For those too lazy to click, here it is straight from NASA's FAQ
Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.
Q. Can you illustrate the above with a simple example?
A. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.
Q. How can we combine the data of the two stations above in a meaningful way?
A. What may be done before combining those data is to increase the new data or lower the old ones until the two series seem consistent. How much we have to adjust these data may be estimated by comparing the time period with reports from both stations: After the offset, the averages over the common period should be equal. (This is the basis for the GISS method). As new data become available, the offset determined using that method may change. This explains why additional recent data can impact also much earlier data in any regional or global time series.
Another approach is to replace both series by their anomalies with respect to a fixed base period. This is the method used by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. The disadvantage is that stations that did not report during that whole base period cannot be used.
More mathematically complex methods are used by NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC) and the Berkeley Earth Project, but the resulting differences are small.
No doubt man contributes to it, but Solar activity and earth history going back millions of years indicates this is a normal pattern shift.
The temperature seems to be defying its historical link to solar activity. Based on solar activity we should have been seen fairly severe cooling over the last few decades: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
This. We just had a Solar Maximum where you could (and I did) go out and look at the sun (with sun shades!) and see exactly no sun spot. At the maximum. The sun has been very cool lately. If it was at normal levels, global warming would be (very slightly) worse. Of course, the sun's variance is much smaller than the effect CO2 is having anyway.
1934 wasn't a particularly hot year across the globe. It was a very hot year in the United States, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? Science-deniers love 1934, because they love to cherry-pick data.
Here's the original Hocky Stick graph (in dark blue) compared to actual temperature measurements (in red). Keep in mind, this was made in the '80s, and our models are even better now. So, I assume you're done being a skeptic now?
Bwahahaha! Just kidding. I know you're really an ideologue pretending (how could you not be at this point?) to be "skeptical." This won't change anything.
Wow, this is just a long list of completely false claims.
You've been told for 14 years it's going to end? No, it's just going to get really hot, and the truly bad stuff is at least 50 years away. Maybe a century. No one is predicting the world ending in 14 years.
Climate change models are pretty damned good. If anything, they've been underestimating sea level and temperature rise. You're confusing long-term global trends with local weather.
There was a Time magazine article in the 70s about some climate scientists that believed in cooling, and while it wasn't crackpock then, it wasn't the mainstream. Most scientists believed the Earth was warming even then. It was just with a 70% certainty instead of 97%. But man, conspiracy theorists love to trot out that one article and pretend it represented some kind of consensus. Try checking actual literature.
The hockey stick graph has been super acurate. In fact, we're trending along it's "worse case" line.
There's no hiatus, unless you mean that every year doesn't set a new record. Things are getting generally hotter as a trend, though.
Constantly questioning is running experiments, taking measurements, and trying to model the future and see how well it lines up with reality. Scientists are doing that all the time, and the result keeps being that climate scientists are as sure the Earth is warming as biologists are that animals are evolving.
When you deny the evidence, slander the scientists, buy into conspiracy theories, you're not honestly asking questions. You're "questioning" climate science the same way creationists "question" evolution.
It DOES run on Linux and Mac. Full Mono compatibility is coming with the next.Net release, and the next version of ASP.Net breaks dependency on System.Web. Want to create a MVC oe WebApi site that runs on Linux? No problem. They even have a tutorial on MSDN.
What Microsoft doesnâ(TM)t do, the community will be able to do easily, since the new compiler (Roslyn) is open source.
What about people with serious medical conditions that can't get the vaccine (if your immune system has been devastated by chemo, the vaccine isn't really harmless any more)? What about people with bad luck? No vaccine is 100% effective.
Yes, let's not get partisan about the very partisan thing someone did. I mean, even though Democrats controlled the NC legislature for a century before the 2006 elections and the maps weren't particularly gerrymandered then. br>
"Both sides do it" is what cowards say when their side gets caught doing something.
Because to understand how to best fix a problem, you generally have to know what causes it. For instance, if it wasn't man-made, you have to come up with crazy expensive geoengineering projects. If not, hey, maybe installing a bunch more solar panels and wind turbines would help.
