(Note: image above and my emphasis added below. What is unlcear is what climate models the reviewed and whether they accepted or rejected it’s results. – Anthony)
Contact: Sheela McLean FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
907-586-7032 Dec. 23, 2008
NOAA Determines Ribbon Seals Should Not be Listed as Endangered
NOAA today announced that ribbon seals are not in current danger of extinction or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, and should not be listed under the Endangered Species Act.
On Dec. 20, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned NOAA’s Fisheries Service to list the ribbon seal under the Endangered Species Act. The petition said the seal faced extinction by the end of the century due to rapid melting of sea ice resulting from global warming. Sea-ice in the Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Sea of Japan, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea is the seal’s primary habitat. Today’s announcement is the result of NOAA’s review of this petition and the condition of the ribbon seal.
“Our scientists have reviewed climate models that project that annual ice, which is critical for ribbon seal reproduction, molting and resting, will continue to form each winter in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk where the majority of ribbon seals are located,” said Jim Balsiger, NOAA’s acting assistant administrator for fisheries.
From March to June, ribbon seals use sea ice. As the ice melts during May and June, the seals haul out along the receding ice edge or in remnant patches of ice. Once the annual ice melts, most ribbon seals either migrate through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea or remain in the open water of the Bering Sea during the rest of the year.
Although the number of ribbon seals is difficult to estimate accurately, scientists believe that at least 200,000 ribbon seals inhabit the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.
Commercial hunting for ribbon seals is prohibited in the United States. Alaska Natives take a small number – fewer than 200 – each year for subsistence. Russia allows a harvest of ribbon seals, but there is currently no organized harvest industry and the number of seals taken is likely to be very low.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. Visit http://www.noaa.gov.
On the Web:
NOAA’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/nmml/species/species_ribbon.php
NOAA’s Fisheries Service Alaska Region: http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov
– 30 –
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
DAV
Surprisingly, I had looked at that exact wikipedia entry you linked to before writing my last post. I’ll go have a look at interval data and ratio data in a bit.
“Since we are dealing with an ordered list, the ordinal nature of dates is of value. Of course, we could have thrown that away but that would mean determining the randomness of the output would be nearly impossible. When dealing with nominal data, I would like to have every data value seen at the very least 10 times. The lottery was only run for 4 years so there is insufficient information for any meaningful test. In addition, we have been discussing the very first lottery where each date has been listed only once. Considering the dates as nominal for this purpose dooms the outcome from the start.”
That put a nice cap on this thread. Thank you again for your patient and thorough explanations. I got a lot more than “ribbon seals taste like chicken” out of this thread by following the thread this far.
“Sorry
You should never apologize for thinking unless sarcasm is intended. Apology not accepted :-)”
Oh, the apology was for going off the topic of sequences. I brought up the “one-off single coin toss” twice before it hit me that it wasn’t a sequence. That was more of a forehead-slapping-Doh! moment of mine.
I think you and I are the last ones still on this thread, particularly since it’s been bumped to the second page, so let’s turn out the lights here and go see what’s new on Page One, eh?
Well my last comment on this subject is that I agree with HR’s concept; that if you designate the 366 different data items as simply symbols that have no relationship to each other, other than each is unique, then no one of the factorial 366 possible draws is any more recognizable than any other; and all are equally likely or equally unlikely; and whether you pick one symbol at a time, or toss them all up and register them in the order in which they land, the result is no different.
And we are talking about a single event.
Is a 100 meter dash a single event; or do you want to claim that each step must be considered as a separate event.
So unlike HR, I DO claim that a single coin toss is the same as a single draft lottery; and it has no statistical significance at all.
And moreover, it could land on its edge; the laws of physics do not preclude a coin from landing and remaining on its edge..
The only thing about the calendar sequential draw is that it happens to be a sequence of unique symbols which somebody just might recognise.
Besides, any ocntention that a given draw is biassed, and therefore unfair, can only be proven by conducting a huge multiplicity of such draws; and that destroys the premise that there was only one such event. (before someone chose to declare it biassed).
I’m mildly amused by DAV’s contention that I am being “bullheaded”.
We have that problem in the California Legislature.; The Democrats keep tying to illegally raise taxes to keep funding their gravy train projects that keep the non-taxpaying californians voting them into office. The Republican point out that we have a recession, and raising taxes will simply move more jobs and industries out of califonia, so that will never balance the budget, and the only solution is to stop government spending; which is what the taxpaying Californians have to do when their budget doesn’t balance.
So the Democrats blame the republicans for lack of “bipartisanship”, yet when Republican “cross the aisle”, as that old fool John McClain does all the time, and tried to sell it as a Presidential strategy, the Democrats simply take the gratuity, and then respond with; “now all we want is the land next to our land.”.
Bullheadedness, is nothing more than two views of a problem that are not commensurate with each other.
Back at the turn of the 1960s; when I was a junior faculty lecturer in the Physics Dept of my Alma Mater, our once a month faculty meeting to discuss recent literature, always began with the latest shot in the “Dingle versu Mc Cray” battle on the “clock paradox”. These two chaps argued back and forth in the physics literature as to who got older, or whether anybody got older than the other.
I believe that the feud died out when it became apparent, that each of the two combatants was actually describing a different problem from what the other chap was talking about. The dispute never got resolved; because there really was no dispute; just tow persons talking over each other about two entirely different discussions. The distinction was as I recall quite esoteric; and no I have no recollection of what the two discussions really were about.
George; who fortunately is only a single event in world history.
Bullheadedness, is nothing more than two views of a problem that are not commensurate with each other.
Quite true.
By bullheadedness I refer to your insistence that the dates have no inherent relation to each other and that somehow sampling without replacement from an ordered list is single event. It’s a well understood problem and amenable to analyses such as the poker hand test for randomness of shuffle (see Knuth) and similar tests.
As for the rest: there’s little point in treading old ground. I suggest at least looking at the references I’ve posted previously .
I also suggest tabling this discussion as it seems to have stagnated.
Perhaps foundered is more appropriate. I will look diligently for a rigorous proof that the probability of any such drawn sequence of 366 numbers or arbitrary symbols is not 1/366! for any single drawn sequence.
I found the discussion useful; since it prompted me to design a type of spherical ball for use in such drawings where each of 366 such balls would have exactly the same number of atoms, and be mechanically almost identical to such an extent, that no mechanical measurement coud distinguish between them, since every atom on the surface of each of the 366 balls, would occupy identical locations in a three dimensional lattice; yet the balls are uniquely identifiable; and differ in total mass by less than about one part in 10^25. I won’t be able to calculate the mass spread between the balls till I go to work tomorrow, and get to my reference books.
Evidently my Mathematics degree led me down the garden path when it comes to elementary statistics theory.