In other news today...
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Spurious and cherry-picked data show a rise in temperatures.
So do non-cherry-picked data.
... only if you use the "right" models.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
If it were possible to use the "waste" as fuel
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Spurious and cherry-picked data show a rise in temperatures.
So do non-cherry-picked data.
... only if you use the "right" models.
You don't even have to go that far. There are so many various climate models that produce so many different predictions that people can cherry-pick the models they want to get the results that they want.
But, again, they all assume that we have reliable ways of recording broad-scale temperatures across the earth at given moments. If you admit that we can't precisely measure the global temperature, then the accuracy of all of the models is called into question.
Or else the range of predictions for any model is too broad to be useful in any meaningful way.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
But, again, they all assume that we have reliable ways of recording broad-scale temperatures across the earth at given moments. If you admit that we can't precisely measure the global temperature, then the accuracy of all of the models is called into question.
I believe we do. It would seem that all you would need is enough weather-stations around the earth, and I think we do.
But I agree with the rest of what you said.
-
Boston Dynamics are making weird robots again
-
We don't have enough, not even close. Heavily populated affluent areas are well covered, beyond that coverage is very spotty. Oceans have some of the worst coverage and what little we do have is mostly surface level. Oceans have multiple different layers, some of which we are just beginning to understand the roles that they play.
There is also the issue with taking accurate temp data. This can be very difficult to get in many scenarios. Further, there is the issue of instrument drift over time, something that has been found to be very damaging to ocean sensor data in particular.
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@Karla said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Climate change threads are free.
But are they carbon free?
Or at least carbon neutral?
I will sell anyone carbon credits to be used for the creation of new threads.
I will offer one ThreadCoin token to anyone asking who created a new thread with it.
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
But, again, they all assume that we have reliable ways of recording broad-scale temperatures across the earth at given moments. If you admit that we can't precisely measure the global temperature, then the accuracy of all of the models is called into question.
I believe we do. It would seem that all you would need is enough weather-stations around the earth, and I think we do.
But a weather station can measure the weather at only that one point. Go a couple miles away, and the temperature can change by a couple of degrees. Weather satellites might help there, but even their resolution for creating a temperature map can only work so far, and they don't provide 100% coverage over the whole earth, and they can measure only the amount of energy that gets radiated out towards space and guesstimate the actual temperature based on that.
And does the global temperature mean atmospheric, terrestrial, or oceanic temperature? Any two? All three? Do they even correlate consistently? How much does each have on global climate and weather patterns?
I'm just saying that I think it's far too complicated to really be precise enough to make accurate predictions.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Weather satellites might help there, but even their resolution for creating a temperature map can only work so far, and they don't provide 100% coverage over the whole earth
They do pretty well, since the profile of energy output in infrared light corresponds fairly well with temperature. The big problems there are calibration and drift. I guess that's almost one problem…
And does the global temperature mean atmospheric, terrestrial, or oceanic temperature?
Probably mean surface temperature (and the maps of temperature are more useful in this respect; details matter). The determination of the correlations with other notions of temperature that you mention are the things that many PhDs are built out of… and are well known to be highly complex with all sorts of stratification going on.
All of which is stuff you can get by listening to what the climate scientists themselves are saying, and not the journalists trying to make yet another headline to fill up a day's news cycle.
-
@Cursorkeys
I don't get it. I mean, weird robots are obviously cool... but if it's going to use wheels already, why bother with gyros, motors and complicated software to maintain its balance instead of just having another wheel (or a set of wheels on another axle thereof). It's just maddeningly impractical and expensive and technically subpar if we consider traction, clearance, axle load and power loss
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@Cursorkeys
I don't get it. I mean, weird robots are obviously cool... but if it's going to use wheels already, why bother with gyros, motors and complicated software to maintain its balance instead of just having another wheel (or a set of wheels on another axle thereof). It's just maddeningly impractical and expensive and technically subpar if we consider traction, clearance, axle load and power lossThis is a wild guess but; it seems to make great use of momentum, especially the one by the conveyor belt. And the counterbalanced lifting will make that relatively low power, plus only two thin wheels, so low rolling resistance. I wonder if the total efficiency is actually pretty damn high.
