If climate scientists are so smart...

[Lorizael]

I interpreted...

The current data fits into the 1st model, but represents a low probability outcome. The current data also fits into the 2nd model, but represents a much higher probability outcome.

...to mean that P(bad hurricanes | global warming) > P(bad hurricanes | no global warming). But if P(global warming) < P(no global warming), then your conclusion about which model to use going forward might not necessarily follow. I was also being facetious.

[giblets]

We have 1 model of weather that says no global warming, and 1 model of weather that says there is global warming. The current data fits into the 1st model, but represents a low probability outcome. The current data also fits into the 2nd model, but represents a much higher probability outcome. Which model would you want to use going forward?

Which one is more convenient for me and lets me do whatever I want?

[ricketyclik]

I'd say they're about the same.

[Lorizael]

I'm bored on a Saturday, so I scribbled out a bit of algebra and came up with this. If you're on the fence about whether to accept global warming, Bayes' theorem says you should do so if:

P(GW) > 1/(H+1)

where P(GW) is your prior--not considering the evidence from hurricanes--about whether or not you think global warming is true, and H is how much more likely a bad hurricane season is in a model with global warming than without. So, for example, if a global warming model means a bad hurricane season is twice as likely as it would ordinarily be, then you should accept global warming if your prior for it is greater than 1/3. (Assuming that you accept global warming if your posterior probability > 1/2.)

[Kidlicious]

People who use the term "climate change denier" are the worst people ever. The Holocaust is a historical fact *******s!

[Kidlicious]

What concerns me more is that people say it's not proven. If you say the cost of climate change is X using whatever criteria you use, and to prevent climate change will cost Y using whatever criteria you want to use, then the calculus can be pretty simple. The level of proof required for action is Y/X. If Y far exceeds X, then the level of proof is irrelevant because it will never be worthwhile to act, if X far exceeds Y, then you should act on the smallest amount of evidence. Only in the extreme case of Y almost equalling X are your likely to really need to care about the level of proof, and even then, neither option is really much better than the other.

There is a problem in that these numbers are dynamic, and the marginal benefit of action may be getting smaller with time as the results become irreversible.

The problem is that this is a political issue. There is mass hysteria created by the media and political hacks. The only thing people care about is if their political party wins or losses.

[Kidlicious]

At this point, any deniers (of climate change) left aren't accepting scientific evidence anyway. Whether or not or to what extent a specific event is a result of climate change isn't an important issue except for view count.

Hmmmm. Are you actually listening to people? This is a political issue. Calling the other side all deniers makes you seem like a denier and about as rational as Maxine Waters.

[Ming]

Calling the other side all deniers makes you seem like a denier and about as rational as Maxine Waters.

This coming from somebody who simply insults anybody that disagrees with him all the time, even when he is proven wrong.
Typical Kidiot

[Kidlicious]

I called you a liberal, because that's what you are. I don't make up stuff diminishing the horribleness of Holocaust deniers like you liberals.

[Ming]

You make up stuff all the time, or simply post made up stuff you cut and paste from your alt-right circle jerk sites.
You try to paint anybody that disagrees with you as an idiot or worse with insults that sometimes don't even make sense.
So keep it up, but all of us know you are Kidiot.

[giblets]

People who use the term "climate change denier" are the worst people ever. The Holocaust is a historical fact *******s!

And climate change is a scientific fact.

[Berzerker]

Bill Maher was a rantin and ravin about climate change because of the hurricanes... A guest mentioned the last 'active' year was a dozen years ago.

[Lorizael]

A guest mentioned the last 'active' year was a dozen years ago.

This is not true. The Atlantic has been pretty active since about 1995. No category 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the US since 2005. We've been ****ed over by lesser hurricanes (Sandy), and hurricanes that strong have been forming that whole time and either never making landfall or hitting places other than the US (the Caribbean, Mexico, etc.).

[Berzerker]

"This is not true" followed by evidence it is true

[Lorizael]

If your only definition of an "active" hurricane season is one in which hurricanes with particular parameters that exceed an arbitrary scale calibrated to human construction techniques cross a specific political border not even remotely related to hurricane behavior...