Yes, Hansen adjusted for heat island effect. The question remains why it appears that the adjustment was applied to high quality sites like the Grand Canyon station and possibly others.
Data from all sites (urban *and* rural) are adjusted so that their trends conform to the mean of the *rural* stations in the neighborhood (nominally within 500 km -- this may be extended if too few rural stations are found within 500 km). So rural sites whose long-term trends run lower then the mean trend will be adjusted upward; rural sites with trends exceeding the local mean will have their trends adjusted downward. There's absolutely no mystery or intrigue here; it's all very straightforward. I refer you to Hansen's paper (available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_et al.pdf). for the details.
If in a given field, a company is making excessive profits, the fact that that field is so profitable naturally leads it to draw in other companies. These new companies then undercut - just a little - the existing companies, to steal their customers. This is the beginning of the virtuous (for the customer) cycle of price cutting until companies cannot reduce prices any more.
So *that* explains the proliferation of HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, Dell, etc... laptops with Linux pre-loaded and pre-configured available for sale these days!!!
Pretty stupid blunder.... but it applies only to version 5.10.
Plus, it was already fixed by the time that securityfocus article
hit the press last March.
The fact that the parent post has been modded up to 4 "interesting" (as of 0715PST) is prima facie evidence that plenty of idiots hang out here at slashdot...
I know of someone who worked at a marine-mammal research facility. One of his tasks was to obtain semen samples from the male dolphins. (I won't go into the gory details).
As it turns out, dolphins are quick learners, and he quickly became *very* popular with the male dolphins. Any time he would show up at the dolphin tanks, the dolphins would immediately begin splashing around and chattering with excitement!
So next time you go to Sea World and take in a dolphin show, don't assume that the dolphins are performing all those neat tricks just for fish!
You may call it name-calling; I call it a demonstrable statement of fact.
And it's not simply a matter of my disagreeing with that claim. It's that the claim is clearly, demonstrably wrong to anyone who has bothered to learn the basics. And you don't have to listen to what *I* say. I provided a link to a web-site run by professional climatologists -- experts in the field.
Given the state of climate-science and what we know about global-warming today, listening to global-warming deniers is like listening to creationists. None of them deserve any respect, and I treat them accordingly.
Yes, it *is* in use in Africa and other areas. It is sprayed on the interior walls of buildings where it is most effective in killing malaria mosquitos -- without the indiscriminant broadcast use that would drive the evolution of resistant mosquitos.. Agricultural use has been banned, but that goes to the benefit of malaria control. Without the evolution of resistance resulting from widespread, indiscriminant agricultural DDT use, DDT-based malaria mosquito control remains effective. More info can be found at http://www.timlambert.org/
And don't forget the worst greenhouse gas of all: WATER VAPOUR!
Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
Fact: Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume, and - according to several researchers - about 60% by effect, is the major greenhouse gas. 97% of greenhouse gases are water vapour by volume. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
Better start campaigning to remove all the water vapour emissions. Oh wait, water covers 71% of the earth's surface. No dice there...
Aarrrghhh! More ignorant right-wing drivel. You global-warming denier loons are as bad as creationists! The short atmospheric residence time of water vapor makes water vapor a *feedback* element, *not* a forcing element with regard to global warming.
Got that, loon? FEEDBACK. NOT forcing. Global warming is not initiated by water vapor; it is *magnified* by it. In the absence of an outside forcing factor (like anthropocentric CO2 emissions, water vapor will *not* cause global warming.
For those who have the attention-span necessary to handle some technical material, there's a good article that discusses the role of water vapor in global warming at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
On the other hand, we have data that all of the inner planets are now heating up. The Twin MER rover teams were shocked at how warm the Martian winter was this year on Mars. They never expected their rovers to make it through the winter, yet both survived without a problem. In just the 30 years since the Viking missions, the temperature of Mars has increased substantially. In fact, it's done so by very nearly the exact same percentage as the temperatures seen on Earth. Similar remote measurements of Venus have shown the same increase.
Oh gawwddd, not this recycled right-wing drivel again.......
Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth...
Please supply proper bibliographic references to the professional climatology literature to support this claim, or admit that you are just blowing smoke.
I've never understood why so many people, including Slashdotters, are so quick to accept absolutely everything that comes out of environmentalists' mouths.
The web-sites cited in the parent article are maintained by professional scientists, not "environmentalists", you moron.
