And Dr. Spencer conclusion is pretty definitive - everything starting at zero in 1979 (when the satellite and radiosonde data record begins)
But he didn't start at 1979. He pins everything at 1983. Not 1979. Any guess why? Because if he didn't, it would have looked more like this. Is there any part of you that is the least bit curious? That asks, "if the temp trend since 1983 is exactly as the models projected then how can we conclude that the models failed?"
Models projected a warming of about 0.2C/decade. (per IPCC). Instrumental record shows between 0.18C/decade(HADCRU) to 0.2C/decade (BEST). Satellite record shows between 0.18C/decade(UAH) and 0.21C/decade (RSS). It's possible for Spencer to use misaligned graphs to fool the credulous, but the trend is exactly in line with projections. You can check for yourself.
So if the data doesn't show...
Everything beyond that line seems to be rendered impotent by the fact that the premise is false (not to mention the conspiracy theory website references XD).
That's good, but for consilience you need agreement between multiple lines of empirical evidence. For example, you may be satisfied that global temps are warming by looking at one of the instrumental record, but for consilience you need to confirm that all instrumental records agree, as well as satellite records. And in fact they do!
But on top of that you would want to confirm that sea level rise and glacial melt due to that warming is in line with expectations. Then you may also look at poleward migrations and extended growing seasons, etc, etc, etc,
If everything agrees then you have consilience. If there is a minority report, then there is an avenue for further research, but it is unlikely that the minority report will overthrow the consensus.
Important tidbit not mentioned in the summary: "In addition, the research team also discovered that some vendor mitigations that have been already deployed have also failed to stop the seven new attacks, even if they should have, at least in theory."
Some folks in the previous thread were concerned that that if the paper challenged the consensus then maybe we don't know nuffin'. For example the following can be read with/sarc tags on:
This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
As it turns out there is good reason to reserve judgement on any paper that challenges the consensus. A consensus that is built upon a consilience of evidence cannot be overturned by a single contrary paper.
...Meanwhile Trump's tax cut wasn't as big as folks think. A lot of people set their withholding lower than they should and are going to get an unpleasant surprise in April...
The tax cut is projected to increase the deficit by over 2.3 trillion over a decade, or 1800 / family each year. That's money that you or your kids will need to pay back with interest. The average tax cut for all households in 2018 will be about $1,200. That means the average household is getting screwed. They're spending $1800 and are thrilled to receive $1200 in return - the remaining $600 going to folks who are already richer than them.
When it comes time to pay the piper, is there any doubt on whose shoulders the burden will fall? My bet is that those same middle class folks will be asked to step up.
The question (which the writer didn't ask or answer) is how the machine learning systems can be improved to be more resistant against such simple modifications.
When human beings see something unexpected, we do a double take. It’s a common phrase with real cognitive implications — and it explains why neural networks fail when scenes get weird.
...
Most neural networks lack this ability to go backward. It’s a hard trait to engineer. One advantage of feed-forward networks is that they’re relatively straightforward to train — process an image through these six layers and get an answer. But if neural networks are to have license to do a double take, they’ll need a sophisticated understanding of when to draw on this new capacity (when to look twice) and when to plow ahead in a feed-forward way. Human brains switch between these different processes seamlessly; neural networks will need a new theoretical framework before they can do the same.
"Intelligence is whatever machines haven't done yet.”
If and when artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence, people might conclude that there is no such thing as intelligence. Or they might simply redefine intelligence as "whatever humans haven't done yet” as they try to catch up with AI. - Tesler
You keep saying that... and AI keeps being just around the corner...
Have you been living under a rock? AI is used in everything from fraud detection, natural language processing, self driving cars, customer service, customer retention, automated detection and classification, etc, etc, etc.
Amiga had some good ones like aRoach which caused cockroaches to scurry under your windows, dk which caused pixels on each window to fall like snow to the bottom of the screen, or closeme which made your windows flee whenever you approached the close button.
You do know that scientists are expected to acknowledge their sources of funding in their publications, right?
And you do know that often they do not, right?
Here's an example of the same. Willie Soon is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
But in those same papers he failed to disclose and often explicitly denied any conflict of interest or outside funding.
Yes, I knew they're referring to the new impacts. How long?
No. You clearly didn't. Your final question ("How long?") indicates you still don't understand my original post. I think your brain is too addled with conspiracy theories. Time to hand in your geek card and retire to Reddit.
Even now, America is cutting their coal 7% this year, BUT, China...
Coal consumption in China has declined during the 2010s with its percentage in the energy mix falling from 80% in 2010 to 60% in 2017. Looks like they are on the right path. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I agree that nukes need to be a big part of the solution.
A simpler thought experiment is to consider a cessation of emissions (which is what we ultimately need to achieve). If you're curious then you should read this paper: https://www.nature.com/article...
