Slashdot Mirror

Why link to The Guardian when you can view the formal paper in all its glory - including multiple images taken over the course of a week: https://iopscience.iop.org/jou...

You are wrong. They only have to use contraceptives

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year).

BOS is an optical density visualization technique, belonging to the same family as schlieren photography, shadowgraphy or interferometry. In contrast to these older techniques, BOS uses correlation techniques on a background dot pattern to quantitatively characterize compressible and thermal flows with good spatial and temporal resolution. The main advantages of this technique, the experimental simplicity and the robustness of correlation-based digital analysis, mean that it is widely used, and variant versions are reviewed in the article.

Source: https://link.springer.com/arti...

Or for those who are not inclined to refuse Wikipedia as a source:

Background-oriented schlieren (BOS) is a novel technique for flow visualization of density gradients in fluids using the Gladstone–Dale relation between density and refractive index of the fluid. BOS simplifies the visualization process by eliminating the need for the use of expensive mirrors, lasers and knife-edges. In its simplest form, BOS makes use of simple background patterns of the form of a randomly generated dot-pattern, an inexpensive strobe light source and a high speed digital camera.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Google schoolar places the earliest mention of this method into 2001, which is not that new: https://iopscience.iop.org/art...

Break-even was passed about a decade ago.

The mini reactor that came out of MIT recently is the one to look at.

No fusion system of any kind has reached breakeven yet, which is Q=1 (power being released by the fusion reactions is equal to the required heating power). This is what the term "breakeven" means, unless qualifications are added to make it mean something else (to define lower bars to clear, generally, as at NIF), And classic breakeven, Q=1, is what ITER will do. Currently the highest Q value was JET (Joint European Torus) with 0.67.

You should have "looked it up" yourself, if you had you would have found you mis-remembered. No such thing happened. I think you are remembering something real, but you misinterpreted it. In papers on the plasma geometry of the MIT Alcator C-Mod (the MIT mini reactor to which you are referring) there are references to an esoteric plasma geometry parameter call the "inverse rotational transform profile (q)" or the "central safety factor q0" which indeed has values greater than 1, but this lower case q has nothing to do with Q, breakeven.

This is not to run down the MIT Alcator C-Mod, which is what you must be referring to - it holds the world record for volume averaged plasma pressure (2.05 bar). But ITER will hit 2.6 bar, over a much larger volume (830 cubic meters as opposed to one cubic meter in Alcator C-Mod).

But other tokamaks (like JET, above) have set other records: Tore Supra tokamak in France holds the record for the longest plasma duration time (6 minutes and 30 seconds), the Japanese JT-60 achieved the highest value of the fusion triple product. All of these are pushing forward some of the requirements of a successful demo power plant. ITER is the attempt to bring all of these together in one system.

All of this research has advanced the state of the art of tokamaks, moving toward reaching true breakeven.

Most of the plastic in the ocean comes from a handful of rivers. Put the giant trap in the mouths of those rivers, and you'll catch a lot more.

This is actually what most scientists who study the issue suggest. The boom idea in the open ocean has been tried and found seriously lacking for almost 30 years at this point.

Prevention or collection near shore is much more cost effective with a lot fewer of the negative impacts on sea life. The mid ocean gyres will dissipate on their own if the source of more plastics is reduced or eliminated.

This revived idea has been criticized since the kid first proposed it 5 years ago and he does not seemed to have learned anything and is much more concerned with promoting himself than actually having a real impact on the problem.

http://www.deepseanews.com/201...
http://www.deepseanews.com/201...
http://www.deepseanews.com/201...

And actual research on where the best place to make an impact is:

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

rahvin112 made a claim. You denied it, but didn't provide any evidence. I did a quick google and found http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... which suggests a 10C rise, which is in the region of 20f.

You then tried some whataboutism in the hope that no-one would bother to validate your claim and start thinking about hydro power instead, even though rahvin112 was suggesting solar+storage as the alternative.

That link does not show that the heating 'displaced the entire habitat', which was the claim. He made the claim, if he can back it up he should respond with the source. I say its total bullshit.

rahvin112 made a claim. You denied it, but didn't provide any evidence. I did a quick google and found http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... which suggests a 10C rise, which is in the region of 20f.

