Comments Daniel Collins has made

  • Predictions, hypotheses, warnings

    I draw an equivalence between a model prediction coming true (within bounds of uncertainty) and an hypothesis holding up (predictions are hypotheses). If modelers are to have their pay cut for predictions that didn't materialise, so too should all other scientists whose hypotheses are rejected. Boy, would that pour frigid water on the scientific process.

    Some predictions are actually designed to fail. They are meant more as warnings. Predictions of climate models are often interpreted that way.

    Blog: Down to Earth

    On What should be the cost of skepticism? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

  • Not all models are the same

    Based on the NYT article, the authors do make a lot of important points, though I should also add some clarification.

    The point that resonates most with me is that over-reliance on model predictions can leave you worse off than having no predictions at all. This largely stems from a difference in understanding by scientists and non-scientists about what a prediction is. To us scientists, it's not what will happen, just the average of all possible scenarios. It seems that this probabilistic aspect is often dropped outside science, so that the public feels they now know what will happen.

    The clarification that I feel needs to be made is that the modeling I think the authors are largely talking about are models currently en vogue to inform standard management and policy decisions (there are many other models that do not fall into this category, and I'd say climate models are one such subset). The standard management models are certainly fraught with simplifications and assumptions. They are used because they have been vetted and used for some time. But many of them are old models - models being developed by researchers are for more advanced (fewer, if any, "fudge factors").

    Some models are not even used for prediction at all. They are used in scientific circles in order to better understand how things behave. They are imaginary lab experiments that can be used to test how our integrated set of theories work, and to help generate new hypotheses to test in the real world. No policies will be based on these predictions.

    I'm sure this is much more than many wanted, but you got it anyway.

    Blog: Down to Earth

    On A coastal geologist explores the flaws in modeling nature posted 2 years, 9 months ago 3 Responses

  • Engineering, and a link

    As an engineer, one way I like to see organisms and ecosystems is as design components or ready-built machines.  Suppose I wished to reduce flooding somewhere.  Which would be better: levees, wetlands, upland afforestation, etc? (Of course, there are policy alternatives, too.) Looking at it this way, if wetlands solved the problem better with less $, then wetlands are the way to go.  I don't need to put a price tag on them, I just realise they may be better at solving something than is concrete and riprap.

    As for the link, WorldChanging is running a series on ecosystem services. Well worth hopping over there.

    Blog: Down to Earth

    On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

  • Antarctica line-up

    Perhaps Coldplay, The Chill, Ice T, and Snow Patrol.

    Blog: Down to Earth

    On Gore launches massive effort to combat climate change posted 2 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

  • Pre-industrial [CO2]

    Mark, really.  Reference was so obviously to pre-industrial [CO2], not present day.

    Blog: Down to Earth

    On Warming people believe, humans at fault, not so much posted 2 years, 10 months ago 30 Responses

  • Lasers....

    Will it have a CD player?

    Blog: Down to Earth

    On It will have lasers posted 2 years, 10 months ago 13 Responses

  • The definition has changed over time

    When I was reading A Sand County Almanac it suddenly occurred to me that Leopold kept refering to himself as a conservationist but never an environmentalist. I wondered: was the term in use then?

    I checked the Oxford English Dictionary (online). It provides all uses of a word and dates of first usage. (Unfortunately, the online version hadn't updated "environmentlist" since its previous edition, but that doesn't change anything here.)

    What I found was that during Leopold's time, the word "environmentalist" had a very different meaning from now. An environmentalist was someone who followed the theory that the environment played an overarching role in the development of human society. It had nothing to do with conservation or protection of the environment.

    Further digging suggested a transition of the dominant meaning during the 1970s, when Rachel Carson was shaping environmental thought.On Vote! posted 3 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

  • Land use change

    The significance of land use change is underappreciated in the media, particularly compared with climate change. It may not be as sexy, but it gets a lot more air time in peer-reviewed lit than it does in the media. It's impact is much closer to home and less uncertain than climate change impacts.

    It's more nuanced and harder to communicate, but climate change is more than just GHGs. Land use change plays a significant role, changing heat and moisture transfer between land and atmosphere.

    Impacts of climate change also include land use change (eg. rising sea-level causing wetland loss). However, the potential impact of climate change in driving land use change does not always dwarf, and is often dwarfed itself by, land use changes society brings about directly (eg. destruction of wetlands).On Help Grist and Gristmill improve posted 3 years, 5 months ago 27 Responses

  • Water quality

    You paint a very grim picture, are you trying to scare even us hydrologists off the job? I haven't read the book yet so I don't know whether it quantifies the challenges or just offers microcosms. Low water quality may currently be the largest environmental impediment in developing regions that we can do something about.On When the Rivers Run Dry posted 3 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

  • No end run, just no gold mine

    I don't think there's another end run here. What they're saying is that a lack of nitrogen will limit the additional growth that greater CO2 would have accommodated. There will be more growth with elevated CO2, but only for as long as the soil can supply sufficient N to keep up. It seems that this is just a few years. It was interesting that this result was unchanged when legumes, which fix N into the soil, were present.

    If N-limitation starts to control biomass production, why not add more fertilizer (or at least more N)? The authors go on to say that to make use of the extra CO2, much more N would have to added to agricultural systems than to unmanaged vegetation. If this becomes a serious policy option, I see great care needed to avoid blue babies and bloomin' algae.On New study: Nitrogen availability may constrain biomass accumulation in presence of increased CO2 posted 3 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses