Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Remember that hockey stick?Follow

#1 Mar 10 2013 at 1:44 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Its gone (sorta)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/climate-change-graph-shows-alarming-effects-global-warming-151612158.html

Looks much more realistic. Makes our assumed impact look pretty insignificant.





____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#2 Mar 10 2013 at 3:11 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts

rdmcandie wrote:
Makes our assumed impact look pretty insignificant.


Only if you are incapable of interpreting a basic graph.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#3 Mar 10 2013 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,791 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Makes our assumed impact look pretty insignificant.


Quote:
What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand,


Smiley: dubious

I'd hate to see your definition of significant.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#4 Mar 10 2013 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
The Idiot wrote:
Makes our assumed impact look pretty insignificant.

The Article wrote:
Another way of looking at it is: the last time that temperatures rose by this amount, it took the Earth over 4,000 years to accomplish it on its own. Apparently, with our 'help', that same rise in temperature has taken only about a century or so, and therein lies the problem.

____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#5 Mar 10 2013 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Its gone (sorta)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/climate-change-graph-shows-alarming-effects-global-warming-151612158.html

Looks much more realistic. Makes our assumed impact look pretty insignificant.

gbaji will be so proud at your reading comprehension skills. Smiley: crymore
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#6 Mar 10 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Needs more icing calls and body checks.

Anyway skimming the paper...

...

...

So TL:DR nothing new really, only some of the error bars are a bit smaller? They let anyone publish in Science these days. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#7 Mar 10 2013 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Anyone who says they can tell you the average temperature of the Earth 10,000 years ago with accuracy anywhere near the margins found on that graph is lying to you. There are too many variables we can't even begin to pretend to have narrowed down back then. You have a few isolated preserved plant fragments from a few scattered sites around the world to try and show larger or smaller growth, the occasional tree rings, which vary in size for a variety of reasons not necessarily dealing with temperature (average rain fall, fire, oversaturation, drought, etc) and you have a few isolated gas cores from glaciers that may have concentrated or offgassed at any point in the last 10,000 years. Thats pretty much it. sedementation records and seed dispersal patterns can't be relied upon for anything more than really a century to cenury picture of growth patterns, and even then that ignores the wind and tide current dispersal patterns and topography. Even if you eliminate all the known volvano eruptions from the equation, you still don't know average atmospheric density, composition, thickness of the ozone layers, layout of the ozone layer density, output emission spectrum of the sun (was it the same? probably, but prove it) tidal patterns, oceanic temperatures, etc.

They are guessing that the few observable fossile records they have mean things they can't possibly actually know. Thats like me digging up a dead guy from 1836 and saying "Hey, this dead guy from 1936 was left handed, therefore everyone from 1936 must have been left handed!" Which is admittedly a silly example, but so is what they are trying to pull.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#8 Mar 10 2013 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,301 posts
Any one of those taken individually won't tell you much of the story, but those graphics are combining every single data point from every single method we have at this point.

And it's still a giant hockey stick, even within the wide margin of error that the graph gives it.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#9 Mar 11 2013 at 5:19 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
They are guessing that the few observable fossile records they have mean things they can't possibly actually know. Thats like me digging up a dead guy from 1836 and saying "Hey, this dead guy from 1936 was left handed, therefore everyone from 1936 must have been left handed!" Which is admittedly a silly example, but so is what they are trying to pull.

No, it's like you digging up a dead guy from1936 with a hole in his skull and a newspaper taped to his chest with an account of him being shot in the head and saying "hey this guy was shot in the head!" Is it certain he was shot in the head? No. Is there some reason to believe something else? Not really. Spite, I guess?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Mar 11 2013 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,817 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Thats like me digging up a dead guy from 1836 and saying "Hey, this dead guy from 1936 was left handed, therefore everyone from 1936 must have been left handed!" Which is admittedly a silly example, but so is what they are trying to pull.
It's more like digging up a maybe 1000 dead guys scattered randomly over the planet and doing statistical analysis on the physical properties that they all possess.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#11 Mar 11 2013 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

No, it's like you digging up a dead guy from1936 with a hole in his skull and a newspaper taped to his chest with an account of him being shot in the head and saying "hey this guy was shot in the head!" Is it certain he was shot in the head? No. Is there some reason to believe something else? Not really. Spite, I guess?


Except the guys head is missing, the newspaper has crumbled to inobservable dust, and the sticky from the tape is dried up. The reason to believe something else part might be very important, because any of those variables that we don't know and literally have no way of possibly knowing skew the results of that end of the chart +/- at least 10 degrees. which means from an error perspective they are completely outside the bounds of that particular chart and thus absolutly useless from a modeling perspective. You might as well just get some kindergartner to draw a line on some graph paper for the same level of accuracy that far back.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#12 Mar 11 2013 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Elinda wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Thats like me digging up a dead guy from 1836 and saying "Hey, this dead guy from 1936 was left handed, therefore everyone from 1936 must have been left handed!" Which is admittedly a silly example, but so is what they are trying to pull.
It's more like digging up a maybe 1000 dead guys scattered randomly over the planet and doing statistical analysis on the physical properties that they all possess.


