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!

Coral Reefs In Grave Danger, Say Climate Simulations

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-only-a-model dept.

Earth 313

sciencehabit writes "Nearly every coral reef could be dying by 2100 if current carbon dioxide emission trends continue, according to a new review of major climate models from around the world. The only way to maintain the current chemical environment in which reefs now live, the study suggests, would be to deeply cut emissions as soon as possible. It may even become necessary to actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, say with massive tree-planting efforts or machines."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373513)

So what if all the Coral Reefs die, what do you think? Perhaps that some all-powerful super-destructive aliens will come from deep space to threaten the Earth if they aren't around?

Besides, we all know Brain Coral is trying to take over the planet anyway. The sooner it is gone, the safer we will all be.

Re:Who cares? (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#42373523)

So what if all the Coral Reefs die,

Most of the sea life in the ocean will die. The reefs are a critical component of the food chain for fish of all sizes, including plenty that don't directly live on the reef itself.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373539)

That'll teach them to corrupt our youth with their aspirations to become fry cooks.

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373707)

Alarmist much? The *current* coral reefs will die, but new ones will appear at locations where the CO2 level is currently too low for them.

Re:Who cares? (2)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#42373747)

So with the entire planet having too much for the environment to absorb and yet CO2 is trending higher, where exactly are these locations supposed to be? There's nowhere left.

This isn't a "the next generation can deal with it".

Re:Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374305)

Colder waters. It is the acidity that kills the reefs and colder waters generally have lower acidity due to a bunch of interactions. Too cold and the reef can't live, to hot and the acidity kills the reef. So, as everything warms up, the waters that were too cold are now becoming warm enough. At least technically warm enough, again it is a lot more complex than just that.

Re:Who cares? (4, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#42373759)

Alarmist much? The *current* coral reefs will die, but new ones will appear at locations where the CO2 level is currently too low for them.

They are dying much faster than they are growing. It takes decades to centuries to grow a new coral reef from scratch. In the meantime the oceans bioversity would be decimated past the point of no return for many species.

Re:Who cares? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374125)

In the meantime the oceans bioversity would be decimated

So....reduced by 10% then?.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374139)

No - decimated means 1 in 10 left to survive, not 1 in 10 killed.

Re:Who cares? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374151)

Wrong, decimated means every tenth soldier executed to encourage the others. Only 10% die.

Re:Who cares? (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 2 years ago | (#42374185)

I wouldn't exactly call it 'encourage[ment]'. It was used by the Romans to punish military units deemed cowardly or disobedient.

(Or maybe my sarcasm detector's not properly connected.)

Re:Who cares? (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#42374281)

So....reduced by 10% then?

That's an anachronistic definition. Modern definition, as defined by the OED:

kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of []

Good Grief. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373525)

The high-pitched squealing cumming from the LiberTards is really getting quite annoying.

Re:Good Grief. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373551)

Maybe you can drown it out with your manly gunfire?

Re:Good Grief. (-1, Flamebait)

rally2xs (1093023) | about 2 years ago | (#42373653)

Yeah, their socialistic plan to use the global warming scarecrow to attempt to cart boatloads of money out of developed nations into 3rd-world money pits has had it cover blown repeatedly. Their adamant stance against anything geo-engineering is evidence of what they're up to since such geo-engineering would short-circuit their plans to redistribute wealth. Oh, and we're going to do some tree-hugging, in spite of the fact that they DIE and then they release their carbon back into the air in carbonaceous gases that decompose into CO2... c'mon...

Re:Good Grief. (5, Insightful)

St.Creed (853824) | about 2 years ago | (#42374145)

Did you leave your brains at work when you left on friday? If you could just, for a second or two, try to get it in your skull that potentially species-destroying events are not safely ignored and do not go away by wishful thinking, then *maybe* you could accept that there are a lot of people concerned about it. Maybe a tad more than the 100 lunatics you seem to think make up the entire society of "people who think it's a bad thing".

Doesn't it bother you that the news is starting to look like the introduction to Sunshine or similarly apocalyptic movies? That there are very serious issues with our entire food chain? That there are very serious issues with the ability to sustain our current standards of living if we go on like this?

The whole problem is *not* that most people think we need to give away boatloads of money to appease our conscience. That is just your personal straw man. You can keep setting it up and burning it down again, but no one in their right mind will accept your verbal hysteria as an argument. Most people just want to hold on to the standards of living we have. And not see it getting much worse, and see what their children potentially have to live through. If we do not act *now* we will never act until it is too late. And then, draconian measures will have to be implemented.

The geo-engineering measures are opposed by a lot of people because outside of a very small group of techno-fetishists, it does not *solve* the underlying issues (at best it just mitigates them - but even that is questionable), has side-effects that are unknown and potentially as lethal as the current issues we have. Since we have a very well-understood way of dealing with the CO2 issues, which is to stop spewing CO2 in the air, there is no reason to go to unproven options. Reducing CO2 output has no known harmful side-effects, except that old and established industries that cannot change their operations, will go the way of the dinosaurs. Boohoo. That's not a communist plot, that's a consequence of the bed those industries made and now have to lie in.

