Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment XMPP still supported (Score 3, Informative) 18

From what the email I received from Google says, chatting over XMPP using a client like Pidgin or Adium should continue to work after the GTalk stuff is shut down in Gmail:

Third-party XMPP clients will continue to work with Hangouts for 1-on-1 chats after June 26. XMPP federation with third-party services providers will no longer be supported on June 26.

The talk about federation is referring to using Google Apps on your own domain. They dropped federation years ago for gmail.com, but I never knew they had kept it for private domains.

Keeping XMPP support at least is fortunate because Hangouts still lacks basic features like buddy lists. No, I don't want my entire list of contacts to me my buddies for hangouts. And yes I do want to see who's actually logged in at the time. Seems like Google isn't really sure what hangouts is. Is it just glorified SMS messaging (IE not necessarily interactive), is it Google voice? Is it Google Chat?

Sadly, Google doesn't seem to care that much about end users. Though I guess it's not surprising since we really are the product, not the customer. Google has done some amazing things that provide incredible conveniences to us, but I'm getting really tired of all the ADD hipsters that seem to have taken over on their development teams. It's getting rather fatiguing to have Google screwing up all the services I actually used (Picasa, GTalk, Google Voice).

Comment Re:This has happened before. Humanity excelled. (Score 1) 139

It probably gets downplayed today because it had been already exaggerated by people like you to inordinate levels of relevance. For example, just because it's somewhat comparable to early 20th century situation doesn't mean we haven't overshot it already and aren't well on our way to greatly overshooting it.

Comment Re:In before global warming whiners... (Score 3, Insightful) 139

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

Rose's story ricocheted around right-wing media outlets, and was publicized by the Republican-led House of Representatives science committee, which has spent months investigating earlier complaints about the Karl study that is says were raised by an NOAA whistleblower. But Science Insider found no evidence of misconduct or violation of agency research policies after extensive interviews with Bates, Karl, and other former NOAA and independent scientists, as well as consideration of documents that Bates also provided to Rose and the Mail.

Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research. The center is one the nation’s major repositories for vetted earth observing data collected by satellites, ships, buoys, aircraft, and land-based instruments.

In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his “thumb on the scale” in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks. But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.

At a House science committee hearing yesterday, Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS (publisher of Science and ScienceInsider) stood by the 2015 paper. "This is not the making of a big scandal—this is an internal dispute between two factions within an agency," Holt said in response to a question from Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the panel’s chairman, and a longtime critic of NOAA’s role in the Karl paper. This past weekend, Smith issued a statement hailing Bates for talking about “NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.”

Some climate scientists are concerned that the hubbub is obscuring the more important message: that the NOAA research has generally proved accurate. “I’m a little confused as to why this is a big deal,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, a California nonprofit climate research group that has examined surface temperatures. He’s the lead author of a paper published in January in Science Advances that found Karl’s estimates of sea surface temperature—a key part of the work—matched well with estimates drawn from other methods.

Researchers say the Karl paper’s findings are also in line with findings from the Met Office, the U.K. government’s climate agency, which preceded Karl’s work, and findings in a recent paper by scientists at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, an alliance of 34 states based in Reading, U.K. And although other researchers have reported evidence that the rise in global temperature has slowed recently, they have not challenged the ethics of Karl’s team, or the quality of the data they used.

Read on. It's worth it. The short of it: Bates was demoted by Karl several years back. Bates accepts both AGW, and the conclusions of Karl's paper, but decided to post a nitpicking complaint that he had used the ISTI land data in addition to the base NOAA data (the former of which isn't as high quality), without specifically commenting about the data source quality difference:

The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures, Bates says.

But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there’s no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. “There's nothing. That doesn’t exist,” he says

The article also goes into the split within NOAA over how strongly to focus on new data and approaches that capture effects which old data and approaches might have missed, vs. old ones which are less accurate but more validated. The land data people tend to fall into the former category while the satellite people tend to fall in the later category. Karl was a land guy and Bates was a satellite guy.

It's interesting to read Bates' blog post with "Karl" replaced by "The guy who demoted me":

The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of the Guy Who Demoted Me et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Guy Who Demoted Me study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). ... In the following sections, I provide the details of how the guy who demoted me failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what the guy who demoted me has provided.

