Talk:Climate change/Archive 10

message: Entering onto the research itself: you have, apparently, fitted a 3rd order poly. What about 2nd? or 4th? or exp? I'm saying that as a point of interest, but (sorry) I'm going to object however well you answer the last point.... William M. Connolley 22:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I most certainly did try several extrapolations and chose the one with the greatest R2. James P. S. 05:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The third revision tried over 3,660 models with TableCurve.  They have a 30-day free eval download for Windows if anyone else would like to propose an alternative. James P. S. 20:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete set of regression models 

message: Fitting a curve to a number of points and looking at the correlation coefficient is fine if you have a good model of what goes on. It can also work if you have a number of candidate models and a large sample. But in this case, you don't have a reasonable model, and you have just 5 data points. Using your extrapolation backwards in time, we will find that in 1900, the world earned massive amounts of money from hurricances...obviously, there is something wrong with the model. --Stephan Schulz 23:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the correct curve would be in the log domain for nonnegative data.  I used the log1p transform function in R without any noticable change in the resulting fit. James P. S. 05:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The second revision used a second-degree polynomial fit in the log domain, the underlying cause more closely fits a logistic sigmoid, and the best fit by far to the yearly data in the third revision is an exponential, all of which are nonnegative. James P. S. 19:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonnegative data 

message: Let's just settle this, once and for all, rather then an ongoing revert war.  Let's vote on whether or not to include the graph in the Global warming article. --Aude 17:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have you called the vote on the initial revision?  I trust that you will have the courtesy to leave the graphs in place while the survey and related processes are taking place; will you? —James S. 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, current surveys and RfCs are required on each individual article's page.  You can not expect a survey for one article to take place on another's talk page. —James S. 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that more recent data would be great. I believe I have found the source of the IPCC data from an old draft PDF! —James S. 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  If the graph were identical to something in a journal, it would be a comyright violation. Do you understand the meaning of the 95% prediction confidence interval? —James S. 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the graph were cited from a journal, it might be fair use; or data in a journal article could be replotted.  It would also have the benefit of being peer-reviewed and not original research.  And I do understand what the confidence interval means, thank you, and it is highly dependent on, indeed essentially a description of, the regression model chosen. bikeable (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you believe that the data has not been replotted from the IPCC source linked to in the caption?  Since you understand that the 95% prediction confidence interval describes the model, which was chosen by least sum-of-square error against the historical data, then why did you suggest using a model with a greater number of parameters?  Do you know the difference between an R2 and a degrees-of-freedom adjusted R2? —James S. 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to warn you that I'm not going to get dragged into a debate about this; I've expressed my opinion.  My n-polynomial comment was (roughly) an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, almost a joke; and yes, I know that the data is from IPCC, but I would like a peer review of the regression, or, for example, a combined climate/economic model, rather than a simplistic fit to the data, which I think shows almost nothing.  bikeable (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: is there some particular reason you're registering your 'include' vote in the 'don't include' section??Anastrophe 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote was called on :Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif, which I replaced days ago. —James S. 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My cut & paste mistake, from the previous heading.  Everyone here has been following the discussion and knows the debate is about :Image:Extreme-weather-cost.gif (the latest revision of :Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.jpg). --Aude 01:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you attempt to edit the subject of the poll after our votes had already been cast? —James S. 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Do you have a specific criticism that can be addressed, or only general argument by appeal to emotion? —James S. 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif

message: * --Aude 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that more recent data would be great. I believe I have found the source of the IPCC data from an old draft PDF! —James S. 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the graph were identical to something in a journal, it would be a comyright violation. Do you understand the meaning of the 95% prediction confidence interval? —James S. 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the graph were cited from a journal, it might be fair use; or data in a journal article could be replotted.  It would also have the benefit of being peer-reviewed and not original research.  And I do understand what the confidence interval means, thank you, and it is highly dependent on, indeed essentially a description of, the regression model chosen. bikeable (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you believe that the data has not been replotted from the IPCC source linked to in the caption?  Since you understand that the 95% prediction confidence interval describes the model, which was chosen by least sum-of-square error against the historical data, then why did you suggest using a model with a greater number of parameters?  Do you know the difference between an R2 and a degrees-of-freedom adjusted R2? —James S. 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to warn you that I'm not going to get dragged into a debate about this; I've expressed my opinion.  My n-polynomial comment was (roughly) an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, almost a joke; and yes, I know that the data is from IPCC, but I would like a peer review of the regression, or, for example, a combined climate/economic model, rather than a simplistic fit to the data, which I think shows almost nothing.  bikeable (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: is there some particular reason you're registering your 'include' vote in the 'don't include' section??Anastrophe 01:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote was called on :Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif, which I replaced days ago. —James S. 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My cut & paste mistake, from the previous heading.  Everyone here has been following the discussion and knows the debate is about :Image:Extreme-weather-cost.gif (the latest revision of :Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.jpg). --Aude 01:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you attempt to edit the subject of the poll after our votes had already been cast? —James S. 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Do you have a specific criticism that can be addressed, or only general argument by appeal to emotion? —James S. 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not include [[:Image:Cost-of-storms-by-decade.gif]]

