Live data from Hacker News

Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

theguardian.com

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

#21
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it wrong? If you reject the null hypothesis with a 99.5% chance it is not a type 1 error.

> Why is it wrong? https://xkcd.com/882/ If you look at 200 rivers, it would not be surprising to find something that naturally occurs 0.5% of the time. It is not correct to say that there is a 99.5% chance that this is due to non-natural causes.

The wording is ambiguous. In general, trying to determine whether a statement about probability is correct or not requires more information than can be encapsulated in a single sentence. The English language does not help in this.

We're not going to get more information here without someone looking into where the .5% number comes from.

Re: Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

#22
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it wrong? If you reject the null hypothesis with a 99.5% chance it is not a type 1 error.

You can't say it's 99.5% due to global warming alone though. You can say 0.5% occurring by random chance but you can't just ascribe everything to one causal factor. Could be multi-factorial.

That is possible. However in the abstract the author states

"Based on satellite image analysis and a signal-to-noise ratio as a metric of glacier retreat, we conclude that this instance of river piracy was due to post-industrial climate change."

Re: Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One writer describes 15km as immense and suddenly all Guardian readers are idiots? For reference, the Thames is 350km long.

Idiots no, but given how UK publications so often describe geographical features one is left with the impression that the UK is sized like legoland. This is not a large river and, given the climate change aspect to the story, to desribe it as such is dishonest.

Hrm, I'd hate to say it like this but it's not always the length that matters. Did you read the bit about the volume of water that the pirating river increased by?

Re: Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

#25

Lol "immense" river 150m wide. Ok guardian readers, that may be an immense and scary river in the UK but canadians reserve words like immense for far larger things. At 15km this river may well be the largest thing ever seen by a brit, but canada has something like 50 rivers over 350 miles long. This is a glacial stream by the standards of The North, a part of canada bigger than all western europe. My local dog beach…

are you really gatekeeping size of rivers on hackernews?

Re: Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

#26
post #5
post #2

"The calculations put chance of the piracy having occured due to natural variability at 0.5%. “So it’s 99.5% that it occurred due to warming over the industrial era,” said Best." We need to train children in school to understand what statistical confidence means, so that we stop saying wrong things like this.

Why is it wrong? If you reject the null hypothesis with a 99.5% chance it is not a type 1 error.

P(A|B) was swapped with P(B|A).

Re: Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

#27
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it wrong? If you reject the null hypothesis with a 99.5% chance it is not a type 1 error.

> Why is it wrong? https://xkcd.com/882/ If you look at 200 rivers, it would not be surprising to find something that naturally occurs 0.5% of the time. It is not correct to say that there is a 99.5% chance that this is due to non-natural causes.

You could be right that we are only looking at variations that are rare. I'm not an expert so I would give the scientists the benefit of the doubt.

The possible error you identified is with the original paper and not due to a lack of basic statistics education.

Re: Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it wrong? https://xkcd.com/882/ If you look at 200 rivers, it would not be surprising to find something that naturally occurs 0.5% of the time. It is not correct to say that there is a 99.5% chance that this is due to non-natural causes.

The wording is ambiguous. In general, trying to determine whether a statement about probability is correct or not requires more information than can be encapsulated in a single sentence. The English language does not help in this. We're not going to get more information here without someone looking into where the .5% number comes from.

Here is the statistical analysis from the paper:

The method of Roe et al. is summarized as follows. Let 1L be the change in glacier length over the past 130 years (∼1.9 km), and let σL be the standard deviation of glacier length due to stochastic fluctuations in mass balance, b, from natural, interannual climate variability. The signal-to-noise ratio is defined by sL =1L/σL . Likewise, sb =1b/σb . Ref. 12 demonstrates that the two are related via sL =γ sb , where γ is an amplification factor that depends only on the duration of the trend and the glacier response time, τ . The probability density function (PDF) for sb is generated by combining the signal-to-noise ratios of the observed melt-season temperature and annual-mean precipitation trends, normalized by the summer (bs) and winter (bw ) mass-balance variability (Supplementary Fig. 1a,b,c), respectively. We take σbw = 0.3 myr−1 and σbs =0.5 myr−1 , based on the observed mass-balance variability at Gulkana Glacier and the analysis of the global datasets of glacier mass balance33. The glacier response time is given by τ =−H/bt , where H is a characteristic glacier thickness, and bt is the (negative) net mass balance at the terminus. We set H=590 m, based on the scaling relationship for glacier geometry suggested by Haeberli and Hoelzle34 and measured cross-sections35; and we set bt =−7 myr−1 , estimated by extrapolating the vertical mass-balance profiles calculated by Flowers et al.8 , thus giving a central estimate for τ of ∼80 years. A PDF is estimated assuming τ follows a gamma distribution incorporating a broad uncertainty of στ =τ /4 (Supplementary Fig. 1d). The PDFs for γ and sb are combined to give a PDF for σL from the relation σL =γ 1L| obssb . This, in turn, is used to evaluate the null hypothesis that 1L| obs occurred due to natural variability. Supplementary Fig. 1e shows our estimate that there is only a 0.5% chance that the observed retreat of Kaskawulsh Glacier happened in the absence of a climate trend.

Re: Receding glacier causes Canadian river to vanish in four days

#30
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wording is ambiguous. In general, trying to determine whether a statement about probability is correct or not requires more information than can be encapsulated in a single sentence. The English language does not help in this. We're not going to get more information here without someone looking into where the .5% number comes from.

Here is the statistical analysis from the paper: The method of Roe et al. is summarized as follows. Let 1L be the change in glacier length over the past 130 years (∼1.9 km), and let σL be the standard deviation of glacier length due to stochastic fluctuations in mass balance, b, from natural, interannual climate variability. The signal-to-noise ratio is defined by sL =1L/σL . Likewise, sb =1b/σb . Ref. 12 demonstrate…

The 0.5% quote is fine. It's turning it into a 99.5% that is not fine.

It's essentially like saying that a pair of dice that rolled a 12 has a 97% chance of being loaded, because there's only a 1 in 36 chance of rolling that high.

Post reply on HN