Jump to content

Because of or despite?


Recommended Posts

That graph conveys absolutely no useful information, whilst at the same time giving the impression that things are about the same now as they were in 1933 - without explaining why 1933 was picked in favour of, say, 1932 or 1934.


All the graph actually shows is that 2 of the last 4 years have been particularly bad ones for atlantic storms, that 1933 was also a bad year, and that the current year - so far - is shaping up to be a quiet one.


No valid conclusions about trends over time can possibly be drawn without at least knowing what is the standard deviation (a statistical measure of the degree of variation seen either side of the average figure) associated with the 1944 - 2005 average for the number of storms.


Just goes to show that people who don't understand statistics shouldn't be trusted with them!! :):)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair comment Pete, except that it's the AGW propagandists who do the cherry picking by choosing a particularly bad year and a particularly bad hurricane (Katrina) to promote the idea that humans (thats us by the way) are changing the weather in a catastrophic way. All the graph shows, as you point out, is that so far this year has been a below average one for named storms. It doesn't purport to show that hurricanes will, in future, be less frequent or powerful. Just redressing the balance. After all without extreme highs and lows there is, by definition, no average is there? :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The's always an average of any set of data, you don't need extreme highs or lows at all.


Imagine you recorded the temperature outside at noon every day for a week. One week your results might be 19,20,20,21,19,20,21, which gives you an average noon day temperature of 20 degrees - quite a nice week all week. The next week your results might be 21,24,24,21,22,14,14 which also gives an average of 20 degrees but is a week with much more variability - a very warm spell early on and a significantly cooler period at the end.


The standard deviation of the second week will be about 4, much higher than that of about 0.75 for the first week. Averages are a bit meaningless without standard deviations to show how much variation from the average can be expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By extremes I mean the highest and lowest numbers in a set, I don't mean anything out of the ordinary. So from this point of view any set of numbers you take an average of has to have a highest (upper extreme) number and a lowest (lower extreme) number. However you find Global Warming alarmists take any temperature above average as being proof of warming, ignoring the fact that for there to be an average there must be temperatures below the average which could just as easily be taken as proof of cooling. :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...