Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Military Committee wants more money (Score 1) 331

It's entirely unsurprising that a military committee would recommend that a good response to ANYTHING is increasing military spending. When the military advises that defense interests are better served by redirecting their own funding to offsetting climate change that's the point you know they mean it. Otherwise you've got guys with little to no climate background declaring climate change as a good reason to give them more money, which isn't entirely convincing.

Comment Not skeptical enough (Score 1) 331

The amount of money in AGW is a fraction of the amount of money oil companies pump out of the ground every week.

You are missing just how much money there is to be controlled through carbon taxes and carbon markets. Furthermore, to have a military adviser declaring that topic X is an important reason to increase military funding hardly seems surprising. Call me when the military volunteers their budgets be cut to help offset climate change because it's more effective.

Comment Re: Does nobody ever look at Saddam's Iraq? (Score 1) 201

Right, that's why we're currently crushing the WMD-building oppressive regime in North Korea, and pouring troops into Africa to stop the genocide and slaughter by Boko Haram and assorted other nasty dictators.

We seem to be awfully selective about the regions we choose to get involved in.

So let me get this straight. your kinda willing to acknowledge, at least in principle, that lives were saved and/or the situation might have been improved by Saddam's removal. Your counter argument is simply that because not everyone else in the world that needed saving wasn't also saved it was all for naught?

If you see a ferry sinking and everyone on board is drowning and your boat can only hold 5 people do you pick 5 people to save, or do you say it's unfair to save only some of them and just carry on away?

Comment Re: It wasn't all bad (Score 1) 201

Why did the USA have to go and protect all those enemies of saddam hussein?

If the millions of victims that Saddam murdered aren't a reason without some manner of paperwork or legal justification there's always the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. All 147 signatories are obliged to act to prevent genocide, and failing that to act to punish those who have committed it. So, by 1990 already, 147 countries around the world were obliged to go and protect those 'enemies' of Saddam Hussein. The world failed to do what they signed on for though, as they later did in Rwanda, and the next time Saddam committed another genocide, and finally when somebody did act folks like you come out defending the genocidal dictator. All the worse, defending him in the name of his people(aka victims).

Comment Re:Does nobody ever look at Saddam's Iraq? (Score 1) 201

So your argument is that the US is better than Saddam, which considering what has happened is actually debatable. By very convincing.

My argument is more that nearly 3 decades of brutal repression, sectarian warfare and genocide at the hands of Saddam might have played a larger formative role in the Iraqis troubles than the much shorter lived, incompetent, American occupation.

Comment Re: Does nobody ever look at Saddam's Iraq? (Score 1) 201

Ahem, shit brain. We could have just left it all alone.

Ignoring problems doesn't always make them better.

Like when Saddam was left in power after the Iran-Iraq war, he went on to commit a genocide because he was left alone.
He then went on to invade Kuwait, because he was left alone.
He then was pushed out of Kuwait, but otherwise left in power, he then committed another genocide because he was left free to.

You noticing a trend?

It's folks like you willing to ignore everyone else's suffering that Bill Clinton catered to during the Rwandan genocide. He played it exactly your way, even going as far as to actively fight to prevent any action being taken to intervene. There comes a point where actively failing to save people when you have the capacity to do so is itself immoral.

Comment Does nobody ever look at Saddam's Iraq? (Score 1) 201

Was it worth 5000 dead soldiers to prevent that for-sure? I dunno, whadda you think?

You seem to be forgetting the ~1 million civilian dead.

Okay, it's hard to estimate, I'll give you 500k. And helping ISIS grow in the subsequent power vacuum. And some torture.

What is the exchange rate of American lives to everyone else's lives?

How many dead from Saddam's war against Iran? How about his genocide of the Kurds? How about his war against Kuwait? How about his genocide of the Shia Iraqis? How many people did Saddam kill beyond that just for suspicions of disloyalty in his decades of rule?

