TFA article claims: "Indeed, the solar storm of May 2024 is estimated to have cost the US agricultural industry $500 million due to disruptions in precision navigation."
This seems hard to believe. The link provided hand waves through how it maybe could happen, and ends with an Economist just SWAGing that it could have been maybe a dollar an acre or so.
"He estimates that affected farms lost about $1 per acre. Nationally, this equates to an estimated half-billion dollars in lost earning potential, Griffin says."
So yeah, hard to believe was the right call. Very few farms were affected, but if we assume half of the total 900 million acres of farm land were, add 10% to get a round number, and guess it at a dollar per acre, we get the quoted big number.
That’s how all “estimated damages” work. It’s all just made up by some random person who guesstimated a number then multiplied it by the maximum possible people effected, realistic or not.
Yes, it's actually based on an economic model seemingly developed with a detailed understanding of modern farming practices and historical effects of timeline disruptions on yields. It may be approximate but isn't just some random dude guesstimating based on vibes or something.
It's an order of magnitude estimate of the worst case per acre, multiplied by a very course estimate of the number of acres affected, with little or no accounting for the length of the outage, the timing of the outage relative to specific crop-planting times in specific regions, and similar factors. It relies on manufacturer's estimates of the benefit of using their technology to assess the impact of not being able to use the technology. In other words, it's a SWAG.
Consider: the outage may have meant that some equipment would be slower, less accurate, or missing some features, causing time delays and other losses that may or may not be equivalent to using the non-GPS equipment. Or it could have rendered the equipment entirely unusable during the outage. It could even have permanently damaged the equipment (e.g. causing it to drive over an embankment or something). There is no apparent attempt to differentiate these outcomes, which could have significant impact on the estimate.
It's not reasonable because the error bars of each estimate compound and they may not even be normally distributed in the first place.
You should rather convolve probability distributions - assuming factors are independent - and if the IQR covers a huge range, perhaps orders of magnitude even, you should state that.
This seems hard to believe. The link provided hand waves through how it maybe could happen, and ends with an Economist just SWAGing that it could have been maybe a dollar an acre or so.
"He estimates that affected farms lost about $1 per acre. Nationally, this equates to an estimated half-billion dollars in lost earning potential, Griffin says."
So yeah, hard to believe was the right call. Very few farms were affected, but if we assume half of the total 900 million acres of farm land were, add 10% to get a round number, and guess it at a dollar per acre, we get the quoted big number.