View Single Post
  #42  
Old February 23rd 04, 04:33 AM
Brian Sandle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
Eric Hocking wrote:

[...]
I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
those that have been lurking.


I thought river flows might give some indication of weather.


Only of rainfall in the catchment area, surely? While *you* might
think river flow gives some indication of weather, you have not shown
it to be so.


They may be a better indication than weather of what the ground is like. They
do not increase flow until the ground is saturated. (Though, not appropriate
to UK in my knowledge, fast run off can occur off baked land.)

The rest of your calculations, while interesting, do not
show anything of the sort.


Why not just check the monthly weather figures from the Government
Meteorological Bureau?


http://www.met-office.gov.uk/climate/uk/


Monthly numbers are available to 1998, but your best bet is from 1999
as the data is tabulated.


It would be complex factoring in evapotranspiration. Since there are only 4
years it is not really worth it.

http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/monthly...2/07/rv00.html

gives the flows of a number of UK rivers but unfortunately only from
1999 to 2002. I have tried to estimate the flows from the
logarithmic scales on the diagram for the Itchen river which flows
in Hampshire and might give some indication for the weather
situation in Wiltshire/Hampshire area. If as you say you work with
govt info maybe you know of a better source.


You really do read a lot into other people's posts don't you? I
didn't say I "work with govt info" - other than the references I've
provided in this thread.


And the crop circles I have taken from
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/ar...tribution.html


Whoa, whoa, whoa. You've jumped from *thinking* that river flow *may*
correlate to weather (uh, what about sunshine and temperature,
especially wrt crops?)


Extra flows indicate the ground cannot hold the water, therefore there has
been less sunshine and temperature.

straight to *proving* a correlation between
river flow to crop circle emergence and FMD? Try showing the logic of
this before attempting to force the numbers.


How am I `forcing' the numbers?

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Mar+Ap+May flow 18 24 35 22
Apr+May circs 24 14 9 4

Mar+Ap flow 13 15 25 15
Apr circs 9 3 0 1

FMD Yes(1)/No(0)0 0 1 0
"
This amount of data is not really sufficient, but it is interesting
what turns up is a -0.49 correlation between Itchen river Mar Apr
May flows and Apr+May crop circles {call it r(flows-circles)}. I am
risking using the Pearson correlation. And the Mar+Apr flows and the
Apr circles correlation is -0.67.


You're risking more than choosing the correct correlation technique.
You've yet to show that the Itchen River flow has any relationship to
weather conditions. As for river flow, have you factored in seasonal
abstraction from river systems?


It is only very rough. Besides seasonal effects should be similar from year
to year and factor out.


Also there turns up a correlation of river flow to FMD

Jan Feb Mar Apr May
0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.68

May being when it was finished there?


This "correlation" implies what?



That for some reason Itchen river flow was high at the same time FMD was
present.

River flow affects government
decisions on lifting FMD restrictions?


Presumably the restricitions were lifted when it was thought there was less
risk. I doubt there would have been any talk of rivers transporting FMD. When
the land dried a bit stock could get out into the fields and have a bit less
close contact and so less chance for transmission of FMD.


But anyway taking the Mar Apr May flows figures, since weather might
stop hoaxers,


You are yet to show that the Itchen River flow readings actually has
any reflection on the weather pattern trends.


Next you will be asking me to prove that day is going to be lighter than
night.

r(flows-fmd) = 0.94.
And is there a correlation between FMD & circles?
Yes, r(fmd-circles) = -0.29, a small negative correlation, rather
less than from above
r(flows-circles) = -0.49.

Then what happens when partial correlation is used to get a feel for
removing affects of the factors?

When the effects of the rivers are nullified then FMD becomes
*positively* related to circles.

r(fmd-circles.flows) = 0.57 instead of -0.29


which indicates flows are connected to cause.

and for completeness
r(flows-fmd.circles) = 0.96 instead of 0.94, no change, rather
indicating circles not causative,
r(flows-circles.fmd) = -0.66 instead of -0.49, not much
change indicating FMD not really causative.
With that small amount of data, so far, some of that could be by
chance.


And also shows that you can "prove" anything with forced numbers and
illogical connections.



Here is the formula for you to have some fun:

r(po.y)= [r(po)-r(py).r(oy)]/sqr.root[1-{r(py)}^2].sqr.root[1-{r(oy)}^2]

(Bruning & Kintz).

where r(po.y) is the partial correlation between p and o, partialling out y.

r(po) is the non-partial correlation between p and o, &c for p & y, o & y.


When the partial correlation tends to zero that means the partialled out
variable is causal and the non-partial correlation is spurious.

When the partial correlation is no different from the non-partial, that means
the partailled out variable is not causal.


You need first to show that there is a logical
connection between a single river's flow trend as an indicator of
weather conditions (rainfall, temperature, sunshine).


How about using *weather* data directly for the county, instead of
attempting to derive this data from a single river monitoring station?


The first crop circle for 2001 was in Hampshire at latitude 50 deg 58.6 min
north, longitude 1 deg 5.9 mins west. That is only 10 or 20 miles from the
Itchen river (which has its mouth near Southampton). It is not a big reiver
and seems to have its source on the same side of South Downs.