message: "When you get up into winds in excess of 155 mph you have enough damage," Simpson said in a 1999 interview with the National Weather Log, a publication of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  "If that extreme wind sustains itself for as much as six seconds on a building it's going to cause rupturing damages that are serious no matter how well it's engineered. So I think that it's immaterial what will happen with winds stronger than 156 miles per hour. That's the reason why we didn't try to go any higher than that," Simpson said.
Simesa 09:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it your position that total amount of damage is no longer proportional to windspeed above 155 mph? That is absurd and you know it. —James S. 10:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it takes 156 mph to bring down a building, a 200mph wind causes no more damage than a 156mph one, does it? There's an asymptotic limit: when everything's destroyed, it can't get any worse. Ergo damage not always proportional to windspeed. Rd232 talk 17:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The average global windspeed must be less than half of the speed of sound.  Way too much upside on the storm strength dimension.  I agree that there is finite coastline.  I am astonished by those who have claimed that there is not clear and convincing evidence that storm strength is increasing at an accelerating pace at sea, on coasts, and inland. —James S. 20:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The average global windspeed must be less than half of the speed of sound." - what does that have to do with the price of fish?? Rd232 talk 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's the upper bound on average wind speed from statistical gas mechanics. The answer to your question is yes, if it takes 156 mph to bring down a building, a 200mph wind will cause more damage than a 156mph one, because more buildings will be brought down, on average, by any increase.  There is no magical upper limit at which wind speed increases will no longer do increasing damage.  The fact that you and Simesa would even suggest such a thing shows the superiority of my position, and the bankruptcy of yours. How do you look yourself in a mirror after suggesting such nonsense? —James S. 05:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh. recommend removing the "This user assumes good faith" userbox on your userpage there, chief. Anastrophe 05:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Saffir-Simpson Scale stops at 5 

message: this (Extreme-weather-cost.gif) graph is not the subject of this poll. it has been modified since the time the polling began. Anastrophe 07:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that you attempted to change the subject of the earlier poll after votes had already been cast.  Furthermore, I do not believe that truth is decided by majority vote.  I reserve the right to submit this matter to arbitration or RfC. —James S. 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Conduct_a_survey — this step should be taken first, before going to mediation or arbitration.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I object to your attempt to poll questions about articles on other articles' talk pages.  I will only recognize the result of polls concerning articles on their individual talk pages, and reserve the right to raise this question in RfC and arbitration. —James S. 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's unnecessary for us to hold polls in all the related articles, and us all to follow you around to vote.  This talk page and discussion is referenced on the related articles' talk pages.  ---Aude (talk | contribs) 04:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'd be inclined to agree to a freeze if you would give me more time to find the source data.  So far all I have is this list of names: Frich P., Alexander L.V., Della-Marta P., Gleason B., Haylock M., Klein Tank A. and Peterson T. —James S. 08:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not about whether the strength of storms is increasing. This is about your graphical predictions of future events. Rd232 talk 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As requested, I have adjusted the 2005 preliminary figure of $200 billion to inflation-adjusted 2001 U.S. dollars ($178 billion, assuming the majority are paid in the latter half of the year, which seems reasonable.) —James S. 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Image:Extreme-weather-cost.gif

message: * --Aude 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be inclined to agree to a freeze if you would give me more time to find the source data.  So far all I have is this list of names: Frich P., Alexander L.V., Della-Marta P., Gleason B., Haylock M., Klein Tank A. and Peterson T. —James S. 08:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about whether the strength of storms is increasing. This is about your graphical predictions of future events. Rd232 talk 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As requested, I have adjusted the 2005 preliminary figure of $200 billion to inflation-adjusted 2001 U.S. dollars ($178 billion, assuming the majority are paid in the latter half of the year, which seems reasonable.) —James S. 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not include [[:Image:Extreme-weather-cost.gif]]