Are you animal,
vegetable or what? Plankton
currently adrift.
-Haiku-Post-Linnean.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by oldfossil
As a believer in evolution I can accept that phytoplankton, with their comparatively short life cycles, might rapidly be able to adapt to a change in water temperature of 1-2K. Umm, if the prey population has dropped 40 per cent, shouldn’t the predator population have crashed as well? Shouldn’t atmospheric oxygen abundance have declined remarkably?
Thanks for the links Ragnaar. Like most of us I have a “narrative” that yields a biased interpretation of all new information but I am trying to keep it honest. The Scientific American article is information I can’t easily explain or discard so I’ll put it on my watch list of things that might change my opinions substantially.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
killing plankton with warmth?
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=904l7k&s=7#.VasJYmeKpko
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Steven Mosher: problem is Spencer didnt NAME anything.. see nonce.
I expect that lexeme to be used frequently, for example to mean “Adjusting good measurements to conform more closely to bad measurements”. Sort of “complementary” to empirical Bayesian estimation in hierarchical models.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
Shouldn’t atmospheric oxygen abundance have declined remarkably?
Doubtful, but it would make sense that the CO2 concentration might have risen since 1950 as a result of this population decline.
Wait…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by richardswarthout
Mosher
The assumption that jet aircraft exhaust contributes insignificantly to airport temperatures may be a valid assumption. However, the runways at large airports like Heathrow are constructed with massive amounts of concrete. The runways are much thicker than highways and all that concrete is an excellent heat sink, probably the best in London.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
Danny
““There is no PROVING CORRECT.”
Okay, so why should anyone bother “doing their own damn science” as they (whomever they are) cannot be correct nor can they be incorrect.
wrong. go read the relativity of wrong. There is more correct
and less correct. more wrong and less wrong.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
SECOND: there may be correct but there is no PROVING
correct as in a formal proof.
And Steven Mosher is equally as correct as Danny Thomas as Jim D and AK and Peter Lang and Capt. D as Rud and Tony and Dr. Curry and so on?
Again wrong. Saying that there is no PROVABLE correct, does NOT entail, that all attempts to be correct are equal.
Why is there a big debate?
There isnt.There are people who believe in global warming view and there are people who mis understand that view and call it a debate.
There really isnt a debate. Once there was, but thats over.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Steven Mosher
“I expect that lexeme to be used frequently, for example to mean “Adjusting good measurements to conform more closely to bad measurements”. Sort of “complementary” to empirical Bayesian estimation in hierarchical models.”
Your expectation does not change the facts.
and Karlize is not a lexeme.
if you looked at walk, walks, walked, walking,
then WALK would be the lexeme… a basic unit of meaning
best to stick to your knitting,
If I wanted to make your argument…. the better thing to say is that
karlize is akin to bowdlerize. See? karl removed things that were offensive. much better argument.
in science naming things tends to be honorific, so you probably should have selected bowdlerize as your example.
thank u for playing
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
It looks like Mosher gave willy a day off.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
It seems nutrients from the sea bottom plus sunlight equals phyto-plankton. Maybe we aren’t getting enough upwelling. Can the plankton evolve? Somehow they’ve gone from glacial to interglacial and back many times. They seem to me to be a creature of CO2 as I suppose they like deep ocean upwelling according to the distribution maps. I’d be pleasantly amused if they were involved with the glacial/interglacial transitions and that the plankton eating whales are really in the global climate driving seat.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso
I know the BoM is keen on those expanses of asphalt. We have a very long climate history in my region, but if you go to the usual Elders/Weatherzone BoM info sites you will now get our airport records, which date only from 2000. And you will get nothing else, unless you know where to look in the central BoM records. 2013 is now our “hottest” year with a mean max 0.6C hotter than 2013 at the old site. (Never mind, all our nine 26+C years were between 1910 and 1919!)
Pity, because our main rainfall records are fascinating. While max/min temp is so often just an indicator of how much wind/cloud came, stayed or went in a day, precipitation does tell quite an accurate story.
What’s our region’s rainfall story? Just about all our driest months and years lie well back in the past, with many records set in the 19th century.
But if you are interested in wettest/driest since 2000…it’s at your fingertips!
At the airport.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Peter Lang
Pipi,
That’s an excellent explanation. Thank you.
That’s one more concern to add to my list of what I believe are biases in the selection of default input values in DICE2013R. Others are:
ECS (I think ecs = 3.2 in the Excel download)
RCP= 8.5
Discount rate
Participation rate
Others I can’t recall now
I’d like to come back to discuss your suggested method some more when I return from travelling (mid August). I like simple where it can be justified and your method seems to be simple and elegant. Is it possible to estimate the consumption per person for the whole world?
It’s aw
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by GaryM
“4 reasons the Atlantic hurricane season has been so quiet and is likely to stay that way.”
1. Global warming
2. Climate change
3. Global change
4. Climate warming
The absence of an increase in climate catastrophes is consistent with CAGW, aka Globalclimatewarmingchange.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
And that’s climate science BOM style, folks.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso
One is often invited to take up objections with the BoM itself. That’s akin to inviting someone to go surfing in a trough of molasses. You’ll likely sink away, and you certainly won’t get anywhere.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
That’s the way that it goes …
http://aefweb.info/data/Stockwell%20AEF%20Conference.pdf
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by -1=e^iπ
“Is it possible to estimate the consumption per person for the whole world?”
You can try. There is a lot of information out there you just have to compile it. As a first order approximation, you might be able to get away with assuming that the income distribution in different regions is roughly log normal (which means average level of consumption and the gini coefficient might be sufficient to get your income distributions).
I also want to clarify what I mean when I say that I am skeptical of a coefficient of relative risk aversion greater or equal to 1. Suppose that a person has a constant relative risk aversion (U = C^(1-α)) is indifferent between the status quo and doing an activity that gives the person a probability μ of dying (consumption = 0) to get an additional level of consumption ΔC, where μ << 1 and ΔC < 1 = (1-μ)*(1+ΔC/C)^(1-α)
Performing a Taylor approximation gives:
1 = (1-μ)*(1+(1-α)*ΔC/C) = 1 – μ + (1-α)*ΔC/C
=> μ = (1-α)*ΔC/C
Since μ, ΔC, and C are positive, (1-α) must be positive => α = 1, then there is no finite statistical value of life.
The fact that there is a statistical value of life and people do activities that increase their changes of dying for pleasure suggests that either α < 1 or α is non-constant.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by -1=e^iπ
“Since μ, ΔC, and C are positive, (1-α) must be positive => α = 1, then there is no finite statistical value of life.”
Sorry, this should read:
Since μ, ΔC, and C are positive, (1-α) must be positive => α = 1 would imply that there is no finite statistical value of life.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by -1=e^iπ
For some reason I’m getting cut off.
Since μ, ΔC, and C are positive, (1-α) must be positive => α = 1 would imply that there is no finite statistical value of life.
↧
Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by -1=e^iπ
3 times, the middle line is cut out.
Since μ, ΔC, and C are positive, (1-α) must be positive => α < 1.
DeltaC/mu is the statistical value of life. Thus alpha greater or equal to 1 would imply that there is no finite statistical value of life.
↧
