Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment: HOW much CO2? (Score 1) 310 310

Their top projection - the one that's getting a lot of play - suggests they think we're going to hit 935 ppm CO2 by 2099.

Which is nearly twice what most of the "mainstream" projections calls for, and is pretty much fantasy at this point - it's above the IPCC's worst case scenario (and a couple of hundred ppm above anything like a reasonable example).

The one that's closest to reality is for 538 ppm CO2 - and you have to look pretty close to notice any difference from right now. Although they gave us some "1950" baseline images, so you can actually see the difference (and notice that the "catastrophic" part of CAGW doesn't seem to be coming any time in the next 85 years).

Comment: Re:How to fix the pause! (Score 3) 639 639

And that's where it falls apart.

This study gets the "warm" result by combining two different datasets - old, ship-based measurements plus new, buoy-based ones. Which has been done many times before, and resulted in the old curve that flattened out. This is NOT a new problem, and has been well understood for as long as AGW has been predicted. The adjustments were already there (see the lower part of Figure 2 in the study).

This study MODIFIES that "change over time" by lowering the ship-based measurements (which dominated the SST series for most of the last century) and fudging up the buoy-based ones. Since there are an increasing number of buoys (though not as many as you'd think) and fewer reporting ships, this adds about +0.12 C to the trend over the last twenty years or so - which just happens to be the right size to make the "pause" disappear. Sort of.

Unfortunately, even if you believe this modification, it causes another issue - it still highlights that (even if you cheat the numbers up), we're still missing a lot of predicted warming - almost 0.5C so far. Which means that catastrophic AGW (in the 3C - 5C range by 2100) just isn't happening.

Comment: Re:How to fix the pause! (Score 2) 639 639

...except that the article you cite did some cherry-picking to find ONE chart that (if you don't look too closely) sorta disagrees with what you claim they actually did, and ignores pretty much all of the rest of the paper.

The author screws up by looking at the lower half of Figure 2, and assuming that was their analysis. Instead, he should have paid more attention to the top half of Figure 2, which is their end result. They did one bad thing: used a heavy black line versus a thin red line, which obscured the actual adjustment (lowering in the past, raising in the present). If you go to the actual paper and view the largest version of Figure 2, you can easily see the changes in the top half.

Notice also that the lower half of Figure 2 just shows how they threw out the old, well-used set of corrections for engine intake and bucket methods and substituted their own, which include the "adjustment" to the previous temperature records.

Comment: Re:How to fix the pause! (Score 4, Interesting) 639 639

...except they didn't, overall. It would be wrong, at that: most ship-based SST measurements are at various depths (ship intake, bucket measurements, each of which are at random depths). A ship engine intake depth can be anywhere from a meter below the surface to ten times that depth, and the old bucket measurements were all over the place.

Adjustments for differing measurements have already been made in the historical record - they went in and adjusted it MORE because it wasn't agreeing with the global warming that they just assume has to be happening (because of their continually-blown model predictions).

Your "reinterpretation" of #3 is fanciful at best. Why make bad science even worse by adjusting the actual data?

Comment: How to fix the pause! (Score 4, Funny) 639 639

1) Notice that a lot of the ocean temperatures are now collected by buoys
2) Notice that older temperatures were mostly collected by ships, and trended slightly warmer than the buoy measurements
3) Assume that the actual temperature is somewhere in between (instead of using the more-accurate buoy numbers)
4) Adjust the ship temperature numbers down (cooling the past record by a fraction of a degree)
5) Adjust the buoy temperature numbers up (warming the current temps by a fraction of a degree)
6) Voila! The pause disappeared!

(In ocean temps. If you ignore all of the other things like satellite measurements that don't agree.)

Comment: Coding (Score 1) 532 532

As other people are noting, medical codes are not mysterious and secret things. They're very specific numbers that stand for treatments, and if the coding is done wrong, Medicaid and insurance companies won't pay.

It's complicated, but a large part of that is - once again - brought on by the mandated transition from ICD-9 (about 13,600 different codes with three or four digits) to ICD-10 CM (about 144,000 different codes with five digits).

