The Right Deed for the Wrong Reason

1989 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 38-40
Author(s):  
Fiona Peacock
Keyword(s):  
Wrong Reason ◽  
The Right

Song pitch – habitat relationships in white-throated sparrows: cracks in acoustic windows?

1988 ◽  
Vol 66 (11) ◽  
pp. 2578-2581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Waas
Keyword(s):  
Boreal Forest ◽  
Inverse Relationship ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Zonotrichia Albicollis ◽  
Acoustic Window ◽  
Wrong Reason ◽  
Foliage Density ◽  
The Right ◽  
Forest Habitats

I compared the hypothesis that birds singing from song posts above 1–2 m should sing in as low a pitch as possible regardless of habitat type, with the traditional "acoustic window" hypothesis which argues that selection favours an inverse relationship between song pitch and foliage density. Songs of white-throated sparrows, Zonotrichia albicollis, were obtained from four habitats which could be arranged in a gradient of foliage density. The pitch of these songs was found to be inversely related to the density of foliage in the habitat occupied, consistent with the acoustic window hypothesis. Significant pitch variation occurred not only between open and forest habitats, but also between mixed and boreal forest habitats. I distinguish between hypotheses that could explain support for the traditional hypothesis despite recent data suggesting that low pitched sound travels best regardless of habitat at song post heights used by white-throated sparrows (5–10 m). I conclude that the acoustic window model may make the right prediction for the wrong reason in white-throated sparrows. I emphasize the need to define and test the assumptions of models before the models themselves are accepted on the basis of support for their predictions.

Doing the Right Thing for the Wrong Reason

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 596-597
Author(s):  
Irwin H. Lee ◽  
Avraham Eisbruch
Keyword(s):  
Wrong Reason ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Bias in CMIP6 models as compared to observed regional dimming and brightening

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (24) ◽  
pp. 16023-16040
Author(s):  
Kine Onsum Moseid ◽  
Michael Schulz ◽  
Trude Storelvmo ◽  
Ingeborg Rian Julsrud ◽  
Dirk Olivié ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sulfur Dioxide ◽  
Surface Energy ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Shortwave Radiation ◽  
Anthropogenic Aerosol ◽  
Surface Energy Fluxes ◽  
Aerosol Emission ◽  
Wrong Reason ◽  
The Right ◽  
Aerosol Emissions

Abstract. Anthropogenic aerosol emissions have increased considerably over the last century, but climate effects and quantification of the emissions are highly uncertain as one goes back in time. This uncertainty is partly due to a lack of observations in the pre-satellite era, making the observations we do have before 1990 additionally valuable. Aerosols suspended in the atmosphere scatter and absorb incoming solar radiation and thereby alter the Earth's surface energy balance. Previous studies show that Earth system models (ESMs) do not adequately represent surface energy fluxes over the historical era. We investigated global and regional aerosol effects over the time period 1961–2014 by looking at surface downwelling shortwave radiation (SDSR). We used observations from ground stations as well as multiple experiments from eight ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (CMIP6). Our results show that this subset of models reproduces the observed transient SDSR well in Europe but poorly in China. We suggest that this may be attributed to missing emissions of sulfur dioxide in China, sulfur dioxide being a precursor to sulfate, which is a highly reflective aerosol and responsible for more reflective clouds. The emissions of sulfur dioxide used in the models do not show a temporal pattern that could explain observed SDSR evolution over China. The results from various aerosol emission perturbation experiments from DAMIP, RFMIP and AerChemMIP show that only simulations containing anthropogenic aerosol emissions show dimming, even if the dimming is underestimated. Simulated clear-sky and all-sky SDSR do not differ greatly, suggesting that cloud cover changes are not a dominant cause of the biased SDSR evolution in the simulations. Therefore we suggest that the discrepancy between modeled and observed SDSR evolution is partly caused by erroneous aerosol and aerosol precursor emission inventories. This is an important finding as it may help interpret whether ESMs reproduce the historical climate evolution for the right or wrong reason.

