Talk:Population of Europe

From Opasnet
Revision as of 08:54, 7 November 2009 by Jouni (talk | contribs) (discussion formatted acoording to argumentation rules)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Disaggregation

----1: . So what you would need is the fraction of e.g. the subgroup of women 30-34 of the total population of a country. Or the fraction of the subgroup of women 30-34 of the total population in the grid cells? --Alexandra Kuhn 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--2: . Fraction of the total population is better than a separate number for each grid cell. The latter is much more difficult to obtain for all grid cells. --Jouni 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--7: . Danielle already has this gridded data, so it could be used for the base year. --Jouni 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--8: . yes, that's the plan --Alexandra Kuhn 12:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----3: . And if then distinguishing between working and non-working, would you want it in fractions of the total population (e.g. 0.001 of the total population are women aged 30-34 and non-working) or in fractions of the fraction of the particular age (e.g. 0.6 of the women aged 30-34 are not working)? --Alexandra Kuhn 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--4: . In this case, fraction of a given age group, not the total population, is easier. --Jouni 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----5: . Which calculations shall I do and which are done from the base? I thought at first I'd give you the data on the grid. But in addition you might want to have the national numbers and percentages as well. And if I do any calculations at all I might as well do all. I am not sure which percentages you would be interested in and if you agree to the procedure I proposed at the meeting and if you want to do the calculations internally etc. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--6: . All original data (totals, fractions etc) could also go to the base, but they can also stay in the model file only. In any case, the disggregation results should be uploaded to the Base for further use. --Jouni 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Lutz data

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Lutz data should not be used.

Closing statement: Accepted.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:
←--9: . This data source is not used as it is outdated and newer projections are available. --Alexandra Kuhn 12:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Units, boundaries, and other things

Comments to Alex. --Jouni 05:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Alex,

1) Your population data looks very much like a variable. See also my version of the same variable http://en.opasnet.org/w/Population_of_Europe

2) The unit is always number of persons. You are right that the result is given, depending on the situation, for a country, grid cell, or subpopulation in a grid cell, but it does not change the unit. Think of this as a table that tells the unit on the top. Then the table contains two columns: country and population. Each row looks at particular geographical location along index "country", but the number in column population is always number of persons. The same applies if you have a larger table with columns country, grid cell, age, sex, and population. The unit does NOT depend on the number of columns.

3) The variable is in principle independent of the assessment we are doing. Therefore, you cannot motivate choices you make with the assessment you are doing. I mean, in practice you can, but these are irrelevant arguments in the context of the variable, and another user can invalidate them just like that. Therefore, I wouldn't put them there in the first place. Examples (4-5): ----#: . Where would those arguments and choices be situated better, then? --Alexandra Kuhn 12:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

4) "Scope For the assessment, population data is needed for several reasons, e. g.as basic assumption for estimating the energy demand, but also as receptor for pollutantsso that health effects arise. Population data is needed..."

Instead, just ask: What is the population size for years...

If you want to be sure that the variable sticks to a particular grid size, you must define the grid in the scope.

5) "The growth rate of the UN data is chosen which corresponds best to the EUROSTAT data to achieve consistency with the energy models."

Variables are for estimating the truth, and you are suggesting a deviation from that because of the needs of an assessment. This is irrelevant for the variable and can be invalidated. Solution: use all three UN growth rates in the variable, and pick the suitable one for the assessment. Also the assessment should estimate the truth, so if you want to ignore other possibilities of growth, you should define that in the scenarios of the assessment (or just do what you do without defending your choices, and hope that nobody picks this up).

6) Both surveys and data sources should be described under "Data".

7) I copied this reply to http://en.opasnet.org/w/Talk:Population_of_Europe . You could update the variable in Opasnet with your text.