Comment: 2-Butoxyethanol (Score 4, Interesting) 328 328

That's the chemical.

They found it (a very small amount) in the water. Parts-per-trillion levels.

It's used in fracking fluids - and also in a LOT of other places, like paints, sealants, cleaning products, et bloody cetera. The shocker would be if they didn't find the stuff. Here's a partial list of chemicals that use it:

It's used in many Simple Green products, a LOT of Rustoleum paints, and a lot of others. Minwax, Goo-Gone, Zep, Windex... the list is pretty long. And all it would take would be a home mechanic spilling a bottle of one of those products to get to that same parts-per-trillion levels in their own well water.

The paper suggests that the chemical may have come from a surface-level leak at a nearby well - and that they can't actually tie the chemical to the actual fracking chemicals used at that well.

Comment: One thing you guys left out (Score 0, Troll) 347 347

Most of the "politically driven science" isn't actually driven by scientists. It's driven by politicians and bureaucrats.

The scientists? Hell, they're third or fourth on the list at best.

For a quick example: DDT. Banned because of the science, right? Well... no.

The actual EPA scientists of the time pretty much said "no, DDT isn't that bad, and all of the stuff you read in that Rachel Carson book was made up from scratch." They refused to sign off on banning the stuff.

So the politically-driven "science bureaucrat" heading the EPA at the time banned it. And since it was from the EPA, it became "official science."

THAT is "politically driven science."

Comment: What probably really happened (Score 1) 366 366

Boss: "Sheesh - you guys blame climate change for EVERYTHING. Tone it down a bit. Just use it when it actually applies. No, you weren't late for work because of climate change."

Department Head: "Do not refer to climate change in in official document unless it pertains to the actual science, and not just to fill in a dull paragraph in a press release."

Assistant to the Department Head: "I hear the Boss doesn't want us to talk about climate change."

Low-level Flunky: "OHMIGOD! They're banning any reference to climate change or global warming!"

Reporter: "So it's an official policy, but it's not written down, and you can't tell me who came up with the policy? And we can only find four people who say this is true, without evidence or documentation? CONSPIRACY!"

Comment: Re:Statistical Magic (Score 1) 328 328

"The data showed that 7.6% of crash-involved drivers tested positive for marijuana or THC, versus 6.1% of the control group. In raw terms, that would suggest that marijuana was associated with a 25% increased chance of crashing. But it's not that simple: the figures have to be adjusted for other factors possibly contributing to crash risk, including the driver's gender and age."

So their control group wasn't representative of the "young male" population.

Their "young male" correlation is also subject to a VERY large p-value (0.65), which is a problem in itself. The chart showing the "Adjusted Odds Ratios Between Drug Class Use and Crash Risk (Adjusted for Demographic Variables: Age, Gender And Race/Ethnicity)" is notable for some VERY high p-values.

The rest of the paper considers a p-value of 0.05 to be significant: a value of 0.65 falls into "we don't even believe this ourselves" territory.

Comment: Re:Denying Catastrophism, not Science (Score 1) 719 719

Yes. Every year or two, the models get better - because they keep lowering their predicted effects to match reality.

By the time 2100 rolls around, we'll have a whole batch of "corrected" models showing how the in-progress ice age was caused by CO2!

They've already pretty much had to admit that the sea level increases they predicted were made up out of whole cloth. Instead of several meters, the oceans will be about a foot deeper by 2100. Maybe. Could be less - the error bars are bigger than the observed effects so far.

Comment: Re:Denying Catastrophism, not Science (Score 1) 719 719

The problem is that when they first came up with CAGW as a theory, they needed big results to make it more dramatic - so they tossed out pretty much all of the negative feedbacks, and emphasized the positive ones.

They assumed a huge positive feedback from water vapor, literally tripling the observed effect of CO2. Due to that, we should have seen a big increase in relative AND absolute humidity over the last two decades. Didn't happen.

There's one "buffer."

They also used a very, very weak cloud model, which would have given them a big negative feedback.

There's another.

Those two account for a lot of the discrepancies between models and real-world effects, but there are other "buffers" we keep finding out about.

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.