4 ms·

Makes me suspect that 2k estimate was very wrong

quietbritishjim 4y ago
That suspicion is reinforced by the fact that the second estimate is strangely specific. 1,914? Not 1,915? Perhaps that number is from some survey or count that was meant for finding trends rather than estimating the total count.
throwaway5752 4y ago
Or, looking at it the other way, the population is down 98% instead of 99.9%. It's really not that substantial of an error, and yours is a very "programmer talking about ecology" type of response. It's a terrible situation for the species and the outcome is largely the same - extinction within our lifetime - and you are quibbling about petty data concerns within the broader context.
- nabakin 4y ago
  > looking at it the other way, the population is down 98% instead of 99.9%. It's really not that substantial of an error An estimate that can easily confuse 2k with 250k is not an estimate to use. Now if a range was specified taking into account the variability, like 100k-2k, that would be much better. If the study did this, the article would be at fault for not being accurate. > yours is a very "programmer talking about ecology" I don't think I know everything, I simply commented on a niche forum about something I was curious. The vitriol is completely unwarranted. > It's a terrible situation for the species the outcome is largely the same - extinction within our lifetime - and you are quibbling about petty data concerns within the broader context. So what? Should I take all data on blind faith? Should I not question the validity of data when bullshit is so rampant? Stop the strawman, I never said I disagreed with the conclusion of the study, just that the single estimate was suspicious. Next time, if you actually know anything, aim to explain instead of attacking me. I can admit my mistakes and will be much more receptive.
  - throwaway5752 4y ago
    I don't want to have a fight. We all know tone is tough and I didn't want to sounds as vitriolic as it came off to you. I can see how it did and I apologize to you. It seems obvious to me that this is a PR release, written by a non-scientist. They didn't offer citations, and it took me some digging to find the sourcing for the oddly specific figure: https://xerces.org/blog/fifth-annual-western-monarch-new-years-count-confirms-continued-decline-in-western-monarch https://xerces.org/blog/fifth-annual-western-monarch-new-yea... "Since 1997 volunteers have conducted counts of overwintering monarchs for the Xerces Society’s annual Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count. As a way to better understand how the overwintering population changes throughout the winter, an additional count—the New Year’s Count—was started in 2016. Now in its fifth year, the New Year’s Count has given us a better understanding of: 1) how monarch numbers may decline at overwintering sites as the winter progresses; 2) how monarchs move between and within sites; 3) when they leave sites; and 4) the level of mortality that adult monarchs may be experiencing during the winter. Between December 26, 2020, and January 10, 2021, volunteers conducted surveys for the New Year’s Count and tallied a total of 1,039 monarchs at 149 sites. These surveys followed the annual Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count, which is conducted annually for three weeks centered around the Thanksgiving holiday, and recently reported a mere 1,914 monarchs in total across 246 sites. At 77 sites, no monarchs were found during either the Thanksgiving or New Year’s Count, at 15 sites monarch numbers increased between the Thanksgiving and New Year’s counts, at 54 sites monarch numbers decreased, and at 3 sites monarch numbers stayed