It doesn't if you click the overwrite option which save over the same file you opened; if you open a lossy format, edited and overwrote in a lossy format, sooner or later your going to have a mess you can't undo. Saving in the lossless proprietary format means you don't lose your work everytime your 3 year old tries to help you while you're keeping the dog from eating the cat.
Since there is a lot a bashing the monkey-boy's Gnome in this thread it would be a shame to forget Miguel's first love Midnight Commander in any VI/VIM vs Emacs flame-war! It always seemed strange that de Icaza started Gnome because Qt was proprietary, but cloned so much proprietary software.
Where GIMP's UI starts to shine is when your on multiple monitor setups, you put the toolboxes and layers on your smaller 32 inch monitor and the image your editing can almost full-screen on your big, calibrated monster-sized 60 inch 4K monitor. Photoshop has everything in one window so doing split-screens doesn't make any sense. One thing I have noticed is Photoshoppers say that photoshop is faster, and it is for photoshop users, but GIMP users tend to learn their keyboard shortcuts so they are almost as fast in photoshop as the photshoppers and blow away photshopers in GIMP.
A while back Robin Rowe, forked of a branch of GIMP version 1.0.4, added a few features and called it FilmGIMP and later Cinepaint and it actually worked pretty well for film frame editing. Then there was a need to adapt to 16 bit color channels to support image formats like Cineon, DPX and OpenEXR, while doing that they also attempted to port from GTK+ to a much more spartan and significantly less resource intense FLTK; the result was a 6 year wait for the next release, and I doubt the FLTK was in the new release and that was 2 and a half years ago. I thought either projects were big, with a significant probability of failure, but both together just seemed insane.
Bwahaha. You mean like 1998 was a extremely strong El Nino - and there supposedly was no warming since 1998? Well, apart from this year, which is much warmer than 1998.
From two years on, you will claim "No warming since 2015".
This year, It looks like your definition of much warmer and mine must differ, what I see is BEST and GISTEMP show slight warming, every other is nearly flat or slightly cooling like RSS. There is even discussions about whether the warming prior to the 1998 El Nino was statistically significant.
Essentially Texas has said their education is no longer about facts, which means who knows what kind of crap will creep into textbooks.
Dude this is Texas, not only is crap creeping into the textbook status quo, the craptastic textbooks they buy become the defacto textbooks all over the country. If they go with "fact checkers" the result will most likely be different crap instead of no crap.
Right, there's a global conspiracy to create a hoax about something that any high school student can verify with a prism and thermometer (or any college student with access to a proper spectrometer). And FYI it's carbon dioxide that has a strong infrared absorption line. Different molecular compounds have different optical characteristics. Consider that both coal and diamond are pure carbon, but their difference in molecular structure gives them radically different properties.
It would be quite challenging for a High-Schooler to demonstrate CO2 absorption lines with a self-made instrument, glass is rather opaque to infrared at the CO2 absorbance bands so the optics would have to be made out of a salt, and the thermometer would really be a platinum wire bolometer, not impossible but challenging.
I don't get that you would think the adjustments to surface temperatures are less than forthright. They are well documented in the relevant papers about the adjustments.
Because the raw unaltered field data is unavailable, so nobody can replicate the adjustments to confirm that the adjustments made are actually the adjustments described in the relevant, even the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) are Quality Controlled Datasets, and the bottom line is I just plain don't trust the "Rockstar" Climatologists Karl and Peterson refuse congressional subpoena, Mann is a narcissistic asshole who blocked me on Facebook for no good reason, I simply said "Well Doctor, discovery will be interesting" in a thread about Mann vs. Steyn, The Climategate Emails revealed them to be sophomoric at best, conspiring to perpetrate a con on the world at worst wasting billions of us taxpayers money. There is nothing there that convinces me that anything published by any "Working Climatologist" as Lewandowski et al said should be trusted as accurate without overwhelming evidence and Cronie reviewed papers hiding behind a paywall isn't my definition of overwhelming evidence.
What I like best about satellite data vs surface station is surface stations generally (but not always) compute "average" for a day by Tave = (Tmax-Tmin)/2+Tmin resulting in a synthetic number based on a very temporally sparse dataset, then these temporally sparse averages and adjusted by ill defined methods. the data product is also spatially inhomogeneous so the products are gridded. There are numerous thermometers in North America and Europe, few in Africa, Asia and South America, and almost none on the oceans. Data gridding has the effect of spreading the ill-defined adjustments over great distances, often as much as 1200Km but normalises the data into 3 degree cells which are then again averaged to get a global temperature. Most most cases averaging, averages is also a poor technique.
So I consider surface station data both temporally and spatially sparse, subjected to manipulations that are less than forthright and in ways that are mathematically dubious.
Satellites on the other hand sweep the Earth every 98 minutes, the temperature sensing radiometer is frequently recalibrated to both a platinum wire thermometer and the cosmic background. the Dataset is rich both spatially and temporally and little gridding is required.
