Cap'n Refsmmat

Suppose we're focusing on warming from 1950-the present. Suppose the temperature in 1950 was depressed due to non-anthropogenic forcings. For example, suppose aliens spent all of 1950 lobbing gigantic chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean. If we wish to determine anthropogenic climate change over Earth's history, we must account for non-anthropogenic forcings. If we account for non-anthropogenic forcings and determine that the temperature in 1950 would have been cooler, the anthropogenic warming since then would be larger. If we began collecting data on giant alien ice chunks starting in 1980, and knew the impact of them on our climate in 2009, we could adjust 2009 figures for other climate forcings accordingly. However, we knew there were ice chunks in 1950, but we didn't know how many or what impact they had at all. So we remove them from the figures (or "put them in a separate bucket"), but we know that the data from 1950 has some influence, positive or negative, from alien ice chunks of doom. Thus, we know there is some unknown factor in our 1950 data that should be put into a separate bucket, but we cannot. We did, however, remove that factor from 2009's bucket. When we then compare temperatures between 1950 and 2009, one will have unknown goo in the bucket, and the other will have had that unknown goo extracted. Right?

Comparing warming caused by GHGs between 1950 and 2009 is indeed making a comparison between adjusted and unadjusted data, when only a portion of the data has been adjusted. Again, I repeat my example: Suppose we're focusing on warming from 1950-the present. Suppose the temperature in 1950 was depressed due to non-anthropogenic forcings. For example, suppose aliens spent all of 1950 lobbing gigantic chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean. If we wish to determine anthropogenic climate change over Earth's history, we must account for non-anthropogenic forcings. If we account for non-anthropogenic forcings and determine that the temperature in 1950 would have been cooler, the anthropogenic warming since then would be larger. Thus, corrected data for 1950 is important. edit: and for what it's worth, my hopes for the reputation system involved rewarding for helpful contributions and removing points for unhelpful ones, not docking points from those you disagree with.

These "crosses" in the image are a result of diffraction in the telescope optics, not us observing light that was heading in different directions. http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0065MN

You can use something like memtest86+ to test your memory modules. (It's also on most Ubuntu liveCDs.)

I asked if you're running more than one antivirus because they typically interact with each other in bad ways if you have several. If you have more than one, I'd suggest picking your favorite and removing the others. Since it didn't happen in safe mode until you tried using your antivirus software, I'd suggest that they may be the cause of the issue.

...either of your AV programs? Are you running more than one? Also, 'memory leak" refers to a program not releasing free memory, not a memory module error.

I think the software is smart enough to recognize Google and other bots and not count their visits in the views counter. I'm not entirely certain, though.

Good. So long as you can't visit my admin page, it's good. Have the other login problems ceased?

Indeed. Fixed now, might be broken again as I try to fix logins properly. Okay. Assuming I did this correctly, blog logins should be working, and you should be remembered for more than 15 minutes at a time. Please verify that you can visit your own blog admin page, and that you cannot visit mine: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/capn/wp-admin/

I say no conclusions may be drawn because drawing comparisons between adjusted and unadjusted data is incorrect. We can't draw conclusions about the effects of water vapor in 1950 if we don't know how much there was, of course. On the other hand, we know how much CO2 there was, and we can predict its effects via models validated on more recent data where more forcings are taken into account. Of course, some of these models may need updating with results from more recent stratospheric water vapor data. I believe that is what Solomon suggested in the article. I do not contest this.

I just realized what's going on, and I'm surprised I didn't catch it earlier. It's based off the session timeout on the forums -- probably 15 minutes, I think. Unfortunately, I'm moving back to the dorms tomorrow morning, but next time I have a chance I'll rewrite the integration code.

What exactly is the penalty, then, if he is found guilty of molestation? Some sort of fine?

Well, here's how I'd approach the first one if L'Hopital isn't an option. [math]\lim_{x \to 3} \frac{(1/x) - (1/3)}{x-3} = \lim_{x \to 3}\left( \frac{(1/x)}{x-3} - \frac{(1/3)}{x-3}\right) = \lim_{x \to 3} \left( \frac{1}{x(x-3)} - \frac{1}{3x - 9}\right)[/math] Once you simplify the fractions like that, you can tackle them much more easily.

Okay, just to be clear before I try to help: are these your problems? [math]\lim_{x \to 3} \frac{(1/x) - (1/3)}{x-3}[/math] [math]\lim_{t \to 0} \frac{(t+4)^{\frac{1}{2}} -2}{t}[/math] Sometimes it's hard to tell with equations written in text. You can click on the above formulas to see how I wrote them.

http://www.swedishwi...kileaks-founder Well, I guess they take it back.

You still don't seem to understand my approach, so I can see why you're having trouble. I am not advocating refraining from making adjustments. I believe I explained my reasoning in posts 44, 47, 53, and 57. You cannot draw conclusions about the amount of warming caused by GHGs between 1950 and 2009 if you have data only to draw conclusions between 1980 and 2009. You can make adjustments, but your data is incomplete, and thus your figures for 1950 are uncertain. Since there is no data about 1950, there is no knowing whether the figure for GHG contributions to climate is accurate for that year. Experience shows us that stratospheric water vapor needs accounting for, and there is no data for 1950's stratospheric water vapor. Thus, the 1950 data is untrustworthy, and we cannot draw conclusions with it and the 2009 data.

You've also been suggesting that we draw conclusions (what amount of warming is caused by GHGs vs. stratospheric water vapor) from incomplete data. The time period with no data (1950-1980) can cause significant changes in the final conclusion, so the missing data is important. The only reasonable approach to any time period where data is incomplete is to make no adjustments, no estimates about margins of error, and no predictions as to what effects might have occurred. This is what I have been suggesting all along.

Likewise.

Have you ever taken an online test? If so, how did it compare to the "real" test?

Sure, but the speculations forum rules stipulate testable speculations. What I mean is this: if you found a currently unsolved problem in physics, where current physical theories cannot provide a satisfactory answer, and then solved that problem, you would be able to demonstrate the predictive power of your hypothesis. You must show that you can explain what others cannot if you wish your theory to be used. How useful is a qualitative unified theory in doing hard science? Hard science is interested in making numerical predictions. If a theory cannot make numerical predictions, it will certainly not be preferred. No, that's not what I mean. Gödel's theorems are about proving facts about numbers, not with numbers. I do not know if they apply to a quantitative description of the universe. As originally defined, they only apply to axiomatic systems to determine truths about numbers. Could you explain how you are the Theory? How does the mathematician's involvement in mathematics cause undecidable statements? I'll make a quote as a response:

Then he should at least admit the sizable margin of error. It has been established that stratospheric water vapor can cause significant contributions for warming, so it is likely that the 1950 data is in need of adjustments. Knappenberger should add the margin of error to his results if he wishes to be intellectually honest. Given the size of the effect on the 2009 data, I'm sure the margin of error is significant.

Do you check "Remember me" when you log in to SFN usually? After I make this post, I'm going to avoid SFN for ten or twenty minutes, then try to visit my blog.

Are there specific predictions that Unity makes that no other physical theory correctly made, or could answer? I'm not sure what useful applications a universal theory would have if it could not be quantitative. Perhaps it could be used to develop more limited quantitative theories that make predictions in specific domains. Also, I'm not sure Gödel's incompleteness would apply to a quantitative theory and not a qualitative one. Gödel's incompleteness theorem limits the ability of any universal theory to be able to tell the truth of a statement about natural numbers; if a qualitative theory were to get around Gödel's theorem, it would not be able to tell the truth of all statements. Furthermore, Gödel's theorems talk about statements about natural numbers, not about all of reality. Futhermore, would Unity be able to resolve, for example, the known undecidable statements in ZFC?

If it is unfalsifiable, how do you know it is correct? You must remember, as Karl Popper pointed out in his seminal work on the philosophy of science, that the inductive argument that "it's predicted everything so far" does not provide evidence that a theory is actually correct, or that it has future predictive value. Now, if your theory "accounts for" all of the available scientific evidence that emerges, why can it not be used to make predictions that can be confirmed or falsified? Could you use your ultimate theory to explain some currently disputed scientific problem, and then wait for experiment to confirm or falsify your prediction? Or does your ultimate theory not make predictions that could be tested? (Also, I think your link is broken, so you might want to check it)

You know what I think about inductive arguments. They aren't proof. We cannot even assign likelihoods of truth based on induction.