Slashdot Mirror

http://agtb.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/progress-in-algorithms-beats-moore’s-law/

http://beta.slashdot.org/story/145484

RE: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/

Nice link - it must have taken a lot of work to make that page, and it is good to see that someone has taken the trouble to gather actual evidence to support a position. Kudos.

The problem is that the wordpress page is a list of newspaper articles that talked about the "coming ice age",
It takes a side and says "look at these". What we would want to see is a list of all climate-related articles from the 1970's and then determine if there was a preponderance of one kind of another, and what kind of magazines/journals published each.

Secondly, these are not links into scientific journals, so it can hardly be considered a consensus of scientific thought, but it does serve very well to show how public opinion may have been influenced.
I have to agree that the press published be-scared articles, but as I recall (and I was an adult), there as a significant number of articles saying balderdash to popular press imminent ice age articles. The people that I knew at that time admitted to the possibility that we may be moving into an ice age eventually, or perhaps a period of cooling in the near future, and everyone was aware that ice ages come in cycles. I don't know anyone that thought the newspaper articles were compelling enough to be actionable.
Confession: my degree and work is in a sci/tech field so the people I associated with tended to be a good bit more skeptical and knowledgeable than the general public.

Here's some counter-examples to the belief that there was a universal ice-age scare, see the links at the bottom/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
However, the wiki isn't looking at both sides either, but it gives you another point of view.

As for the wordpress blog. It could be improved somewhat, though. here are some suggestions.

Starting with the first one, the NCAR graph from Newsweek.
It's NOT an article predicting an ice age. it's an article saying the minor cooling in the Northern hemisphere may severely impact agriculture output. Why did you not post the other graph in that article that showed warming in the Southern hemisphere?
What about the quote in the article: "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions"

National Academy of Sciences graph. The graph shows Northern hemisphere temperatures. I don't see any prediction of an ice age. The link returns two non-weather articles from 2005.

The Milwaukee Sentinel screen shot of a fraction of a George Will opinion piece from 1992.
He is not saying that there is a coming ice age, he is saying the exact opposite. However, his stance is that some newspapers were using scare tactics, and he is using several newspaper articles quote fragments to show that the newspapers had got it wrong back in the 1970's.
You really should not use a 1992 opinion column's article to support claims that 1970's were having an ice-age scare.
BTW, two of the links in the Wordpress article point to the George Will article.

The Windsor Star article: Scientist Hubert Lamb, who also said "not for another 10,000 years"
Here's another contemporaneous article offering Professor Lamb views and some balance. That is, rejection of his position by other scientists
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19750908&id=jfJLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ae0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5280,2927204

Sarasota Herald-Tribune article:
Read the entire article on page 14A. This article is the exact opposite of an ice age scare - it says of the recent cooling trend "The first, which he said is held by the majority of weather and climate specialists, see trends originated in th

"at a rate far far less than predicted by all your models." Patently False. They aren't rising as fast as the worse case scenarios the media likes to report. They are rising within model predictions.

Actually, he is more right than you are. Let's compare, shall we? Plot the trend from 1990 - 2050, and compare with observations.The IPCC even revised their 2013 report from the 2nd quarter, downgrading their predictions from 0.13-0.33 per decade to 0.10-0.23 per decade. That's near the BOTTOM of the model's predictions, so it seems even the IPCC isn't buying that the models are accurate.

They claimed in AR5 that the observations were within the model predictions from AR4, but their OWN GRAPHIC tells a different story.

B) IF you are implying there is an increase in the energy output of the sun, we would know becasue we measure it pretty accuratly. The rising trend does NOT correlate with the Suns activity.

Actually, that's not accurate. True, it does not correlate with the sun's total solar irradiance but the models ignore anything else, such as spectral variability. There have been plenty of correlations made with solar activity, earth's orbit, Milankovitch cycles and cosmic rays. You might want to review a few of these papers on solar influence of climate change.

" Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, " um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study. However, there will be an increase in the energy of events. This can be stronger storms, or more storms,. The bottom line: more energy expressed over time.

Well you can claim that if you want to, but in fact it's a compromised media and activist climatologists. Like the ones that made a trip to Antarctica as a marketing exercise and alarm people about the disappearing ice (it didn't work out for them), like James Hansen, like Michael Oppenheimer, like John Harte.

" Has a habit of touting every storm or weather incident (even earthquakes) as proof of global warming, " um, that's the media, not scientists who are experts in that field of study. However, there will be an increase in the energy of events. This can be stronger storms, or more storms,. The bottom line: more energy expressed over time.

"No True Scotsman", then?

"We have also had some of the coldest incidents in recorded history in recent years as well." As expect by climate change models, dumb ass. The term climate change is older the global warming, BTW.

Yes, as everything and nothing is all evidence of climate change. There are so many predictions, EVERY event is confirmation and NO event can shed dispersion upon it. Does that really sound like science to you?

4) We put out far more CO2 then can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.

Pure conjecture. The FACT is that the correlation between increasing CO2 followed by increased warming is not very good.

We're hitting temperatures not seen since the 1990's. And that's it. And last summer wasn't particularly hot. Where are the dramatic weather extremes we've been told would occur?

Here

The Time Magazine one was false...

But what about all these other ones?

That's pretty much the extent of mentions of giraffes in Roman Italy.

It is said that "Hamburgers" were a staple of 20th century life. However surviving records of that time offer scant evidence. Tarantino the Younger mentions "one tasty [ham]burger" in only one surviving scene in his Magnum Opus a Tale of Pulp In fact a different document the Quest for the White Castle shows to what lengths the heroes Harold and Kumar have to go to get their hands on one of these so called "hamburgers"

Let's face it, hamburgers were a rare delicacy reserved for the rich and powerful of the time as this fresco clearly shows.