Re:Good Grief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374167)

Way to be a stereotype, teatard.

Re:Good Grief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374129)

Good Grief, Charlie Brown!

RT (WHOLE) FA (4, Informative)

scanman1 (763052) | about 2 years ago | (#42373531)

"There is a very wide coral response to omega—some are able to internally control the [relevant] chemistry," says Rau, who has collaborated with Caldeira in the past but did not participate in this research. Those tougher coral species could replace more vulnerable ones "rather than a wholesale loss" of coral. "

I guess his views were not in line with the study, so his results were not included.

Re:RT (WHOLE) FA (5, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#42373931)

If you want to RT (WHOLE) FA then why did you stop quoting him before the end of the paragraph where he said:

"[But] an important point made by [Caldeira] is that corals have had many millions of years of opportunity to extend their range into low omega waters. With rare exception they have failed. What are the chances that they will adapt to lowering omega in the next 100 years?"

QT (WHOLE) FQ! Did the last note of warning and agreement with the study not fit with your message of excluding the dissenting scientist? What is more likely: that the part about them working together previously was some hidden way of saying that Rau was censored or that he was giving full disclosure of a prior relationship? Conspiracy theory or standard (and best) practice?

Re:RT (WHOLE) FA (4, Insightful)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 2 years ago | (#42374005)

Lack of necessity.

Sardines had hundreds of millions of years to extent their range into freshwater, yet they didn't. It was only when a swarm of sardines got trapped in what is today Lake Taal, which used to be just another part of the Pacific Ocean. It became a lake only in the 1750ies, when a volcanic eruption cut it off from the ocean and rain turned saltwater into freshwater in a matter of decades.

Those decades were sufficient to do what hundreds of millions of years had not managed to do, because it had never been necessary. In 100,000 years, all evidence of happened in lake taal will have been erazed by the same geologic processes that gave rise to all of that in the first place.

The assumed stagnation and lethargy of the evolution of species is an artifact of processes that conserve their traces now accessible to us. Unless a species is pervasive and somehow amenable to be conserved over geologic time spans within the environment they live in, it will irrecoverably be lost to history.

Our biosphere survived several ICE AGES. Looking out of the window I see landscape that was covered with hundreds of meters of ice a (geologically) very short time ago and has undergone numerous radical climate changes, yet, failed completely to become a dead wasteland for any appreciable time once the ice retreated.

A wake up call (5, Funny)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#42373549)

This should make the so-called skeptics pay attention as it represents a very real danger to people. Those broken up bits of dead coral can really cut your face when you bury your head in the sand.

Re:A wake up call (0, Flamebait)

Ferretman (224859) | about 2 years ago | (#42373647)

Leaving aside the questionable "science" in this article, how *exactly* is somebody a "so-called skeptic"? Most folks I've met fall into 4 categories on the issue:
  • - Unquestioning believers in the AGW theory;
  • - Skeptical of either the magnitude, the cause, or the existence of AGW;
  • - Don't know (have no opinion whatsoever; consider it all too esoteric and/or complicated);
  • - Don't care.

So what's a "so-called skeptic"? Somebody who *says* they don't believe in AGW but who secretly does, just doesn't want to pay for the alleged "fixes"? Some who claims to be a skeptic but who nods their heads with each new AGW pronouncement?

Just curious (which is why I'm a Skeptic, non "so-called").


Re:A wake up call (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373695)

Probably because skepticism doesn't mean ignoring evidence and putting ones' opinion above what most experts in the field think. I think denialist would be a better word for those who insist on not only having an uninformed opinion but also disagreeing with the majority of experts while knowing nothing of the science in question.

Re:A wake up call (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373703)

95% of "sceptics" are not sceptics at all, they are deniers. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, they will not accept it even if they can't refute it.

Let's turn the question around. Why do you categorise everyone who accepts the evidence as accurate as "unquestioning believers"?

Re:A wake up call (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#42373785)

Because 95% of the "accepts the evidence as accurate" group are just true believers. They have unshakable faith in the evidence that points to their accepted belief and reject evidence against AGW as being some unholy uttering straight from Satan.

Re:A wake up call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373849)

I don't think THEY're the ones making conclusions based on delusional superstition.

Re:A wake up call (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373853)

At absolute worst, the global warming "true believers" are putting their faith in scientific consensus; why is this some great intellectual crime? Am I a "true believer" for believing in the theory of gravity without extensive experimentation to prove it to myself? Am I a "true believer" in relativity because I haven't built my own atomic clocks and launched them into orbit to verify it? Why is it that in every other aspect of life I can accept prevailing (almost universal) scientific consensus and no one will bat an eye, and yet to accept same in regard to global warming is some sort of heinous act?

Re:A wake up call (0, Flamebait)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about 2 years ago | (#42373861)

At absolute worst, the global warming "true believers" are putting their faith in scientific consensus; why is this some great intellectual crime?