Your argument is just deflection from your own ignorance. Also, you
suck at troubleshooting.
That's idiotic. Inflation is normal in a healthy economy. It's just that historically, both pay and prices have increased in tandem. During the Regan administration that changed, and wages started to lag, but lately that divergence has been accelerating.
Inflation is still happening, but wages are stagnant. The issue isn't inflation - again, a little bit is normal and healthy - but lack of wage inflation.
Really? So, Anonymous Coward knows better than NASA and NOAA and the UN Panel on Cliamate Change? Oh, wait, maybe you don't have any f-ing clue what you're talking about, and the effects of Man-made climate change are radically different than natural variation.
Here's the thing, as you post on Slashdot, I'm going to assume you troubleshoot problems. Maybe it's network infrastructure, maybe it's software, maybe it's server administration. I don't know. But, do you really consider a problem "fixed" if you don't know the cause? If errors are getting thrown everywhere, do you apply band-aid fixes that "seem to work" but you don't know why? I do know those guys. You know what? They're fucking terrible at their jobs. Real troubleshooting is learning the root cause and fixing it. Even if you can't fix the root error directly, if you don't have a real understanding of it, you never know if your band-aids are gong to work.
When someone says "well who cares if it's man-made" or "it's really the alarmists that are the problem" or whatever, it's just another attempt to sow doubt on a model that is just as predictive as Evolution. It matters what caused it, because that influences how you fix it - for instance, if it's man-made, moving off coal power plants to solar, nuclear, wind, etc, is a huge help. So get a clue, stop sticking your head in the sand and changing the subject, and realize that man-made climate change is radically different than natural variation. Idiot.
Don't forget ideology. Get ready to read a bunch of posts from people who pride themselves on being scientific, but reject a theory that enjoys more support in climatology than the Standard Model does in physics. Just because they're conservative and it would be inconvenient for their politics.
The thing about those kind of stereotypes is, just as TFA mentioned, women absorb them too. "Women are bad at math." "Women are catty with each other." And so on. When a woman buys into them, yet don't she doesn't see herself this way, she may consciously or unconsciously seeks to set herself apart and say "I'm not like other women!"
Then they become the person that a sexist guy cites as his "female friend" that backs up his sexist theories that get perpetuated to the next generation.
I completely agree, except the part where you said she wouldn't get quite as many accolades. She wrote the first compiler. That's fucking seminal! Who else can claim a first that big?
Oh my God, your friend says he got yelled at one time by an IRS agent for deducting something he shouldn't have, and then completely ignored the IRS and still didn't pay it? WHAT MONSTERS.
I don't think I understand your point. How is anybody being denied "academic freedom?" Who is stopping these PhDs from studying whatever they want? Or by academic freedom do you mean "the freedom to make somebody else pay them for their studies?"
This isn't a dig, I really feel like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle because I just don't get the outrage, particularly with this statement: "The idea of academic freedom being available only to those who have already made their most significant contribution (and therefore get tenure which is supposed to provide academic freedom) is an idea that needs to be discussed. It is a problem." If I only have a small pool of money to pay tenured professors, why wouldn't I want to select the ones that have proven themselves?
This is generally done by the same people who use the term "elites" derisively. There's a culture - often promulgated by Libertarians - that people who aren't directly enhancing some corporation's bottom line somewhere don't deserve recognition or respect. The fact is, someone who has made significant contributions to their field deserves some job security.
It's not that these naysayers have a better system for who deserves tenure (or, if they want to eliminate tenure altogether, a tenure-like protection from Administrative whims). They don't want anyone to have such protections, because then scientists who tell inconvenient truths about politics or science ("Hey, did you know Climate Change might be a problem?) can be easily silenced by politically or corporate-backed powers.
Is the tenure system perfect? God, no, but what system involving human pecking order is? But it's pretty good, actually, for the most part! They're a reason the western-style educational system has been rocking it hardcore for hundreds of years now. And the fact is, the attack on professors, tenure, and the scientific elites in general is mostly coming from the corners that are trying to tear down science as an edifice in general.
