Why wouldn't you think a widening of the range of uncertainty to be a retreat?
First, because that's not what the article claimed.
Second, because you are comparing the word explanations of the statistical analysis. (Actually not even that-- you are comparing a "leaked" paraphrasing of the word explanation of the statistical analysis). As the summary says:
"Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.'"
Comparison is more than merely "difficult"-- it is impossible. Unless you know precisely what was actually in the report, and what the actual actual statistics are, you can't compare them.
I'm finding it hard to see what the change is here.
The old number was that the doubling sensitivity was most likely to be in the range 2 C-to-4.5 C. Specifically: "we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2C to 4.5C, with a most likely value of about 3C." (reference: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html#box-10-2 )
This report-- if the leaked version is accurate-- is that it's "'likely' to be above 1.5 degrees C, 'very likely' to be below 6 degrees C". That's not a "reduction" or a "retreat"-- it is, at best, a slightly higher range. But since, as the summary says, "Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.," I don't see that there's any clear change at all-- just different wording.
Putting dissimilar metals connected by external conductive path in an electrolyte will cause current flow.
Exactly. The wine isn't "powering" the microprocessor. It's the electrolyte. The battery is powered by the electron transfer reaction between the two metals of different oxidation potential.
"the Salem Witch Trials of 1692-1693, the most widely recognized episode of mass hysteria in history, which ultimately saw the hanging deaths of 20 women..."
Yes, that's very peculiar.
Apparently George Burroughs, John Willard, George Jacobs, Sr., John Proctor, Samuel Wardwell, Giles Corey, and Roger Toothaker-- the men killed in the Salem witch hysteria-- aren't worth mentioning, because it's expected that people will only get angry about injustice if the victims are women?
Ah yea, just because the temperatures in May in the south broke all cold records and it actually snowed in May is no reason to believe that the heat their Atari said was coming now for decades is not on its way.
Correct. A single cold month in the south of England is not indicative of global climate either way.
Repeat this to yourself until you understand it: Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate.
One cold May in the south of X, one warm winter on the plains of Y, one cold winter in the mountains of Z, one rainier-than-average monsoon in central W: none of these have statistical significance. It is the long-term sum of all of these that is significant.
I am equally annoyed by the people who declaim that every hot summer means global warming must be true as I am by the people who shout that every cold summer means that global warming must be a hoax. They are both equally wrong.
Anecdote is not data. Your backyard is not the global average. Local weather is not global climate.
Dude, the data certainly does not support warming either. At 95% the data can support BOTH, you just believe ONE SIDE.
Over a time period of decades-- which is the time scale of relevance-- I see clear warming: a rise of about 0.6C in global temperature over the last 50 years. So, no, I disagree. I'd say "the data supports warming" quite clearly and unambiguously.
...Honestly one 30Kiloton bomb on whatever city we think that scumbag running Syria is and the whole thing is over. AS soon as it drops, we need to make a world brodcast where the president says only one sentence...
"That is what happens when you fuck with us."
Uh, they're not fucking with us. We have no dog in this fight. They're basically killing each other.
Yep. That's called "dendroclimatic modelling." It is, indeed, one of the best means we have to trying to understand the climate of the past in temperate latitudes (at arctic latitudes, ice cores are a good tool).
At least this article is somewhat accurate by using words like "influence" and "contributing factor"...yes, please, tell us what the other contributing factors and influences are.
Depends on time scale. Over short time scales, volcanic eruptions injecting aerosols into the atmosphere are a big factor. (Aerosols injected by humans have an effect too, of course.) Over longer time scales, Milankovitch cycles.
I would not seriously characterize this as "the earth has been cooling for the past decade." Most notably, the increase in temperature observed from the 1960s has not reversed.
Our planet has gone through intense weather and drastic climate change long before we were here and will do so long after were gone..
Right. Human-induced climate change is not instead of other factors that change the climate; it is in addition to other factors that change the climate.
The most significant effect humans have is blaming it on shit (carbon, pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin, etc.).
This is not merely silly, but deliberately stupid. Or, more accurately, straw man. Nobody is "blaming pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin."
I have no patience with deliberate stupidity.
and then hocking horseshit to morons to fix it (carbon credits,
Now, you are really mixing different things. Understanding the causes of climate variation, and realizing that the human effect on climate pretty much matches what would be expected from the greenhouse effect models, is completely independent of what, if any, response should be taken to mitigate that effect.
regulations that don't affect the gross emitters of the world, divining rods, sacrifices, crusades, circumcision, rain dances, etc.)