Because science is not a democracy?

Because, historically, those who have placed their faith in the "scientific consensus" of the day have almost always turned out to be spectacularly wrong?

Re:A wake up call (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373881)

So, just to clarify: you put an equal amount of skepticism (which is to say, happily rejecting 99+% of peer-reviewed literature) on modern theories in physics, including relativities both special and general, all of quantum physics, etc... right? Or otherwise, you haven't addressed my point in the slightest.

Re:A wake up call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373961)

If you want to bring up modern physics, check out Smolin's book

It's an interesting parallel.

Re:A wake up call (1)

St.Creed (853824) | about 2 years ago | (#42374161)

It's not the same thing by a wide margin.

On one hand, we have a scientist who points out some issues with current theory on a higher level, which is that it may not be possible to prove anything so you can theorize until you're blue in the face, but we have no way to compare predictions with reality.

With AGW, the discussion was started around 1980 (I have a few books in my cupboard from that time), criticism was levelled and theories reworked to account for them, to get them in line with the experimental and available evidence. There is a lot of evidence that you can test your theories against, and bit by bit predictions are getting more accurate. There is no-one saying they cannot be made even more accurate by more testing and more refining using the standard scientific methods.

Re:A wake up call (2)

amck (34780) | about 2 years ago | (#42374205)


The trouble with string theory is the lack of ability to falsify (at this stage). A beautiful theory is worth exploring, and you cut the theorists some slack for a while to develop it and come up with experiments that could test it. By now, we're getting impatient.

Climate change is wholly different. There are hundreds of thousands of datasets empirically backing up the predictions made from hundred-year old science (the physics of greenhouse cases from Tyndall dates back to the 19th century).

Re:A wake up call (4, Insightful)

amck (34780) | about 2 years ago | (#42374189)

Because, historically, those who have placed their faith in the "scientific consensus" of the day have almost always turned out to be spectacularly wrong?

Evidence, please?
Can you show that people have been "almost always" wrong on every issue? On gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, on quantum mechanics, on the atom theory of nature, on evolution, on ...
You can point to individual anecodatal points, but "almost always" and "spectacularly wrong" on every issue is a very strong statement.

Also, "faith" has no place in science. I provisionally accept lots of things, based on the scientific consensus of my colleagues. Especially with the overwhelming amount of evidence to investigate. Contrary evidence trumps consensus, but in the case of climate change, it isn't there.

Re:A wake up call (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374319)

On gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, on quantum mechanics, on the atom theory of nature, on evolution, on ...
You can point to individual anecodatal points, but "almost always" and "spectacularly wrong" on every issue is a very strong statement.

Know how I can tell you know next to nothing about the history of science?

I mean, come on, how many atomic models have we already been through since the mid-1800s?

Re:A wake up call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374245)

Maybe the consesus on certain scientific issues had been wrong in the past;
that's how science works after all; you replace/improve older theories with new ones that are more accurate.

But most of the big mistakes are in the far past when the scientific methods where still in development and where science was more of an 'old boys club' sort of thing.

Also, the longer people have been thinking about a problem, the more accurate it's interpretation is. Climate science is well over a century old, it's based on well understood solid science. There are still a lot of details which are still up in the air, but the main trends are crystal clear.

Finally keep in mind that the majority of the facts in climate science are based on empirical evidence, not so much weird esoteric hard to prove theories.

And really? You'd rather put your trust in gut feelings than a science tens of thousands of people have been pondering about for more than a century? Simply because some people, unrelated to this, have been wrong sometime somewhere? Sounds perfectly rational to me!

Re:A wake up call (2, Insightful)

Xeno man (1614779) | about 2 years ago | (#42373965)

Because no one is raising a rally to battle gravity. The government doesn't want to build a dome around the planet to prevent meteorites from hitting Earth and thus increasing gravity or prevent atmosphere from escaping thus lowering gravity. No one wants to create a gravity tax and raise the costs of goods to combat local gravity fluctuation. No one is creating more expensive utilities like water and power and sell it because it's gravity friendly.

Global warming is not simply accepted because it affects everyone now in the wallet. If there was total acceptance, we would all be buying more expensive solar power instead of coal or nuclear, we would be paying carbon taxes on every product we buy every day and companies would be trading even more carbon credits then currently available. Making ends meet is more important to the common man than relativity.

Re:A wake up call (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374023)

Because no one is raising a rally to battle gravity. The government doesn't want to build a dome around the planet to prevent meteorites from hitting Earth and thus increasing gravity or prevent atmosphere from escaping thus lowering gravity.

Ah, so you are a global warming "skeptic" due to political reasons. Thank you for being so forthcoming about that -- it has saved me many laborious posts trying to needle you into admitting that you judge a scientific theory's validity based in part (or perhaps in whole!) on political implications rather than the factual and logical bases for said theory.

