Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Don't buy the cheapest cable (Score 1) 355 355

Definitely true that it's worth buying cables that you trust for reliability. I have worked in research labs all my adult life. We use gobs and gobs of BNC cables. I've watched countless researchers who don't know any better waste hours and hours of their time chasing down cable / connector problems. I use only ITT / Pomona BNC cables and have never, ever had a failure. Naturally, more of my budget goes to cables than others, but time is the precious resource.

Comment Re:Local CO2 (Score 2, Informative) 64 64

pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces

... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-31]

Yes it is. As the NAS explains on page 6 here:

"In nature, CO2 is exchanged continually between the atmosphere, plants and animals through photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition, and between the atmosphere and ocean through gas exchange. A very small amount of CO2 (roughly 1% of the emission rate from fossil fuel combustion) is also emitted in volcanic eruptions. This is balanced by an equivalent amount that is removed by chemical weathering of rocks."

So natural CO2 emissions are balanced, and our fossil fuel emissions are roughly 100x faster than volcanic emissions. That's why "actual science" shows that our current CO2 emissions rate is unprecedented over the last 300 million years.

And if you read the rest of that NAS document, you'd discover that "actual science" shows that our unprecedentedly rapid CO2 emissions are a cause for concern.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 483 483

One problem I have with automatic updates and the reason I always switched to "notify only" is that I almost always use my laptop tethered to my mobile phone, often abroad. Nothing more fun than realising that silent download of a 250 MB windows update in the background has gone through your data limit minutes after you switched on the computer. Fun indeed.

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 1) 385 385

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. ... [Dumb Scientist]

... All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier. I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-28]

Again, spotting outliers via media uproar isn't as rigorous as actually looking at the data. So let's reproduce Fig 1(b) in Karl et al. 2015, which shows trends from 1998 to 2012. Let's calculate those trends for all the land/ocean, global, and satellite datasets listed here:

HadCRUT4 trend: +0.050 ± 0.139 C/decade (2 sigma)

NOAA trend: +0.079 ± 0.131 C/decade (2 sigma)

Karl(2015) trend: +0.086 ± 0.148 C/decade (2 sigma)

GISTEMP trend: +0.100 ± 0.141 C/decade (2 sigma)

Berkeley trend: +0.096 ± 0.137 C/decade (2 sigma)

HadCRUT4 krig v2 trend: +0.111 ± 0.152 C/decade (2 sigma)

Karl(2015) krig trend: +0.111 ± 0.157 C/decade (2 sigma)

RSS trend: -0.055 ± 0.246 C/decade (2 sigma)

UAH trend: +0.054 ± 0.251 C/decade (2 sigma)

All these trend estimates are consistent with my previous statement: there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

Do these results support Jane's claim that Karl et al. 2015 is somehow an "outlier"?

Comment Re:Can't this be tested on a Cube Sat? (Score 1) 509 509

Delta-V of 1.8e-4m/s is not so tiny. If my calculations are correct, that means it will move away by 1 m from an identical satellite in a pseudo-parallel orbit in under an hour if the second craft switches on its EM drive in the other direction for the same duty cycle. Make the two take alternate cycles of acceleration direction and they should see-saw in orbit together. Make the see-saw cycle 100 m long (wait a few days between blasts) and you can even observe it from the ground.

Comment What benefit to announcing it? (Score 3, Insightful) 202 202

This group sounds like they acted reasonably and responsibly, letting Google know there was a problem, and submitting good patches to correct the issue.

If, now, there's some other fundamental impediment to distributing a correction to the bug that does not have to do with Google, but rather with the heaploads of cell phone manufacturers who use Google's code and who may or may not have the ability to distribute the fix, why should the vulnerability be made public? I don't see any apparent upside to the public good.

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 1) 385 385

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. [Dumb Scientist]

Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

If Jane/Lonny's opinion that Karl et al. used "highly questionable" methods were widely shared by scientists, Jane/Lonny wouldn't have had to say things like this to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) after Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Jane/Lonny's uninformed opinion.

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. Ironically, Jane/Lonny made the same mistake two years ago regarding Cowtan and Way 2013, which yielded a trend similar to Karl et al. 2015. Perhaps Jane/Lonny forgot about that while ranting about "outliers"?

If Jane/Lonny would actually calculate a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties (either using the code I've repeatedly given him, or by writing his own) then he'd realize that Karl et al. 2015 really wasn't news. For instance, years before Karl et al. 2015, I'd already told Jane/Lonny that "There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."

Again, I said this to Jane/Lonny long before Karl et al. 2015. Even without Karl et al. 2015, it's still clear that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

That's not news to anyone who's calculated a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties. Have you done that yet? Will you ever do that, Jane/Lonny?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers. [Dumb Scientist]

Again, nonsense. NOAA and NASA assume that high and low temperature records were taking at particular times of day. There is no rational basis for making that assumption on a large scale. It might be true in many cases but before there were standards, people at least attempted to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day, and low temperature readings at the coldest. Again, that's just simple logic, which seems to be beyond your ken. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Again, your accusation that "NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer" is completely baseless and incompatible with an understanding of how NOAA and NASA actually correct for time of observation bias (TOBS).

Six's thermometers have automatically recorded maximum and minimum temperatures since ~1780, so there's no reason to speculate about whether people "attempted" to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day. That has happened automatically for over two centuries.

