You can add to your list: despite all the automation of the past century, we now have more jobs in the US than ever before. The economy is a job creating machine.
Why did it start to diverge? You can't answer that question. Here's why, I'll tell you why: because starting in the 1950s, the number of thermometers in the world increased dramatically, and we were able to make much more accurate readings of world temperature. Once our temperature readings became accurate, we could see that they didn't match the tree record.
When Mann saw that the tree record diverged from the temperature record, he should have begun an investigation into why not. That's what a good scientist would have done. Mann didn't do that, he published as was. Ergo he is not a good scientist.
I'll admit I was somewhat frustrated by CFL light bulbs (and tried them off and on before traditional bulbs were outlawed), but LED lightbulbs have been nothing but great. They last forever and give off a good light color.
What do you make of the consistent failure of the denialist community to come up with any explanation for the recent warming trend that wasn't trivially debunked ?
I can't speak for the denialist community, because I don't care who they are or what they believe. However, I can tell you what high-quality scientists like John Christy and Richard Lindzen tend to say.
First, they don't deny that CO2 has an affect on the atmospheric temperatures. You can discount anyone who denies that as ignorant (or possibly they have a new and fascinating hypothesis backed by data for how that could happen, but I haven't seen anyone like that. Up to now they're all ignorant). The main question is, "how much warming will be caused by CO2?"
Briefly, practically every scientist agrees that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a change in temperature of.7-.9 degrees. And that's not enough for anyone to worry about. Alarmist scientists say, "but there are feedbacks that will in addition cause temperature to rise 5-9 degrees with a doubling of CO2!" This hypothesis is that feedbacks will affect temperature far beyond what CO2 would do by itself, and is not well supported. Certainly the computer models that gave the worst predictions have been disproven by now.
Then there are scientists like John Christy, who goes around testing scientific claims, because that's what scientists do. When he heard claims that the global temperature was rising, he devised a secondary way to measure the temperature, to test that (essentially using satellites), which has more-or-less matched the terrestrial record. He's also gone to Africa to create temperature datasets to test claims such as "the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting due to climate change." He investigated claims of temperature rise in the California central valley and found that irrigation has caused a lot of it, not AGW. This makes alarmists look really bad.
So in the end it's not that "temperature is not rising" it's that "temperature rise is minimal enough to not worry about." Lindzen likes to show this graph, where the red line is the entire range of the global temperature anomaly.
Using tree rings to reconstruct historical temperature was demonstrably a mistake at the time, because they don't match thermometers. Mann knew that at the time, and he still presented the reconstruction, hiding the fact that they didn't actually match real thermometers.
I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature
Yes, and I want to emphasize again, that there was no reason to believe that they were purposely deceiving the public, or trying to do bad science, or scientific malpractice. I am certainly not accusing them of that, and we agree.
It is however clear that they were not the best statisticians, and if you're doing complex statistical work (which of course, global temperature measurements are), you need to have at least on statistician on your team otherwise your work is going to be inaccurate. That is what happened with this group of scientists, as the investigation found.
This is perhaps best exhibited in the "hide the decline" controversy (good overview here). Because of poor statistics they never dealt with the divergence problem. In other words, if tree rings don't accurately match modern thermometer readings, how can we expect to rely on them for historical temperature measurements?
He was implicated in the CRU leak that was investigated in the article. He was cleared of wrong-doing, along with the rest of the scientists (as mentioned in the previous link), but the use of statistics was bad. As one example, the "hide the decline" trick wasn't necessarily malicious, but it wasn't justified statistically either.
I've been modded down already, but it's also worth mentioning that this paper is using computer models, which have been shown in multiple studies to be wildly inaccurate.
If you find a way to drive more efficiently, politicians will use it to put off road repair even longer, until the traffic jams are just as bad. For some reason roads are the things that residents get most frustrated about (and indeed, are even willing to pay extra taxes to fix, as seen in elections in California), and yet they are the thing that politicians most would like to delay fixing. I guess that goes for transportation in general.
Virtualization is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in practice it fails to completely abstract out the underlying system. In general you're better off using a script that developers can run to automatically set up the environment. This has several advantages: not only does it keep your project clean (clean enough to easily install), but it allows you to easily install the whole thing anywhere.
That way, you can run your script on a production server. Quickly set up a new instance and install it into your cluster. Ideally you'll have another script that tests to make sure the server is running correctly on that instance before it goes live.
The alternative of trying to set things correctly in a VM and sloshing that VM everywhere is just asking for things to become messy.
Of course, "on" in French gets used all the time, to the point that it sounds ridiculous and grating on the ears, almost as bad as alors. On the other hand, if we used 'one' like that with such frequency in English, it would also get annoying, quickly.
A quarter century sounds like a lot because it uses the big word 'century' but it's only 25 years, which really isn't very long in legal terms. The supreme court frequently makes decisions on cases that are a century.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that's an aggressive patent defense. I didn't expect Costco to be so proactive on the issue of patents.
You can add to your list: despite all the automation of the past century, we now have more jobs in the US than ever before. The economy is a job creating machine.
Why did it start to diverge? You can't answer that question. Here's why, I'll tell you why: because starting in the 1950s, the number of thermometers in the world increased dramatically, and we were able to make much more accurate readings of world temperature. Once our temperature readings became accurate, we could see that they didn't match the tree record.
