Actually that's one of the key issues addressed by the study. Climate scientists have been accounting for that effect pretty much forever, but the authors of the new study were dubious about the way it was handled, so they did their own treatment. They found it was insignificant.
I wasn't just thinking about the bomb project, and I wasn't just thinking about the USA. Although my omission of Russia is hilariously moronic, thanks for pointing that out.
Either you are working with real data or you are not.
And how do you compare the real data to your hypothesis? Cross your fingers, close your eyes and click your heels together three times? Comparison to models is at the heart of all science, especially sciences that depend upon the analysis of large data sets.
There's more research - and money - in a controversy than a settled issue. A lot of climate scientists would be out of the job if all scepticism of global warming suddenly stopped and politicans stopped asking for more and more confirmation of the issue.
Surely some gasoline should be kept around for aesthetic purposes. I once had the pleasure of tearing around in a hot rod at a classic car show and it was like getting my ass kicked by the greatest engineering human kind has ever accomplished. And when everyone else is on hybrids, it'll be even cooler.
Because of this there is also incredible amount of research funding that is allocated to prove Global Warming and if disproved the research funding will stop.
This study would not have been funded if it was considered a settled issue. If there is doubt, there is research, which means more research money.
Your hypothesis is that the world's best climate science researchers all spontaneously had strokes and started doing really bad research for no reason, that all pointed in the same direction? Or you prefer the conspiracy theory scenario?
Not true. A depressingly large part of the climate change denial community still insists it isn't happening at all, and hasn't moved onto "yes, but...".
You know, people point to the second world war as a time when the Western world threw all its intellectual might into solving a single problem, and reaped enormous economic, social, and scientific benefits for decades after the war was over. Maybe this is our moment.
Why did it take them seven years [slashdot.org] (almost exactly to this date) to come to this conclusion?
They were doing first-rate science on an enormous data set? Pulling off a major research project in less time than it takes to train two PhD students is pretty quick by any science's standards, regardless.
To answer your questions, the warming we see is consistent with anthropogenic climate change models, it is going at a rate which requires remedial action within a century, and I have yet to see anyone outside of the lunatic internet fringe claim that climate change is going to kill us all off, Roland Emmerich style.
There is no amount or type of evidence, even in principle, which would answer climate change sceptics. They will disavow the fundimental principles of science if that is what is necessary to protect their beliefs.
Microsoft's page about this project also discusses "Pocket Touch", a capacitive touch panel's that's designed to work through clothing. The idea is that you could have a touch panel on the back of your phone (or whatever) that could respond to gestures while it's still in your pocket.
There's a difference between serving up a food grenade to a patron on request, and encouraging people to commit gastronomic self-harm through an organised contest.
It's not like a police warning or anything, but if you tie up the ambulance service with the culinary equivalent of a testicle-kicking contest, then they're going to ask you to reconsider your plans. Bear in mind that ambulances are a free service in the UK, there's no disincentive to phoning up an ambulance (as opposed to a taxi) if you incapacitate yourself in a hilariously moronic fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that's one of the key issues addressed by the study. Climate scientists have been accounting for that effect pretty much forever, but the authors of the new study were dubious about the way it was handled, so they did their own treatment. They found it was insignificant.
I am making a concession to the, uh, reluctant ones. "Denier" is a very emotionally loaded term, accurate though it may be.
When did data analysis become science?
Forever. There's a reason why CERN has more data storage and processing capabilities than God.
Science is about testing hypothesis
Yes.
with controlled experiments.
No, it isn't, not outside high-school classes.
Where's the control?
What, exactly, is the control for the hypothesis "the Earth's climate is increasing in temperature"?
I wasn't just thinking about the bomb project, and I wasn't just thinking about the USA. Although my omission of Russia is hilariously moronic, thanks for pointing that out.
I read the wrong paper. The caption in the correct article is "Figure 1. Ranking of stations".
The cognative dissonance is delicious.
"Figure 1. Surveyed USHCN surface stations"? The pie chart?
Either you are working with real data or you are not.
And how do you compare the real data to your hypothesis? Cross your fingers, close your eyes and click your heels together three times? Comparison to models is at the heart of all science, especially sciences that depend upon the analysis of large data sets.
There's more research - and money - in a controversy than a settled issue. A lot of climate scientists would be out of the job if all scepticism of global warming suddenly stopped and politicans stopped asking for more and more confirmation of the issue.
Surely some gasoline should be kept around for aesthetic purposes. I once had the pleasure of tearing around in a hot rod at a classic car show and it was like getting my ass kicked by the greatest engineering human kind has ever accomplished. And when everyone else is on hybrids, it'll be even cooler.
Because of this there is also incredible amount of research funding that is allocated to prove Global Warming and if disproved the research funding will stop.
This study would not have been funded if it was considered a settled issue. If there is doubt, there is research, which means more research money.
I would be very surprised if those human pressures pointed everyone in the field in the same direction.
So your idea of the best climate scientists is... people who aren't climate scientists? Who's your doctor, the postman?
And when the papers pass peer review, he'll insist that they didn't meet one of his other criteria for acceptance. And so on and so on.
Your hypothesis is that the world's best climate science researchers all spontaneously had strokes and started doing really bad research for no reason, that all pointed in the same direction? Or you prefer the conspiracy theory scenario?
Not true. A depressingly large part of the climate change denial community still insists it isn't happening at all, and hasn't moved onto "yes, but...".
You know, people point to the second world war as a time when the Western world threw all its intellectual might into solving a single problem, and reaped enormous economic, social, and scientific benefits for decades after the war was over. Maybe this is our moment.
Why did it take them seven years [slashdot.org] (almost exactly to this date) to come to this conclusion?
They were doing first-rate science on an enormous data set? Pulling off a major research project in less time than it takes to train two PhD students is pretty quick by any science's standards, regardless.
To answer your questions, the warming we see is consistent with anthropogenic climate change models, it is going at a rate which requires remedial action within a century, and I have yet to see anyone outside of the lunatic internet fringe claim that climate change is going to kill us all off, Roland Emmerich style.
There is no amount or type of evidence, even in principle, which would answer climate change sceptics. They will disavow the fundimental principles of science if that is what is necessary to protect their beliefs.
Microsoft's page about this project also discusses "Pocket Touch", a capacitive touch panel's that's designed to work through clothing. The idea is that you could have a touch panel on the back of your phone (or whatever) that could respond to gestures while it's still in your pocket.
Interesting medical background to an amusing news story. It's not "research", it's news.
There's a difference between serving up a food grenade to a patron on request, and encouraging people to commit gastronomic self-harm through an organised contest.
It's not like a police warning or anything, but if you tie up the ambulance service with the culinary equivalent of a testicle-kicking contest, then they're going to ask you to reconsider your plans. Bear in mind that ambulances are a free service in the UK, there's no disincentive to phoning up an ambulance (as opposed to a taxi) if you incapacitate yourself in a hilariously moronic fashion.
They don't do it deliberately, as some way of gaining an unfair competitive advantage, which is what you were implying by analogy with EEE.
Unless you think that EEE was an accident, or incompetence?