|
Of course the BIG thing about science is that it says 'based on what we know today, this is what we think is happening' and things move forward based on that.
At any time of course the understanding can be criticized, in fact science positively welcomes criticism, and a mew understanding can be arrived at and a new direction taken. That's is sciences great strength, it is NOT a FIXED entity, it is a FLUID and MUTABLE entity. It is NOT a faith, it is a PROCESS.
So, we have had no warming for 17 years, time to reassess the facts, readjust our point of view, and move on. Nothing new about that, and no one need lose their jobs over it.
You don't have to be right in science, but you have to admit you can be wrong! 
modified 27-Jan-14 15:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
"Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer J. Simpson
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: So, we have had no warming for 17 years, time to reassess the facts, readjust our point of view
Nonsense
Erudite_Eric wrote: You don't have to be right in science
Which is in fact only meaningful if one is in fact a scientist and one is in fact taking another look at ones own field of expertise. And most definitely meaningless when political pundits cherry pick disparate pieces of evidence (and modify it as well) in a desperate attempt to prove that they themselves are right versus the actual scientists and science that they are attempting to defame.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Nonsense
It hasnt got ewarmer since 1998, thats obvious, and no one denies it. So I really dont see your point.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: It hasnt got ewarmer since 1998
Strange, you should really inform NOAA[^] (9 of the top 10 warmest years are since 1998, with 1998 being the other one), and NASA[^] ("With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.") of this fact.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Now. What were you saying?
That you're intentionally selecting 1998 every time as it was spike comparable to years this decade. Pick a different year, like say 1999.
That you're yet another great example why this graphic[^] was created.
Oh, and according to the "much more believable" UAH data: Quote: 2013 was 4th warmest year in the satellite era
That as I said earlier: your monomania is showing; and it's definitely not anything to do with data, science, or understanding.
That I'm done discussing this with you, as it's pointless trying to get you to understand basic physics.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
So what? Global temperature is global temperature whatever the cause. We know CO2 is causing some of the warming, we know solar some more, we know PDO causes cycles, we know ENSO does the same.
Of course there is a lot more we dont know, but we have to view it all togtether and this is how the moidels are programmed, with as many factors as are known.
And here is the point. The models predicted warming to continue post 1998 and it didnt. Therefore the models are quite inaccurate.
SO let me level the same criticism at you. Why do you cherry pick 1975 as the start date? Because for 30 years before that the earth was cooling.
But, here are the facts. There are many scientific papers recently published that have cast doubt on the assumption that climate sensitivity to CO2 is 4C per 100%, as was programmed into the original models and that now the concensus is somewhere beyween 1.5C and 3C.
Lioke I said, scince changes, it moves on, it is mutable. Getting hung up on decades old science, whic ios what you are doing, is akin to superstition.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: There are many scientific papers recently published that have cast doubt on the assumptio
There are many, many articles published.
Cherry picking some articles out of the vast array proves absolutely nothing.
Erudite_Eric wrote: Getting hung up on decades old science,
Yep no point is believing that the moon circles the earth nor that that earth circles the sun just because obviously "decades old science" says it is so.
Erudite_Eric wrote: whic ios what you are doing, is akin to superstition.
I am one of the Illuminati, I live inside the earths core and I am actually a mid-level manager in charge of managing superstition for the surface dwellers so I should know what is and isn't superstition
|
|
|
|
|
Are those supposed to be serious arguments?
Science changes, moves on. Why cant you?
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Science changes, moves on. Why cant you?
That isn't an argument. And it isn't science.
|
|
|
|
|
Please - you're asking him to let facts get in the way of his beliefs. That's so cruel!
As I commented somewhere above, a better standard term would have been climate change because that is a given. Warming is the zero'th order option, but a more energetic atmosphere/ocean system is going to be the show-stopper.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
'Struth on both fronts.
And yes, climate change is definitely a better term. Many of the effects of warming can lead to some "less than intuitive" results, as the "Polar vortex" shows this year.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Facts?
You have a problem with the fact that a plateau is not an incline?
Do you really want to pretend that just because the last decade was the warmest it means warming hasn't stopped?
Hint. You can walk up hill onto a plateau and be the highest thing around and still not get any higher!
Gosh. What a strange thought.