When Mann saw that the tree record diverged from the temperature record, he should have begun an investigation into why not. That's what a good scientist would have done. Mann didn't do that, he published as was. Ergo he is not a good scientist.
I'll admit I was somewhat frustrated by CFL light bulbs (and tried them off and on before traditional bulbs were outlawed), but LED lightbulbs have been nothing but great. They last forever and give off a good light color.
What do you make of the consistent failure of the denialist community to come up with any explanation for the recent warming trend that wasn't trivially debunked ?
I can't speak for the denialist community, because I don't care who they are or what they believe. However, I can tell you what high-quality scientists like John Christy and Richard Lindzen tend to say.
.7-.9 degrees. And that's not enough for anyone to worry about. Alarmist scientists say, "but there are feedbacks that will in addition cause temperature to rise 5-9 degrees with a doubling of CO2!" This hypothesis is that feedbacks will affect temperature far beyond what CO2 would do by itself, and is not well supported. Certainly the computer models that gave the worst predictions have been disproven by now.
First, they don't deny that CO2 has an affect on the atmospheric temperatures. You can discount anyone who denies that as ignorant (or possibly they have a new and fascinating hypothesis backed by data for how that could happen, but I haven't seen anyone like that. Up to now they're all ignorant). The main question is, "how much warming will be caused by CO2?"
Briefly, practically every scientist agrees that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a change in temperature of
Then there are scientists like John Christy, who goes around testing scientific claims, because that's what scientists do. When he heard claims that the global temperature was rising, he devised a secondary way to measure the temperature, to test that (essentially using satellites), which has more-or-less matched the terrestrial record. He's also gone to Africa to create temperature datasets to test claims such as "the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting due to climate change." He investigated claims of temperature rise in the California central valley and found that irrigation has caused a lot of it, not AGW. This makes alarmists look really bad.
So in the end it's not that "temperature is not rising" it's that "temperature rise is minimal enough to not worry about." Lindzen likes to show this graph, where the red line is the entire range of the global temperature anomaly.
That's a good point.
I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature
Yeah, you don't realize weather is not climate.
Then maybe he was malicious, because his "hide the decline" was totally unethical if he knew what he was doing.
CO2 levels would have to drop well below 300 ppm before a new ice age could commence
That's BS. We have no idea what causes ice ages, all we have are hypotheses.
Yes, and I want to emphasize again, that there was no reason to believe that they were purposely deceiving the public, or trying to do bad science, or scientific malpractice. I am certainly not accusing them of that, and we agree.
It is however clear that they were not the best statisticians, and if you're doing complex statistical work (which of course, global temperature measurements are), you need to have at least on statistician on your team otherwise your work is going to be inaccurate. That is what happened with this group of scientists, as the investigation found.
This is perhaps best exhibited in the "hide the decline" controversy (good overview here). Because of poor statistics they never dealt with the divergence problem. In other words, if tree rings don't accurately match modern thermometer readings, how can we expect to rely on them for historical temperature measurements?
He was implicated in the CRU leak that was investigated in the article. He was cleared of wrong-doing, along with the rest of the scientists (as mentioned in the previous link), but the use of statistics was bad. As one example, the "hide the decline" trick wasn't necessarily malicious, but it wasn't justified statistically either.
but what is 0^0 then?
I've been modded down already, but it's also worth mentioning that this paper is using computer models, which have been shown in multiple studies to be wildly inaccurate.
"Professor Hand added that CRU had been "a little naïve" in not working more closely with statisticians."
If you find a way to drive more efficiently, politicians will use it to put off road repair even longer, until the traffic jams are just as bad. For some reason roads are the things that residents get most frustrated about (and indeed, are even willing to pay extra taxes to fix, as seen in elections in California), and yet they are the thing that politicians most would like to delay fixing. I guess that goes for transportation in general.
Virtualization is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in practice it fails to completely abstract out the underlying system. In general you're better off using a script that developers can run to automatically set up the environment. This has several advantages: not only does it keep your project clean (clean enough to easily install), but it allows you to easily install the whole thing anywhere.
That way, you can run your script on a production server. Quickly set up a new instance and install it into your cluster. Ideally you'll have another script that tests to make sure the server is running correctly on that instance before it goes live.
The alternative of trying to set things correctly in a VM and sloshing that VM everywhere is just asking for things to become messy.
Don't be rude!!
Of course, "on" in French gets used all the time, to the point that it sounds ridiculous and grating on the ears, almost as bad as alors. On the other hand, if we used 'one' like that with such frequency in English, it would also get annoying, quickly.
“Carly cleared their voice and spoke”, feels awkward and ambiguous.
It is. But in fairness, it is a situation that could be ambiguous and awkward.
Singluar they has been used at least since Shakespeare's day.
A quarter century sounds like a lot because it uses the big word 'century' but it's only 25 years, which really isn't very long in legal terms. The supreme court frequently makes decisions on cases that are a century.
Is Javascript your first scripting language or something?
Don't know but it's only $30 for the latest now.
The only reason you can even ask that is because you've never seen how most people live. You've never seen a shantytown.
and if you want the best user experience, install it from floppies.