Wavels
Well-Known Member
Hahaha
Probability has a very precise and specific meaning.
You are unable to tell me why it was used on the graph...
Yikes!
2014 was definitely the hottest year on record
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Probability has a very precise and specific meaning.
You are unable to tell me why it was used on the graph...
Yikes!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I did tell you why. You're just too slow and dumb to grasp it. If you think 2014 was not the hottest year on record, tell us which year you think was.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
You seem to like answering questions with questions?
Wow, you really and truly think that you addressed my query with anything even remotely resembling a cogent answer?
Once again.
Who put the word probability on the graph? What does it mean? Why is it on the graph?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
According to NASA, it was definitely the hottest year. They even took the record years and ranked them.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
This thread is funny.
a 48% probability means definitely because.. well because.
Oh, because when you add up all of the probabilities it equals 100 so therefore it's definitely.
Let's see, 100% probability means definitely, 100-48 = 52%. So if the probability of it being the hottest year is 48%, isn't the probability that it was one of the other years mentioned 52%. So there is a greater probability that it wasn't 2014 than it was.
I think it was most likely the hottest year on record based on that same data, but holy bad at math batman!. 48% =/= 100%.
Gonna go ahead and say , uh, ok AC, whatever you say. That way you can declare victory and I'm out of this. Just thought it was funny. You got it bad man.
a 48% probability means definitely because.. well because.
Oh, because when you add up all of the probabilities it equals 100 so therefore it's definitely.
Let's see, 100% probability means definitely, 100-48 = 52%. So if the probability of it being the hottest year is 48%, isn't the probability that it was one of the other years mentioned 52%. So there is a greater probability that it wasn't 2014 than it was.
I think it was most likely the hottest year on record based on that same data, but holy bad at math batman!. 48% =/= 100%.
Gonna go ahead and say , uh, ok AC, whatever you say. That way you can declare victory and I'm out of this. Just thought it was funny. You got it bad man.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Ranking of Record Years.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Yep, and each has a probability that it was the hottest of them all with 2014 being most likely.
Here's one for you, which has a greater probability of being the hottest year, 2014 with a 48% probability or the field with a 52% probability?
Notice the math, it equals 100, 48% that it was, 52% that it wasn't. That's the NOAA, according to NASA, it's only 38% likely meaning it's more likely that another year was, cause it adds up to 100 lol. This is not the same as saying definitely.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Which one had a 52% ranking?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
The field
You may not understand odds and betting and how that works. I think if you did you'd be really embarrassed right now.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, you clearly don't understand that it is a ranking. It isn't 48% chance yes / 52% chance no. All of them add up to 100%. You keep ignoring this. It's a ranking. That's why the header says Ranking of Record Years.
NASA and NOAA both concluded that 2014 was definitely the hottest year on record. You would understand the methodology if you read the material which accompanied the chart, but you don't even have to do that, it says right on the header that it's a RANKING OF RECORD YEARS.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
See what I mean?
For those of you that deny anthropogenic climate change and constantly complain that you're being censored, take this thread as a perfect example of what I said earlier.
"Yes, it's happening"
"No, it's not"
-this would be where science comes in-
-the science says yep, it's happening-
"See, it's happening, the science confirms it"
"Well, the science is wrong then!"
...
If the side who supports ACC wasn't winning, you wouldn't be calling it 'censorship'
Rofl
For those of you that deny anthropogenic climate change and constantly complain that you're being censored, take this thread as a perfect example of what I said earlier.
"Yes, it's happening"
"No, it's not"
-this would be where science comes in-
-the science says yep, it's happening-
"See, it's happening, the science confirms it"
"Well, the science is wrong then!"
...
If the side who supports ACC wasn't winning, you wouldn't be calling it 'censorship'
Rofl
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm keeping it vague enough to continually troll these dipshits. If they actually understood anything, they would agree and I would have no idiots to troll.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
lol
it adds up to 100!!!
It's 48% chance it was 2014, 52% chance it was one of the other years mentioned. That's why it adds up to 100. If it was one of those other years, then it was either tied with 2014 or hotter because their probability was >0. This means there's a chance.....
If it were 100% 2014, all other years would be 0% probability, but they are not. Therefore, it's a most likely, not a definite, but you derp on, it's actually kinda funny.
When Tiger was crushing every week, he would sometimes be favored against the field, usually not, but the odds were given ranked on who was most likely to win. If Tiger was 48% favored against the field, that would mean that it's 52% that someone other than Tiger would win, I'm sure you get that. Not sure why don't see it from the hottest year rankings but i have to admit it entertains me.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Is that what you see? I see religious fanatics spouting false claims and calling it science.
Seriously, look how bad AC is murdering math and probability and try not to laugh. I challenge you to not ignore what he's doing here and realize how much people like him hurt the argument.
"science says last year was most likely the hottest year on record, we should do something", moves the conversation to "what can we do?"
"science says last year was definitely the hottest year on record, we should do something", moves the conversation to "oh hell no they are saying definitely, what type of agenda are you pushing with that obvious false claim?"
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Which one?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
the field
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm sure the field is nice and warm, but none of the other years ranked as high as 2014, not even close. Do you think there's a 52% chance that 2010 was the hottest? Do you think there's a 52% chance that 2005 was the hottest?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Mmmm, yes...tell us more about the different methodologies between NASA and NOAA, since you are so familiar with them.
For starters, explain what the different baselines are.
PS can you spot the glaring, fundamental error in the cartoon?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I don't understand your struggle, but I'll try to help.
2014 - 48%
2010,2013,2005, or 1998 52%.
If X + Y + Z + R + P= 100 then 100 - X = Y + Z + R + P
you follow how that works?
Is 52% more or less than 48%?
And thanks man, I was kinda bored.