It does not take a scientist to tell you what a thermometer says
Anecdotes are not data.
What does the thermometer (that is placed in the same place for it's life) say over the course of 50 years?
One data point is not enough. Nor is starting your measurement conveniently in 1998 and then saying "look the trend is level!" without showing that the overall global trend is very definitely upwards with cyclical dips.
Ah, that old chestnut. When you pick 1998 as your starting point, you do exactly what you accuse climate scientists of doing - cherry picking your data to suit your argument.
Take a look at the global trend over the entire lifetime of the data.
What the propaganda has convinced you of is that there's no warming trend because it started with a record high year as the origin. Zoom out on the graph (the entire data set that the cherry picked section comes from looks... somewhat different)
Then your confirmation bias is showing. There's a huge amount of material out there for the leyman on climate change, but it relies on you accepting that the vast majority of climate scientists are not lying to you.
I have to take programmers at their word when 97% of them say that there are no NSA backdoors in the Linux kernel, and that's a relatively uncontroversial position to take because they're experts.
How am I a zealot? Because I disagree with you, or because I pointed out that by your own admission you can't find a layman's guide to climate change on the internet via google?
Note that I'm not personally attacking you here. My initial comment was meant to convey that without being an expert in the field it's hard to assess all of the evidence yourself. In the same way that I have to take it on the say of programmers that Linux is not full of NSA backdoors because I don't have the training or the skills necessary to determine it for myself.
I'm not being a snob here, I'm merely pointing out that being an expert scientist is not what most people are. I'm not saying "you're not worthy", I'm saying that you're unlikely to fully understand what's going out without some extensive background (i.e., multiple years of study in the field).
Would you feel like a doctor had gone "the snob route" if he told you that you weren't in a position to tell him how to perform a surgery because you heard on the TV that surgery is just a scam practiced by "zealots"?
Also, "what I believe to be the truth" - that's a very telling statement right there. While I suppose it is technically accurate, what you actually mean is that I'm some sort of blinded religious zealot who has been told what to believe when in reality I happen to be a scientist who trusts other types of scientists in their field.
But like I say, I believe the 97% of programmers who say that there are no NSA backdoors in the Linux kernel - but I'm taking them at their word because they're the experts.
Testable indeed! 17 of the 19 models they ran were wrong and in the opposite direction. Then we're told by the true believers that weather is not effected by climate, which is impossible. The only way to detect the climate is to measure daily temperature over a long period of time. That is why you don't ever expect 80 degree weather in Antarctica or below zero weather in the tropics. Then we are told just because it hasn't happened in a long period of time, more than a decade, is no reason to believe it isn't happening. Record breaking cold, particularly when it is colder than it has ever been before, is a very true indicator of the planet NOT being "hotter than its ever been before".
You don't understand. It's ok, though. We do have people working on it.
Also, no one says that "weather is not [a]ffected by climate" - you are either wilfully ignorant of what they're saying or you have misunderstood the phrase "weather is not the same as climate" which is a different thing entirely.
Which 17 out of which 19 models were wrong? [citation needed] there I think. I'm listening.
I've only briefly attempted to search for evidence online, and had virtually no success except to find things like the 97% consensus page at NASA's site. So, if anyone here has better sources, I'm all "ears".
And then you think I'm being elitist?
You have no idea what I'm capable of, and the climate science community should be capable of putting out the equivalent of a "for Dummies" version of the material for the general public..
Well, it seems like you're not capable of using google if all you can find is NASA's site and things like it.
There are lots of pages that explain the nature of climate change to a greater or lesser level of detail. If you actually searched for them and couldn't find them, then my assumption about "what you are capable of" was accurate.
Right, but the crucial difference there is that seances are humbuggery, whereas if you actually want to learn and study the science behind climate science then you actually can do so because it actually exists.
Just because it's complex and you don;t understand it doesn't mean "it's all made up like magic". That's the religious doctrine argument.
A programmer told me not to use Linux because all the code is full of NSA backdoors. I mean, I'll have to take his word for it because he says he has looked at the source code and I don't know anything about programming. I mean, 97% of other programmers say that there's no NSA backdoors, but I trust this guy. He took out some TV advertising. He told me that those other programmers are being paid by the NSA to keep quiet.