You then tried some whataboutism in the hope that no-one would bother to validate your claim and start thinking about hydro power instead, even though rahvin112 was suggesting solar+storage as the alternative.

In fact, the Cook 2013 study found about 4,000 papers that gave or implied an opinion about whether global warming is caused by humans, with 97% supporting that view, at least implicitly, and 78 papers (under 2%) that "minimized" or rejected human causation, at least implicitly. Since the research results are completely public, if I was Pruitt, I'd just ask my secretary to download those 78 papers and select the ones I like best.

Alternately they could find references via the 2016 paper "Learning from mistakes in climate research" whose goal was to find patterns of errors in 38 contrarian papers.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97% global warming consensus A new paper by GWPF's Richard Tol accidentally confirms the results of last year's 97% global warming consensus study"

The second is paywalled

The third link ...

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

etc etc

"And as far as we can tell, it isn't, to the point of ridiculousness, and our physics is validated and complete enough on this to be almost certain. Time travel introduces unresolvable paradoxes "

Not necessarily. Just because we don't know how the universe would 'resolve' such apparent paradoxes doesn't mean they are actually paradoxes. One possible resolution is the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle.

Close timelike curves (aka time travel) are a valid part of General Relativity. In fact, Kurt Godel showed that if the universe was rotating that time travel would be possible according to General Relativity. Without that, you would need something extremely massive arranged in a precise way, like cosmic strings or wormholes.

The problem with all of that is that we don't have a theory of quantum gravity, so we don't know whether that would rule out closed timelike curves. Hawking thought that quantum gravity would prevent time travel, he called it the Chronology Protection Conjecture.

(1) Safecast (unfortunately motivated by disaster, but most environmental monitoring spikes after such events): https://blog.safecast.org/ . (2) EnviroDIY (water quality and quantity related; believe they are developing data portal): https://www.envirodiy.org/ . (3) Wunderground has citizen network of weather stations. Not completely open, but they (proprietary company) update forecasts more often than gov't agencies due to automated data collection. The first example has been examined by peer-review ( http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... ). While absolute values are questionable with in situ sensors, the deltas with a large user base (and preferably different sensor manufacturers) would at least cause the academic community to raise their eyebrows.

Pork is half as efficient as poultry.

                            Beef, Poultry, Pork, Dairy, Eggs
Caloric conversion efficiency 2.9±0.7% 13±4% 9±4% 17±4% 17±9%
Protein conversion efficiency 2.5±0.6% 21±7% 9±4.5% 14±4% 31±16%

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

I'm not sure from the article how eggs and poultry should be combined, since they come from the same source -- can they be added together? Or does it not work like that for various agriculture reasons -- i.e. spent hens aren't typically used for human food in US.

Start reading here: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-...

If that's not enough, read all the good science referenced here: http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

If you've gotten this far and still are unconvinced, you must not believe in the scientific method of thought or are in the extreme minority, more here on that topic: https://climate.nasa.gov/scien...

One does not have to be a scientist to know that something is terribly wrong.

Happy earth day.

You seem to not be fully tuned into what is currently happening. This is not a "bullshit" journal:

The Astrophysical Journal Letters
Measurement of the Electric Current in a kpc-Scale Jet

the same companies that fund almost ALL climate research

[Citation needed], but nice try at deflection. CRU itself says:

The Unit undertakes both pure and applied research, sponsored almost entirely by external contracts and grants from academic funding councils, government departments, intergovernmental agencies, charitable foundations, non-governmental organisations, commerce and industry.

Then there's NOAA and NASA, whose funding is from the government, not the fossil fuel industry, not to mention universities all over the world that run primarily on government grants. Do you have any evidence for this "$1 billion a year" from Big Oil? Or is it all undeclared, like Willie Soon's?

If Big Oil is such a proponent of climate change research, then how come over 80% of their public statements about it are misleading or outright denial?

The American Petroleum Institute, in particular its members Exxon and Chevron, have been funding denial and manufacturing doubt ever since their own scientists told them of the risks of continued fossil fuel use back in the 80s (here is an empirical study describing their efforts to deny and deliberately misrepresent climate science findings, including from their own scientists).