Mercurial is missing a few key features that make it less appropriate for solving some difficult collaboration problems, and some of those turn out to be important to people outside of Linux kernel development too. That's the technical part underneath what you're dismissing as a fanboy phenomenon.

Allowing octopus merges and making it easy to rewrite/rebase local branches are two such important features. The way those fit together into git's remote tracking branch concept is a particularly useful mental model for widely distributed development. And the way git (but not Mercurial) forces explicit branch naming and sharing gets people thinking in a way that usefully leads toward using these features for collaborative development. Mercurial vs Git; it’s all in the branches covers most of the important area usefully.

Basically, git includes some weird features that were built specifically for the style of distributed development done by the Linux kernel. But those turn out to be similarly powerful for other widespread collaborative software efforts too. These things aren't really appreciated by people until they've used git seriously for a while, and therefore they don't show up on most of these formal "which DVCS should we switch to" documents done by people still evaluating their options. That link I just referenced goes over how Google completely missed out on that in their comparison. You can't just compare the opinion of new users. The interesting thing to compare is what git is capable of on a project with some number of serious git users involved.

Once you've gotten used to things like git's remote tracking branches, good rebasing practices for code sharing, and malleable history when in tough spots, it's impossible to take Mercurial seriously for some of those jobs. Eventually Mercurial got some of the rebasing features, but by that point it had already lost quite a bit of the mind share war. They still are struggling with how the branch name model mismatches what some people want.

DOOM was great .. but I wouldn't play it now, no matter HOW much it was updated, ported, massaged to take advantage of the new hardware and memory and speeds

What if it got a scripting language which allowed mods to do all kinds of cool stuff like class based FPS with RTS components against hordes of enemies, with base upgrading and defensive purchasing, deployable turrets and ammo-dispensers. Or a Combat + Mech variant. Tons of mods that keep the classic look of the game, but focus on gameplay, with new weapons and smarter enemies, etc. Doom is an engine with a few official map-packs for it. The gameplay is so varied now saying that you won't play Doom nowadays means nothing. I mean, they have a Clue clone and Monopoly, even a side scroller platforming game built atop the engine. That's like saying, I won't play Unreal Engine Games because Unreal sucks now, ignoring all the various non-FPS games built with the engine with new gameplay, new graphics, new control schemes, etc. I mean, really, base building and upgrade your Mech in Doom? I could say the same for Quake. These games have been "resurrected" with multiple Total Conversions -- complete new set of graphics and audio and gameplay. You're going to write off arguably one of the biggest free sources of user generated content? Your loss, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Considering that TFA is about a new game, you're basically saying: I wouldn't play any new FPS games because I've played Doom already. You sound like an idiot.

Science is all about testable predictions. The predictions from the CAGW guys have failed. We have busted out of the 95% confidence interval on the models, and we busted out on the low end. The models have been shown to overpredict warming.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-skillful-predictions-of-climate-science/

No serious person can dispute that there has been warming. However, the CAGW guys are saying that, based on their models, that future warming will be catastrophic (hence the 'C' in CAGW). Given that we are now outside the 95% confidence interval, I am no longer worried that the models will prove to be correct.

A lot of the problem with the stories on global warming is that they respond immediately when warming indicators occur but rarely when cooling indicators do, they also rarely if ever publish the later corrections when mistakes are made.

The image that got me thinking the most is this comparison of climate models to reality; the dots and squares are reality: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?w=640&h=480

Another good example is page 102 of: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter11.pdf where recent observations are less than the majority of the models that are predicting extreme rise in temperature. That document is from the IPCC.

There are quotes from a climate scientist (sorry I'm not sure which) specifically stating that 17 years without a change in global temperature anomaly would indicate that the models are wrong. We've had 17 years of no change: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997

Linus Torvalds knew about Mercurial (though it was started at about the same time s git), but he still chose to complete the implementation of git. You can be sure Linus thought very carefully about he needed for the Linux Kernel before he did so. So git was superior to Mercurial for his needs. Now many more projects chose git for large projects with a distributed user base, so a large number of other developers find it best for them too. Amongst other things, git handles branches, and branch merging, a lot better & far faster than anything else.

see also:
http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its-all-in-the-branches
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/96933/why-did-git-get-so-much-hype-while-others-dont
http://beta.slashdot.org/story/85783

1. Antarctic Global Warming Expedition Ship Trapped in Sea Ice. You may have heard about the Russian vessel trapped 100 miles away from land in 10 feet thick ice in Antarctica and how three ice breakers have failed to rescue it. What you may not have heard is this ship is filled with Climate Scientists studying Global Warming. They are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location.

2. Yachts Trapped in Sea Ice in the Arctic Last Summer. You probably didnt hear about all the yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks that got trapped by sea ice while trying to sail the fabled Northwest Passage. They were promised an ice free passage.

3. Global Sea Ice at Record Levels. Al Gore and John Kerry 5 years ago predicted that 2013 would be ice free in the arctic. You probably havent heard that the exact opposite came true. 2013 is currently at the second highest volume of sea ice ever recorded and will probably break the all time record before the season is over.

4. Half of Meteorologists Dont Believe in Global Warming. Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts donâ(TM)t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

5. Only 75 Climate Scientists Believe in Global Warming. You probably have heard ad nauseum that 97% percent of Climate Scientists believe in global warming. That stat was based on a study which counted only 75 of 77 Climate Scientists. Compared to the over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying they dont believe in Global Warming. Thats only 2.3 in 1,000 or .23% of scientists that actually believe in Global Warming.

