I'm on a corporate net now, speed is decent (about 1Mbit). Yakutsk has a fiber connection to a trans-Siberian backbone network, so quality is pretty good.
2.4/2.5 model sucks, because we have to wait years before features propagate to the stable mainline kernel. Or have to resort to backporting and vendor branches.
And it is soooo conveniently silent about Wegman panel and later American Statistician Association report. It's not as clear-cut as he wants us to believe.
Also, the recent reconstruction based on multiple proxies still supports the 'hockey stick'. Even McIntyre was not able to find anything against it except laughable 'axes upside down' claims.
"Which of the many, competing, models do you recommend we base policy on?"
On relevant models.
"By the way, if we are so good at predicting the climate, why are there even different, competing models?"
Duh. Because climate is complex. It makes no sense (i.e. no-one has enough computer time) to model ocean heat transfer with salinity corrections if you are modelling the upper troposphere. You just use averaged data.
Analogy from programming: if you are writing tests for your 3D game, then you are not very interested in how pressing a 'scan' button on your flatbed scanner affects it.
"Shouldn't there just be one, accurate model?"
Sure, and I want a pony. And also a general way to solve differential equations.
"You should discuss Tim Lambert, a crackpot who has spawned a new verb: to be Lamberted is to be dishonestly attacked by someone with an extreme agenda."
Hm. Ad-hominem attacks? Oh the irony...
"The data that McIntyre had was not public, nor until the Climategate information came along, could it be confirmed to being used to construct the HADCRUT3 dataset."
Most of HADCRUT3 data was (and is) freely available.
But I'll just note that reluctance to follow FOIA requests was not unreasonable. McIntire and others used them to harass the CRU, demanding them to release public data (which McInture already had) and methodologies.
"Ah yes, scienceblogs. What a hotbed of unbiased information that is."
Of course, it's biased. It's written by real scientists, publishing peer-reviewed papers.
"McIntyre is the man responsible for the questioning of and the debunking of the Mann hockey-stick graph which the IPCC had to ditch after it was pointed out how ridiculous it was."
Yep. That's exactly what I mean, deniers can't admit that they were wrong and just repeat the same lies over and over again.
Believe me, everyone in climate science knows about climateaudit.org .
Steve McIntyre was shown to be gravely incorrect multiple times (more than I can care to count), yet I don't remember him admitting his mistakes and revising his views.
As far as I remember, he was able to muster only a few words deep in the comment threads.
" the weather man can't predict the weather for the comming week. but for some reason you think they can predict the weather 100 years into the future accurately?"
climateaudit: Hey guys, I noticed something a bit weird about your figures - here's what's weird...
Scientists: Sorry, but your model uses incorrect parameters. Use , and to adjust your model correctly, then it'll give another result.
climateaudit: You are suppressing the free thought! CO2 doesn't cause warming, it's the Sun! You have predicted Global Cooling in 70-s! The science is all wrong!
DNS curve is designed to use small UDP packets. And it's more secure because it encrypts the packets' contents. But I guess that deep packet inspection folks won't allow that.
DNSSEC doesn't protect against recursive resolvers. I can set up a malicious resolver at my ISP which will just strip the DNSSEC records, not a problem. End user software still must validate the signatures.
"Since when is 11 months a short time until the release of a product? It shouldn't even be being discussed this far out."
11 months is a short time, considering that the development of the Volt took 4 years already. And consider that pre-production Volts (assembled manually) are already on the roads. In 11 months GM plans to open _assembly line_.
"Chemical reactions have a sort of random-ness to them that electricity through a wire can't duplicate. When the circuit isn't complete, electrons aren't moving."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm on a corporate net now, speed is decent (about 1Mbit). Yakutsk has a fiber connection to a trans-Siberian backbone network, so quality is pretty good.
Though Internet is certainly not cheap here.
I'm doing a short (I hope) IT consulting job :)
I have some pictures, but they are nothing unusual - just a northern city, I haven't yet have time to go outside skiing.
/me looks at the thermometer outside my window. It shows -49C (I'm in Yakutsk).
Hm. I think, it might be a good idea to move somewhere where it's a bit warmer.
PS: and no, it's not a good idea to put a computer outside at this weather. HDDs freeze to death quickly.
Because it's much easier to mine salt water from gas giants' satellites?
2.4/2.5 model sucks, because we have to wait years before features propagate to the stable mainline kernel. Or have to resort to backporting and vendor branches.
Ahh...
And it is soooo conveniently silent about Wegman panel and later American Statistician Association report. It's not as clear-cut as he wants us to believe.
Also, the recent reconstruction based on multiple proxies still supports the 'hockey stick'. Even McIntyre was not able to find anything against it except laughable 'axes upside down' claims.