And the reason fossil fuels appeared as cheap as they did was because the huge emission and pollution costs were being borne by the public, rather than the industry. If these externalised costs were factored in, the price of coal-fired electricity would triple (study) - and the RoI for investment in alternatives like renewables or nuclear would have been much larger. Likewise, the health and other external costs of oil exceeded $56 billion annually back in 2005, adding at least 23 to 38 cents per gallon (again without including climate costs).

External costs are a market failure. Regulation is one option to correct that failure, but it's not the only possible option. Feel free to choose a solution that fits your political preferences, but ignoring or hand-waving away the problem won't make it go away. You'll still be paying for it, with excessive health premiums, illnesses and lost productivity, and tens of thousands of avoidable deaths every year.

Explaining the Elongated Shape of Oumuamua by the Eikonal Abrasion Model

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

Micrometeroids will damage it over the years. There are some recently published measurements from Lisa Pathfinder: LISA Pathfinder as a Micrometeoroid Instrument.

This is the magnified minority effect - Roy Spencer and his co-worker John Christy are the most frequently-quoted of the 3% of climate scientists that minimize or reject human-caused global warming (in their case, minimize). As if simply repeating their opinions ad nauseum makes them correct.

Yes, I've seen that post by Roy Spencer before. His graph relies largely on choosing a very short baseline (1979-1983) to exaggerate the difference between models and measurements (because the difference between models and observations was unusually large in 1979-1983). In contrast, it is normal to use a 30-year period for baselining to eliminate short-term artifacts.

Spencer's graph also shows that measurements of the troposphere are not as high as models predicted; climate scientists generally agree about this but have explored many possible reasons (technical discussion here), whereas Spencer/Christy emphasize just that one interpretation of the data that minimizes global warming. A paper published soon afterward confirmed the hot spot, but I've seen how people who don't want to believe it can dismiss that paper based on its title alone (the title contains the word "homogenised", which deniers take as an indication of fraud.)

It's interesting that Lynnwood highlights that Spencer is 'funded solely by Government grants (not "Big Oil")' - at the same time as other 'skeptics' argue that climate scientists cannot be trusted because you supposedly "have to" believe in man-made global warming in order to get government funding. One thing I've learned well from talking to skeptics is that they are very good at burning the climate science candle at both ends. Another example: mainstream models are claimed to be useless because they are not perfectly accurate, but apparently if a model is produced by Spencer/Christy it can be trusted.

Lynnwood is also confused about the topic of discussion when he says "Puts a bit of a damper on the whole 'models assume we have negative carbon output!' kind of thing". The supercomputer models of the atmosphere, oceans, land and vegetation which Spencer is criticizing are completely different and separate from "models" of future economic activity, some of which optimistically include negative-carbon technology.

The two sets of models are even made by totally different people (economists et al vs physicists, oceanographers, ecologists, et al) Folks like Lynnwood simplistically reduce the work of thousands of scientists around the world into a single concept called "models" which can then be dismissed in its entirety, with little thought.

You have a good point and I'm not trying to argue, just point out that, it's not 100s of years from now any more. By the end of this century, sea level could be > 4 feet higher. That makes this much more urgent.

If it sounds like turtles all the way down it is: just try to trace the claim of "97% scientists agree" to its roots in reality

OK, I traced it. The 97% figure came from the several references: J. Cook, et al., "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 11, No. 4, 13 April 2016. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

It states: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Another reference is J. Carlton et al., "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 10, No. 94, 24 September 2015. Their results show a 96.7% agreement on anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures among the group who indicated that 'The majority of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change.'" (The agreement was "only" 91.9% when the group was expanded to all scientists and not just climate scientists.)

A slightly later paper by Cook et al. included a table summarizing fourteen other surveys of scientists, is here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

And a nice site summarizing what scientific societies say is here: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

and you'll see it's based on a long chain of implicit trust based on implicit credibility. (Who did they poll? What was the poll? Did scientist accurately report their convictions? Who reported the news? etc. etc.)

Questions which are all answered.... if you had done the work that you suggested: "trace the claim to its roots."

