tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post113972749931562589..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Detection, Attribution and EstimationJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1140240088778925452006-02-18T05:21:00.000+00:002006-02-18T05:21:00.000+00:00Roger is a bit of a hot house flower. He should c...Roger is a bit of a hot house flower. He should come visit sci.environment on occasion.<BR/><BR/>However, to the subject at hand, I agree that the IPCC should not perscribe an approach to D&A, but it is silly to claim that it can do its work without adopting an approach. This means it has to be clear to itself and others what approach has been taken.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1139811939828822212006-02-13T06:25:00.000+00:002006-02-13T06:25:00.000+00:00James-The reality is that D&A related to hurricane...James-<BR/><BR/>The reality is that D&A related to hurricanes is not a particularly policy relevant question. I'd be happy with an approach like the following:<BR/><BR/>"Given that GHGs afect tropical cyclones, what policy actions are likely ot be most effective with respect to modulating future damages?"<BR/><BR/>On this question existing research is unequivically unambiguous.<BR/><BR/>And I appreciate your higher tone;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1139811408227965082006-02-13T06:16:00.000+00:002006-02-13T06:16:00.000+00:00Roger,I agree that we probably largely agree. OTOH...Roger,<BR/><BR/>I agree that we probably largely agree. OTOH I perceive a hint of "you can't prove it" in your various comments. It's not a valid basis for rational decisions.<BR/><BR/>I'm a bit puzzled by what you say about the IPCC - it's primary (sole?) function is to write assessment reports, and whatever science I do, if it's relevant and not obviously invalid, it's going to get assessed whether or not I use an approved technique. Besides, that page I referred to explicitly mentions extension to Bayesian methods, and that was back in the TAR.<BR/><BR/><I>For truely cheap jibes come visit the comments on my blog</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe, but I try to keep the tone higher here :-))James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1139810014823906642006-02-13T05:53:00.000+00:002006-02-13T05:53:00.000+00:00James- I'm sorry for the miscommunication, but my...James- <BR/><BR/>I'm sorry for the miscommunication, but my comments weren't directed at you. We do seem to be pretty much on the same page here.<BR/><BR/>However, this statement of yours deserves a raised eyebrow:<BR/><BR/>"I don't think it is the IPCC's business to prescribe any particular approach to D&A, or estimation."<BR/><BR/>The IPCC sure thinks that this is central to its business. Implementation of the FCCC and Kyoto depend crucially upon such business.<BR/><BR/>And I'll stand by my "cheap jibe" just because its true! -- yikes, are we really so humorless! For truely cheap jibes come visit the comments on my blog ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1139808786596793172006-02-13T05:33:00.000+00:002006-02-13T05:33:00.000+00:00Roger,Cheap jibes like this aren't really very hel...Roger,<BR/><BR/>Cheap jibes like this aren't really very helpful, are they:<BR/><BR/><I>(i.e., when it can't be proven, then assume it!)</I><BR/><BR/>I'm certainly not claiming that people are using a formal Bayesian estimation procedure to justify their comments. But at a less formal level, people do estimate, and "we can't prove anything has yet happened" and "we expect an effect to occur" are in no way mutually exclusive interpretations of the same evidence - it is partly a matter of what question is being asked. The latter approach is clearly more relevant to policy development.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it is the IPCC's business to prescribe any particular approach to D&A, or estimation. I'm certainly not advocating "selectively defecting from the IPCC approach when it does not generate conclusive attribution", but merely suggesting that people should try to answer questions that could in principle have some policy relevance. I don't see that rejecting (or not) a null hypothesis (especially when no-one believes it is at all plausible in the first place) at some level of significance is necessarily the most constructive approach. Explicitly Bayesian methods are widespread in my corner of the field, although some seem now to be arguing (unconvincingly, IMO) that even this framework is too limited.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1139751800038852642006-02-12T13:43:00.000+00:002006-02-12T13:43:00.000+00:00Actually James, I am pretty much in agreement with...Actually James, I am pretty much in agreement with you. I am not promoting the IPCC approach at all, only noting that it is the IPCC approach. It seems quite suspect to me for scientists to advocate selectively defecting from the IPCC approach only in those cases where the IPCC approach does not generate conclusive attribution. (i.e., when it can't be proven, then assume it!) This is an all-too-convenient cherry picking of methodological orientation as a function of whether-or-not D&A is achieved. <BR/><BR/>Shouldn't the IPCC use a consistent approach to D&A across climate science? And BTW I do not think that the Bayesian/frequentist distinction is what lies behind the hurricane debate, it is much more about data quality and paradignmatic orientation.<BR/><BR/>And on the policy issues, as I've written many times before, the question of D&A with respect to hurricanes may be politically exciting, but it is of little policy relevance. The policies that make sense will still make sense whether or not D&A is achieved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com