The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.
Yes, only the priests at the Holy Temple of Algore are allowed to evaluate climate evidence.
It's hilarious to me that climate science is so heavily disbelieved due to the political storm that surrounds it.
If you were to listen to a team of programmers who have said "this complex SSL library is secure", then I have little choice but to either believe them or seek additional verification from other expert programmers. I know nothing about code. So, imagine now that 97% of those programmers have agreed that the code is secure, after testing it in various different ways and understanding what the source does. Would you consider that a pass?
It's only when the answers that scientists present are inconvenient to us that we suddenly decide that they can't be right and that this is all a big conspiracy, or it's driven by some some religious fervour.
I made the analogy too simple, what I should have said was something along the lines of forming a hypothesis about the relationship between mass and molecular weight. In order to even think about that sort of problem you need to define a few terms, like what molecular weight is, and what your unit of mass is. That is where consensus in science comes in.
Also deciding on the level of precision in order for a result to be considered meaningful. It's not always the same, but in a field of study those values tend to become standardised via consensus. For example, the degree of precision in the measurement to say "we found the Higgs Boson" was decided by consensus, whereas the actual science of looking for and detecting and analysing the data was done via the scientific method.
The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.
If you asked your doctor to show you your MRI scans so that you could evaluate the evidence of his/her diagnosis for yourself, where would you start?
This isn't a "you're too stupid to understand" argument, it's a "it's not your area and it's very tricky, beyond basic concepts" argument.
If you're consistently disbelieving the very large majority of climate scientists when they summarise their findings, then you're a denier (assuming you take other scientists in different fields that are no politically sensitive at their word). If you're simply looking for an easy to digest pile of evidence then you're going to be disappointed. The evidence is all there - it's just not easy to understand, beyond simple threads like "land ice melting > sea level rise" or "higher [CO2] > more retained IR" but how those things fit into the whole is not trivial.
It has become very easy to simply distrust what climate scientists are saying because of a large propaganda campaign to demonise them all. It's almost unique to that particular field - but it happens to a greater or lesser extent where money overlaps with science (pharmaceuticals, GM crops, climate science, renewable energy, nuclear science etc) from both sides of the political spectrum.
I see you didn't read the article. That was exactly the point. However, consensus is used in the scientific field.
For example:
"I hypothesise that if I take one mole of substance A, there will be 6x10^23 molecules of it in the container"
"How much is a mole? Do you think we all ought to agree on how much a mole is, and how much a kilogram is, and how long a second is, and how many standard deviations from the mean you can be to claim significance..."
Consensus is used in science all the time, just not in simplistic "easy to dismiss with a soundbite" way that people think. If you'd have read the article you'd have realised that.
Those models are tested heavily, but they are very complex - atmospheric modelling is one of the most computationally expensive things to do, and it's still not perfect.
The models are tested by comparing known data to what the model predicts based on past data and the system you're using. For example, you have data for time x to y to z, but you only give the model the data from x to y and you see if it's able to get close to the real data from y to z (which it doesn't know).
This is a simplification, but it is broadly how these sorts of things work. It's the reason that scientists can say "well, we can't tell you exactly what will happen, but we have a good idea". The models are not perfect, but they are testable.
Not by default at all - you have to specifically add the photos to iPhoto and then turn on iCloud in system preferences.
Downloading pictures off a camera/usb stick/android phone can be done with Image Capture, and this does not put them on iCloud, just into folders on your computer.
Adding them to iPhoto is what puts them onto iCloud, and only if you turn it on - when you set up a Mac for the first time it asks you if you want it switched on (and prompts for an Apple ID).
If you use Aperture or iPhoto you can still keep things local only - there's a checkbox in preferences that turns off the iCloud sync.
It only says that if you're from the "MBA-style, profit now at the expense of long term viability" mindset, but that is all too common on slashdot these days.
For such a tiny amount of money too.
Put it this way, if we funded fusion research at 3 billion dollars per year for 40 years (120 billion dollars) it would still come way under the annual spending on oil exploration alone (300 to 400 billion). That's one year's exploration only - that doesn't cover the cost of actually recovering and refining what you find.