That doesn't mean our scientific knowledge is not useful -- on the contrary, whether it is useful is the (only) criteria to go by. But it means it is acquired statistically, as if humanity were one giant neural network. If you need a confirmation, here's a quote (supposedly) from Max Planck who (we believe) had enough experience to see the pattern: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

The greenhouse effect isn't a "new scientific truth". It's been known and pretty well understood for well over a hundred years. It is the tool we use to understand planetary temperatures.

Those improvements are great. Yet, there is still pollution, whether it's the noxious kind or the stuff that leads to global warming and climate change, if you want to picky about which is which. One study recently pointed out that current estimates of pollution from traffic may be too low. My point really thought is that while the improvements have slightly reduced the impact, it's too little, too late and not enough people are that concerned with using the currently available solutions to try to get ahead of the problem.

Any time you see someone cite claims by Roy Spencer (or his research partner John Christy), be skeptical. This guy is one of the 1.6% found to minimize or reject AGW in the Cook 2013 study.

He seems to be invited to any congressional hearing about climate change, has a very popular contrarian blog, and claims to be part of the oft-mentioned "97% consensus". You'll sometimes see his followers pretend that the consensus is only that humans could cause "some" of the warming, when in fact there's a consensus that humans cause at least "most" of it. He wrote a book on free market economics and once said "I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government".

See: http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... and: http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

See: http://iopscience.iop.org/arti... and: http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

Except that, at least in some cases, the price and life-cycle cost of refrigerators and AC goes down with energy-efficient standards. In particular, look at the kinks in figure 1.

But of course the senior author on this paper was involved in a pretty big scandal so maybe we shouldn't take the results too seriously. But at least he responded to the allegations.

Oh, and for your edification

http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

No evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change? How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

No evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change? How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

No evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change? How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

I first wanted to say thank you for holding your scientific position here in the face of ignorant objections. it always astounds me how people believe that the consensus among scientists is either a massive conspiracy or some sort of hugely biased poll where the objectors never get a voice.

With all that said, I took a few minutes to read your linked article. Something is a little "fishy" in that figure, based on the other articles cited. For example, he cites a 2010 study that claimed to find 2.5% of the top 200 climate researchers "as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)" were "unconvinced by the evidence." That's 5 climate scientists just out of the top 200 -- and those 200 were apparently the most published folks.

How do we square that with the article's claim to only find 5 articles TOTAL (with 4 authors) -- out of the ~70,000 he claims to have looked at -- which show evidence of rejecting the hypothesis? The article further claims that these 5 articles were only ever cited once, implying that they don't have a strong reputation.

These claims seem a bit contradictory. If we are to believe the present study that there are only ~4 scientists who are skeptical (and apparently have minimal unpopular publications), how did the 2010 study find 5 skeptical scientists just among the 200 most published climate scientists??

Granted, the present article was done with publications a few years later, so some skeptics may have changed their minds (or died or whatever), but something doesn't quite add up here to get the 99.99% figure.

Also, this article apparently accepts "clear statements of rejection or that some process other than AGW better explains the observations" as the only evidence of "rejection," while lumping together all other articles in the "positive" group. I agree with the article's critiques of previous methods that just ignored all articles which didn't declare a "for or against" explicitly -- that also seems stupid. And I agree with the author that the vast majority of those which don't declare explicitly "for" AGW probably do still adhere to the theory. But that doesn't justify calling ALL articles without "clear statements of rejection" to be authored be scientists who adhere to the theory with no reservations.

And when we look back at Cook et al. (2013), we find 78 abstracts and 124 authors "reject AGW" explicitly and 40 abstracts/44 authors are "uncertain on AGW." While Cook found a gradual increase in the acceptance numbers over time (about +0.1%/year), he still was estimating it at ~98% in 2011, compared to ~97% over the 20-year period examined. Did these ~168 skeptical authors simply vanish in 2-3 years for your article's data? Have the criteria used to justify classifying a paper as a "rejection" been raised?

I didn't go digging through all the supplementary data to Cook, but from a graph of their data over time, it looks like they examined roughly 1500-1700 papers from 2011, which given their reported percentage of 98% acceptance in 2011 would imply somewhere around 30-35 papers Cook et al. found just in that year alone. But by 2013-14 of your cited study, that number fell to 2.5/year for a much larger sample (~12,000 articles/year).