If any of that offsets it being highly complex and the maintenance implications then
edit: My only robot experience was designing a classical four-wheel low-CG platform-robot. I used to get it to push filling cabinets round the office for testing. If you disabled the battery current limits then you could sit on top and get it to launch you across the car park at high speed. Brushed motors for the
winlow-speed torque
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Spurious and cherry-picked data show a rise in temperatures.
So do non-cherry-picked data.
... only if you use the "right" models.
You don't even have to go that far.
But that is what you do think, right?
There are so many various climate models that produce so many different predictions that people can cherry-pick the models they want to get the results that they want.
No, that they produce different results doesn’t mean they disagree. It’s similar to what bz posted recently:
They show the same effect, but maybe with some variance in absolute value and degree of certainty.
But, again, they all assume that we have reliable ways of recording broad-scale temperatures across the earth at given moments. If you admit that we can't precisely measure the global temperature, then the accuracy of all of the models is called into question.
Or else the range of predictions for any model is too broad to be useful in any meaningful way.
See above, it’s not too broad to see the effect.
Besides, your argument basically amounts to: even if there were massive climate change we couldn’t measure it.
-
@Cursorkeys said in In other news today...:
Boston Dynamics are making weird robots again
Somebody really, really itched to make an ostrich-bot. On wheels.
-
@GÄ…ska said in In other news today...:
No matter what you do in life, no matter how good you are at it, there's always some Chinese kid that does it better.
Boy, 11, inserts 70 magnetic beads into his penis 'out of curiosity'
The youngster's parents took him to hospital in Hangzhou, east China's Zhejiang province early Monday morning after he suffered from constant pain and difficulty urinating.
Maybe the boy thought it made him more attractive.
Also love the picture where the surgeon does the party trick of pulling the beads out in one chain, I wonder how long he had to try to get them out like that. Maybe he even had to stuff some beads back in a few times to get it right.
Bonus
from the DailyFail editor:In May last year, a 14-year-old toddler [...] had to undergo surgery to remove 21 magnetic beads after swallowing them from a toy.
I guess that toddler didn't want to grow up, must be a huge fan of Peter Pan.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Spurious and cherry-picked data show a rise in temperatures.
So do non-cherry-picked data.
... only if you use the "right" models.
You don't even have to go that far.
But that is what you do think, right?
Well, almost, sort of, but no. And it's irrelevant at this point in the conversation.
There are so many various climate models that produce so many different predictions that people can cherry-pick the models they want to get the results that they want.
No, that they produce different results doesn’t mean they disagree. It’s similar to what bz posted recently:
They show the same effect, but maybe with some variance in absolute value and degree of certainty.
But what do the shapes of the underlying data sets look like? If we have just the statistical significance plot, then the actual data can be "hidden," whether on purpose to present the facts in a misleading way or inadvertently as the researcher tries to simplify the data for non-technical consumption.
To add possible result sets to the above graph:
Or
Each of these data sets could mean very different things, depending on what they're measuring, but they have the same P-charts. It would even help some if the graphs included the standard deviations, because that would help show the shape.
But, again, they all assume that we have reliable ways of recording broad-scale temperatures across the earth at given moments. If you admit that we can't precisely measure the global temperature, then the accuracy of all of the models is called into question.
Or else the range of predictions for any model is too broad to be useful in any meaningful way.
See above, it’s not too broad to see the effect.
Broadly speaking, we can see and measure broad changes. That doesn't negate the fact that a +2°C alteration in the "global temperature" won't necessarily lead to catastrophic climate change. Somewhat cold regions becoming more temperate could cause that sort of change all by itself (and is the most likely sort of warming change), and would mean the earth would be more able to support more life, which would hardly be catastrophic.
Besides, your argument basically amounts to: even if there were massive climate change we couldn’t measure it.
... we couldn't measure it precisely. We may have broadly accurate data, but making specific predictions from broad data is foolhardy.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Each of these data sets could mean very different things, depending on what they're measuring, but they have the same P-charts. It would even help some if the graphs included the standard deviations, because that would help show the shape.