There are many career paths, such as professional sports or marketers. But let's use a really inflammatory example to belittle higher education yet again.
Slashdot Mirror
more than climate change ever will.
As opposed to the people changing the climate now with no code of ethics?
Q. Why can't we use just raw data?
A. Just averaging the raw data would give results that are highly dependent on the particular locations (latitude and elevation) and reporting periods of the actual weather stations; such results would mostly reflect those accidental circumstances rather than yield meaningful information about our climate.
Q. Can you illustrate the above with a simple example?
A. Assume, e.g., that a station at the bottom of a mountain sent in reports continuously starting in 1880 and assume that a station was built near the top of that mountain and started reporting in 1900. Since those new temperatures are much lower than the temperatures from the station in the valley, averaging the two temperature series would create a substantial temperature drop starting in 1900.
Q. How can we combine the data of the two stations above in a meaningful way?
A. What may be done before combining those data is to increase the new data or lower the old ones until the two series seem consistent. How much we have to adjust these data may be estimated by comparing the time period with reports from both stations: After the offset, the averages over the common period should be equal. (This is the basis for the GISS method). As new data become available, the offset determined using that method may change. This explains why additional recent data can impact also much earlier data in any regional or global time series.
Another approach is to replace both series by their anomalies with respect to a fixed base period. This is the method used by the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. The disadvantage is that stations that did not report during that whole base period cannot be used.
More mathematically complex methods are used by NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC) and the Berkeley Earth Project, but the resulting differences are small.
No doubt man contributes to it, but Solar activity and earth history going back millions of years indicates this is a normal pattern shift.
The temperature seems to be defying its historical link to solar activity. Based on solar activity we should have been seen fairly severe cooling over the last few decades: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
This. We just had a Solar Maximum where you could (and I did) go out and look at the sun (with sun shades!) and see exactly no sun spot. At the maximum. The sun has been very cool lately. If it was at normal levels, global warming would be (very slightly) worse. Of course, the sun's variance is much smaller than the effect CO2 is having anyway.
1934 wasn't a particularly hot year across the globe. It was a very hot year in the United States, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? Science-deniers love 1934, because they love to cherry-pick data.
But... but... all the science-deniers keep telling me there's been a "pause" in global warming, and ask me to explain it!
Here's the original Hocky Stick graph (in dark blue) compared to actual temperature measurements (in red). Keep in mind, this was made in the '80s, and our models are even better now. So, I assume you're done being a skeptic now?
Bwahahaha! Just kidding. I know you're really an ideologue pretending (how could you not be at this point?) to be "skeptical." This won't change anything.
Fate is not the same as survival. Global warming will seriously impact how humanity lives in 100 or 200 years.
Constantly questioning is running experiments, taking measurements, and trying to model the future and see how well it lines up with reality. Scientists are doing that all the time, and the result keeps being that climate scientists are as sure the Earth is warming as biologists are that animals are evolving.
When you deny the evidence, slander the scientists, buy into conspiracy theories, you're not honestly asking questions. You're "questioning" climate science the same way creationists "question" evolution.
It DOES run on Linux and Mac. Full Mono compatibility is coming with the next .Net release, and the next version of ASP .Net breaks dependency on System.Web. Want to create a MVC oe WebApi site that runs on Linux? No problem. They even have a tutorial on MSDN.
What Microsoft doesnâ(TM)t do, the community will be able to do easily, since the new compiler (Roslyn) is open source.
Dysfunctional congress forces NASA to build something it doesn't need. Journalist blames NASA for dysfunction. Media is full of idiots.
I can't tell if he's serious or not.
What about people with serious medical conditions that can't get the vaccine (if your immune system has been devastated by chemo, the vaccine isn't really harmless any more)? What about people with bad luck? No vaccine is 100% effective.
Uber is "ride sharing" the same way hiring a carpenter is "hammer sharing."
