Michael Tobis wrote:
Yes, I thought of that. I'm not sure the clear separation of time
scales between dynamics and statistics makes the same kind of sense in
economics though.
In any case, +/- 20% is a lot of weather. Suppose I couldn't tell you
whether next week's barometer reading would be 800 mb or 1200 mb?
Really, I don't think it makes much sense to try to make quantitative
comparisons like this. What about a 20% uncertainty in the rainfall on
the 31st Dec 2007 (in London, say)?
Would you have a panel of fifty meteorologists stating their choices
distributed roughly unifromly in that range? Would you consider them
experts? Would you publish them in Weather Week?
Exactly what distinguishes the fifty Dow numbers from fifty wild
guesses, except perhaps for the fact that all of the prognosticators
probably have considerably higher incomes than you or I?
Specify more clearly what you mean by "wild guess" and I'm sure it would
be possible in principle to quantify how well the prognosticators have
performed in the past (assuming they have done it for several years).
That's not a complete answer, but it's a start.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
