Integrating parameter uncertainty of a process-based model in assessments of climate change effects on forest productivity

The parameter uncertainty of process-based models has received little attention in climate change impact studies. This paper aims to integrate parameter uncertainty into simulations of climate change impacts on forest net primary productivity (NPP). We used either prior (uncalibrated) or posterior (calibrated using Bayesian calibration) parameter variations to express parameter uncertainty, and we assessed the effect of parameter uncertainty on projections of the process-based model 4C in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) stands under climate change. We compared the uncertainty induced by differences between climate models with the uncertainty induced by parameter variability and climate models together. The results show that the uncertainty of simulated changes in NPP induced by climate model and parameter uncertainty is substantially higher than the uncertainty of NPP changes induced by climate model uncertainty alone. That said, the direction of NPP change is mostly consistent between the simulations using the standard parameter setting of 4C and the majority of the simulations including parameter uncertainty. Climate change impact studies that do not consider parameter uncertainty may therefore be appropriate for projecting the direction of change, but not for quantifying the exact degree of change, especially if parameter combinations are selected that are particularly climate sensitive. We conclude that if a key objective in climate change impact research is to quantify uncertainty, parameter uncertainty as a major factor driving the degree of uncertainty of projections should be included

Optimism or Hope? The Ethic of Abundance and the Ethic of Limits

In this essay Christopher Lasch characterizes two cultures in society, one a culture of possibility and abundance and the other the culture of limits and constraint. He exemplifies this conflict of cultures by discussing views on abortion and family policy by the two groups. The conflict of cultures is more a class confict than a political party conflict. The author\u27s intent as he voices it is to explain the two cultures to each other rather than make a case for one over the other. This essay was presented as part of the Orestes Brownson Lecture Series at Sacred Heart University on October 9, 1990

Initiating a New Constitutional Dialogue: The Increased Importance Under AEDPA of Seeking Certiorari From Judgments of State Courts

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) contains a provision restricting federal courts from considering any authority other than holdings of the Supreme Court in determining whether to grant a state prisoner’s petition for habeas corpus. Through an empirical study of cert filings and cases decided by the Supreme Court, the Authors assess this provision’s impact on the development of federal constitutional criminal doctrine. Before AEDPA and other restrictions on federal habeas corpus, lower federal courts and state courts contributed to doctrinal development by engaging in a dialogue. This dialogue served to articulate the broad constitutional principles set forth in Supreme Court precedent. AEDPA has effectively ended the conversation, because under AEDPA federal courts lack the power to resolve emerging constitutional issues in the context of state prisoners’ federal habeas petitions. Now that only Supreme Court precedent can provide the basis for federal habeas relief under AEDPA, it is more important for open questions to be presented to the Supreme Court. Unless cert is sought and granted in cases arising out of state criminal proceedings, constitutional criminal doctrine may be frozen. Current certiorari practice is out of step with this reality. The Authors\u27 analysis of the procedural posture of criminal cases in which certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court over the past twelve years demonstrates that, since 1995, the Supreme Court’s certiorari grants in criminal cases have been tilting away from federal prisoners’ direct appeals and towards state prisoners’ federal habeas and (to a lesser degree) state court direct appeals. Because the Court is not, as a general matter, using certiorari grants in state prisoners’ federal habeas cases to develop doctrine, it appears that certiorari from state court direct appeals is poised to become the primary vehicle for such development. Yet an empirical analysis of certiorari petitions filed in the October 2006 Supreme Court term reveals a gap between this opportunity for doctrinal development and practitioners’ current certiorari-seeking behavior. The Authors coded 347 “paid” certiorari petitions and a sample of 300 in forma pauperis petitions, categorizing cases by procedural posture. Although certiorari grants in federal prisoners’ direct appeals are declining dramatically, the leading category of cert filings remains federal prisoners’ direct appeals. Given that there are far more state criminal proceedings each year than federal prosecutions, the Authors argue that these trends demonstrate an opportunity to file more and better certiorari petitions. The Authors urge the criminal defense community to close this “cert gap,” both to ensure a better standard of review for individual clients and to promote continued development of the law