View Single Post
  #41  
Old February 23rd 04, 02:50 AM
Eric Hocking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. 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.

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?) 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.

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?

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? River flow affects government
decisions on lifting FMD restrictions?

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.

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
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. 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?

--
Eric Hocking