The main temperature series we have on this site - HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS - are all expressed as monthly temperature anomalies from a defined baseline period.
Okay, so we're back to the same point I made originally: it's the same standard of measure that everybody else uses to show trends in this data.
So why is it that you seem to think others are free to do that, but they are not? Sure seems like a double standard to me.
I tried Atom when this was first announced a month or so ago.
It's nice in some ways. But not only is it big, as you point out, it's also very S - L - O - W and uses a HUGE amount of CPU resources for a mere editor. It's like trying to kill an ant with a cannon. A big, heavy cannon.
I tried it out for a few minutes, looked at the memory and more importantly CPU usage, and wiped it from the hard drive. It might be useful if you have a computer that is less than a few years old. But for now, I think I'll stick to editors that were written in a nice, fast, CPU-friendly compiled language.
Or, let me put it a different way, which is perhaps more relevant:
If you have any OTHER software that may make a hash out of your user's MAC address, such as a web browser for instance, you don't even need to decipher anything. You just compare one hash to the other.
A unique identifier that is generated by computing the SHA-1 of the machine's MAC address.
You do realize, do you not, that a MAC address is anything but random, and that deciphering an SHA-1 of a MAC address may take a little time but is essentially trivial?
Oh, but don't worry. They are already lobbying for "IP address == real person".
The "internet passport" is coming sooner than you might think.
Nonsense.
They've tried to pull the "ip address = person" BS for years. And they've been losing, right and left.
Not just frequency but increasingly courts are recognizing that not only does IP address not equal a person, but that it's not even CLOSE.
Take my case, for instance. I run an open guest internet account as a public service. Not just somebody next door but anybody in my neighborhood can connect to the internet from my router, and often do. In fact, I just looked and I see that there are 3 people outside my household who have connected just in the last 24 hours.
Sometimes it's someone living nearby. Sometimes it's someone walking or driving by with their cellphone. It could be someone in a car with a laptop. I don't know and I don't care.
In the recent copyright troll lawsuits involving the group calling itself Prenda Law, if I am not mistaken the court found that the company claiming to have "detected" copyright infringement had uploaded the file(s) themselves in the first place.
That's not exactly what I meant in the comment above, but it's good evidence that trolls aren't out to enforce the law, or protect anybody's rights, but rather just to extort money out of people.
YES. There have been some RICO lawsuits started. I don't think they've been decided (or even heard) yet.
Not only is this pretty blatantly "racketeering", but when other companies tried to do this before, courts found that in order to tell who was infringing copyrights, the "detection" company had to be breaking the same laws as the people they were trying to out.
It is not permissible to break the law in order to enforce the law.
And yes, the basic business model is extortion. Every case I have read about lately having to do with this has run into courts that acknowledged that the methods being used were fundamentally extortionate. EFF has been winning left and right, as well. Where they haven't been directly involved in defense they have often provided amicus briefs to the court in the cases, and in a very high proportion of those cases, the courts have ruled just as EFF suggested was legally proper.
After the Challenger Disaster in 1986, the President and Congress told NASA that it had to change its stagnant, bureaucratic organization and mindset, and seriously clean up its act.
After NASA lost another space shuttle, much more recently, guess what the investigators found? THE SAME level of top-down, stodgy, protect-the-old-ways bureaucracy that had caused the first one. The difference was that this time, the President did not have the balls to call them out on it.
IT DOESN'T MATTER how many scientists and engineers you have working for you, if your culture is one of "do as I say and don't make waves" bureaucratic bullshit.
That's why SpaceX was able to create a completely new rocket design for a fraction of the money NASA spent on trying to create a new rocket based on old designs. And do it faster.
NASA may have had some tremendous successes, but all evidence points to the fact that its biggest problem is that it IS typical "big government".
Well, this is great. It's good to hear that you ordered ONE kind of product from ONE reseller and had a good experience.
That doesn't invalidate what the many other people have had to say here.
Why I prefer to buy via Ebay or Amazon -- even from "flippers" -- is because they speak ENGLISH and you can get your item in less than 2 weeks.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not trying to be a language bigot, but half the time when I'm reading an ad from a Chinese supplier I can't even tell what half the specs are. They're mis-stated or missing.
I should add that I'm not promoting Communism or anything. In many industries private competition is the only rational way to go. But communication is one of those things that has seemed to work best under the "natural monopoly" scheme. Which basically means Title II Common Carrier.
baby bells were common carriers and you had to pay them to terminate your phone calls on their networks
Yes, but...