except those physical properties may have altered during the last 10,000 years. Gass chromatography samples from core drilling may have concentrated or offgassed at any point during that time. Ice is permiable on a variable basis depending on thickness. Other methodologies such as pollen density per sample, seed distribution, or fossil vegitation matter analasys from 10,000 years ago has a margin of error outside that of what the entire range of the chart shows. and those 1,000 samples you refer to are all scattered randomly within a few hundred miles of themselves since there are only a few suitible sampling locations on the nplanet that retain any ice that old.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#13 Mar 11 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,817 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Thats like me digging up a dead guy from 1836 and saying "Hey, this dead guy from 1936 was left handed, therefore everyone from 1936 must have been left handed!" Which is admittedly a silly example, but so is what they are trying to pull.
It's more like digging up a maybe 1000 dead guys scattered randomly over the planet and doing statistical analysis on the physical properties that they all possess.


except those physical properties may have altered during the last 10,000 years. Gass chromatography samples from core drilling may have concentrated or offgassed at any point during that time. Ice is permiable on a variable basis depending on thickness. Other methodologies such as pollen density per sample, seed distribution, or fossil vegitation matter analasys from 10,000 years ago has a margin of error outside that of what the entire range of the chart shows. and those 1,000 samples you refer to are all scattered randomly within a few hundred miles of themselves since there are only a few suitible sampling locations on the nplanet that retain any ice that old.
I attempted to actually read the article. It's published in Science. I need a subscription.

Have you read it?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#14 Mar 11 2013 at 8:14 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
except those physical properties may have altered during the last 10,000 years. Gass chromatography samples from core drilling may have concentrated or offgassed at any point during that time. Ice is permiable on a variable basis depending on thickness. Other methodologies such as pollen density per sample, seed distribution, or fossil vegitation matter analasys from 10,000 years ago has a margin of error outside that of what the entire range of the chart shows. and those 1,000 samples you refer to are all scattered randomly within a few hundred miles of themselves since there are only a few suitible sampling locations on the nplanet that retain any ice that old.

Yeah, not close to an accurate representation of the current state of science. Not even vaguely close. Where are you getting your climate change reporting from?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Mar 11 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Elinda wrote:
Have you read it?

University access is awesome. Smiley: cool

At the risk of provoking the ire of publishing world, some excerpts...

Methods Summary:

The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis are based on a variety of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a median resolution of 120 years (5). We account for chronologic and proxy calibration uncertainties with a Monte Carlo–based randomization scheme (6). Our data set exhibits several important strengths, as well as limitations, as compared to global and hemispheric reconstructions of the past 1500 years (2, 3, 7, 8). For example, whereas reconstructions of the past millennium rapidly lose data coverage with age, our coverage increases with age (Fig. 1, G and H). Published reconstructions of the past millennium are largely based on tree rings and may underestimate low-frequency (multicentury-to-millennial) variability because of uncertainty in detrending (9) [although progress is being made on this front (10)], whereas our lower-resolution records are well suited for reconstructing longer-term changes. Terrestrial records dominate reconstructions of the past millennium, whereas our stack is largely derived from marine archives (~80%). Unlike the reconstructions of the past millennium, our proxy data are converted quantitatively to temperature before stacking, using independent core-top or laboratory-culture calibrations with no post-hoc adjustments in variability.

Comparison of different methods and reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperature anomalies. (A and B) Globally stacked temperature anomalies for the 5° × 5° area-weighted mean calculation (purple line) with its 1σ uncertainty (blue band) and Mann et al.'s global CRU-EIV composite mean temperature (dark gray line) with their uncertainty (light gray band). (C and D) Global temperature anomalies stacked using several methods (Standard and Standard5x5Grid; 30x30Grid; 10-lat: Arithmetic mean calculation, area-weighted with a 5° × 5° grid, area-weighted with a 30° × 30° grid, and area-weighted using 10° latitude bins, respectively; RegEM and RegEM5x5Grid: Regularized expectation maximization algorithm-infilled arithmetic mean and 5° × 5° area-weighted). The gray shading [50% Jackknife (Jack50)] represents the 1σ envelope when randomly leaving 50% of the records out during each Monte Carlo mean calculation. Uncertainties shown are 1σ for each of the methods. (E and F) Published temperature anomaly reconstructions that have been smoothed with a 100-year centered running mean, Mann08Global (2), Mann08NH (2), Moberg05 (3), WA07 (8), Huange04 (36), and plotted with our global temperature stacks [blue band as in (A)]. The temperature anomalies for all the records are referenced to the 1961–1990 instrumental mean. (G and H) Number of records used to construct the Holocene global temperature stack through time (orange line) and Mann et al.'s (2) reconstruction (gold vertical bars). Note the y axis break at 100. The latitudinal distribution of Holocene records (gray horizontal bars) through time is shown. (I and J) Number of age control points (e.g., 14C dates) that constrain the time series through time.