6. NASA caught fudging historical temps to make it look like the globe is warming. By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, NASA has exaggerated the amount of warming they report by nearly twice as much as they did 13 years ago.

7. Polar Bear Population at Record Levels. Since we've been keeping count the Polar Bear population is estimated at a record high of 20k to 25k. 5,000 are expected to be born around the New Year in Russia alone.

8. Obama Allows Wind Farms to Kill Eagles Without Penalties. Over 50 years ago the green movement started with the book Silent Spring which alleged that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle. Now we have come full circle by allowing wind power companies to kill eagles without penalty because its good for the planet.

9. The Oceans Arent Rising. Remember in 2009 when the officials of the Maldives held a press conference under water to show that their islands were sinking because of global warming. Well a new study do

1. Antarctic Global Warming Expedition Ship Trapped in Sea Ice. You may have heard about the Russian vessel trapped 100 miles away from land in 10 feet thick ice in Antarctica and how three ice breakers have failed to rescue it. What you may not have heard is this ship is filled with Climate Scientists studying Global Warming. They are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location.

2. Yachts Trapped in Sea Ice in the Arctic Last Summer. You probably didnt hear about all the yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks that got trapped by sea ice while trying to sail the fabled Northwest Passage. They were promised an ice free passage.

3. Global Sea Ice at Record Levels. Al Gore and John Kerry 5 years ago predicted that 2013 would be ice free in the arctic. You probably havent heard that the exact opposite came true. 2013 is currently at the second highest volume of sea ice ever recorded and will probably break the all time record before the season is over.

4. Half of Meteorologists Dont Believe in Global Warming. Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts donâ(TM)t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

5. Only 75 Climate Scientists Believe in Global Warming. You probably have heard ad nauseum that 97% percent of Climate Scientists believe in global warming. That stat was based on a study which counted only 75 of 77 Climate Scientists. Compared to the over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying they dont believe in Global Warming. Thats only 2.3 in 1,000 or .23% of scientists that actually believe in Global Warming.

6. NASA caught fudging historical temps to make it look like the globe is warming. By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, NASA has exaggerated the amount of warming they report by nearly twice as much as they did 13 years ago.

7. Polar Bear Population at Record Levels. Since we've been keeping count the Polar Bear population is estimated at a record high of 20k to 25k. 5,000 are expected to be born around the New Year in Russia alone.

8. Obama Allows Wind Farms to Kill Eagles Without Penalties. Over 50 years ago the green movement started with the book Silent Spring which alleged that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle. Now we have come full circle by allowing wind power companies to kill eagles without penalty because its good for the planet.

9. The Oceans Arent Rising. Remember in 2009 when the officials of the Maldives held a press conference under water to show that their islands were sinking because of global warming. Well a new study do

1. Antarctic Global Warming Expedition Ship Trapped in Sea Ice. You may have heard about the Russian vessel trapped 100 miles away from land in 10 feet thick ice in Antarctica and how three ice breakers have failed to rescue it. What you may not have heard is this ship is filled with Climate Scientists studying Global Warming. They are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location.

2. Yachts Trapped in Sea Ice in the Arctic Last Summer. You probably didnt hear about all the yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks that got trapped by sea ice while trying to sail the fabled Northwest Passage. They were promised an ice free passage.

3. Global Sea Ice at Record Levels. Al Gore and John Kerry 5 years ago predicted that 2013 would be ice free in the arctic. You probably havent heard that the exact opposite came true. 2013 is currently at the second highest volume of sea ice ever recorded and will probably break the all time record before the season is over.

4. Half of Meteorologists Dont Believe in Global Warming. Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts donâ(TM)t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

5. Only 75 Climate Scientists Believe in Global Warming. You probably have heard ad nauseum that 97% percent of Climate Scientists believe in global warming. That stat was based on a study which counted only 75 of 77 Climate Scientists. Compared to the over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying they dont believe in Global Warming. Thats only 2.3 in 1,000 or .23% of scientists that actually believe in Global Warming.

6. NASA caught fudging historical temps to make it look like the globe is warming. By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, NASA has exaggerated the amount of warming they report by nearly twice as much as they did 13 years ago.

7. Polar Bear Population at Record Levels. Since we've been keeping count the Polar Bear population is estimated at a record high of 20k to 25k. 5,000 are expected to be born around the New Year in Russia alone.

8. Obama Allows Wind Farms to Kill Eagles Without Penalties. Over 50 years ago the green movement started with the book Silent Spring which alleged that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle. Now we have come full circle by allowing wind power companies to kill eagles without penalty because its good for the planet.

9. The Oceans Arent Rising. Remember in 2009 when the officials of the Maldives held a press conference under water to show that their islands were sinking because of global warming. Well a new study do

It probably warmed during the 20th century, yes. But then it warmed during the 19th as well, and the 18th. In fact it's been gently warming since the end of the LIA. It was warmer during the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period too. It's actually relatively cold at the moment.

Obviously climate scientists failed their Philosophy of Science class, as they seem to regularly mistake a trend for a law. Worse, they actually think their models have skill, despite the fact that in order to have any skill they would need a resolution of at least 1mm or less; something it would take 10^20 years to compute a 10 year prediction for.

Finally, as you might know, around 97 of 100 computer models are running far too hot. But don't fear, scientists think the 3 that aren't have errors and are wrong. This is notwithstanding the fact that the other 97 look nothing like actual measured temperatures.

Isn't this "science" stuff brilliant?