The numbers don't quite mesh between these various studies, even if you take into account the rational criticisms of previous studies.

Basically, I'm mostly with you and the author of this article in that consensus is at least 97% and probably quite a bit more. But there's some flimsy argumentation being made here... either that, or the previous studies that claimed to have found a slightly higher percentages of objectors were fundamentally flawed in simply COUNTING the "rejections" in some way (even though the author doesn't argue that the previous data was outright false or something on that order).

By the mere fact that we have noticed this twice now (and we've looked at very few stars) would suggest this is not terribly uncommon.

It's up to ten now. I didn't follow the references.

Sorry, twelve, including this star and the original "Tabby's Star." Time to split the genus into species.

Did you seriously just request that I post tens of thousands of papers? Was that some kind of a joke?

Here, want starters? Open the reference section of the IPCC WGs. Or a climate journal. There have been ample metastudies assessing the percentage of climate papers supporting AGW - it's the 97% range, ex. ref and ref. So sure, you can go and cherry pick to your heart's content from that remaining three percent. But that just makes you a kook, akin to someone who goes to 33 doctors, is told by 32 of them that he has late-stage cancer and needs immediate surgery, but decides "Nah, I'm going to listen to Dr. Nick over here instead...."

Looking more deeply, the graph you linked to is one measurement (an estimation based on averaging land based thermometers), whereas the one I linked to shows two different satellite measurement sequences.

All of the actual climate records track each other closely - GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, etc. If you're posting something that significantly different, you're posting something not in line with actual science.

You're free to claim otherwise. Your claim would be wrong.

Did you seriously just request that I post tens of thousands of papers? Was that some kind of a joke?

Here, want starters? Open the reference section of the IPCC WGs. Or a climate journal. There have been ample metastudies assessing the percentage of climate papers supporting AGW - it's the 97% range, ex. ref and ref. So sure, you can go and cherry pick to your heart's content from that remaining three percent. But that just makes you a kook, akin to someone who goes to 33 doctors, is told by 32 of them that he has late-stage cancer and needs immediate surgery, but decides "Nah, I'm going to listen to Dr. Nick over here instead...."

Looking more deeply, the graph you linked to is one measurement (an estimation based on averaging land based thermometers), whereas the one I linked to shows two different satellite measurement sequences.

All of the actual climate records track each other closely - GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, etc. If you're posting something that significantly different, you're posting something not in line with actual science.

You're free to claim otherwise. Your claim would be wrong.

Wave action is what erodes and ultimately destroys islands, and any increase in the water level is going to have an effect on wave action.

That being said, from looking at the pictures in the PDF report it kind of looks like this can be explained by extreme weather events, like a cyclone. One of the islands has completely moved since the 1940s. As in, its current boundaries and its boundaries in the 1940s do not overlap at all. That sounds like "regular" erosion of island land brought on by extreme weather events. Whether those events are related to global warming would be another issue.

that was the point of the paper.
"Discussion
At least eleven islands across the northern Solomon Islands have either totally disappeared over recent decades or are currently experiencing severe erosion. However, islands in the more sheltered Roviana area of the southern Solomon Islands did not experience significant coastal recession." http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

I'm not going to make an exhaustive list, but I will offer a few sources.

1) The predictive record:

a) Temperature and CO2: James Hansen - one of the most prominent climate scientists in the world, and former head of the NASA Goddard Institue for Space Studies - gave highly influential testimony to the United States Congress in 1988 based on his efforts at numerical modeling of future AGW. The actual increase in temperature is approximately that of his best-case scenario, in which he assumed far lower CO2 emissions than have actually occured; the actual increase in CO2 since that time has exceeded his worst-case scenario.

(Despite this unambiguous falsification of his models, Hansen continues to prophesy CO2-induced doom real soon now to this day - and the media still takes him seriously.)