the same. After the dismal numbers from the Thanksgiving Count, expectations for finding monarchs were low, but the news isn’t all bad. For the sites counted during both the Thanksgiving Count and the New Year’s Count, the decline in monarchs averaged 37%, which is lower than previous years (40–49%)." This is not aimed at you, but it's a general complain: It is no fun to do OSS development any more because nobody wants to contribute or collaborate: they want to post a problem in an issue and have the maintainers solve their problem. Now aimed at you: I think there's a reasonable expectation of editorial competence from any content, and this probably didn't meet it, but I think we can all go the extra mile and read, learn, and understand before replying. Myself included.
    - nabakin 4y ago
      Appreciate the apology, sorry from my side as well. I also responded pretty aggressively when I didn't need to. Thanks for the link too, I'm reading through it atm. I agree that you shouldn't post prematurely and should learn more about the subject before you speak on it, but there are so many topics that come up throughout the day it's impossible to research all of them. I was hoping if the number wasn't suspicious, someone who knew better could explain it. Maybe it would have been better to phrase my comment as a question instead of a statement though.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  This argument kinda reminds me of this bit of sophistry (a nod to Ted Gioia for his "word of the year"): [Troper] X is up exponentially! [Engineer] Actually, it's only up 25%. [Troper] Whatever. You're minimizing the importance of X! So the sophistry is to make a ridiculous claim to get attention, and then when you're called on it, back away and say the number doesn't matter -- it's still important. In case it was ambiguous: yes, I did know the word, but no, it hasn't been used much lately, more's the pity.
  - throwaway5752 4y ago
    In the context of a population over this range, a couple hundred thousand and a couple of thousand butterflies isn't as big a difference as you'd think, particularly over the time frame we're looking at (a few decades). I'd be surprised if they avoid extirpation (local extinction within a range) at this point - Western Monarches have habitat loss, terrible losses from pesticides, and now climate change really kicking in. To be pedantic, I don't think this is an example of sophistry. It may seem that way from your perspective, but I'd have to be in coordination with IUCN, which I'm not. I think in this case the logical fallacy would have to advanced by a single person or group. Also, perhaps since it's a relatively new word to you, you don't know it is considered insulting? To recap: IUCN made the claim about a population of 1,914/99.9 percent drop in population, which was mistaken (I found the source of the error from misinterpreted numbers from https://xerces.org/ https://xerces.org/ further down, if you noticed). I made the separate claim that their error doesn't really matter, because both are almost equally dire and there is little difference between the level of urgency/intervention required to prevent functional extinction. I still stand by it.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      Perhaps you don't know it's considered insulting to say "Perhaps since it's a relatively new word to you" ? I've known the word "sophistry" for a long, long time, Throw. And I'll stack my erudition up against yours any time at all.
      - deleted 4y ago
lazyasciiart 4y ago
I've visited known Monarch locations and the difference in actual visible butterflies in 2021 was astounding. I don't see any reason to think that estimate was wrong.

