date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:27:04 +0100 from: Benito Mueller subject: Re: Impact figure projections to: Mike Hulme Dear Mike, many thanks for taking the trouble. I will definitely take you comments into consideration for future presentations of the result (e.g. at COP8). Please find attached a substantially revised version (including some further sensitivity analyses, on Tom's suggestion). I also included some more ENSO 'stuff', which you may be interested in (a physicist friend helped me out with some Fourier analyses) As for your point (3), I'm afraid I do not have the capacity for this but would be willing to help someone who does. Again, many thanks as ever Benito At 12:58 21/08/2002 +0100, you wrote: >Benito, > >These comments are probably too late for you but holidays have intervened. > >1. You should really explore how sensitive your model is to different >starting dates. If you chose 1980 instead of 1975 then all your >predictions would be less extreme and if you started in 1987, your model >would predict reductions! These sort of regression based models can be >very sensitive to the particular year you chose to start from. > >2. You should also explore how sensitive the model predictions are to your >preferred use of % units (i.e., of total population) rather than absolute >numbers of people. One could argue that absolute numbers is a more >sensible unit to use - although I admit there are arguments either >way. How sensitive is your model to this? > >3. Why do you not set up a direct step-wise multiple-regression model >with three predictors - time, global T and an ENSO index? Thus you tackle >all three issues simultaneously. Different future ENSO indices can be >used to examine sensitivity then. > >4. And of course the general point is to emphasis the need to address the >non-climatic part of the trend just as much - if not more - than the >climatic part of the trend (the latter simply provides the entry point >into the UNFCCC world). > >Other comments - not sure what you mean in your use of the word >'significant' - this can sometimes have a formal statistical meaning but >it also has a popular meaning. Be careful how you use this. > >Also, once or twice you insert value statements e.g. a 'truly worrying >trend' which I would have thought are best left out. > >I'd be interested to see how this discussion develops. > >Mike > > >At 14:09 30/07/02 +0100, you wrote: >>Dear Mike, >>as promised (threatened?), please find attached a short chapter on the >>'Demand-side' for Impact response measures. It's primary aim is to >>highlight the urgent need to consider vulnerability reduction and impact >>response measures. I take it from our conversation here in Oxford some >>days ago that you concur with the need to highlight these issues. Given >>this, I was hoping whether you and/or the colleague you mentioned could >>have a quick look at the chapter and tell me where I am wrong and how I >>could improve the argument. >> >>As I will be giving a presentation of this and other material to Swiss >>government officials and representatives from the International Red Cross >>and the UN Office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in two >>weeks time, I would be most grateful if you could indicate your key >>criticisms a.s.a.p. >> >>many thanks >>best wishes >>Benito >> >> >> >>Dr Benito Müller >> >>www.OxfordClimatePolicy.org >>www.OxfordEnergy.org >>+44 (0)1865 889 135 (direct) >>+44 (0)1865 311 377 > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Mueller II.a V2.pdf" Dr Benito Müller www.OxfordClimatePolicy.org www.OxfordEnergy.org +44 (0)1865 889 135 (direct) +44 (0)1865 311 377