The temperature predictions of the early IPCC reports have also been falsified; over time the group has gradually lowered their estimation of the climate's sensitivity to CO2, while maintaining that doom is as imminent as ever (or more so).

b) Sea level rise: "A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program." - San Jose Mercury News (June 30, 1989)

2) Vague, mutually contradictory models: Amusingly, this very thread contains a fine example about sea level rise - phantomfive's "real, peer reviewed scientific paper" predicts seven meters of sea level rise in the near future (and I have seen other papers predicting even larger rises), but both the Guardian article he linked, and the Solomon Islands paper in the OP have other climate scientists are predicting a rise of less than one meter.

Another good example of the self-contradictory nature of the "settled science", is the myriad efforts to explain away the unpredicted 15+ year long "pause" in statistically significant global warming that has occured since about 2000 (although the strong El Nino this year may finally end it, at least temporarily): there are now 50+ official excuses, ranging from "the missing heat is hidden in the oceans" and "excess volcanic dust is dimming the sun", to "the pause isn't real; it's just an error in the measurements". Many of these excuses are mutually contradictory - the pause cannot be just a measurement error and also have a real physical cause.

(Suspiciously missing from the above, is any serious consideration of the possibility that the models were just wrong about the magnitude of the climate's sensitivity to CO2.)

3) Low quality data: There are two main problems with the data sets upon which modern climate science is based. The first is that claims about the long-t

Interesting that you are so quick to dismiss contradictory evidence. The AMS survey is evidence that does not support the notion of a vast scientific consensus. And it is better than Cooks work since it does not depend on activist raters who break anonymity and blindness. [GiordyS]

Again, that's complete nonsense. 57% of those AMS survey respondents don't consider themselves experts in climate science. Again, if you had a question about heart surgery, would you actually ignore a survey of 77 actively practicing heart surgeons in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents say they're not heart surgery experts?

What part of "the authors rated their own full papers" are you not understanding? How would all your supposed problems with "activist raters" affect the authors' self-ratings? And didn't you notice that your bizarre accusations were already addressed in error 5 here?

T14 uses as a basis for this argument an excerpt from stolen private forum discussions (Lacatena, 2014) which is quoted out of context. Discussion of the methodology of categorising abstract text formed part of the training period in the initial stages of the rating period. When presented to raters, abstracts were selected at random from a sample size of 12,464. Hence for all practical purposes, each rating session was independent from other rating sessions. While a few example abstracts were discussed for the purposes of rater training and clarification of category parameters, the ratings and raters were otherwise independent. This was discussed in C13;

"While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments were required as specific situations presented themselves."

Independence of the raters was important to identify uncertainties based on interpretation of the rating criteria, but had little bearing on the final conclusion. Indeed, the conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the vast majority of rater disagreements were between no position and endorsement categories; very few affected the rejection bin.

In Cooks paper, social sciences papers such as a public survey looking at "Informed and uninformed public opinions on CO2 capture and storage" were considered climate science literature that endorsed consensus. [GiordyS]

Again, so you disagree with ratings given to some of the 11,944 abstracts. Given the large sample, that's almost inevitable. Here are all 11,944 abstract ratings. Change the ratings on whichever ones you think are wrong, then recalculate the consensus. If the new number is sufficiently different, and your re-ratings are reasonable, you might actually be able to publish your re-analysis. But I suspect that reasonable changes would only have minor effects on the consensus, because any of these supposed problems with the raters wouldn't affect the authors' ratings of their full papers. When you change the ratings, you should also email the authors to see if they agree with your new ratings, like Cook et al. 2013 did.

Knowing the above I'm not sure how anyone can defend that paper. Maybe they are so happy with the results they don't care how they got them? Is that how science is supposed to work? [GiordyS]

Again, it's astonishing that you keep baselessly accusing NASA and other scientists of being "so happy with the results they don't care how they got them" while at the same time citing Tol 2014, a paper which fails to list even a single example o

Sorry for the broken link: Here are all 11,944 abstract ratings.

67% is not a consensus. [GiordyS]

Are you referring to the same AMS survey where 57% of the respondents say on page 24 that they don't consider themselves experts in climate science?

A poster above (arguing for the consensus position btw) posted a recent survey that indicates only 67% of AMS members believe that a majority of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. That's not a consensus. https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.... [GiordyS]

That was me. Why do you seem to think that survey is a good way to estimate the scientific consensus on AGW among experts in the subject?