The Poverty of Development: Prolegomenon to a Critique of Development Policy in Africa

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John F.E. Ohiorhenuan
Keyword(s):  
Development Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Structural Adjustment ◽  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Wrong Reason ◽  
Taking Charge ◽  
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper ◽  
Poverty Reduction Strategy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Structural Adjustment Programmes

The focus on poverty reduction in Africa may be a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Undoubtedly, directly focusing on poverty as an integral part of macroeconomic policy making is essential and a welcome addition to the narrower prescriptions of structural adjustment programmes. But experience so far with Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSPJ raises the concern that, compared with structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), the real innovation of PRSPs is that they now prescribe, and set conditionalities on, process in addition to content. In consequence, it is difficult to sustain the argument that Africa is (finally) taking charge of its own destiny

Bias in CMIP6 models compared to observed regional dimming and brightening trends (1961-2014)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kine Onsum Moseid ◽  
Michael Schulz ◽  
Trude Storelvmo ◽  
Ingeborg Rian Julsrud ◽  
Dirk Olivié ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coupled Model ◽  
Shortwave Radiation ◽  
Anthropogenic Aerosol ◽  
Surface Energy Fluxes ◽  
Aerosol Emission ◽  
Wrong Reason ◽  
The Right ◽  
Aerosol Effects ◽  
Aerosol Emissions ◽  
Trend Reversal

<p>Anthropogenic aerosol emissions have increased considerably over the last century, but climate effects and quantification of the emissions are highly uncertain as one goes back in time. This uncertainty is partly due to a lack of observations in the pre-satellite era, and previous studies show that Earth system models (ESMs) do not adequately represent surface energy fluxes over the historical era. We investigated global and regional aerosol effects over the time period 1961-2014 by looking at surface downwelling shortwave radiation (SDSR).<br>We used observations from ground stations as well as multiple experiments from five ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (<em>CMIP6</em>). Our results show that this subset of models reproduces the observed transient SDSR well in Europe, but poorly in China. <br>The models do not reproduce the observed trend reversal in SDSR in China in the late 1980s, which is attributed to a change in the emission of SO<sub>2</sub> in this region. The emissions of SO<sub>2</sub> show no sign of a trend reversal that could explain the observed SDSR evolution over China, and neither do other aerosols relevant to SDSR. The results from various aerosol emission perturbation experiments from <em>DAMIP</em>, <em>RFMIP</em> and <em>AerChemMIP</em> suggest that its likely, that aerosol effects are responsible for the dimming signal, although not its full amplitude. Simulated cloud cover changes in the different models are not correlated with observed changes over China.  Therefore we suggest that the discrepancy between modeled and observed SDSR evolution is partly caused by erroneous aerosol and aerosol precursor emission inventories. This is an important finding as it may help interpreting whether ESMs reproduce the historical climate evolution for the right or wrong reason.</p>

The right test for the wrong reason

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. James Popham
Keyword(s):  
Wrong Reason ◽  
The Right

Utilitarianism and the Noble Art

Philosophy ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 63 (243) ◽  
pp. 63-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Radford
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Main Claim ◽  
Positive Difference ◽  
Moral Rightness ◽  
Wrong Thing ◽  
Human Happiness ◽  
Wrong Reason ◽  
Right Reason ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Utilitarianism tells us that actions are morally right and good if and to the extent that they add to human happiness or diminish human unhappiness. And—or, perhaps, therefore—it also tells us that the best action a person can perform is that which of all the possible actions open to him is the one which makes the greatest positive difference to human happiness. Moreover, as everyone will also remember, utilitarianism further tries to tell us, perhaps intending it as a corollary of that first, main claim, that the motive for an action has nothing to do with its moral rightness or goodness. (This, of course, is just a philosopher's excessive and incorrect way of making the platitudinous point that one may do the wrong thing for the right reason and the right thing for the wrong reason.) But even if, as utilitarians, we accepted the dubious corollary, it would not follow, as many have thought, that utilitarians have no moral interest in motives. For unless, absurdly, a utilitarian believed either that there was never more than a fortuitous connection between on the one hand what we intended to do and on the other what we did and the consequences of what we did, or that, if there were such connections, we could not know of them, he must believe, as a moralist, that the best motive a person can have for performing an action is likely to be the desire to produce the happiest result. Indeed, utilitarians ought to be morally committed, it would seem, to trying to find out as much as they can about the consequences of our actions, e.g. what connections exist, if any, between how we raise children and what sort of adults they grow up to be.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document