As Dr. Venema explains, calculating the daily mean temperature by averaging the high and low temperatures isn't always the best choice, especially if the diurnal temperature range is smaller than day-to-day variability. The best choice, of course, would be to measure the temperature at every instant during the day and then average all those measurements.

That's feasible with 2015 electronics, but it wasn't in 1937. Instead, some scientists recorded the temperature four times a day, at 0, 6, 12, and 18 hours universal time (UTC). Other scientists didn't like getting up in the middle of the night, so they measured three times a day at 7, 14 and 21 hours local time.

NOAA and NASA aren't assuming that high and low temperature records were taken at particular times of day. The scientists who recorded temperatures didn't just write down the temperature, they also wrote down when it was recorded.

That's why it should be obvious that correcting for time of observation bias means that NOAA and NASA think that people in 1937 knew how to read thermometers and clocks. Otherwise all those years of careful work by countless unnamed scientists couldn't ever be used to correct for time of observation bias.

But hey, why not hurl baseless and incoherent accusations at NOAA and NASA? You don't have to make sense, just spread confusion.

The rest of this is your same old "bringing up old shit and inappropriately trying to insert it into current conversation", as you did above by inserting statements made weeks ago, entirely out-of-context. When are YOU going to learn that tactic is utterly dishonest and despicable, not to mention just plain invalid logical argument? You've argued here with at least several things I've said in the past which had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the current conversation. Not only does that not refute my point, it rather shows you for the asshole you are. That comment is based on my strong opinion of your consistent (and recorded) actions. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Charming. So you won't retract your baseless accusation that NOAA adjusted 1937 downward when they actually adjusted it upward?

You won't retract your accusation that adjustments are "always cooler in the past and warmer now" or your claim that the government's own unmanipulated data shows no significant warming since around 1900? Even now that you know the government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do?

Can we agree that it's stupid to call those adjustments "fraud"?

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 2) 385 385

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last century. Without those adjustments, last year's record global surface temp would be even more of a record, especially compared to 1937. Think about that.

"If you just wanted to release to the American public our uncorrected data set, it would say that the world has warmed up about 2.071 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. Our corrected data set says things have warmed up about 1.65 degrees Fahrenheit. Our corrections lower the rate of warming on a global scale." [Dr. Russell S. Vose, chief of the climate science division at NOAA's Asheville center, and a coauthor of Karl et al. 2015]

When adjusting for real errors corrections tend to be in a random direction. Not always cooler in the past and warmer now!!! The very fact that the adjustments have almost universally been in the same directions is cause for skepticism of the result. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-28]

Nonsense. Once again, Jane/Lonny's "fact" is completely wrong.

Constantly adjusting past temperatures one direction, down, to create a warming trend is embarrassingly shameful. [ReasonBurger, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

It's embarrassingly shameful that so many gullible people have been fooled into baselessly accusing scientists of constantly adjusting past temperatures down to create a warming trend. How many more years of "studying" will it take them to realize that they were completely wrong about this simple fact? Even then, will they ever retract their baseless accusations?

... I'm not just speaking from abject ignorance, I've been following the subject since Al Gore's movie came out. I know what the physics of mainstream AGW theory are. I know how the models work. I know how homogenization is done. I know what a TOBS adjustment is. And on and on. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Does Jane/Lonny really know what a TOBS adjustment is?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

That's not the most effective way to show that you know what a TOBS adjustment is. No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers. One day Jane/Lonny might realize that their TOBS adjustments depend on NOAA and NASA thinking that people in 1937 knew how to read thermometers and clocks. Then Jane/Lonny might retract his baseless accusation that NOAA and NASA hold such a ridiculous position.

What makes you think I'm ignorant about homogenization? None of this is new. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-12]

Do you know what "iteratively homogenized" means? They tortured the data until it threw up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Again, that's not the most effective way to show that you're not ignorant about homogenization. Instead, maybe you could just admit that all your accusations listed above are completely wrong. Then maybe you could begin to have a productive discussion about incremental improvements to NOAA's temperature adjustments.

Comment Re:Potholes? (Score 4, Interesting) 183 183

I live in New England. We have lots of freeze-thaw cycles during the year. It's rare that you see a proper frost heave in a road (and you certainly know it when you see it). By FAR the most road damage is caused by inexpert patching of the asphalt where the surface needs to be cut for utility work. When inexpertly patched, the surface is no longer remotely planar, and the unevenness right at the (and caused by the) patch increases the wear exactly where it can do the most damage. So, shortly, the patch needs a patch. Which is inexpertly done, and the cycle continues until you get a stretch of crud for surface and the local municipality shells out big bucks to have the road re-surfaced entirely.

Compare this to Southern California (where I lived for a number of years) where the road patches after utility work are 100% as smooth as the original surface. With your eyes closed, you cannot tell that you've driven over a patch. The patch (and especially the transitions from original surface to patch, and back) receives no more or less force than the original road, so there's no focus of wear, and it lasts a very long time.

It baffles me why we can't make proper road patches in New England. It's clearly possible. And I really can't believe that the people working to patch roads in Southern California are that much more talented, so it's either a technology issue, lack of managerial directive, or an out-and-out conspiracy to have a never-ending amount of road resurfacing work.

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.

Working...