Quote from bigdavediode:
1a) Actually, you did. You referred to a percentage of an (irrelevant) total sample size which you arbitrarily plucked from the air (4.5 billion years.)
1b) Naturally you haven't disclosed what percentage, exactly, is the correct amount to predict climate.
1c) Let's say whether I wanted to guess whether or not Spring would follow this winter, and then summer would follow that. How many years of data do I require before you accept that this is a given? One billion years? Two billion years? A thousand years of data?
And please, be exact.
2a) Okay, so if a new market opens, such as some weekly option that is new and it's only been open for a seven days, I only need a "certain % of it for a relevant sample."
2b) I disagree. Obviously your statement is ridiculous and utterly silly. I would suggest that you need a sample size in proportion to the time frame to which you wish to extrapolate.
3)Here's my prediction: you won't respond to the required sample size to predict spring and summer -- despite you posting here that these are (correctly) "based on nature and variables not yet fully understood."
In fact, I'm 100% confident of your intellectual cowardice in this matter and I've only had a sample size of a couple of posts from you. Am I being unreasonable? Perhaps.
4a) First off, meteorologists are not climatologists. Secondly, weather is not climate. Thirdly, you don't even know for certain if a type of radar is called "Doppler Radar."
4b) And your argument appears to be that what we don't understand can't be proven, and because you don't understand none of this can be proven. Which is not convincing to anyone.
I eat burgers. I quite enjoy them.
1a) Actually, I didn't. Please re-read my post. I said that u do not have enough data for a relevant sample, and the 4.5 bil years is the estimated age of the Sun, not an arbitrary number. Since I was referring to TSI from your link then u can see how it is relevant to the point I am trying to make, and goes hand in hand with my example. (Which in fairness, is not apples to apples to yours.) Also, I never stated that the ENTIRE population is relevant, just much more than what u have.
1b) Naturally I haven't because I said nothing of the sort. Also are u implying that with your "correct %", that u can predict the climate?
1c) I have no idea, nor any desire to research it, how is that for "intellectual cowardice". I will also explain why. The seasons are an observation, and all the relevant info is known, our distance from the Sun, how long 1 rotation is around the Sun, and the tilt of our axis. That is like "predicting" day and night, an observation of reality not a prediction of the future.
You are comparing apples to hand grenades if you believe u have the same depth of information for global warming predictions, as u do for the seasons.
2a) You do not have enough info to predict anything, even with an option u do not have enough data to calculate historic vol, I guess u could use IV, but that has nothing to do with stats. BTW I also addressed how asinine it would be to attempt to predict the future price of any financial market/security/derivative using only historical statistics as they are not solely priced by math. Also, in the financial markets all of the rules are known (govt intervention aside), in nature they are not.
2b) I agree about having a propotion relative to your time frame in cases where eveything is uniform/linear (ie my manufacturing example). I disagree otherwise (as some factors are unknown). My whole point is that you do not know the full history of the sun's output, nor of our own climate, so your assumptions about their correlation, and historical norm are just guesses.
3) already addressed
4a) Whatever...
4b) Nope, my argument is that what we don't understand can't be PREDICTED. Certainly not using historical stats when most of the stats are missing.
It seems to me that u believe that u can predict the future. If so... PROVE IT and I will believe everything u say...