Of course, it shouldn't be surprising to see a brain-dead Bush supporter dismiss an organization like the American Institute of Physics (aip.org) as a left-wing environmentalist group.
(Just who in the hell thought that pizzaman's inane drivel was "insightful"? ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!)
So pizzaman, can you provide specific mathematical definitions for "information", "order", and "complexity"? What is the relationship between "order" and "complexity"? Can you tell us how one might go about measuring/computing the "complexity" of an organism's genome? Can you demonstrate that mutations will only reduce an organism's "complexity"?
I thought not -- you are just another ignorant religious fundamendalist who likes to spout the latest buzzwords he picked up in Sunday School.
And what's with the obsession about Hillary Clinton? (I can't help but notice how pre-enlightment types are afflicted with bizarre Clinton obsessions).
Stringent tests indeed... Only in a global-warming denier publication could someone screw up degrees vs. radians conversions and still get published.
You global-warming deniers are as pathetic as creationists.
Classic example of creationist dishonesty
on
Living Without a Pulse
·
· Score: 4, Informative
........
This is not flamebait... lol...
Well, this is a well-deserved flame.
...In fact, run over to your library (bookshelf?) and grab a copy of Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species..." and turn to page 162. Read the section about the mousetrap. Darwin concludes that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.".....
Darwin doesn't even mention mousetraps in the chapter from which the individual whose propaganda you are parroting lifted this passage.
It's pretty clear that calebb is just another not-so-honest creationist who has taken (probably nth-hand) out-of-context a passage from a book he's possibly never even seen. Even if he has seen it, he certainly hasn't read it for comprehension.
Now, let's look at the rest of that passage, shall we? (emphasis added)
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire
It's absolutely appalling to see such worthless rubbish like calebb's post here modded up to a score greater than -1.
BTW, "On the Origin of Species..." can be found in its entirety on-line at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html.
Fox executives probably have been following the "creation-science" controversies popping up all over the US, and figured that if millions of Americans are stupid enough to fall for "creation-science" fairy-tales, then they are probably stupid enough to fall for a really lame "moon-landing-hoax" pseudo-documentary.
Just remember that old RoboCop line, "good business is where you find it".
And in the US, "good business" isn't about educating the gullible and stupid (that's a lost cause), it's about taking their money.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Declare a major in veterinary science or animal husbandry.
2) Flunk freshman biology.
3) Transfer.
4) Declare a major in business/finance.
5) Flunk introductory economics.
6) Transfer.
7) Declare a major in communications.
8) Flunk English composition.
9) Transfer.
10) Declare a major in political science.
11) Flunk introductory government.
12) Transfer to a really easy low-tuition college.
13) Declare a major in journalism.
14) Flunk Intro to journalism.
15) Start sleeping with the department chair.
16) Graduate with journalism degree (2.1 GPA)
...sells more junk food than your average supermarket!
...nothing beats the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach.
Data from all sites (urban *and* rural) are adjusted so that their trends conform to the mean of the *rural* stations in the neighborhood (nominally within 500 km -- this may be extended if too few rural stations are found within 500 km). So rural sites whose long-term trends run lower then the mean trend will be adjusted upward; rural sites with trends exceeding the local mean will have their trends adjusted downward. There's absolutely no mystery or intrigue here; it's all very straightforward. I refer you to Hansen's paper (available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_et al.pdf). for the details.
If in a given field, a company is making excessive profits, the fact that that field is so profitable naturally leads it to draw in other companies. These new companies then undercut - just a little - the existing companies, to steal their customers. This is the beginning of the virtuous (for the customer) cycle of price cutting until companies cannot reduce prices any more.
So *that* explains the proliferation of HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, Dell, etc... laptops with Linux pre-loaded
and pre-configured available for sale these days!!!
http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/161
Pretty stupid blunder.... but it applies only to version 5.10. Plus, it was already fixed by the time that securityfocus article hit the press last March.
The fact that the parent post has been modded up to 4 "interesting" (as of 0715PST) is prima facie evidence that plenty of idiots hang out here at slashdot...
I know of someone who worked at a marine-mammal research facility. One of his tasks was to obtain semen samples from the male dolphins. (I won't go into the gory details).
As it turns out, dolphins are quick learners, and he quickly became *very* popular with the male dolphins. Any time he would show up at the dolphin tanks, the dolphins would immediately begin splashing around and chattering with excitement!
