet another reason that I don't believe global warming is occurring. It doesn't dis-prove it, but it is yet another reason that makes me lean toward that conclusion. But, I don't think you understand the statistical analysis I made at all, based on what you have been saying.





When using statistical analysis that is based soley on the probability of future results which are in turn based soley on the size, or number of readings of historical data, randomness of that data doesn't matter, so what else could be wrong to make this analysis incorrect? My analysis is correct because my analysis is based on the fact that you are looking at a sample that consists of 200 recorded temps, and what those temps. are. My analyisis compeltely ignores what position (or year) that those temps occured on (except for the data that corresponds to this years dates.) Either today's temperature will exceed all historical records (a one in 200 chance), or it will not (a 199 out of 200 chance), again assuming 200 years of records exist. Therefore, the randomness of the readings, or the randomness of heat waves, or the randomness of what year they occured in, is totally irrelevant. So, as for this statistical analysis being applied incorrectly, how? I don't see it.

-----------



I clearly see the mistake in your argument, though. I will demonstrate it here with a simple coin toss analogy.





Let's assume you flip a coin 5 times, and it comes up heads every time.



Is this possible?



Answer: yes.



What are your odds on the nest flip?



The answer is 50% heads and 50% tails. The previous scenario of 5 heads in a row is irrelevant.



What will your results be (on average)?



The answer is heads will occur once out of every two flips. Again, the previous scenario of 5 heads in a row is irrelevant.







The exact same thing can be said about your scenario.



You said, "we can have a record high temperature and then have gradually rising temps without experiencing your statistically random record high temp again within 200 days"



First let me correct one thing. I said that you would record a record high temperature once every 200 days on average. That is completely different from saying that you will experience a record high temp. again within 200 days.



Except for this correction, is this scenario possible?



The answer is yes.



What are the odds that you will see a historical high temperature tomorrow, or any day that occurs this year?



Answer is 1 in 200(assuming 200 years of records) or .5 % The previous scenario you mentioned is irrelevant, the odds are still the same.



Will the future odds, of a historical record high temp. occurring, on any day this year be affected by this scenario?



Answer is no, the odds will still be one in 200. Again, the previous scenario is irrelevant.





Just like the coin toss, past results do not influence future odds or results. While the percentages in these two examples are different, the concept is identical.



Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]