Estimating the scientific consensus on AGW can be performed repeatedly and independently by surveying peer-reviewed scientific abstracts which state a position about whether humans caused most of the global warming since 1950. Cook et al. 2013 (C13) did this.

Another method of estimating the scientific consensus is to email the scientists who write those peer-reviewed papers and ask if their paper(s) endorse AGW. C13 did this, but it can't be repeatedly indefinitely because the authors would eventually stop answering. One might also search for statements by those authors, to avoid self-selection bias caused by some authors not responding to emails. Anderegg et al. 2010 did this.

Why do you keep ignoring those estimates in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents explicitly don't consider themselves experts in climate science? If you had a question about heart surgery, would you actually ignore a survey of 77 actively practicing heart surgeons in favor of a survey where 57% of the respondents say they're not heart surgery experts?

However, the evidence I've seen regarding consensus is mixed. I've seen some worthless studies - one "97%" survey only surveying~75 scientists and asking a near worthless question... [GiordyS]

Good grief. I've already explained that Doran and Zimmerman 2009 surveyed 3146 scientists, and reported all those results in their figure 1. I also already explained that their question wasn't "worthless". I also already explained that Doran and Zimmerman examined the most expert subset: 79 scientists "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change".

Again, if you surveyed doctors about a topic involving heart surgery and only 77 out of 3145 of those doctors were actively practicing heart surgeons, wouldn't you be more interested in what those experts have to say?

But it's interesting that GiordyS doubles down on his objection to Doran and Zimmerman using an expert subset of their sample. Keep that in mind.

... I've recently seen a paper that only shows ~65% agreement among AMS members for example. [GiordyS]

Since only 37% of those AMS survey respondents consider themselves experts in climate science, that's consistent with figure 1 in Cook et al. 2016 which shows the AGW consensus is lower among samples having less expertise in climate scie

The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen.

LLT atmospheric hotspots observed.

Better call your mates at climateaudit and get them to publish a retraction.

Some aspects are discussed here: http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

This is not a serious work. There's too many authors from the Cook et al 2013 study which came up with the bogus 97% consensus claim in the first place.

To outline what was wrong with the 2013 paper, the primary author, John Cook, who incidentally is also the primary author of this current work, already had started working out the propaganda uses of the research before he started the 2013 study, the raters (of which eight of the nine coauthors of that 2013 work are coauthors on this paper) discussed papers and authors in what was supposed to be a double-blind study, there was plenty of bias exhibited by the raters in internal discussions, and a bunch of misclassified and/or ignored papers. A couple of key discussions of these problems can be found here and here.

Bottom line is that the Cook 2013 study was so bad, biased, and predisposed to use as pro-climate change propaganda, that it should have never been published. I consider it outright fraud. Now, he and his fellow coauthors get to contaminate another such survey? That's very foolish.

Ultimately, the problem here is that this is an argument from authority fallacy, written by a primary author, John Cook who has already demonstrated that he is too biased to do credible scientific work.

Looks like we do have concensus... or settlement... (whatever you want to call it).
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N?=?2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Leslie Corrice's Hiroshima Syndrome is the best all-round source. Corrice's site is an amazing work, he has collected into one place facts as they became known, and news coverage of the events. He is particularly attuned to distortions, exaggerations and certain scenarios that have been delivered to the press chosen for their dramatic description despite a laughably low probably. And unlike just about everyone else, he strives to segregate his news reporting from his own commentary.

Some no-hype and anti-hype information sources compiled by The Actinide Age,

What actually happened, written clearly by a radiation professional and teacher, Les Corrice ... Putting Health Risks from Radiation Exposure into Context: Lessons from Past Accidents Professor Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London, April 2011 ... Also quoted in New Scientist ... The D-shuttle project comparing negligible radiation doses internationally in 2014, and its published open access paper ... Real-time radiation monitoring network for Japan. See if you can find a reading higher than this ... Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima 7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (all below detection limit in 2012) ... in Proceedings of the Japan Academy ... Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas (after 2012, will not cause detectable health impacts) ... in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Will Boisvert confirms that wild claims of Japanese thyroid cancers in 2015 are based on bad science. Dr Jonathan Kellogg summarises the academic criticism ... Tim Worstall confirms that wild claims of a single Tepco worker developing radiation cancer is mere anti-nuclear opportunism ... Articles on the mental health impacts of long term evacuation in Medical News Today and Tech Times, and the cited 2015 Lancet study ... Ocean contamination in 2012(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and in 2015(Scientific Reports) --- already comparable to natural radioactivity ...

