Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Niki

Isn't it strange how rappy thinks of rain as a zero sum event? What a small shriveled mind it must have.

---

Quote:

---

Down here we hardly got any out of that event.

Our meteorologists where I work are exceptionally good. I'll ask them about the el Nino predictions. But the experience here has been that our last half-dozen predicted el Ninos here have nearly all been a bust - we barely got normal rainfall out of 5 of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

1kiki, I don't even bother to read him most of the time anymore; the urge to respond to his idiocy is too strong. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Only, I never claimed any such thing. But the realization that, over time, a region can go through a drought, and then other years, get excess rain , is soooo hard for you to comprehend ? That makes ME the dummy. Wow.

---

Quote:

---

Lots of rain for some folks usually means less rain for others.

---

Quote:

---

El Niño events are characterized by a warmer Pacific Ocean, which can lead to overall warmer temps across the globe and cause droughts in Australia and an increase in rain in South America, Bloomberg reports.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Only, I never claimed any such thing. But the realization that, over time, a region can go through a drought, and then other years, get excess rain , is soooo hard for you to comprehend ? That makes ME the dummy. Wow.

---

HAHAHAHAHA! Yep, you're the dummy because WHAT YOU SAID WAS

Quote:

---

Lots of rain for some folks usually means less rain for others.

---

You said there was an inverse cause-and-effect relationship between rain in one area and rain in another. To make your meaning clear to you, let me use that sentence in a few contexts commonly thought of as zero sum:
Lots of money for some folks usually means less money for others.
Lots of food for some folks usually means less food for others.
Lots of taxes for some folks usually means less taxes for others.

Now let me use that sentence in non zero-sum contexts where it doesn't make immediate sense
Lots of sex for some folks usually means less sex for others.
Lots of science for some folks usually means less science for others.
Lots of safety for some folks usually means less safety for others.
Lots of cleanliness for some folks usually means less cleanliness for others.

And, just to extend this because I find it a funny exercise to come up with even weirder examples, how about a few ambiguous ones?
Lots of freedom for some folks usually means less freedom for others.
Lots of work for some folks usually means less work for others.

Well, it's been fun! But apparently you need to work on your language and logic skills.
jpg

---

Quote:

---

However, rainfall is pretty much a zero-sum event. Average global rainfall is around 1000mm per year, and hasn't varied by more than 60mm since 1900. Therefore, there's only a finite amount of rain that's going to fall in a year. Seems pretty obvious that if more falls in certain areas over the course of the year, there will be less to fall elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

a coherent, intelligent discussion

---

Quote:

---

Not everywhere has a drought at the same time. Not everywhere is being drenched by rain at the same time

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Not everywhere has a drought at the same time. Not everywhere is being drenched by rain at the same time

---

Generally, no. But it's a trivial point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

However, rainfall is pretty much a zero-sum event. Average global rainfall is around 1000mm per year, and hasn't varied by more than 60mm since 1900. Therefore, there's only a finite amount of rain that's going to fall in a year. Seems pretty obvious that if more falls in certain areas over the course of the year, there will be less to fall elsewhere.

---

Wow, now THAT'S an unproven assumption!

---

Quote:

---

You're using statistics incorrectly. Using an "average value" as a limit ignores the fact that that value is caused by other factors. That's a bit like saying that since the lifespan of males in American in 1880 was 50 years, people are now limited to an average age of 50 years.

---

Quote:

---

Because you're ignoring the fact that average rainfall is merely an observation, not a causation or a physical limit, you ignore the fact that rainfall might change in the future. For example, if we increase average ocean temperature, we might see -on average- a lot more water evaporated into the atmosphere, which could be precipitated as rain (or snow). There are a lot of scientific papers on the topic.

---

Quote:

---

There is only so much rain in a year.

---

Quote:

---

You used money in a zero-sum example, and there's no limit on money

---

Quote:

---

Or, you could present proof that if the global average rain for a particular year was 1000mm, and half the world got 2000mm, the other half could get more than zero.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

There is only so much rain in a year.

