Specifically, I will demonstrate the validity of this new tool by
reproducing known results of fitting Gaussian, crescent and RIAF models to old Event Horizon Telescope data.
Not exact matches
Now, we may
know what could have been at the root of the issue, thanks to work by researchers who attempted to
reproduce the
results of «observations that may have misled the researchers who made the original claims -LSB-, which include] cells that glow, faintly, under key wavelengths of light,» Vogel wrote.
I continued to
reproduce the same
results previously described, but eventually the battery would
no longer recharge from just the power of my friends small sedan.
What happens if you want to try to
reproduce results / methods in light of new information 10 years from now and the authors are
no longer working in the field and / or
no longer have records of their data or processing steps?
The computer output can't be
reproduced exactly, since it's not
known precisely what was done, but the
results are completely trustworthy, right??
Instead, the promoters of CAGW hide behind their ever - changing ad hoc excuses of why they can't / won't allow skeptical scientists to attempt to
reproduce their claimed
results: the raw data has been «lost,» or they say there are [undisclosed] agreements requiring confidentiality [while they freely share the same data with their pals], or the raw data has been so intermingled with the adjusted data that it is
no longer recoverable, or the data is somewhere in China, etc., etc..
This can be countered with the observation that if enough initial parameters and their influences were
known, the
result would consistently
reproduce actual temperatures because it would consider solar and magnetic and GCR influences properly.
I would be asking the Dean why someone like you was arguing against
results known and
reproduced since the 19th Century, and why such a crackpot is on the faculty.
@Brandon Shollenberger July 10 at 2:39 pm can not possibly hope to
reproduce the
results of those papers because there's no way to
know what data or code was used for those papers.
The latter is especially troubling as anyone reading the BEST papers can not possibly hope to
reproduce the
results of those papers because there's no way to
know what data or code was used for those papers.