Joshua Halpern wrote:
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:

"~80,000 return period has a 95% confidence interval of ~8000- 800,000"

Thank you Harold for the 95% error bars.


Yes, I thank Harold too, for having more patience that I for
explaining the details of your statistical mistakes.


(That is why I used
the word "About" in the title.)


Using "about" 80,0000 for a range of 8000 to 800,000 is as bad

On a log scale it is only 2 and what is a factor of 2 among friends?

josh halpern

[chuckle] Quite a bit, as you know. When I was in grad school my
research group calculated a lot of power spectra which when plotted
as semilog or log-log plots gave approximately straight lines over
several orders of magnitude, but deviations on the plots which were
almost unnoticeable represented large real deviations. One time our
prof needed to point this out in a paper, so in the caption he wrote
"Note the log-log plot". Thereafter the running joke whenever one of
us showed a result at group meetings, etc., plotted that way was to
remind everyone to "Note the log-log plot". Hmm, I suppose you had
to be there...

Cheers,
Russell

escribió en el mensaje
oups.com...
Joshua Halpern wrote:
leto2 wrote:
"Scott" escribió en el mensaje
...

You are being unclear.

TS Epsilon itself is not a 1 in 80K year event. After all,
tropical storms in early December aren't exactly rare. See
TS Otto from last year for example. It is the accumulation
of all the previous storms before Eps that is unusual.


Scott



Roger Coppock wrote:

Atlantic TS Epsilon Is About a 1 in 80,000 Year Event!!!!!


[snip rest]


BTW, has anyone an explanation for the following :

Sometime in recent historical times, Greenland was, well : green. So
there
was not much ice on it at this time, and this period is dated between
800 AC
and 1000 AC, and it is the period when the Vikings ventured in Northern
Atlantic. Then later weather grew colder, and Greenland was not green
anymore (and the Vikings settlements in Vinland - Nova Scotia ?
Newfoundland
? - disappeared)
So if the Greenland ice sheet did shrink at the time, why on earth isn't
there a clue of a 10 to 20 feet variation of the sea level between 800
AC
and 1000 AC ? Was the ice thicker at the time in Kamtchatka ? Alaska ?
the
Antarctic ?

The Vikings lied.

They also pillaged. Not vey good morals by modern standards. :-)

Cheers,
Russell

Aha.. They pillaged so they could not tell white from green ? How come ?
It's not called Greenland for no reasons. And it is not a part of Europe
(namely : Denmark) for no reason either.

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

And a study in Science a few months ago found that while the number of
storms
wasn't up, the intensity was.

It appears the data set used for that Science article was a complete
disaster; it's been badly savaged by Dr. Bill Gray, and also, I understand,
by a large number of very qualitied mets on a worldwide tropical cyclone
listserv.

"John Krempasky" wrote in message
...

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...

And a study in Science a few months ago found that while the number of
storms
wasn't up, the intensity was.

It appears the data set used for that Science article was a complete
disaster; it's been badly savaged by Dr. Bill Gray, and also, I
understand,
by a large number of very qualitied mets on a worldwide tropical cyclone
listserv.

They don't care about the truth. And they know that you cannot unring a
bell.

More funding, please!

LOL!

Jik Bombo wrote:
"John Krempasky" wrote in message
...

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...


And a study in Science a few months ago found that while the number of

storms

wasn't up, the intensity was.

It appears the data set used for that Science article was a
complete disaster; it's been badly savaged by Dr. Bill Gray,
and also, I understand, by a large number of very qualitied
mets on a worldwide tropical cyclone listserv.

Bill Gray is the guy that Planck was talking about when he pointed out
that new ideas don't convert opponents, but the opponents eventually
die. The recent papers linking cyclone intensity (not number) to global
warming are direct challenges to what Gray has written over the years,
and he has over-reacted in a predictable way, saying any number of
stupid things that he is not willing to back up (for example his claim
on the radio that he expects a cooling in the global temperature to set
in in a few year). When challenged to put his money where his mouth is
he swallowed his teeth.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...n-cooling.html

And no, for anyone following this thing, the data set Emmanuel used was
reasonable. A major issue in this is how do you get global coverage
before satellites.

josh halpern




They don't care about the truth. And they know that you cannot unring a
bell.

More funding, please!

LOL!

"Joshua Halpern" wrote in message
news:dnskf.7243$a%.5959@trnddc05...

The recent papers linking cyclone intensity (not number) to global
warming are direct challenges to what Gray has written over the years,

Gray is hardly alone in challenging the dataset of that study; there appear
to be obvious and egregious errors in the Indian Ocean data, particularly.

Roger Coppock wrote:
Atlantic TS Epsilon Is About a 1 in 80,000 Year Event!!!!!


I second the below.

Roger, when will you get it into your big fat head that weather is a
Levy-Mandelbrot distribution, not a Gaussian distribution? FAT TAILS
FAT HEAD!

And GW is largely natural.

