tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post5401967341524619354..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: BayesComp2012James Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-29374978951154448412012-06-28T11:47:18.349+01:002012-06-28T11:47:18.349+01:00>"Japan already is pretty resilient to ext...>"Japan already is pretty resilient to extreme climate - 500mm of rain in a day is not unheard of, and although it causes some localised problems, it's generally not a major catastrophe."<br /><br />So the more likely catastrophe is that the storm tracks move so that Japan avoids serious weather events but other countries that are not used to such events get them? <br /><br />Meanwhile the planning goes into Japan getting worse weather.crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-38302920821126346862012-06-27T23:22:22.230+01:002012-06-27T23:22:22.230+01:00Mathematicians always do lunch and AFAIK never do ...Mathematicians always do lunch and AFAIK never do posters.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-74397475775618563322012-06-27T03:57:47.946+01:002012-06-27T03:57:47.946+01:00I suspect it's not atypical for mathematicians...I suspect it's not atypical for mathematicians generally.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-27551269516803003102012-06-27T03:46:37.729+01:002012-06-27T03:46:37.729+01:00>Ah, consorting with statiticians, not real mat...>Ah, consorting with statiticians, not real mathematicians.<br /><br />Yes I was wondering about that. Are the statisticians kind of the dregs of mathematics or something? The whole no lunch on the second day and posters that it was phyiscally impossibe to get close enough to read was quiet disconcerting. THat level of disconnection with reality makes climate scientists seem positively human by comparison.juleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02591920483149775255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-42425981145962152192012-06-27T03:40:26.114+01:002012-06-27T03:40:26.114+01:00Ah, consorting with statiticians, not real mathema...Ah, consorting with statiticians, not <i>real</i> mathematicians.<br /><br />:-)David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-25329357529965727062012-06-26T12:20:36.617+01:002012-06-26T12:20:36.617+01:00Being Japan, a new hyper-typhoon sitting on top of...Being Japan, a new hyper-typhoon sitting on top of Tokyo is the sort of thing they are thinking of. But once you abandon any concept of probability, it becomes a bit ridiculous - just a game of who can invent the greatest catastrophe. In that context, a meteor or new disease would rank significantly higher than climate change IMO.<br /><br />Japan already is pretty resilient to extreme climate - 500mm of rain in a day is not unheard of, and although it causes some localised problems, it's generally not a major catastrophe.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-20191857881259297252012-06-26T10:50:47.622+01:002012-06-26T10:50:47.622+01:00Planning for the literally unimaginable must be di...Planning for the literally unimaginable must be difficult :o)<br /><br />I don't see how you can calculate a probability, even if you can go down to 10E-120, for something unimaginable.<br /><br />Imagining the unplanable :) yep that is fun. You can imagine all sort of chaos but even if things are equally likely to go in opposite directions you can still plan for both directions and also plan to try to make society more resilient to change. So you have to be imaginative :)<br /><br />More seriously, what do they mean by unimaginable? <br /><br />Where does something like Arctic becoming seasonally ice free in the next few years fit in. Probable enough to get some serious planning? Can GCMs be forced with sea ice extent and snow lines with any hope of getting some idea of climate changes that might result?crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-75177973663738035652012-06-26T07:28:37.534+01:002012-06-26T07:28:37.534+01:00Oh good grief. That didn't take long. Gavin is...Oh good grief. That didn't take long. Gavin is correct that using ensemble averages (of arbitrary size) in the way they did makes the whole thing a waste of time.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-80521545009243042652012-06-26T07:01:04.186+01:002012-06-26T07:01:04.186+01:00Thanks, I will check the comments. I'd seen th...Thanks, I will check the comments. I'd seen the paper and recognised the history, but not actually read it yet. It doesn't look from the abstract that they are actually making very strong claims, though, just a <i>non-zero</i> socioeconomic effect (which may be v small and/or aliased from something else).James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-69170642473783845432012-06-25T21:50:01.720+01:002012-06-25T21:50:01.720+01:00Ah thanks, I hadn't read all of that thread.
Y...Ah thanks, I hadn't read all of that thread.<br />Yes, you'd think that their past history would result in their paper getting very close attention.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-53537901505870700682012-06-25T20:37:54.670+01:002012-06-25T20:37:54.670+01:00I prefer imagining the unplannable. :)
Guthrie, G...I prefer imagining the unplannable. :)<br /><br />Guthrie, Gavin already trashed that paper, albeit not at length, over at RC (in the June open thread IIRC). The basic problem seems to be that it continues the fundamental error of McK's past similar efforts, Bayesian lipstick notwithstanding. <br /><br />That leaves us to wonder what the editors and peer reviewers were thinking. Fair play in science is a wonderful thing, but at some point these people have acquired enough form to justify telling them no the moment they heave into view. The PNAS response to Lindzen's latest effort shows the way.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-76392014192508386682012-06-25T15:33:26.618+01:002012-06-25T15:33:26.618+01:00I had a look at Curry's website today and foun...I had a look at Curry's website today and found her touting a paper of Mkitrick's:<br />https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/4331350766569165/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=uesqfzyso4iydpkvotfu2a4x&sh=www.springerlink.com<br /><br />Apparently they do some Bayesian analysis. Maybe that is up your street?guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.com