Ah, back to sarcasm and deliberate stupidity.
without any actual evidence that the problem is due to their claimed cause,
Last time I checked, nineteen different global climate models are being run by groups on four continents. They pretty much all agree on the overall effect of carbon dioxide on climate, although the details vary somewhat. Which should be pretty non-controversial, since the basic physics is well understood. There are no climate models being run by any groups on any continent that don't show the effect.
that the problem is fixable by us, or that their proposed solution will fix the problem.
Again: a completely different question. You don't have to deny the basic physics of climate in order to ask whether proposed solutions will work. The argument "I don't like the solutions proposed, so therefore the problem does not exist" is not a good argument.
In fact, the opposite seem to be true-- there has been so much useless debate spent on arguing against idiots who want to deny the science that any debate about the cost, benefit, and efficacy of solutions has been completely short circuited. If you think that it is a valuable debate to ask what proposed solutions would cost, and whether they would work at all, it would be useful to actually do that debate, instead of the "none of the actual scientists knows anything, they're all in on a global hoax."
Imagine a game where you can choose between two options: A - Try to move up: 1/5 you move up. 4/5 times you go down. B - Try to stay: 3/5 you stay. 2/5 you move down.
In such a game, to place yourself in front, a good strategy is to try to move up until you reach a certain point where you're the first and then stay there, forcing everyone else to risk moving up.
If the "up" and "down" motions are equal in magnitude, then you lose 0.6 per turn in strategy A, and 0.4 per turn in strategy B. Clearly strategy "A" is the optimum one to maximize your return: to place yourself in front you chose strategy A, and gain the front position because every player who doesn't goes down faster than you do.
There's a limited amount of people with a limited amount of money. It's not important how far ahead you are but whether you're the first one.
OK, now it gets more interesting. Say that there are N players, only one can win, and you want to optimize the chance of winning after K moves. Now everybody is sliding down, but you can take a gamble on strategy A. It's a losing bet, on the average, but if you're already losing, the incremental cost is zero. So you take strategy A if and only if you're behind.
The limited amount of money changes the game slightly: now there is an absorbing boundary condition at the bottom-- e.g., you go bankrupt (and thus can take no more moves) when you hit a score of, say, -10. (Of course, the game is set so everybody goes bankrupt if you play long enough, so this is only interesting if the game stops after K plays.) This penalized risk taking even more, and pushes you toward strategy B, holding back, and letting all the people fighting for first with Strategy A go bankrupt.
Having seem what sites get blocked, I'll agree with "bogus".
For a long time I couldn't get to the JPL Mars Exploration website, because of three letters in the middle of its URL (which used to be marsexploration.jpl.nasa.gov).
And as for trying to access the old physics preprint server (since renamed to ArXiv): xxx.lanl.gov -- forget it. (I hate to say what autocorrect just tried to corect "lanl" to...)
This reminds me of the 1980s, when the editorials were dire complaints about the shortage of physicists in the US, while all the physicists I knew who were earning Ph.D.s were asking "where are all these purported jobs?"
Wow, return of the acoustic modem. That really is a trip back in time. Was cutting-edge technology, back in the era of blinking-light consoles, when telephones were hardwired into the wall.
someone will attempt to game it in some way to defraud or otherwise deceive others for personal gain.
You understand libertarian capitalism perfectly.
There's nothing wrong with doing business. Scamming occurs when one party in the negotiation (could be solicitor in some cases, but more often is the customer) leaves the exchange feeling jilted, decieved so as to give one party unfair advantage, or outright robbed. Any business exchange where one party is not completely honest is suspect.
Exactly. Free markets work well under the right conditions, but one of the things needed for free markets to be effective is an absence of widespread deceit.
So as long as you aren't aware you're being swindled by externalized costs, it's just fine. Yes.
Externalized costs are another way in which free markets fail to work well. Basically, if somebody can offload their cost, so that they get the benefits and somebody else pays the cost, the market is no longer efficient.
The summary is a little misleading, it quotes a "peak" of fake accounts being "60 percent of the total new Twitter accounts," but leaves out the part of the article saying that over the 10-month study, the average was fake accounts were only "about 20 percent of new Twitter account created."
