Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Mycology (Score 4, Informative) 270

Correction factors are used for systematic errors.

Correct. And if you read the link, that's exactly what the NOAA corrections were: they corrected for known systematic errors, such as the change from fluid-in-glass thermometers to electronically-measured thermistors.

The measurement errors are random errors.

Random errors can be reduced by taking many measurements (which NOAA also does). The random error decreases as the square root of the number of measurements.

Comment Assertion without evidence (Score 2) 270

First time I heard that adjusting data to fit sought for conclusions is science.

You just asserted, without evidence, that the data was adjusted "to fit sought-for conclusions."

Again, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument by the deniers. If the data isn't adjusted to correct for known instrument drift, the deniers shout "the data needs to be corrected," and if it is, the deniers shout "the data was adjusted." All data is analyzed. If you don't understand that, about all I can say is that you've never done real experimental science. If you don't correct for errors, the data is wrong. The question is: was the data analysis right? not: was the data analyzed?

In fact it is only people who really 'suck at science', who would do anything of the sort. Questioning such practices is opposite of "arrogance"; It is a sign humbleness to look afresh at unvarnished evidence that universe throw at us to arrive at conclusions through scientific method.

Questioning is good. Asserting that the data was analyzed to fit a "preconceived conclusions" however, is not questioning-- you've already come to your conclusion without even looking at the data analysis. Is the data analysis wrong? You haven't shown any analysis supporting that conclusion.

Comment Mycology (Score 2, Interesting) 270

> I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data.

Im a mycologist and when doing spore measurements we measure the length and width or many spores. Then average the length and average the width. Providing largest measurements, smallest measurements, and average. We don't "adjust" our actual measurements to make sure the spore size meets the expected size.

Possibly you should, since other mycologists do make corrections. Here are some corrections factors noted by Smith et al: "Sources of Variability in the Measurement of Fungal Spore Yields":

"Quantification of the sources of experimental error in spore
production measurements provided a basis for recommendations
concerning the necessary degree of replication"

"to ensure that these precise counts are also
accurate, checks must be made for interference from nonspore
particles in the same size range as spores and for the
clumping of spores. The degree of clumping that we encountered
necessitated a correction factor that was much larger
than that expected from the coincidental passage of conidia
through the aperture, which should have been less than 2% if the
conidia were all separate. Also, our correction factor was
only approximate and probably varied with culture age, as
did the mean weight per spore. "

see also Chapels: "Spore size revisited: Analysis of spore populations using an automated particle sizer"

Comment It's a record hot month with or without adjusting (Score 2) 270

Was this before or after adjusting the data?

If you looked at the page you linked, you'd see that the heat-island effect you reference is 0.1F (0.056 C). The article says that this July was 0.55 degrees Celsius higher than the July average for 1981-2010, so that's ten times more than the entire heat-island correction between 1900 to 2000. And it was is one-fifth of a degree Celsius higher than previous July temperature records-- which still five times larger than the entire heat island change between 1900 and 2000.

Note that all data is always "adjusted" (in your term)-- this is how data analysis is done. It is how science is done. The question is whether the data is analyzed in a way that is transparent. The fact that you can point to the discussion of exactly how the data is analyzed is a strong point in favor of the data analysis. Here's a clue: you should be worried when the scientists don't explain how the data is analyzed.

This is, of course, a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument by the deniers-- if the temperature wasn't corrected for these errors, the deniers were shouting how the measured temperatures aren't reliable because they needed to be corrected for all these effects.

Comment Re:Venus rotation- locked to Earth (Score 2) 211

Venus is close to, but not exactly in, an orbital resonance with Earth, but no, I'm not talking about orbital resonance (nor was that what the original poster was talking about.)
Venus is -- very possibly by coincidence-- in a rotational lock with Earth.

If you're looking for a Wikipedia reference, try this one instead:

Comment Science (Score 1) 211

... but now we're in this era where "leftist" is unanimously used as an insult and ...

"leftist" should be a unanimous insult considering how...

If the left started supporting scientific progress once again, ,,,

Sigh. Science is not be "left" or "right." The science is the science. Facts shouldn't be adapted to your ideologies; your ideologies should deal with whatever the facts are, not work at denying them.

The facts don't 'support' a left or right ideology: they just are what they are.

Comment Correcting corrections (Score 1) 211

Wow you crammed a ton of incorrect information into a single post. Are you trolling or just too stupid to look things up?

The same question could be asked of you. You just "corrected" two fact that were not incorrect.

On Earth it appears that the oceans put enough water into the crust as to make plate tectonics possible (the water lubricates fault lines. If Venus ever had plate tectonics, it probably stopped when the water evaporated.

Water is not and never has been a requirement for a planet to have plate tectonics.

This is not known. Hydration is driven into rocks by subduction, and water content does decrease the viscosity of magma. So it is a plausible, although unproven, hypothesis that water is needed for plate tectonics.

And then there is the fact that Venus is tide-locked between the Sun and Earth (always has the save face toward Earth when the two planets are closest together)

Not only is Venus not tide-locked to earth, it doesn't even rotate in the same direction as earth.

Nevertheless, Venus does has the same face toward Earth when the two planets are closest together. This is not likely to be due to tidal effects, but the quoted statement that Venus always has the same face toward Earth when the two planets are closest together is correct. Unexpected, but correct.

Since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about I suggest you cease doing that until you learn considerably more than you are demonstrating.

and, likewise, you might do research before correcting facts that aren't actually incorrect.

Comment Venus rotation- locked to Earth (Score 2) 211

I'm sorry but Venus is not tidally locked to the Earth. .

You wouldn't think so, but, strangely, Venus very nearly is rotationally locked to the Earth: It presents the same face to the Earth on each closest approach.

(583.92-day interval between conjunctions to Earth ("synodic period") = 5.001444 Venusian solar days.

But this can't be a tidal effect, however: the tidal effects are way too low to have any possible effect on Venus' rotation. Best guess is that it is simply a coincidence.

Comment Re:Wrong data is not a benefit nor useful (Score 1) 175

No, it is idiotic, but not as idiotic. "0,0" will let pretty much every user know that the data is missing.

Here's a metaphor. If you are weighing a letter to see how much postage is needed, and for some reason the scale is malfunctioning, if it reads "0 grams", you probably can guess it's not making a measurement. If it has a little microprocessor inside that reads garbage from the sensor, and it's programmed so that if the sensor reading makes no sense, the scale should report out a plausible average value for weights-- that's bad.

Absurd data may not be good-- but plausible wrong data is much worse.

Comment Wrong data is not a benefit nor useful (Score 1) 175

It would make more sense if they returned latitude 0, longitude 0.

Why? That's a location off the coast of Africa in the Gulf of Guinea, which means that it doesn't even have the benefit of being useful for identifying the correct country, which is what the software is currently configured to do.

You are making a fundamental error if you think that telling a user that an IP address is at a specific street address in Kansas when all that is known is that it is registered somewhere in the United States is a "benefit" and it is in any way "useful."

Telling them that it's in the Atlantic Ocean at 00 is a far better indication of "I don't know" than giving a wrong address that actually exists.

Comment Re:Whatever happened to "location not found"? (Score 1, Interesting) 175

"Somewhere in the United States" is not a latitude and longitude location, and should not be reported as such.
The map on a typical IP address geolocation site does have a circle around it... but there is no statement that the circle indicates a radius of uncertainty (until you said that, I had no idea). And, in any case, if the uncertainty is 2000 miles in radius, the circle won't show up on the map, because it's off the edge.
It would make more sense if they returned latitude 0, longitude 0.
Anybody looking at that would probably understand that "zero" indicates something other than "it is located here", but anybody who actually DOES try to go there will go to a undistinguished spot in the Atlantic Ocean.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Spock, did you see the looks on their faces?" "Yes, Captain, a sort of vacant contentment."