Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:Glass half-empty (154 comments)

Not sure why you decided to quote half a sentence, instead of the whole sentence, unless you wanted to burn a strawman by quoting me out of context to change the meaning of what I said. If you have some other intent, then I'm all ears.

What I said was:

To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.

This is in response to the OP's assertion that the boundaries of our push into space are actually defined by how far our physical bodies have travelled - which is an absurdity. To suggest that the discoveries of Voyager, Pioneer, Spirit and Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens are somehow trivial because they didn't happen to contain any meat is deeply insulting: insulting to us as humans. The presence of meat, or lack thereof is an arbitrary scale for judging achievement. If you don't think this scale is arbitrary, if you don't think the O.P's comment was absurd, then explain why. Don't burn strawman.

yesterday
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:Glass half-empty (154 comments)

It's not embarrassing to apply machines as all.... as you say,

I would like to fly to New York...

Or...

.

I would like to travel into space.

That's what I said.

The fact that we are ill adapted to survive in space should be no more of a justification that we shouldn't go there than the fact that we are unable to fly without machines should be a justification to never get into an aircraft.

That's what I said. Just because our physical limitations prevent us from bodily travelling any significant distance through space, doesn't mean that we should not go further than those physical limitations practically allow. We just need to accept that, like ploughing is best performed by machines, so travelling in space is best done by machines. Thus: the term "we travelled to Jupiter" or "we landed on Titan" does not imply that our physical bodies are located near Jupiter nor on Titan, anymore than saying "I ploughed my field" implies that I did so with your hands, or saying "I flew to New York" requires me to have flown there using my arms.

Really.... did I have to explain this twice?

You didn't need to explain it at all. I have a clear memory of what I said.

yesterday
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:Glass half-empty (154 comments)

You complain about strawmen, then string together a strawman of your own. Nobody is suggesting that humans need to travel to Titan.

Except for the OP whose views you irrationally decided to defend, despite (apparently) not agreeing with them. Here the OP said (quote) The next manned lunar landing will not be so much for scientific exploration there as much as to start laying the foundations for stepping further into space. implying that our efforts stepping further into space: New Horizons, Voyager, Cassini Huygens, travelling to Pluto, Mercury, Jupiter, Titan - even to the edges of the solar system itself somehow don't count as "stepping into space". What an absurdity.

Your statement was absurd, and my parody illustrated it's absurdity. Our unsuitability to space is entirely irrelevant. You're right in pointing out that there are many aspects of space exploration which are best done by machines; you're completely wrong when you take that idea and present it as an absolute for why no human should ever go into space.

Thanks again for burning the strawman.

yesterday
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:Glass half-empty (154 comments)

But who is suggesting that? Sounds to me like a subtle strawman. The distinction between a robot landing on Titan and a robot which contains a human is arbitrary.

Rather than focus on arbitrary distinctions, we ought to focus on non-arbitrary distinctions i.e. the gap in capability between human bodies and robots. In space, robots are far more capable than human bodies - to the extent that humans rely entirely on machines to survive.

I don't see why it's embarrassing or unsatisfactory to apply a machine to achieve a particular purpose e.g.

I need to plow my field,

I would like to fly to New York,

I need to write an essay

We use machines all the time. Therefore, why did we decide we needed to arbitrarily send human bodies into space, rather than use a machine to explore, unburdened by lumps of flesh? How would carting a lump of flesh to Titan, for example, have enabled Huygens to explore it more?

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:retarded nostalgia ... is lying. (154 comments)

Actually, it's been the convention in Indo-European languages for a millennium or so; in fact, the structure of many of these allows for no other choice (Slavic languages, German, French etc.), and many English speakers - if not most - are L2 speakers for which this is the most compatible and the only natural alternative (the "uncanny valley" subproblem of interference in interlanguage fossilization).

