Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:I have an idea (Score 1) 485

The Bush/Cheney "rush to war" wasn't poll-driven, nor was it a "rush" in that it took almost a year and included multiple attempts at UN consensus and Congressional approval.

Bush/Cheney and the neocons were looking for any excuse they could find to invade Iraq even before they came into office in 2001. 9/11 just provided that for them. It had nothing to do with any serious threat from Iraq.

Comment Re:Nonsensical Title (Score 1) 735

Ah, the arrogance of the engineer. Why don't you write a scientific paper to show them the error of their ways?

Regarding measuring ice loss I think the GRACE satellites tell the story. They measure changes in gravity around the Earth. They show large losses in mass around Greenland and West Antarctica.

Comment Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score 1) 369

Because the raw unaltered field data is unavailable, ...

Have you looked here. They certainly haven't thrown out the original raw data. That's the base starting point for any adjustments they make.

You may not trust climate scientists but have you ever considered the size of the conspiracy that would be required to perpetrate such a fraud? At least thousands of scientists over the whole world for at least the past 30 or 40 years? If they're that good at it you might as well give up.

I don't disagree that Mann has a prickly personality but the trial has nothing to do with his science. It's about Steyn accusing Mann of "molesting" the data in an obvious comparison to Jerry Sandusky who was also at Penn State. Discovery in the trial won't find any evidence of scientific malfeasance just as all of the other investigations of Mann and the Climategate emails found essentially nothing.

The paywalls on scientific papers is unfortunate but if nothing else you can go to the libraries of most research universities and read them. Even if they're behind paywalls.

Comment Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score 1) 369

So I consider surface station data both temporally and spatially sparse, subjected to manipulations that are less than forthright and in ways that are mathematically dubious.

I don't get that you would think the adjustments to surface temperatures are less than forthright. They are well documented in the relevant papers about the adjustments.

Here is a NOAA page on their temperature data.

This page at Berkeley Earth describes their data set and some of the adjustments.

As far as the sparseness of some regions of the globe goes we don't care so much what the actual temperature is globally as much as we care about how it's changing over time. If the global temperature is derived in a consistent manner then it's probably a reasonable representation of temperature change.

Satellites because of their orbital inclination don't cover the polar regions at all and have to deal with issues of observation angle for near polar readings. Also they have to make adjustments for clouds and high elevations messing up their readings.

I don't disbelieve the satellite readings, I just don't see any good reason to trust them over the surface measurements, particularly over the time period since the satellites went up (1979) when the surface systems have also been improved to higher standards.

Comment Re:Climate has never not been changing. (Score 1) 369

People who believe that satellite data is the gold standard for temperatures don't understand all the manipulations and adjustments required to produce a temperature from the microwave emissions of O2 molecules in the atmosphere. They require far more adjustments then surface temperature measurements with thermometers. Even one of the principle scientists for RSS, Carl Mears says he trusts the surface temperature records more than the satellite records.

A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). Link

I've got a bad feeling about this.