It includes this quote on thermal inertia: "A widely held misconception is that given the approximately 1 C warming to date, and considering the committed warming (warming that will inevitably happen) concealed by ocean thermal inertia, the 1.5 C target of the Paris Agreement is already impossible. However, it is cumulative emissions that define peak warming. When carbon emissions cease, terrestrial and marine sinks are projected to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), approximately cancelling the lagging warming. Although the sign of this ‘zero emissions commitment’ is uncertain, its contribution can be neglected for low-CO2 scenarios. Therefore, at least when considering CO2 emissions in isolation, keeping below 1.5 C of warming will remain physically achievable until the point that it is reached."
"the origins of so-called jaywalking lie in a propaganda campaign by the motor industry in the 1920s" - https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz... (Jay was a slur equivalent to redneck)
Yes. Apple is being undercut by competitors who are willing to work for data. There are arguments to be made, but be mindful of who is making the argument in this case. Not a neutral third party. Someone whose fortune depends on you to pay more for (possibly just the illusion of) anonymity.
I know that reading the article is impossible; reading the summary is beyond most Slashdotters, but couldn't you read the title?
I did give it a quick once over before I posted the article. Nonetheless I am able to imagine that they intended to honour the bet when it was made, but expected they wouldn't have to. Possibly they aren't as wealthy as they expected to be, or had been at the time of the bet. It is presumptuous to believe otherwise.
Lots of places with Earth temp but I see no data on Sun temp yearly. Would be nice to see the two charts side by side. All I see is Earth temp and them saying it went up. Nothing about if maybe they were wrong about the Sun temps going down and maybe that forecast was wrong and the Sun temp went up.
Here's Temp, CO2, sunspot number, and solar irradiance on a single graph. Sunspot number is a proxy for solar irradiance, and lets us peer further into the past. But even direct measurements show that solar irradiance has been dropping while CO2 and temperature rise.
You can see that in 1970 you may have had some reason to believe that temp correlates directly with solar activity, and it undoubtedly does have an impact. Greenhouse gasses have dominated over the last several decades though. To the extent that dwindling solar activity has been driving temperatures down, it has been more than compensated by rising GHG. Hope that helps!
Slashdot Mirror
More conspiracy theories. Funny how Spencer's own temperature reconstruction agrees with the "manipulated" GISS data. Spencer must be part of the conspiracy!
And Dr. Spencer conclusion is pretty definitive - everything starting at zero in 1979 (when the satellite and radiosonde data record begins)
But he didn't start at 1979. He pins everything at 1983. Not 1979. Any guess why? Because if he didn't, it would have looked more like this. Is there any part of you that is the least bit curious? That asks, "if the temp trend since 1983 is exactly as the models projected then how can we conclude that the models failed?"
So if the data doesn't show...
Everything beyond that line seems to be rendered impotent by the fact that the premise is false (not to mention the conspiracy theory website references XD).
"...which yields a OHC trend of 1.21 ± 0.72 x 10^22 J/yr (previously 1.33 ± 0.20 x 10^22 J/yr),"
I'll take empirical evidence, thank you.
That's good, but for consilience you need agreement between multiple lines of empirical evidence. For example, you may be satisfied that global temps are warming by looking at one of the instrumental record, but for consilience you need to confirm that all instrumental records agree, as well as satellite records. And in fact they do!
But on top of that you would want to confirm that sea level rise and glacial melt due to that warming is in line with expectations. Then you may also look at poleward migrations and extended growing seasons, etc, etc, etc,
If everything agrees then you have consilience. If there is a minority report, then there is an avenue for further research, but it is unlikely that the minority report will overthrow the consensus.
Important tidbit not mentioned in the summary: "In addition, the research team also discovered that some vendor mitigations that have been already deployed have also failed to stop the seven new attacks, even if they should have, at least in theory."
This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
As it turns out there is good reason to reserve judgement on any paper that challenges the consensus. A consensus that is built upon a consilience of evidence cannot be overturned by a single contrary paper.
...Meanwhile Trump's tax cut wasn't as big as folks think. A lot of people set their withholding lower than they should and are going to get an unpleasant surprise in April...
The tax cut is projected to increase the deficit by over 2.3 trillion over a decade, or 1800 / family each year. That's money that you or your kids will need to pay back with interest. The average tax cut for all households in 2018 will be about $1,200. That means the average household is getting screwed. They're spending $1800 and are thrilled to receive $1200 in return - the remaining $600 going to folks who are already richer than them.
When it comes time to pay the piper, is there any doubt on whose shoulders the burden will fall? My bet is that those same middle class folks will be asked to step up.
Good point. Human perception can also be hacked. Another example: Adversarial Examples that Fool both Computer Vision and Time-Limited Humans.
The question (which the writer didn't ask or answer) is how the machine learning systems can be improved to be more resistant against such simple modifications.
https://www.quantamagazine.org...
When human beings see something unexpected, we do a double take. It’s a common phrase with real cognitive implications — and it explains why neural networks fail when scenes get weird.
Most neural networks lack this ability to go backward. It’s a hard trait to engineer. One advantage of feed-forward networks is that they’re relatively straightforward to train — process an image through these six layers and get an answer. But if neural networks are to have license to do a double take, they’ll need a sophisticated understanding of when to draw on this new capacity (when to look twice) and when to plow ahead in a feed-forward way. Human brains switch between these different processes seamlessly; neural networks will need a new theoretical framework before they can do the same.