Or, if you want to pay for it with purely DoD funds, 3 billion dollars per year is 0.6% of the 2015 defense budget.
In other words, when you look at the *actual* funding over the past 40 years, the amount is lost in the noise at the bottom of any graph.
They never ran JET above Q = 1.0 because they were doing other experiments with it (mainly relating to material research on what to make the walls out of that don't become brittle due to neutron flux over time) but the data that was collected was conclusive enough that they felt confident that they could if they wanted to.
As it stands, they reached the point where the time and energy is better spent on the ITER experiment as the next stage of the research.
Of course, the funding is still tiny trickle compared to what it really ought to be, but such as it is.
The main problem they had with materials is that they couldn't source enough of these small, green, flexible rectangles that they could exchange for almost anything - building materials, labour, research effort, rent, food, etc.
Pretty much covers it, even with the speculative forecasting. The money put into it is equivalent to throwing the spare change you have in your car's ashtray toward a new car fund every year.
Do you need that much FPS? Can anyone really tell much above 30fps? That used to be my baseline for knowing when I could finish tweaking the settings and start playing.
Absolutely. There is a clear difference between 30 and 60 fps when playing computer games.
Anything above 60 is gravy, but getting a game to stay at 60 is what you want, since it tends to be the refresh rate of the screen you're playing on.
The compact Model E aims to be competitive with the Audi A4 and BMW 3-series, which both start in the low $30,000 range.
So... is there going to be a compact Model LC for the sub-30K$ market? A car for the majority of drivers?
I'm sure they are. They started with the premium sedan Model S, then next is the Model X SUV, then this 30k Model E. The trend is definitely towards more affordable vehicles. You just need to establish yourself as a solid manufacturer first with high-profit sales. The success of the 70k+ Model S has helped to fund the factory to allow them to build the cheaper models to come.
Slashdot Mirror
It does not take a scientist to tell you what a thermometer says
Anecdotes are not data.
What does the thermometer (that is placed in the same place for it's life) say over the course of 50 years?
One data point is not enough. Nor is starting your measurement conveniently in 1998 and then saying "look the trend is level!" without showing that the overall global trend is very definitely upwards with cyclical dips.
Ah, that old chestnut. When you pick 1998 as your starting point, you do exactly what you accuse climate scientists of doing - cherry picking your data to suit your argument.
Take a look at the global trend over the entire lifetime of the data.
What the propaganda has convinced you of is that there's no warming trend because it started with a record high year as the origin. Zoom out on the graph (the entire data set that the cherry picked section comes from looks... somewhat different)
Then your confirmation bias is showing. There's a huge amount of material out there for the leyman on climate change, but it relies on you accepting that the vast majority of climate scientists are not lying to you.
I have to take programmers at their word when 97% of them say that there are no NSA backdoors in the Linux kernel, and that's a relatively uncontroversial position to take because they're experts.
How am I a zealot? Because I disagree with you, or because I pointed out that by your own admission you can't find a layman's guide to climate change on the internet via google?
Note that I'm not personally attacking you here. My initial comment was meant to convey that without being an expert in the field it's hard to assess all of the evidence yourself. In the same way that I have to take it on the say of programmers that Linux is not full of NSA backdoors because I don't have the training or the skills necessary to determine it for myself.
I'm not being a snob here, I'm merely pointing out that being an expert scientist is not what most people are. I'm not saying "you're not worthy", I'm saying that you're unlikely to fully understand what's going out without some extensive background (i.e., multiple years of study in the field).
Would you feel like a doctor had gone "the snob route" if he told you that you weren't in a position to tell him how to perform a surgery because you heard on the TV that surgery is just a scam practiced by "zealots"?
Also, "what I believe to be the truth" - that's a very telling statement right there. While I suppose it is technically accurate, what you actually mean is that I'm some sort of blinded religious zealot who has been told what to believe when in reality I happen to be a scientist who trusts other types of scientists in their field.
But like I say, I believe the 97% of programmers who say that there are no NSA backdoors in the Linux kernel - but I'm taking them at their word because they're the experts.