TFA also stated:
The scammers had a "thorough" understanding of Twitter’s anti-scam account protections, the researchers said, allowing them to create a well-oiled and stable underground market. "Our findings show that merchants thoroughly understand Twitter’s existing defenses against automated registration, and as a result can generate thousands of accounts with little disruption in availability or instability in pricing."
So I see no reason to think that, once a new "signature system" is put in place to cut down scam accounts, the scammers won't understand that and develop work-arounds as well.
Talking about what? The article is about "a contest gone wrong at LG's G2 release event." So, apparently one two-letter acronym was releasing another two-letter acronym. I don't even know what country this event was in. It does quote "El Reg," so I assume it's Spanish-speaking.
Am I the only one who finds this truly frightning; that the photocopier has a bug in a sub system that is basically reading the content of the documents being photocopied?
Yes, you should find that frightening. That's not new, though, pretty much all photocopiers these days don't actually "photocopy" the document, they scan it to memory and then print the scan. Your documents are saved to memory on the photocopier. Yep, that's a security flaw.
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouldn't you think a widening of the range of uncertainty to be a retreat?
First, because that's not what the article claimed.
Second, because you are comparing the word explanations of the statistical analysis. (Actually not even that-- you are comparing a "leaked" paraphrasing of the word explanation of the statistical analysis). As the summary says:
"Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.'"
Comparison is more than merely "difficult"-- it is impossible. Unless you know precisely what was actually in the report, and what the actual actual statistics are, you can't compare them.
I'm finding it hard to see what the change is here.
The old number was that the doubling sensitivity was most likely to be in the range 2 C-to-4.5 C. Specifically:
"we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2C to 4.5C, with a most likely value of about 3C."
(reference: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html#box-10-2 )
This report-- if the leaked version is accurate-- is that it's "'likely' to be above 1.5 degrees C, 'very likely' to be below 6 degrees C".
That's not a "reduction" or a "retreat"-- it is, at best, a slightly higher range. But since, as the summary says, "Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.," I don't see that there's any clear change at all-- just different wording.
This is spin-- there isn't be anything new here.
No. No. It wasn't the electolyte, it was the electrons!
The word "it" refers to "wine." The wine is the electrolyte.
Putting dissimilar metals connected by external conductive path in an electrolyte will cause current flow.
Exactly. The wine isn't "powering" the microprocessor. It's the electrolyte. The battery is powered by the electron transfer reaction between the two metals of different oxidation potential.
http://www.how-things-work-science-projects.com/lemon-battery.html#lemon_battery
I had to zoom the screen to 150% to verify that the first po was followed by m, and the second by rn.
"the Salem Witch Trials of 1692-1693, the most widely recognized episode of mass hysteria in history, which ultimately saw the hanging deaths of 20 women..."
Yes, that's very peculiar.
Apparently George Burroughs, John Willard, George Jacobs, Sr., John Proctor, Samuel Wardwell, Giles Corey, and Roger Toothaker-- the men killed in the Salem witch hysteria-- aren't worth mentioning, because it's expected that people will only get angry about injustice if the victims are women?
Here's what the Tesla site says:
http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas
Here's the Dallas Observer's discussion:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/tesla_crushed_by_car_dealer_lo.php
And Auto News:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20130909/RETAIL07/130909878/how-texas-dealers-slammed-the-door-on-tesla
Yes to bad-terrain; no to bad weather.
The real killer to the age of the Zeppelin wasn't the Hindenberg; it was the continuing series of crashes of airships due to bad weather.
Zeppelins are fair-weather flyers.
(with that said, however, with modern weather satellites and predictions, this would be much less of a problem than it was in the 1930s)
""After a 70-year absence, it appears that a new rigid frame airship will soon be taking to the skies over California..."
No, not a 70 year absence: a ten month absence. Zeppelin "Eureka" was flying over California from 2008 to 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship_Ventures
--couldn't make enough money flying sightseeing cruises to pay its way, alas
http://mountainview.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/airship-ventures-says-goodbye
Ah yea, just because the temperatures in May in the south broke all cold records and it actually snowed in May is no reason to believe that the heat their Atari said was coming now for decades is not on its way.
Correct. A single cold month in the south of England is not indicative of global climate either way.
Repeat this to yourself until you understand it: Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate.