Sure, but they're really unexpected when there are lots of random variables involved, which is true for most times you measure physical things. It's much more likely that you have a binomial distribution or a normal distribution.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Each of these data sets could mean very different things, depending on what they're measuring, but they have the same P-charts. It would even help some if the graphs included the standard deviations, because that would help show the shape.
Sure, but they're really unexpected when there are lots of random variables involved, which is true for most times you measure physical things. It's much more likely that you have a binomial distribution or a normal distribution.
But even with those it would be helpful to see whether the head is shifted left or right (i.e. whether the right or left tail is longer) or remains centered. Something like these:
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
But even with those it would be helpful to see whether the head is shifted left or right (i.e. whether the right or left tail is longer) or remains centered.
Centred (at least to a first approximation) is by far the most likely option. Substantial natural bias in the overall study results requires that the underlying random variables also have an overwhelming bias that way, and that's just not the way that most of the universe seems to work. Noise doesn't act one way only.
The exception to the above is when you're dealing with distributions of a class of event in time, and that's because time itself is one-way. Then you end up with things such as Poisson distributions. (There are others too. This is where I get the mathematician/statistician.) But I don't think that the sorts of studies that you're talking about fall in that class.
You're probably going to be interested in not just the Standard Deviation, but also the Skew and Kurtosis of the distribution.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Spurious and cherry-picked data show a rise in temperatures.
So do non-cherry-picked data.
... only if you use the "right" models.
You don't even have to go that far.
But that is what you do think, right?
Well, almost, sort of, but no. And it's irrelevant at this point in the conversation.
There are so many various climate models that produce so many different predictions that people can cherry-pick the models they want to get the results that they want.
No, that they produce different results doesn’t mean they disagree. It’s similar to what bz posted recently:
They show the same effect, but maybe with some variance in absolute value and degree of certainty.
But what do the shapes of the underlying data sets look like? If we have just the statistical significance plot, then the actual data can be "hidden," whether on purpose to present the facts in a misleading way or inadvertently as the researcher tries to simplify the data for non-technical consumption.
To add possible result sets to the above graph:
Or
Each of these data sets could mean very different things, depending on what they're measuring, but they have the same P-charts. It would even help some if the graphs included the standard deviations, because that would help show the shape.
There usually are such data in the actual scientific reports.
But, again, they all assume that we have reliable ways of recording broad-scale temperatures across the earth at given moments. If you admit that we can't precisely measure the global temperature, then the accuracy of all of the models is called into question.
Or else the range of predictions for any model is too broad to be useful in any meaningful way.
See above, it’s not too broad to see the effect.
Broadly speaking, we can see and measure broad changes. That doesn't negate the fact that a +2°C alteration in the "global temperature" won't necessarily lead to catastrophic climate change.
But now it seems you’ve changed your argument to “there’s an actual rise in temperature but it’s not problematic”, like @boomzilla does, from previously claiming (as I understood it) there’s no rise at all.
Somewhat cold regions becoming more temperate could cause that sort of change all by itself (and is the most likely sort of warming change), and would mean the earth would be more able to support more life, which would hardly be catastrophic.
And already dry/hot regions becoming warmer has the opppsite effect.
Besides, your argument basically amounts to: even if there were massive climate change we couldn’t measure it.
... we couldn't measure it precisely. We may have broadly accurate data, but making specific predictions from broad data is foolhardy.
Depends on your definition of specific. Reading a general trend from it doesn’t seem to qualify. They don’t claim to predict next year’s weather.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Spurious and cherry-picked data show a rise in temperatures.
So do non-cherry-picked data.
... only if you use the "right" models.
You don't even have to go that far.
But that is what you do think, right?
Well, almost, sort of, but no. And it's irrelevant at this point in the conversation.
There are so many various climate models that produce so many different predictions that people can cherry-pick the models they want to get the results that they want.
No, that they produce different results doesn’t mean they disagree. It’s similar to what bz posted recently:
They show the same effect, but maybe with some variance in absolute value and degree of certainty.
