Why would you expect that? Just because you've never written code that way doesn't mean nobody does. I have. It didn't matter because it was private and nobody was going to see it, so as long as the author knew what was going on, who cares?
The documentation of what's been done is in the publications, not the notes or the source code.
Rather more likely to be some bug or glitch than actually have a beam at that energy. I doubt they'll be bold enough to ramp up the magnets to full strength just yet.
No it wouldn't. You are *seriously* underestimating the cost of large scale solar. The Desertec project estimates 400 billion euros to provide 15% of Europe's electricity.
What's CM or version management, and why is it relevant to what we're discussing here?
And why should what's appropriate for one area of work be equally appropriate for another? I have no idea who you work for or what data you keep, or what would be appropriate in that case, but I'm not going to just assume it's wrong because science doesn't work that way.
Do you have any arguments other than "we don't do it that way in our field"? Journals, which are the most important record of scientific results, are carefully archived in any case.
They didn't set up the weather stations themselves, just went and collected the data from them.
Particle physics generally doesn't publish the data. When I was working in that area we didn't, anyway. Reproduction of results is one of the reasons that the LHC has two general purpose experiments (ATLAS and CMS) rather than just the one. In those huge collaborations there's basically a database of collisions that different groups analyse, so there's also internal reproduction of results. While not as good as having different data to work with, it's better than nothing.
It wouldn't be practical to publish the data anyway - there's simply far too much of it. And even that isn't strictly the rawest data - most of the collisions aren't stored, only the ones that pass certain trigger criteria. So, in a sense, filtered data is *all* there is.
No, it's not flawed. You can't just *assume* that the factor didn't matter before 1960, but it's certainly possible, and if you can provide evidence to support that, what's wrong with it?
I was responding to the statement "If it is valid before 1960, it is valid after 1960".
A: "Behold, I have arrived at a shocking result which I have published in this paper!" B: "How did you do it?" A: "I won't tell you. You'll have to guess."
Papers have to include a description of how the conclusions were arrived at. That's why "conclusions" is only the last section of a paper, not the whole thing. The principle is that someone can read the paper, go off and do an equivalent experiment of their own and obtain the same result.
The actual raw data doesn't matter. What does you gain by having it? If the result is really revolutionary, people will be rushing to try to independently reproduce it and get a paper of their own. If it can't be reproduced despite much effort, the original paper doesn't look credible.
All your links were a) from Climate Audit and b) referred to obtaining data. My whole point was that data is *not* required for reproducing results - just a description of how the data was obtained and what analysis methods were used. Then someone can go and collect their own data and conduct their own analysis.
If they don't publish enough data to support their research, you can say "I don't believe your result" - and in fact journals do require you to publish enough detail and background before they'll accept your paper. If you don't provide enough detail for someone to be able to reproduce your result, your paper will (well, should) be rejected.
Replication of a result means independent replication, not necessarily using the same data or software. A lot of people here seem confused on this point - scientific results are not dependent on the person who did them, so they should be reproducible without resort to the original work.
Occasionally there are some where there simply is no way of getting equivalent data, e.g. if your result depends on some observation of an astronomical event which only you recorded, but that doesn't seem to apply here. Someone else could do the same thing as the CRU team did. Given the importance of the result, this has most likely been done a long time ago. I haven't checked, but that would be typical of an important result - it's rarely the sole example for long.
Except that legitimate scientists don't pester for data via legal force, such as FoI requests. They may request it, or not believe results if it's not provided, but the fact that they're resorting to such means suggests bad intent.
Using the force of law to conduct science? Not legitimate in my book.
I'm not sure Slashdot has a particularly large science contingent. Compsci isn't an experimental science in the sense that we're discussing here, and Bachelors or even Masters degrees in the hard sciences generally don't include a significant research element. I didn't really have an understanding of research techniques after my physics degree, that didn't come until my PhD.
I am an AGW skeptic. Not a denialist, but a skeptic. I'm not saying that it's untrue, but that I want to see the evidence.
Well, it's all published if you're really interested, and sceptic implies an interest - otherwise "apathetic" would be a more appropriate term.
Personally, I don't care enough to spend months reading hundreds to thousands of climate science papers for hours per day, so I'm limiting myself to debunking the more outrageous denialist arguments. The observation that prompted my remark was that the most strident of the anti-AGW proponents were typically strongly liberterian or conservative, and I've seen convincing evidence that their political views are strongly influencing the way they assess the evidence. I'm not saying that all libertarians/conservatives do that, but there's definitely a correlation.
