<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Niche Modeling &#187; Theory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://landshape.org/enm/category/theory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://landshape.org/enm</link>
	<description>The Power of Numeracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 21:47:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Copenhagen a failure? Think again.</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/copenhagen-a-failure-think-again/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/copenhagen-a-failure-think-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:20:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3859</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Attributed to NEIL BROWN, December 26, 2009 UNLIKE most people, who think Copenhagen was a failure, I think it was a great success. It has preserved the golden rule of international diplomacy. Years ago, when I was a young fellow and started to go to international conferences, an old hand who was about to retire took me aside. ''I'll be shoving off into retirement soon,'' he said, ''so I thought I might pass on the golden rule of international conferences." I was fascinated. I was sure he would Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/copenhagen-a-failure-think-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Page-Proofs of the DECR Paper</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/page-proofs-of-the-decr-paper/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/page-proofs-of-the-decr-paper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:15:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Corrected the page-proofs of my drought paper today. CRITIQUE OF DROUGHT MODELS IN THE AUSTRALIAN DROUGHT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES REPORT (DECR) ABSTRACT This paper evaluates the reliability of modeling in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR) where global circulation (or climate) simulations were used to forecast future extremes of temperatures, rainfall and soil moisture. The DECR provided the Australian government with an assessment of the likely future change in the extent and Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/page-proofs-of-the-decr-paper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Watts Tour at Emerald</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/watts-tour-at-emerald/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/watts-tour-at-emerald/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 06:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anthony's Tour continues at a breakneck pace this week -- with only four venues to go. The talks at Emerald that I organized went quite well, considering this is a small regional town. About 80-100 people attended an teaser session during the Property Rights Australia meeting during the day, and around 40 attended at night. We got a standing ovation during the day -- the first time for me! The crowd was a mixture of ages and sexes and I think messages of bureaucratic sloth and opportunism resonated Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/watts-tour-at-emerald/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Niche Logic</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/niche-logic/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/niche-logic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 'strongest male' is itself a highly variable component. How to formalise this as a niche? Preamble. All we have, really, are observations. To put niches into a statistical framework, we only have the expected distributions of those observations (both singly and jointly). Selection (either natural or through our study design) changes the distribution of features, and we observe those changes. For example, if the sample of breeding males is generally taller than the population of breeding Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/niche-logic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Niche Theory</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/niche-theory/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/niche-theory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A couple of questions from the last nichey post prompted this post. Geoff said that: I'm not even sure what is meant by an optimal environment for a species/genus/whatever. while Andrew said that: it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of species tend to live at the margins of their "ideal" habitat. We need a bit of abstraction to address these questions. In a laboratory, a plant would be expected to show a humped response to the main variables of temperature and water availability. The parameterisation Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/niche-theory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Use of the Virial Theorem by Miskolczi</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/on-the-use-of-the-virial-theorem-by-miskolczi/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/on-the-use-of-the-virial-theorem-by-miskolczi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adolf J Giger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Virial Paper 6_12_2010 submitted by Adolf J. Giger. Allow me to make some more comments on the Virial Theorem (VT) as used by Ferenc Miskolczi (FM) for the atmosphere. As I said on this blog back in February, a very fundamental derivation of the VT was made by H. Goldstein in Section 3-4 of "Classical Mechanics", 1980, Ref.[1] : PE= 2*KE (potential energy=2 x kinetic energy). Then, he also derives the Ideal Gas Law (IGL), P*V = N*k*T as a consequence of the VT, and shows that PE=3*P*V and KE=(3/2)*N*k*T. Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/on-the-use-of-the-virial-theorem-by-miskolczi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No evidence of global warming extinctions</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/no-evidence-of-extinctions/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/no-evidence-of-extinctions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:46:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My rebuttal of Thomasâ€™ computer models of massive species extinctions has been mentioned in a statement by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch before the United States Senate, on June 10, 2010. 1. Stockwell (2000) observes that the Thomas models, due to lack of any observed extinction data, are not â€˜tried and true,â€™ and their doctrine of â€˜massive extinctionâ€™ is actually a case of â€˜massive extinction bias.â€™ [Stockwell, D.R.B. 2004. Biased Toward Extinction, Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/no-evidence-of-extinctions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Miskolczi Manuscript</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/new-miskolczi-manuscript/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/new-miskolczi-manuscript/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ferenc sent out reprints of his upcoming manuscript, and graciously acknowledges the contribution of a number of us for support, help and encouragement. I particularly like the perturbation and statistical power analysis, checking that a change in the greenhouse effect due to CO2 would likely have been detected if it had been present in the last 61 years. The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth's Global Average Atmospheric Planc-weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness by Ferenc Miskolczi, Energy Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/new-miskolczi-manuscript/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Problem 4: Why has certainty not improved</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/problem-4-why-has-certainty-not-improved/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/problem-4-why-has-certainty-not-improved/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:06:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Problem 4. Why has a community of thousands or tens of thousands of climate scientists not managed to improve certainty in core areas in any significant way in more than a decade (eg the climate sensitivity caused by CO2 doubling as evidenced by little change in the IPCC bounds)? This problem has been the hardest, probably because it takes enormous hubris to claim solution to a problem that defeats thousands of usually intelligent people. One man who does that is -- Dr Roy Spencer -- claiming a Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/problem-4-why-has-certainty-not-improved/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is Scepticism?</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/what-is-scepticism/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/what-is-scepticism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 11:29:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sceptic - from the Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon, from skeptesthai to consider. Scepticism is variously described as a doubting or questioning attitude, a person who uses their mind creatively, or even someone who demands physical evidence in order to be convinced (especially when this demand is out of place). To consider carefully with regard to evidence is the professional way to approach public affairs, or matters of considerable importance -- the opposite of sloppy, credulous, reckless Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/what-is-scepticism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