If you can't already answer those questions you can't pretend to appreciate the cost of inaction on Saddam's regime. You think ISIS didn't equally find it's roots from the brutal dictatorships of guys like Saddam and Assad? Do you honestly believe that prior to Saddam's removal by American forces the region was free of sectarian hatred, violence and massacres? Step 1 through 20 of dictator class is divide and conquer, and Assad and Saddam made an extreme practice of deliberately fomenting and encouraging sectarian hatreds to make it all the easier to divide and conquer those under them.

But yeah, the troubles in Iraq and Syria today are all the result of American intervention and nothing else...

Comment Scott Ritter (Score 1) 201

How about the numerous reports indicating that the CIAs reports were completely wrong.

They had a single expatriate source that had serious credibility problems bit the directive was go at all costs. So it was ignored.

Cheney would go on talk shows claiming that leaks in the media confirmed the Govs position. When the Gov had been the original leaker.

I believe one of the most prominent voices you are talking about is former Iraqi weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He very vehemently opposed the Iraq invasion and has been on of the leading voices in discussing how awful the intelligence was and obvious it was before hand that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

Regrettably for him and other revisionists his comments and those like him sang a different tune before the war. Ritter was quoted shortly before the war cautioning against it because Saddam would use his WMD's to defend Baghdad. This was a commonly made argument against the war, where if Saddam has nothing to lose, we can be sure he will deploy his chemical weapon arsenal:
As I testified to the U.S. Senate in 1998, Iraq has the indigenous capability right now to reconstitute a chemical weapons program within a matter of weeks. And my concern is if we continue to push for military action against Iraq, and once the writing becomes clear on the wall -- and believe me, if Saddam Hussein doesn't understand that President Bush is dead serious about going to war against him now, I don't know when he'll be -- when he'll recognize that. But at some point, I believe that Iraq will seek to reconstitute militarized nerve agent that will be used in defense of Baghdad. And I think the Iraqi government's efforts to acquire significant stockpiles of atropine are an indication that this is the direction that Saddam Hussein is heading.

Comment Charts showing models run to hot (Score 1) 693

Now, does anyone have a link to those charts which show the models continue to run much hotter than the real climate?
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment has it for you in Figure 11.9. They graph the instrumental record against an ensemble of 42 models and the instrumental consistently falls on the lowest end of the error margins for the predicted warming. IE, the very, very coldest models are the closest to matching the instrumental record.

Now, that is working from a short term prediction, which isn't where we expect the models to really start showing their promise, but the IPCC saw fit to print it regardless. You can compare the IPCC's first assessment from back in the 1990's, if you want a longer term prediction to compare against. The trouble is the IPCC back then hard referenced their predictions to the year 1975. Practice since then is to show anomaly against something like a 10 year average, so you don't cherry pick a particularly hot/cold year as your initial reference. IF you do use 1975 as the reference for the IPCC FAR predictions from 1990 though their predictions that come closest to the last 25 years are the ones using a CO2 sensitivity of 1.5C.

Comment Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score 1) 376

So you have to look at the overlap with the instrumental record for 1850 onwards to get an idea of how much the proxies under- or over-estimate warming. Looking at the EIV line at 1850, it's about 0.2C under the instrumental temperature at that time, so one could assume it might under-estimate temperatures by 0.2C.

I think see our misunderstanding now. I'm not talking about any corrections for over/under estimation. I have no desire to treat the proxy reconstructions as absolutely accurate plus a blind +/- correction for if they are too cold/hot. That'd be stupid and if you ever thought I in any way advised that we can agree to reject it as stupid.

The uncertainty I'm talking about is the strength and precision of the signal temperature leaves in proxy records for us to extract. The actual problem the researchers themselves are working at. That signal can fluctuate in as many ways as the proxy's themselves can have varied responses to temperatures and other factors. If precipitation AND temperature combine to impact tree rings, which we know is the case, the signal we extract has imprecision in it that we are working around that has no static +/- adjustment we can make to accommodate that. That's why the large variety of complex statistical analysis methods are being thrown at the problem to try and sort the signal from the noise.

