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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:observed phenomena (Score 1) 320

Name one study offering a credible alternative explanation for observed phenomena.

What observed phenomena?

This, for a start: http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co... . On the subject of replication, note that this image graphs results from four different research groups.

Here is the fit of theory to experiment:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co...

on behalf of all skeptics, i'll just say "the fit of that graph is not good enough to convince me!"

The challenge was to put forth a credible alternate explanation.

Comment Matches the slashdot poll (Score 2) 352

Nobody else noticed that this story almost exactly echoes the slashdot poll from a couple of weeks ago?
https://slashdot.org/poll/3025...

In this poll "more than 40 percent of respondents never worry about [losing their job to a robot]."

in the slashdot poll, "I think my current job will be replaced by a robot/software: Never (why not?) 5963 votes / 43%"

And I'd thought slashdot polls were unscientific!

Comment Where do you get data, and how precise is it? (Score 1) 320

A question I have is whether you are actually interested, or if you merely pretending interest, Indeed, if you're actually interested, there is a lot of work being done in analyzing data and comparing data from different times, which is (as you imply) indeed not always trivial. And there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem for the people doing the actual work, of course, because if they don't correct the data errors, they're criticized for not correcting them, and if they do, they're criticize for "adjusting" the data. They deal with this by being very transparent in how they analyze the data, which is extensively documented.

The first thing to know is not the sensitivity of the thermometer, though; it is the statistics of measurement. I do assume you're aware that a large number of measurements is more precise than a single measurement, right? So the first question you should be asking is, how many measurements are being incorporated into each statistical data point. Ten thousand measurements with a precision of 1 degree, for example, give an average with a precision of 0.01 degrees. Good introductions to statistics of data analysis are available many places, including on the web, for example:

https://www.princeton.edu/~cap/AEESP_Statchap_Peters.pdf or somewhat more detailed,

http://www-library.desy.de/preparch/books/vstatmp_engl.pdf

Moving in to measurements: there are four main institutions that are doing the reconstruction of long-term temperature measurements; most of your questions about thermometry are answered by citations in the references of the papers they publish on their technique. It does take some work to dig down through the references, though. If you want to start, most of the recent papers are online. I would start with the Goddard Institute of Space Studies papers. The full list is here:

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov

The two papers you should probably start with are Hansen and Lebedeff 1987,

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00700d.html
and Hansen et al 2010:

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00510u.html

If you don't want to dive that deep, there are some review papers that cover most of the material you're interested in. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has a couple of good top-level papers, with an overview:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf
and a paper on data quality:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Station-Quality.pdf

Comment Re:Shocking!!!! (Score 3, Insightful) 191

I wouldn't brush off someone threatening to beat my head in with a baseball bat. I'd be calling the cops.

Good idea, but if you don't have it on tape, it's your word against his, and the result is he gets a mild warning "say, Jim, you should be more careful in how you phrase things, ha, ha, some people are taking it wrong," while you get tagged as "too sensitive" and "not a team worker" and are the one let go at the next downsizing.

Comment observed phenomena (Score 1) 320

Name one study offering a credible alternative explanation for observed phenomena.

What observed phenomena?

This, for a start: http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co... . On the subject of replication, note that this image graphs results from four different research groups.

Here is the fit of theory to experiment:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co...

Comment Questions require listening (Score 5, Insightful) 320

It's not heresy if the science is sound. Simply questioning isn't valid, though.

Questioning, of course, is always valid. But "questioning" is useless when the questioner has no interest in listening to anybody answering the question.

Far too much of the "questioning" about climate science is from people who have no interest in any of the science, the measurements, or the data, and won't bother to learn anything about it.

Comment Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score 5, Informative) 320

Many studies have been done on anthropic climate change, but almost no experiments.

The infrared absorption of carbon dioxide is experimentally measured in the laboratory. And there is a vast amount of measured data on the earth's atmosphere and climate, from surface, atmospheric, and orbital probes, not to mention probes of other planets; and we acquire terabytes of additional data every year.
The basics of Earth's energy balance are well understood, and they are understood, in part, because of this vast amount of experimental and observational data.

Comment Fake news is making up facts [Re:Fake news an...] (Score 1) 895

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Seems you realize what I'm saying and chose to ignore it.

I'm realizing what you're saying, and pointing out that it is wrong.

I really can't say it more clearly. Fake news means making up facts . You are saying people should be outraged by the leaks out of the Trump administration. Well, fine, you can think that if you want. That's perfectly valid opinion. However, if a news article does not happen to write that opinion in the body of an article, not writing it does not make that news article fake news. Fake news means making up facts .

OK, there may be a huge difference between one type of leak and another. You may even label that "false equivalence" if you like. But it's not fake news unless they are making up facts.

Got it? Fake news is news that is incorrect because it is made up with no regard to facts. Fake news is not "an article that didn't express an opinion that I personally think should have been expressed."

Look, this is important: there is a clear and bright distinction between news that expresses an opinion that you think is wrong, and "news" that simply makes shit up with the intent to outrage without any intent whatsoever to be consistent with reality. Making shit up is fake news.

Comment Fake news and journalism (Score 1) 895

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Here are a few other sources that appear to say the same thing:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15...
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

Comment Re:Is there a product these patents protect? (Score 4, Insightful) 70

"Re:Is there a product these patents protect?"
Yes.
In (overly broad) summary, Jennifer Doudna and collaborators showed that CRISPR could cut DNA at targeted sites. Zhang and collaborators used that targeting capability to edit DNA. Editing DNA is the product you asked about (in patent terminology, a method of doing something is patentable). That product use uses the cutting that Dudna demonstrated.

A quick (and still overly broad) analysis is that Dudna et al discovered the science, and Zhang et al reduced it to practice. However, reducing it to practice only gets you a patent if it's not obvious.

Comment Two different things (Score 3, Informative) 70

"The patent ruling suggests that the work done by Jennifer Doudna of the University of California and her colleagues on CRISPR wasn't so groundbreaking as to make any other advance obvious. But that legal opinion isn't how the science world views her work, STAT points out: "Doudna and her chief collaborator, Emmanuelle Charpentier, won the $3 million Breakthrough Prize in the life sciences in 2015, the $500,000 Gruber Genetics Prize in 2015, and the $450,000 Ja..."

These are two different things. The patent ruling was only about whether the work by Doudna, Charpentier et al. made the MIT/Harvard work "obvious". The Breakthrough and other prizes didn't care whether the MIT/Harvard work was obvious or not, it was an award for heir work being a breakthrough, whether it led to any applications or not.

Comment Look at the signal and ignore the noise (Score 1) 895

look again: his approval rating is roughly the same. his disapproval rating is up (worse) 10% in that time.

Look again, and this time pay attention to the scatter in the measurements. A 10% change in half of the population is way less than the variation from poll to poll. Don't let the nice straight trend lines fool you: that's noise, not signal.

... less than a month is a small sample size...

Exactly.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...