Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Curiously, the xkcd comic doesn't fool my eyes at all.
more than climate change ever will.
As opposed to the people changing the climate now with no code of ethics?
Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.
Q. Can you illustrate the above with a simple example?
A. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.
Q. How can we combine the data of the two stations above in a meaningful way?
A. What may be done before combining those data is to increase the new data or lower the old ones until the two series seem consistent. How much we have to adjust these data may be estimated by comparing the time period with reports from both stations: After the offset, the averages over the common period should be equal. (This is the basis for the GISS method). As new data become available, the offset determined using that method may change. This explains why additional recent data can impact also much earlier data in any regional or global time series.
Another approach is to replace both series by their anomalies with respect to a fixed base period. This is the method used by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. The disadvantage is that stations that did not report during that whole base period cannot be used.
More mathematically complex methods are used by NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC) and the Berkeley Earth Project, but the resulting differences are small.
No doubt man contributes to it, but Solar activity and earth history going back millions of years indicates this is a normal pattern shift.
The temperature seems to be defying its historical link to solar activity. Based on solar activity we should have been seen fairly severe cooling over the last few decades: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
This. We just had a Solar Maximum where you could (and I did) go out and look at the sun (with sun shades!) and see exactly no sun spot. At the maximum. The sun has been very cool lately. If it was at normal levels, global warming would be (very slightly) worse. Of course, the sun's variance is much smaller than the effect CO2 is having anyway.
Bwahahaha! Just kidding. I know you're really an ideologue pretending (how could you not be at this point?) to be "skeptical." This won't change anything.
- You've been told for 14 years it's going to end? No, it's just going to get really hot, and the truly bad stuff is at least 50 years away. Maybe a century. No one is predicting the world ending in 14 years.
- Climate change models are pretty damned good. If anything, they've been underestimating sea level and temperature rise. You're confusing long-term global trends with local weather.
- There was a Time magazine article in the 70s about some climate scientists that believed in cooling, and while it wasn't crackpock then, it wasn't the mainstream. Most scientists believed the Earth was warming even then. It was just with a 70% certainty instead of 97%. But man, conspiracy theorists love to trot out that one article and pretend it represented some kind of consensus. Try checking actual literature.
- The hockey stick graph has been super acurate. In fact, we're trending along it's "worse case" line.
- There's no hiatus, unless you mean that every year doesn't set a new record. Things are getting generally hotter as a trend, though.
When you deny the evidence, slander the scientists, buy into conspiracy theories, you're not honestly asking questions. You're "questioning" climate science the same way creationists "question" evolution.
What Microsoft doesnâ(TM)t do, the community will be able to do easily, since the new compiler (Roslyn) is open source.