Re:A wake up call (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374323)

(Shrug) Political/economic reasons are valid ones. Extraordinary claims may or may not require extraordinary proof, but extraordinary economic demands certainly do.

Re:A wake up call (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#42374325)

No one wants to create a gravity tax

At least not until the next Irish budget.

Re:A wake up call (1, Troll)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 2 years ago | (#42374107)

Because a couple of decades ago, the climate change faithful were telling us that by 2020 the world would be frozen solid, with glaciers as far south as the Mediterranean Sea.

If dire prophecies of the magic carbon pixie believers that I learned in primary school had come true, up here at 56ÂN I'd be under 100m of ice - but that hasn't happened. However, the absolutely rock solid certain scientific evidence was that the Earth was cooling faster than it had ever cooled before. Now we skip forwards three decades, and the Earth is now warming faster than it ever has before. Apparently.

Re:A wake up call (-1, Flamebait)

narcc (412956) | about 2 years ago | (#42374279)


Skeptic: "This story is related to global warming. Therefore, any claims made in the article cannot be questioned because AGW is true."

Normal person: "AGW is one thing, the claims made here are only superficially related. It seems to me that ... "

Skeptic: "Stupid AGW deniers, pretending to be 'skeptics'! Why, you won't accept any evidence, no matter how compelling!"

Normal person: "We're not talking about AGW, we're talking about coral and ..."

Skeptic: "Shout this guy down! He's a quack out to spread his crazy right-wing anti-AGW propaganda! It's a conspiracy I tell you! The coral is doomed! The oceans will die! We'll all starve to death if we listen to this whack-job!"

The Skeptical movement and the Creationist movement have a lot in common. The bulk of the membership aren't terribly bright, depend completely on a small group of authorities for talking points, and don't understand their own beliefs (even superficially). Members of both groups LOVE to repeat the same nonsense over and over -- even after some misguided soul points out how irrational their absurd claims and beliefs are. It still astonishes me how few so-called skeptics seem to have even a basic understanding of science.

Re:A wake up call (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#42373859)

My claimed "so-called skeptics" are those who are actually denialists but who insist on being labelled skeptics because it sounds more reasonable, considered and open-minded.

They are the people who distrust scientists completely and put all their faith in right wing pundits who say that it is actually getting cooler (who do this by comparing the temperature to the El Nino year of 1998 - which was completely unrepresentative of the average of the time).

Despite wanting to appear open-minded, they will never ever concede that there is a chance that scientists are correct. That is not merely being skeptical. If they argue a point and are shown to be wrong (when it becomes obvious that they haven't read the studies that they are skeptical about), they will never use that experience to change their thinking, but will instead seamlessly move on to the next bit of "evidence" that they found on some conservative blog as if nothing happened.

They will not subject the anti-AGW claims to the same skepticism to which they hold the claims of science. They will question the financial motives of scientists without a shred of evidence that they are "on the take", and yet will dismiss with contempt any suggestion that big business funds the think tanks that churn out the FUD against the science. This is despite those same think tanks of having a documented history of being paid by business to discredit scientists (think back to the smoking-cancer link debate).

I am not claiming that all people who call themselves skeptics are like this, but the real ones are quite rare to find.

Re:A wake up call (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374009)

I count myself among people who assume that there are serious problems that need to be addressed. I've also always thought it was reasonable to always be looking for new, better ways to produce energy and avoid doing damage to our planet whenever that's doable. We live here, after all.

But I'm not-at-all comfortable with this idea that anyone that considers themselves "skeptical" is secretly "anti-science", or a "denier". And I don't think anyone should just accept either of the two "99% of X people actually believe Y" assertions here.

We've discussed the shortcomings of climate modeling. We've discussed how it's an evolving process. It's not unfair to think that a great deal of what we read in any single study may turn out to be wildly inaccurate.

There's climate science and politicized AGW debate. One of those belongs to the shouting heads on TV. I think we'd all be better off if we tried to focus on the other, rather than picking teams and assuming stupid thing about everyone else.

Just one more position, for whatever it's worth.

Re:A wake up call (0)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 2 years ago | (#42374063)

It's better to measure peoples response against what's objectively true, at least to our best understanding. It's not up to peope to self assess and choose a position they are comfortable with - if I were more comfortable with believing there is no link between lung cancer and smoking, would my position make me less likely to get lung cancer?

We call people who reject the science of climate change deniers, because that is what they are doing - denying. They are in denial, and reject the objective facts for some other reality that provides them with more comfort. This is a known coping mechanism for recievers of terrible news - the term refers to their state of mind, and the reason why they hold the position they do.

We've discussed the shortcomings of climate modeling. We've discussed how it's an evolving process. It's not unfair to think that a great deal of what we read in any single study may turn out to be wildly inaccurate.

There is a vast difference between the levels of uncertainty created by incomplete models (and they are incomplete to some extent), and clinging to notions that have long been dismissed by science.

Re:A wake up call (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374039)

I might be considered a skeptic. I believe global warming is real, and that CO2 has a modest impact on it. What I'm not convinced of are the forcing/feedback effects in models which amplify the CO2 warming effect, which by itself is pretty small.