Here is a graph that shows the actual data vs. the 90% confidence intervals of the model predictions:
Model 90% Conf vs. Actual

Here is the article, by Bart Verheggen, that presents the above graph:
Cowtan and Way global average temperature observations compared to CMIP5 models

Also presented is a graph of the model prediction 95% confidence intervals vs. the actual measurements:
Model 95% Conf vs. Actual

Here is an annotated graph of IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12 comparing observations to CMIP5 4.5:
Annotated IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12

From the above, wouldn't you conclude that HADCRUT4 trend has moved outside both the 90% and 95% lower confidence intervals for the predictions? And that the Cowtan and Way hybrid trend is right on the lower 95% confidence interval?

What else can you see on these trends? How about - the confidence intervals are big enough to drive a truck through? I.e., they are very wide compared to the mean? Bonus points if you notice that the confidence intervals don't increase in size fast enough as time goes forward. An extra grade level if the word "autocorrelation" drifts through your consciousness.

As for:
Furthermore. The measurements of surface which are prlotted [sic] are now known to have problems, in particular, underestimating the polar regions which have sparse data and more heating, and heat going into the deeper ocean. A number of peer-reviewed recent analyses and data has shown that the polar heating has been underestimated, as has the heat going to deeper ocean. There is no mystery or problem.

OK, let's break this down. The models were/are trying to predict a surface temperature dataset, HADCRUT4, doesn't have good sampling in the polar regions. Unluckily for the modelers, the actual trend stayed stubbornly flat -- despite CO2 concentrations increasing like they expected -- due to more heating occurring in the polar regions - which they didn't model. In addition, more heat went into the deep ocean (where there are very sparse measurements), which they also didn't model. So the models failed to accurately model surface temperature because they didn't model the entire system. But we should believe the predictions of these models . . . because why?

Also, the GISS dataset does extrapolate data into the polar regions. Wait, there are two datasets of global surface temperature, and they don't agree? Shit!

If the global warmers want people to engage in large scale decivilization [why is that always the solution?], they'd better find a way to link increases in CO2 to erectile dysfunction. Otherwise, we're driving our cars, heating our homes, and using the Internet.

Here is a graph that shows the actual data vs. the 90% confidence intervals of the model predictions:
Model 90% Conf vs. Actual

Here is the article, by Bart Verheggen, that presents the above graph:
Cowtan and Way global average temperature observations compared to CMIP5 models

Also presented is a graph of the model prediction 95% confidence intervals vs. the actual measurements:
Model 95% Conf vs. Actual

Here is an annotated graph of IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12 comparing observations to CMIP5 4.5:
Annotated IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12

From the above, wouldn't you conclude that HADCRUT4 trend has moved outside both the 90% and 95% lower confidence intervals for the predictions? And that the Cowtan and Way hybrid trend is right on the lower 95% confidence interval?

What else can you see on these trends? How about - the confidence intervals are big enough to drive a truck through? I.e., they are very wide compared to the mean? Bonus points if you notice that the confidence intervals don't increase in size fast enough as time goes forward. An extra grade level if the word "autocorrelation" drifts through your consciousness.

As for:
Furthermore. The measurements of surface which are prlotted [sic] are now known to have problems, in particular, underestimating the polar regions which have sparse data and more heating, and heat going into the deeper ocean. A number of peer-reviewed recent analyses and data has shown that the polar heating has been underestimated, as has the heat going to deeper ocean. There is no mystery or problem.

OK, let's break this down. The models were/are trying to predict a surface temperature dataset, HADCRUT4, doesn't have good sampling in the polar regions. Unluckily for the modelers, the actual trend stayed stubbornly flat -- despite CO2 concentrations increasing like they expected -- due to more heating occurring in the polar regions - which they didn't model. In addition, more heat went into the deep ocean (where there are very sparse measurements), which they also didn't model. So the models failed to accurately model surface temperature because they didn't model the entire system. But we should believe the predictions of these models . . . because why?

Also, the GISS dataset does extrapolate data into the polar regions. Wait, there are two datasets of global surface temperature, and they don't agree? Shit!

If the global warmers want people to engage in large scale decivilization [why is that always the solution?], they'd better find a way to link increases in CO2 to erectile dysfunction. Otherwise, we're driving our cars, heating our homes, and using the Internet.

Here is a graph that shows the actual data vs. the 90% confidence intervals of the model predictions:
Model 90% Conf vs. Actual

Here is the article, by Bart Verheggen, that presents the above graph:
Cowtan and Way global average temperature observations compared to CMIP5 models

Also presented is a graph of the model prediction 95% confidence intervals vs. the actual measurements:
Model 95% Conf vs. Actual

Here is an annotated graph of IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12 comparing observations to CMIP5 4.5:
Annotated IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12

From the above, wouldn't you conclude that HADCRUT4 trend has moved outside both the 90% and 95% lower confidence intervals for the predictions? And that the Cowtan and Way hybrid trend is right on the lower 95% confidence interval?

What else can you see on these trends? How about - the confidence intervals are big enough to drive a truck through? I.e., they are very wide compared to the mean? Bonus points if you notice that the confidence intervals don't increase in size fast enough as time goes forward. An extra grade level if the word "autocorrelation" drifts through your consciousness.

As for:
Furthermore. The measurements of surface which are prlotted [sic] are now known to have problems, in particular, underestimating the polar regions which have sparse data and more heating, and heat going into the deeper ocean. A number of peer-reviewed recent analyses and data has shown that the polar heating has been underestimated, as has the heat going to deeper ocean. There is no mystery or problem.

OK, let's break this down. The models were/are trying to predict a surface temperature dataset, HADCRUT4, doesn't have good sampling in the polar regions. Unluckily for the modelers, the actual trend stayed stubbornly flat -- despite CO2 concentrations increasing like they expected -- due to more heating occurring in the polar regions - which they didn't model. In addition, more heat went into the deep ocean (where there are very sparse measurements), which they also didn't model. So the models failed to accurately model surface temperature because they didn't model the entire system. But we should believe the predictions of these models . . . because why?

