Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday February 20 2017, @03:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the spring-has-sprung dept.

The Washington Post reports that the "lower 48" states of the USA are enjoying spring-like weather. It quotes a meteorologist as saying 1495 record high temperatures have been reached during the month of February (as against 10 record lows); among them:

  • Magnum, Okla., hit 99 degrees [Fahrenheit, 37.2° Celsius] on Feb. 11 — tying the state record for hottest winter temperature ever recorded. Yet it occurred two weeks earlier than the record it matched from Feb. 24, 1918, set in the town of Arapaho.
  • Denver hit 80 degrees [Fahrenheit, 26.7° Celsius] Feb. 10 — its warmest February temperature on record dating back to 1872.
  • Norfolk hit 82 degrees [Fahrenheit, 27.8° Celsius] Feb. 12, tying its warmest February temperature on record dating back to 1874.

[Ed Note: it is actually Mangum, OK, not Magnum. The original WaPo article is incorrect.]

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @05:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @05:15PM (#469330)

    And if a dice isn't fair, we can conclude CO2 emissions are causing the entire temperature increase, right?

    This NHST-approach (where you test a strawman) needs to end before it destroys our civilization.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 20 2017, @05:30PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 20 2017, @05:30PM (#469336) Journal

    This NHST-approach (where you test a strawman) needs to end before it destroys our civilization.

    This is a red herring. We have a model and evidence supporting that model. It has nothing to do with null hypothesis significance testing.

    And let us note that NHST is a valid scientific procedure no matter that it can be abused. I've discussed it here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org]. For example, a classic place to use NHST in a valid way is when you have a large amount of complex data, have at best very poor models of the data, and want to quickly find possible patterns in the data (such as health care or customer data at a retail store or grocery). NHST can do that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @05:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @05:42PM (#469347)

      "NHST in a valid way is when you have a large amount of complex data, have at best very poor models of the data, and want to quickly find possible patterns in the data"

      No one believes "the climate never changes"[dice is fair] null hypothesis, so rejecting it is a waste of time. It doesn't tell us anything about CO2, etc.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 20 2017, @06:26PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 20 2017, @06:26PM (#469365) Journal

        No one believes "the climate never changes"[dice is fair] null hypothesis, so rejecting it is a waste of time. It doesn't tell us anything about CO2, etc.

        I did say NHST was a red herring here.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @07:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @07:30PM (#469395)

          You should have, NHST is bullshit that needs to die in the hottest fire we can find. We're rarely in a position where we don't have an established procedure, we usually have some sort of status quo that we want to evaluate other options to. The relevant question is usually whether or not there's enough evidence to support making a change in a particular direction, rather than whether or not we have sufficient evidence to support the status quo. The status quo virtually always has enough substance to justify it's use, we wouldn't be using it if it were complete BS.

          There's a reason why spam filters typically run on bayesian inference rather than NHST.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 20 2017, @07:49PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 20 2017, @07:49PM (#469401) Journal

            We're rarely in a position where we don't have an established procedure, we usually have some sort of status quo that we want to evaluate other options to.

            I mentioned two such areas: health care and customer data for stores.

            There's a reason why spam filters typically run on bayesian inference rather than NHST.

            Who was claiming NHST was the only tool out there?