What I'm most skeptical of though are the catastrophic predictions and immediate 'calls to action' based on what are at best good guesses as to the future climate behavior, and zero thought is being given to any sort of cost/benefit tradeoff. Considering that fossil fuels have quite literally made modern quality of life possible, a drastic rollback of them and replacement with technology which can't scale to modern consumption (yet) seems to me a far worse nightmare than a 1 degree increase in the next 100 years (when CO2 will be double it is today at current emissions). I'm not against proper research into alternative energy sources, but modern life requires the cheapest most abundant form of energy available, and right now that is fossil fuels (and potentially nuclear).

Just think back to before the industrial revolution, roads paved with manure, the leading cause of death was infection, climate related deaths were also very high. You were a slave to your environment, and had to just take whatever it dished out to you. Abundant energy turned that around, droubts no longer spell ruin because water can be shipped, heat waves no longer means heat stroke because of air conditioning, and even famine in the developed world is unheard of because abundant energy made modern agriculture possible, yielding the best fed population in history.

But people want to roll this back and end it? Sure they say they want to replace the energy with alternative sources, but face it right now they simply can not scale to modern civilization's needs. If someone cracks that puzzle I'll be the first to congratulate them and sing their praises, but right now life means fossil fuels.

Re:A wake up call (3, Insightful)

St.Creed (853824) | about 2 years ago | (#42374181)

You are making assumptions. Yes, fossil fuels are necessary right now. But we can improve the wastage levels a lot. Cars do not have to guzzle gallons of fuel to transport people if you have better public transportation and enforce green standards on cars. The Japanese car factories proved that it was possible to build much better cars than were the norm (and Chrysler, GM and Ford nearly or actually died on that one). The same goes for many areas of the way we live. The US especially seems to glorify in insane airconditioning, huge wastage of food and resources, very bad insulation on housing, and on and on.

Even without draconic measures in place, many standard building practices in the US would be utterly unacceptable in most EU countries. That could improve tomorrow, leading to a better quality of buildings and reduced CO2 consumption.

The whole dichotomy between "reducing CO2" and "better living conditions" is fake. You can have both, in a lot of cases. We should save the fossil fuels for those cases where we cannot and not spend it willy-nilly.

Re:A wake up call (2, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42374047)

I think what probably rubs people the wrong way is when those who spearhead the AGW movement either don't practice what they preach, or outright fabricate their "facts." Al Gore tells us that we all need to reduce our carbon footprint, yet he has a larger carbon footprint than dare I say 99% of the world's population. Further, he deliberately fabricated data in order to sell his "inconvenient truth" movie. As if that isn't enough, he sells carbon credits, aka "indulgences" to himself.

When you ask his supporters why he should be able to consume a lot while telling the rest of us not to, they insist that it's because he's an important person to get the word across (as if he's more important than anybody else on the planet no less.) That falls apart though when you think about the fact that his message is about as known as it can get, furthermore, most of his consumption comes from luxuries.

Re:A wake up call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374127)

Why would skeptics pay attention to yet another climate model the output of which is almost certainly unmitigated rubbish?

Re:A wake up call (4, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#42374215)

You might like to look at my definition of a "so called skeptic" below, because refusing to look at the science just because you guess that it is wrong is denialism, not skepticism. Feel free to continue with your uninformed belief, but don't try to pretend to the rest of the world that you know more than the scientists who dedicate their life to actually studying what is going on.

Re:A wake up call (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374347)

I don't think denialist is the right term. What the "so called skeptics" are, are heretics.

Re:A wake up call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374213)

Why would another simulation of a series of failed simulation convince anybody?
Only in reversed science will theory take precedence over observation.

Next time you are in the ocean (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373565)

Masturbate like mad, perhaps 2-3 times. Semen is food for these reefs.

Re:Next time you are in the ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373743)

Next time, please make sure your jokes are funny before posting.

Re:Next time you are in the ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373905)

Old enough to spell "masturbate" and "semen" correctly... Young enough to want to impress himself by posting the first thing that comes into his head that uses those 2 words... I'm guessing 14 or so.

Who the hell believes this shit? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373575)

Really, lets look at REAL science, not this who National Enquirer tabloid bullshit pseudo science. Does anyone really believe this stuff? Really? In this day and age?

Re:Who the hell believes this shit? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#42373605)

The basic science is sound, it's your own layer of politics that's giving you grief.

Let's stop watching the tea leaves of the models.. (2, Interesting)

emarkp (67813) | about 2 years ago | (#42373589)

And look at what's actually happening [] :

... a large scale, natural experiment in Papua New Guinea. There are several places at the eastern end of that country where carbon dioxide is continuously bubbling up through healthy looking coral reef, with fish swimming around and all that that implies.

Remember when scientists would discard theories when their predictions were wrong? Good times....