Comment Re:British "free speech" norms (Score 1) 70

I read that and immediately said "Bullshit!" and I was right. He was arrested for abusive behaviour and assault, not for quoting the Bible.

RTFA:

Did you RTFA?

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last month, Sheriff Alistair Watson ruled there was no case to answer and acquitted Mr Larmour of threatening or abusive behaviour, aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation. The sheriff also found him not guilty of a second charge of assault aggravated by prejudice relating to sexual orientation.

He was arrested for threatening and abusive behaviour and assault. He may have been accused of those crimes because he was quoting the bible (the story does not even attempt to present the complainant's story), but he was actually arrested because he was accused of assault.

it is absolutely not OK for you to lie about it.

The sad thing is you seem to think that what the defendant claims happened is what actually happened, even when the facts are right there contradicting his story. So try reading and understanding the entire article next time, before you start spreading bullshit around. You duped yourself into believing a Fake News story here, and you have no one to blame but yourself for exposing the fact you are an easily manipulated fool.

Comment Re:Methane [Re: No complaints here] (Score 1) 363

I, as a "denier", obviously know more about AGW than you as a "true believer" do. That should actually concern you, but by tomorrow you will forget this happened and deny facts given to you to keep your flawed viewpoint while calling other people fact deniers.

This is a fairly common phenomenon where people with no expertise believe they know more than experts.

The other poster was correct, Methane may be be 25 times more potent per volume emitted (my sources say 84 times), but Anthropogenic emissions of Methane are estimated to be 300 Tg (300 million tonnes) which is about 0.3% of the emissions of Carbon Dioxide which is estimated to be 10.6 Gt (10,600 million tonnes). At your number, 25x, Methane only contributes 7.5% of the warming that CO2 contributes because there is over 300 times more CO2 emitted every year. That's why people talk about CO2 more than methane. CO2 is the dominant driver because there's so much more of it emitted every year.

You definitely know less, and should try showing some humility.

Comment Re: No complaints here (Score 1) 363

My working hypothesis is that the mechanized propaganda efforts are working. I believe the Russians are the leaders, but I'm not sure why they would care so much on this issue. Even if the risk of detection is low, the possible benefits seems too far away to justify the effort. Yeah, tropical Siberia would be great for them, but it might not work out that way (unless they are also leading in climate modeling). In contrast, the extractionists certainly have short-term concerns that could justify their propaganda investments, even if they aren't as good at it as the Russians are.

There would be a much shorter term reason for Russia to support climate change denial, they export a lot of natural gas to Europe. The less Europe depends on fossil fuels, the less influence and power Russia can exert on Europe.

Comment Re:No red lines [Re: No complaints here] (Score 1) 363

1.) Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow.
2.) It’s been 10 years since scientists predicted the “end of skiing” in Scotland.
3.) The Arctic would be “ice-free” by now
4.) Environmentalists predicted the end of spring snowfall

SOURCE ? link to scientific journal please ?

He can't do that, because the above points are copy-pasta of half-truths:

  • 1) In an Independent article the author says that snow is a thing of the past, and that he quotes some scientists who say that if global warming continues snow will become a rare occurrence. No dates attached to the scientist's predictions.
  • 2) In a Guardian UK article in 2004, unnamed "experts" predicted that the Scottish ski industry had about 20 years left before it died. For the math challenged, that prediction won't be testable for another 7 years. The article points to some short-term trends that showed fewer ski days and fewer ski tickets. The article that the claims were copied from claims since there was a lot of snow this year, the Scottish Ski industry is saved forever.
  • 3) This is one based off of something that Al Gore said, which was "Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North polar ice cap, during summer, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice free within the next 5-7 years." There's a lot of qualifiers in there that get skipped when skeptics read that, they tend to ignore "Some of the models" and "75% chance" and claim that Al Gore said all the Artic would be ice free in 5 years. I'm pretty sure Dr. Maslowski further hedged his bet by prefacing it with "if the current trend continues", but what was actually said is less important than claiming it's wrong.
  • 4) This one is references a Union of Concerned Scientists press release, which notes that we have been getting less snow in spring over the last decade and then talks about the kinds of environmental impacts those changes have. The article the claims were copied from notes that there was a record breaking snowstorm this year as a refutation of the entire press release.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.

Working...