5 ms·

I'm no statistician, but the general trend seems to be upward for the last ten years. https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WMTC-1997-2

I'm no statistician, but the general trend seems to be upward for the last ten years. https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WMTC-1997-2017-graph.png https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/... Indeed, but for some out-of-whack numbers in 1997, the data looks fairly non-hysteria-inducing. I wonder if anything was happening in the counties where the count took place this year that might have affected the 'volunteer citizen scientist' participation? Hmm... I seem to remember something... what was it? Can't put my finger on it... I guess I'll just assume the world is ending and all insects are disappearing.

a_bonobo 8y ago
The general trend that goes upward in your graph isn't the number of butterflies, but the number of 'sites monitored', i.e., places where they searched for butterflies. In the time that monitored sites went from ~400,000 to ~1,400,000 the number of reported butterflies stayed roughly the same (~200,000), which should be grave cause for concern. The number of butterflies should be a linear correlation with the number of sites (unless all sites are chosen completely badly (like the inside of a factory), which is highly unlikely). Then again, maybe 1997, the first year with 1,200,000 butterflies in ~500,000 sites was a strong outlier, and the numbers past 1999 are the 'reality' which is always hang 200,000. We'd need a time machine to check, or find old data, or find a way to count butterflies in the past (I guess they don't preserve well?)
- cpeterso 8y ago
  Good point. OTOH, perhaps the most fruitful sites were already monitored in 1997 and the new sites were peripheral and not expected to see as many butterflies. Also, the graph doesn't define "Total Monarch Abundance". That number might be an extrapolation of butterflies scaled by the number of sites, not the literal number of butterflies counted.
- lurquer 8y ago
  >The general trend that goes upward in your graph isn't the number of butterflies, but the number of 'sites monitored', i.e., places where they searched for butterflies. With all due respect, I can read a graph. I was referring to the total amount of butterflies. There is no data on the site to permit one to draw any correlation between the number of monitoring sites and the number of butterflies. We could add 10,000 additional monitoring sites in Antarctica and it would tell us nothing. There is no data to give any indication that ANYONE even was reporting at any particular site or how many were reporting. In short, the organization's data is useless... at least the data easily available on their site. And, it's certainly insufficient to justify the handwringing in some of the comments.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    The data doesn't matter — people are just looking for an excuse to say "chemicals are bad" or "I'm against global warming".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - lurquer 8y ago
      It's not "global warming" any more. It's "climate change." I hope I live long enough -- and I suspect I will -- to see the 'issue' become the damaging effects of 'climate stagnation'. I bet within a few decades you'll read things like this: "The insects on this planet require a changing climate! The average temperatures haven't moved for decades! We're in a deadly stagnant cycle caused by [insert nuclear, fossil fuels, positronic brain emissions, or whatever is 'taboo' 50 years hence]. We're all going to die!"
  - mempko 8y ago
    > In short, the organization's data is useless No, you think the data you used in your comment is useless. Doesn't mean the data the organization has and their conclusions is useless. Also, kind of funny you linked data you think is useless, but then drawn a conclusion from that data. Given the graph, the uncertainty is high. They added sites but the numbers stayed the same. What's more likely, the sites added were in antartica? or were in places that are expected to have butterlies? In other words, it could be worse than what the graph shows.

a_bonobo 8y ago

The general trend that goes upward in your graph isn't the number of butterflies, but the number of 'sites monitored', i.e., places where they searched for butterflies. In the time that monitored sites went from ~400,000 to ~1,400,000 the number of reported butterflies stayed roughly the same (~200,000), which should be grave cause for concern. The number of butterflies should be a linear correlation with the number of sites (unless all sites are chosen completely badly (like the inside of a factory), which is highly unlikely). Then again, maybe 1997, the first year with 1,200,000 butterflies in ~500,000 sites was a strong outlier, and the numbers past 1999 are the 'reality' which is always hang 200,000. We'd need a time machine to check, or find old data, or find a way to count butterflies in the past (I guess they don't preserve well?)

cpeterso 8y ago
Good point. OTOH, perhaps the most fruitful sites were already monitored in 1997 and the new sites were peripheral and not expected to see as many butterflies. Also, the graph doesn't define "Total Monarch Abundance". That number might be an extrapolation of butterflies scaled by the number of sites, not the literal number of butterflies counted.
lurquer 8y ago
>The general trend that goes upward in your graph isn't the number of butterflies, but the number of 'sites monitored', i.e., places where they searched for butterflies. With all due respect, I can read a graph. I was referring to the total amount of butterflies. There is no data on the site to permit one to draw any correlation between the number of monitoring sites and the number of butterflies. We could add 10,000 additional monitoring sites in Antarctica and it would tell us nothing. There is no data to give any indication that ANYONE even was reporting at any particular site or how many were reporting. In short, the organization's data is useless... at least the data easily available on their site. And, it's certainly insufficient to justify the handwringing in some of the comments.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  The data doesn't matter — people are just looking for an excuse to say "chemicals are bad" or "I'm against global warming".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lurquer 8y ago
    It's not "global warming" any more. It's "climate change." I hope I live long enough -- and I suspect I will -- to see the 'issue' become the damaging effects of 'climate stagnation'. I bet within a few decades you'll read things like this: "The insects on this planet require a changing climate! The average temperatures haven't moved for decades! We're in a deadly stagnant cycle caused by [insert nuclear, fossil fuels, positronic brain emissions, or whatever is 'taboo' 50 years hence]. We're all going to die!"
- mempko 8y ago
  > In short, the organization's data is useless No, you think the data you used in your comment is useless. Doesn't mean the data the organization has and their conclusions is useless. Also, kind of funny you linked data you think is useless, but then drawn a conclusion from that data. Given the graph, the uncertainty is high. They added sites but the numbers stayed the same. What's more likely, the sites added were in antartica? or were in places that are expected to have butterlies? In other words, it could be worse than what the graph shows.