RL

Roger full of **** and meaningless numbers again, to him, anything that
happens out if the norm is because of global warming. what a jerk!


Roger is a "True Believer". Without true believers there are no
religions.

John Krempasky wrote:
"Joshua Halpern" wrote in message
news:dnskf.7243$a%.5959@trnddc05...

The recent papers linking cyclone intensity (not number) to global

warming are direct challenges to what Gray has written over the years,


Gray is hardly alone in challenging the dataset of that study; there appear
to be obvious and egregious errors in the Indian Ocean data, particularly.

See http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm for Emanuel's response.
Where did your question come from.

5. The trend has been downward in other ocean basins not reported in
the study?

Response: The trend in the last few years has indeed been downward in
the eastern North Pacific and the northern Indian Ocean. The latter,
however, has a very small number of storms with small storm track
lengths and contributes insignificantly to the global total. The
Southern Hemisphere, which like the Indian Ocean, only has wind speed
estimates going back to about 1980; during this time the trend in PDI is
definitely upward.

josh halpern

In article ,
Well Done wrote:
BlithelyAcceptTheDominantParadigm wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Atlantic TS Epsilon Is About a 1 in 80,000 Year Event!!!!!

The weatherman can't tell us the weather for next week; yet, trolling
'knobs like "Roger" claim science knows about 80,000 (or 600,000) year
periods.

Somebody doesn't know the difference between weather and climate!


Helping Roger be consistent
As Roger would say: "The Atlantic basin is not the globe."

Roger would say just about ANYTHING if it serves his purpose that
moment. These guys haven't a leg to stand on scientifically or
logically. They're strictly politics, which is all the IPCC is.

And you're strictly an idiot. Go stick your head back in the sand.

Long-term averages are sometimes far easier to predict that short-term
events.

Flip an honest coin once, twice, three times, four times, and you can't
predict with much certainty what pattern of heads and tails you'll get.


Flip an honest coin 1,000 times, however, and almost certainly you'll
get something like a 50/50 ratio of heads and tails -- not a perfect
match, but close.

I submit that predicting the weather and predicting the climate offer
an analogous situation. Predicting what the temperature will be
tomorrow or next week is really tough. But in many place, it's not
that difficult to predict that the average winter temperature will
hover between X and Y degress, and the average summer temperature will
hover between A and B degrees, which will be much higher.

It's that kind of long-term average projection that the global climate
modelers are working with. Some of them will admit that in truth,
global climate and weather patters are really, really complex, and that
the earliest computer models had large blind spots in terms of dealing
with various climate factors (especially the effects of clouds) in any
detail.

However, the climate models keep improving and getting more
sophisticated, and there's a large amount of empirical research going
on in various places -- ice borings taken from Greenland and
Antarctica, probes for temperature and dissolved gas concentrations in
the oceans, observations about changes in the yearly migration patterns
of birds and the yearly blossoming times of plants, etc. -- that the
scientists are using to supplement the computer modeling.

It's that kind of computer modeling and research that the IPCC
researchers have relied on in making their predictions, I think. This
obviously doesn't guarantee that the IPCC is right in every one of its
findings. What possibly could? But we're not just talking about your
local weather reporter gauging an advancing cold front wrong and
falsing predicting scattered showers for Tuesday.

Because I'm something of a "true believer" on global climate, though I
admit I don't understand all of the research models in any kind of
detail, I'd like to add something about the original post in this
string.

And that is that the kinds of long-term, average projections that the
global climate modelers are making -- whether they're right or wrong --
are similar in a way to the average projections that the average farmer
has to make in deciding what to plant, and when, to produce crops
during the next growing season.

Ditto with the corporate planners with the big oil companies, or with
your local electric utility company, who need to make some kind of
guess about how much their customers will be running their furnaces in
December and their air conditioning units in August in order to make
some very practical business decisions regarding how much energy to
have on hand, and when.

Ditto for people who operate ski resorts; ditto for Florida hotel and
restuarant owners who have to have some idea of future weather and
climate patterns in order to prepare for the yearly tourist season.
And on and on.

The greenhouse skeptics can rightly point to crudities in the computer
models that have been used in the past to predict greenhouse-related
climate change, I think, and it's a fact that careful temperature
records using thermometers date back no more than 120 years or so in
the advanced industrialized West.

You can make an argument that we're having to make some guesses based
on information that may be somewhat shakier than we'd like it to be.
But all kinds of farmers, business people, and government planners
already are relying on climate guesswork of just this kind.

Predicting that the global climate won't change, based on 120 years'
worth of thermometer readings, is just as dicey as predicting that it
will. Predicting that the climate won't change based on the policy
preferences of the fossil fuel industry, which doesn't want to lose
sales and revenue because of global warming, is pretty stupid, because
if anyone has an obvious reason for skewing the climate science, the
fossil fuel people do.

When respected scientists associated with the IPCC proclaim that it's
time for people to get worried, then, and when year after year of
hotter-than-average weather seems to confirm the IPCC's scenario, I
think it makes sense to listen.