Our Common Carrier telephone system, at least until the breakup, was the envy of the world. Rates were reasonable and closely regulated, they couldn't snoop, they couldn't pull bullshit tricks on their networks to get you to pay more, and local calls were a flat rate even if you talked all day.
In countries where competing companies were allowed to operate (instead of the U.S. "natural monopoly" setup), you had telephone systems that were fundamentally incompatible, mazes of wires, and sometimes you couldn't even call your own neighbor, because he was on a different system that was electrically incompatible with the one you used.
Now that many other countries have adopted more of a regulated "natural monopoly" system (even if not completely so), and the U.S. has gone almost all private, the tables are turned... we have among the worst service of Western nations while at the same time some of the highest rates.
Comcast must be thrilled Netflix has emerged as the proxy case for Net Neutrality.
It doesn't matter though... as a user, YOU are "requesting" date from Netflix... and you have already paid Comcast for that bandwidth.
Another article today noted that carriers like Comcast deliberately let their nodes get congested so they can scream "bandwidth hogs!"
Shoot 'em down. Title II Common Carrier status for the lot of 'em. They've abused for far too long, and gotten rich in the process. Time to cut them down a notch, before they manage to throw their weight around so much they break everything in the room.
Pardon me, but you just did the same thing. I just linked you to a chart constructed from the government's own data, just a few days ago, and you link me to an article that you think claimed it's wrong... 4 years ago?
Hah! Hoist by my own petard. In a sense, anyway. I thought you were referring to a different post. I apologize for that.
However, the data mentioned is still not from WoodForTrees. They are just making it available. It is from the very same sources used to make claims for "global warming": HadCRUT, UAH, RSS. It's not very valid to fault the source, since they are the very same sources used for "your side" of the argument. That's a big part of Steve's point.
Also, I should point out that you are still incorrect: that particular chart still isn't of monthly "anomaly", it is the global mean.
It doesn't matter who he is. What matters is whether what he posts is factual.
When he was confronted with an error me made, he admits it. Yet that blog post implies that somehow his integrity is in question because he ADMITTED ONE mistake? Sheesh.
As far as I am concerned, people who admit their mistakes are more credible than people who spread obvious bullshit and claim it's the truth.
And as for it being a pseudonym... so what? Is Dorkmunder your real name? If it's a pseudonym, as it appears to be, should I assume you're an incompetent idiot?
That first link is quite amusing, because it explains nothing in what the data actually is.
What I think is amusing is that you think nobody can follow a link or spend 3 minutes on Google, or even just go up a level on the same website to see what that UIUC arctic timeseries is. Must everything be spoon-fed to you?
First, monthly anomaly has been used by global warming alarmists to show trends for many years now. Are you saying nobody else is allowed to do the same?
Second, it is NOT "troposphere" anomalies, it is sea ice extent anomalies. Since when does the troposphere vary by "millions of square kilometers"? Have you ever read a graph before?
I think the rest of us might be even more amused than you.
If you look at the very site he uses, WoodForTrees.org, pretty much every other graph, again using the simple linear approximation at play here, shows an increase
What he uses WoodForTrees for is their graphing tool, not the source of his data. He CITES the source of his date (right there on that page, and it is NOT "troposphere temperature anomaly", it is SEA ICE extent anomaly, as you can see directly from the source if you know how to navigate.) And he uses the WoodForTrees publicly available graphing tool to construct a lot of his charts from the DATA he links you to right there on the page.
So please learn what you're even criticizing before you criticize it.
I knew this would bring some goofballs out of the woodwork.
And by the way: you don't need to be a scientist to see this. Just about any old armchair dumbutt can see that you are comparing one piece of very RECENT data about one thing to some 3-or-4-year-old piece of data about something else.
Fascinating. While I can't comment on all of these points, I did a bit of searching regarding the second LINK about global sea ice: That graph shows the global sea ice area, not the volume. The area slightly increased while the volume has steadily gone down over the same period of time.
What's amusing is that you accuse him of conflating two different things, and then do exactly what you are accusing him of.
For just one item out of several: Steve's data are CURRENT as of just a few days ago. The page you linked to is several years old. So you are comparing his new apples to somebody else's old oranges.
Aside from the fact that it's a wildly ignorant and blindly regurgitated talking point that we've all seen a trillion times, it fails to address the even remotely basic question of what this report actually studied, which is about long term trends outside of the inter-annual noise levels, of specific classes of negative climatic events like flooding and drought.
Actually, no it isn't. It's an attempt to distinguish trends that might exist but are generally well within the noise levels. That's precisely why it is both so difficult... and the results are so obviously questionable.
If they were outside the noise levels, they would be uncontroversial and there would be no problem.
The other commenter wasn't predicting anything of consequence. On the contrary, he was simply extrapolating from the past. Those are two very different things.
Extrapolating from known cyclical behavior can indeed be useful, but as a "prediction" it's pretty much a joke.
Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!
According to the government's own figures, 78% of the United States has been experiencing the coldest year (i.e., 2014 so far) since 1937. About the only exception has been the SW like the LA region right now. Great Lakes have record ice for this time of year. Arctic is at normal sea ice levels and Antarctic levels are above normal. Which wouldn't be worth mentioning if it hadn't been a strong trend for well over a year. But what's really educational is to look at the actual record of past years, rather than just taking other peoples' word for it.
This guy is a very good source of historical comparisons to todays weather AND climate.
When you know a little actual history of our climate, you look at these "warming" scares and go "Pffffft. Baloney."
He posts some really great, actual historical stuff like THIS and THIS and THIS.
Alarmists can say what they want about skeptics, but the historical record is the historical record.
Good luck trying to rebut the actual thermometers in, say, 1940 for example. They said what they said.
I don't mean any disrespect, but that is completely unrelated to my question.
No, it's not unrelated to your question.
If crime is way down, but handgun ownership and concealed carry are way up, then those guns are not being used for offense. Also, concealed carry is not primarily a sporting purpose.
So what are those handguns being used for? The obvious answer is defense.
Okay, if it's that unclear to you; the comparison of the concerted policies of Nazis to advance a policy of GENOCIDE to some assholery by US government agencies that need some reining in is beyond stupid.
If you don't see the obvious similarity in policies, then I'm not the one being stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
The main temperature series we have on this site - HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS - are all expressed as monthly temperature anomalies from a defined baseline period.
Okay, so we're back to the same point I made originally: it's the same standard of measure that everybody else uses to show trends in this data.
So why is it that you seem to think others are free to do that, but they are not? Sure seems like a double standard to me.
I wanted to get a dollhouse for the kiddies, but a universe is even better.
I tried Atom when this was first announced a month or so ago.
It's nice in some ways. But not only is it big, as you point out, it's also very S - L - O - W and uses a HUGE amount of CPU resources for a mere editor. It's like trying to kill an ant with a cannon. A big, heavy cannon.
I tried it out for a few minutes, looked at the memory and more importantly CPU usage, and wiped it from the hard drive. It might be useful if you have a computer that is less than a few years old. But for now, I think I'll stick to editors that were written in a nice, fast, CPU-friendly compiled language.
Or, let me put it a different way, which is perhaps more relevant:
If you have any OTHER software that may make a hash out of your user's MAC address, such as a web browser for instance, you don't even need to decipher anything. You just compare one hash to the other.
A unique identifier that is generated by computing the SHA-1 of the machine's MAC address.
You do realize, do you not, that a MAC address is anything but random, and that deciphering an SHA-1 of a MAC address may take a little time but is essentially trivial?
Oh, but don't worry. They are already lobbying for "IP address == real person". The "internet passport" is coming sooner than you might think.
Nonsense.
They've tried to pull the "ip address = person" BS for years. And they've been losing, right and left.
Not just frequency but increasingly courts are recognizing that not only does IP address not equal a person, but that it's not even CLOSE.
Take my case, for instance. I run an open guest internet account as a public service. Not just somebody next door but anybody in my neighborhood can connect to the internet from my router, and often do. In fact, I just looked and I see that there are 3 people outside my household who have connected just in the last 24 hours.
Sometimes it's someone living nearby. Sometimes it's someone walking or driving by with their cellphone. It could be someone in a car with a laptop. I don't know and I don't care.
I almost forgot to add:
In the recent copyright troll lawsuits involving the group calling itself Prenda Law, if I am not mistaken the court found that the company claiming to have "detected" copyright infringement had uploaded the file(s) themselves in the first place.
That's not exactly what I meant in the comment above, but it's good evidence that trolls aren't out to enforce the law, or protect anybody's rights, but rather just to extort money out of people.
You'd think that'd be classified as extortion.
YES. There have been some RICO lawsuits started. I don't think they've been decided (or even heard) yet.
Not only is this pretty blatantly "racketeering", but when other companies tried to do this before, courts found that in order to tell who was infringing copyrights, the "detection" company had to be breaking the same laws as the people they were trying to out.
It is not permissible to break the law in order to enforce the law.
And yes, the basic business model is extortion. Every case I have read about lately having to do with this has run into courts that acknowledged that the methods being used were fundamentally extortionate. EFF has been winning left and right, as well. Where they haven't been directly involved in defense they have often provided amicus briefs to the court in the cases, and in a very high proportion of those cases, the courts have ruled just as EFF suggested was legally proper.
and are the least "big government".
This is a joke, right?
After the Challenger Disaster in 1986, the President and Congress told NASA that it had to change its stagnant, bureaucratic organization and mindset, and seriously clean up its act.
After NASA lost another space shuttle, much more recently, guess what the investigators found? THE SAME level of top-down, stodgy, protect-the-old-ways bureaucracy that had caused the first one. The difference was that this time, the President did not have the balls to call them out on it.
IT DOESN'T MATTER how many scientists and engineers you have working for you, if your culture is one of "do as I say and don't make waves" bureaucratic bullshit.
That's why SpaceX was able to create a completely new rocket design for a fraction of the money NASA spent on trying to create a new rocket based on old designs. And do it faster.
NASA may have had some tremendous successes, but all evidence points to the fact that its biggest problem is that it IS typical "big government".
Well, this is great. It's good to hear that you ordered ONE kind of product from ONE reseller and had a good experience.
That doesn't invalidate what the many other people have had to say here.
Why I prefer to buy via Ebay or Amazon -- even from "flippers" -- is because they speak ENGLISH and you can get your item in less than 2 weeks.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not trying to be a language bigot, but half the time when I'm reading an ad from a Chinese supplier I can't even tell what half the specs are. They're mis-stated or missing.
I should add that I'm not promoting Communism or anything. In many industries private competition is the only rational way to go. But communication is one of those things that has seemed to work best under the "natural monopoly" scheme. Which basically means Title II Common Carrier.
baby bells were common carriers and you had to pay them to terminate your phone calls on their networks
Yes, but...
Our Common Carrier telephone system, at least until the breakup, was the envy of the world. Rates were reasonable and closely regulated, they couldn't snoop, they couldn't pull bullshit tricks on their networks to get you to pay more, and local calls were a flat rate even if you talked all day.
In countries where competing companies were allowed to operate (instead of the U.S. "natural monopoly" setup), you had telephone systems that were fundamentally incompatible, mazes of wires, and sometimes you couldn't even call your own neighbor, because he was on a different system that was electrically incompatible with the one you used.
Now that many other countries have adopted more of a regulated "natural monopoly" system (even if not completely so), and the U.S. has gone almost all private, the tables are turned... we have among the worst service of Western nations while at the same time some of the highest rates.
Comcast must be thrilled Netflix has emerged as the proxy case for Net Neutrality.
It doesn't matter though... as a user, YOU are "requesting" date from Netflix... and you have already paid Comcast for that bandwidth.
Another article today noted that carriers like Comcast deliberately let their nodes get congested so they can scream "bandwidth hogs!"
Shoot 'em down. Title II Common Carrier status for the lot of 'em. They've abused for far too long, and gotten rich in the process. Time to cut them down a notch, before they manage to throw their weight around so much they break everything in the room.
Wait. What?
Pardon me, but you just did the same thing. I just linked you to a chart constructed from the government's own data, just a few days ago, and you link me to an article that you think claimed it's wrong... 4 years ago?
What?
Hah! Hoist by my own petard. In a sense, anyway. I thought you were referring to a different post. I apologize for that.
However, the data mentioned is still not from WoodForTrees. They are just making it available. It is from the very same sources used to make claims for "global warming": HadCRUT, UAH, RSS. It's not very valid to fault the source, since they are the very same sources used for "your side" of the argument. That's a big part of Steve's point.
Also, I should point out that you are still incorrect: that particular chart still isn't of monthly "anomaly", it is the global mean.
Just like I said. Ad-hominem.
It doesn't matter who he is. What matters is whether what he posts is factual.
When he was confronted with an error me made, he admits it. Yet that blog post implies that somehow his integrity is in question because he ADMITTED ONE mistake? Sheesh.
As far as I am concerned, people who admit their mistakes are more credible than people who spread obvious bullshit and claim it's the truth.
And as for it being a pseudonym... so what? Is Dorkmunder your real name? If it's a pseudonym, as it appears to be, should I assume you're an incompetent idiot?
Ad-hominem. That's all it is.
That first link is quite amusing, because it explains nothing in what the data actually is.
What I think is amusing is that you think nobody can follow a link or spend 3 minutes on Google, or even just go up a level on the same website to see what that UIUC arctic timeseries is. Must everything be spoon-fed to you?
First, monthly anomaly has been used by global warming alarmists to show trends for many years now. Are you saying nobody else is allowed to do the same?
Second, it is NOT "troposphere" anomalies, it is sea ice extent anomalies. Since when does the troposphere vary by "millions of square kilometers"? Have you ever read a graph before?
I think the rest of us might be even more amused than you.
If you look at the very site he uses, WoodForTrees.org, pretty much every other graph, again using the simple linear approximation at play here, shows an increase
What he uses WoodForTrees for is their graphing tool, not the source of his data. He CITES the source of his date (right there on that page, and it is NOT "troposphere temperature anomaly", it is SEA ICE extent anomaly, as you can see directly from the source if you know how to navigate.) And he uses the WoodForTrees publicly available graphing tool to construct a lot of his charts from the DATA he links you to right there on the page.
So please learn what you're even criticizing before you criticize it.
I knew this would bring some goofballs out of the woodwork.
And by the way: you don't need to be a scientist to see this. Just about any old armchair dumbutt can see that you are comparing one piece of very RECENT data about one thing to some 3-or-4-year-old piece of data about something else.
Try again.
Fascinating. While I can't comment on all of these points, I did a bit of searching regarding the second LINK about global sea ice: That graph shows the global sea ice area, not the volume. The area slightly increased while the volume has steadily gone down over the same period of time.
What's amusing is that you accuse him of conflating two different things, and then do exactly what you are accusing him of.
For just one item out of several: Steve's data are CURRENT as of just a few days ago. The page you linked to is several years old. So you are comparing his new apples to somebody else's old oranges.
Aside from the fact that it's a wildly ignorant and blindly regurgitated talking point that we've all seen a trillion times, it fails to address the even remotely basic question of what this report actually studied, which is about long term trends outside of the inter-annual noise levels, of specific classes of negative climatic events like flooding and drought.
Actually, no it isn't. It's an attempt to distinguish trends that might exist but are generally well within the noise levels. That's precisely why it is both so difficult... and the results are so obviously questionable.
If they were outside the noise levels, they would be uncontroversial and there would be no problem.
No, actually GP is quite correct in a real sense.
The other commenter wasn't predicting anything of consequence. On the contrary, he was simply extrapolating from the past. Those are two very different things.
Extrapolating from known cyclical behavior can indeed be useful, but as a "prediction" it's pretty much a joke.
And by the way, before people chime in with ad-hominems and other such blather, they might want to read this first:
Why I Do This, by Steve Goddard.
Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!
According to the government's own figures, 78% of the United States has been experiencing the coldest year (i.e., 2014 so far) since 1937. About the only exception has been the SW like the LA region right now. Great Lakes have record ice for this time of year. Arctic is at normal sea ice levels and Antarctic levels are above normal. Which wouldn't be worth mentioning if it hadn't been a strong trend for well over a year. But what's really educational is to look at the actual record of past years, rather than just taking other peoples' word for it.
This guy is a very good source of historical comparisons to todays weather AND climate.
When you know a little actual history of our climate, you look at these "warming" scares and go "Pffffft. Baloney."
He posts some really great, actual historical stuff like THIS and THIS and THIS.
Alarmists can say what they want about skeptics, but the historical record is the historical record.
Good luck trying to rebut the actual thermometers in, say, 1940 for example. They said what they said.
I don't mean any disrespect, but that is completely unrelated to my question.
No, it's not unrelated to your question.
If crime is way down, but handgun ownership and concealed carry are way up, then those guns are not being used for offense. Also, concealed carry is not primarily a sporting purpose.
So what are those handguns being used for? The obvious answer is defense.
Okay, if it's that unclear to you; the comparison of the concerted policies of Nazis to advance a policy of GENOCIDE to some assholery by US government agencies that need some reining in is beyond stupid.
If you don't see the obvious similarity in policies, then I'm not the one being stupid.