First, the bad news.
The death toll from Coronavirus in the U.S.A. stands at 4,059, and more alarming is the fact that yesterday brought nearly a thousand deaths in a single day. The numbers keep rising.
America has confirmed 188,639 cases (many more unconfirmed), more than any other country in the world (although Italy leads in fatalities with 12,428). The total number of cases in the U.S. shows a very unfortunate and frankly, scary trend: exponential growth.
Jennifer Marohasy. Remember that name, especially if you’re Australian.
I saw a story about a professor at Indiana University who was arrested for joining Jane Fonda’s “Fire Drill Fridays” climate protests.
How about us? How many of us are scientists and (unlike me) physically able to march? I did once (a few years ago when I still could) but as far as I know, I was the only scientist there.
Why aren’t we? Why are James Hansen, this guy at Indiana U., and I the only scientists I can say with certainty have marched in the streets in a climate protest, or gone on strike, or done the things that make students and people who don’t read climate blogs see.
I’m sure many of you (maybe even most) might be thinking, “Of course I’ve marched — you just don’t know about it.” Well … I don’t know about it. Maybe it’s time for a lot of people know about it.
Who here is a scientist who is willing to go on strike every Friday? Who will sit in inclement weather holding a sign saying “Science Strike for Climate”?
You think one person holding a sign won’t accomplish anything? Tell it to Greta.
… came from Eric Worrall at the WUWT blog. He objects to claims that wilfire/bushfire will become worse in the future, even horrific. He objects that there’s just not enough trees to burn! To quote him exactly:
“Not only would these predicted superfires fairly rapidly run out of trees to burn …”
Apparently, Eric Worrall’s reason we shouldn’t worry about horrific wildfires/bushfires is that before long, there won’t be any trees left to burn.
Isn’t that a comforting thought?
Thanks to all readers who kindly donate to the blog. If you’d like to help, please visit the donation link below.
This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at My Wee Dragon.
In the last post I mentioned that when we have two different estimates, each with its own uncertainty range (note: I use the 95% confidence interval almost all the time, or to be precise the ±2σ range), the fact that their ranges overlap isn’t the proper statistical test for whether the estimates are significantly different. Somebody asked about that.
Just for a gut feeling: I know that when error ranges overlap, there are values that fall in the “plausible range” for both estimates, which suggests that the estimates may well be in agreement. But sometimes, those “plausible in both ranges” values are unlikely in both ranges. Unlikely isn’t so implausible, but unlikely for both is unlikely squared, and that’s too implausible to be plausible.
What follows is some of the math, and it’s really simple, really, but I know that turns off some readers. Others want it; feel free to skip it and enjoy the remainder of the day.