World population is growing 20 million people every 3 months

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Regis Martin agreed with Derrick that it is time for someone to write another book, The Psychology of Doomstalk.* What makes people continue to listen to Ehrlich’s nonsense, when his predictions have been consistently wrong?*

Actually, plenty of such books have been written. Anything book on cognitive biases treats this. People have the tendency to be pessimistic. That is because our brains are still on the savannas, where not seeing a lion that is there is a worse mistake to make than seeing a lion that is not there...

And what would happen if some people took seriously the notion that human beings are created for the honour and glory of God?*

Well, we've seen where that leads, and it ain't pretty either...

[Celestialsailor]

There is no population explosion because that would be the cause of the claimed climate change. We know that is false because Rich says so. Its a communist plot by the left to show population increase has a direct correlation to climate. Therefore because climate change is a hoax and not happening has to be in absolute correlation to a population explosion also being a hoax.
See...it all makes sense.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

There is no population explosion because that would be the cause of the claimed climate change. We know that is false because Rich says so. Its a communist plot by the left to show population increase has a direct correlation to climate. Therefore because climate change is a hoax and not happening has to be in absolute correlation to a population explosion also being a hoax.
See...it all makes sense.

Thanks....it's nice to be acknowledged at the voice of reason in an insane world.

But relax....I'll soon be in Mexico full time running La Paz Cruisers Supply and we can debate this over a Taco Fish quesadilla....

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

The mistake you are making here is that you assume that if the underlying data has a certain inaccuracy, that any other measure or conclusion you derive from that data necessarily will be less accurate.
.

Nowhere did I say "Less Accurate", simply that it can not be more accurate due to propagation of uncertainly...uncertainty quantification. You can look it up.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

T
On of the first things I learned during my studies is how you measure an angle with an accuracy of 0.1", using an Wild T2, an instrument that is only accurate to 1". That can be done. It just requires a bit of patience, but it was actually trivial. (Just measure the angle 10 times, and average your result... Most theodolites can actually do this automatically for you now.)

As I assume you know, I know I assume too much, in contrast to what you are suggesting, you can not continue to take measurements with error and eventually arrive at a perfectly accurate result.

As such, if after utilizing statistical methods to reduce error as much as realistically possible, the error is reported at 3%...that error will propagate as uncertainty in all subsequent calculations. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

[UAEguy]

Suppose you want to determine the uncertainty in the final value of a quantity that is calculated from several measured quantities. The uncertainties in these measured quantities propagate through the calculation to produce uncertainty in the final result. Consider the following example. Suppose you know the average mass of one apple m with the uncertainty Δm. If you want to calculate the mass M of the basket of 100 apples, you will get the value
M ± ΔM = 100 m ± 100 Δm.

The relative uncertainty of calculated value of M remains the same as the relative uncertainty of the single measured value for m
ΔM / M = Δm / m.

If you have more than one measured quantity, estimating uncertainty becomes a bit more complicated. It is managed with the weakest link rule.

Weakest link rule
The percent uncertainty in the calculated value of some quantity is at least as great as the greatest percentage uncertainty of the values used to make calculation. Thus to estimate uncertainty in you calculated value, you have to:

1. Estimate the absolute uncertainty in each measured quantity used to find the calculated
quantity.

2. Calculate the relative uncertainty in each measured quantity.

3. Pick the largest relative uncertainty. The largest relative uncertainty is called the weakest link.

4. The relative uncertainty in our calculated value is equal to the weakest link (the largest relative uncertainty in our measured values). We can then apply the relative uncertainty of the weakest link to the calculated quantity to determine its absolute uncertainty.

If a final calculated value depends on several measured quantities that each has comparable relative uncertainties, then the rules are more complicated: they depend on the type of the mathematical relationship you use for the calculation. Keep in mind, however, that the overall relative uncertainty cannot be less than the relative uncertainties of the independent measured
quantities. In other words, no matter what the relationship is, the relative uncertainty can only increase when doing calculations.