"Intelligence is whatever machines haven't done yet.”
If and when artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence, people might conclude that there is no such thing as intelligence. Or they might simply redefine intelligence as "whatever humans haven't done yet” as they try to catch up with AI. - Tesler
You keep saying that ... and AI keeps being just around the corner ...
Have you been living under a rock? AI is used in everything from fraud detection, natural language processing, self driving cars, customer service, customer retention, automated detection and classification, etc, etc, etc.
Amiga had some good ones like aRoach which caused cockroaches to scurry under your windows, dk which caused pixels on each window to fall like snow to the bottom of the screen, or closeme which made your windows flee whenever you approached the close button.
You do know that scientists are expected to acknowledge their sources of funding in their publications, right?
And you do know that often they do not, right?
Here's an example of the same. Willie Soon is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
But in those same papers he failed to disclose and often explicitly denied any conflict of interest or outside funding.
Possibly, but influencing medical professionals is a big part of the industries propaganda arm. Typically this includes manipulation of research targeted towards medical professionals: "The tobacco industry uses several vehicles to publish the findings of its sponsored research, including symposium proceedings, books, journal articles, and letters to the editor in medical journals."
More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.
Yes, I knew they're referring to the new impacts. How long?
No. You clearly didn't. Your final question ("How long?") indicates you still don't understand my original post. I think your brain is too addled with conspiracy theories. Time to hand in your geek card and retire to Reddit.
So the answer above is, if ALL emissions are ceased, the climate impacts will cease
No. "approximately cancelling" is referring to warming in the pipeline.
Even now, America is cutting their coal 7% this year, BUT, China...
Coal consumption in China has declined during the 2010s with its percentage in the energy mix falling from 80% in 2010 to 60% in 2017. Looks like they are on the right path. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I agree that nukes need to be a big part of the solution.
A simpler thought experiment is to consider a cessation of emissions (which is what we ultimately need to achieve). If you're curious then you should read this paper: https://www.nature.com/article...
It includes this quote on thermal inertia: "A widely held misconception is that given the approximately 1 C warming to date, and considering the committed warming (warming that will inevitably happen) concealed by ocean thermal inertia, the 1.5 C target of the Paris Agreement is already impossible. However, it is cumulative emissions that define peak warming. When carbon emissions cease, terrestrial and marine sinks are projected to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), approximately cancelling the lagging warming. Although the sign of this ‘zero emissions commitment’ is uncertain, its contribution can be neglected for low-CO2 scenarios. Therefore, at least when considering CO2 emissions in isolation, keeping below 1.5 C of warming will remain physically achievable until the point that it is reached."
"the origins of so-called jaywalking lie in a propaganda campaign by the motor industry in the 1920s" - https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz... (Jay was a slur equivalent to redneck)
Yes. Apple is being undercut by competitors who are willing to work for data. There are arguments to be made, but be mindful of who is making the argument in this case. Not a neutral third party. Someone whose fortune depends on you to pay more for (possibly just the illusion of) anonymity.
Shorter Tim Cook "You can trust us, but don't trust our competitors."
Not a shocking position for a CEO to take I suppose.
I know that reading the article is impossible; reading the summary is beyond most Slashdotters, but couldn't you read the title?
I did give it a quick once over before I posted the article. Nonetheless I am able to imagine that they intended to honour the bet when it was made, but expected they wouldn't have to. Possibly they aren't as wealthy as they expected to be, or had been at the time of the bet. It is presumptuous to believe otherwise.
The "warming" is actually more like ...
Not even close. Even over 50 years the trend is closer to 0.2/decade:
GISTEMP Least squares trend line; slope = 0.177 per decade over the last 50 years.
BEST Least squares trend line; slope = 0.178 per decade over the last 50 years.
But of course this has continued to accelerate so over the last couple decades you get:
GISTEMP Least squares trend line; slope = 0.21 per decade over the last 20 years.
BEST Least squares trend line; slope = 0.20 per decade over the last 20 years.
RSS Satellite data (which doesn't extend back 50 years) Least squares trend line; slope = 0.20 per decade over the last 20 years.
Lots of places with Earth temp but I see no data on Sun temp yearly. Would be nice to see the two charts side by side. All I see is Earth temp and them saying it went up. Nothing about if maybe they were wrong about the Sun temps going down and maybe that forecast was wrong and the Sun temp went up.
Here's Temp, CO2, sunspot number, and solar irradiance on a single graph. Sunspot number is a proxy for solar irradiance, and lets us peer further into the past. But even direct measurements show that solar irradiance has been dropping while CO2 and temperature rise.
You can see that in 1970 you may have had some reason to believe that temp correlates directly with solar activity, and it undoubtedly does have an impact. Greenhouse gasses have dominated over the last several decades though. To the extent that dwindling solar activity has been driving temperatures down, it has been more than compensated by rising GHG. Hope that helps!