Talk:1885: Ensemble Model

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 15:30, 6 September 2017 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Where's the guy who knows how to make tables? A table would be good for this article, so we could explain each joke scenario. 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't like tables when the text in the data cells is more than only a few words. That's bad layout. I have entered all the text from the list into separate headers for the appropriate floating text layout.--Dgbrt (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning the context for this comic; viz. the approach of hurricane Irma, with a wide range of predictions as to where it might end up (and which areas it would hit), making weather modeling (and hurricane modeling in particular) – and the uncertainties involved – topical. It's clear to us now, but won't be clear to readers a few years from now. Pelosujamo (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait - you mean it's not related to Harvey? (In other words, I'm not part of the "us" you speak about.) -- Hkmaly (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)global warming
I'm pretty sure this was inspired by Irma, not Harvey, because it's about uncertainty in weather modeling; which has received more attention with Irma than it did with Harvey. By the time America started paying real attention to Harvey the National Hurricane Center already had a very good (and accurate) idea about its future path. By contrast, the uncertainties in the Irma models made CNN's front page long before Irma was anywhere near populated areas. Also, it would be a bit late for Randall to do a Harvey comic; Harvey was last week's news. (Of course, Harvey did make hurricanes cool again.) Pelosujamo (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say that one the idea of randall is related to point the change climate denier invalid reasoning that despite all scenario of global warning show increase of temperature, the fact that none of each is very likely to be wrong then all are wrong. (The fallacy is in the last then: the reunion of little probability can lead to high confidence or a the reunion of sum of various probable things can lead to absolutely certain ) Xavier Combelle (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree with "there is no reason to have the locomotion speed of dogs as a parameter". Dogs are known to chase cats, cats kill a large number of birds, birds eat insects including butterflies. If dogs would run slightly faster there could be a significant variation in the amplitude of the Butterfly effect. -- 12:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Besides, the running speed of dogs would presumably impact how often, and where, one would experience raining cats and dogs. 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)