search

pacific-hake / hake-assessment

:zap: :fish: Build the assessment document using latex and knitr
MIT License
13 stars 6 forks source link

Squid plot issue - revise text to say we went back ten years #803

Closed cgrandin closed 3 years ago

cgrandin commented 3 years ago

This is really not an issue just something I noticed that we should be aware of. On the squid plot, the 2010 cohort only goes back to age 1. This is more obvious on the age-1 sensitivity squid plot in the appendix. It's because we only went back 10 years and not 11.

aaronmberger-nwfsc commented 3 years ago

I saw that too, but just thought my tired eyes were just missing something. I don't think it something that we need to fix this year.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:05 AM Chris Grandin notifications@github.com wrote:

This is really not an issue just something I noticed that we should be aware of. On the squid plot, the 2010 cohort only goes back to age 1. This is more obvious on the age-1 sensitivity squid plot in the appendix. It's because we only went back 10 years and not 11.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pacific-hake/hake-assessment/issues/803, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB4T76WQ2OSZ5UPDOR7JOFDS6GBOTANCNFSM4XLRQDDQ .

-- Aaron Berger, PhD https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/contact/aaron-m-berger-phd Fisheries Resource and Monitoring Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2032 SE OSU Drive Newport, OR 97365 USA

aaron.berger@noaa.gov aaron.berger@noaa.gov541.867.0562 (office)

541.231.1417 (cell)

kellijohnson-NOAA commented 3 years ago

Thanks Chris for bringing this up. I think it is important for all of us to have a response b/c we will be asked. Like Chris said it is just b/c our retro is only 10 years. Not a big deal, and not worth the computing time to try to predict a recruitment with no data to predict it. I think we can probably close this once Andy responds.

andrew-edwards commented 3 years ago

Can't see in the text that we explicitly say only went back ten years, so could maybe add in for revision.

aaronmberger-nwfsc commented 3 years ago

added a 10 year reference in the text cb21f6327ffe5326302ece8ff76c3b82b16de456, so closing...