To: Wharf Rat who wrote (37655 ) 8/14/2018 9:35:07 AM From: Wharf Rat Read Replies (1) | Respond to Statistics: not for Cliff MassAugust 13, 2018 |… with huge transient peaks and troughs (see below). With such variability … ” when talking about CalFire data of area burned by wildfire in California from 1987 through 2016. His comment led me to make a very serious mistake: I thought he might actually know what he was talking about.p -value is 0.0462, that’s 95.4% confidence. Also, the Shapiro-Wilk test applied those residuals does not demonstrate departure from the normal distribution — so ordinary least squares is not a weak test.p -value is 0.0722. That’s significant at 92.8% confidence, but not at 95% confidence.not demonstrably weak is does give 95% confidence?after he had drawn a conclusion with no test at all. Here’s what he has to say about it:Several of you are asking about the significance of the trend in acreage (e.g., Sofistek). I did the trend significance analysis today, using the same approach I and other used in our peer-reviewed paper on snowpack trend (found here, journals.ametsoc.org , based on the approach of Casola et al., 2009). This type of trend analysis takes in consideration the variability of the time series (which is very important). I found that that trend over the entire period was NOT statistically significant (generally we used the 95% level…a trend is considered significant if there is less than a 5% chance of it happening by chance). August 12, 2018 at 5:17 PM This type of trend analysis takes in consideration the variability of the time series (which is very important). ” Cliff, they all do . Least squares, Theil-Sen, L1 regression, Mann-Kendall, you name it — they all do.the variability of the time series ” I thought he was talking about something other than the fact that there’s noise in time series and every statistical test takes that into account. Giving Cliff Mass too much credit — that was my mistake.ad hominem comment about me personally.tamino.wordpress.com
