Australian Politics Forum - The Soren Challenge

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #90 - Jul 30^th, 2011 at 10:51pm

muso wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 10:10pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

Remote Sensing, where the article appeared, is a peer reviewed journal based in Basel.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

If you think the data is crap, you can submit an article yourself. Info for authors, including the peer review process, here:
http://www.mdpi.com/authors/

There are many obscure articles submitted to open access journals. If it's such a major finding, why doesn't he publish in one of the mainstream journals? (because he can't get it peer reviewed by somebody from UAH ?)

Here's Kevin Trenberth's take on this article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-te...

Quote:

The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.....

Did Trenberth or anyone else tested the data? Or just identified "some points of contention"?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #91 - Jul 31^st, 2011 at 11:22am

Soren wrote on Jul 30^th, 2011 at 10:51pm:

Did Trenberth or anyone else tested the data? Or just identified "some points of contention"?

Yes. Read the link. He also goes into a lot of detail regarding the selective use of data sets. Also read the first comment:

Quote:

Glad to see you post on this study. We fired off a story on this last night, after the Forbes column was highlighted on Drudge. According to Mike Lemonick, who wrote the Climate Central piece, it seemed to be a case where a study was saying one thing, and the author was saying/writing another to the press, inspiring all sorts of online shenanigans.

By the way, "Remote Sensing" is not a journal listed by Thomson Reuters. So it's an obscure, poorly reviewed paper in an obscure journal.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 31^st, 2011 at 11:31am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #92 - Jul 31^st, 2011 at 6:43pm

Funny. Was there a refutation of the article published in another/same peer reviewed journal.
Because otherwise you are just spouting what you've read on a blog or five against a peer reviewed article, something usually attributed tio the 'hard right extremist denilist grandchild haters'.

Apart from a handful of journals, all specislist journals are obscure to non-specialists. Remote Sensing's editorial board:

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/editors

Which one is objectionable?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #93 - Jul 31^st, 2011 at 8:38pm

Soren wrote on Jul 31^st, 2011 at 6:43pm:

Apart from a handful of journals, all specislist journals are obscure to non-specialists. Remote Sensing's editorial board:

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/editors

Which one is objectionable?

The one who obviously carried out a perfunctory peer review. It's not the first time it has happened in non-mainstream publications. You do get oddball papers from time to time. If you get a number of researchers who subsequently carry out work that supports the findings, then it becomes mainstream.

In this case, the paper was about the statistical interpretation of a cherry picked outlier data set.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #94 - Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 7:16am

Soren wrote on Jul 31^st, 2011 at 6:43pm:

Funny. Was there a refutation of the article published in another/same peer reviewed journal.
Because otherwise you are just spouting what you've read on a blog or five against a peer reviewed article, something usually attributed tio the 'hard right extremist denilist grandchild haters'.

It's a relatively recent paper. In answer to your question, there will be, almost certainly, and it will detract from doing some more serious work. How long do you think it would take to research another paper and get it published?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #95 - Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 10:42am

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 7:16am:

Soren wrote on Jul 31^st, 2011 at 6:43pm:

Funny. Was there a refutation of the article published in another/same peer reviewed journal.
Because otherwise you are just spouting what you've read on a blog or five against a peer reviewed article, something usually attributed tio the 'hard right extremist denilist grandchild haters'.

It's a relatively recent paper. In answer to your question, there will be, almost certainly, and it will detract from doing some more serious work. How long do you think it would take to research another paper and get it published?

Oh?! DO you mean to say that there will have to be actual research of the actual data and a considered response, taking a bit longer than typing a blog response? Do you mean that dismissing the paper out of hand on a warmerist blog or five is not the way to go?
I do detect a distictly miffed air, though, when warmerists are required to do a bit more than breezily wave their hands when a counter-argument comes up.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #96 - Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 11:18am

Soren wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 10:42am:

I do detect a distictly miffed air, though, when warmerists are required to do a bit more than breezily wave their hands when a counter-argument comes up.

This paper was so obviously contrived to fit an agenda that yes, you might detect a miffed air. It wouldn't be the first time. You only have to look at the history of this particular genius to realise that. Deliberately altering remote sensing temperature data to make it appear that there was no warming was one of his previous 'sins'.

It's likely that he'll stay at UAH until he retires. No other university would employ him other than the good 'ol boys.

Soren wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 10:42am:

Do you mean that dismissing the paper out of hand on a warmerist blog or five is not the way to go?

You make it sound as if it was an off the cuff dismissal. It was quite a considered and detailed response. Read it for yourself:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-te...

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 11:27am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96347

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #97 - Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 3:36pm

Soren wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 10:42am:

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 7:16am:

Soren wrote on Jul 31^st, 2011 at 6:43pm:

Funny. Was there a refutation of the article published in another/same peer reviewed journal.
Because otherwise you are just spouting what you've read on a blog or five against a peer reviewed article, something usually attributed tio the 'hard right extremist denilist grandchild haters'.

