It's all over but for the sweating?

[freebeard]

The code had easily identified bugs, no visible test mechanism, was not apparently under version control and was poorly documented.

That's four different things.

I like the way coders think. To quote one at random "I want to die on Mars, just not when we land." If your going to do wishful thinking do it right.

Then there's this:

The "Local Bubble" of low-density, hot
and ionized gas, is actually part of a
tube-like chimney that extends through
the local region of the spiral disk
into the surrounding galactic halo,
and so may can act as a vent for the
energetic hot gas produced by
supernovae (more)

______

Edit:

I would suspect an instrument failure - it has happened before...

A popular thing on Suspicious0bservers is 'buoy in event mode', where a particular buoy in midocean is reporting the depth of the ocean is rising and falling tens of hundreds of feet, really fast.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

There are lots of examples of amateurs outdoing professionals in this field.

No, there are a lot of amateurs who think they can outdo professionals in this field. (And a lot of misunderstanding of what it is the professionals do.)

[Arragonis]

We will have to agree to disagree.

[Arragonis]

An update on those Australian Desal water plants...

New South Wales desalination plant deal to cost consumers $10 billion over 50 years - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Sydney's privatised desalination plant, which is costing residents more than $500,000 a day to keep on standby, will not be needed for at least another four or five years.

The sale of the plant last year to a private company for $2.3 billion means residents are locked into paying about $10 billion in fees for the next 50 years, whether the plant is operating or not.

Not one drop of water has come out of the Kurnell facility since it stopped operating more than a year ago.

and

Sydney Water says the sale has had no impact on water bills.

"Customers are probably paying around $100 a year for the desalination plant as part of their bill," Mr Young said.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

(And a lot of misunderstanding of what it is the professionals do.)

They bring a lot of it on themselves. Watch the first 46 seconds of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXdDKJFDqYE

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

(And a lot of misunderstanding of what it is the professionals do.)

M'kay.

[freebeard]

That was being a fun read until I looked at the scroll bar and realized it would take a week to get through it all.

8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which
did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy - naming
two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location
to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:

The first 6 dictionaries listed on Startpage do not recognize the word 'anomalising'. It looks perfectly cromulent to me.

[TheEnemy]

Sorry, I have been sick, and or busy and haven't had a chance to fix the mistakes I have found yet.

Ocassionally: Find me an example of a climate model that both fits the past and can be used to project an idea of the future done by the experts that is done the way you say mine should do. Make sure that we can also dive into the equations and see how it works if you can.


I use computer models at work, they are made by supposed experts, but are often wrong by a factor of 2 or greater. In a recent test it was wrong by a factor of 7 largely because we really had no idea what was really going to happen until we did the test and looked at the data.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

M'kay.

Could you or anyone else design a Boeing 787 by yourself? I didn't think so. No one individual can hope to match the similar professional efforts in understanding climate science.

While we like our scientific heroes, like Einstein, Newton, Watson and Crick et al, there are very few of those (and what they did was based on earlier work, and took lifetimes to achieve). Most work is collaborative and incremental, especially where it's based wholly on well established physical principles like is climate science. Understanding the Earth's climate doesn't require insight, rather application.

There is a very poor grasp of how scientific understanding - in any area, not just around climate - is increased. It doesn't help that there are groups of - often media savvy and well resourced - people in who's interest it is for there not to be that understanding.

What you see in a scientific paper is a summary, not the work required to achieve it. Worse than that, what you see in an abstract for a paper (which is all the vast majority of the population can access - without purchasing subscriptions to journals, although there are a couple of free to access journals around now), is a summary of the paper.

It's not the way in which science was taught in school either, where there was one "right" answer. In the real world there is a fundamental truth, but in the process getting to it there's a often a lot of uncertainty. By definition it's at the edge of human knowledge and one piece of work may contradict another, at least by degree.

Every scientific problem is approached from more than one direction. If you get similar results from alternative approaches, that's good evidence for the results being accurate.

The earlier example of modelling the Pliocene and matching that to the real world data and finding where the discrepancy lay is just one example.

Another is that genetic - DNA - evidence backs up the evolutionary origins of life as first determined by evidence from fossils and extant life; two completely different lines of enquiry with the same result.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Occasionally: Find me an example of a climate model that both fits the past and can be used to project an idea of the future done by the experts that is done the way you say mine should do. Make sure that we can also dive into the equations and see how it works if you can.

Try the models matched against Pliocene data (the particular models used are in the article and papers) I made reference to in an earlier post. Those are among the same models used to predict future climate.

Modelling the Pliocene was used as a check of both Pliocene climate data and the models, as well as increasing the understanding of the Pliocene climate.

Models can be accurate or not. I have seen a model generated FEA graphic of a virtual barrier crash test of a car put up against the real world test result. Maybe they were carefully selected images but the similarity was remarkable.