We took the 5° × 5° area-weighted mean of the 73 records to develop a global temperature stack for the Holocene (referred to as the Standard5×5 reconstruction) (Fig. 1, A and B). To compare our Standard5×5 reconstruction with modern climatology, we aligned the stack's mean for the interval 510 to 1450 yr B.P. (where yr B.P. is years before 1950 CE) with the same interval's mean of the global Climate Research Unit error-in-variables (CRU-EIV) composite temperature record (2), which is, in turn, referenced to the 1961–1990 CE instrumental mean (Fig. 1A). We then assessed the sensitivity of the temperature reconstruction to several averaging schemes, including an arithmetic mean of the data sets, a 30° × 30° area-weighted mean, a 10° latitudinal weighted mean, and a calculation of 1000 jackknifed stacks that randomly exclude 50% of the records in each realization (Fig. 1, C and D, and fig. S4). Although some differences exist at the centennial scale among the various methods (Fig. 1, C and D), they are small (<0.2°C) for most of the reconstructions, well within the uncertainties of our Standard5x5 reconstruction, and do not affect the long-term trend in the reconstruction.

In addition to the previously mentioned averaging schemes, we also implemented the RegEM algorithm (11) to statistically infill data gaps in records not spanning the entire Holocene, which is particularly important over the past several centuries (Fig. 1G). Without filling data gaps, our Standard5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6°C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust. Before this interval, the gap-filled and unfilled methods of calculating the stacks are nearly identical (Fig. 1D).

Because the relatively low resolution and time-uncertainty of our data sets should generally suppress higher-frequency temperature variability, an important question is whether the Holocene stack adequately represents centennial- or millennial-scale variability. We evaluated this question in two ways. First, we generated a single mean zero, unit variance white-noise time series and used it in place of our 73 records. The white-noise records were then perturbed through Monte Carlo simulations using the resolution and chronological uncertainty specific to each proxy record as well as a common 1°C proxy uncertainty. We composited a Standard5x5 global stack from these synthetic records and calculated the ratio between the variances of the stack and the input white noise as a function of frequency to derive a gain function. The results suggest that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years, ~50% preserved at 1000-year periods, and nearly all of the variability preserved for periods longer than 2000 years (figs. S17 and S18). Second, spectral analysis indicates that the variance of the Holocene proxy stack approaches that of the global CRU-EIV reconstruction of the past 1500 years (2) at millennial time scales and longer (figs. S20 and S23).


As a disclaimer they point to possible seasonal bias, and wish for more samples from the mid-southern latitudes and central pacific.

Something for the anti-climate change group:

Quote:
These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios.


Something for the pro-climate change group:

Quote:
Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered


TL:DR = Basically the world (mainly the northern hemisphere where most of their data is from) has been warmer in the recent past, but hasn't gone from warm to cold (or cold to warm) this fast.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 9:08am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#16 Mar 11 2013 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Quote:
TL:DR = Basically the world (mainly the northern hemisphere where most of their data is from) has been warmer in the recent past, but hasn't gone from warm to cold (or cold to warm) this fast.


That is the point of the article. To demonstrate that, yes, temperatures have been this hot in the past and is a normal part of life on this planet. The catch is the rate at which temperatures have went up in the past century has been equivalent to what normally takes four millennium. Amusingly this dramatic speed at which the temperature has increased begins right around the time of the second industrial revolution. Correlation != causation, I know. Just an interesting tid bit of information.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#17 Mar 11 2013 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Criminy wrote:
The catch is the rate at which temperatures have went up in the past century has been equivalent to what normally takes four millennium.

And that the local flora and fauna (including us) have been given ~3% of the time to adapt as in the past.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 12:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Mar 11 2013 at 12:08 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts

And that the local flora and fauna (including us) have been given ~3% of the time to adapt as in the past.


Odd thing to be concerned about. Micro evolution can move quite quickly. I guess if you really are fond of pine trees or whatever it is grows around your polluted lake up there (condom trees?) then it's a concern, otherwise life will adapt, find a way, yadda. Concerns about how humans end up boned are a lot more interesting.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Mar 11 2013 at 12:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
life will adapt, find a way, yadda.

Dumb statement. At least as dumb as "Well, the planet will still be here even if we're not"
Quote:
Concerns about how humans end up boned are a lot more interesting.

And directly tied into the bit about the other species.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Mar 11 2013 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
Dumb statement. At least as dumb as "Well, the planet will still be here even if we're not"

Um, no? Not sure how "if brown trout goes extinct we'll have to eat some other fish" equates to "the human race going extinct is no big deal because there will still be life of some kind". Attempting to halt change of "native" life is a weird human contrivance. Attempting to halt change that ends up killing people is self preservation. Not sure why you'd want to equivocate the two. I think hunting the passenger pigeon to extinction for it's lovely hat feathers was a bad idea, but not as bad as you know, genocide.

And directly tied into the bit about the other species.

No..not really. Did you read too much Rachel Carson as a child or something? Humans could survive massive changes to ecosystems and see marginal changes to quality of life in aggregate. We have multiple times in our history. The fact that something is happening now doesn't actually magnify it's importance to the course of human history.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 2:28pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Mar 11 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,817 posts
I was talking to one of our states epidemiologists recently. They're already seeing bug populations showing signs of change both in numbers and geographic range. She had no doubt that we'd be seeing more and more widespread vector borne diseases.