Calculus of Uncertainty

[DumnMad]

Thanks K_V_B
"One of the first things I learned during my studies is how you measure an angle with an accuracy of 0.1", using an Wild T2, an instrument that is only accurate to 1". That can be done. It just requires a bit of patience, but it was actually trivial. (Just measure the angle 10 times, and average your result... Most theodolites can actually do this automatically for you now.)"
Simple explanation.
Surveying also gives a good picture of how errors multiply if you have a short back-site relative to fore-site. (but are reduced when the other way round.) This helps to account for those wild deviations we see on some population graphs, errors multiplying as time goes on.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

If you have only one census, and the error of that census is 10%, you do indeed not have good data to draw a conclusion from.
But you have censuses from 100 countries, each with an error of 10%, and what you do is you just add them together. If the errors are stochastic, than you now know the population of those 100 countries together with an accuracy of about 0.1%.

There are so many problems with this statement, I won't even bother responding.

[transmitterdan]

UAEguy,

You need to study this more if you want to teach statistics. I'll give a simple example. A digital converter that can only resolve to +/-50% of the actual value would be useless if your theory were true. However, by taking many samples it is quite trivial for such converters to find the input signal level to any arbitrary accuracy even down to 0.001%. It just takes longer because you have to average lots of samples.

Uncertainty in a measurement does not doom it's usefulness. Now, an external bias in a series of measurements will propagate because it affects all measurements. But such bias is easy to ferret out. It is usually even possible to quantify the bias and remove most of it from the result.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

You need to study this more if you want to teach statistics..

I haven't presented any theories and I'm certainly not trying to teach...but you're right, this discussion has become a waste of my time. You know there is way more to signal processing than random sampling.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

These countries aren't backward. Thousands of babies get born outside of hospitals in developed countries as well. That does not mean their births are not registered. Im most countries being registered at birth is the first step in actually being able to function in said country.

These countries may not be backward as you put it, but their admin has a way to go. Last time I cleared in to Indonesia the customs form asked, do I have monkey's onboard, do I have cattle onboard, am I carrying opium and is there any dead bodies aboard, but yer all there other paperwork/admin must be upto date....lol

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Thanks....it's nice to be acknowledged at the voice of reason in an insane world.

But relax....I'll soon be in Mexico full time running La Paz Cruisers Supply and we can debate this over a Taco Fish quesadilla....

Hey...that's cool news Rich. Is this ummm...semi retirement for you? I'm up in the land of the sue at the moment (California). When I come back down, it will be on my new boat.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by daletournier

These countries may not be backward as you put it, but their admin has a way to go. Last time I cleared in to Indonesia the customs form asked, do I have monkey's onboard, do I have cattle onboard, am I carrying opium and is there any dead bodies aboard, but yer all there other paperwork/admin must be upto date....lol

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Correction harbour master not customs paperwork.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sailorcherry]

I like this post because it makes people voice a/the big reason why they are sailors and are cruising (or want to be).
People share their creed, their why.

Now what's with this statistic. I have yet to read anything factual to back that number up.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Thanks K_V_B
"One of the first things I learned during my studies is how you measure an angle with an accuracy of 0.1", using an Wild T2, an instrument that is only accurate to 1". That can be done. It just requires a bit of patience, but it was actually trivial. (Just measure the angle 10 times, and average your result... Most theodolites can actually do this automatically for you now.)"
Simple explanation.
Surveying also gives a good picture of how errors multiply if you have a short back-site relative to fore-site. (but are reduced when the other way round.) This helps to account for those wild deviations we see on some population graphs, errors multiplying as time goes on.

Oh, they teach you a lot about errors, how they multiply, how you can reduce them, and how to avoid or detect them.
And with modern computers it even gets better. During my studies we worked with algorithms that could detect bad data points in a set.

What this can do is obvious to any sailor. A GPS now gives your position to better than a m most times. Surveying GPS's can give you a position that is accurate to a mm.
And that while we still don't really know the position of the satellites themselves to anything better than a few tens of meters...