Re:Let's stop watching the tea leaves of the model (0)

Ferretman (224859) | about 2 years ago | (#42373655)



Re:Let's stop watching the tea leaves of the model (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373765)

And from the abstract of the actual paper [] referred to by the wuwt page :

"...Our empirical data from this unique field setting confirm model predictions that ocean acidification, together with temperature stress, will probably lead to severely reduced diversity, structural complexity and resilience of Indo-Pacific coral reefs within this century."

Remember when non-experts would actually listen to scientists rather than cherry pick what they wanted to hear? Good times...

Re:Let's stop watching the tea leaves of the model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373807)

Re:Let's stop watching the tea leaves of the model (0)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#42373855)

You fucking moron.... CO2 bubbling up in a limited area has close to zero impact on the temperature and the acidity of the ocean in that area. Which is what is driving the coral die-off.

Thank god that scientists are actually doing that, because otherwise they'd keep putting forward idiotic, wrong and self-serving ideas - like the ones being served up on that site. Quite honestly, when he started out, Watts was actually doing some fairly useful commentary. He was mostly wrong, but at least he was asking questions that needed answering in the public, instead of just in the scientific literature. Now.... he's just clinging to an incorrect idea that has been his meal ticket for years. He's not going to give up or change his mind, because he will have no purpose or income.

Re:Let's stop watching the tea leaves of the model (0)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 2 years ago | (#42374069)

At this point in time you are more likely to obtain the truth by linking to a homeopathy site compared to

Re:Let's stop watching the tea leaves of the model (1)

St.Creed (853824) | about 2 years ago | (#42374183)

I like my morning madness undiluted :)

CO2 to kill reef? Not the coral disease? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373601)

I understand that too much CO2 is bad, but in the particular case of the Great Barrier Reef it is not CO2 which is causing the coral to bleach and die. It is really a coral disease which is causing the issue:

Not to put a dampener on the Global Warming campaign, but this particular issue requires biologists and scientists to go do some really hard research and try and figure out how to fix this problem. By standing back and saying it is a problem with CO2 is neglecting the actual cause of the problem which is a local disease.

Hard work by scientists not politicians in the UN asking for more grants to research how CO2 affects the barrier reef. The immediate problem is a coral disease - no matter what CO2 does, the reef will die.

Re:CO2 to kill reef? Not the coral disease? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373661)

But the UN won't be able to wrest control of the world's governments by backing an effort to combat a coral destroying disease. It needs the global threat presented by the abundance of carbon dioxide in order to create the conditions under which it can control and manipulate the governments of the world. Whether that carbon dioxide is actually the basis for climate change or not, the "consensus" that it is binds the governments to follow the UN's guidance into solving the problem. I'll be LMFAO if the next solar cycle sees the temperatures plunge back to a "normal" level or lower.

It's embarrassing to think that when I was younger, about 8 or 10 and knowing that there was nothing like a common enemy to unite an otherwise contentious group of people, I had the thought of unifying the world through a contrived external threat to the planet. To find that such a plan is actually being carried out but with the common threat being used is ourselves is just terrible.

Re:CO2 to kill reef? Not the coral disease? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373677)

btw, I was 10 years old about 47 years ago.

Re:CO2 to kill reef? Not the coral disease? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 2 years ago | (#42373909)

And yet you've never learnt to stop projecting, have you?

Re:CO2 to kill reef? Not the coral disease? (2)

St.Creed (853824) | about 2 years ago | (#42374199)

One question: is it stupid to unite against a common enemy, if the enemy is real? Because you seem to imply that whatever the reality of AGW, as long as we have to do something together with "them darn fur'ners" it's bad.

So: if the temperatures do *not* plunge back, what new excuse will you make then? And suppose you do turn around then, how much worse will the measures have to be, thanks to people like you? Right now, the measures are actually not bad. They will kill off a few companies that are inefficient and need to dump waste everywhere in order to compete. They will drive the best companies to improve even more and out-compete the others. Capitalism at its best. But if we wait long enough, the measures that will be unavoidable then will kill much more than that.

Re:CO2 to kill reef? Not the coral disease? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373697)

Maybe the increased CO and its effects lower the corals ability to fight disease. Like how many (most?) AIDS victims die from pneumonia or other infections that were only able to gain a foothold due to the weakened immune system?

Re:CO2 to kill reef? Not the coral disease? (4, Informative)

NoMaster (142776) | about 2 years ago | (#42373755)

it is not CO2 which is causing the coral to bleach and die. It is really a coral disease which is causing the issue ... The immediate problem is a coral disease - no matter what CO2 does, the reef will die.

I guess that's why your link says " disease is not considered a major threat to the Reef ."

this particular issue requires biologists and scientists to go do some really hard research ...

Although apparently simply reading their own links is too hard for some people...

Re:CO2 to kill reef? Not the coral disease? (4, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#42373969)

And yet your linked article says that the increase of disease is thought to be due to the water being warmer. Yes, this is going to really put a dampener on the Global Warming campaign. And where did you get the idea that scientists will stop studying the reef just because it is thought to involve climate change?