Also, the GISS dataset does extrapolate data into the polar regions. Wait, there are two datasets of global surface temperature, and they don't agree? Shit!

If the global warmers want people to engage in large scale decivilization [why is that always the solution?], they'd better find a way to link increases in CO2 to erectile dysfunction. Otherwise, we're driving our cars, heating our homes, and using the Internet.

Here is a graph that shows the actual data vs. the 90% confidence intervals of the model predictions:
Model 90% Conf vs. Actual

Here is the article, by Bart Verheggen, that presents the above graph:
Cowtan and Way global average temperature observations compared to CMIP5 models

Also presented is a graph of the model prediction 95% confidence intervals vs. the actual measurements:
Model 95% Conf vs. Actual

Here is an annotated graph of IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12 comparing observations to CMIP5 4.5:
Annotated IPCC AR5 SOD Figure 11.12

From the above, wouldn't you conclude that HADCRUT4 trend has moved outside both the 90% and 95% lower confidence intervals for the predictions? And that the Cowtan and Way hybrid trend is right on the lower 95% confidence interval?

What else can you see on these trends? How about - the confidence intervals are big enough to drive a truck through? I.e., they are very wide compared to the mean? Bonus points if you notice that the confidence intervals don't increase in size fast enough as time goes forward. An extra grade level if the word "autocorrelation" drifts through your consciousness.

As for:
Furthermore. The measurements of surface which are prlotted [sic] are now known to have problems, in particular, underestimating the polar regions which have sparse data and more heating, and heat going into the deeper ocean. A number of peer-reviewed recent analyses and data has shown that the polar heating has been underestimated, as has the heat going to deeper ocean. There is no mystery or problem.

OK, let's break this down. The models were/are trying to predict a surface temperature dataset, HADCRUT4, doesn't have good sampling in the polar regions. Unluckily for the modelers, the actual trend stayed stubbornly flat -- despite CO2 concentrations increasing like they expected -- due to more heating occurring in the polar regions - which they didn't model. In addition, more heat went into the deep ocean (where there are very sparse measurements), which they also didn't model. So the models failed to accurately model surface temperature because they didn't model the entire system. But we should believe the predictions of these models . . . because why?

Also, the GISS dataset does extrapolate data into the polar regions. Wait, there are two datasets of global surface temperature, and they don't agree? Shit!

If the global warmers want people to engage in large scale decivilization [why is that always the solution?], they'd better find a way to link increases in CO2 to erectile dysfunction. Otherwise, we're driving our cars, heating our homes, and using the Internet.

Don't know if you've ever compared the three amounts of energy, (1) solar energy incident on the earth in a year, (2) heat of fusion of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps (i.e., energy to melt them, assuming they are at 0C and frozen) and (3) the amount of energy required to heat the oceans by 1 degree C. The ratios are roughly 1 : 1.8 : 0.9. (My arithmetic: http://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/numbers-that-were-larger-than-i-had-imagined/ )

For me, this was simultaneously stupefying, scary, and annoying. Scary because the thermal mass of the ocean is incomprehensibly large, which means that burps and blips in the South Pacific can overwhelm any minor atmospheric effects, and annoying because in any discussion with internet "experts", no matter how correct it might be to blame the ocean, neener-neener-Al-Gore-said-it-would-be-hot-by-now.

NSA's ANT Division Catalog of Exploits for Nearly Every Major Software/Hardware/Firmware

In ANT, Archive, Hacking, NSA, NSA Files, Surveillance, TAO, Technology on December 30, 2013 at 3:17 AM

https://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/nsas-ant-division-catalog-of-exploits-for-nearly-every-major-software-hardware-firmware/

Uh, did you look this up before making that claim?

http://hackaday.com/2013/01/09/unsigned-code-running-on-windows-rt/ indicates that no jailbreaking is necessary.

See also https://surfsec.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/circumventing-windows-rts-code-integrity-mechanism/

There's a slightly more detailed story posted on the plaintiff's website.

They're also hosting a copy of the full decision from Judge Castillo, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

And an interesting (if brief) analysis on copyright lawyer C E Petit's web site: http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/DC27x.html

There is this.

Sounds like they are willing to send out fake emails to try and frame people who are outspoken against them. I have heard similar stories numerous times, but have yet to see actual evidence it is the NSA doing this. But I will take the word of a random web blogger over the word of the NSA currently.

There's a slightly more detailed story posted on the plaintiff's website. They're also hosting a copy of the full decision from Judge Castillo, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

If the primary target for that intelligence collection effort was nuclear armed nations as you assume, then we would not be seeing the massive invasive unconstitutional domestic surveillance costing billions of dollars to capture and store. No the NSA and all the three letter agencies are just enforcing an age old rule: The richest 1% will do anything to maintain political and economic control.

Is alive and growing stronger and bolder in the US. All your usual three letter agencies are involved in political oppression, everything from climate activists to grass root community groups looking to better their communities. Too many cases now to disregard or ignore... unless you don't care about political oppression.

Solar produces at 5PM anyway, but also: http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/load-curve.jpg

This article summarizes the 7 sins of mobile websites:

http://10kloc.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/7-deadly-sins-of-mobile-websites/

I feel. . .so. . .loved.
Thank you!
If only this fraud wasn't getting buried by glaciers.

Wasn't this about Microsoft changing Skypes architecture to enable surveilance? Hell, they were even brazen enough to patent aspects of it. They've even been scanning chats for URLs (which was news to me). Apparently the excuse was they were scanning the URLs for malicious software, which may be true... but most regard anything they say these days with a grain of salt, and rightly so.