Well, thanks for the history lesson, but the fact of the matter is, the use of "he" as the gender neutral pronoun fell out of common usage some time ago. Using it in a modern context or to refer to future events, creates a confusion : are you referring to a known male astronaut? Are you assuming that the astronaut will be male? Or are you (for whatever reason) using a language convention from prior the 1960's? English has always had a gender neutral pronoun (Churchyard et. al.) and therefore the use of the male pronoun to describe a person of undetermined gender was merely the convention for a number of years, until it became common practice and convention to use "they" in the singular, or other constructs.

As a bonus, with the rapidly increasing number of perceived and recognized psychological genders (not the linguistic ones) on the very short timescale of the few recent decades, there's no need to rewrite texts and textbooks (considering that the purpose of written texts is to span not only vast amounts of space but of time as well);

Get over it.

English is evolving, it always has. That's the nature of it, and indeed, one of the primary reasons why it has been so successful. If I read Shakespeare I see many conventions, words and artifacts which initially cause confusion until I read it in the context of the time - the same applies to Austen or Salinger. It has always been this way. Pronouns fall in and out of use: use of 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun is in the latter category.

one could easily argue that "improvements" of limited scope such as your "he or she", while attempting to sound inclusive (for whatever strange reason some people might perceive it that way) are, for example, distinctly interphobic - which, again, would be a social construct with limited longevity compared to the potential timelessness of any written text.

One could argue that, but not logically. The use of "they" as a singular, or "the astronaut" avoids confusion and doesn't require us to assign gender to someone who is not of that gender. It's not too hard: I notice you yourself in your reply referred to a person of undetermined gender (the offended/perceiving party above) in gender neutral terms without any loss of meaning or the need to adopt an awkward structure.

So humans won't be able to repair them, because you're not going to send them, and you're arguing the case for machines repairing themselves is equally bad? So what *is* your proposed solution? The "disposable camera" model? That really doesn't scale very well.

I'm arguing that we are always going to send a machine. The machine(s) will always be the larger part of what we send, whether it be a spacecraft designed to sustain humans for as long as possible in the vacuum of space, landing craft, spacesuits. So the choice is whether we send a human as well as the machine(s). Of this technology stack, the least reliable part is the human. So if we are going to be concerned about repairs, our first thought is - how repairable and reliable is the human? The answer is: Not very. Human bodies degenerate if left in low gravity for any period of time. They react badly to changes in pressure and have a narrow range of operating temperature. They need very specific fuels, which are bulky and cumbersome, and easily contaminated. Humans are social, and perform suboptimally outside of a social setting. They tend to change priorities based on feedback from the amygdala, leading to a lack of mission determinism.

Comparatively speaking, robots are simple, designed for the target environment and therefore very reliable.

On average: in a realistic scenario involving a human and a robot in space it's the human that will need repair, not the robot.

(It is also interesting to observe how the "notoriously unreliable" human body of yours actually deals with some space-related conditions such as moderately intense radiation actually better than the majority of our technology, which is prone to hard errors, and if scaled to the cognitive capacity of the human brain would fare even worse.)

Now i think you are being faintly ridiculous. Space related conditions:

Vacuum: will kill me almost instantly, unless some kind of machine forms a protective vessel around me.

Lack of water: Will kill me within about 5 (earth) days, unless a machine supplies me with water

Lack of food: WIll kill me in under a month, unless a machine supplies it to me, processing. refrigerating and heating it for my consumption

Radiation: Will kill me in 12 months, unless a machine deflects that radiation

Lack of gravity: will kill me in 24 months, no known solution at this stage.

If machines are so unreliable and can't handle the stresses of space how do we get to space at all?

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:retarded nostalgia ... is lying. (154 comments)

I'm a speaker of an Indo-European language; do the math.

Alternatively, you could just clarify what you meant: maybe you didn't consider the possibility that the astronaut could be female or transgender. Or possibly you were using 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun - which hasn't been the convention in most english speaking countries for many years.

Regarding the rest, well, then replace the geologists with mission planners of any other kind, capable of deciding into which rock the machine should poke next time.

