Quote:
Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance
LOL.
Have you seen the residue after the decomposition into four intrinsic mode functions ? It's on page 117. It shows a linear increase of 0.4°C !
Furthermore, while they admit that their method is critically sensitive to the endpoints, they still extrapolate from them. And that extrapolation looks, especially in the case of IMF-1, as a textbook example of a chaotic bifurcation, which isn't surprising actually giving both the method and the effect are sensitive towards the initial conditions. Thus, at least IMF-1 is just a guess. Nothing more. It's the economists approach to data : add functions till it looks like the data.
Until they give a functional explanation for the residue, all they did is play with maths a bit and end up with a residue that is no more than a moving average of the signal....
|
Yet, they are models...just that...as are the basis of the doomsday predictions of the others that the politicians are so at ease to quote. It seems you missed my comment to Kijana about models.
Quote:
|
.... Do you think it's a coincidence that this sort of work comes from China where the rush to develop regardless of everything is the strongest ?...
|
As most of my colleagues are from China, I am not so easily proned to dismiss the work of those from that country or those educated there. I find that they are quite apt at science, otherwise they would not be working with me, nor I with them. I also
know that my colleagues in the world would not dismiss my work as having a political agenda because of my location. It is sad that so many who dabble in this particular area are willing to do just that.
Quote:
.... Besides, this particular article, and a few more you linked I see, are published by the company that publishes Bild of all things (Springer-Verlach). The exact opposite of scientific credibility.
Edit: The other three articles are not free. Do you have access to the full text ? If so, is the methodology in them any better ? IOW, are they worth buying ?
|
My apologies. I made that post while at work and didn't consider access issues.
First of all, Springer is extremely reputable in the biological sciences, chemistry, and the medical sciences. Perhaps others are willing to dismiss this publishing house (who asks for reviewers...they
are peer-reviewed journals), but my work would be limited if we allowed politics to dictate what publishers could be cited, rather than reputation based on the quality of the articles. Again, perhaps the political agenda is interfering with the science. Wiley is an American publishing house; so is the ACS (the ice-core article) - should these publishing houses be dismissed as well because the US opposes Kyoto?
Finally, I am obliged to respect copyrights. There would be potential ramifications for me if I violated those rules as we have strict policy at my place of work in this respect. If there is a specific question you have, I would be willing to (and within policy) to post an excerpt when I return to work on Wednesday.
And, all the articles are peer-reviewed.