But what do the shapes of the underlying data sets look like? If we have just the statistical significance plot, then the actual data can be "hidden," whether on purpose to present the facts in a misleading way or inadvertently as the researcher tries to simplify the data for non-technical consumption.
To add possible result sets to the above graph:
Or
Each of these data sets could mean very different things, depending on what they're measuring, but they have the same P-charts. It would even help some if the graphs included the standard deviations, because that would help show the shape.
There usually are such data in the actual scientific reports.
And it would help if the public reporting would also include at least some of them. People aren't all stupid, and can be taught how to read graphs.
But, again, they all assume that we have reliable ways of recording broad-scale temperatures across the earth at given moments. If you admit that we can't precisely measure the global temperature, then the accuracy of all of the models is called into question.
Or else the range of predictions for any model is too broad to be useful in any meaningful way.
See above, it’s not too broad to see the effect.
Broadly speaking, we can see and measure broad changes. That doesn't negate the fact that a +2°C alteration in the "global temperature" won't necessarily lead to catastrophic climate change.
But now it seems you’ve changed your argument to “there’s an actual rise in temperature but it’s not problematic”, like @boomzilla does, from previously claiming (as I understood it) there’s no rise at all.
No, my argument is that a 2° change falls within the error bars for the measurements and calculations.
Somewhat cold regions becoming more temperate could cause that sort of change all by itself (and is the most likely sort of warming change), and would mean the earth would be more able to support more life, which would hardly be catastrophic.
And already dry/hot regions becoming warmer has the opppsite effect.
Dry/hot regions becoming drier and hotter would also be unlikely to be catastrophic: there are already few things living in such places, and their expansion would be countered by the greater productivity of warming cold regions.
Besides, your argument basically amounts to: even if there were massive climate change we couldn’t measure it.
... we couldn't measure it precisely. We may have broadly accurate data, but making specific predictions from broad data is foolhardy.
Depends on your definition of specific. Reading a general trend from it doesn’t seem to qualify. They don’t claim to predict next year’s weather.
But the thing about a trend is that it can't be used to predict the future. It shows how things have changed in the past, but the trend may reverse at any time in the future.
-
Can we Jeff this out of the news thread yet? It's getting really boring...
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
But now it seems you’ve changed your argument to “there’s an actual rise in temperature but it’s not problematic”, like @boomzilla does, from previously claiming (as I understood it) there’s no rise at all.
I need to parse better because this sentence is difficult for me. Are you saying that I used to say temperature wasn't rising? Because I don't recall saying that and it's not something I believe has happened. Which is to say that I haven't changed my argument, though I have said a variety of things in different ways on this subject.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
But now it seems you’ve changed your argument to “there’s an actual rise in temperature but it’s not problematic”, like @boomzilla does, from previously claiming (as I understood it) there’s no rise at all.
I need to parse better because this sentence is difficult for me. Are you saying that I used to say temperature wasn't rising? Because I don't recall saying that and it's not something I believe has happened. Which is to say that I haven't changed my argument, though I have said a variety of things in different ways on this subject.
No, you said it is rising but it doesn’t matter (even though I’ve first understood you differently, you’ve cleared that up). What I meant to write is that it seemed @djls45 switched his argument in that post there from “doesn’t rise” to your argument of “doesn’t matter”. (In other words, the “like bz” refers to “like your argument”, not “like your switching of arguments”)
Although I’ll better refrain from talking about it any further now since we’ve been boring everyone.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
Although I’ll better refrain from talking about it any further now since we’ve been boring everyone.
Probably for the best. If anyone is interested in continuing the discussion there's a garage topic:
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/20970/fire-climate-change/
...and a salon topic:
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
there's a garage topic
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
...and a salon topic:
I thought so.
-
Brooklyn Landlord Wants To Install Facial Recognition Tech At Rent-Stabilized Complex
A Brooklyn landlord wants to install facial recognition technology at a rent-stabilized complex, raising alarm among housing rights attorneys about a potentially far-reaching form of digital surveillance.
