l*r
2 楼
【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
发信人: usajjww (jjww), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: 人民币汇率屡创新高意味什么 (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Oct 16 12:01:07 2012, 美东)
发信人: usajjww (jjww), 信区: Military
标 题: 人民币汇率屡创新高意味什么
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Oct 16 12:00:33 2012, 美东)
发信人: usajjww (jjww), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: 人民币汇率屡创新高意味什么 (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Oct 16 12:01:07 2012, 美东)
发信人: usajjww (jjww), 信区: Military
标 题: 人民币汇率屡创新高意味什么
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Oct 16 12:00:33 2012, 美东)
d*z
3 楼
Wall Street Journal
Our Changing News Climate : Why even New York Times readers may resist the
faith.
Just exactly how much has the climate changed in recent decades? Longtime
New York Times readers can be forgiven if they are now thoroughly confused
on the matter.
Last month this column noted that the actions of the New York Times suggest
that the people who put out the newspaper don’t think burning carbon is as
dangerous as one would think from reading their product. How else to explain
their marketing effort to persuade well-heeled readers to increase
emissions by travelling the globe aboard a barely-filled Boeing ? And now,
one particularly industrious Times reader submits evidence of another reason
to resist the paper’s climate faith. In this case the skepticism about
global warming comes not from refusing to take the paper seriously but from
taking it too seriously.
Anyone old enough to have been a Times reader in the late 1980s may recall a
series of stories that helped educate the public on how cool our planet
used to be. Here’s one report from March of 1988:
"One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he
used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was
59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations."
The paper returned to the topic in June of that year, and reminded readers
of the planet’s colder past:
"Dr. Hansen, who records temperatures from readings at monitoring stations
around the world, had previously reported that four of the hottest years on
record occurred in the 1980’s. Compared with a 30-year base period from
1950 to 1980, when the global temperature averaged 59 degrees Fahrenheit,
the temperature was one-third of a degree higher last year."
The following year, the paper reported a new record high in global
temperatures and affirmed its climate history, which seemed to be the
consensus view—at least among scientists quoted by the Times:
"The British readings showed that the average global temperature in 1988 was
0.612 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average for the period
1950 through 1979, which is a base for comparing global temperatures. The
average worldwide temperature for that 30-year period is roughly 59 degrees
Fahrenheit, the British researchers said."
In 1991, the Times reported yet another record high, and published yet
another reminder of how cool the planet used to be:
"The Goddard group found that the record average surface temperature for the
globe was eight-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit above the 1951-1980 average
of 59 degrees. The British group found it seventh-tenths of a degree higher
than the 1951-80 average."
By that point a reasonable consumer might have been ardently hoping to
return to that magical era in which global temperatures averaged just 59
degrees. But in the ensuing years it must have been difficult for Times
readers to stay hopeful. As the years and then the decades rolled by, The
Times routinely reported record or near-record highs as global temperatures
appeared to march ever higher.
In January of this year, the newspaper published a feature entitled, “How
2016 Became Earth’s Hottest Year on Record.” The Times noted the
disturbing news that “2016 was the first time that the hottest year on
record occurred three times in a row.” And things could be about to get
much worse. “We expect records to continue to be broken as global warming
proceeds,” climate enthusiast Michael Mann told the Times.
Is there any way to return to the salad days of 59 degrees? Well, it turns
out to be easier than you might think. In January, as the government’s
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was reporting the third
consecutive year of record highs, it noted that the average global
temperature in 2016 had surged to a sizzling... 58.69 degrees.
Over the years researchers seem to have concluded that the planet was not as
hot as they thought. Oops.
The most important facts in the climate debate are subject to frequent
revisions. This doesn’t mean the global warming thesis is wrong, but it
argues for skepticism. The Journal’s Holman Jenkins noted in 2015:
"By the count of researcher Marcia Wyatt in a widely circulated presentation
, the U.S. government’s published temperature data for the years 1880 to
2010 has been tinkered with 16 times in the past three years."
While waiting for the science to settle, this column’s advice to Times
readers is to go ahead and fly around the world on the newspaper’s
luxurious jet—if you don’t mind the company.
Our Changing News Climate : Why even New York Times readers may resist the
faith.
Just exactly how much has the climate changed in recent decades? Longtime
New York Times readers can be forgiven if they are now thoroughly confused
on the matter.
Last month this column noted that the actions of the New York Times suggest
that the people who put out the newspaper don’t think burning carbon is as
dangerous as one would think from reading their product. How else to explain
their marketing effort to persuade well-heeled readers to increase
emissions by travelling the globe aboard a barely-filled Boeing ? And now,
one particularly industrious Times reader submits evidence of another reason
to resist the paper’s climate faith. In this case the skepticism about
global warming comes not from refusing to take the paper seriously but from
taking it too seriously.