Or send a machine which avoids the need to choose which rock get's "poked".

Or devise a way to make the machines maintain themselves far away from Earth, because that's another thing humans would be able to provide on site and current technology doesn't.

Given the human body is notoriously unreliable and can only self repair minor injuries, I don't think the 'self repair' option is really viable either.

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:retarded nostalgia ... is lying. (154 comments)

Except that you assume the geologist wouldn't have top-notch tools on his hands. Of course he would, just like the rover - but on top of that, he'd have his human brain on site, and not twenty minutes away. Gets even worse for outer planets.

He or she, I assume you mean.

In any case, I don't see why the brain would pose any advantage. Much of the geologists brain is taken up with irrelevant information - recipes, techniques for identifying a ripe rockmelon, political views, emotions concerning her family connections, etc. The learned geology is mostly useless and likely to be a liability: minerals on an asteroid haven't been through the same processes as minerals on earth so they aren't likely to be in a familiar pattern - even assuming the geologist can identify any familiar pattern with the sun casting deep contrast on the surface of the asteroid, or by the faint light of a headlight that fails to pierce the fogs of Titans deadly atmosphere. And then there is the amygdala - telling the geologist to run, when running on the surface of the asteroid would lead to certain death, or the image processing failing to pick up an obvious (but not visible) danger due to over-reliance on signals in the visible wavelength.

No, the brain is likely to be a liability in many circumstances. It is very good at what it does on earth - identifying dangers, abstracting things, feeling emotion, recalling and composing stories. But those earthly experiences will mostly not apply in the vacuum of space, making them a liability.

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:retarded nostalgia ... is lying. (154 comments)

You should quit wanking on about how superior robots are at this job, and start doing up some calculations on the costs just to develop said robots. You will need a few engineers on your staff, so you can get cost estimates from them, and you'll need to factor in the costs of sending the robot to whichever target.

Meanwhile, sending humans requires us to also send the same number of robots - robots to scrub the atmosphere, robots to store and heat food, recycle human waste, coddle them and make sure they stay alive. The only really useless thing in the whole circus is the human.

e costs of developing the technology to build these superior robots. Research is not cheap and takes many, many years. We've got plenty of humans who'd be able to train up as geologists and then go do the job decades before your robots would be ready for their first Death Valley trials.

Decades sooner and billions of dollars cheaper. You just try teaching a robot how to be a good field geologist.

Well, that explains why robots are in space right now doing geology and humans have never left the gravity well of earth. Oh wait, no: it doesn't explain that at all.

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:retarded nostalgia ... is lying. (154 comments)

I'm not ure taking ones helmet off to lick a rock is a good strategy in the vacuum of space.

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:Glass half-empty (154 comments)

Hate to be the one to tell you, but no matter how hard you flap your arms, you won't leave the ground. Machines can fly - humans can't. To suggest that we ought not take flight because of the physical limitations of our bodies is, indeed, absurd.

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:retarded nostalgia ... is lying. (154 comments)

Will the robots become unreliable *before* reaching the (theoretically) superior autonomy of a human?

After all, what level of autonomy is actually optimal? We would not want the human to be moving about too much and possibly missing important details that would show up when using a more patient and obedient robot. Neither would we want the human to lie down and die because she/he feels sick or tired or depressed and overtaken by ennui. A level of limited autonomy seems the most practical.

Robots would exhibit limited autonomy have certainly been built on earth, suggesting they could well be developed for space, be more reliable than the (notoriously unreliable) human and transported to space for far less money.

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:retarded nostalgia ... is lying. (154 comments)

A geologist would die within seconds in space -were it not for attendant machines keeping them alive. This is supposing we could identify the circumstance in which a geologist would indeed be "more capable" than a machine.

