Equal weight to each of the six indices seems too simplistic for intelligent actuaries to use over the long term. I assume someone in the group who developed the index will study the validity of the current index and develop a better measure of what they intend to measure, using generalized linear modeling. If so, they will gain a better understanding of the contributory variables impact on the index, and be able to substitute better variables in the near future.
A Trump University supporter who lies about his degrees, can’t answer a basic question about basic linear regression and doesn’t understand basic confidence intervals is questioning the actuarial methods and statistical methods of a study! Come on, give me a break!
“The index is calculated so that its average value from 1961 to 1990 is exactly 0. In other words, the index value for each season is calculated as the anomaly relative to the average index during the reference period, therefore the average value of the index for those 30 years is 0.”
I’m sorry, but without looking at the raw data, I have a hard time with this method of setting a baseline. They are taking 30 years of information and using an index value as the anomaly relative to the average index so that ALL the average values equals 0. They are utilizing each individual years data (extreme weather events) and considering them anomalies to create a false baseline (over 30 years). They are then comparing a “rolling five year average” against this zero baseline.
I would be curious what the 5 year rolling average was throughout the entire 30 year period. I bet the climate changes and probably fluctuates.
Figures lie and liars figure. If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull
From a statistical perspective I agree with Integrity, HOWEVER, from a climate science viewpoint, it does not work due to the multi-year cycles of many dominant weather systems. Example: El Nino and El Nina cycles. 5-year rolling averages, etc. fail when considering the sinusoidal nature of climate patterns.
The selection of monthly seasons instead of solar seasons (equinox, solstice) is a mistake because sunlight is the driving force behind all atmospheric weather…
Equal weight to each of the six indices seems too simplistic for intelligent actuaries to use over the long term. I assume someone in the group who developed the index will study the validity of the current index and develop a better measure of what they intend to measure, using generalized linear modeling. If so, they will gain a better understanding of the contributory variables impact on the index, and be able to substitute better variables in the near future.
A Trump University supporter who lies about his degrees, can’t answer a basic question about basic linear regression and doesn’t understand basic confidence intervals is questioning the actuarial methods and statistical methods of a study! Come on, give me a break!
*nodding in agreement*
Libitterals who cannot accept their failures, and who create fake news, falsify date, and make false statements…. come on, give me a break!
TrumPolar, two days and about 13 hours to go before emancipation from Progressive Liberals.
The article said:
“The index is calculated so that its average value from 1961 to 1990 is exactly 0. In other words, the index value for each season is calculated as the anomaly relative to the average index during the reference period, therefore the average value of the index for those 30 years is 0.”
I’m sorry, but without looking at the raw data, I have a hard time with this method of setting a baseline. They are taking 30 years of information and using an index value as the anomaly relative to the average index so that ALL the average values equals 0. They are utilizing each individual years data (extreme weather events) and considering them anomalies to create a false baseline (over 30 years). They are then comparing a “rolling five year average” against this zero baseline.
I would be curious what the 5 year rolling average was throughout the entire 30 year period. I bet the climate changes and probably fluctuates.
Figures lie and liars figure. If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull
From a statistical perspective I agree with Integrity, HOWEVER, from a climate science viewpoint, it does not work due to the multi-year cycles of many dominant weather systems. Example: El Nino and El Nina cycles. 5-year rolling averages, etc. fail when considering the sinusoidal nature of climate patterns.
The selection of monthly seasons instead of solar seasons (equinox, solstice) is a mistake because sunlight is the driving force behind all atmospheric weather…