you can’t credibly call something a 500y or a 1000y event without thousands of years of observations of an unchanging system
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
we have maybe 150 years of reliable data about weather in the central and west US. Need more epistemic humility in forecasting
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
you can’t derive the distribution unless you make assumptions about it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
the point is the system you’re modeling is changing rapidly. Even if we had the data, it’s of limited predictive use
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
not under conditions of rapid climate change
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
sure! But identifying a strong warming trend is different than saying “this is a 0.2% likely event”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think everyone understand that. It’s not the point I’m making
-
expect this only makes it worse; a storm with 1/500 chance happening per year has ~63% chance in 500 years, less likely than name implies
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The odds of which are astronomically low! Like 1/million! It's a million year flood!
#FrickinMathHowDoesItWorkThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's a shitty semantics thing.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.