Of course we humans need a few generations to build up immunities.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#22 Mar 11 2013 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
Scientists concur that if the Sweating Point* rises above 35 C, any human being who steps out of doors will simply drop dead. Unfortunately, I forget how many degrees C the average temperature of the Earth would have to rise to reach this Sweating Point. But the scientists collating the next IPCC were so alarmed about us already exceeding all the worst case scenarios since the last IPCC, that they brought the Sweating Point up as a case for real concern. What appalled me was that apparently the last IPCC did NOT include permafrost melting in sea-rise predictions. Because a few years ago, they didn't think the permafrost was going to melt. They thought that governments would contain CO2 better than they have. They didn't think that extra CO2 would raise the Earth's average temperature so quickly. The worst case scenarios are now so bad and so likely that scientists are talking about abandoning social neutrality and going political.

*as determined by a damp cloth wrapped around a mercury thermometer.

Edited, Mar 11th 2013 2:46pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#23 Mar 11 2013 at 12:43 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
I was talking to one of our states epidemiologists recently. They're already seeing bug populations showing signs of change both in numbers and geographic range. She had no doubt that we'd be seeing more and more widespread vector borne diseases.

And less hypothermia? Somehow Africa has managed to survive with more insect borne diseases, I'm sure Biddeford can manage. I understand there are negative biological consquences to climate change, it just seems like an inane thing to focus on given the more catastrophic potential problems. Depletion of fresh water reserves, for instance. People die from lack of water all the time. Far more than die of Dengue fever or Malaria or whatever the scary thing is supposed to be.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Mar 11 2013 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,791 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Scientists concur that if the Sweating Point* rises above 35 C, any human being who steps out of doors will simply drop dead.

*as determined by a damp cloth wrapped around a mercury thermometer.


Like a relative humidity/dew point calculation? Seems like those temperature/humidity levels have been reached before in certain places.

I find it hard to believe they'll "drop dead"... maybe they'll be uncomfortable, eventually succumbing to heat stroke without proper care. But you make it sound as if you'll just pass out as you exit onto your front porch.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#25 Mar 11 2013 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,817 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I was talking to one of our states epidemiologists recently. They're already seeing bug populations showing signs of change both in numbers and geographic range. She had no doubt that we'd be seeing more and more widespread vector borne diseases.

And less hypothermia? Somehow Africa has managed to survive with more insect borne diseases, I'm sure Biddeford can manage. I understand there are negative biological consquences to climate change, it just seems like an inane thing to focus on given the more catastrophic potential problems. Depletion of fresh water reserves, for instance. People die from lack of water all the time. Far more than die of Dengue fever or Malaria or whatever the scary thing is supposed to be.
I wasnt talking simply about Maine.

Bugs are one of those microcosms you were talking about. As they're geographical ranges change, they come in contact with people that havent' yet met with the diseases they're carrying ....and BAM Africa's Malaria problem is now spread to India.

All in all it was merely and example of how adaptation, and differing rates of adaptation can impact the worlds ecosystem.

Biddeford will be underwater before they all die from West Nile Disease.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#26 Mar 11 2013 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
Bugs are one of those microcosms you were talking about. As they're geographical ranges change, they come in contact with people that havent' yet met with the diseases they're carrying ....and BAM Africa's Malaria problem is now spread to India.


They sort of have that problem already in most of India, but I understand your point.


Biddeford will be underwater before they all die from West Nile Disease.


Wait, weren't we talking about NEGATIVE consequences?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#27 Mar 11 2013 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,817 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Scientists concur that if the Sweating Point* rises above 35 C, any human being who steps out of doors will simply drop dead.

*as determined by a damp cloth wrapped around a mercury thermometer.


Like a relative humidity/dew point calculation? Seems like those temperature/humidity levels have been reached before in certain places.

I find it hard to believe they'll "drop dead"... maybe they'll be uncomfortable, eventually succumbing to heat stroke without proper care. But you make it sound as if you'll just pass out as you exit onto your front porch.

We'll need to learn to pant.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#28 Mar 11 2013 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Scientists concur that if the Sweating Point* rises above 35 C, any human being who steps out of doors will simply drop dead.

*as determined by a damp cloth wrapped around a mercury thermometer.


Like a relative humidity/dew point calculation? Seems like those temperature/humidity levels have been reached before in certain places.

I find it hard to believe they'll "drop dead"... maybe they'll be uncomfortable, eventually succumbing to heat stroke without proper care. But you make it sound as if you'll just pass out as you exit onto your front porch.

No. If the air reaches a Sweating Point above 35 C, the human body will not be able to maintain it's Core body temperature of 37.0 °C (98.6 °F). You'll take a couple of steps past your front porch, pass out, and then rapidly die of heat trauma to the brain.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#29 Mar 11 2013 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Humans could survive massive changes to ecosystems and see marginal changes to quality of life in aggregate.


That's not what Bee Movie taught me. Smiley: frown
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#30 Mar 11 2013 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
But the scientists collating the next IPCC were so alarmed about us already exceeding all the worst case scenarios since the last IPCC, that they brought the Sweating Point up as a case for real concern.

You got a cite for this? Google isn't giving me much. I found some stuff on heat-stroke and related stuff, but that's all.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31 Mar 11 2013 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah, not close to an accurate representation of the current state of science. Not even vaguely close. Where are you getting your climate change reporting from?


NASA, NOAA, Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change, Journal of Vegitation sciences, I dunno, a few dozen others. It's a hobby. I don't claim to have a PHD level understanding of it, but I know enough to know difinitily that NONE of the methods out there (such as marine life deposition and fossil records, gas specrum analysis from glacial cores, chemecal spectral analysis on geological strata, carbon sync modeling based on known reserves and assumed accumulations, coral reef fossile variations due to climate change over historical epochs, soil acidification over time, CO2 levels in disolved diposeted limestone over time, etc) on the entire damned planet are capable of accuratly showing an average temperature between 1.4+/- degrees for 10,000 years ago that cannot be attributed theoretically to at least a handful of other causes. Period. There are papers out there that claim to do exactly that, but when you read them they are invariably full of prevarications and "well, assuming x y and z then we get these results" which is my entire point.

You seem to think otherwise though, so why don't you enlighten us as to how you think this current state of climate science is able to vaguely do this?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#32 Mar 11 2013 at 9:25 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Yeah, not close to an accurate representation of the current state of science. Not even vaguely close. Where are you getting your climate change reporting from?


NASA, NOAA, Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change, Journal of Vegitation sciences, I dunno, a few dozen others. It's a hobby. I don't claim to have a PHD level understanding of it, but I know enough to know difinitily that NONE of the methods out there (such as marine life deposition and fossil records, gas specrum analysis from glacial cores, chemecal spectral analysis on geological strata, carbon sync modeling based on known reserves and assumed accumulations, coral reef fossile variations due to climate change over historical epochs, soil acidification over time, CO2 levels in disolved diposeted limestone over time, etc) on the entire damned planet are capable of accuratly showing an average temperature between 1.4+/- degrees for 10,000 years ago that cannot be attributed theoretically to at least a handful of other causes. Period. There are papers out there that claim to do exactly that, but when you read them they are invariably full of prevarications and "well, assuming x y and z then we get these results" which is my entire point.

You seem to think otherwise though, so why don't you enlighten us as to how you think this current state of climate science is able to vaguely do this?

The top 6 to 8 climate laboratories in the world can and are doing it. They have access to all the world-wide data on the matter, and the present day best super-computers and specialist programs to run backwards scenarios to confirm their calculations conform with past data. When they run forward calculations, the 6-8 labs world-wide output extremely similar outputs over time, when fed in the present level of CO2 and other climactic modifiers in the world. Also extremely similar outputs when fed in various hypothetical CO2 rises beyond the present, which are deemed worthy to chew up that amount of computing power, because of the various likelihoods of future CO2 rises in the atmosphere from human activity.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#33 Mar 11 2013 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Sure to a degree, but not anywhere near a 1.4 degree +/- margin of error for 10,000 years ago, and not without making some assumptions along the way that are still in scientific dispute. you might be able to measure CO2 concentrations back 10,000 years if you make some assumptions about various limestones, formation layers, amount of offgassing fromm decomposing marine critters over time, and assume no redeposition or accelerated carbon leaching due to microorganizms for a given location, but you can't know what the atmospheric density and composition for that far back was difinitivly. We know what we "think" it probably was based of various different compiled measurements and how much dino salad there was floating around in the oceans producing gas, etc, and we can certinly estimate the effects iof volcanoes based on their ash falls and plant life trapped in the same gegraphic layers, the problem is those estimates are continually being readjusted, and even amongst major climate scientists there is a lack of concensus about how some of those very key measures are interpereted. Then there are big unknown factors. Was the earth's axial tilt ever adjusted by a near miss we don't know aobout during those 10,000 years? we don't know. Does it possibly affect temperature? certanly. We don't know what the sun was doing during those times. we assume it was following the same cycle, but we don't really know. The last 30 years here the sun has done some really odd things that our known good historical observations have never seen, including multiple double minimum cycles. Was it doing that 10,000 years ago? who knows. We know that during continental movements there are massive underwater melt points that release gasses as the plates interact. We know their rates currently, but in some areas, particularily along the atlantic plates, the evidence of the previous eruptions was melted 9,000 years ago, etc. we can guess, we can make models that seem to makie sense for some observable features from that era, but we can also make completely different models make sense for that era.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#34 Mar 11 2013 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts

If an individual measurement has a 2 degree margin of error, but you take thousands of measurements (assuming the measurements are randomized, not all from the same location and therefore suffering from the same error polarity), then you are still going to end up with an accurate mean.

I state this as a general property of statistics and without any knowledge of the details of your guys' arguments.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#35 Mar 11 2013 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
You seem to think otherwise though, so why don't you enlighten us as to how you think this current state of climate science is able to vaguely do this?


I'm no PhD on the matter myself, but the simple fact that hundreds (thousands?) of actual PhDs working on the subject come to similar conclusions on the issue negates your ability to convince me otherwise. I always find it amusing pathetic when a single citizen believes they have the knowledge or experience to invalidate hundreds of more qualified persons on any given subject.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#36 Mar 11 2013 at 11:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Sure to a degree, but not anywhere near a 1.4 degree +/- margin of error for 10,000 years ago, and not without making some assumptions along the way that are still in scientific dispute.

Story time!

My first lead-author paper got heavily cited by another paper that came out probably 3 years later. They were doing an analysis where they used some of the my data to put together a new method for quantitatively measuring protein abundance in complex mixtures; you know error bars and the like, etc.

The funny thing is they never bothered to contact me before using my data. If they had, I would have warned them we had thought of doing the same thing initially, but after looking over the data decided it was too inconsistent to be used quantitatively. In short if you want to average results from many analyses it helps if you do the experiment the same way every time... Smiley: rolleyes. It was no skin off our backs at the time. We were just trying to put out a dataset for testing software, and a quantitative analysis was thought up halfway through. It was too late to really mess with the idea without starting over at that point, so we ditched the idea.

So here I am reading a paper that uses this data in a way it was never meant to be used. Worse yet, it's in a Nature journal, so not exactly some backwater publication nobody really reads, where it could simply get passed over or ignored. They didn't do anything to correct for some of the errors that were there, and there were inconsistencies they flat-out ignored that made the data do funny things (which they, of course, didn't bother to explain). Not to mention there were other problems, but they're not of the nature I can probably explain here, basically misusing parameters and what not. In short it was a ****

I think it was somewhere around that time I lost my blind faith in anyone outside of a mathematical field doing math right, not to mention the peer-review process in general. In retrospect I partly wish I had just done the analysis with that data, it was obviously good enough to get into a nice journal and I would have at least known what errors were in the data when I reported it... At the same time I'm glad my name isn't anymore associated with that debacle than it is already. Smiley: lol

Averaging data from different analyses isn't something that can really be done lightly. I mean you can't just do 3 different tests and take a mean or something. Error propagation is a homely little bastard, and of course there's no way to combine some data (not that that stops anyone...), and those pesky systematic errors get glossed over when someone starts bragging about some p-value with an exponent large enough to make a mistake impossible within the lifespan of the universe. No one bothers to say "this measurement is perfectly accurate assuming the following conditions..."

I guess in the end I still trust the experts though, just not as blindly as before. If nothing else it made me want to learn more about doing some of these calculations correctly, and what that meant. I do have a lot less blind faith in numbers people report, but sometimes I wish I knew more about how to double-check them. Eventually these kinds of things fall apart if they're done wrong, just gotta give time for the cream to rise to the top and what not I guess. Always takes longer than we want it to. Smiley: frown

TL:DR = Scientists are people too apparently.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#37 Mar 12 2013 at 12:24 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
TL:DR = Scientists are people too apparently.


Isn't that the whole point of peer review journals - to allow other qualified persons to validate (or invalidate, as it were) the experiment and resulting conclusion?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#38 Mar 12 2013 at 1:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
You seem to think otherwise though, so why don't you enlighten us as to how you think this current state of climate science is able to vaguely do this?


I'm no PhD on the matter myself, but the simple fact that hundreds (thousands?) of actual PhDs working on the subject come to similar conclusions on the issue negates your ability to convince me otherwise. I always find it amusing pathetic when a single citizen believes they have the knowledge or experience to invalidate hundreds of more qualified persons on any given subject.


I can dig up a hundred papers by PhD's who share my viewpoint if you really wanted. I'm not going to, but there are dissenting viewpoints out there on the scope and accuracy of super early climatological modeling regarding accuracy and assumed variables within epoch level timeframes. I always find it amusing when other people assume a single citizen doesn't have enough knowledge to seek experts on the subject and know what they are talking about on a given subject.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#39 Mar 12 2013 at 5:11 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
I always find it amusing when other people assume a single citizen doesn't have enough knowledge to seek experts on the subject and know what they are talking about on a given subject.

You misspelled "accurate" there. The idea that "I don't understand this, so...no one can" isn't really a strong argument.

I can dig up a hundred papers by PhD's who share my viewpoint if you really wanted.

PhDs in *climate science*? Because I have a PhD, but I wouldn't consider my work on temperature estimating methods to be worth more than an 8th graders because it has nothing to do with my field of study. It's not a high school diploma, you know, it's kind of a specifically targeted thing.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#40 Mar 12 2013 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
TL:DR = Scientists are people too apparently.
Isn't that the whole point of peer review journals - to allow other qualified persons to validate (or invalidate, as it were) the experiment and resulting conclusion?

It's also the point of examining the studies in aggregate; seeing what multiple bodies are determining using different studies, different data sets, etc. A bit like polling in a sense -- maybe we need to unskew the temperatures.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Mar 12 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You misspelled "accurate" there. The idea that "I don't understand this, so...no one can" isn't really a strong argument.

Yeah, it's really not. When you decide to demonstrate that you do understand the argument and wish to present a counterpoint citing examples other than "no, you're wrong" please feel free to do so.

Smasharoo wrote:

PhDs in *climate science*? Because I have a PhD, but I wouldn't consider my work on temperature estimating methods to be worth more than an 8th graders because it has nothing to do with my field of study. It's not a high school diploma, you know, it's kind of a specifically targeted thing.

