Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 34 of 231«123233343536230231»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Totally off-topic thread (Talk about anything.)
Totally off-topic thread
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 31.01.2013, 00:44 | Message # 496
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
That just totally made my day. biggrin




 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 31.01.2013, 09:53 | Message # 497
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
I'm not sure if I understand the significance of your link

I referred to this as an example of things that you can run into when using proxies. I don't think we should attempt to go deeply into this one. Because of the "Nature trick" and "hide the decline" controversy and the role of tree rings in the hockey stick story, there is much discussion out there way too polarised. Which is certainly easily fuelled by that this proxy happens to involve factors that every layman already understands, that tree growth depends on the length and quality of the growing season (which in turn partly relates to temperature, spring temperature in particular I suppose), and other factors like precipitation, sunlight, soil conditions, CO2 concentration and damage from weather events like floods and storms, to name what immediately comes to mind, all of which will influence trees in a large area similarly. But it's by no means obvious to the layman how to extract only the growing season component of that, and from that the annual temperature. Cue the instrumental record. A pity, then, if it doesn't quite line up. Then you need to solve that problem, look for things to throw into the equation that will give you what you look for without contradicting something else. But in order to do so, you also have to assume what you're trying to demonstrate, that the proxy follows temperature. See the problem?

Quote (Watsisname)
Calibrating the proxies by the instrumental record means that we can figure out through empirical data what the proxy/temperature relationships are, and it shows that the proxies really are responding to the temperature changes.

And my point was that when you do this, line up your proxies with the instrumental record, you can't then just say, hey, look how the proxies reproduce the instrumental record! Because you did, in fact, make them do so. They didn't entirely by themselves. The more fitting you need to line up, the more you assume which has to be checked independently. If it's just a scaling issue, you're lucky (you still have to provide a physical explanation for how your proxy works). Your reference should also be subject to similar conditions. For instance, we know that CO2 increases tree growth and the best part of the instrumental record is from a period with entirely different CO2 levels. Hence the if-given-assuming parts of the story are piling up. I do not deny the possibility that a 0.5-1 degree change in a century is the first that the world has seen in 12,000 years, but I question whether the given evidence for the claim is sound, and in the light of the obvious (perhaps more obvious here in high latitudes) that the earth is a dynamic place, the claim should also require extraordinary evidence.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 01.02.2013, 02:19 | Message # 498
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
I apologize for the length of this post, but there's a lot I'd like to cover.

Quote (midtskogen)
I referred to this as an example of things that you can run into when using proxies. I don't think we should attempt to go deeply into this one. Because of the "Nature trick" and "hide the decline" controversy and the role of tree rings in the hockey stick story, there is much discussion out there way too polarised.


I see. As an up-coming scientist, I prefer to listen to scientists, not people who are only interested in hacking their emails and going conspiracy-theory-looney over things that were quoted without proper context. I'd thought the CRU scandal would have died down after the investigations, but evidently not. :/ Anyone who thinks there's some collusion among scientists with the divergence problem must not have read any of the scientific literature about it. It's an open discussion and there's a lot of interesting research being done.

But I digress. The important note for you here is that nobody claims that every proxy is a 100% correct reproduction of temperature. You have focused on tree rings in this discussion, and this isn't too surprising -- tree rings do not depend only on temperature, as you have correctly pointed out. You can find further failures of tree rings such as how they (don't) accurately reflect volcanic eruptions. Again this is why we use multiple proxies and check the agreement between them. Similar idea with hurricane forecasting -- you use multiple models and determine a consensus.

Quote
Cue the instrumental record. A pity, then, if it doesn't quite line up. Then you need to solve that problem, look for things to throw into the equation that will give you what you look for without contradicting something else. But in order to do so, you also have to assume what you're trying to demonstrate, that the proxy follows temperature. See the problem?


Pity? No, it's actually very interesting and we can learn some new things from it. The divergence problem demonstrates that some tree rings stop correlating with temperature for the latter half of the 20th century (and curiously this is about the only time this problem occurs -- leading to the suggestions that either there's an anthropic effect going on, or perhaps it's a result of using young trees.) Until we figure out exactly what's going on we simply disregard those data that fail to maintain correlation. Why? Because they're not acting as proxies! (This is the cause of the ridiculous 'Hide the decline!' stuff that you see from people who aren't involved in climate science). So no, I see any problem. As I explained in my last post, there are additional ways of being sure if the proxy/temperature relation we're using is accurate.

Quote
And my point was that when you do this, line up your proxies with the instrumental record, you can't then just say, hey, look how the proxies reproduce the instrumental record! Because you did, in fact, make them do so.


Your point is incorrect. Your reasoning is good, but the premise is wrong.

We do not simply make them line them up. We use the instrumental record to determine if the proxy is correlating with temperature (a good scientist will also demonstrate the process by which they are related). And because the actual temperatures are known we can quantify the relationship and thus turn the proxy curve into a temperature curve. Ie, it is a two-step process which first requires that we understand how the proxy is behaving. Now, when I say the proxies reproduce the record, this is what I am talking about:

This is a proxy not reproducing the temperature record. (Both fictional, obviously). The proxy shows no apparent dependence on temperature.


This is a proxy reproducing the temperature record. In this example it correlates with the temperature in an inverse way.


Clear now?

Quote
I do not deny the possibility that a 0.5-1 degree change in a century is the first that the world has seen in 12,000 years, but I question whether the given evidence for the claim is sound, and in the light of the obvious (perhaps more obvious here in high latitudes) that the earth is a dynamic place, the claim should also require extraordinary evidence.


I've already talked about how dynamic the Earth is. But the best science we have shows that the global temperatures during the Holocene up to the industrial age were relatively stable compared to the present period of human-caused warming. It is good to ask for evidence, but I think you're not recognizing that it exists. Indeed, there is extraordinary evidence:
-Temperature data
-Atmospheric composition data
-Physics







Edited by Watsisname - Friday, 01.02.2013, 02:29
 
midtskogenDate: Friday, 01.02.2013, 15:39 | Message # 499
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
As an up-coming scientist, I prefer to listen to scientists

And some wanted to hear what scientists say so badly that they hacked their emails. smile

Quote (Watsisname)
The divergence problem demonstrates that some tree rings stop correlating with temperature for the latter half of the 20th century (and curiously this is about the only time this problem occurs -- leading to the suggestions that either there's an anthropic effect going on, or perhaps it's a result of using young trees.)

How exactly do you know it's the only time when direct temperature measurements before the 20th century are scarce or non-existing without assuming indirectly or directly that the proxy is valid before that?

Quote (Watsisname)
Until we figure out exactly what's going on we simply disregard those data that fail to maintain correlation. Why? Because they're not acting as proxies!

It's a dangerous path to cherrypick. And to use circular logic to defend it. They might not act like the proxy you wish, simply because there might be no such proxy, unless you decided there is, but then you've equally decided how the data should be and act.

However, if you mean that we simply should disregard the whole proxy, not just the data that don't fit, then, if you want to take the safe path, I agree. There are other proxies which might pass tests better. Don't throw the data, but leave all of them out for now. But that could be a problem "given the wide use of tree-ring data in temperature reconstructions of the past millennium, of high-resolution paleoclimatology as a whole" to quote one paper that came up through your link.

You'll probably say that other proxies will support the removal of recent tree rings. Well, until we know the physical explanation (and in this case more explanations isn't better), it's hard to guess if and how often they've diverged before and when, so the safest option still would be to remove the whole proxy, hopefully just temporarily.

This is similar to the solar cycle and temperature correlations that have been presented. Until we have independently verified physical explanations for the correlations and the deviations, we must be cautious.

Quote (Watsisname)
We do not simply make them line them up. We use the instrumental record to determine if the proxy is correlating with temperature (a good scientist will also demonstrate the process by which they are related).

I think we're talking a bit past each other here. It's a matter of how straight forward it is to interpret the proxy, how to tell fudge factors and physical properties apart. If you find the text 13.4 °C, tea time, 14th June 1984 embedded in your tree ring, you're pretty fine. If you can't get your proxy to match until you factor in the phase of Venus and how much the monarch of England had for breakfast, you're in deep water even if it then perfectly matches the instrument record and everything else. And now the crucial part: When you try to figure out how to interpret your proxy, you have the answer, you know what you must arrive at, and if you think that wont influence how you interpret, you should rethink. Proxies don't come with an intrinsic instruction manual.

If you're determined that it must be possible to deduce the temperature from tree rings, you can become quite willing to produce solutions to any problems. It's not necessarily a good sign. Remember the geocentric view and the epicycles.

Quote (Watsisname)
It is good to ask for evidence, but I think you're not recognizing that it exists.

We were talking about variations like ±0.2 degrees or less. I think we might have different opinions on how little that is. For instance, it's about the absolute accuracy of modern professional thermometers excluding shielding and siting issues. But also consider that we're talking about surface temperature, something limited to 2D in a 3D world. What if there is a slight change in air or ocean circulation, and suddenly something cold or warm passes through our 2D observation plane and we'll detect a shift even if there was none overall in 3D. Intuitively it seems strange not to expect such phenomena of any significance.

I wish climate science were more self critical about its uncertainties and rush a bit less to publish papers. Look how often you encounter phrases like "could lead to" in climate research (but medical research probably beats them). When we discussed assumptations, you referred to Einstein and what he postulated. But did he ever say that this could (or possibly not) make clocks appear to have slowed down if sent through space and returned? Did Newton say that his work could explain Kepler's laws? Hypotheses weigh no more than number of ways to contradict them, and coulds are hard to disprove, since it implies that you don't only have to provide contradicting data, but also a better, alternative hypothesis. It somewhat shifts the burden of proof. I wish papers on climate could be more specific on how to they can be disproven. If they can't because climate is inherently uncertain, the scientists must come to terms with practising a lightweight science. smile

Added (01.02.2013, 18:39)
---------------------------------------------

Quote (Watsisname)
I'd thought the CRU scandal would have died down after the investigations, but evidently not.

Some additional thoughts. I'm not sure what the mandate of these investigations was, but I've no reason no believe that any of the scientists involved ever have intentionally presented scientific claims for which there was no firm scientific basis. On the contrary, I have an impression from some of the e-mails that I've seen that they've taken much care to make sure that they don't go further than that. But the science also offer some slack because of the unknowns. So it's no doubt possible to use that and tell the public a somewhat different story if you simply highlight different things, still within what you have a scientific basis for. When something has gone political, this is to be expected.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
WatsisnameDate: Friday, 01.02.2013, 22:23 | Message # 500
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Hacking a scientist's emails and then quoting things without the appropriate context does not seem like the actions of a person who is genuinely interested or skeptical. dry

Quote (midtskogen)
How exactly do you know it's the only time when direct temperature measurements before the 20th century are scarce or non-existing without assuming indirectly or directly that the proxy is valid before that?


Careful, I said it was about the only time, and I gave you another example of where tree rings can be faulty. But how do we know when they work and when they don't? Because:
-we can compare with other proxies
-we can examine how they handle known climate changes

Quote (midtskogen)
It's a dangerous path to cherrypick. And to use circular logic to defend it. They might not act like the proxy you wish, simply because there might be no such proxy, unless you decided there is, but then you've equally decided how the data should be and act.


It is not cherrypicking, circular logic, or deciding how the proxy should act, if you can check it through multiple independent methods. If we had only one proxy, no understanding of the underlying processes, or no instrumental temperature record, then your statement would be valid. (But thanks for suggesting that the people who do this kind of work for a living are so misguided on basic scientific practices; that's very nice of you and I'm glad you understand the subject better than they do.)

As for your suggestion that we disregard all tree ring data, which by and large agrees very well with the other data, simply because it fails under certain conditions which can be determined independently? Absolutely not. That would be completely ridiculous.

Quote
I think we're talking a bit past each other here. It's a matter of how straight forward it is to interpret the proxy, how to tell fudge factors and physical properties apart. If you find the text 13.4 °C, tea time, 14th June 1984 embedded in your tree ring, you're pretty fine. If you can't get your proxy to match until you factor in the phase of Venus and how much the monarch of England had for breakfast, you're in deep water even if it then perfectly matches the instrument record and everything else. And now the crucial part: When you try to figure out how to interpret your proxy, you have the answer, you know what you must arrive at, and if you think that wont influence how you interpret, you should rethink. Proxies don't come with an intrinsic instruction manual.


Lol, ok, so you're concerned about the fine details. In that case I simply cannot help you. I think you might be in need of actually studying how this type of work is done before you assume it's all a bunch of guesswork, fudging, and foolishness.

Quote
If you're determined that it must be possible to deduce the temperature from tree rings, you can become quite willing to produce solutions to any problems. It's not necessarily a good sign. Remember the geocentric view and the epicycles.


We do not believe it is possible to deduce temperature from tree rings because we want to. We believe it because that's what the evidence tells us. They are not perfect, and nobody claims otherwise, but they are by and large extremely good.

Quote
We were talking about variations like ±0.2 degrees or less. I think we might have different opinions on how little that is. [etc]


There have been much greater than ±0.2°C variations during the pre-industrial / post-glacial period. A single volcanic eruption can change temperature by a full degree C. Also, the 3D nature of the atmosphere and relationships between it and the other earth systems are understood better than you might think. I'd recommend a course or textbook on atmospheric science; I am currently taking one and it's a great subject.

Quote
I wish climate science were more self critical about its uncertainties and rush a bit less to publish papers. Look how often you encounter phrases like "could lead to" in climate research (but medical research probably beats them). [etc]


Climate scientists are generally very self critical of their own work and of others' work in the field. It is no different than any other science. When they are uncertain about something, they will say so. When they are confident about something, they will say so. Have you read the language of the IPCC reports? They are extremely diligent about what they mean with regards to uncertainty.

It would be wonderful if we could have a serious discussion about the real uncertainties in climate change with the public, because they are much more interesting and relevant than the misconceptions that keep flying around the internet and the news reports. sad





 
DisasterpieceDate: Friday, 01.02.2013, 23:25 | Message # 501
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 640
Status: Offline
Wasn't 0.97 supposed to release today?




I play teh spase engien
 
WatsisnameDate: Saturday, 02.02.2013, 00:07 | Message # 502
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
No, Space Engineer has not set a release date. It may be soon though, so stay tuned.




 
DisasterpieceDate: Saturday, 02.02.2013, 04:27 | Message # 503
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 640
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
No, Space Engineer has not set a release date.

Werdnaforever has dared fool the great Disasterpiece. He has made himself an enemy, an enemy that stands around every corner he turns, watches him where he thinks he is safe and strikes when he is least expecting it. Werdnaforever will regret this day, and he will pay dearly, in fact I may not even subject him to physical pain, I might blindfold him in my torture room and cut my other prisoner to pieces, and I'll let Werdna's imagination tell him what's happening, tell him all the horrible fates that could await him, and then I'll disappear. For the rest of his life he'll check behind him at night, flinch at every sound and grimace every time his door opens. You will regret your actions Werdna, I know you will.

Added (02.02.2013, 07:27)
---------------------------------------------
Do NOT be alarmed, that was a joke. Or most of it at least. biggrin




I play teh spase engien
 
midtskogenDate: Saturday, 02.02.2013, 09:04 | Message # 504
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote (DoctorOfSpace)
But how do we know when they work and when they don't? Because:
-we can compare with other proxies
-we can examine how they handle known climate changes

I commented on the other proxies in the last post, arguing that we also need to know what the physical explanation for the divergence is.
Your link on known climate changes marks large volcanic eruptions. So we know what those look like in tree rings, which doesn't necessarily mean that we know what other types of cooling and warming events look like. Rather, the signal of volcanic events might differ somewhat from other temperature changes.

Quote (Watsisname)
(But thanks for suggesting that the people who do this kind of work for a living are so misguided on basic scientific practices; that's very nice of you and I'm glad you understand the subject better than they do.)

I meant that your statement was suggesting cherrypicking and the logic was circular, because you said that tree ring data that didn't fit the story could be thrown away because they don't act as a proxy. It may be what you do for other reasons, but it's by no means a sufficient reason. Ultimately all reasoning is circular with non-contradicting statements within, but we aim for the big circles. I know you meant that there are other reasons, other data and proxies.

Quote (Watsisname)
Lol, ok, so you're concerned about the fine details. In that case I simply cannot help you. I think you might be in need of actually studying how this type of work is done before you assume it's all a bunch of guesswork, fudging, and foolishness.

No, not the fine detail. I'm trying to bring in some philosophy of science here. If the provocation of questioning something that could support the mainstream view distracts you, I'm happy to use an example from the opposing view instead.

We know that cold periods in at least some parts of the world have coincided somewhat with periods of few or no sunspots, and we have a fairly long record of sunspot counting. So it's a natural thing to investigate if we can use the sunspot data as a proxy for temperature. At least in Europe we have a reasonable temperature coverage back to around 1850, so we have several solar cycles to work with.

We have sunspot numbers, and we know what to arrive at (temperature). So we start the search. Does the sunspot number correlate with the concurrent temperature? No. Does the solar max level correspond to temperature? Nope. Does the solar min level correspond to temperature? Still no. Does the length of the solar cycle correspond to temperature? No yet again. Does the length of the previous solar cycle correspond to temperature? Eureka, we have a proxy. Then we need to find the physical explanation for this. Cosmic ray modulation and cloud formation has been proposed, and many are working on the details. But there is a slight problem. If we use temperature records prior to 1850, the correlation gets weak for some cycles. We have a divergence problem. Perhaps it can be explained by the scarcity of records before that, or perhaps other drivers happened to dominate in these periods. But since that can be looked at independently, and what we have after 1850 agrees well with other proxies, we'll simply ignore the data that don't act as a proxy for now.

Do you see the problem with this methodology that I see? What I'm most concerned about is that you know what you want to arrive at the whole time, and that is going to give a bias.

If your response is that scientists like Mann are fine scientists not subject to bias like Humlum et al. who are known for flawed research practices and dishonesty, fine, but that's totally beside the point and not only an argumentum ad verecundiam, but also ad hominem.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI


Edited by midtskogen - Saturday, 02.02.2013, 09:45
 
SpyroDate: Sunday, 03.02.2013, 02:18 | Message # 505
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 162
Status: Offline
Quote
When the robot apocalypse happens, at least they'll do it in style

biggrin
BTW how do you post videos? Sorry if this has been asked before, i'm a total noob. smile





I'm back, but am I here to stay? Hopefully!
 
werdnaforeverDate: Sunday, 03.02.2013, 04:23 | Message # 506
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 897
Status: Offline
Well, I finally did it. I got a .org URL for my website. 10 dollars a year- it's literally dirt cheap (can't think of a better expression). I can afford that. Why I haven't done this before is a question I cannot answer. I guess I never considered how cheap it was.

So, maybe I could have gotten it for a few dollars less somewhere else, but whatever.

Having a .org URL vs. a stupid .blogspot.com (it's so long!) URL is just... amazing. It's so cool! It's like it's a website now, and not a silly blog. A website! W - E - B - S - I- T - E ! A whebbe-sight? Not a blog... blog rhymes with smog for a reason.

EDIT:
Despite it's flaws, I love this movie.


Edited by werdnaforever - Sunday, 03.02.2013, 06:34
 
SalvoDate: Sunday, 03.02.2013, 16:34 | Message # 507
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline


Very rare disease

Attachments: 4154562.jpg(49Kb)





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)


Edited by Salvo - Sunday, 03.02.2013, 16:35
 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 04.02.2013, 00:48 | Message # 508
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote (midtskogen)
I commented on the other proxies in the last post, arguing that we also need to know what the physical explanation for the divergence is.


You did, yes, and I explained why I disagreed with your reasoning. Perhaps we are at a conversational impasse here -- what can I do to help us understand each other better? If it helps I'll summarize my thoughts as best as I can:

Would understanding the causes of divergence be interesting and lead to further advances in the relevant fields? Yes, absolutely, and it is great that it is being researched. Does not understanding it mean we should disregard tree rings as a proxy for temperature? No, certainly not, because it is a part of a set of independent methods for determining temperature wherein it by and large performs extremely well, and we have a good understanding of the relationship between tree rings and temperature.

And perhaps a look at an analogous example would be suitable:
There are numerous dating techniques used in geochronology, one of which is radiometric (for which there is also a large subset). Yet there are cases where radiometric dating gives erroneous results, sometimes for reasons that are not understood. Should we therefore disregard radiometric dating? Why or why not?

Quote (midtskogen)
Your link on known climate changes marks large volcanic eruptions. So we know what those look like in tree rings, which doesn't necessarily mean that we know what other types of cooling and warming events look like. Rather, the signal of volcanic events might differ somewhat from other temperature changes.


They are an example of a powerful and rapid change in global temperature, are they not? The difference in their signal compared to other causes of temperature change is to be expected. Our ability to see how they affect temperature (especially thanks to big eruptions during the instrumental record) and test how the proxies respond was the point I was making there. The article you link is great by the way; that's exactly what I was talking about earlier with how tree rings generally under-represent eruptions.

If you prefer to see response to other types of temperature changes, then what types of natural variability would you like to consider?

By the way, a while ago you raised a question about the degree of temporal uncertainty in pre-instrumental-era temperature reconstructions; and that maybe this could explain why the record doesn't show AGW-style changes in temperature. Well here you see the proxies showing a response to short-period influences, so the temporal uncertainty is not nearly bad enough for that to be possible. It was a good idea though.

Quote (midtskogen)
I meant that your statement was suggesting cherrypicking and the logic was circular [etc]

Okay, I thought the context of my statement was clear enough. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Quote (midtskogen)
I'm trying to bring in some philosophy of science here. If the provocation of questioning something that could support the mainstream view distracts you, I'm happy to use an example from the opposing view instead.


I’m open to all questions and comments on matters of scientific practice, whether I agree with the topic in question or not. Blatant mischaracterizations of how scientists do their work will be met with disdain, however. wink

Quote
[example of a methodology]
Do you see the problem with this methodology that I see? What I'm most concerned about is that you know what you want to arrive at the whole time, and that is going to give a bias.


This is an excellent exercise, and sure, I’ll be happy to go over it with you. It ought to be a pedagogically rich experience. smile

We observe that there appears to be a relationship between sunspot number and temperature at least on regional scales. So we formulate the hypothesis that sunspot number is correlated to planetary temperature. This raises a couple questions:
1: Just to be clear, we ought to specify at the outset if we expect a correlation to mean that sunspots are a big driver of temperature. Probably yes in this case, right? A study whose goal is simply to find correlation between things is fairly useless and uninteresting, and expecting the opposite (that temperature drives sunspots) is absurd.

2: Have we demonstrated why we expect this relationship to occur beyond pointing out the observations we began with? An analysis of the physics involved would be a very good idea before we continue with our research. Otherwise we may be suffering a ‘correlation doesn’t mean causality’ fallacy.

We then check for a correlation, and we do not succeed. We then try several different measures of solar activity, and are met with more failures before we find one that works.

3: Our hypothesis has failed multiple times; this is fairly disturbing. Why did this particular aspect of solar activity succeed and the others did not? Have we given adequate discussion for the failed correlations? Question (2) reapplies here too, for each time we looked at a new aspect.

4: Is our methodology robust? Is our dataset large enough for us to be confident that the correlation we found is not just a coincidence due to trying to find correlations between many different things?

Having found correlation, we now seek to find a physical explanation for it (influence of cosmic rays and clouds.)

5: Verification of our hypothesis now requires that we verify these physical explanations we have devised for them ad hoc. Other researchers will ask us: Have we done so? What were our methods? What’s our confidence level? Are our results still valid if we increase the spatial extent of the temperature data we use? What is the nature of the regional effect of solar activity on temperature, and what happens when we consider other regions and the whole Earth? Etc.

6: If we are to believe that our results do show that solar activity is the main driver of the temperature changes, then we face a contradiction with the results of radiative physics and atmospheric composition. We ought to address this contradiction.

Quote
We have a divergence problem. Perhaps it can be explained by the scarcity of records before that, or perhaps other drivers happened to dominate in these periods. But since that can be looked at independently, and what we have after 1850 agrees well with other proxies, we'll simply ignore the data that don't act as a proxy for now.


7: A divergence problem at this stage is a pretty big deal, because we have not yet validated our premise of the solar-cycle / temperature relationship. Question (4) applies here again as well.

8: If the solar cycle is the driver of temperature, and temperature is a driver of proxies, then the proxies are indirectly driven by the solar cycle and are not independent. Saying they agree with each other or can be checked independently is therefore misleading.

If this is unclear, replace ‘solar cycle’ with ‘tree rings’, reverse the relationship with temperature, and check if the logic still holds.

Quote
If your response is that scientists like Mann are fine scientists not subject to bias like Humlum et al. who are known for flawed research practices and dishonesty, fine, but that's totally beside the point and not only an argumentum ad verecundiam, but also ad hominem.


I do not claim that anyone is immune to bias, and that goes for Mann, you, and I as well. We are inherently biased creatures and it is very difficult if not impossible to avoid it completely. But if a scientist talks about or publishes something for which the methods are unsound, or the conclusions are far beyond the scope of what the data can support, then this should be questioned. Yes, I have said that Humlum et al. are known for this sort of thing, and that’s because they have built up a reputation for it. That is not to say that they do not have very valuable contributions to science, however.







Edited by Watsisname - Monday, 04.02.2013, 00:54
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Monday, 04.02.2013, 01:24 | Message # 509
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote (werdnaforever)
Having a .org URL vs. a stupid .blogspot.com (it's so long!) URL is just... amazing.

Maybe you should change the hyperlink in your sig now.

Quote (Spyro)
BTW how do you post videos? Sorry if this has been asked before, i'm a total noob.

[video]

Works with Youtube and Vimeo. No other sites that I know of.

Protip: Click the "+" in the post editor toolbar to see all the BB codes and how to use them.








All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Monday, 04.02.2013, 01:47
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 04.02.2013, 06:52 | Message # 510
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Online
Quote (HarbingerDawn)
image



Globalist banker illuminati mason reptilians using mind control signals sent through the TV turning us all into slaves for the new world order.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB


Edited by DoctorOfSpace - Monday, 04.02.2013, 06:54
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Totally off-topic thread (Talk about anything.)
Page 34 of 231«123233343536230231»
Search: