Comments on: Not A Solution to the Caramilk Secret http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/ by Steve McIntyre Sat, 25 May 2013 05:25:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: nanny_govt_sucks http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49717 Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:04:08 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49717 Maybe someone from Northern California can ask Mann himself about this secret formula. He’ll be speaking to a bunch of tie-dyed-shirt-wearing vegans at eco-friently UC Santa Cruz on May 10th. I’m sure that amongst all the glowing praise from his supporters he’d appreciate a chance to clarify the confidence intervals question.

http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/05-01/brief-mann.asp

]]> By: Terry http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49716 Sat, 29 Apr 2006 03:07:05 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49716 Fascinating thread folks. Thanks.

]]> By: Jean S http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49715 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:23:27 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49715 re #42: No problem, at least you don’t have to spend that many ours with the damn paper as I did. BTW, read the “Acknowledgements”: they had one(!) reviewer. Also one of the names listed really pops up. The hockey team truly seems to be a one small happy family!

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49714 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:09:41 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49714 What?

By depth/zero John ?
:-)

]]> By: Spence_UK http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49713 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:31:53 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49713 Re #36

Thanks for the info Jean, sounds like I was a bit wide of the mark – I was assuming they had crudely mapped a red noise distribution into a short series of white noise distributions, but from your description their methods are not what I had assumed.

The continual guesswork required to figure out the obscure methods they apply when there are perfectly good “off-the-shelf” methods is hugely frustrating.

]]> By: John A http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49712 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:31:10 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49712 Stay away from astrophysics, Louis, you’re out of your depth.

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49711 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:03:32 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49711 :-) :-)

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49710 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:02:17 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49710 Ahem,

A black hole is derived from D = M/V where V ==> 0, ok, you are right, a finite mass in no volume.

Nyyaaaaa!

]]> By: John A http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49709 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:55:12 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49709

(a black hole is essentially a point in 3-D space which has no volume but infinite mass)

No it isn’t. Black holes have a definite finite mass.

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/25/a-solution-to-the-caramilk-secret/#comment-49708 Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:57:59 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=648#comment-49708 Steve should answer this but writing as a physical scientist, graphs or plots are supposed to be physically meaningful – ie plot concentration of gold as Y axis and distance from source on X axis, and you have a plain simple presentation of some spatially complex facts. A no brainer, as they say.

But when PCA and other statistical derivations are plotted, one quickly loses sight of the physical connection of the data and become embroiled in the, admitedly really interesting, mathematical properties of the derived data. I experienced that when Geostatistics started to become significant in mining and mineral exploration. Except that in the case I know about personally, a start from first principles was deemed mandatory. Once that was done, geostatistics became rather mundane and overhyped.

So in mineral exploration we cannot allow ourselves such intellectual luxuries of arguing over statistical minutae but apparently in academia, these days, it is quite normal, since operating profitabally is an unknown experience. (Well, no, since academics, when doing outside consulting, sure know how to charge, so the profit and loss concept is not unknown to them).

We (mining types) would call it another “flight from reality” instance.

This seems to have occurred in astronomy where the maths are more important than the observations – black holes for example which where initially inferred from the maths, (a black hole is essentially a point in 3-D space which has no volume but infinite mass), and as the maths so sprake, so did the astronomers so search.

It never occurred to them that the maths might be in error.

It never occurs to the faithful that their beliefs might be misplaced.

And the rest of us have to put up with the crap that this blind adherence to dogma, whether scientific or theological, generates.

Hence this blog which Steve runs.

]]>