One cold May in the south of X, one warm winter on the plains of Y, one cold winter in the mountains of Z, one rainier-than-average monsoon in central W: none of these have statistical significance. It is the long-term sum of all of these that is significant.
I am equally annoyed by the people who declaim that every hot summer means global warming must be true as I am by the people who shout that every cold summer means that global warming must be a hoax. They are both equally wrong.
Anecdote is not data. Your backyard is not the global average. Local weather is not global climate.
Look at the data, not your backyard.
Here is that NASA data you're referring to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ [nasa.gov]
or here, comparing various data sets:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/0/h/compare_datasets_new.jpg [metoffice.gov.uk]
I would not seriously characterize this as "the earth has been cooling for the past decade." Most notably, the increase in temperature observed from the 1960s has not reversed.
Here, from the BEST project, is the comparison of theory and data:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-with-forcing-small.png [berkeleyearth.org]
Dude, the data certainly does not support warming either. At 95% the data can support BOTH, you just believe ONE SIDE.
Over a time period of decades-- which is the time scale of relevance-- I see clear warming: a rise of about 0.6C in global temperature over the last 50 years. So, no, I disagree. I'd say "the data supports warming" quite clearly and unambiguously.
...Honestly one 30Kiloton bomb on whatever city we think that scumbag running Syria is and the whole thing is over. AS soon as it drops, we need to make a world brodcast where the president says only one sentence...
"That is what happens when you fuck with us."
Uh, they're not fucking with us. We have no dog in this fight. They're basically killing each other.
Yep. That's called "dendroclimatic modelling." It is, indeed, one of the best means we have to trying to understand the climate of the past in temperate latitudes (at arctic latitudes, ice cores are a good tool).
At least this article is somewhat accurate by using words like "influence" and "contributing factor"...yes, please, tell us what the other contributing factors and influences are.
Depends on time scale. Over short time scales, volcanic eruptions injecting aerosols into the atmosphere are a big factor. (Aerosols injected by humans have an effect too, of course.) Over longer time scales, Milankovitch cycles.
Here is that NASA data you're referring to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
or here, comparing various data sets:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/0/h/compare_datasets_new.jpg
I would not seriously characterize this as "the earth has been cooling for the past decade." Most notably, the increase in temperature observed from the 1960s has not reversed.
Here, from the BEST project, is the comparison of theory and data:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-with-forcing-small.png
You are mixing up different things.
Our planet has gone through intense weather and drastic climate change long before we were here and will do so long after were gone..
Right. Human-induced climate change is not instead of other factors that change the climate; it is in addition to other factors that change the climate.
The most significant effect humans have is blaming it on shit (carbon, pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin, etc.).
This is not merely silly, but deliberately stupid. Or, more accurately, straw man. Nobody is "blaming pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin."
I have no patience with deliberate stupidity.
and then hocking horseshit to morons to fix it (carbon credits,
Now, you are really mixing different things. Understanding the causes of climate variation, and realizing that the human effect on climate pretty much matches what would be expected from the greenhouse effect models, is completely independent of what, if any, response should be taken to mitigate that effect.
regulations that don't affect the gross emitters of the world, divining rods, sacrifices, crusades, circumcision, rain dances, etc.)
Ah, back to sarcasm and deliberate stupidity.
without any actual evidence that the problem is due to their claimed cause,
Last time I checked, nineteen different global climate models are being run by groups on four continents. They pretty much all agree on the overall effect of carbon dioxide on climate, although the details vary somewhat. Which should be pretty non-controversial, since the basic physics is well understood. There are no climate models being run by any groups on any continent that don't show the effect.
that the problem is fixable by us, or that their proposed solution will fix the problem.
Again: a completely different question. You don't have to deny the basic physics of climate in order to ask whether proposed solutions will work. The argument "I don't like the solutions proposed, so therefore the problem does not exist" is not a good argument.
In fact, the opposite seem to be true-- there has been so much useless debate spent on arguing against idiots who want to deny the science that any debate about the cost, benefit, and efficacy of solutions has been completely short circuited. If you think that it is a valuable debate to ask what proposed solutions would cost, and whether they would work at all, it would be useful to actually do that debate, instead of the "none of the actual scientists knows anything, they're all in on a global hoax."
All I can say about global warming is that when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age.