Additionally Mears and Spencer don't automatically trust their results, as you pointed out, which I think means they are more objective in it's handling.
One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this month’s RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 18 years 9 months. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans. Is Current Warming Natural?
Anything that happened before 1950 temperature wise in regards to human activity is buried under natural variability; so the reality is of the time when measuring a human influence was possible, there has not been any statistically significant warming for the third of the time while a third of all of the CO2 has been added by Humans is without apparent effect other than the planet becoming greener.
A little less than 7.5% of the surface stations are situated well enough to expect a temperature measurement error of less than 1K, a little more than 6% of the stations are situated so poorly that an error of up to 5K can be expected. The recently installed stations are sometimes connected via ethernet cable, making it impossible to locate them far enough from buildings to get a good siting.
Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.
I suppose that is why "correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury" (Tests of general relativity) was one of the first bits of supporting evidence for General Relativity, the planet Mercury is hardly an elementary particle.
Sorry but it's obvious you've been watching Al Gore and Bill Nye too long, Your "experiment both doesn't work and has nothing to do with the way AGW is hypothesised to work. You've been lied to; the Gore-Nye video you're eluding to has been completely discredited, every aspect of it is a case of "Has been edited for dramatic effect" take a look at Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment for more details.
When somebody like you calls the adjusted, normalized field data average monthly temperature data, my head just wants to explode. Even the Climatologists call it "Data product".
Don't get too excited, we're in a pretty strong El Nino, it's supposed to be unseasonably warm, I'm worried that it's not warmer. The Warmists are grasping at straws because even the El Nino hasn't broken the pause, there still hasn't been any statistically significant warming in the RSS satellite data for 223 months.
I would think the original poster (on facebook) is implying that those refusing food aren't refugees, my suspicion is they are refugees but the situation was instigated by unseen povocatures. There is a lot of hidden agendas, what seems obvious is almost certainly wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't if you click the overwrite option which save over the same file you opened; if you open a lossy format, edited and overwrote in a lossy format, sooner or later your going to have a mess you can't undo. Saving in the lossless proprietary format means you don't lose your work everytime your 3 year old tries to help you while you're keeping the dog from eating the cat.
Since there is a lot a bashing the monkey-boy's Gnome in this thread it would be a shame to forget Miguel's first love Midnight Commander in any VI/VIM vs Emacs flame-war!
It always seemed strange that de Icaza started Gnome because Qt was proprietary, but cloned so much proprietary software.
Where GIMP's UI starts to shine is when your on multiple monitor setups, you put the toolboxes and layers on your smaller 32 inch monitor and the image your editing can almost full-screen on your big, calibrated monster-sized 60 inch 4K monitor. Photoshop has everything in one window so doing split-screens doesn't make any sense. One thing I have noticed is Photoshoppers say that photoshop is faster, and it is for photoshop users, but GIMP users tend to learn their keyboard shortcuts so they are almost as fast in photoshop as the photshoppers and blow away photshopers in GIMP.
A while back Robin Rowe, forked of a branch of GIMP version 1.0.4, added a few features and called it FilmGIMP and later Cinepaint and it actually worked pretty well for film frame editing. Then there was a need to adapt to 16 bit color channels to support image formats like Cineon, DPX and OpenEXR, while doing that they also attempted to port from GTK+ to a much more spartan and significantly less resource intense FLTK; the result was a 6 year wait for the next release, and I doubt the FLTK was in the new release and that was 2 and a half years ago.
I thought either projects were big, with a significant probability of failure, but both together just seemed insane.
Bwahaha. You mean like 1998 was a extremely strong El Nino - and there supposedly was no warming since 1998? Well, apart from this year, which is much warmer than 1998.
From two years on, you will claim "No warming since 2015".
This year, It looks like your definition of much warmer and mine must differ, what I see is BEST and GISTEMP show slight warming, every other is nearly flat or slightly cooling like RSS. There is even discussions about whether the warming prior to the 1998 El Nino was statistically significant.
You only need the IR filter if you don't want the near IR light to hit the sensor, it can be a really cool effect.
RPG II, was a programming language, it had a definite assembler feel to it and all of the power of a programmable calculator.
Unless they built 'robust, maintainable code' (TM) ^_^
It's probably written in COBOL with subroutines RPG II and 360 Assembler.
Essentially Texas has said their education is no longer about facts, which means who knows what kind of crap will creep into textbooks.
Dude this is Texas, not only is crap creeping into the textbook status quo, the craptastic textbooks they buy become the defacto textbooks all over the country. If they go with "fact checkers" the result will most likely be different crap instead of no crap.
Right, there's a global conspiracy to create a hoax about something that any high school student can verify with a prism and thermometer (or any college student with access to a proper spectrometer). And FYI it's carbon dioxide that has a strong infrared absorption line. Different molecular compounds have different optical characteristics. Consider that both coal and diamond are pure carbon, but their difference in molecular structure gives them radically different properties.
