German macro: how it's different and why that matters. EPC Discussion Paper, May 2016

Do the macroeconomics of the German political establishment really differ from standard western macroeconomics? That question was the starting point for the seminar on ‘German macro: How it’s Different and Why that Matters’, which was held at Heriot-Watt University in December 2015, with financial support from the Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE) and the Money, Macro & Finance Research Group (MMF). This ebook, edited by George Bratsiotis and David Cobham, is the result of that exercise; six of the papers were presented at the seminar in earlier versions, and the editors sought some additional papers to complete the range of perspectives offered. The authors all sought out to discover whether or not there is something unique about German macroeconomics, and in what ways it differs from standard western macroeconomics; is it true that the former neglects demand management (although it may be quite interventionist in other ways), rejects debt relief and emphasises structural reform designed to improve competitiveness as the (only) key to economic growth? How much of whatever difference exists is due to a well worked out set of ideas in the form of Ordoliberalism? In what way does it relate to Germany’s own experiences in different periods? And how far is this the result of political preferences and how much do the idiosyncrasies of these German views matter, for the development of the Eurozone and indeed the health of the German economy

Autonomous Coordination of Science Observations Using Multiple Spacecraft

This software provides capabilities for autonomous cross-cueing and coordinated observations between multiple orbital and landed assets. Previous work has been done in re-tasking a single Earth orbiter or a Mars rover in response to that craft detecting a science event. This work enables multiple spacecraft to communicate (over a network designed for deep-space communications) and autonomously coordinate the characterization of such a science event. This work investigates a new paradigm of space science campaigns where opportunistic science observations are autonomously coordinated among multiple spacecraft. In this paradigm, opportunistic science detections can be cued by multiple assets where a second asset is requested to take additional observations characterizing the identified surface feature or event. To support this new paradigm, an autonomous science system for multiple spacecraft assets was integrated with the Interplanetary Network DTN (Delay Tolerant Network) to provide communication between spacecraft assets. This technology enables new mission concepts that are not feasible with current technology. The ability to rapidly coordinate activities across spacecraft without requiring ground in the loop enables rapid reaction to dynamic events across platforms, such as a survey instrument followed by a targeted high resolution instrument, as well as regular simultaneous observations

On the alleged simplicity of impure proof

Roughly, a proof of a theorem, is “pure” if it draws only on what is “close” or “intrinsic” to that theorem. Mathematicians employ a variety of terms to identify pure proofs, saying that a pure proof is one that avoids what is “extrinsic,” “extraneous,” “distant,” “remote,” “alien,” or “foreign” to the problem or theorem under investigation. In the background of these attributions is the view that there is a distance measure (or a variety of such measures) between mathematical statements and proofs. Mathematicians have paid little attention to specifying such distance measures precisely because in practice certain methods of proof have seemed self- evidently impure by design: think for instance of analytic geometry and analytic number theory. By contrast, mathematicians have paid considerable attention to whether such impurities are a good thing or to be avoided, and some have claimed that they are valuable because generally impure proofs are simpler than pure proofs. This article is an investigation of this claim, formulated more precisely by proof- theoretic means. After assembling evidence from proof theory that may be thought to support this claim, we will argue that on the contrary this evidence does not support the claim

How Certain are We of the Uncertainties in Recent Ozone Profile Trend Assessments of Merged Limbo Ccultation Records? Challenges and Possible Ways Forward

Most recent assessments of long-term changes in the vertical distribution of ozone (by e.g. WMO and SI2N) rely on data sets that integrate observations by multiple instruments. Several merged satellite ozone profile records have been developed over the past few years; each considers a particular set of instruments and adopts a particular merging strategy. Their intercomparison by Tummon et al. revealed that the current merging schemes are not sufficiently refined to correct for all major differences between the limb/occultation records. This shortcoming introduces uncertainties that need to be known to obtain a sound interpretation of the different satellite-based trend studies. In practice however, producing realistic uncertainty estimates is an intricate task which depends on a sufficiently detailed understanding of the characteristics of each contributing data record and on the subsequent interplay and propagation of these through the merging scheme. Our presentation discusses these challenges in the context of limb/occultation ozone profile records, but they are equally relevant for other instruments and atmospheric measurements. We start by showing how the NDACC and GAW-affiliated ground-based networks of ozonesonde and lidar instruments allowed us to characterize fourteen limb/occultation ozone profile records, together providing a global view over the last three decades. Our prime focus will be on techniques to estimate long-term drift since our results suggest this is the main driver of the major trend differences between the merged data sets. The single-instrument drift estimates are then used for a tentative estimate of the systematic uncertainty in the profile trends from merged data records. We conclude by reflecting on possible further steps needed to improve the merging algorithms and to obtain a better characterization of the uncertainties involved