No, they weren't. Nobody was ever seriously predicting we were heading into an ice age. That "next ice age" played well in the media-- it made Time and Newsweek--but it was never a scientific consensus. Check out "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus" in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or the discussion and links here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/18/now-out-in-bams-the-myth-of-th/
Imagine a game where you can choose between two options:
A - Try to move up: 1/5 you move up. 4/5 times you go down.
B - Try to stay: 3/5 you stay. 2/5 you move down.
In such a game, to place yourself in front, a good strategy is to try to move up until you reach a certain point where you're the first and then stay there, forcing everyone else to risk moving up.
If the "up" and "down" motions are equal in magnitude, then you lose 0.6 per turn in strategy A, and 0.4 per turn in strategy B. Clearly strategy "A" is the optimum one to maximize your return: to place yourself in front you chose strategy A, and gain the front position because every player who doesn't goes down faster than you do.
There's a limited amount of people with a limited amount of money. It's not important how far ahead you are but whether you're the first one.
OK, now it gets more interesting. Say that there are N players, only one can win, and you want to optimize the chance of winning after K moves. Now everybody is sliding down, but you can take a gamble on strategy A. It's a losing bet, on the average, but if you're already losing, the incremental cost is zero. So you take strategy A if and only if you're behind.
The limited amount of money changes the game slightly: now there is an absorbing boundary condition at the bottom-- e.g., you go bankrupt (and thus can take no more moves) when you hit a score of, say, -10. (Of course, the game is set so everybody goes bankrupt if you play long enough, so this is only interesting if the game stops after K plays.) This penalized risk taking even more, and pushes you toward strategy B, holding back, and letting all the people fighting for first with Strategy A go bankrupt.
Having seem what sites get blocked, I'll agree with "bogus".
For a long time I couldn't get to the JPL Mars Exploration website, because of three letters in the middle of its URL (which used to be marsexploration.jpl.nasa.gov).
And as for trying to access the old physics preprint server (since renamed to ArXiv): xxx.lanl.gov -- forget it.
(I hate to say what autocorrect just tried to corect "lanl" to...)
This reminds me of the 1980s, when the editorials were dire complaints about the shortage of physicists in the US, while all the physicists I knew who were earning Ph.D.s were asking "where are all these purported jobs?"
If you had actually read the article, you would have noticed that he's not Islamic, and not an Arab.
Wow, return of the acoustic modem. That really is a trip back in time. Was cutting-edge technology, back in the era of blinking-light consoles, when telephones were hardwired into the wall.
Ah, nostalgia for the tech of yore.
someone will attempt to game it in some way to defraud or otherwise deceive others for personal gain.
You understand libertarian capitalism perfectly.
There's nothing wrong with doing business. Scamming occurs when one party in the negotiation (could be solicitor in some cases, but more often is the customer) leaves the exchange feeling jilted, decieved so as to give one party unfair advantage, or outright robbed. Any business exchange where one party is not completely honest is suspect.
Exactly. Free markets work well under the right conditions, but one of the things needed for free markets to be effective is an absence of widespread deceit.
So as long as you aren't aware you're being swindled by externalized costs, it's just fine. Yes.
Externalized costs are another way in which free markets fail to work well. Basically, if somebody can offload their cost, so that they get the benefits and somebody else pays the cost, the market is no longer efficient.
The summary is a little misleading, it quotes a "peak" of fake accounts being "60 percent of the total new Twitter accounts," but leaves out the part of the article saying that over the 10-month study, the average was fake accounts were only "about 20 percent of new Twitter account created."
TFA also stated:
So I see no reason to think that, once a new "signature system" is put in place to cut down scam accounts, the scammers won't understand that and develop work-arounds as well.
Well, it got you talking about him
Yes, people are talking about him. So?
Talking about what? The article is about "a contest gone wrong at LG's G2 release event." So, apparently one two-letter acronym was releasing another two-letter acronym. I don't even know what country this event was in. It does quote "El Reg," so I assume it's Spanish-speaking.
Stupid acronyms.
Am I the only one who finds this truly frightning; that the photocopier has a bug in a sub system that is basically reading the content of the documents being photocopied?
Yes, you should find that frightening. That's not new, though, pretty much all photocopiers these days don't actually "photocopy" the document, they scan it to memory and then print the scan. Your documents are saved to memory on the photocopier. Yep, that's a security flaw.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/digital-copier-security-461009
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-6412439.html
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=60313