---

Nope. Not when you change the energy balance of the planet, there isn't.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You used money in a zero-sum example, and there's no limit on money

---

Please carefully re-read what I wrote. I'm aware that money is extensible. I didn't say money was a zero-sum entity.

---

Quote:

---

The proof is right here... right in the chart that you linked to. Do you see that the bars are sometime below and sometimes above the average? EVERY BAR that is either above or below the average is a year in which the global AS A WHOLE, either got more or less rain than average.

---

Quote:

---

in a few contexts commonly thought of as zero sum

---

Quote:

---

Okay. Avoid the fact that global average rain has been constant +-5.5% maximum since at least 1900.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, please re-read what I wrote CAREFULLY

Quote:

---

in a few contexts commonly thought of as zero sum

---

I picked contexts that are commonly thought of as zero-sum with the idea that they would ring a bell with rappy. Now, I know that NONE of these are necessarily zero-sum, in the long run. More food might be produced. A money supply DEFINITELY can be expanded. And taxes??? Well. Taxes are whatever Congress decides taxes are. I was trying to frame this in a way I thought rappy would understand.

You want to talk about zero-sum? Matter-energy of the universe. AFAIK, that's the only thing that's zero sum.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Okay. Avoid the fact that global average rain has been constant +-5.5% maximum since at least 1900.

---

No, I haven't avoided it. In fact, I used it as proof that rain is not NECESSARILY a zero-sum any particular year because it's clear that some conditions in some years manage to squeeze out more rain, while other conditions in other years manage to squeeze out less.

---

Quote:

---

Now, if you're saying there is only so much rain in any one year, well of course. But it's a logical fallacy: "Because there was only so much rain in a year, there can only be so much rain in any year". Post hoc ergo propter hoc. After this, thereofore because of this.

---

Quote:

---

Also, you're defending a position which rappy seems to have already jettisoned.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor: Friday, February 14, 2014 9:33 PM
No, NOT trivial, that IS THE POINT !!! Stop and think about it for a while, then think about it some more, if ya can.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

I know it's wrong of me, but El Niño means more rainfall for us,

---

Quote:

---

With the exception of the strongly positive rainfall anomaly in Southern California during strong El Niños the presence of either El Niño or La Niña is not a guarantee of either a significantly wet or dry year in California. It should also be noted that previous work (i.e., El Niño and La Niña...Their Relationship to California Flood Damage) found that there is NOT even a strong correlation between either El Niño or La Niña and flood damage in California.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
John usually gets 1000 cookies and Mary gets none.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER
I don't see that I made a mistake, and I absolutely don't understand your point about rain because it makes no sense to me whatsoever. There is no Mrs Anybody making rain and then "deciding" who gets how many inches of it. The analogy is so far off the mark that I literally cannot fathom whatever point it is you think you're making.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, I can think of a situation where more rain on one place means more rain in another: When one place (upwind) receives a lot of rain and has good subsurface moisture for long periods of time, that water eventually sucked up by plants and transpired into the air, where it is blown downwind and it can rain again. This was studied between California and Colorado, but I'll bet it happens everywhere there is a large landmass in an upwind/downwind configuration. Because rainfall isn't a "use once and throw away" situation: Water is re-evaporated and re-condensed MANY TIMES... across the landscape, across the ocean... as air masses move across the globe.

---

Quote:

---

There probably IS an absolute physical limit as to "how much rain can fall across the globe".

---

Quote:

---

Anyway, my point is that there is a lot of moisture in the air. After that, it's a matter of condensation nuclei and vertical temperature profiles, any of which can change at any time. Statistically, it's unlikely they would all change in the same direction at the same time, but it's possible. In addition, rainfall isn't a "use once then throw away" situation, as rainfall is re-evaporated and re-precipitated multiple times as air masses cross the globe.

---

Quote:

---

So.... what was your point? Either one of you or both- please feel free to answer because you're talking, but I'm not getting it. Maybe now that you know how I look at rainfall, you can frame it in a way that makes more sense to me.

---

Quote:

---

You apparently do not look at rainfall as having a finite amount in any one year (or other period of time).