"Which of the many, competing, models do you recommend we base policy on?"
On relevant models.
"By the way, if we are so good at predicting the climate, why are there even different, competing models?"
Duh. Because climate is complex. It makes no sense (i.e. no-one has enough computer time) to model ocean heat transfer with salinity corrections if you are modelling the upper troposphere. You just use averaged data.
Analogy from programming: if you are writing tests for your 3D game, then you are not very interested in how pressing a 'scan' button on your flatbed scanner affects it.
"Shouldn't there just be one, accurate model?"
Sure, and I want a pony. And also a general way to solve differential equations.
"You should discuss Tim Lambert, a crackpot who has spawned a new verb: to be Lamberted is to be dishonestly attacked by someone with an extreme agenda."
Hm. Ad-hominem attacks? Oh the irony...
"The data that McIntyre had was not public, nor until the Climategate information came along, could it be confirmed to being used to construct the HADCRUT3 dataset."
Most of HADCRUT3 data was (and is) freely available.
It was a cheap shot as an answer to the parent's cheap shot.
I won't discuss Tim Lambert's qualification here.
But I'll just note that reluctance to follow FOIA requests was not unreasonable. McIntire and others used them to harass the CRU, demanding them to release public data (which McInture already had) and methodologies.
"Ah yes, scienceblogs. What a hotbed of unbiased information that is."
Of course, it's biased. It's written by real scientists, publishing peer-reviewed papers.
"McIntyre is the man responsible for the questioning of and the debunking of the Mann hockey-stick graph which the IPCC had to ditch after it was pointed out how ridiculous it was."
Yep. That's exactly what I mean, deniers can't admit that they were wrong and just repeat the same lies over and over again.
The "hockey stick" has been proved to be essentially correct:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html (but of course, "Nature" is also a part of the conspiracy)
http://web.mit.edu/~phuybers/www/Hockey/Huybers_Comment.pdf
Believe me, everyone in climate science knows about climateaudit.org .
Steve McIntyre was shown to be gravely incorrect multiple times (more than I can care to count), yet I don't remember him admitting his mistakes and revising his views.
As far as I remember, he was able to muster only a few words deep in the comment threads.
You can see examples here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/mcintyre/ - yes, there are whole sections of blogs dedicated to McIntyre-misinformation.
I like this one: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/01/auditors-resolutions.html
" the weather man can't predict the weather for the comming week. but for some reason you think they can predict the weather 100 years into the future accurately?"
I bet you're a lousy programmer...
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/we-cant-even-predict-weather-next-week.php
50-year moving average shows the increase, of course.
Like this:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year
Completely in agreement with climate models.
NH = "Northern Hemisphere"
"Average NH temperatures fell 0.6-0.8dC 1998-2007, and will fall more sharply in 2008-2009."
That's an old deniers' trick. 1998 was an out-lier, an exceptionally warm year. So if you use a 5-year average, then it'll appear that temperature actually fell during 2000's. Of course, 2000-s is the hottest decade and 2009 is the tied for the position of the warmest year on records ( http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year ), so you have to stop at 2007.
But in reality:
climateaudit: Hey guys, I noticed something a bit weird about your figures - here's what's weird...
Scientists: Sorry, but your model uses incorrect parameters. Use , and to adjust your model correctly, then it'll give another result.
climateaudit: You are suppressing the free thought! CO2 doesn't cause warming, it's the Sun! You have predicted Global Cooling in 70-s! The science is all wrong!
Yes, it does.
DNS curve is designed to use small UDP packets. And it's more secure because it encrypts the packets' contents. But I guess that deep packet inspection folks won't allow that.
DNSSEC doesn't protect against recursive resolvers. I can set up a malicious resolver at my ISP which will just strip the DNSSEC records, not a problem. End user software still must validate the signatures.
DJB's DNS curve would have solved this problem.
"Analog cigarette" - now that's a phrase!
"Sequencing an organism is a long, complicated process even with modern sequencing technology. "
You don't need to sequence the whole genome. Just use primers for known toxins to check for their presence.
"Since when is 11 months a short time until the release of a product? It shouldn't even be being discussed this far out."
11 months is a short time, considering that the development of the Volt took 4 years already. And consider that pre-production Volts (assembled manually) are already on the roads. In 11 months GM plans to open _assembly line_.
"What is its fuel-performance when batteries are depleted?"
About 50 mpg. YMMV.
Helium-3 is also extremely useful for MRI studies, but unfortunately too expensive for most of them.
"Chemical reactions have a sort of random-ness to them that electricity through a wire can't duplicate. When the circuit isn't complete, electrons aren't moving."
Two words: thermal noise.