No, the submitter is just continuing his crapflood of spam to slashdot plugging his crumby website fuktware.

Link to Oringinal Source, indeed.

Aw, when writing it's is so easy to
to do this.

http://customerinnovations.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/paris-in-the-the-spring.jpg

You forget to mention just how inept NSA turned out to be

Inept? I would assume it takes quite a bit of expertise to justify a friggin Holodeck on a purchase req.

In February 1992, Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee to go from McDonalds. Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her nephew's car, which was pulled over so she could add sugar to her coffee. While removing the cup's lid, Liebeck spilled her hot coffee, burning her legs. It was determined that Liebeck suffered third degree burns on over six percent of her body. Originally, Liebeck sought $20,000 in damages. McDonalds refused to settle out of court. However, they should have. Liebeck was ultimately awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because she was found to be twenty percent at fault. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages.

NSFW, but check out these burns and see if they look trivial. Also the documentary Hot Coffee wonderfully explains why this isn't a trivial lawsuit.

In 2003, Richard Schick sued his former employer, the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Schick sought $5 million plus $166,700 in back pay for sexual and disability discrimination. In fact, Shick was so stressed by this discrimination that he robbed a convenience store with a shotgun. A jury felt his pain and awarded him the money he was seeking. The decision was then reversed. Unfortunately, the $303,830 he was still awarded isn't doing him much good during the ten years he's serving for armed robbery.

In scanning through the case, the boss seemed to be a vindictive asshole who had him remove a sleeping bag he had in the break room to deal with sleep apnea, moved the copy machine close to his desk to interfere with his hearing aid, in addition to numerous other complaints. Sure, the dude surely could've done things to combat some of his issues (carpel tunnel can be mitigated with proper exercises), but the boss should probably not be a dick.

Depends on which part of Houston you're in as 34's one of the low power stations. They're owned Mako Communications, a company in Corpus Christi that my sister works for.

I'm in Fresno, about 4 miles SE of the broadcast towers in Missouri City - I can see them from my backyard. Reception for 34 was marginal when I was first testing out my setup. After I moved the antenna into the attic it came in just fine. A couple months later I switched to a rooftop antenna as I was having problems with Fox 26 breaking up all the time. Neither antenna is powered.

TVfool has some online tools that might help. I also follow this Houston DTV Blog, though they've not posted anything since May.

And how great is OpenBSD's security in practice? What does it have or do that's better that would save a user from a web browser drive-by exploit? Or from a user opening/running an email attachment with an exploit? Compared to Linux with apparmor or SE Linux? Or FreeBSD's jail? Or even Windows 7?

Fact is OpenBSD is overrated as an OS and as a secure OS: http://allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-insecurity-of-openbsd/

They being able to claim they are "Secure by Default" because they don't have much running/enabled by default is as silly as claiming MSDOS being secure by default because it doesn't have TCP/IP by default.

The landing site of Sinus Iridum is a flat volcanic plain, part of a larger feature known as Mare Imbrium that forms the right eye of the "Man in the Moon".

. (The French already landed in the left eye over 100 years ago ).

Run Carbon Black on her machine and you'll know absolutely everything that happens on the machine. Combine it with a good antivirus like ESET and you'll at least know definitively when the machine is infected.

Add to this a small server and setup her machine to do diskless network boot, and you're all set. Even if she gets infected, you know exactly what happened and all you need to do to fix it is reboot, and it will pull down a fresh uninfected image and boot that. See the howto here.

The REAL split is between the Cities and Not the Cities. And goes back quite a while, at least half a century. The operating level of political difference is really at the County Level, not the State level

Right on. Red versus Blue is becoming less important as time goes on, yet false paradigms are used to rally them against one another like opposing teams. Bread and circuses.

Megacities and the urban sprawl which surround and connect them create zones of provincial sentiment. It really is a mind-set. At a certain point the city becomes the state (New York, California, Maryland) and views in opposition to those of the urban voting block go to margin.

The urban-rural schism is the most pervasive, but there are regional differences that also transcend party. Look at Colin Woodward's 11 Nation-States of America, which paints a few large swaths across the continent by county which represent waves of immigrant settlers, who seeded these geographic areas with attitudes that, just as with dialect, influence voters today. Even those who re-settle into those areas (and especially their children) adopt the flava. With whimsical names like Yankeedom, New Netherlands, Midlands and Tidewater one can almost imagine a Tolkienesque retelling of the American Tale, and I wish this concept may some day grow into an alternate-selection textbook of history that follows these waves without so much distracting clutter of place-names. On this map South Florida does not even make the list, it is a grey zone labelled 'Part of the Spanish Caribbean'. Hilarious!

Urbanites are more accepting of incremental erosion of personal liberty and a pattern of ever-increasing (but never abrupt) government involvement. I see this described in derogatory fashion as if they are simple sheeple or something, but I don't subscribe to such a vulgar character judgement. I think it may simply be that they are more often exposed to utopian ideals and idealists which say, we're this-close to solving this problem, all we need to do is this one more thing. Urbanites see their government as a machine that just needs a little tuning here and there. And it is a machine of sorts, one that gathers distant water rights and political power. Eventually the political sway of populous megacities will be complete, but in the United States it is not happening fast enough for them.

Which is why they are attacking the Constitution directly, seeking an end-run play to nullify the effect of electoral college via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I find this to be an insidious -- almost evil -- self-castration of a state's right to choose a President. If there is a battle between the Cities and Not the Cities, this is the front line. Look at the green (passed) and yellow (pending) states on the map. There are your cities vying for political domination.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was started by disenfranchised supporters of Al Gore who decided that if they lost it must mean that the system was broken. So now there are climate people who wish Gore would stick to politics and political people who wish he would stick to climate. I always wished he would become un-stuck from everything, and found it egregiously obnoxious that this NSA stooge who pushed the Clipper Chip was considered to be presidential material.