That suspicion is reinforced by the fact that the second estimate is strangely specific. 1,914? Not 1,915? Perhaps that number is from some survey or count that was meant for finding trends rather than estimating the total count.

throwaway5752 4y ago

Or, looking at it the other way, the population is down 98% instead of 99.9%. It's really not that substantial of an error, and yours is a very "programmer talking about ecology" type of response. It's a terrible situation for the species and the outcome is largely the same - extinction within our lifetime - and you are quibbling about petty data concerns within the broader context.

nabakin 4y ago
> looking at it the other way, the population is down 98% instead of 99.9%. It's really not that substantial of an error An estimate that can easily confuse 2k with 250k is not an estimate to use. Now if a range was specified taking into account the variability, like 100k-2k, that would be much better. If the study did this, the article would be at fault for not being accurate. > yours is a very "programmer talking about ecology" I don't think I know everything, I simply commented on a niche forum about something I was curious. The vitriol is completely unwarranted. > It's a terrible situation for the species the outcome is largely the same - extinction within our lifetime - and you are quibbling about petty data concerns within the broader context. So what? Should I take all data on blind faith? Should I not question the validity of data when bullshit is so rampant? Stop the strawman, I never said I disagreed with the conclusion of the study, just that the single estimate was suspicious. Next time, if you actually know anything, aim to explain instead of attacking me. I can admit my mistakes and will be much more receptive.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  I don't want to have a fight. We all know tone is tough and I didn't want to sounds as vitriolic as it came off to you. I can see how it did and I apologize to you. It seems obvious to me that this is a PR release, written by a non-scientist. They didn't offer citations, and it took me some digging to find the sourcing for the oddly specific figure: https://xerces.org/blog/fifth-annual-western-monarch-new-years-count-confirms-continued-decline-in-western-monarch https://xerces.org/blog/fifth-annual-western-monarch-new-yea... "Since 1997 volunteers have conducted counts of overwintering monarchs for the Xerces Society’s annual Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count. As a way to better understand how the overwintering population changes throughout the winter, an additional count—the New Year’s Count—was started in 2016. Now in its fifth year, the New Year’s Count has given us a better understanding of: 1) how monarch numbers may decline at overwintering sites as the winter progresses; 2) how monarchs move between and within sites; 3) when they leave sites; and 4) the level of mortality that adult monarchs may be experiencing during the winter. Between December 26, 2020, and January 10, 2021, volunteers conducted surveys for the New Year’s Count and tallied a total of 1,039 monarchs at 149 sites. These surveys followed the annual Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count, which is conducted annually for three weeks centered around the Thanksgiving holiday, and recently reported a mere 1,914 monarchs in total across 246 sites. At 77 sites, no monarchs were found during either the Thanksgiving or New Year’s Count, at 15 sites monarch numbers increased between the Thanksgiving and New Year’s counts, at 54 sites monarch numbers decreased, and at 3 sites monarch numbers stayed the same. After the dismal numbers from the Thanksgiving Count, expectations for finding monarchs were low, but the news isn’t all bad. For the sites counted during both the Thanksgiving Count and the New Year’s Count, the decline in monarchs averaged 37%, which is lower than previous years (40–49%)." This is not aimed at you, but it's a general complain: It is no fun to do OSS development any more because nobody wants to contribute or collaborate: they want to post a problem in an issue and have the maintainers solve their problem. Now aimed at you: I think there's a reasonable expectation of editorial competence from any content, and this probably didn't meet it, but I think we can all go the extra mile and read, learn, and understand before replying. Myself included.
  - nabakin 4y ago
    Appreciate the apology, sorry from my side as well. I also responded pretty aggressively when I didn't need to. Thanks for the link too, I'm reading through it atm. I agree that you shouldn't post prematurely and should learn more about the subject before you speak on it, but there are so many topics that come up throughout the day it's impossible to research all of them. I was hoping if the number wasn't suspicious, someone who knew better could explain it. Maybe it would have been better to phrase my comment as a question instead of a statement though.
AlbertCory 4y ago
This argument kinda reminds me of this bit of sophistry (a nod to Ted Gioia for his "word of the year"): [Troper] X is up exponentially! [Engineer] Actually, it's only up 25%. [Troper] Whatever. You're minimizing the importance of X! So the sophistry is to make a ridiculous claim to get attention, and then when you're called on it, back away and say the number doesn't matter -- it's still important. In case it was ambiguous: yes, I did know the word, but no, it hasn't been used much lately, more's the pity.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  In the context of a population over this range, a couple hundred thousand and a couple of thousand butterflies isn't as big a difference as you'd think, particularly over the time frame we're looking at (a few decades). I'd be surprised if they avoid extirpation (local extinction within a range) at this point - Western Monarches have habitat loss, terrible losses from pesticides, and now climate change really kicking in. To be pedantic, I don't think this is an example of sophistry. It may seem that way from your perspective, but I'd have to be in coordination with IUCN, which I'm not. I think in this case the logical fallacy would have to advanced by a single person or group. Also, perhaps since it's a relatively new word to you, you don't know it is considered insulting? To recap: IUCN made the claim about a population of 1,914/99.9 percent drop in population, which was mistaken (I found the source of the error from misinterpreted numbers from https://xerces.org/ https://xerces.org/ further down, if you noticed). I made the separate claim that their error doesn't really matter, because both are almost equally dire and there is little difference between the level of urgency/intervention required to prevent functional extinction. I still stand by it.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Perhaps you don't know it's considered insulting to say "Perhaps since it's a relatively new word to you" ? I've known the word "sophistry" for a long, long time, Throw. And I'll stack my erudition up against yours any time at all.
    - deleted 4y ago

lazyasciiart 4y ago

I've visited known Monarch locations and the difference in actual visible butterflies in 2021 was astounding. I don't see any reason to think that estimate was wrong.