Remove this ad

#1721 [url]

Dec 2 11 11:31 AM


LOL
How would I know?  Because I read your post here:
From Anthropal -

-dorids

Please show the good people of NoG exactly how that presents a flawed impression of the data, then explain the trend over the last forty years, and then explain to the members the trend that is shown on the graph over the last six years.

When you have learned how to read the graph, please explain to the members exactly how that shows that hurricanes are now becoming commonplace.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#1722 [url]

Dec 2 11 11:33 AM

It has not gone without notice that every graph you have shown is missing the last six years, yet when shown graphs made by a Ph.D. in Meteorology that covers the last six years, you refuse to address them.

One must seriously ask why.

Quote    Reply   

#1724 [url]

Dec 2 11 11:40 AM





The graph Anthro supplied shows that there is a clear down-ward trend in cyclonic activity since the record high of 1993.  There is no other way that graph can be interpreted.  Any claim to the contrary is patently false.  In addition, we are now at the lowest level of such activity since 1979.

-richw9090

Rich that would be the result if that was all the data you had.  And it may turn out to be right.  

However, in interpreting time series , especially ones with small numbers and large variations as we have here, you can get any result you want by selecting your starting period.  

Statisticians avoid that error. I have tried to explain the challenges here with the analogy of the roulette wheel.  This is not an ordinary regression where you run a least squares.  There are a number of Statisticians who have had a go at this.  They do not agree with you Rich.  In fact when someone says this is the ONLY way it rings alarm bells.

Taken over 100 years, there is an upward trend.  When allowance is made for the missing storms in the pre-satellite years than trend is no certain.

My last say on this matter.

(PS read chapter five of How to Lie with Statisticc -  I believe you have a copy)



Quote    Reply   

#1725 [url]

Dec 2 11 12:11 PM

I now want the members to go here. (bold added)


Well you have everything mixed up in your head. Floods do appear to show increasing intensity.  But cyclones do not.  And this is consistent with there being not consensus which you do not want to acknowledge, because you know I am correct

Here is the best data I have seen for cyclones

-dorids


The long-suffering members will note that Dorids' best data "seen for cyclones" is truncated, but wait, there's more.

It can be also seen on the author's site, and is a replica of this graph, which Dorids refuses to address.

Now wait you say, isn't it deceitful copying the work of another and passing it off as your own? Not in this instance. Note the name of the author, "Ryan. N. Maue. Now go to his own website, and ...

Yes folks, the graph and author which Dorids now decries, is the same graph, by the same author, he said was the best data he had seen for cyclones.


It helps to have a good memory in these forums - huh?


Quote    Reply   

#1726 [url]

Dec 2 11 12:20 PM

If you bother to read that link, you will note that Dr. Maue regularly updates the graphs, with the last update being just a couple of days ago.
Please tell us all about the trends in those graphs, and explain just how deceitful is Dr, Maue.

-anthropal

LOL
Tell me,  does this guy really truncate his graphs? He should be in marketing.  Same data, one truncated.

-dorids

Please explain to the good people why you posted this as an example of the best data you have seen for cyclones.

Now please explain to the members why the author of the truncated graph you posted as the "best data" should be in marketing.


Quote    Reply   

#1727 [url]

Dec 2 11 12:23 PM

The graph Anthro supplied shows that there is a clear down-ward trend in cyclonic activity since the record high of 1993.  There is no other way that graph can be interpreted.  Any claim to the contrary is patently false.  In addition, we are now at the lowest level of such activity since 1979.

-richw9090

Yep, and Dorids posted the same graph himself earlier, but gave it a different interpretation that time.

Quote    Reply   

#1728 [url]

Dec 2 11 12:23 PM

What did he say about manipulating data and statistics?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#1730 [url]

Dec 2 11 12:27 PM


My last say on this matter.
(PS read chapter five of How to Lie with Statisticc -  I believe you have a copy)

-dorids

Yes, no doubt it will be your last say, especially now that you have just given us an example from the book.

Quote    Reply   

#1731 [url]

Dec 2 11 12:35 PM

Having read and thought about that and how small samples with large variations need to be analysed, you can make up your own mind one way or the other.  I do not care, as the truth will out over the coming years.
But either way, jump and swivel and dance how you like, the facts remain:

-dorids

Yes, the facts remain that when you look at the author of this graph you will see the words, "Dr. Ryan N. Maue".

The way you have been rubbishing him now suggests more jumping, swivelling and dancing than I have seen at a jitterbug competition.

Quote    Reply   

#1732 [url]

Dec 6 11 4:46 PM

From another thread, referencing my above points.


I am not prepared to go into this any further. I have made my point honestly and objectively having examined all the data I could find,
But basically it was to do with the presentation of the material on graph that was truncated. 

-dorids


Quote    Reply   

#1733 [url]

Sep 23 15 7:57 AM

Quote Mining

Hi. I'm not sure if you're going to get this comment or not, but I thought it was important for you to know and this is the only way I have of contacting the orginal poster. There is a person named Bob Hunter posting in a Facebook group called Creation vs. Evolution who is quote mining the heck out of your statements. He said he got your permission to quote mine your statements. I'm guessing he didn't. Anyway, I'm posting a link to the thread so you can see for yourself and be wary of him in the future if this is something you have an issue with.

It looks to be the same person as "anthropal" on your thread.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/creationversusevolution/permalink/883170285098583/?comment_id=883457155069896&offset=150&total_comments=523&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22}

~Eya~

Quote    Reply   

#1734 [url]

Sep 24 15 3:44 PM

It is indeed me, and if you read the piece in question I had permission to use that exact piece, without the surrounding comments, along with the caveat that I acknowledged that the author supported AGW. He agreed though that I could use the following statement as presented below:

"I do not know how familiar you are with modelling. I have done my share and have published in this area.
Those claims about the models are almost certainly correct (I do not know, but I cannot see how it could be otherwise). Modelling, particularly of the future, is not very exact. Part of the reason is that variables that are significant for the past are not always good enough for the future."

Feel free to go to page 5 of this thread to note the statement, the caveat and the agreement. Thank you for your concerns, and I hope that clears it up.

Last Edited By: anthropal Sep 24 15 3:47 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#1735 [url]

Sep 24 15 4:11 PM

The first two posts are the ones of concern, and you will note that the context was retained and approved of by the author.
http://natureorgod.lefora.com/topic/4054989/Climate-Change-and-Global-Warming?page=5#.VgSQLI7tVqA

Edited down, while retaining context, it goes like this:

Anthropal: According to the scientists (many of whom have authored other chapters of the IPCC Report) there is insufficient validation of the computer models for their predictions to be scientifically rigorous e.g. Sea Level Rise along the east coast of Australia (NSW particularly) has risen at an average rate of 1.3 mm per year over the last 100 yrs, yet the models predict a rise of 900 mm by 2100

Dorids: Those claims about the models are almost certainly correct (I do not know, but I cannot see how it could be otherwise).  Modelling, particularly of the future, is not very exact.  Part of the reason is that variables that are significant for the past are not always good enough for the future.

Anthropal: Do you mind if I post that to a certain student from JCU?

Dorids: Feel free.

But do note that I am agreeing that I beleive his comments are correct.

___________________________________________________________

The JCU comment was about one of my relatives who was an Honours student at JCU and very pro AGW, who also was implying the models were highly accurate.

Last Edited By: anthropal Sep 24 15 4:23 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help