No matter exactly what the framers intended, the Electoral College creates a swing zone within which the growing influence of urbanized areas may (yet) reach a balance point with the desires of the sparsely populated rural peoples. This balance point, in which everyone becomes aware that the popular and electoral results diff

Sodium is inherently compatible with stainless steels, requiring no special corrosion protection measures

Most sodium leaks have been small and were the result of design and/or fabrication deficiencies.

Significant Sodium Leaks *
BN-600
– 1981: Flange joint failure in SG valve seal (300 kg)
– 1990: Manufacturing defect in SG drain pipeline (600 kg)
– 1993: Thermal expansion induced failure in primary sodium purification
system (1000 kg, ~10 Ci)
– 1994: Staff error, pipeline cutting before sodium was frozen (650 kg)

I'll take that citation now.

That was a really cool link! They even use Linux (Gnome 2 desktop environment and all) on the computers. I particularly liked "THIS COMPUTER DOES NOT ACCESS INTERNET OR OUTLOOK. THIS COMPUTER DOES CAUSE POWER OUTAGES AND ALARMS."

This gets funding, but the LIFTR doesnt? yeah.. seems like a great idea.

I am not an anonymous coward and I approve this message. It seems like despite the citation of this Thing as an 'answer' to anything useful... the lesson of Fukushima was not universally learned after all.

That means it needs no pumps to inject water to cool it in an emergency - an issue ... highlighted by Japan's crippled Fukushima plant.'

All this for 45 megawatts?? And in the case of containment failure you have contaminated five million gallons of water.

The solution is to surround nuclear energy with less water, not more. None is best. Such as fissile contained in stable salts that, in case of a reactor breach, merely sit there not reacting to water or air or spreading into the environment until they can be cleaned up and recycled.

The chemistry of LFTR may seem odd and frightening to the proponents of water reactors, but if it takes ~7.5 olympic size swimming pools to thermally stabilize a 45 megawatt reactor, the idea of chaining these to provide utility levels of hundreds of megawatts is, um, just more silly?

Micro-reactors are being suggested as a means to give little communities a little bit of energy with only a little worry. And there is a small community somewhere who hopes to be given one of these. One would look great in your neighborhood. Then another and another. Pretty soon the combined cost and overhead of little things begins to exceed the cost running wires to fewer, bigger (shared) things. But we are committed to little things now. Little things sneak up on you that way.

The most likely scenario is that this 'fortunate' community runs aground on the unforgiving shoals of 45 megawatts, cannot afford to grow even past the point where it can afford to maintain even that. And some day it is all forgotten (except the decommission cost) and CAT disels save the day. By my logic, which I invite everyone to poke holes in, micro-reactors are a trap because an insufficient ratio of watts/person is a trap.

I am completely in favor of micro reactors, but honestly believe that micro-solutions should be scaled-down versions of proven and viable mega-solutions, and not pursued with any vigor until the mega-problem is solved.

In terms of survival this is common sense, it is why some in the medical profession choose to cure diseases rather than individual patients. But there are not enough engineers tackling these 'big' problems.

Be wary of itty-bitty things that could never scale to become a big-things. Build big things that can become itty-bitty. Because molten salt fissile technology is not explosive on any scale, its minimum size is (theoretically) limited to the mass of its physical containment and the cleverness of our engineering. And our resolve to get it done.

___
Obligatory bump to Thorium Alliance and my letters on energy,
To The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senate
To whom it may concern, Halliburton Corporate

MOAR!!!!

A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

The reporter that attributed those words to Assange is David Leigh. A well known liar, the type of person that breaks contract then lies about it, David Leigh also has been called out out by an independent third party journalist for fabricating those words:

"However, an independent witness – John Goetz, a journalist with Der Spiegel – states that the events related above are simply not true:"

"“I was at dinner at the Moro restaurant in London, along with Marcel Rosenbach from Der Spiegel, David Leigh and Declan Walsh of the Guardian, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Patrick Forbes asked me specifically if Julian Assange had made the remark “They’re informants, they deserve to die” at the dinner, as has been alleged by David Leigh, and I told him that Julian did not say that at the dinner.”"

David Leigh' s systematic pattern of dishonesty.

But you know all this already, don't you Cold Fjord. By calling out your FUD with some facts and counter examples you will feebly defend as you have done in your last post by accusing any detractors from your message of being "fans" or part of some cult. Anything other than, you know, actually addressing the facts or providing solid counter evidence.

So now you have been informed that David Leighs account is highly questionably including credible independent third party witnesses, and that David Leigh has a long history of dishonesty on other non Assange related areas - yet I can guarantee you will be back here with the same ferver like agenda, the same libel Assange quote on the next Wikileaks story. No matter how many times we demonstrate some of your more crazy ideas to be false, you persist on repeating over and again the same falehoods - damn the facts and eternally ignore any counter evidence presented. One can see this clearly time and again across many topics only by browsing your post history and the subsequent replies. Rinse, repeat. This is the classical modus operandi of a troll, a shill and a astroturfer. Facts do not matter.

A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

The reporter that attributed those words to Assange is David Leigh. A well known liar, the type of person that breaks contract then lies about it, David Leigh also has been called out out by an independent third party journalist for fabricating those words:

"However, an independent witness – John Goetz, a journalist with Der Spiegel – states that the events related above are simply not true:"

"“I was at dinner at the Moro restaurant in London, along with Marcel Rosenbach from Der Spiegel, David Leigh and Declan Walsh of the Guardian, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Patrick Forbes asked me specifically if Julian Assange had made the remark “They’re informants, they deserve to die” at the dinner, as has been alleged by David Leigh, and I told him that Julian did not say that at the dinner.”"