So next time you go to Sea World and take in a dolphin show, don't assume that the dolphins are performing all those neat tricks just for fish!
You may call it name-calling; I call it a demonstrable statement of fact.
And it's not simply a matter of my disagreeing with that claim. It's that the claim is clearly, demonstrably wrong to anyone who has bothered to learn the basics. And you don't have to listen to what *I* say. I provided a link to a web-site run by professional climatologists -- experts in the field.
Given the state of climate-science and what we know about global-warming today, listening to global-warming deniers is like listening to creationists. None of them deserve any respect, and I treat them accordingly.
Yes, it *is* in use in Africa and other areas. It is sprayed on the interior walls of buildings where it is most effective in killing malaria mosquitos -- without the indiscriminant broadcast use that would drive the evolution of resistant mosquitos.. Agricultural use has been banned, but that goes to the benefit of malaria control. Without the evolution of resistance resulting from widespread, indiscriminant agricultural DDT use, DDT-based malaria mosquito control remains effective. More info can be found at http://www.timlambert.org/
Aarrrghhh! More ignorant right-wing drivel. You global-warming denier loons are as bad as creationists! The short atmospheric residence time of water vapor makes water vapor a *feedback* element, *not* a forcing element with regard to global warming.
Got that, loon? FEEDBACK. NOT forcing. Global warming is not initiated by water vapor; it is *magnified* by it. In the absence of an outside forcing factor (like anthropocentric CO2 emissions, water vapor will *not* cause global warming.
For those who have the attention-span necessary to handle some technical material, there's a good article that discusses the role of water vapor in global warming at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Oh gawwddd, not this recycled right-wing drivel again.......
(From http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192#more-19 2)
Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth...
Why is it that anyone who goes against the common, left-leaning attitude...
I know that isn't terribly polite to flame someone's spelling, but it looks like you mis-spelled "scientifically literate".
It really is a shame to see slashdot so infested by religious loons like ATN...
See http://www.crichton-official.com/features/features _spoonbending.shtml for details.
Please supply proper bibliographic references to the professional climatology literature to support this claim, or admit that you are just blowing smoke.
The web-sites cited in the parent article are maintained by professional scientists, not "environmentalists", you moron.
Of course, it shouldn't be surprising to see a brain-dead Bush supporter dismiss an organization like the American Institute of Physics (aip.org) as a left-wing environmentalist group.
(Just who in the hell thought that pizzaman's inane drivel was "insightful"? ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!)
So pizzaman, can you provide specific mathematical definitions for "information", "order", and "complexity"? What is the relationship between "order" and "complexity"? Can you tell us how one might go about measuring/computing the "complexity" of an organism's genome? Can you demonstrate that mutations will only reduce an organism's "complexity"?
I thought not -- you are just another ignorant religious fundamendalist who likes to spout the latest buzzwords he picked up in Sunday School.
And what's with the obsession about Hillary Clinton? (I can't help but notice how pre-enlightment types are afflicted with bizarre Clinton obsessions).
Not, at least, until we can re-run them through the Enlightenment.
Oh.... waitaminute.... we are talking about the Oklahoma Anthropological society. That explains everything...
You mean, stringent tests like this?
Stringent tests indeed... Only in a global-warming denier publication could someone screw up degrees vs. radians conversions and still get published.
You global-warming deniers are as pathetic as creationists.
Well, this is a well-deserved flame.
Darwin doesn't even mention mousetraps in the chapter from which the individual whose propaganda you are parroting lifted this passage.
It's pretty clear that calebb is just another not-so-honest creationist who has taken (probably nth-hand) out-of-context a passage from a book he's possibly never even seen. Even if he has seen it, he certainly hasn't read it for comprehension.
Now, let's look at the rest of that passage, shall we? (emphasis added)
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire
It's absolutely appalling to see such worthless rubbish like calebb's post here modded up to a score greater than -1.
BTW, "On the Origin of Species..." can be found in its entirety on-line at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html.
Unfortunately, what the good Lord giveth in college, He taketh away in sunday school!
Fox executives probably have been following the "creation-science" controversies popping up all over the US, and figured that if millions of Americans are stupid enough to fall for "creation-science" fairy-tales, then they are probably stupid enough to fall for a really lame "moon-landing-hoax" pseudo-documentary.
Just remember that old RoboCop line, "good business is where you find it".
And in the US, "good business" isn't about educating the gullible and stupid (that's a lost cause), it's about taking their money.