-
@dkf I assume you mean the "Integrated Solar Combined Cycle" behind that link. Otherwise, ERR_NEED_MORE_SPECIFIC.
Still no figures on cold ramp-up time.
Also, why do all posts render like they're answering boomzilla?
Edit: Added details.
-
@acrow said in In other news today...:
Also, why do all posts render like they're answering boomzilla?
Because of $CURRENT_DATE
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Brooklyn Landlord Wants To Install Facial Recognition Tech At Rent-Stabilized Complex
A Brooklyn landlord wants to install facial recognition technology at a rent-stabilized complex, raising alarm among housing rights attorneys about a potentially far-reaching form of digital surveillance.
A landlord wants to throw people out, but can't because they're taking public money? So they start using face-recognition to smoke people out with "erroneous non-recognitions"?
Did I understand that correctly?
-
66 million-year-old deathbed linked to dinosaur-killing meteor - Berkeley News
Fossil site preserves animals killed within minutes of meteor impact
-
@boomzilla The picture is great
-
Duke Whistleblower Gets More Than $33 Million In Research Fraud Settlement
Duke University is paying the U.S. government $112.5 million to settle accusations that it submitted bogus data to win federal research grants.
-
@cvi said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Now reread Genesis 6-9.
Then rewatch Armageddon (1998).
Oooh! I can do this!
Then watch season 1 of The Littlest Hobo…
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@cvi said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Now reread Genesis 6-9.
Then rewatch Armageddon (1998).
Oooh! I can do this!
Then watch season 1 of The Littlest Hobo…
Why not Hobo with a shotgun?
-
Just another day in
brexit deadlockparliament
-
@Carnage said in In other news today...:
Why not Hobo with a shotgun?
Dogs find it hard to use shotguns reliably.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
Just another day in
brexit deadlockparliamentThe bare cheek(s) of it all!
-
It's still not fast enough
Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds | CBC News
A leaked copy of a government report on climate change says that since 1948, Canada's annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 C, with higher rates seen in the North, the Prairies and northern British Columbia.
-
Dubstep artist Skrillex could protect against mosquito bites
Scientists found the song Scary Monsters And Nice Sprites led to mosquitoes attacking hosts less often.
I'm not sure it's worth it. I might prefer to drink some DDT.
-
@boomzilla
it should be possible to reach the same effect with a different genre ... I mean ... there is shitty music enough out their
-
@Luhmann said in In other news today...:
it should be possible to reach the same effect with a different genre
Did you move to Germany? Why do you hate jokes?
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Luhmann said in In other news today...:
it should be possible to reach the same effect with a different genre
Did you move to Germany? Why do you hate jokes?
We don't hate, we exterminate.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
Dubstep artist Skrillex could protect against mosquito bites
Scientists found the song Scary Monsters And Nice Sprites led to mosquitoes attacking hosts less often.
I'm not sure it's worth it. I might prefer to drink some DDT.
I guess the researchers feared missing out on new research grants, otherwise they could have simply titled the paper "Even mosquitoes hate it".
Filed under: Reading articles is
to joking
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
Why do you hate jokes?
Since when are jokes a music genre?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Luhmann said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
Why do you hate jokes?
Since when are jokes a music genre?
Some music genres are jokes at least.
-
The MacBook keyboard fiasco is way worse than Apple thinks
Apple keep insisting that only a “small number of customers have problems” with the MacBook keyboards. That’s bollocks. This is a huge issue, it’s getting worse not better, …
-
@Luhmann said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla
it should be possible to reach the same effect with a different genre ... I mean ... there is shitty music enough out theirSince shit attracts flies, wouldn't the same apply to shitty music?
-
@TimeBandit I tried it once in a shop and even when it's brand new / not broken the new keyboard is unusable. Don't think it makes a difference.
-
This just adds more evidence to my idea that hte late 2011 Macbook Pro was the last good one. User-replaceable 2.5" drive and ram, a keyboard that works properly, it's got everything.
Breeder reactor - Wikipedia
James Heappey on Twitter