Yes, let's not get partisan about the very partisan thing someone did. I mean, even though Democrats controlled the NC legislature for a century before the 2006 elections and the maps weren't particularly gerrymandered then.
br> "Both sides do it" is what cowards say when their side gets caught doing something.
Because to understand how to best fix a problem, you generally have to know what causes it. For instance, if it wasn't man-made, you have to come up with crazy expensive geoengineering projects. If not, hey, maybe installing a bunch more solar panels and wind turbines would help. Your argument is just deflection from your own ignorance. Also, you suck at troubleshooting.
That's idiotic. Inflation is normal in a healthy economy. It's just that historically, both pay and prices have increased in tandem. During the Regan administration that changed, and wages started to lag, but lately that divergence has been accelerating. Inflation is still happening, but wages are stagnant. The issue isn't inflation - again, a little bit is normal and healthy - but lack of wage inflation.
Did the study account for the fact that those states already were adding jobs faster than the other states?
Yes. RTFA.
Really? So, Anonymous Coward knows better than NASA and NOAA and the UN Panel on Cliamate Change? Oh, wait, maybe you don't have any f-ing clue what you're talking about, and the effects of Man-made climate change are radically different than natural variation.
Here's the thing, as you post on Slashdot, I'm going to assume you troubleshoot problems. Maybe it's network infrastructure, maybe it's software, maybe it's server administration. I don't know. But, do you really consider a problem "fixed" if you don't know the cause? If errors are getting thrown everywhere, do you apply band-aid fixes that "seem to work" but you don't know why? I do know those guys. You know what? They're fucking terrible at their jobs. Real troubleshooting is learning the root cause and fixing it. Even if you can't fix the root error directly, if you don't have a real understanding of it, you never know if your band-aids are gong to work.
When someone says "well who cares if it's man-made" or "it's really the alarmists that are the problem" or whatever, it's just another attempt to sow doubt on a model that is just as predictive as Evolution. It matters what caused it, because that influences how you fix it - for instance, if it's man-made, moving off coal power plants to solar, nuclear, wind, etc, is a huge help. So get a clue, stop sticking your head in the sand and changing the subject, and realize that man-made climate change is radically different than natural variation. Idiot.
Don't forget ideology. Get ready to read a bunch of posts from people who pride themselves on being scientific, but reject a theory that enjoys more support in climatology than the Standard Model does in physics. Just because they're conservative and it would be inconvenient for their politics.
The thing about those kind of stereotypes is, just as TFA mentioned, women absorb them too. "Women are bad at math." "Women are catty with each other." And so on. When a woman buys into them, yet don't she doesn't see herself this way, she may consciously or unconsciously seeks to set herself apart and say "I'm not like other women!"
Then they become the person that a sexist guy cites as his "female friend" that backs up his sexist theories that get perpetuated to the next generation.
I completely agree, except the part where you said she wouldn't get quite as many accolades. She wrote the first compiler. That's fucking seminal! Who else can claim a first that big?
Oh my God, your friend says he got yelled at one time by an IRS agent for deducting something he shouldn't have, and then completely ignored the IRS and still didn't pay it? WHAT MONSTERS.
This is generally done by the same people who use the term "elites" derisively. There's a culture - often promulgated by Libertarians - that people who aren't directly enhancing some corporation's bottom line somewhere don't deserve recognition or respect. The fact is, someone who has made significant contributions to their field deserves some job security.
It's not that these naysayers have a better system for who deserves tenure (or, if they want to eliminate tenure altogether, a tenure-like protection from Administrative whims). They don't want anyone to have such protections, because then scientists who tell inconvenient truths about politics or science ("Hey, did you know Climate Change might be a problem?) can be easily silenced by politically or corporate-backed powers.
Is the tenure system perfect? God, no, but what system involving human pecking order is? But it's pretty good, actually, for the most part! They're a reason the western-style educational system has been rocking it hardcore for hundreds of years now. And the fact is, the attack on professors, tenure, and the scientific elites in general is mostly coming from the corners that are trying to tear down science as an edifice in general.
There are many career paths, such as professional sports or marketers. But let's use a really inflammatory example to belittle higher education yet again.