4 ms·
This is an interesting figure. Naturally, the sharp decline in the last 100 years or so captures one's attention, and would fit in with globally rising temperat
by SubiculumCode 8y ago
This is an interesting figure. Naturally, the sharp decline in the last 100 years or so captures one's attention, and would fit in with globally rising temperatures.
However, one other thing differentiates the older and newer epochs: The variance is much larger for older data. On the one hand it could be that increased variance is due to natural phenomenon (cooler weather?) or random error of less reliable measurements. However if that larger variance is due to systematic error (e.g., different methodologies/sources which were not accounted in the model (e.g., using hierarchical modeling), then there is a possibility that the difference between older and newer data are not that dramatic.
What an interesting (and alarming) figure.
- Indy_Dh 8y agoIt looks like the confidence interval is larger in earlier years because there are fewer data points. Whats interesting to me is how big the spread is until the 1900s where not only is the blossom date trend increasing, but the individual blossom dates are grouping much closer together as well. I wonder if this is an error in measurement or if there is natural explanation for this variance reduction in the last 100 years.
- SubiculumCode 8y agoIgnore the error bars for a bit and look at the actual data points. The distribution is much broader than it is for the last 50 or so years.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]