[R] A general question about using Bayes' Theorem for calculating the probability of The End of Human Technological Civilisation

[David Winsemius]

On 3/19/19 12:49 PM, Jeff Newmiller wrote:
> Highly off topic. Try StackOverflow.


As it stands it's off-topic for SO. (You would just be making more work 
for those of us who know the rules but need 4 close votes for 
migration.)  Better would be immediately posting at CrossValidated.com 
(i.e., stats.stackexchange.com)

-- 

David.

>
> On March 19, 2019 10:42:24 AM PDT, Philip Rhoades <phil using pricom.com.au> wrote:
>> People,
>>
>> I have only a general statistics understanding and have never actually
>> used Bayes' Theorem for any real-world problem.  My interest lies in
>> developing some statistical approach for addressing the subject above
>> and it seems to me that BT is what I should be looking at?  However,
>> what I am specifically interested in is how such a work-up would be
>> developed for a year-on-year situation eg:
>>
>> I think it is likely that TEHTC could be triggered by a multi-gigaton
>> release of methane from the Arctic Ocean and the Siberian Permafrost in
>>
>> any Northern Hemisphere Summer from now on (multiple physical and
>> non-physical, human positive feedback loops would then kick in).
>>
>> So, say my estimate (Bayesian Prior) is that for this coming (2019) NHS
>>
>> the chance of this triggering NOT occurring is x%.  The manipulation is
>>
>> then done to calculate the posterior for 2019 - but for every
>> successive
>> year (given the state of the world), isn't it true that the chance of a
>>
>> triggering NOT occurring in the NHS MUST go down? - ie it is just an
>> argument about the scale of the change from year to year?
>>
>> It seems to be that the posterior for one year becomes the prior for
>> the
>> next year?  Once the prior gets small enough people won't bother with
>> the calculations anyway . .
>>
>> Does anyone know of any existing work on this topic?  I want to write a
>>
>> plain-English doc about it but I want to have the stats clear in my
>> head
>> . .
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Phil.