Trends

[VillagePlank]

Only in the broadest sense; a better analogy might be the throwing of multiple dice. The pattern would tend to be random, sometimes producing a higher sum than the 'normal range', other times producing a lower sum. If, say. six dice were thrown and the total bullet count for each throw recorded, 144 times, it is very unlikely that the totals 6 or 36 would appear more than once or twice.

My understanding of probability is that each time the set is thrown each combination is equally likely, and that measuring events really only has merit as the number of set throws approaches infinity :not sure:

[parmenides3]

My understanding of probability is that each time the set is thrown each combination is equally likely, and that measuring events really only has merit as the number of set throws approaches infinity :not sure:

Of course. The point I was trying to make is that, in terms of the climate, the dice are loaded. If climate trends were simply statistical phenomena, we wouldn't have a problem, but they are not. They occur for (more or less) known reasons, such as changes in solar irradiance, volcanicity, atmospheric aerosol levels, CO2 levels, so a trend in climate is a reflection of a measurable change in known forcings or feedbacks, over a period of thirty years or more, not merely a statistical oddity.

Snow-Man2006's idea, that the temperature must go down again, because it always has before, and it is statistically likely that, in any given random series, patterns always emerge, does not really apply to our current climate. We will have cooler years and warmer years, but as things stands, the odds on the former are lower than the odds on the latter.

:)P