This is the traditional way that science is done of course. Someone publishes a radical idea or discovery, and others try and reproduce or show flaws in it. This has never required the keeping of raw data (though it may be good practice) or publication of analysis code. The whole point is that it *doesn't* depend on any individual aspects, or something specific to a particular scientist. This is why I feel that all the demands for source code and raw data are barking up the wrong tree - science already has a better way of verifying results.
Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do.
Are you reading a different Slashdot to me? Not only is there a large and very vocal right-wing (typically Libertarian) element, it tends to be that element which comprises most of the climate "sceptics". I'm not surprised, as there's inevitably less evidence and history for such philosophies than for conventional political stances, so if your political views tend towards the extremes (in either direction) then you have to put more weight on ideology and less on accumulated evidence. And the implications of climate climage are that at least some form of collective decision making will be required to deal with it, which is of course anathema to those of that philosophy.
Science doesn't "speak for itself" when it comes to influencing popular opinion. If it did, we still wouldn't have a large fraction of the population disbelieving evolution.
Any work that is based on data no longer available should not be considered valid.
If applied generally, that would require throwing out huge amounts of established science, not just in the area of climate research. How about doing it the traditional way of independently reproducing the result (or a similar one), with different data, different code, different researchers? In fact, if this hasn't been done already I'd be surprised.
That's a complete pile of wibble. "Climatologic radiation balance diagrams are nonsense, since they...do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams". WTF???? A fine example of "when you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".
FFS, not this shit again. Frankly, given the number of times this has been pointed out, I can only assume that people still mentioning it are wilfully ignoring anything that contradicts them.
However, one last time. It's commonplace to have multiple versions of analysis code with variations including "artificial" changes. I've done it lots of times, mostly for testing purposes - it's quite useful [1] to know how the output of your analysis depends on variations in the input. Only a small fraction of the code in existence was actually used to process the data "for real". Unless you have some evidence that a) arbitrary modifications were made to published data without explanation in the publication and b) any such modifications were not scientifically justified, please stop with this ridiculous and discredited point.
[1] By which I mean "essential for any non-trivial analysis"
Ethernet. You can approach 99% utilization on Token-Ring (I have on a production LAN for weeks on end) where Ethernet is pretty much congested arount 16%. Don't believe me, ask around [com.com].
Hang on, that hasn't been true since switches replaced hubs, thus eliminating the collision problem.
Firstly, he hasn't, he's temporarily stepped aside for the investigation. Secondly, even if he had, have you really never heard of any examples of someone having to resign for political reasons rather than for a performance-related one? If so, you can't have been following politics for long. Empirical truth is not affected by political events.
Finally, even if he was guilty of everything you claim, it would not prove a lack of global warming. 1) If that was the *only* evidence of global warming, it would merely revert the status of knowledge to "we don't know". 2) it isn't the only evidence, other independent researchers have plenty of evidence of their own.
But again, there's about as much evidence for that research being faked as there is of a 9/11 conspiracy or faked moon landings. i.e. if you really want to see it, you'll find some way of justifying your view, no matter how tenuous.
The Carnot limit applies to any heat engine, no matter how it works. Heat -> work means no efficiency higher than Carnot, sorry. Your "minus entropy" part gives that away really, as that's what's responsible for the Carnot limit in any case. Entropy change of X = heat transferred into X / temperature of X. So taking heat out of something causes an entropy decrease, hence the need for a cold sink to create an entropy increase so the overall entropy change is positive.
Go and find other people who have recorded the weather data? Go to the same sources that the original researchers did? They didn't set up their own weather monitoring network you know.
Resolution of this apparent paradox lies in the fact that events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another. This is usually illustrated with a (presumably very fast) train passing through a station. If both were at rest, the train would be a bit longer than the platform.
For an observer on the platform, the train is contracted so appears the same length as the platform - so the front of the train is aligned with the front of the platform at the same time as the rear of the train is aligned with the rear.
For an observer on the train, the platform is contracted so it remains shorter than the train. However, the front of the train reaches the front of the platform at a different time to the rear of the train reaching the rear of the platform.
For both observers, a clock in the other reference frame will appear to be running slowly (time dilation).
Therefore, both observers views make physical sense, and indeed each one can calculate what the situation would be for the other one. But you need all three (relativity of simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction) for it all to be consistent.
All of that is true, but the issue is who benefits from the productivity and who is harmed by the pollution. The high productivity of the West mostly benefits the West, whereas the consequences of the emissions will hit the poorest areas of the word the hardest.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you expect that? Just because you've never written code that way doesn't mean nobody does. I have. It didn't matter because it was private and nobody was going to see it, so as long as the author knew what was going on, who cares?
The documentation of what's been done is in the publications, not the notes or the source code.
Rather more likely to be some bug or glitch than actually have a beam at that energy. I doubt they'll be bold enough to ramp up the magnets to full strength just yet.
No it wouldn't. You are *seriously* underestimating the cost of large scale solar. The Desertec project estimates 400 billion euros to provide 15% of Europe's electricity.
What's CM or version management, and why is it relevant to what we're discussing here?
And why should what's appropriate for one area of work be equally appropriate for another? I have no idea who you work for or what data you keep, or what would be appropriate in that case, but I'm not going to just assume it's wrong because science doesn't work that way.
Do you have any arguments other than "we don't do it that way in our field"? Journals, which are the most important record of scientific results, are carefully archived in any case.
They didn't set up the weather stations themselves, just went and collected the data from them.
Particle physics generally doesn't publish the data. When I was working in that area we didn't, anyway. Reproduction of results is one of the reasons that the LHC has two general purpose experiments (ATLAS and CMS) rather than just the one. In those huge collaborations there's basically a database of collisions that different groups analyse, so there's also internal reproduction of results. While not as good as having different data to work with, it's better than nothing.
It wouldn't be practical to publish the data anyway - there's simply far too much of it. And even that isn't strictly the rawest data - most of the collisions aren't stored, only the ones that pass certain trigger criteria. So, in a sense, filtered data is *all* there is.
No, it's not flawed. You can't just *assume* that the factor didn't matter before 1960, but it's certainly possible, and if you can provide evidence to support that, what's wrong with it?
I was responding to the statement "If it is valid before 1960, it is valid after 1960".
A: "Behold, I have arrived at a shocking result which I have published in this paper!"
B: "How did you do it?"
A: "I won't tell you. You'll have to guess."
Papers have to include a description of how the conclusions were arrived at. That's why "conclusions" is only the last section of a paper, not the whole thing. The principle is that someone can read the paper, go off and do an equivalent experiment of their own and obtain the same result.
The actual raw data doesn't matter. What does you gain by having it? If the result is really revolutionary, people will be rushing to try to independently reproduce it and get a paper of their own. If it can't be reproduced despite much effort, the original paper doesn't look credible.
All your links were a) from Climate Audit and b) referred to obtaining data. My whole point was that data is *not* required for reproducing results - just a description of how the data was obtained and what analysis methods were used. Then someone can go and collect their own data and conduct their own analysis.
If they don't publish enough data to support their research, you can say "I don't believe your result" - and in fact journals do require you to publish enough detail and background before they'll accept your paper. If you don't provide enough detail for someone to be able to reproduce your result, your paper will (well, should) be rejected.
Replication of a result means independent replication, not necessarily using the same data or software. A lot of people here seem confused on this point - scientific results are not dependent on the person who did them, so they should be reproducible without resort to the original work.
Occasionally there are some where there simply is no way of getting equivalent data, e.g. if your result depends on some observation of an astronomical event which only you recorded, but that doesn't seem to apply here. Someone else could do the same thing as the CRU team did. Given the importance of the result, this has most likely been done a long time ago. I haven't checked, but that would be typical of an important result - it's rarely the sole example for long.
Except that legitimate scientists don't pester for data via legal force, such as FoI requests. They may request it, or not believe results if it's not provided, but the fact that they're resorting to such means suggests bad intent.
Using the force of law to conduct science? Not legitimate in my book.
If it is valid before 1960, it is valid after 1960.
Not if there's some environmental factor skewing the results that's significant after 1960 but not before it.
I'm not sure Slashdot has a particularly large science contingent. Compsci isn't an experimental science in the sense that we're discussing here, and Bachelors or even Masters degrees in the hard sciences generally don't include a significant research element. I didn't really have an understanding of research techniques after my physics degree, that didn't come until my PhD.
I am an AGW skeptic. Not a denialist, but a skeptic. I'm not saying that it's untrue, but that I want to see the evidence.
Well, it's all published if you're really interested, and sceptic implies an interest - otherwise "apathetic" would be a more appropriate term.
Personally, I don't care enough to spend months reading hundreds to thousands of climate science papers for hours per day, so I'm limiting myself to debunking the more outrageous denialist arguments. The observation that prompted my remark was that the most strident of the anti-AGW proponents were typically strongly liberterian or conservative, and I've seen convincing evidence that their political views are strongly influencing the way they assess the evidence. I'm not saying that all libertarians/conservatives do that, but there's definitely a correlation.
This is the traditional way that science is done of course. Someone publishes a radical idea or discovery, and others try and reproduce or show flaws in it. This has never required the keeping of raw data (though it may be good practice) or publication of analysis code. The whole point is that it *doesn't* depend on any individual aspects, or something specific to a particular scientist. This is why I feel that all the demands for source code and raw data are barking up the wrong tree - science already has a better way of verifying results.
Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do.
Are you reading a different Slashdot to me? Not only is there a large and very vocal right-wing (typically Libertarian) element, it tends to be that element which comprises most of the climate "sceptics". I'm not surprised, as there's inevitably less evidence and history for such philosophies than for conventional political stances, so if your political views tend towards the extremes (in either direction) then you have to put more weight on ideology and less on accumulated evidence. And the implications of climate climage are that at least some form of collective decision making will be required to deal with it, which is of course anathema to those of that philosophy.
Science doesn't "speak for itself" when it comes to influencing popular opinion. If it did, we still wouldn't have a large fraction of the population disbelieving evolution.
Any work that is based on data no longer available should not be considered valid.
If applied generally, that would require throwing out huge amounts of established science, not just in the area of climate research. How about doing it the traditional way of independently reproducing the result (or a similar one), with different data, different code, different researchers? In fact, if this hasn't been done already I'd be surprised.
That's a complete pile of wibble. "Climatologic radiation balance diagrams are nonsense, since they...do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams". WTF???? A fine example of "when you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".
FFS, not this shit again. Frankly, given the number of times this has been pointed out, I can only assume that people still mentioning it are wilfully ignoring anything that contradicts them.
However, one last time. It's commonplace to have multiple versions of analysis code with variations including "artificial" changes. I've done it lots of times, mostly for testing purposes - it's quite useful [1] to know how the output of your analysis depends on variations in the input. Only a small fraction of the code in existence was actually used to process the data "for real". Unless you have some evidence that a) arbitrary modifications were made to published data without explanation in the publication and b) any such modifications were not scientifically justified, please stop with this ridiculous and discredited point.
[1] By which I mean "essential for any non-trivial analysis"
Ethernet. You can approach 99% utilization on Token-Ring (I have on a production LAN for weeks on end) where Ethernet is pretty much congested arount 16%. Don't believe me, ask around [com.com].
Hang on, that hasn't been true since switches replaced hubs, thus eliminating the collision problem.
Firstly, he hasn't, he's temporarily stepped aside for the investigation. Secondly, even if he had, have you really never heard of any examples of someone having to resign for political reasons rather than for a performance-related one? If so, you can't have been following politics for long. Empirical truth is not affected by political events.
Finally, even if he was guilty of everything you claim, it would not prove a lack of global warming. 1) If that was the *only* evidence of global warming, it would merely revert the status of knowledge to "we don't know". 2) it isn't the only evidence, other independent researchers have plenty of evidence of their own.
But again, there's about as much evidence for that research being faked as there is of a 9/11 conspiracy or faked moon landings. i.e. if you really want to see it, you'll find some way of justifying your view, no matter how tenuous.
The Carnot limit applies to any heat engine, no matter how it works. Heat -> work means no efficiency higher than Carnot, sorry. Your "minus entropy" part gives that away really, as that's what's responsible for the Carnot limit in any case. Entropy change of X = heat transferred into X / temperature of X. So taking heat out of something causes an entropy decrease, hence the need for a cold sink to create an entropy increase so the overall entropy change is positive.
Or they never work at all.
Go and find other people who have recorded the weather data? Go to the same sources that the original researchers did? They didn't set up their own weather monitoring network you know.
Resolution of this apparent paradox lies in the fact that events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another. This is usually illustrated with a (presumably very fast) train passing through a station. If both were at rest, the train would be a bit longer than the platform.
For an observer on the platform, the train is contracted so appears the same length as the platform - so the front of the train is aligned with the front of the platform at the same time as the rear of the train is aligned with the rear.
For an observer on the train, the platform is contracted so it remains shorter than the train. However, the front of the train reaches the front of the platform at a different time to the rear of the train reaching the rear of the platform.
For both observers, a clock in the other reference frame will appear to be running slowly (time dilation).
Therefore, both observers views make physical sense, and indeed each one can calculate what the situation would be for the other one. But you need all three (relativity of simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction) for it all to be consistent.
All of that is true, but the issue is who benefits from the productivity and who is harmed by the pollution. The high productivity of the West mostly benefits the West, whereas the consequences of the emissions will hit the poorest areas of the word the hardest.