It would be quite challenging for a High-Schooler to demonstrate CO2 absorption lines with a self-made instrument, glass is rather opaque to infrared at the CO2 absorbance bands so the optics would have to be made out of a salt, and the thermometer would really be a platinum wire bolometer, not impossible but challenging.
Arctic Ice seems to be rebounding, but it's too early to tell if it's a trend or an anomaly.
You haven't been paying attention to what's happening. In 20 years, graduating college seniors will be called "serfs" or "indentured servants"
You mean instead of Interns, externs and residents, we're going to start calling them what they are?
On the bright side, if your degree is devalued enough, they will not outsource your job to some third-world cesspool.
And last month was the hottest month on record, but they were only 38% certain.
I don't get that you would think the adjustments to surface temperatures are less than forthright. They are well documented in the relevant papers about the adjustments.
Because the raw unaltered field data is unavailable, so nobody can replicate the adjustments to confirm that the adjustments made are actually the adjustments described in the relevant, even the
U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) are Quality Controlled Datasets, and the bottom line is I just plain don't trust the "Rockstar" Climatologists
Karl and Peterson refuse congressional subpoena,
Mann is a narcissistic asshole who blocked me on Facebook for no good reason, I simply said "Well Doctor, discovery will be interesting" in a thread about Mann vs. Steyn, The Climategate Emails revealed them to be sophomoric at best, conspiring to perpetrate a con on the world at worst wasting billions of us taxpayers money.
There is nothing there that convinces me that anything published by any "Working Climatologist" as Lewandowski et al said should be trusted as accurate without overwhelming evidence and Cronie reviewed papers hiding behind a paywall isn't my definition of overwhelming evidence.
What I like best about satellite data vs surface station is surface stations generally (but not always) compute "average" for a day by Tave = (Tmax-Tmin)/2+Tmin resulting in a synthetic number based on a very temporally sparse dataset, then these temporally sparse averages and adjusted by ill defined methods. the data product is also spatially inhomogeneous so the products are gridded. There are numerous thermometers in North America and Europe, few in Africa, Asia and South America, and almost none on the oceans. Data gridding has the effect of spreading the ill-defined adjustments over great distances, often as much as 1200Km but normalises the data into 3 degree cells which are then again averaged to get a global temperature. Most most cases averaging, averages is also a poor technique.
So I consider surface station data both temporally and spatially sparse, subjected to manipulations that are less than forthright and in ways that are mathematically dubious.
Satellites on the other hand sweep the Earth every 98 minutes, the temperature sensing radiometer is frequently recalibrated to both a platinum wire thermometer and the cosmic background. the Dataset is rich both spatially and temporally and little gridding is required.
Additionally Mears and Spencer don't automatically trust their results, as you pointed out, which I think means they are more objective in it's handling.
Hasn't got anything to do with what Watt thinks constitutes as quality siteing, the standards are published by NOAA
And the first satelite was launched when?
Ohhh certainly not in the late 1800's.
Anything that happened before 1950 temperature wise in regards to human activity is buried under natural variability; so the reality is of the time when measuring a human influence was possible, there has not been any statistically significant warming for the third of the time while a third of all of the CO2 has been added by Humans is without apparent effect other than the planet becoming greener.
A little less than 7.5% of the surface stations are situated well enough to expect a temperature measurement error of less than 1K, a little more than 6% of the stations are situated so poorly that an error of up to 5K can be expected. The recently installed stations are sometimes connected via ethernet cable, making it impossible to locate them far enough from buildings to get a good siting.
Well, yes and no. Yes in relativistic environments (near light speed) you get a different physics. But this is only applicable to elementary particles and the like.
I suppose that is why "correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury" (Tests of general relativity) was one of the first bits of supporting evidence for General Relativity, the planet Mercury is hardly an elementary particle.
Sorry but it's obvious you've been watching Al Gore and Bill Nye too long, Your "experiment both doesn't work and has nothing to do with the way AGW is hypothesised to work. You've been lied to; the Gore-Nye video you're eluding to has been completely discredited, every aspect of it is a case of "Has been edited for dramatic effect" take a look at Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment for more details.
When somebody like you calls the adjusted, normalized field data average monthly temperature data, my head just wants to explode. Even the Climatologists call it "Data product".
Don't get too excited, we're in a pretty strong El Nino, it's supposed to be unseasonably warm, I'm worried that it's not warmer. The Warmists are grasping at straws because even the El Nino hasn't broken the pause, there still hasn't been any statistically significant warming in the RSS satellite data for 223 months.
I would think the original poster (on facebook) is implying that those refusing food aren't refugees, my suspicion is they are refugees but the situation was instigated by unseen povocatures. There is a lot of hidden agendas, what seems obvious is almost certainly wrong.