Testable indeed! 17 of the 19 models they ran were wrong and in the opposite direction. Then we're told by the true believers that weather is not effected by climate, which is impossible. The only way to detect the climate is to measure daily temperature over a long period of time. That is why you don't ever expect 80 degree weather in Antarctica or below zero weather in the tropics. Then we are told just because it hasn't happened in a long period of time, more than a decade, is no reason to believe it isn't happening. Record breaking cold, particularly when it is colder than it has ever been before, is a very true indicator of the planet NOT being "hotter than its ever been before".
You don't understand. It's ok, though. We do have people working on it.
Also, no one says that "weather is not [a]ffected by climate" - you are either wilfully ignorant of what they're saying or you have misunderstood the phrase "weather is not the same as climate" which is a different thing entirely.
Which 17 out of which 19 models were wrong? [citation needed] there I think. I'm listening.
Well, you posted this:
I've only briefly attempted to search for evidence online, and had virtually no success except to find things like the 97% consensus page at NASA's site. So, if anyone here has better sources, I'm all "ears".
And then you think I'm being elitist?
You have no idea what I'm capable of, and the climate science community should be capable of putting out the equivalent of a "for Dummies" version of the material for the general public..
Well, it seems like you're not capable of using google if all you can find is NASA's site and things like it.
There are lots of pages that explain the nature of climate change to a greater or lesser level of detail. If you actually searched for them and couldn't find them, then my assumption about "what you are capable of" was accurate.
Right, but the crucial difference there is that seances are humbuggery, whereas if you actually want to learn and study the science behind climate science then you actually can do so because it actually exists.
Just because it's complex and you don;t understand it doesn't mean "it's all made up like magic". That's the religious doctrine argument.
A programmer told me not to use Linux because all the code is full of NSA backdoors. I mean, I'll have to take his word for it because he says he has looked at the source code and I don't know anything about programming. I mean, 97% of other programmers say that there's no NSA backdoors, but I trust this guy. He took out some TV advertising. He told me that those other programmers are being paid by the NSA to keep quiet.
The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.
Yes, only the priests at the Holy Temple of Algore are allowed to evaluate climate evidence.
It's hilarious to me that climate science is so heavily disbelieved due to the political storm that surrounds it.
If you were to listen to a team of programmers who have said "this complex SSL library is secure", then I have little choice but to either believe them or seek additional verification from other expert programmers. I know nothing about code. So, imagine now that 97% of those programmers have agreed that the code is secure, after testing it in various different ways and understanding what the source does. Would you consider that a pass?
It's only when the answers that scientists present are inconvenient to us that we suddenly decide that they can't be right and that this is all a big conspiracy, or it's driven by some some religious fervour.
I made the analogy too simple, what I should have said was something along the lines of forming a hypothesis about the relationship between mass and molecular weight. In order to even think about that sort of problem you need to define a few terms, like what molecular weight is, and what your unit of mass is. That is where consensus in science comes in.
Also deciding on the level of precision in order for a result to be considered meaningful. It's not always the same, but in a field of study those values tend to become standardised via consensus. For example, the degree of precision in the measurement to say "we found the Higgs Boson" was decided by consensus, whereas the actual science of looking for and detecting and analysing the data was done via the scientific method.
The problem is you're not in a position to be able to evaluate the evidence - climate science is difficult and specialised.
If you asked your doctor to show you your MRI scans so that you could evaluate the evidence of his/her diagnosis for yourself, where would you start?
This isn't a "you're too stupid to understand" argument, it's a "it's not your area and it's very tricky, beyond basic concepts" argument.
If you're consistently disbelieving the very large majority of climate scientists when they summarise their findings, then you're a denier (assuming you take other scientists in different fields that are no politically sensitive at their word). If you're simply looking for an easy to digest pile of evidence then you're going to be disappointed. The evidence is all there - it's just not easy to understand, beyond simple threads like "land ice melting > sea level rise" or "higher [CO2] > more retained IR" but how those things fit into the whole is not trivial.
It has become very easy to simply distrust what climate scientists are saying because of a large propaganda campaign to demonise them all. It's almost unique to that particular field - but it happens to a greater or lesser extent where money overlaps with science (pharmaceuticals, GM crops, climate science, renewable energy, nuclear science etc) from both sides of the political spectrum.
I see you didn't read the article. That was exactly the point. However, consensus is used in the scientific field.
