News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why I decided not to enter the $100k global warming time-series challenge.

Re:Why I decided not to enter the $100k global warming time-... by jessaustin on Saturday December 12, 2015 @08:14AM (#10722638)
You could say that the above all demonstrates Keenan's point, that you can't identify a trend in a time series of this length.

You could, indeed.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I decided not to enter the $100k global warming time-... by allenlavoie on Saturday December 12, 2015 @09:17AM (#10722806)
You could, but you would be wrong, as the remainder of the paragraph you started quoting argues quite convincingly. Fiddle with the free parameters of the contest and it "demonstrates" whatever you want it to.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I decided not to enter the $100k global warming time-... by jessaustin on Saturday December 12, 2015 @04:36PM (#10724258)
That's a fair synopsis of the paragraph, but that understanding only supports "Keenan's point". If "parameter fiddling" is out of bounds, we're back to the drawing board for more climate models.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I decided not to enter the $100k global warming time-... by andrewprock on Saturday December 12, 2015 @08:16PM (#10724976)
Conflating "climate model" with "parameter fiddling" seems like the more significant logical failure.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I decided not to enter the $100k global warming time-... by jessaustin on Saturday December 12, 2015 @08:51PM (#10725080)
The first link when one googles "climate model parameter":

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-1...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I decided not to enter the $100k global warming time-... by andrewprock on Saturday December 12, 2015 @10:34PM (#10725312)
Nice non-sequitur.
[ Parent | on HN ]