Asteroids, for example, have very low gravity due to their low mass. Humans tend to propel themselves by walking or otherwise pushing against the ground - this form of transportation would be sub-optimal to impossible on an asteroid. Secondly, the primary (only) method of scanning available for a human would be examining the surface by means of the eye. This, too is suboptimal for determining much at all about the composition of an asteroid. A machine which can move by other means and with multiple useful scanning devices built in would be much more capable of thoroughly exploring the asteroid. Same applies to the other interesting places in the solar system e.g. Europa or Titan. Neither have sufficient light or gravity for the native features of a human to outshine specially designed robots.

2 days ago
top

NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

KeensMustard Re:Glass half-empty (154 comments)

Except that it isn't. The moon is so close that none of the actual problems assoicated with human space travel even come into focus. And of course, it is not 'pushing further into space'. We've been to the edge of the solar system, we've visited comets, plunged into the icy atmosphere of Titan.

By us, of course I mean our machines, not physical humans - the distinction between abstracting 'our' presence via a machine or by the physical presence of a bunch of humans we've never met and are not related to us is purely arbitrary. What makes humans distinct from other creatures is that we can abstract our intent into machines that fulfill that intent: ploughs, swords, trains, coaches, treaties, man pages, computers, space probes. We are not limited by the limitations of our physical bodies.

To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.

2 days ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

KeensMustard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.

I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.

[no response]

Provide the citation as agreed.

Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:

I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.

You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.

A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.

[no response]

Provide the response as specified

So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.

[no answer]

Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?

[no response]

Provide the response as specified

To quote from said paper [cited by you]:

The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.

and:

Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).

The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.

This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*

[no response]

Provide the explanation to this inconsistency.

SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temperature data, right? You will say anything that you think strengthens your position, and deny the blatantly obvious when it appears to weaken your position. You are now suggesting the Journal Nature is not trustworthy. It is interesting to watch the "pro-science" side throw scientific journals under the bus when the facts don't support their positions.

This is the link you are referring to, correct?

Now: my time is important. I also have a particular dislike for people who aren't honest, and people who attempt to manipulate scientific data and methodologies to deceive or misrepresent the facts, and people who blythely repeat those lies - well, to be truthful, they get my hackles up. And that is something that I wouldn't wish on anybody. So you should listen to what I'm about to say, and take heed.

If I test your selection of data, method and date range and find that in any way you have manipulated the result to create the impression of a zero trend when no zero trend exists, then you agree to (a) Offer a personal apology to me (b) Never post here again. Never. Not under this account, not under your old one, not under a new one. Never.

Are you prepared for me to test your methodology and selection of data ? Yes or No.

[no response]

Provide a yes or no answer

about a week ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

KeensMustard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.

I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.

Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:

I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.

You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.

A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.

So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.

[no answer]

Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?

To quote from said paper [cited by you]:

The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.

and:

Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).

The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.

This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*

SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temperature data, right? You will say anything that you think strengthens your position, and deny the blatantly obvious when it appears to weaken your position. You are now suggesting the Journal Nature is not trustworthy. It is interesting to watch the "pro-science" side throw scientific journals under the bus when the facts don't support their positions.

This is the link you are referring to, correct?

Now: my time is important. I also have a particular dislike for people who aren't honest, and people who attempt to manipulate scientific data and methodologies to deceive or misrepresent the facts, and people who blythely repeat those lies - well, to be truthful, they get my hackles up. And that is something that I wouldn't wish on anybody. So you should listen to what I'm about to say, and take heed.

If I test your selection of data, method and date range and find that in any way you have manipulated the result to create the impression of a zero trend when no zero trend exists, then you agree to (a) Offer a personal apology to me (b) Never post here again. Never. Not under this account, not under your old one, not under a new one. Never.

Are you prepared for me to test your methodology and selection of data ? Yes or No.

about a week ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

KeensMustard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

You are flailing around without a clue. You have no shame and will just say anything, no matter how baseless, no matter how nonsensical. It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so embarrassing.

Well, you are right about one thing - you ought to be embarrassed. You b rought that embarrassment upon yourself. Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.

Here the link to the code they released. [dropbox.com] They made it available to Zeke Hausfather [yaleclimat...ctions.org] who made it available to everyone else.

Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:

I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements. You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.

Do we have a deal?

Regarding the 17 year "plateau" that you deny, apparently you can't interpret a graph [woodfortrees.org], don't know what 'statistical significance' means, and Nature [nature.com] isn't good enough for you either.

So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.

Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013)

Right off the top of my head, here's a paper [that details and proves a 17 year period (1996-2013) of no warming]

To quote from said paper:

The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.

and:

Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6). Cherry picking.... that would be what YOU are doing, would it not?

Is seems the paper you cite says in fact the opposite of what you assert, and is, in fact, saying exactly what I thought when this conversation started! How about that! You've made no ground in your efforts to convince me that global warming is a scam, and if anything, the links provided confirm the consensus position.

You're a failure.

I've provided links directly to the temperature data

Cite yourself providing links directly to the temperature data.

yet you bzzzzt

Nope, don't care what you think.

about a week ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

KeensMustard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?

My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.

Deal?

Have fun looking for that code.

I take that as a yes.

USHCN methodology Last updated Oct 2013

GHCN methodologyLast updated 2009

Total time less than 5 minutes.

Now, where would be an appropriate place for your retraction? I suggest:

(1) On your blog

(2) That if you ever choose to post here again on a climate related topic, your remarks should start with this disclaimer.

The temperature is always fluctuating. Four hundredths of a single degree over a 10 year period is next to nothing, and is well within the margin of uncertainty. But your logic I could claim it has been cooling since 2001. The models predicted 2 tenths of a degree warming per decade.

Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013) Don't imagine that you can bedazzle me with figures that you plucked out of your arse, mixed together with flawed methodology and then shaped into a cake for consumption, I'm not eating it. I don't accept assertions and distortions as proof. Cite.

The IPCC report says that AGW is repsonsible for 50%+ of warming since 1950, at 95% certainty. I don't know why Stocker is misrepresenting it, maybe you should ask him. Go read the report for yourself. It's easy to try to change history after predictions fail.

So to summarise: the source you relied upon for your statement: there has been no warming for 17 years is in fact misrepresenting the facts. Got it.

You seem angry btw.

about a week ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

KeensMustard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

a) Readiing comprehension. They released the code on July 8th in response to all the controversy. I've pointed that out to you at least twice now.

So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?

My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.

Deal?

Also, I hate to speak out of school but there is no such controversy. There is chatter on the usual blogs, but this doesn't amount to controversy - bloggers don't get a seat at the science table. To do that, you need to use science, which, I have to say, I see is sorely lacking in both your arguments and the arguments of your peers and betters. Like as not, the scientific community probably didn't even notice these paranoid rantings.

You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.

b) You seem intellectually dishonest and childish, who cares so much about "winning" a meaningless debate you can't admit when you're clearly wrong. But that's a personal statement, and why start getting personal? If you think I am "angry", you are projecting.

This is not a debate. You are trying to convince me that your science (as yet unreferenced) is correct, and the 150 years of climate research which contradicts your assertions is wrong (for reasons, somehow, you have yet to begin explaining). Of course I know a deal about climate science (who would enter a discussion such as this if they were ignorant? Only a moron would do that!) , but I'm not under any obligation to dissemble the things I know or correct your ignorance should it raise it's head. Your ignorance it's your concern, not mine.

Again, the code was kept private until July 8th.

Let's test this assertion directly:

What model code NOAA publish on July 8th 2014?

Where did they publish this code?

Which climate model was the code written for?

You are saying the reason that I couldn't find the unreleased code is because of my own ignorance. It should be easy for you to substantiate that accusation. You won't because you can't.

Your feelings about my motivations are of no consequence.

Maybe you can answer this: What evidence could I provide that would prove that the code hadn't been released prior to July?

This is your problem. You made the assertion, you prove it.

c) Clearly you do not know what "statistical significance" means.

Not for you to judge, I'm afraid.

Why do you show me a graph purporting to debunk my claim of no trend for the last 17 years that uses a trend-line that starts in 1950?