For example:
"I hypothesise that if I take one mole of substance A, there will be 6x10^23 molecules of it in the container"
"How much is a mole? Do you think we all ought to agree on how much a mole is, and how much a kilogram is, and how long a second is, and how many standard deviations from the mean you can be to claim significance..."
Consensus is used in science all the time, just not in simplistic "easy to dismiss with a soundbite" way that people think. If you'd have read the article you'd have realised that.
Those models are tested heavily, but they are very complex - atmospheric modelling is one of the most computationally expensive things to do, and it's still not perfect.
The models are tested by comparing known data to what the model predicts based on past data and the system you're using. For example, you have data for time x to y to z, but you only give the model the data from x to y and you see if it's able to get close to the real data from y to z (which it doesn't know).
This is a simplification, but it is broadly how these sorts of things work. It's the reason that scientists can say "well, we can't tell you exactly what will happen, but we have a good idea". The models are not perfect, but they are testable.
Not by default at all - you have to specifically add the photos to iPhoto and then turn on iCloud in system preferences.
Downloading pictures off a camera/usb stick/android phone can be done with Image Capture, and this does not put them on iCloud, just into folders on your computer.
Adding them to iPhoto is what puts them onto iCloud, and only if you turn it on - when you set up a Mac for the first time it asks you if you want it switched on (and prompts for an Apple ID).
If you use Aperture or iPhoto you can still keep things local only - there's a checkbox in preferences that turns off the iCloud sync.
https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_...
I'm not sure how you can greatly reduce the budget for fusion power - it's virtually zero as it is.
It only says that if you're from the "MBA-style, profit now at the expense of long term viability" mindset, but that is all too common on slashdot these days.
For such a tiny amount of money too.
Put it this way, if we funded fusion research at 3 billion dollars per year for 40 years (120 billion dollars) it would still come way under the annual spending on oil exploration alone (300 to 400 billion). That's one year's exploration only - that doesn't cover the cost of actually recovering and refining what you find.
Or, if you want to pay for it with purely DoD funds, 3 billion dollars per year is 0.6% of the 2015 defense budget.
In other words, when you look at the *actual* funding over the past 40 years, the amount is lost in the noise at the bottom of any graph.
Of course, it's extremely hard to do it when the funding is so small.
That's why it's eternally 20 years away. It's remarkable what we've actually learned despite the issue of funding it with pocket change for 40 years.
If that is the real goal of the Tokamak then they're doing a hilariously poor job of it - the funding is minuscule.
They never ran JET above Q = 1.0 because they were doing other experiments with it (mainly relating to material research on what to make the walls out of that don't become brittle due to neutron flux over time) but the data that was collected was conclusive enough that they felt confident that they could if they wanted to.
As it stands, they reached the point where the time and energy is better spent on the ITER experiment as the next stage of the research.
Of course, the funding is still tiny trickle compared to what it really ought to be, but such as it is.
The main problem they had with materials is that they couldn't source enough of these small, green, flexible rectangles that they could exchange for almost anything - building materials, labour, research effort, rent, food, etc.
http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg
Pretty much covers it, even with the speculative forecasting. The money put into it is equivalent to throwing the spare change you have in your car's ashtray toward a new car fund every year.
Do you need that much FPS? Can anyone really tell much above 30fps? That used to be my baseline for knowing when I could finish tweaking the settings and start playing.
Absolutely. There is a clear difference between 30 and 60 fps when playing computer games.
Anything above 60 is gravy, but getting a game to stay at 60 is what you want, since it tends to be the refresh rate of the screen you're playing on.
So... is there going to be a compact Model LC for the sub-30K$ market? A car for the majority of drivers?
I'm sure they are. They started with the premium sedan Model S, then next is the Model X SUV, then this 30k Model E. The trend is definitely towards more affordable vehicles. You just need to establish yourself as a solid manufacturer first with high-profit sales. The success of the 70k+ Model S has helped to fund the factory to allow them to build the cheaper models to come.
It just takes some time.
Can I borrow your time machine please?
Great and incisive commentary... except that iPhoto and the replacement app that will be bundled with Yosemite are free.
So, kill your pro app that costs money to force people buy a free app that comes with the OS (which is also free).
The level if genius in your analysis must be beyond me.