Fig.2 shows proxy reconstructions for 20th century temperatures, which allows us more overlap with the instrumental record and thus a better idea of proxy bias, but if anything Fig.2 C/D shows the EIV proxies over-estimating temperatures, so that doesn't help your case.

Again, Fig 2 is NOT meant to illustrate some over/under absolute adjustment factor that should be applied to the proxies. As I've repeated numerous times, he is being upfront about the well-known bias the proxy methods(particularly CPS) has in reflecting recent warming. It isn't an absolute the proxies underestimate the entire instrumental record, but rather if calibrated with data prior to 1950, they systematically underestimate the warming after 1950. Mann includes Fig 2 to be upfront about this, and to show that although not entirely gone, the EIV method greatly reduces this bias. Given this particular paper is Mann introducing the EIV method as being superior he felt it important to point out it's greater ability to overcome this known systematic bias.

If that's true (it's unclear to me) - if the Fig.3 results have been re-calibrated to the instrumental record - then none of the proxy temperatures gets even slightly close to recent temperatures.
I can't find the exact quote now myself either, I might be remembering it from Mann's earlier papers and just assuming the same here. You can suggestively tell though because the Fig 2 reconstructions don't match well with Fig 3, presumably because they are a calibration test using only data prior to 1950 for calibrating.

So if I am to understand you correctly, your sole point is that the Northern Hemisphere proxy reconstructions by themselves do not show any higher temperatures than those during medieval times (because they cut off early and don't even try to include current temperatures). You don't consider the instrumental record to be pertinent to this point.

You say that like it's crazy. The anomalous nature of temperature since 1900 only exists when we take data from different sources and compare them to one another. That's a relevant point to observe. Particularly so when the degree of skill in the proxies are an active area of research. Doubly so when the older methods of reconstruction are WELL KNOWN to systematically underestimate recent warming whenever we do calibration testing.

Comment Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score 1) 376

I'm curious why you feel you can interpret his data better than he can, since he clearly disagrees with you. Are you assuming that he is ignoring this bias himself, despite him describing it clearly in his graphs and his results? Did you factor in any of his mentioned caveats, such as the "divergence problem" of recently-declining tree-ring sensitivity (accounted for in Fig.2 B)?

I'm sorry, but I'm not interpreting anything when I observe that Fig 3 shows the Had and CRU instrumental records hitting 0.8C by 2000 and NONE of the reconstructed lines sitting higher than 0.2C. Nor am I interpreting anything in observing that the EIV reconstruction exceeds 0.2C multiple times historically. That is a statement of fact about the graph.

Here's the extent of my own 'interpretation' of Mann's graph. Imagine that the HAD and CRU(red and grey) lines are removed from the graph. The reconstructions you are left with show the temp since 1900AD rising, but still lower than 1400, 1000, 800 and close to 600 and 400.

Yes, I too looked at the data, and unless you're just slapping an arbitrarily-large boost onto the proxy data, I don't see anywhere that it supports your own conclusion. E.g. the CPS Land proxy slightly overestimates the instrumental record (in the period of overlap of Fig.3),

The under estimation problem SHOULDN'T exist in Fig 3. As Mann stated, the systematic underestimation was when calibrated to early years and then projected onto later years. In Fig 3 the calibration will have been to the entire instrumental record. My observation above though stands, the reconstructions since 1900 ARE NOT higher than the reconstructions themselves back in 1400, 1000, 800.

