Also, if you would like to discuss the DTRs and the article that is the topic of this thread, I can spare time for that.

You could distance yourself from trying to emulate my double standard and try to give me the answer that I seek. My deal still stands. At the time of the reviews I had looked ‘again’ at her work. Most of it was of the quality that bears to be quickly forgotten, so not necessarily a contradiction. You are welcome to post a free link to the paper so I can you the opinion you so eagerly seek.

However, since you persist with harassing comments, I’m pointing out your double-standard & self-contradictions.
You have still not answered my question. Is is harassment to want to know on what you base a criticism of me? I think not.

Or should I allow the student to save face as Pamela suggests.

You claimed earlier to be familiar with all of Dr. Charvatova’s work – stating it was your responsibility.

You’ve contradicted yourself again.

You put words in my mouth and pester me to [re-]answer a question about a researcher, but you’ve also avoided addressing my inquiry about the work of the same researcher for 3.5 months.

Double-standard.

-
Leif Svalgaard (09:50:57) “[...] it still nags you [...]“

It doesn’t “nag” – you’re a volunteer.

However, since you persist with harassing comments, I’m pointing out your double-standard & self-contradictions.

- -
Re: Pamela Gray (09:51:31) & Leif Svalgaard (10:34:17)

These matters are interdisciplinary. No single discipline has a monopoly. For example, statistical missteps by top experts (including physicists) are not so rare.

Optimistic adages:
1) Adapt & overcome.
2) Turn your disadvantage into your advantage.

This could take time, as Pamela has pointed out. I would add that we are all eternal students.

- -
Is anyone interested in discussing DTR and the article featured in this thread?

I have been tutored by both kinds of teachers, the ones that insist that every step be taken in and understood before further progress can be made (even if that means staying after school to discover the difference between /of/ and /off/ in the first grade), and the ones that take a break from long division to teach how to make bread with her 4th grade students. Strangely enough, the ah ha moment came while eating warm bread, not during the math lesson.

Or better, I’ll make a deal with you. If my humble opinion about that paper is so important to you that you remember it and it still nags you after 3.5 months, then provide a free link to the paper. I’ll read it and render my opinion on it. In return, you’ll be uncharacteristically constructive and ‘tell me what ‘her central thesis’ was and how that should have changed my position vis-a-vis her papers.’.
Deal?

So, tell me what ‘her central thesis’ was and how that should have changed my position vis-a-vis her papers.

Now you are contradicting yourself.

So, tell me what ‘her central thesis’ was and how that should have changed my position vis-a-vis her papers.

Allan M R MacRae (16:58:30) :
BTW, some time ago I sent you a paper by Jan Veizer (GAC 2005) that in Figure 2 showed an apparently strong correlation between Cosmic Ray Flux and Low Cloud cover, (after Marsh and Svensmark 2003 and Marsh et al 2005). Did you get this paper? Do you accept or reject this correlation?

It doesn’t look too good, and employs a standard technique of persuasion, namely plotting some other quantities as well that are well correlated to ‘guide’ the eye. Svensmark notes that perhaps a better calibration of the spacecraft data would improve the correlation. The recent albedo data of Palle also do not support the correlation, as there is no clear solar signal.
_________________________________

Leif, I have re-examined Figure 2 of Veizer (2005) and cannot agree with your above comment. I tend to agree with Veizer, when he says:

Figure 2. Solar irradiance (SI), galactic cosmic ray (CR) flux and low cloud (LC) cover, 1983 – 2001 (adapted from Marsh and
Svensmark, 2003a and Marsh et al., 2005). Note the reversed scale for SI. Some authors (Laut, 2003) argue that the apparent
post-1995 divergence of clouds from celestial trends disqualifies the correlations. However, the discrepancy may arise from a
modified cross-calibration of satellites, following the late 1994 hiatus in polar orbit flights (Marsh and Svensmark, 2003a). A correction
for this drift (thick full line LC’) results in a good agreement for all parameters (see also Pallé et al., 2004b and Usoskin
et al., 2004).
_____

I have not reviewed Pallé.

We’ll see where this leads. Just because we do not understand the mechanisms whereby solar variation (or whatever) drive climate variability, does not mean that they do not exist.

Double-standard.

You are mistaken. See here:
I would be curious to know what Dr. Svalgaard believes might be responsible for the 7.8 year signal detected in European temperature time series

I didn’t see a question mark in there and I don’t have an opinion. My ‘nonsense’ went to the “we are all volunteers” excuse. How many times have I asked you now what ‘the central thesis’ was? and how many times have you squirmed to avoid an answer? and now this lame excuse. Are you not a bit ashamed of yourself? So, tell me what ‘her central thesis’ was and how that should have changed my position vis-a-vis her papers. Looking forward to your next excuse for avoiding that issue.

Leif Svalgaard (22:19:35) “Nonsense”

You are mistaken. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/nasa-solicits-new-studie-on-the-current-solar-minimum/
[Paul Vaughan (12:05:05) Mar. 15, 2009]

- -
Leif Svalgaard (22:19:35) “[...] very high-speed recurrent streams from large low-latitude coronal holes.”

Thank you for conveying this useful information.

- -
Leif Svalgaard (22:26:01) “[...] some take the simplifications to be real qualitative differences.”

I will agree that for some it does not go beyond qualitative – and add that nonetheless scientists can (& do) try to help them establish accurate qualitative conceptions (within the existing constraints – e.g. available time).

- -
Re: maksimovich (22:57:17)

I remember turning up a presentation on this some time ago:
http://www.iono.noa.gr/cost724/Documents/WG1/Th_Dudok_de_Wit.pdf

From the presentation: “The method is simple yet the fit is better than any one produced so far”