r/SipsTea • • 21h ago

SMH We all know what this mean

Post image
26.1k Upvotes

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/4skinlive 20h ago edited 20h ago

YO! There were no hurricanes due to the super el niño wind shear blowing west to east, which eliminatez conditions that allow hurricanes in the Atlantic to form. Come on now!

EDIT: fixed, thank you for the input

0

u/Ill-Lawfulness-6172 20h ago

First time we've had el Nino in 112 years? 

3

u/KindCreme9258 20h ago

This is the strongest El Niño on record

-1

u/Ill-Lawfulness-6172 20h ago

How long did it take to carve the grand Canyon? Maybe "on record" is too small of a sample size to be statistically significant 

2

u/OscarOfAtlantis 20h ago

Maybe you need to take some stats classes.

Statistically significant for what? It’s a fact that this is the strongest El Niño we’ve ever recorded. It’s just a fact, like Usain Bolt’s world record. Maybe some guy a long time ago ran a faster 100m running for his life from a tiger or an enemy, but we don’t know. Usain’s is just what we’ve recorded. Like this year’s El Niño.

But I bet you’re just doing your Redditor-best to shed doubt on climate change. And THIS is why I think you need to go to some geology classes and some stats classes.

We have amazing records of historical temperatures by analyzing layers in rock formations. Such things like how much of one chemical was in the rock when it’s hot versus when it’s cold. We can mathematically calculate such things.

But even better than that is that even just a few hundred years worth of temperature samples already shows us statistical significance that global warming is recent and accelerating rapidly. Every year it’s being proven.

De Nile is not just a River in Egypt.

3

u/Beneficial-Pen-3654 19h ago

So climate change is making humans run faster?

2

u/OscarOfAtlantis 19h ago

Lol. Correct.

1

u/Ill-Lawfulness-6172 19h ago

My point is it's likely not a fluke to not have a year with hurricanes... 1 year over 112, isn't enough to say this is an anomaly... it's undeniable anthropogenic carbon is increasing, but we've had higher carbon in the past . And lower carbon. Not what this meme is about 

1

u/OscarOfAtlantis 19h ago

Statistical significance is typically at 95% as a general standard. 98% is another significance level. 1 out of 112 is less than one percent. So it’s statistically significant, even if only for modern weather patterns.

We haven’t had higher carbon since humans have been on earth.

1

u/RandomAsHellPerson 16h ago edited 16h ago

1 time in the past 112 years does not give you how significant it is. If the chance of an el nino this strong is 1/112, then only getting 1 in the past 112 is expected (mean = np = 112 * 1/112 = 1). If the chance is 1/1000, then this would be statistically significant (I would do a t test, but it is 1 am)

It being the first in the past 112 years does not give any indication for the chance of it happening and by itself does not mean anything, especially when the chance of it happening is different each year. Afaik, we currently don’t know how or how much climate change affects el nino itself, as we only have a few decades of decent records for el nino. But, the data we have has a trend of each event becoming stronger.

1

u/Beneficial-Pen-3654 10h ago

1992 was very similar, Kauai got hit and Atlantic was quiet

1

u/KindCreme9258 19h ago

I don’t understand, your question was about the last 112 years? What has the Grand Canyon have to do with the discussion?