Well, PhD's in Climate sciences are usually the ones who write papers on such things. I suppose you might find the occasional forensic archeologist or biologist prodicing relevant material too, not to mention solar scientists and the occasional geologist or two.

Jophiel wrote:

It's also the point of examining the studies in aggregate; seeing what multiple bodies are determining using different studies, different data sets, etc. A bit like polling in a sense -- maybe we need to unskew the temperatures.

Hey if Nate Silvers wants to go and try to statistically model the name of the guy who was elected "secretary of animal skin inventory and basic agrairian stuff" 10,000 years ago based on modern cave painting records, go for it.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#42 Mar 12 2013 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
TL:DR = Scientists are people too apparently.


Isn't that the whole point of peer review journals - to allow other qualified persons to validate (or invalidate, as it were) the experiment and resulting conclusion?

That's how it is supposed to work, yes. Of course it still works that way in practice to some degree. But there's problems with the system that are undermining the peer-review process. Really it's buggy at best right now.

First, there's just a lot of science out there right now. We're victims of our own success in a sense. Reading and understanding papers is hardly easy, even for someone familiar with the field. You could read several relevant papers a day and still not cover enough many times. There's a general ignorance among scientists to some extent, and in many ways it's not really our fault. There's just too much out there to keep up with.

Also, when a paper gets submitted you're having 2-3 "experts" look it over for accuracy. Expert simply meaning someone who's published with the journal in the past in many cases. These people will likely get drawn from different areas, so you'll end up with a single person spending a couple of hours leafing through the statistics side of your paper. Chances are s/he may have never done the same kind of analysis you're doing, they've simply done the math for a paper published in your field. Even more fun is when you get to suggest people to review your article, it's a popular thing these days as it saves the journal the trouble of trying to track down an expert.

As for duplicating someone else's results? It's not like anyone sits down and repeats an experiment someone else did. If you can use someone else's methods to get published, well that's awesome, but it's not like these things are being rigorously tested. If someone fails to reproduce results, no one will likely hear anything of it. Really aren't you just saying you're a failure at that point if someone else does it successfully? That kind of thing isn't really publishable in-and-of itself anyway. There's no novel aspect to the study, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a journal that would accept it. At that point you're probably collaborating with someone outside your field, and your interesting critique of some computer algorithm gets buried in an article in Neuron or something.

In the end though, a lot of it comes down to time as well. A Ph.D. will spend around 50% of their time writing. Applying for grants is a huge timesink, and you need all the savvy of a Business Entrepreneur to be successful. Can you sell your idea? How much do you have to hype it to get funded? A successful scientist is a successful salesman, first and foremost. Of course, where better to get your ideas than the grant proposals you're helping to review? There's many an instance of papers and grants getting rejected only to see a suspiciously similar thing get accepted not long after. Because of this you learn how to be a little vague on the methods. Enough information to let people know what you did, not enough to let them steal your idea. If absolutely necessary, relevant details can always be stuffed in a table the supplemental section somewhere where no one will ever see it.

Anyway I'm writing too much again. The process still largely works of course, but between a lot of money, a lot of competition, and a just a lot of information it's very difficult to get the system to function the way we'd like it to.

Just one person's opinion of course. Smiley: tinfoilhat


Edited, Mar 12th 2013 8:53am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#43 Mar 12 2013 at 9:57 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
When you decide to demonstrate that you do understand the argument and wish to present a counterpoint citing examples other than "no, you're wrong" please feel free to do so.

I'll pass. See, the way science works is that I don't have to demonstrate proof of the existing overwhelming peer reviewed consensus data model. Nor do I have to try to teach a basic statistics course. If you're going to make claims like "no one can know...blank" you have the burden to demonstrate why that's so. Hopefully beyond "that sounds hard".

It should be obvious that while determining that the average global temperature for March 6, 25000 BCE was 24 C is extraordinarily difficult, that determining the average global temperature between 15000 BCE and 5000 BCE is going to be substantially easier. Accuracy v Precision and all that.

Your assertion that it's just too hard reflects a Victorian understanding of analysis at best. Techniques to establish variance and confidence intervals have existed for quite a while now.

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 11:58am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Mar 12 2013 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,178 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
TL:DR = Scientists are people too apparently.


Isn't that the whole point of peer review journals - to allow other qualified persons to validate (or invalidate, as it were) the experiment and resulting conclusion?

That's how it is supposed to work, yes. Of course it still works that way in practice to some degree. But there's problems with the system that are undermining the peer-review process. Really it's buggy at best right now.

First, there's just a lot of science out there right now. We're victims of our own success in a sense. Reading and understanding papers is hardly easy, even for someone familiar with the field. You could read several relevant papers a day and still not cover enough many times. There's a general ignorance among scientists to some extent, and in many ways it's not really our fault. There's just too much out there to keep up with.