It's a relatively recent paper. In answer to your question, there will be, almost certainly, and it will detract from doing some more serious work. How long do you think it would take to research another paper and get it published?

Oh?! DO you mean to say that there will have to be actual research of the actual data and a considered response, taking a bit longer than typing a blog response?

Don't be silly, old boy. Carry on.

Back to top

IP Logged

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #98 - Aug 3^rd, 2011 at 11:31pm Why waste your time????
Back to top	live every day IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #99 - Aug 9^th, 2011 at 10:46am

CLIMATE researchers should spend less time in front of computer screens building predictive models and more time in the field observing and interpreting "hard or real data", an internationally recognised coastal science expert and publisher has warned.

Charles Finkl, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Coastal Research, which published a peer-reviewed study by NSW researcher Phil Watson that rekindled a fierce debate about sea level rises, said modelling was necessary but should be taken with a grain of salt.

He accused the CSIRO of refusing to consider questions raised by Mr Watson's research for its modelling, predicting a worst-case scenario sea level rise of up to 1.1m by 2100.

"The CSIRO more or less agrees with Watson but does not want to admit they have have not got it quite right previously," said Professor Finkl, geosciences professor emeritus at Florida Atlantic University.

"I am not in favour of models for many reasons. They get better over time, and we need to use them, but with a grain of salt. We should instead use our brains and hard or real data to make interpretations. Many researchers do not even go into the field any more because they think the world exists on their computers. Big mistake."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/studying-the-climate-then-get-o...

A lot of 'climate science' is just nerds fiddling with computers and 'data'. Statisticians behaving badly.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #100 - Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:10pm

Fabulous letter to the editor today. From a professorial fellow.

Triumph of scepticism

TWO Nobel prizes this week in physics and chemistry have more than usual significance for science and philosophy.
Australia's Brian Schmidt challenged at the cosmic scale the conventional wisdom of slowing expansion of the universe and proved expansion is happening at an accelerating rate.

The discovery at the molecular scale by Israel's Dan Shechtman of quasi-crystals and crystals with pentagonal symmetry in chemistry shook the foundations of his science because they were deemed by colleagues to be impossible - so impossible that at one time he lost credibility among his peers and was asked to leave his research group.

There can be no higher-level demonstration than these awards of the value of scepticism in science, and of the role of observation and deduction free of the confines of conventional wisdom.

I look forward to the day when such elevated scientific method replaces the bitter and personalised arguments over settled science which today characterises earth-scale climate studies..

Michael Asten, Professorial Fellow, Monash University, Melbourne

Settled science challenged and proved wrong.

Back to top

IP Logged

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #101 - Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:22pm Settled science challenged and proved wrong. - SOREN Please elucidate, .. one hears so much static these days..
Back to top	live every day IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: The Soren Challenge Reply #102 - Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:24pm Emma wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:22pm: Settled science challenged and proved wrong. - SOREN Please elucidate, .. one hears so much static these days.. Read the smacking letter and let me know which part eludes you.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #103 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 9:53am

Soren wrote on Oct 8^th, 2011 at 10:10pm:

Fabulous letter to the editor today. From a professorial fellow.

Triumph of scepticism

TWO Nobel prizes this week in physics and chemistry have more than usual significance for science and philosophy.
Australia's Brian Schmidt challenged at the cosmic scale the conventional wisdom of slowing expansion of the universe and proved expansion is happening at an accelerating rate.

The discovery at the molecular scale by Israel's Dan Shechtman of quasi-crystals and crystals with pentagonal symmetry in chemistry shook the foundations of his science because they were deemed by colleagues to be impossible - so impossible that at one time he lost credibility among his peers and was asked to leave his research group.

There can be no higher-level demonstration than these awards of the value of scepticism in science, and of the role of observation and deduction free of the confines of conventional wisdom.

I look forward to the day when such elevated scientific method replaces the bitter and personalised arguments over settled science which today characterises earth-scale climate studies..

Michael Asten, Professorial Fellow, Monash University, Melbourne

Settled science challenged and proved wrong.

There is a difference between true scepticism and what might better be termed "talking convincing bullshit to convince the gullible, or to support a sacred and well-loved principle, such as the believe that God will protect our planet". The former is leading edge. The latter is not.

You can't classify lies and pseudo-science as being sceptical science - at least not unless you come from the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

barnaby joe

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1992
euchareena

Re: The Soren Challenge
Reply #104 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 10:02am

hay guys

the conventional wisdom was overturned on an issue in another field of science

therefore

its going to happen in this one too and believing against all the odds and all the conventional wisdom that is is is the most sensible thing to do Cool

believing that anthropogenic global warming isnt happening is like the opening to hogwarts

Back to top

IP Logged