Anyone old enough to have been a Times reader in the late 1980s may recall a
series of stories that helped educate the public on how cool our planet
used to be. Here’s one report from March of 1988:
"One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he
used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was
59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations."
The paper returned to the topic in June of that year, and reminded readers
of the planet’s colder past:
"Dr. Hansen, who records temperatures from readings at monitoring stations
around the world, had previously reported that four of the hottest years on
record occurred in the 1980’s. Compared with a 30-year base period from
1950 to 1980, when the global temperature averaged 59 degrees Fahrenheit,
the temperature was one-third of a degree higher last year."
The following year, the paper reported a new record high in global
temperatures and affirmed its climate history, which seemed to be the
consensus view—at least among scientists quoted by the Times:
"The British readings showed that the average global temperature in 1988 was
0.612 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average for the period
1950 through 1979, which is a base for comparing global temperatures. The
average worldwide temperature for that 30-year period is roughly 59 degrees
Fahrenheit, the British researchers said."
In 1991, the Times reported yet another record high, and published yet
another reminder of how cool the planet used to be:
"The Goddard group found that the record average surface temperature for the
globe was eight-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit above the 1951-1980 average
of 59 degrees. The British group found it seventh-tenths of a degree higher
than the 1951-80 average."
By that point a reasonable consumer might have been ardently hoping to
return to that magical era in which global temperatures averaged just 59
degrees. But in the ensuing years it must have been difficult for Times
readers to stay hopeful. As the years and then the decades rolled by, The
Times routinely reported record or near-record highs as global temperatures
appeared to march ever higher.
In January of this year, the newspaper published a feature entitled, “How
2016 Became Earth’s Hottest Year on Record.” The Times noted the
disturbing news that “2016 was the first time that the hottest year on
record occurred three times in a row.” And things could be about to get
much worse. “We expect records to continue to be broken as global warming
proceeds,” climate enthusiast Michael Mann told the Times.
Is there any way to return to the salad days of 59 degrees? Well, it turns
out to be easier than you might think. In January, as the government’s
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was reporting the third
consecutive year of record highs, it noted that the average global
temperature in 2016 had surged to a sizzling... 58.69 degrees.
Over the years researchers seem to have concluded that the planet was not as
hot as they thought. Oops.
The most important facts in the climate debate are subject to frequent
revisions. This doesn’t mean the global warming thesis is wrong, but it
argues for skepticism. The Journal’s Holman Jenkins noted in 2015:
"By the count of researcher Marcia Wyatt in a widely circulated presentation
, the U.S. government’s published temperature data for the years 1880 to
2010 has been tinkered with 16 times in the past three years."
While waiting for the science to settle, this column’s advice to Times
readers is to go ahead and fly around the world on the newspaper’s
luxurious jet—if you don’t mind the company.
p*y
4 楼
恩, 我搅得明天还能涨
d*z
5 楼
有这个法宝，以后气温年年破纪录不是梦想。
suggest
as
explain
【在 d****z 的大作中提到】
: Wall Street Journal
: Our Changing News Climate : Why even New York Times readers may resist the
: faith.
: Just exactly how much has the climate changed in recent decades? Longtime
: New York Times readers can be forgiven if they are now thoroughly confused
: on the matter.
: Last month this column noted that the actions of the New York Times suggest
: that the people who put out the newspaper don’t think burning carbon is as
: dangerous as one would think from reading their product. How else to explain
: their marketing effort to persuade well-heeled readers to increase
suggest
as
explain
【在 d****z 的大作中提到】
: Wall Street Journal
: Our Changing News Climate : Why even New York Times readers may resist the
: faith.
: Just exactly how much has the climate changed in recent decades? Longtime
: New York Times readers can be forgiven if they are now thoroughly confused
: on the matter.