David Leigh' s systematic pattern of dishonesty.

But you know all this already, don't you Cold Fjord. By calling out your FUD with some facts and counter examples you will feebly defend as you have done in your last post by accusing any detractors from your message of being "fans" or part of some cult. Anything other than, you know, actually addressing the facts or providing solid counter evidence.

So now you have been informed that David Leighs account is highly questionably including credible independent third party witnesses, and that David Leigh has a long history of dishonesty on other non Assange related areas - yet I can guarantee you will be back here with the same ferver like agenda, the same libel Assange quote on the next Wikileaks story. No matter how many times we demonstrate some of your more crazy ideas to be false, you persist on repeating over and again the same falehoods - damn the facts and eternally ignore any counter evidence presented. One can see this clearly time and again across many topics only by browsing your post history and the subsequent replies. Rinse, repeat. This is the classical modus operandi of a troll, a shill and a astroturfer. Facts do not matter.

Are you a Jain? Do you walk barefoot and sweep the sidewalk as you walk to avoid stepping on a bug?

I do not, but that doesn't mean that I'm not conscious of the moral paradox. I also don't go out of my way to purposely walk on bugs. If I notice a bug on the sidewalk then I'll avoid it.

Then file murder charges against a wolf. Or an alligator, a bear, a bull, I dont care. The next time a nonhuman kills a human in your area put him on trial for murder... come on. You really cant see how silly that is?

You are arguing that it is not immoral for an animal to kill a human, and I am arguing that it is immoral for a human to kill an animal. I would also say that it would be immoral for a more advanced species to land on our planet and, unable to communicate with anything for whatever reason, proceed to exterminate all life on the planet. I don't have a social contract with those hypothetical beings, but that doesn't mean that the lack of a social contract makes it OK for them to kill everything. I don't have a social contract with lambs, and I don't feel like I need a social contract in order to make it immoral to kill and eat My Pretty Girl. It's the moral paradox that many people are aware of and which we suppress - the thought or knowledge that it is not morally right for us to kill and eat other animals, but we do it anyway because we think of the animals as less than ourselves. That line of thinking would make it justifiable for any species more powerful than us to kill and eat us.

Another random federal agency has decided that they are the law-making body with authority over some aspect of our lives. Discretionary enforcement(*) allows them to pick-and-choose whoever they want.

The DHS regulates model rocketry, the DEA regulates chemistry sets, the ATF manages the second amendment, and so on and so on and so on.

Weren't we supposed to elect the lawmakers? I seem to recall a forum or meeting place of some sort where we could send people to make laws on our behalf.

Is this "regulation without representation"?

(*) This same federal agency doesn't suppress Starbucks cards, online gaming gold, or frequent flyer miles, all of which are just as much a currency.

In a human dominated society that currently doesn't recognize other species as persons, the burden of proof is on the other species.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Maybe it should be our responsibility to change how we think, to change how we perceive other living animals. We are the more capable animal, so maybe the burden is on us. Maybe one day we will come to consensus that it is not ethical or moral to kill another living animal and eat it, for example, and that our history of doing so will be seen as barbaric. Maybe one day we will be of the mindset that all living animals, regardless of their intelligence or communication capabilities or anything else, deserve the right to life just as much as we do. A chicken will never be able to speak to us, but maybe one day we will have evolved enough to realize for ourself that the chicken does not want to be killed and eaten, and that we shouldn't do such a thing to another animal. That burden is on us, not the chicken.

This comes to mind, a very thought-provoking essay:

http://stonybrookfarm.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/consider-the-slaughterhouse/

Parapsychology has a lot of problems from a reproducible experiment POV, but many of them are due to a complete lack of theory as to how a possible mechanism for a given extra-sensory phenomenon might work. Without a working theory, how do you develop an experiment to test it?

Couple of examples to illustrate the difficulties:

I am an ancient experimenter. I have lots of black rocks. One or two of the black rocks attract one another, but the vast majority do not. (the ones that do are lodestones, natural magnets) I publish a paper saying that some black rocks attract one another. Other experimenters get black rocks and cannot reproduce my experiment. Jamius Randius says I'm a fake, and even when I demonstrate black rocks that attract one another, says I am a huckster. An investigating committee bangs my black rocks together, making them lose their magnetism, so even I cannot make them attract anymore. I lose my patron, and rocks that attract one another is branded pseudo-science.

Other experimenters try this out with other black rocks, but so few have successful results that future researchers need to depend on meta-analysis of thousands of experiments to get possibly statistically meaningful results. Statistics is hard, so the research descends into sniping about statistical techniques. (See http://therandomtexan.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-5/ for recent discussions about how p values are too loose across many disciplines.)

Second example closer to home in parapsychology. There are thought experiments proposing that all ESP related phenomena like remote viewing or telepathy may just be specific cases of precognition, since validating experimental results involves knowing the outcome at some point in the future.

Last idea: Since parapsychological phenomena (whether 'real' or not) involve people and effects at a distance, how to ensure the experimenter is not having an effect on the experiment. This is one idea behind the 'sheep/goat' effect in parapsychology (other explanation is that all sheep are cheating and all goats are honest experimenters)

it's a really interesting field that rewards study, just in terms of figuring out how to create good experiments in such a vacuum. Govt. research and specifically application to gathering intelligence has always been saddled with extremely low reproducibility but occasional spectacular successes.

There may be good reasons to fork Gnome3
http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/nautilus-next
http://afaikblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/new-folder2.png

Maybe, but what does that have to do with a fork of the Gnome 3.6 control center?