Comment Re:App-A-Holics anonymous (Score 1) 110
But it would be iOS only, because 12-step programs are religious in nature.
Imagine if you would, the ability to reproduce an F1 rocket engine.
That's what Dynetics is trying with the F-1B project... With 8 MN of liftoff thrusts, despite the other projects in the works (the Falcons, Vulcan, the mythical Blue Origin launcher), it could still make for an interesting single-stick launcher.
I have a suggestion: I suggest you try analyzing blogs that attack climate science with just as much skepticism as you are applying to the actual climate science. You're showing one-sided skepticism: skeptical of the science, but completely credulous of the attacks on the science.
That blog post you link is full of misdirection and not-quite-right analysis. The graph by Bloomberg cites that the data graphed comes from the GISS. In fact, it is from a 2005 paper, Hansen, et al. "Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS model E." Clim. Dyn., 29, 2007, pp. 661-696). The Watt's up post, though: what's up with that? He wrote a long and superficially detailed analysis... without linking a single reference. Why no references? It looks like he doesn't want you to check what he did. His motto is, apparently, "trust me... and don't verify".
Why does he not link to the source of all the data he is analyzing? Doesn't that even slightly make you wonder?
Then, he says it's "convenient" that the graphed data stops at 2005. Well, it's not terribly suspicious: since the paper referenced was published in 2005, it would be surprising if the data didn't stop in 2005). He then shows a graph that purportedly shows "the widening divergence between models and reality" that purportedly starts in 2005. No link to the actual source of that data, though it's easy enough to find. He prints that graph-- the largest graph in the criticism-- without mentioning that it's not even graphing the same thing as the article he's criticizing.
He leaves off any explanation of where the data comes from probably because the data points graphed are not surface temperature-- this is the temperature in the mid-troposphere: 8–15km in altitude (and, to boot, only in the tropics, not the global average under discussion.)
The graph Watts Up put in without explanation is charting something completely different than the subject being discussed! Now, you can argue (and Christy does) that tropical mid-troposphere temperate is something important to understand and model... but that's a change of subject from what the article being critiqued discusses.
Why doesn't he say that?
The answer is obvious: this is misdirection. He's not trying to spread understanding. He's trying to spread confusion.
Start reading the Watts Up with the same skepticism you are applying to the actual science. Check his references. Look for misdirection and changes of subject. There's a dozen places right in that post you link that you can find things that you ought to find suspicious.
...About the IPCC reports. Indeed I have read them.
No, you haven't.
Your posts show no knowledge of anything except the denier arguments. If you had read the actual work that the denier blogs are attacking, you'd be able to comment with some actual understanding, instead of the comments you are posting with weasel-wording of "I am quoting from memory, I may be wrong." What a great weasel wording! You already told me that you think you might be wrong!
As usual, your side doesn't debate anything, only appeals to authority.
I linked to the source that you stated you were getting your facts from. You were the one appealing to authority: I just posting the link.
Yeah, right. Let's believe anonymous cowards on facebook as reliable sources; they know much more than actual scientists.
Citation needed.
Besides, it has been shown to be wrong.
You seen to think that by just saying that you will make it true.
As for linking to the IPCC... well that was more than useless.
Since you said you were quoting numbers from the IPCC, I would suggest that linking to the IPCC reports would be relevant. Since you now say it is "more than useless" to link to the source that you claimed to have based your post on, I'd say that your post is "more than useless."
I haven't seen anything to make me think you have actually read any of the IPCC reports-- I suspect your poorly-remembered data is something you poorly-remembered from some political blog somewhere. Have you actually read anything from the IPCC, the work you claim to be quoting?
Say, people are beginning to pay attention. High enough, the climate is nice. Possibly not as nice as Jamaica. But nicer than, say, the moon:
The numbers above are from the IPCC (albeit from memory, correct some of they are wrong).
Correct in the last part: some of them are wrong.
The actual IPCC documents are here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
An interesting graphic comparing various sources of climate change is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/graph...
It's hard to trust anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today.
That's an assertion that's hard to challenge in the libertarian atmosphere of slashdot.
Research and reports are spun mercilessly for the gain of whoever needs it.
Indeed, it's always wise to track down the actual original data, and actually look at the data and see what we know, and how well we know it, rather than to trust the media interpretations.
It may not be scientist's fault but when you hear something like "the sky is falling" and then hear it refuted over and over, one starts to take things with a grain of salt.
The media does like to run doom and destruction stories-- they are more of a story than talking about things like "slow increase in temperature over a time scale of decades."
Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's.
OK, let's take it for an example. There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. The American Meteorological Society did a review, trying to look for the origin of that. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... They summarize: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's
It was not really "refuted" per se, since it was never a scientific consensus in the first place.
and now it's simply Global Climate Change which seems to be a catch-all.
"Global Climate Change" was the term coined by the (first) Bush administration.
I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.
Excellent! That's the difference between deniers and skeptics: deniers will make any possible excuse to avoid looking at data. As it turns out, there are literally terabytes of data.
I will suggest starting with the Working Group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, which summarizes what is known and how we know it. I'm most familiar with the 4th report (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html), from 2007, but you might want to go directly to the more recent update, the 5th: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
From there, dive into the data from whichever source you prefer-- I'd suggest possibly the Berkeley Earth data, which does an interesting job of comparing alternative hypotheses against the temperature data: http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...
What's the old adage that Regan grabbed from the Russian's; "Trust but Verify" I think was it.
Excellent. Much better than the denier's motto: "Never trust, never verify, never look at the facts."
Different people obviously have very diffferent requirements. In the UK, you can be fined huge amounts of money for a small excess of speed, so speed is important. If you are an older driver, the time taken to refocus from the dashboard to infinity (or vice versa) can be very long. However, spotting moose or crazy drivers is probably automatic (not that there are many moose on the road in the UK).
The question is, is it better than people at spotting small children running out from behind stationary buses?
If not, then it should avoid attempting to spot any problem, as it will lead to drivers relying on it the way they rely on satnav instead of knowing how to get anywhere.
The driver should be able to decide what is critical information. Since it is possible for the driver to change frequently, this needs to be set every trip, and probably needs to default to no info at all, as some people wont be familar with it. In which case it will probably rarely be used and can be safely junked. Your Moose May Vary.
unless you were born yesterday.
Rational explanation for phenomenon has been found. News at 10.
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