: Last month this column noted that the actions of the New York Times suggest
: that the people who put out the newspaper don’t think burning carbon is as
: dangerous as one would think from reading their product. How else to explain
: their marketing effort to persuade well-heeled readers to increase
s*y
6 楼
星期五歷來跌多昇少的吧
d*z
8 楼
图里面的历史数据都是近几年重新分析后的结果。数据这个东西，要经常重新分析，温
故而知新。每分析一次，历史气温就下降一些。所以年年破纪录才不是梦想呀。要不
重新分析，还用当年的数据，就尴尬了。
【在 d***p 的大作中提到】
: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
故而知新。每分析一次，历史气温就下降一些。所以年年破纪录才不是梦想呀。要不
重新分析，还用当年的数据，就尴尬了。
【在 d***p 的大作中提到】
: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
d*f
9 楼
先设计好ax+b,在测量数据，得300个nobel奖都不为过
【在 d****z 的大作中提到】
: 图里面的历史数据都是近几年重新分析后的结果。数据这个东西，要经常重新分析，温
: 故而知新。每分析一次，历史气温就下降一些。所以年年破纪录才不是梦想呀。要不
: 重新分析，还用当年的数据，就尴尬了。
【在 d****z 的大作中提到】
: 图里面的历史数据都是近几年重新分析后的结果。数据这个东西，要经常重新分析，温
: 故而知新。每分析一次，历史气温就下降一些。所以年年破纪录才不是梦想呀。要不
: 重新分析，还用当年的数据，就尴尬了。
g*2
10 楼
从NOAA的数据看，美国这一个世纪的确是变得更热了：
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/state-temps/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/state-temps/
g*2
11 楼
这边还有全球的数据
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/201706?products[]=map-
land-sfc-mntp&products[]=map-blended-mntp&products[]=map-prcp&products[]=map
-percentile-mntp&products[]=map-percentile-prcp&products[]=map-prcp-percent#
global-maps-select
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/201706?products[]=map-
land-sfc-mntp&products[]=map-blended-mntp&products[]=map-prcp&products[]=map
-percentile-mntp&products[]=map-percentile-prcp&products[]=map-prcp-percent#
global-maps-select
o*p
12 楼
这些不是需要急切关注的，要关注的是万一突然进入冰河期没粮食没肉吃了怎么办。
map-
map
percent#
【在 g******2 的大作中提到】
: 这边还有全球的数据
: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/201706?products[]=map-
: land-sfc-mntp&products[]=map-blended-mntp&products[]=map-prcp&products[]=map
: -percentile-mntp&products[]=map-percentile-prcp&products[]=map-prcp-percent#
: global-maps-select
map-
map
percent#
【在 g******2 的大作中提到】
: 这边还有全球的数据
: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/201706?products[]=map-
: land-sfc-mntp&products[]=map-blended-mntp&products[]=map-prcp&products[]=map
: -percentile-mntp&products[]=map-percentile-prcp&products[]=map-prcp-percent#
: global-maps-select
d*z
13 楼
纽时在80年代说，1950年到1980年全球气温平均是59度。而80年代度气温超过59度，是
破纪录的热。九十年代说，气温又升，破纪录地到了59.8度。
然后今年又宣布，2016年气温继续破纪录，达到58.69度。
wait，58.69度怎么破纪录度？变暖教就不跟你细说了，你信就好。
当然，反科学反人类的变暖怀疑派非要去研究为啥58.69度比59.8度更热。原来是过去
三年，人家把以前的温度数据重新调整了一下。历史是变暖教创造的，历史上气温想是
多少就是多少。然后画个图，妥妥地变暖。
文科读者的问题就是 看到数据就觉得，爱吗，太科学了。理科生的问题是，看到数据
说 “你当年的数据不是这样的呀”。
【在 g******2 的大作中提到】
: 从NOAA的数据看，美国这一个世纪的确是变得更热了：
: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/state-temps/
破纪录的热。九十年代说，气温又升，破纪录地到了59.8度。
然后今年又宣布，2016年气温继续破纪录，达到58.69度。
wait，58.69度怎么破纪录度？变暖教就不跟你细说了，你信就好。
当然，反科学反人类的变暖怀疑派非要去研究为啥58.69度比59.8度更热。原来是过去
三年，人家把以前的温度数据重新调整了一下。历史是变暖教创造的，历史上气温想是
多少就是多少。然后画个图，妥妥地变暖。
文科读者的问题就是 看到数据就觉得，爱吗，太科学了。理科生的问题是，看到数据
说 “你当年的数据不是这样的呀”。
【在 g******2 的大作中提到】
: 从NOAA的数据看，美国这一个世纪的确是变得更热了：
: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/state-temps/
相关阅读
丰胸有术邻居小弟发现黄瓜没法止痒，说姐姐说的都是骗人的终于有一个央视主持人站出来替小崔说话了图片相亲时遇到一个从故纸堆里爬出来的奇葩Re: 河南本土最具国际范的著名特色美食，被吃货们尊称为河南披为什么女人一定要在年轻的时候谈恋爱？重新认识女人!考生打喷嚏耳朵飞出微型无线耳机，牵出特大考试作弊案 (转载)虫语无标题90高龄农村奶奶令人爆笑的那些事儿直男，你活该单身那些可怕的遗传病，有些能结婚，有些坚决不能结婚大婚之日，女同学竟然背着我干这事！上世纪20年代， 到南昌去， 到广州去， 到星星之火可以燎原的邻居家24小时传出打鼾声，真相惊呆众人！快奔四了，想回国都很难 (转载)丁磊是互联网大佬里边最快乐的？熟女们盯着帅哥看，小帅哥羞涩过来敬酒【打油诗】 望乡