Also, when a paper gets submitted you're having 2-3 "experts" look it over for accuracy. Expert simply meaning someone who's published with the journal in the past in many cases. These people will likely get drawn from different areas, so you'll end up with a single person spending a couple of hours leafing through the statistics side of your paper. Chances are s/he may have never done the same kind of analysis you're doing, they've simply done the math for a paper published in your field. Even more fun is when you get to suggest people to review your article, it's a popular thing these days as it saves the journal the trouble of trying to track down an expert.

As for duplicating someone else's results? It's not like anyone sits down and repeats an experiment someone else did. If you can use someone else's methods to get published, well that's awesome, but it's not like these things are being rigorously tested. If someone fails to reproduce results, no one will likely hear anything of it. Really aren't you just saying you're a failure at that point if someone else does it successfully? That kind of thing isn't really publishable in-and-of itself anyway. There's no novel aspect to the study, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a journal that would accept it. At that point you're probably collaborating with someone outside your field, and your interesting critique of some computer algorithm gets buried in an article in Neuron or something.

In the end though, a lot of it comes down to time as well. A Ph.D. will spend around 50% of their time writing. Applying for grants is a huge timesink, and you need all the savvy of a Business Entrepreneur to be successful. Can you sell your idea? How much do you have to hype it to get funded? A successful scientist is a successful salesman, first and foremost. Of course, where better to get your ideas than the grant proposals you're helping to review? There's many an instance of papers and grants getting rejected only to see a suspiciously similar thing get accepted not long after. Because of this you learn how to be a little vague on the methods. Enough information to let people know what you did, not enough to let them steal your idea. If absolutely necessary, relevant details can always be stuffed in a table the supplemental section somewhere where no one will ever see it.

Anyway I'm writing too much again. The process still largely works of course, but between a lot of money, a lot of competition, and a just a lot of information it's very difficult to get the system to function the way we'd like it to.

Just one person's opinion of course. Smiley: tinfoilhat


Edited, Mar 12th 2013 8:53am by someproteinguy
To give your rant some sort of proof: Diederik Stapel altered and falsified data for years and years

"Diederik Alexander Stapel (born 19 October 1966 in Oegstgeest, western Netherlands), is a former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University and before that at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.[1] In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel, pending further investigation, for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications. This scientific misconduct took place over a number of years and affected at least 55 publications.[2]"

"The report concludes that there was "a more general failure of scientific criticism in the peer community and a research culture that was excessively oriented to uncritical confirmation of one’s own ideas and to finding appealing but theoretically superficial ad hoc results". It goes on to suggest that "not infrequently reviews [of social psychology journal articles] were strongly in favour of telling an interesting, elegant, concise and compelling story, possibly at the expense of the necessary scientific diligence."[27]"



Obviously, this is in a different field but that someone has been able to falsify data for years and got through at least 55 peer reviews (including one for Science Magazine) without this being detected before finally being caught by some of his students does point to more than some small issues in the peer reviewing process.

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 7:41pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#45 Mar 12 2013 at 11:59 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
Obviously, this is in a different field but that someone has been able to falsify data for years and got through at least 55 peer reviews (including one for Science Magazine) without this being detected before finally being caught by some of his students does point to more than some small issues in the peer reviewing process.

Not really. Any more than a cop wanting to lure, kill and eat women points to a cannibalism issue among police. Science isn't perfect, and doesn't claim to be. What it is, though, is self correcting. Social science is a little "squishier" than climate science, so replicating experimental conditions can be more difficult. The idea that fraud that escapes notice condemns the process is a deeply flawed one, however. That's not really the goal of review.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Mar 12 2013 at 12:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,649 posts
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Mar 12 2013 at 12:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
There was also that South Korean stem cell guy a while back who falsified data for a good while, names escape me.

But you very likely can't catch someone falsifying data in a review of a publication unless they really suck at lying. You'll almost need someone from the lab to come out and admit to it. Science certainly self-corrects over time. That time frame might just be 20-30 years or longer, which is a problem when you need to act now to prevent a problem occurring a couple decades down the road. Precisely where climate science has found itself over the last couple of decades unfortunately. Also much much longer than the average attention span or news cycle.

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 11:45am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#48 Mar 12 2013 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
There was also that South Korean stem cell guy a while back who falsified data for a good while, names escape me.

His hoax lasted for something like 18 months after being published. According to this article, he published in 2004 & 2005 and, by 2006, was stripped of his license by the S. Korean government.

So I suppose for certain definitions of "good while", it's true but not really indicative of your "20-30 years" statement later on.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Mar 12 2013 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,294 posts
That time frame might just be 20-30 years or longer

Rarely the case if we're talking about fraud. Probably never, but I'm not an expert on fraud in science, though I imagine I could fake it for a while.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#50 Mar 12 2013 at 1:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Sorry seems my brain shifted gears mid-thought there, self correcting not just in a fraud sense but a general sense too. Where we thought we understood something, but it later turned out we didn't, or we only got it partly right. Not realizing until years later.

Edited, Mar 12th 2013 12:02pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#51 Mar 12 2013 at 1:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,178 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
But you very likely can't catch someone falsifying data in a review of a publication unless they really suck at lying. You'll almost need someone from the lab to come out and admit to it.
If I recall correctly, his data was always too perfect to be true. Being exactly as expected each time on top of refusing to let anyone else see any raw data.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CDT