Don't tell me about facts. You ignore very simple ones like these in order to pretend it is still warming.
|
|
|
|
|
First fact for you to digest is that my claims in this thread are that the environment is being perturbed by a change in the atmosphere . . . and that the system must and will react to that.
Perhaps you like to obsess on 'global warming' because you can play word games and create colorful, albeit empty, analogies.
Interesting that you'd conclude a remark with "warming hasn't stopped" - specifically, I'm referring to the implication that you, at least, are claiming there is 'global warming'.
Fortunately, your vast knowledge of atmospheric chemistry and super-computer calculation indicate that the system has stopped changing.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: So I really dont see your point.
The point is that you are reading articles (since you are not doing the research yourself) which cherry pick data.
|
|
|
|
|
You are wrong. I am actually doing the research myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: I am actually doing the research myself.
So you are doing the cherry picking yourself. Presumably you think that is better.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: climatic disaster
No such thing; what happens here and now is as nothing to the cosmos.
This space intentionally left blank.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting you should say that. I was trying to explain to someone that the change in earth's atmosphere that is (likely) to be in progress, when viewed from space, is rather trivial. The disruption to the new steady-state, just a brief instant in that cosmos.
For us mortals, with our short lives and dependance upon a somewhat narrow range of conditions to derive most of what we need to survive, it could become pretty lousy.
Like the current nasty cold wave in US: it's not the earth that's any cooler but a redirection of the jet stream letting in Arctic air. Why is the atmosphere doing this? Partly, it will happen now and then, anyway. The question is will this, and similar changes, become the norm (at least during our lifetimes).
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: the current nasty cold wave in US
I'm in Phoenix. What cold spell? 
This space intentionally left blank.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get yours . . . yes precious . . . you'll get yours.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
This is interesting: https://www.droptask.com/[^]
And unrelated, I finished by F# "From Imperative to Functional Programming" e-book last week -- it'll be out on SyncFusion's Succinctly series site (free to all) once the editing gets done (last time it took a few months!) ![Jig | [Dance]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/jig.gif)
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I started reading your Unit Testing Book yesterday, we have a lot of unit tests here, there is a lot to be desired and we are rethinking how they are implemented. Hoping to gain some insight.
I've only gotten through Chapter 2, but the thing that strikes me most... is we lost track of 'how to code' and so the unit tests are lousy as a result. For instance... our methods got very complex and lost sight of the "do 1 thing and 1 thing only". Unit testing seems to force you into a certain mindset when you start out the coding.
I have a question though, if most methods are refactored to do 1 thing only, then the high level methods are more "correct" by virtue of calling tested units and being simple. BUT... is there still a value to testing those methods which call into the simple units, or is that left to the QA department's functional testing? The underlying question here is, will that affect my code coverage metric adversly?
|
|
|
|
|
Pualee wrote: BUT... is there still a value to testing those methods which call into the simple units, or is that left to the QA department's functional testing? The underlying question here is, will that affect my code coverage metric adversly?
And that is the $20,000 question. Here's my 2c:
OK, let's say you are ultra-super disciplined and your lowest level methods don't have any conditional logic, no looping, nothing but "here are the inputs, here's the output." So that's the Holy Grail of unit testing not necessarily doable or meaningful.
The second level is that we allow some basic conditional logic and some basic looping. OK, now the unit tests are a little more meaningful and still "controllable" in that we can usually provide all the test cases to test each branch and iteration / recursion, as long as the functions are small enough.
What then? Well, can you organize your higher order functions somehow? For example, those that simply perform a workflow. It's easy enough to write a unit test that the workflow does what it's expected to do. What about more complex conditions? Those are unit testable too -- again the idea is to keep the functions small so that there aren't too many branches that need to be called. And furthermore, and most importantly, branches should not contain any statements other than a call to function to do something on that branch. No nesting, no inner looping, nothing but if-call-else-call. Rinse-and-repeat as you go up the food chain, keeping functions with conditionals and looping small, realizing that you don't need to test the lower level calls, only the higher level results.
At some point, the cost of unit tests becomes too high, which is a good time to switch over to the "if it broke, write a unit test first to recreate the problem" mode. That way, it's really cost effective -- you're fixing only known bugs and adding to your test suite.
Pualee wrote: Unit testing seems to force you into a certain mindset when you start out the coding.
They do indeed!
Does that help?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