A solution for electronics/neuron interface has been around for several years. I know one of the scientists involved, and yes, the research was at least partially funded by DARPA. As I recall, the emphasis was on restoring function to combat-wounded soldiers with brain injury. . .

It is found that the total global arable land area is likely to decrease by 0.8–1.7% under scenario A1B and increase by 2.0–4.4% under scenario B1. Regions characterized by relatively high latitudes such as Russia, China and the US may expect an increase of total arable land by 37–67%, 22–36% and 4–17%, respectively, while tropical and sub-tropical regions may suffer different levels of lost arable land. For example, South America may lose 1–21% of its arable land area, Africa 1–18%, Europe 11–17%, and India 2–4%. - http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

"Expanded solar-system limits on violations of the equivalence principle" James Overduin, Jack Mitcham and Zoey Warecki, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 31, Number 1. IOP: http://m.iopscience.iop.org/ar... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1202

"Four-Qubit Entanglement Classification from String Theory", L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, A. Marrani, and W. Rubens
Physical Review Letters 105, 100507. APS: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab... arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4915

"Permutation orbifolds and holography", Felix M. Haehl, Mukund Rangamani Journal of High Energy Physics 2015:163 Springer: http://link.springer.com/artic... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2759

"Quest for the Perfect Liquid: Connecting Heavy Ions, String Theory, and Cold Atoms" Barbara Jacak, John E. Thomas, Clifford Johnson, Symposium at tahe AAAS Amual Meeting 2009 https://www.bnl.gov/aaas09/per...

Thats pretty easy.

Cook et Al. 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

And many others in the same field.

LOL, I should have expected that.

I presume what you mean by "others in the same field" is climate science. Of course the paper you cited isn't really a climate science paper but more of a sociology paper. And on top of that nobody has yet shown that the paper is wrong, just a lot of technical complaints that show lack of understanding on the part of the complainer. But I will cede that the paper was probably a response climate science deniers claiming not all scientists support the current anthropogenic global warming paradigm. It clearly showed that in the climate science field the support for that is in the high 90 percentage.

Thats pretty easy.

Cook et Al. 2013
http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

And many others in the same field.

You can surely detect my attack by using an optical power meter, but eventually I'll figure out a way around this as well. What our paper really shows is that there is a missing link in the security proof. Fix the proof and you'll be safe forever.

Could you explain your attack in laymans terms? From what you said here, you've not really "broken" quantum encryption and worked around the wave function collapse, rather you've discovered that quantum encryption as currently defined is flawed and immune to the observer effect?

Any QKD protocol relies on a security proof, and the observer effect is only a small part of the puzzle. In this case, we attack the Franson interferometer which uses a security test in the form of a Bell inequality violation to make sure no attack is occurring. We have discovered a way to fake this Bell inequality violation.

Bell's theorem is a very interesting part of physics on it's own, I really recommend looking into the recent Vienna and NIST experiments (good writeup here). The short version is that it allows us to distinguish between "quantum" things and "classical" things with a surprisingly powerful tool, Bell's inequality.

In essence, when measuring Bell's inequality you need data on the form of Probability(A,B), where A is the setting Alice uses for her box and B the setting Bob uses for his box. However, the Franson interferometer is very deceptive here and gives you data on the form Probability(A,B | coincidence), which means you condition on coincidence, i.e. you remove half of the events from the statistical ensemble.

The net result is that you don't really measure Bell's inequality, but a similar but (unfortunately) useless cousin. This paper shows why this happens. Therefore, we can start attacking the system and at the same time, fool the security test. Again, the Franson interferometer removes half of the events, which means the apparent detector efficiency is 50% even in the ideal case.

For even more info, see our previous paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1751...