---

Quote:

---

Rainfall can't be above average everywhere. Edit: If the average global rainfall in 2013 is 1000mm, and the Northern Hemisphere gets an average of 1500mm, how much will the Southern Hemisphere average?

---

Quote:

---

Wish you'd quit dodging and answer one question.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You apparently do not look at rainfall as having a finite amount in any one year (or other period of time).

---

Of course I don't. That makes no sense whatsoever. It rains what it rains based on a number of factors. Change any one of those factors and the rainfall amount changes. Therefore, just BECAUSE the factors make more rain in one place gets more doesn't mean that factors HAVE TO make less rain elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

The fact that in most years, rainfall stays ABOUT average simply means that the factors are more or less averaging out. But that doesn't mean that they "HAVE TO" or will continue to do so. There could be a pluvial year in which EVERYONE gets a boatload of rain. Nothing is preventing it.

---

Quote:

---

You look at average rainfall as a zero sum.

---

Quote:

---

But what you're seeing with that average is statistics...

---

Quote:

---

a result of multiple phenomena which, most of the time, average out. Like rolling 100 dices multiple times. Most of the time, you'll get an average-ish number. But there is nothing in that average to say that the result HAS TO BE limited to near the average, and nothing to say that just because some dices turned up sixes, others HAVE TO turn up ones.

---

Quote:

---

The only ultimate limit on what you can roll is determined by the number of ones and sixes. This is very much like rainfall.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wish you'd quit dodging and answer one question.

---

Which question is that? I can literally make no sense of what you're saying, so I guess I can't detect the question either.

---

Quote:

---

If the average global rainfall in 2013 is 1000mm, and the Northern Hemisphere gets an average of 1500mm, how much will the Southern Hemisphere average?

---

Quote:

---

BTW, how would you feel if I used this rolling the dice analogy to illustrate that increases in global temperature were just random fluctuations? Wouldn't like it, I bet.

---

Quote:

---

But even in a year where there is more rain, some people will get more of the total and some will get less.

---

Quote:

---

Lots of rain for some folks usually means less rain for others

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
NOBC

While the website supports special characters I don't know how to type them in from my keyboard. If I feel really strongly about getting special characters, I'll find a website with the word spelled out correctly and copy/ paste. Sorry I have no better answer for you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

If the average global rainfall in 2013 is 1000mm, and the Northern Hemisphere gets an average of 1500mm, how much will the Southern Hemisphere average?

---

So, what you're saying is that... looking at rainfall for a particular year in retrospect... with all of the rain totaled up (A+B+C+D... =Z) across the globe, if we subtract rainfall from one location (A-1) in order for the total to stay the same that value (1) has to be added to some other locations elsewhere? Yeah I understand basic algebra...

---

Quote:

---

But that's just the definition of "zero sum" model, and that's not how actual, real rainfall works.

---

Quote:

---

Here's the thing: You're convinced that rainfall follows a model. In this case, a zero-sum model. You keep describing that model over and over again. I keep saying that's it NOT a zero-sum... you can't predict for any particular location or year what's going to happen based on what happens in another location or year, and based on the average. I know you think you've grabbed onto something fundamental here... that the average stays so much the same that it MUST reflect some underlying constant... but I don't think so. The variation tells me it's statistical. If it were a REAL limit, like the speed of light in a vacuum, it wouldn't vary. It would be constant. AFA rainfall is concerned, the only real limit to rainfall is physical: "How much water vapor is in the air?". And that is NOT a constant.

---

Quote:

---

By the way, the one thing YOU haven't responded to is the apparent upward rainfall trend in the chart. Do you see it too?

---

Quote:

---

No. You're completely misunderstanding my point, although I've stated many times that more or less rain may fall in a particular period. The volume of rain doesn't matter. What matters is that there is a finite volume that falls. If one region gets a larger share of that volume, then some other region will have to get less.

---

Quote:

---

By the way, the one thing YOU haven't responded to is the apparent upward rainfall trend in the chart. Do you see it too?-signy

Doesn't matter. That's not my point.-geezer

---