Results and discussion

Had a meeting with Jing talking about the paper writing. What has been bothering me recently during the paper writing is the separation of the result section and the discussion section. When I was working on the result section. I found myself easily drifting into the discussion of the results. The boundary between these two seems rather vague in my eyes. Among the papers I read, around half have separated results and discussion section while the rest half combined these two sections together, representing and discussing the results in one single section. The authors' decisions look quite arbitrary and I failed to find a logical explanation when it comes to the result and discussion separation.
Jing's opinion on this issue is surprisingly simple and straight-forward. This is what he said about it:'If your results are relatively independent by themselves, you can present the results followed by in depth discussion of the results. However, if your discussion is based on several results, and you cannot draw out the discussion without first presenting all the results. You'd better separate the results  and discussion section'
Aha, it's indeed very simple and quite reasonable!

Research Spirit

So the question arises when I talked to Remy about the leaf temperature problem I ran into in my project: what is the right altitude when encounters the 'more models, more uncertainty' problem. In my case, I used air temperature in the photosynthesis calculation instead of leaf temperature to simplify the calculation. My justification for this simplification lies on two aspects. First, the final product I am seeking is the Vcmax25, which doesn't get affected much by small differences (+ - 2) between Tl and Ta; second, I thought the calculation of leaf temperature may require introducing a big ass ET model into my existing code, which, I feel very reluctant to do.

After hearing out my problem, Remy's suggestion was to go with the ET model option. According to Remy, since using Ta instead of Tl will no doubt attracts questions from the reviewers, it is much better to solve the Tl problem even it means dealing with the complicated ET model. Then I threw out the classic 'more models, more uncertainty' puzzle, and Remy's explanation really struck me: 'it doesn't matter how accurate the model is, what matters most is the overall frame. You don't have to do everything perfectly yourself. Once you set up the main frame, it opens the opportunity for others to improve it'. Bingo! That was so straight to the point! I even felt bad for myself since I never thought like this. I think my laziness and bad habit of procrastination really get in the way of my research to the point whenever I encounter a problem, I always try to make it go away instead of sitting down study it and eventually solve it.

Later on that day, I went back to my office and pulled out the energy balance equation and suddenly I realized the only unknown in the equation is Tl, other parameters can either be calculated or assigned based on different PFTs. I had quite mixed feeling of this realization. I felt happy indeed since the problem that has been hanging in my mind for so long was finally solved, but at the same time, I can't stop wandering that if I spent some more time to strengthen the basics, this should never have been a problem.
  

终于告别了三无~~~~~~

昨天回宿舍收到了Stanford的拒信，虽然原本也没有报很大希望，毕竟是跨专业申请的。可是仍旧很伤心~~~~~

新年第一篇

新年新气象，换换模版，换换心情！

开始正式申请了~~~~~

什么工作都应该一步一步完成，没有一天盖成的罗马~~~~~

已是五月

五一就这样匆匆结束了，不得不感叹时光如梭。
想想自己在四月的时候无数次下决定写点东西记述我的“双十二”年华，终是没有实现。
涛涛一大早飞回去工作了，我独自一人在城铁上晃晃悠悠半个小时回了学校，脑子里面全是空白⋯⋯
五月的天气，闷热，大风。
突然觉得失去了目标⋯⋯

进入正轨了

真的算是进入正轨了，开始认认真真读程序，仔仔细细训练，一板一眼地蹭课。
掐指一算，真是应了那句老话——时光如梭。想想自己的将来，自己自小的梦想，再不敢倦怠，每天都鞭策自己，前进前进再前进！