31–40 of 102 posts
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.
P(A|B) was swapped with P(B|A).
I agree it isn't careful wording. Thanks.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
P(A|B) was swapped with P(B|A).
The statement should be there is a 99.5% chance that we correctly rejected the null hypothesis. I agree it isn't careful wording. Thanks.
This kind of thing has happened several times in China in recorded history with the Yellow River, to the point where sometimes the river has flowed into the ocean north of the Shandong peninsula and sometimes south of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_River#History
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While the exact language in the quote is perhaps implying something, it only directly says the that the cause is warming during the industrial era. It doesn't provide any direct information about causal factors.
I don't have a problem with them saying for example - "We believe that the river changed due to warming over the industrial era"
I don't really have a problem with anything they conclude to be honest, I was just answering another guy's question. Shitty of HN users to give me negative points over it. I feel like I'm on Reddit again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statement should be there is a 99.5% chance that we correctly rejected the null hypothesis. I agree it isn't careful wording. Thanks.
I played a game of Monopoly where I started with a roll of 12. There was a 97% chance I correctly rejected the hypothesis that the dice were fair. Maybe this is true in some sense? But it's still somewhere between misleading and nonsensical to say.
Bayes factor appear to solve this issue. I disagree that this is a basic education issue. It is a lack of agreement among scientists as to what statistical analysis is appropriate.
There's another possibility of the event this author calls "river piracy." The Mississippi river is chronically at risk of being grabbed by the Atchafalaya River. John McPhee wrote about this in 1987. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/02/23/atchafalaya
Sweet, so what should we build to change this? Giant carbon-sucking machines, cube-sats pointed at glaciers? (planet labs is doing cool stuff in this space, including a project to count every tree on Earth every day). Solutions welcome!
Windmills and panels everywhere.
Sweet, so what should we build to change this? Giant carbon-sucking machines, cube-sats pointed at glaciers? (planet labs is doing cool stuff in this space, including a project to count every tree on Earth every day). Solutions welcome!