5 ms·

> And that launch was done because of the problem to be analysed. Feedback loop closed. Oh, yes, the Planck satellite was launched because of the problem to be

by Oletros 10y ago

> And that launch was done because of the problem to be analysed. Feedback loop closed. Oh, yes, the Planck satellite was launched because of the problem to be analysed. Feedback loop closed. Meteo satellites were launched because of the problem to be analysed. Feedback loop closed. GPS satellites were launched because of the problem to be analysed. Feedback loop closed. Are you aware that you have arrived to a cnoclusion and you're trying very hard to bent reality to adapt to your conclusion even when your arguments are absurd? >? Disastrously wrong results to follow. And exaclty why the results are disatrously?

candiodari 10y ago
Look you're attacking the weakest of the points. I think you're being unfair in your comparison. But pedantically the point stands. The planck satellite studies a phenomenon that exists independently of the satellite or the humans studying it. This satellite was launched to study climate change by people who claim they're causing it. There's a clear difference. > And exaclty why the results are disatrously? Because using data about something you're doing yourself to study that phenomenon invalidates the basic axioms of statistics. If you do that, all your conclusions about the data become wrong. Why ? Because you yourself are now a factor in the phenomenon under study. At that point, and I've seen this many times, there is no longer any real hope of being correct, as there either a big gaping hole in the model, or circular reasoning. Both obviously invalidate the model.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Oletros 10y ago
  The satellites where launched to study the ices and is independent of who or what makes them change. As I said, you clearly have a conclusion beforehand and even if facts kickball you will deny it like you're doing. You don't have provided any rational argument for you criticism, when you were proved wrong anon when the time series started, you changed the goalposts. As I'm very tired of deniers like you, have a nice day.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    Enjoy your feedback-based data. We'll see how correct it is. Funny how your criticism of me consists of 2 things : 1) I have a predetermined conclusion 2) and it's the wrong one (obviously you have a predetermined conclusion as well and it doesn't seem to tolerate people of different opinions) My big argument is this : why don't we look at the main point ? Obviously that last year of data doesn't fit the data series. Obviously it's an outlier (just freaking look at it). That means it should be treated as an outlier : don't base conclusions on it, and figure out what has changed. And it's an outlier so let me tell you: the effect seen here is NOT (directly) related to a very slow change that started in 1850. It is something else. This also means, don't use statistics to analyse it. It won't work.
    - Analog24 10y ago
      Could you please explain how the satellite observing the arctic sea ice affects climate change? As far as I can tell, until this past year (the paris climate agreement) that hasn't been a significant effort to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale, which almost certainly wouldn't have an appreciable affect on the extent/surface area of arctic sea ice (carbon cycles through the atmosphere very slowly (the fastest processes take about a year and the slowest take millions of years[0]) so it will take a while before the affects of human intervention actually propagate to the scale of global climate). Also, you can certainly study outliers with statistics. In fact, most scientific discoveries (these days) all start out as outliers or statistical anomalies. The Higgs boson, Top quark, J/Psi,... every single particle described by the Standard Model (the most accurate scientific theory by far) all started out as anomalies and outliers. The fact that this years sea ice measurements are outliers doesn't mean they are necessarily a large statistical fluctuation, it could be that there is a new climate phenomenon taking place (look up the runaway greenhouse effect). I'm not saying that is what is happening here but we have no idea a priori which is the truth at the moment: it's a statistical fluctuation or it's a sign of a new climate phenomenon. Clearly all we can do is continue to study it using, among other tools, statistics. [0] - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page2.php http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page2....

by Oletros 10y ago

candiodari 10y ago

Look you're attacking the weakest of the points. I think you're being unfair in your comparison. But pedantically the point stands. The planck satellite studies a phenomenon that exists independently of the satellite or the humans studying it. This satellite was launched to study climate change by people who claim they're causing it. There's a clear difference. > And exaclty why the results are disatrously? Because using data about something you're doing yourself to study that phenomenon invalidates the basic axioms of statistics. If you do that, all your conclusions about the data become wrong. Why ? Because you yourself are now a factor in the phenomenon under study. At that point, and I've seen this many times, there is no longer any real hope of being correct, as there either a big gaping hole in the model, or circular reasoning. Both obviously invalidate the model.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Oletros 10y ago
The satellites where launched to study the ices and is independent of who or what makes them change. As I said, you clearly have a conclusion beforehand and even if facts kickball you will deny it like you're doing. You don't have provided any rational argument for you criticism, when you were proved wrong anon when the time series started, you changed the goalposts. As I'm very tired of deniers like you, have a nice day.
- candiodari 10y ago
  Enjoy your feedback-based data. We'll see how correct it is. Funny how your criticism of me consists of 2 things : 1) I have a predetermined conclusion 2) and it's the wrong one (obviously you have a predetermined conclusion as well and it doesn't seem to tolerate people of different opinions) My big argument is this : why don't we look at the main point ? Obviously that last year of data doesn't fit the data series. Obviously it's an outlier (just freaking look at it). That means it should be treated as an outlier : don't base conclusions on it, and figure out what has changed. And it's an outlier so let me tell you: the effect seen here is NOT (directly) related to a very slow change that started in 1850. It is something else. This also means, don't use statistics to analyse it. It won't work.
  - Analog24 10y ago
    Could you please explain how the satellite observing the arctic sea ice affects climate change? As far as I can tell, until this past year (the paris climate agreement) that hasn't been a significant effort to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale, which almost certainly wouldn't have an appreciable affect on the extent/surface area of arctic sea ice (carbon cycles through the atmosphere very slowly (the fastest processes take about a year and the slowest take millions of years[0]) so it will take a while before the affects of human intervention actually propagate to the scale of global climate). Also, you can certainly study outliers with statistics. In fact, most scientific discoveries (these days) all start out as outliers or statistical anomalies. The Higgs boson, Top quark, J/Psi,... every single particle described by the Standard Model (the most accurate scientific theory by far) all started out as anomalies and outliers. The fact that this years sea ice measurements are outliers doesn't mean they are necessarily a large statistical fluctuation, it could be that there is a new climate phenomenon taking place (look up the runaway greenhouse effect). I'm not saying that is what is happening here but we have no idea a priori which is the truth at the moment: it's a statistical fluctuation or it's a sign of a new climate phenomenon. Clearly all we can do is continue to study it using, among other tools, statistics. [0] - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page2.php http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page2....