08 Jun 15
Originally posted by humyWhatever was wrong with it is irrelevant? That is not good science. Any moron can see that.
Totally irrelevant: Whatever was wrong with it, good science demands that we should correct it. Exactly as he said: "To not adjust the data at that point is to fail in doing science". You make no point.
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessNow you have to prove the difference is always consistent everywhere. Can you prove that?
I don't have to. It's in the article:
Scientists have long known that ships log slightly warmer ocean temperatures than do buoys operating in the same location. The influx of data from an expansion of buoys during the past two decades has reduced the apparent rate of ocean warming.
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd why would that be? Do you expect the middle of the Sahara to be the same as the middle of Kansas? Do you expect the temperature of the ocean currents to be the same as water near the center of the ocean? If you have temperature sensors by the thousand around the world, I would expect there to be an average in all that data. Then you can compare the readings to next years data and the year after that and so forth.
Now you have to prove the difference is always consistent everywhere. Can you prove that?
Do you have a problem with that?
Originally posted by Metal Brainyou are being obtuse as usual. Can't you read? I just said:
Whatever was wrong with it is irrelevant? .
"..Whatever was wrong with it, good science demands that we should correct it. Exactly as he said: "To not adjust the data at that point is to fail in doing science". .."
So it is Irrelevant to the fact that it needs correcting; NOT irrelevant to how you should correct it. And I never implied the contrary.
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by humyFirst you must establish there really was something wrong with it.
you are being obtuse as usual. Can't you read? I just said:
"..Whatever was wrong with it, good science demands that we should correct it. Exactly as he said: "To not adjust the data at that point is to fail in doing science". .."
So it is Irrelevant to the fact that it needs correcting; NOT irrelevant to how you should correct it. And I never implied the contrary.
You have not done that.
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessCan't you provide the complete details without a link that demands login? I don't like jumping through hoops when it is not necessary.
You want details? Go read the full paper. I'm sure you'll find all the details you need there.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632
10 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessIt says they took a combined average data of one collection method and applied it to a different method of collection. This is not good science. When data collection increases and different methods change they should apply to those time periods alone. Applying them the way they did is not only inaccurate it looks like a crude method of manipulating the data to fit a preferred end result. It is highly suspect.
http://tinyurl.com/ooqbg6j
Thanks for the new link. It may be you have your browser set to automatically login with password to the first link you provided. That is my best guess as to why it worked for you and not me.
