• bloodfoot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not to be too pedantic but your back of the envelope probabilities are based on inaccurate assumptions and probably several orders of magnitude off. Specifically, your not just assuming uniform but also independent from one day to the next. A more accurate treatment would be to assume conditional dependence from one day to the next (the Markov property). Once you have a record hot day, you are significantly more likely to have another record hot day following it.

    That said, it’s still low probability, just not as low as what you’re saying.

      • bloodfoot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If we stick with your 1/44 assumption, we can then assume 50% chance that the following day will also be a record setting day (probably too low still but the math is easier). Your one week estimate would be (1/44)*(1/2)^6.

        • Rambi@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Great so then it’s only a 1 in half a trillion chance if I calculated that right, I’m feeling better now

          • bloodfoot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You did not calculate that right. What I wrote comes out to 1/2816, which is fully 8 orders more likely than your initial estimate. And this number is still probably a lot lower than the true probability.

            There are A LOT of independent lines of evidence that point very strongly to the conclusion that humans are causing a massively disruptive change to the earth’s climate. This heatwave is not the nail in the coffin, it’s just (small) data point. Trying to oversell it like you are only serves to entrench deniers who will assume that you are making an intentionally misleading argument.