Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Can't reply to what you don't say (Score 1) 262 262

Possibly in some other thread somewhere, but in multiple replies to me in this thread you made no "specific mention" of where you claim to have gotten your data.

OK, I did a search of other threads, and see that in fact in a post responding to somebody else, in a different fork, you did make an attempt to back up your assertions.

First take-away point: you can't expect people to be familiar with something you posted in response to a different person, in a different fork.

Most of your comments were addressed by riverat1, who points out that you misinterpreted what was pretty clearly stated by the IPCC report.

What I deduce from your comments is that no, you didn't read any of the IPCC reports, but you did skim them to quote mine, without bothering to actually try to understand what you were reading.

OK, that's a start. I suggest next you actually read some of these reports. Then you will be able to comment from a position of knowledge, instead of ignorance, and the discussion may at least be somewhat higher level.

riverat1 doesn't address one comment. You wrote:
what's important [about climate sensitivity estimates] "is they keep shrinking as we learn more."

Refining estimates is, of course, how science works-- but, in fact, they haven't been shrinking. The reference you give is a blog that seems to have cherry picked a dozen estimates over a very short time period-- out of perhaps thousands of climate models run over fifty years by dozens of groups on five contents. The first real estimate-- by "real", I mean "using experimentally measured values of IR absorption, and numerically integrating, instead of approximating"-- is of course Manabe and Weatherald 1967. Their estimate, with no feedback other than the assumption of constant humidity, was 2.25C per doubling. The 1979 National Academy of Sciences estimate was 3 C, plus or minus 1.5 C. Since then, the IPCC has been compiling the results of many models to come up with "best guess" estimates of climate sensitivity. These have been:
1990 IPCC: 1.5 - 4.5 C ( "best guess" of 2.5)
2nd IPCC: "No strong reasons have emerged to change" these estimates
3rd IPCC: 1.5 - 4.5 C.
4th IPCC: 2 - 4.5 C
5th IPCC: 1.5C - 4.5C

(These actual IPCC WG-1 reports give detailed explanation of what they mean by "likely," and citations and figures showing where the estimates come from, as well as discussion of the high and low outliers.)

What is astonishing about climate sensitivity is how little they have changed since the National Academy of Sciences assessment in 1979. Basically, the models have been getting progressively finer scale, with more nodes and more and more of the second and third-order effects incorporated, but the overall result has not changed.

In fact, the original 1967 estimate, 2.25C, is still within the error bars-- it's quite remarkable how Manabe's very simply model (simple by today's standards: a top-of-the-line supercomputer model by 1967 standards) still holds up.

Comment: Can't reply to what you don't say (Score 1) 262 262

How about you stop grandstanding and discuss the post where I specifically mentioned where in the IPCC reports I got my info.

I would... except you didn't.

Possibly in some other thread somewhere, but in multiple replies to me in this thread you made no "specific mention" of where you claim to have gotten your data. Not only did you not "specifically mention where," you didn't even say which IPCC report you think you got your information from (in fact, this is the first post you've made that suggests that you know that there even is more than one IPCC report.)

Comment: I've been writing code like this since 1985. (Score 1) 64 64

In all seriousness though, have you ever tried to analyse unstructured text? It's hard. How would you realistically improve it? Do you start with a preconceived list of technology key words and count them in the resumes? People misspell words. Words have multiple meanings depending on context.

I've been writing code like this since 1985. Then, it was in LISP.

It's actually trivial to me at this point. You end up with a meaning trie with differential probability vectors, and some of the roots wither away as you go down. Making a machine decision is harder, but not entirely impossible.

I get incredibly annoyed at people like Lazlo Bock who want to put everyone's resumes into a form that basically allows Google (Lazlo Bock works for Google) or other companies to magically allow you to come into a new job under the horse collar of a performance review of your previous job which they were in no way involved with.

The whole "HR metrics" industry... uh... kinda pisses me off? I pick companies based on criterion other than standard metrics. If they pick me that way... they do not deserve me. Mostly they stumble into me, I fix them, and then I exit.

I understand the "OMG we need people who know what they are doing and not recent graduates!" panic. Does not mean I sympathize.

Comment: Re:Who watches this crap? (Score 1) 133 133

the really valuable work is done while I'm in the shower or in bed

This together with the question "Why would anyone want to watch someone code?" makes me think in the lines of pornstars pretending to be programmers in the shower.

And then he opened the SPARCStation pizza box to reveal... a Zilog UART!

Comment: One-sided skepticism (Score 1) 262 262

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.

Comment: Read the blog post again. (Score 1) 64 64

Read the blog post again. http://insights.dice.com/2015/...

"I think that’s pretty cool, given we’re generating that automatically from job descriptions posted on our site. We also tried using the resume dataset, but the results were of a lower quality, as the skills extracted from resumes can be from different jobs."

It was extracted from job-postings, which would only identify Schelling points in the hiring industry, not skill clusters common to people with certain desirable skill sets; in other words, it "how to fudge your resume", rather than "how to find employees like the ones I have which I like".

Comment: It's not very reliable data. (Score 3, Insightful) 64 64

It's not very reliable data.

They took the similarity vectors from the job postings, not from resumes, so rather than "what you're likely to know", they computed "what an employer is likely to want at the same time as wanting something else", and then declared that a similarity due to an already skewed cosine similarity metric. This happens because employers are more likely to copy other, similar job postings, or other job postings for companies in a similar business as them, or those of a company whose employees they wish to hire away.

They claimed that they tried using resumes, but that the resulting data was not as "clean"; uh... duh?

This visualization was not actually very useful, unless you are trying to design a resume to get yourself hired, regardless of your actual current capabilities.

Comment: Source (Score 1) 262 262

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?

Adapt. Enjoy. Survive.