You can't read a graph, even when the graph includes all of the timeline you need? I guess that answers my question. You can't explain the continued warming post 1996, nor the fact that the period 1997-2013 was warmer than the period 1982-1996.

Here is what the trend looks like from 1997, using various datasets, including your GISS temps. [woodfortrees.org]

Why does this dataset start at 1997?

Do you even know how to formulate the required data to justify your assertion there has been no warming for 17 years?

The average temperature increase from the five models is about 4 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. That is not a statistically significant amount. Ie: it is well within the margin of uncertainty. In other words: there is no discernable trend.

That's GOLD. If I was trying to lampoon denialists and in their stupidity and ignorance, I couldn't write stuff as good as this.

You are basically telling us that over a decade long period models don't predict a statistical significant warming (given the range of measurement errors from current instruments). So if a decade passes and there is a detectable warming trend but it is not statistically significant, this to your mind means the models are wrong? Are you for real? Is this a joke? Are you pretending to hold this point of view for our amusement?

I can't even begin to articulate how stupid that sounds.

If you believe otherwise you should point it out to the Journal Nature. They say there has been a 16 year plateau. I'm sure they will be embarrassed by their amateur error [nature.com] once you point it out to them.

Doesn't seem to be any need: To quote the very article you cite as proof that global warming is a sham:

Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.

...

Claims that there might be something fundamentally wrong with climate models are unjustified unless "temperature were to remain constant for the next 20 years", he says.

I'll refer to you very own cite to conclude that your claims that there is something fundamentally wrong with climate models are unjustified.

about a week ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

KeensMustard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

Reading comprehension is important.

You seem to be pinning your hopes on your readers not exercising any reading comprehension. Your hope is vain.

a) I never said there wasn't a methodology, just that they hadn't released it at the time. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing that the code was always publicly available.

Tut Tut Tut. Naughty naughty!

You said:I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. I would like to be able to scrutinize their work, but I can't. I would like to try to repeat their work, but I can't. You said that here. Don't lie, and especially don't tell stupid lies. It's very unbecoming and makes us doubt all of your OTHER unevidenced assertions.

b) I was not angry,

You seem angry.

but I disagreed with their [NOAA's] decision to keep the information private.

You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.

You apparently see nothing wrong with keeping scientific data hidden away from prying eyes.

I've repeatedly noted that the "science" in question, which is the science behind your assertions, is unevidenced and therefore not science. Your allegation is frankly bizarre.

c) Interesting that you still deny the recent lack of warming. The HADCRUT4 warming trend since 1997 is a statistically insignificant 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade.

Tut Tut Tut.

Naughty Naughty!

You said there has been no warming for the last 17 years.

I suspect you don't even know what HADCRUT4 is. Unfortunately for you, I do. And unfortunately for your argument, the actual temperature data is readily available, and your argument, such as it is, has already been repeatedly debunked - heck, I've debunked it myself.

Please indicate on this graph of temperatures how there has been no warming from 1996-2014 (compared to the previous 14 years 1982-1996).

about two weeks ago
top

When Beliefs and Facts Collide

KeensMustard Re:CAGW is a trojan horse (725 comments)

Well, be sure to record on your blog your most recent discoveries

(a) That there is in fact a methodology underpinning the collation of of temperature data (contrary to your previous statements)

(b) That you cannot describe any issue with NOAAs climate methodologies , but you are angry that NOAA did not see fit to share their methodology with you personally so that you wouldn't be forced to google for it. Perhaps if you speak eloquently concerning your anger, a helpful poster will give you some hints on better ways to channel your anger.

(c) Be sure also to include your theory on how the scientific community actually thinks that warming ceased 17 years ago, based on a single word you plucked from a single article in nature, and in contrast to what the actual temperature data tells us. I'm sure that the scorn expressed by various parties is really just respect (in disguise) at your undoubted brilliance,

about two weeks ago

Submissions

Journals

KeensMustard has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...