So to whom exactly is the global average a useful thing to calculate? I'd think if I were a country I'd want to compare my average to other countries and figure out how we could become more successful. The problem would be that there are so many different combinations that could give the same average.. minor deviations or major deviation…
So to whom exactly is the global average a useful thing to calculate? I'd think if I were a country I'd want to compare my average to other countries and figure out how we could become more successful. The problem would be that there are so many different combinations that could give the same average.. minor deviations or major deviations that still cancel out, when I'd think we'd be interested in the size of the deviations as well as the average.
As a single number, the global average may or may not be of interest. However, if you take a look at Mao et al. 2021 Figure 9 in this post you'll see that the global average is comprised of lots of individual measurements. As a research focus, global average seems fine as an entry point, and for local decision makers local info will always be more valuable. The dissonance between global average landification and media representations is what motivated this post and my dive into the literature. As Donchyts et al. 2016 relying only on local info - whether case study or anecdote - is apt to mislead should one want broader implications.
Yes, I get that the dissonance is a thing.. but even if some researchers think it's fine to calculate "as an entry point" I would still argue that every research dollar spend on things with little or no practical value could be better spent elsewhere. And arguing about things with little or no practical value is a second order wasting of time. We may have to agree to disagree here :)
Dear Sharon F. I'm with Roger on this one. The global averages tell us that atolls around the world are stable or growing. This is an important thing to know as it contradicts the scaremongering about disappearing islands and their inhabitants being displaced. Remember the stunt where the prime minister of the Maldives held a cabinet meeting in scuba gear, underwater, to "raise awareness" of his fear that his islands would soon disappear under the rising sea levels? Knowing that such islands are stable or growing puts paid to such mythology.
Ahh.. so perhaps more of a communication thing? I'd still be more for maps than averages. perhaps showing where land grew or lost more than a certain number of hectares in the last 30 years? Of course many places may not have the data.. which would be equally true for averages I suppose. So many answers are functions of the temporal and spatial scale chosen!
Or more directly, a table of concerns people articulated that haven't actually transpired within the predicted timeframe.
So to whom exactly is the global average a useful thing to calculate? I'd think if I were a country I'd want to compare my average to other countries and figure out how we could become more successful. The problem would be that there are so many different combinations that could give the same average.. minor deviations or major deviations that still cancel out, when I'd think we'd be interested in the size of the deviations as well as the average.
As a single number, the global average may or may not be of interest. However, if you take a look at Mao et al. 2021 Figure 9 in this post you'll see that the global average is comprised of lots of individual measurements. As a research focus, global average seems fine as an entry point, and for local decision makers local info will always be more valuable. The dissonance between global average landification and media representations is what motivated this post and my dive into the literature. As Donchyts et al. 2016 relying only on local info - whether case study or anecdote - is apt to mislead should one want broader implications.
Yes, I get that the dissonance is a thing.. but even if some researchers think it's fine to calculate "as an entry point" I would still argue that every research dollar spend on things with little or no practical value could be better spent elsewhere. And arguing about things with little or no practical value is a second order wasting of time. We may have to agree to disagree here :)
Yes indeed
Aggregation of data is commonplace, whether at regional, national or global scales, and over various time periods
We can agree to disagree on this one 👍👍
Dear Sharon F. I'm with Roger on this one. The global averages tell us that atolls around the world are stable or growing. This is an important thing to know as it contradicts the scaremongering about disappearing islands and their inhabitants being displaced. Remember the stunt where the prime minister of the Maldives held a cabinet meeting in scuba gear, underwater, to "raise awareness" of his fear that his islands would soon disappear under the rising sea levels? Knowing that such islands are stable or growing puts paid to such mythology.
Ahh.. so perhaps more of a communication thing? I'd still be more for maps than averages. perhaps showing where land grew or lost more than a certain number of hectares in the last 30 years? Of course many places may not have the data.. which would be equally true for averages I suppose. So many answers are functions of the temporal and spatial scale chosen!
Or more directly, a table of concerns people articulated that haven't actually transpired within the predicted timeframe.