Pensacola Fishing Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Looks like NOAA manipulated data like Fat Al's global warming cheats. http://forums.floridasportsman.com/forum/conservation-front/sedar-15-investigation-update

I've been really working hard on unraveling SEDAR 15. I have created a model that can reproduce NOAA's results. I must say I agree with some of their estimates.

I have a simple graph that demonstrates the degree to which NOAA tinkered with the data to make their model work.

These data are taken from pdf page 219 of SEDAR 15, but similar values are also in a table on pdf page 410. These tables summarize the assessment model's results for some variables. Here we will pay particular attention to B, the total biomass for a given year; B/Bunfished, the ratio of that years biomass to the estimated biomass of the population before fishing; SSB, the spawning stock biomass of the given year, cannot exceed the total biomass (B); and SPR, the spawning potential ratio, the ratio of SSB for the given year to SSBunfished (i.e. for the population before fishing).

Bunfished can be calculated as B/(B/Bunfished). This number should be a constant throughout the assessment years. It is constant ~37,000MT.

SSBunfished can be calculated as SSB/SPR. This number should be a constant throughout the assessment years. It is not, it ranges from 3,700 to 62,000MT.

Why does it vary so much over time when it should be constant? This is because NOAA's estimates of fishing mortality 1965-1982 are ridiculously high and if it was not changed year to year, the population would have crashed (in NOAA's model) shortly after 1982.

The graph below shows how NOAA changed this value for each year of the assessment model. As the flat line from my model shows, and common sense will tell you, this estimate for the unfished population should not change year to year in the model, that makes absolutely no sense. Another part of NOAA's error is that from 1957 to 1969 SSB>B, the spawning stock biomass is greater than the total biomass, again that makes absolutely no sense.

I'm curious if I have explained this thoroughly? I hope so. Please fire away with questions. It won't be too long until a full report will be available, that will include my past estimates and future projections like SEDAR 15, but in this case the models will not be tinkered with.

The blue line is NOAA's data taken from pdf page 219, SEDAR 15. The black line is from my model, SSB/B in the unfished population was constant ~0.73. Deviation from the black line represents tinkering with the model.

<A class=lightbox-processed href="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f327/007MadScientist/BUnfished.jpg" rel=lightbox target=_blank jQuery1266029308859="52"><A class=lightbox-processed href="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f327/007MadScientist/BUnfished.jpg" rel=lightbox jQuery1266029308859="496"><A class=lightbox-processed href="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f327/007MadScientist/BUnfished.jpg" rel=lightbox jQuery1266029308859="513"><A class=lightbox-processed href="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f327/007MadScientist/BUnfished.jpg" rel=lightbox jQuery1266029308859="529"><A class=lightbox-processed href="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f327/007MadScientist/BUnfished.jpg" rel=lightbox jQuery1266029308859="545"></A></A></A></A></A>
 

·
Neptune calls me "Daddy"
Joined
·
9,183 Posts
I am a trained engineer, though it's been awhile.

You seem VERY excited, good for you.

Take a DEEP breath and tell me again what a "bunfish" is again.

Thanks,

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The amount by weight of the virgin population including all the fish (spawners and younger ones) is called Bunfished.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,033 Posts
You are merely expressing in statistical terms what we all know to be the truth. The NMFS is full of lying, incompetant government employees. :hoppingmad

Big surprise.....

I bet they would have an answer to this graph as well. Some gobble-dee-gook about how the p-value was not sufficient or something.:doh

Only way to make them listen to reason is sue them into oblivion. I invite everyone to join and contribute to the FRA, the litigenous arm of recreational fishermen.:letsdrink
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
1bandit (2/12/2010)L.......Why does it vary so much over time when it should be constant? This is because NOAA's estimates of fishing mortality 1965-1982 are ridiculously high and if it was not changed year to year, the population would have crashed (in NOAA's model) shortly after 1982.....


If you look at the data AS it was collected (the way they would be considered in this process) the re-adjustment of the mortality rates would have necessarily taken place over time.



There MAY have been 'intent' in taking an artificially high number to begin, but if you look at the initial intent "worse case" it would be reasonable.



I hope this makes sense, but NOAA would have to adjust their expectation based on the data as collected year to year.





You seem to have quite a bit of interest / knowledge and I have 'statics for engineers' in the 90's and 'Research stats' in grad school... still a long time ago. :) I remember just enough to suppose that your view of all the data is different then the view that was taken while it was being collected and analyzed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
angus_cow_doctor (2/13/2010)You are merely expressing in statistical terms what we all know to be the truth. The NMFS is full of lying, incompetant government employees. :hoppingmad



Big surprise.....



I bet they would have an answer to this graph as well. Some gobble-dee-gook about how the p-value was not sufficient or something.:doh



Only way to make them listen to reason is sue them into oblivion. I invite everyone to join and contribute to the FRA, the litigenous arm of recreational fishermen.:letsdrink


Heh heh, he said p value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Thats great that he's looking to updat the model and all thatbut its not worth the paper its printed on until it is published by apeer reviewed journal.Until then it has as much scientific backing as a junior high research paper. Its been a while since I took wildlife resources and population dynamics classes but it looks like he might be barking up the right tree.

I'm not sure how you could say that the current model indicates tampering or some other conspiracy of lies. Every wildlife model ever created is wrong. You can never take everything in nature into account and say there are 70,359,617 red snapper in FL state waters right now and manage off of that. You have to take the best model available look at the final number and take it with a major grain of salt and manage on the conservative side to protect the stocks. Hopefully we can get a better model in place to more accurately figure out how many fish we can remove without harming the population. Until that happens we're just going to have some of the best catch and release fishing you can imagine
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top