. The EIV proxies barely overlap the instrumental record at all, but you could perhaps assume about a 0.2C underestimation where they do (though this is not well supported by Fig.2 C/D)

No, assuming an understimation in Fig 3 would be wrong, As noted above that only occurred for early calibration and Fig 3 was not calibrated that way. The early calibration was for separate validation testing as Mann performed for Fig 2. As for Fig 2 c/d supporting a bias with the EIV method, Mann had this to say: Interestingly, the problem is greatly diminished (although not absent—particularly in the older networks where a decline is observed after 1980) with the EIV method, whether or not tree-ring data are used

It seems to me that you're taking an out-of-context quote about finding a bias, making an unsupported assumption as to how big that bias must be, then reinterpreting his conclusion to suit yourself

At the risk of repeating myself beyond all reason, I'm assuming NOTHING about the size of any bias. I am observing the fact that the reconstructions themselves as the represent the warming since 1900 do NOT show unrivalled temperatures, but instead reflect a current warming that was matched by the reconstructions multiple times earlier. It is only when including the instrumental record that the comparison becomes anomalous. That is a statement of fact with no interpretation, bias or nuance involved. My sole reason for noting the early calibration late verification bias observed by Mann was that it is a suggestive explanation for this difference between reconstructed and instrumental. The observation stands regardless.

Comment Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score 1) 376

Higher resolution reconstructions by groups like Mann... show temperatures matching the current day within the last 2k years

Mann says otherwise, right in the first paragraph of the study you linked to (emphasis mine):

Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

Your reading his summary and not his data, and that matters. The recent warmth as recorded by thermometers is anomalous compared with the proxy reconstruction over the last 2000 years. As I noted in the post you replied to, Mann equally noted that the proxy reconstruction of 1950 onward has a systematic bias in the underestimation of recent warming. AKA, the warming since 1950 is anomalous against the proxy reconstruction since 1950 as well.

So, if you look at Mann's data in the linked article you can see that the proxy reconstruction for 2000AD is no warmer than 1400AD, 1000AD, 800AD, and very close around 400AD. It is only the instrumental record that is much higher.

Comment Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score 1) 376

Proxy data might give a rough idea of the temperature of a century, but is it precise enough to show climate change within a century? And why would we use that when we have much more reliable measurements for the last century?

You do realise that by asking 'why would we use that' is the same as asking why the researchers that built the reconstruction in question should have ever bothered doing so. You are burying your head in the sand as badly as those denying man can affect the climate at all.

The importance of reconstruction covering the instrumental record is to give context to our current warming. We know the planet has been warming for the last century because of our CO2 emissions. Putting that into a context of how normal or abnormal that trend is historically helps us understand the scope of the problem we are creating. Halting the proxy record when the instrumental record begins limits that understanding. The best test of the sensitivity of the proxy sources to current change is to run compare the proxies over the current century as well and compare the result to the instrumental record. The only efforts to that affect I've seen have been in the calibration phase of proxy reconstructions and they have shown a systematic underestimation of recent warming. Identifying the degree of that bias MATTERS to more accurately understanding things.

Comment Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score 2) 376

Are you saying you would prefer a study based on measurements from 1000 years ago? Digital thermometers were so precise back then.

Nope, never said anything stupid like that. Let me repeat myself: ...before leaping up and declaring human industrial era began at 1900, also note that the SOURCE OF DATA changed at 1900 too.

Rather than suggesting a stupid impossibility to the problem of disparate data sets from 1900 onward. Maybe a REAL answer like extending the proxy data forward AFTER 1900 and looking at what THAT shows. Other researchers like Michael Mann, famous for the original hockey stick kick off, have done similar test as part of testing their calibration of their reconstructions against the instrumental record. Here's a quote:
in the case of the early calibration/late validation CPS reconstruction with the full screened network (Fig. 2A), we observed evidence for a systematic bias in the underestimation of recent warming..

He went on later to note a new and improved statistical method(EIV) tested out in the same paper was much LESS prone to this problem. It also, incidentally, showed much greater range in historic temperatures as well, matching the current temperatures 2 or 3 times over the last 2k years.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)

Working...