Science doesn't work that way. The different disciplines don't go take a holiday when another group makes a discovery.

Stop. Focus, people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373611)

How about we all stop with the crazy predictions that only drive fear and eventually apathy, and focus on what's actually happening NOW. And stop that.

You can throw 50 different predictions at a normal person and he'll say: "Wait, this is stupid. This can't all happen? So what it is?", and they'll deny the problems that are already occurring. Instead just focus on what's happening now, with the warming of the ocean etc, and merely say: "It's bad. Very bad."

Politicians are simple. People as a group are simple. So keep it simple..

Re:Stop. Focus, people. (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 2 years ago | (#42373903)

Yes. Those with crazy predictions should stop. Those with rational, probable ones please keep predicting.
Focussing on what is happening now will make us miss those events we are actively and preventably causing
whose timeframes are measured in the 100s of years. And those will tend to be the important, game-changing

Umm. Unfortunately, nature, and physics, chemistry etc, are not simple enough for most people to (bother to) comprehend.

Unfortunately our collective activity is profoundly f***ing up nature and climate in rather physically and chemically complex ways; in ways that take too long for most human individuals to comprehend (i.e. slightly longer than their individual lifespan) but are unfortunately near-instantaneous from our planet's and our species' point of view.

Those who know how to know things do know pretty much what's going on, that is, what we are doing to the place.

Unfortunately most people can't figure it out or don't give a shit.

In the immortal words of Pris: "Then we're stupid and we'll die!"


KILL! Kill! KILL! Kill! KILL! Kill! KILL! Kill! KI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373683)

KILL! Kill! KILL! Kill! KILL! Kill! KILL everything that isn't human! HALLELUJAH!

I've had it with you socialists that think that anything that isn't human should be allowed to live. Why do you hate freedom?

Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (3, Insightful)

blindseer (891256) | about 2 years ago | (#42373723)

I find it very upsetting that there is an abundance of people that are concerned about the CO2 output but very few that take the time to investigate and lobby for solutions that won't drive us back into the stone age. The only solution that we have now, with no need for new technological advancements, is nuclear power. We have not built a new nuclear power plant here in the USA for something like four decades. Those that are still running are undoubtedly reaching the end of their safe and profitable lifespan.

Alternatives like wind, solar, and bio-mass take considerable amounts of land. This land is expensive and competes with other vital needs like food. I recall a solar power plant that could not produce enough electricity to pay it's property taxes. They were allowed a discounted rate on the tax but they still went out of business since they couldn't pay their other bills. Bio-mass is a direct competitor to food as any land that can grow a plant suitable for energy is also land that is suitable to grow food. There just is not enough land, water, and sun to both feed us and provide our power needs. There might be enough to both fill our tummies and our fuel tanks on our vehicles but the biggest producer of CO2 is not our vehicles, it's our coal fired power plants.

Wind might some day be competitive with coal and be profitable. The problem with wind, as well as geothermal and hydro, is that it is highly sensitive to location. Wind power can share land with things like food crops but it shares a weakness with solar power, it is highly sensitive to weather.

There's a part of me that thinks this scare over CO2 output is largely a hoax. There is a part of me that just doesn't care. What I do want to see is all this arguing to stop and people put some real solutions to work. I want them to STFU and build some nuclear power plants already. I can see a perfect spot for one from my front door. It has a rail nearby, a small river flowing by for cooling water, and a ready market in the city that I can see from my back door. My only concern is that a power plant so close might shade my house.

Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#42373797)

Because the powers that push the movement are less concerned with CO2 as much as they want to push humanity down the technological hole. Closing off all power sources. They are the modern day Luddites.

Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 2 years ago | (#42373923)

No, it's merely that we don't wish to hand over perpetual control over our power supply to GE any more than we want to hand the entire future of agriculture over to Monsanto.

But you guys never stop to think about that angle, do you?

Or perhaps you'd prefer that it not occur to us...

Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (3, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | about 2 years ago | (#42374335)

My push to the movement is very very small, but I can assure you that I am not a Luddite. Except when it comes to coal fired power plants and electronic voting.

Feel free to build as many nuclear or solar or wind power plants as you want. Solar will hopefully make electricity so cheap that we won't have to worry about wasting it. If rain forest has to be destroyed to make room for people, then so be it, the Earth is not a museum.

Just don't ruin it all so that the next generation has an impossible clean up task to do. We have enough trouble today with dealing with the land fills of the last generation; just a little more forethought then would have saved a lot of effort now. Forcing the next generation to extract coal from the air so they can stick it back into mines is really stupid.

Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (4, Interesting)

dwywit (1109409) | about 2 years ago | (#42373837)

I like your open-minded approach - no, that's not sarcasm, I mean it. Yes, electricity from nuclear fission is cleaner overall than most other so-called baseload sources. It's still scary when something goes wrong - it doesn't matter about new designs, assurances, technological advances (which ARE impressive) - human fears are a factor, and must be dealt with, whether based on solid evidence, or FUD from greenpeace.
I live off-grid using subsidised solar PV, and a petrol generator for backup when it's rainy. If I was really strict about appliance usage when the weather is less than ideal (e.g. turn off the kids' computers), we wouldn't need the generator very much at all. Let's put aside the environmental impact of manufacturing solar PV for the moment, and focus on whether it's possible to live off-grid with solar PV. Is it possible to continue a high-energy-consumption lifestyle with old-style incandescent light bulbs, air-conditioning, electric clothes dryers, electric dishwashers, electric coffee-makers, electric ovens and stovetops? No, it's not. Is it possible to minimise your consumption of fossil fuels and still enjoy life? Hells yeah. No aircon, occasional use of the clothes dryer run directly off the generator, wood-fired stove (also supplies hot water and heating), hand-wash dishes while listening to internet radio, 2-3 major appliances at any one time, e.g. 2 computers and a washing machine, or vacuum cleaner and washing machine, etc. It can work, if you want it to. Right now, I'm typing this on a laptop, on a sunday evening, listening to internet radio (B.B. King, if you're interested) via another laptop amplified through an old boombox, my daughter is watching some silly movie on Nickleodeon on a 55" LCD TV, sourced via a HD decoder from a satellite dish, my wife is playing minecraft on her laptop with an external 24" LCD screen, and my son is doing the facebook thing on his iPad - it's about 5:45pm, so house lights will be coming on soon - they're a mix of 24VDC halogen, and 240VAC CFL. All it takes is willpower, and (gratefully acknowledged) Govt subsidised PV - yes, I DO pay my taxes, BTW. Mind you, even if it the gear wasn't subsidised, it still would have been cheaper than getting the mains extended to my place.
Not the right solution for everyone, obviously, but saying it can't be done is simply not true.

Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42374059)

Personally I live less than 50 miles from the largest nuclear power facility in the US, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't know why it would bother anybody else either.

Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373917)

You are armed because you are a chickenshit coward.

Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (1)

cryptolemur (1247988) | about 2 years ago | (#42374017)

You got a lot wrong in your comment, but let's consider only the thing concerning nuclear power generation:
- with all the mining, processing and delivering of fuel plus the ridiculous amounts of concrete required for safe reactor building the CO2e/W of nuclear is approaching that of coal. - nuclear power is generated by huge units, 100's MW, so when they go offline (and they do, eventually) you need a lot of backup power, and it can't be nuclear since it has to be available at moments notice. - there are limited places to build nuclear plants, since they require lots of cool, clean water to operate, and those are becoming rare with global warming I so hope that the luddites would stop pushing for old solutions and would embrace new technology.

Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42374053)

They're pretty much the same people who oppose wind turbines because they kill birds, and oppose solar panels because they use plastic. It's simultaneously these people who make the environmentalist movement less attractive to outsiders. Also, and this is some good irony for you, is that the people who tend to be anti-environmentalism also tend to favor nuclear power, which includes a lot of prominent republicans. They get shunned for that though, because it favors corporations who would profit from nuclear power.

You can't win with them no matter what you do, and they wonder why they have so many enemies.

We Can't Predict The Weather 5 Years Out! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373735)

Utter sheer bullshit!

The authors haven't the foggiest f**king idea what will be happening in 2100! Who could possibly believe this drivel except an idiot?

Take all those models... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373771)

... and SHOVE them. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 3246 times, shame on the fucking media that won't let go and stop trying to sell this shit that is climate change that NOBODY believes in anymore.

Friendly tip: time for the new con to rob everyone of a slice of money and keep developing countries at 'developing' forever.


Quick. Switch to hemp, save the planet. (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 2 years ago | (#42373783)

Trap all that carbon in clothing, acid free art paper, hempcrete, hemp fiber composites, etc... :)

Re:Quick. Switch to hemp, save the planet. (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#42374329)

acid free art paper

That would take all the fun out of growing weed.

Hemp grown with grain fungus . . . what an intriguing idea for a new product.

Rescue them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373815)

We could always go out to the coral reef, and rescue the creatures living there, and put them in aquariums.

I need to restock the aquarium in my surgary.

P. Sherman
42 Wallaby Way
Sydney, Australia

News at 11 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373823)

Let me guess: Those models are all based on the theory of Global Warming?

Then it's less than guesswork and worthless... Next!

Fat Chance of getting changes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373857)

Try telling someone from the middle of the USA that coral reefs are in danger.
1) they have probable never seen the sea let alone a coral reef.
2) you will take his 5 or 6 ltr Pickup off if him, over his dead body. You know the one, with 5 rifles in a rack behind the driver.

For many in this world this sort of statement means absolutley zip. What the climate people have to do is express it in terms that that particular audience will understand.
For the redneck farmer, that might be impossible though.

meh (2, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#42373863)

They overlooked the part in their model where more acidic seas dissolve existing carbonate faster. Nature recycles. How do you think coral survived 7000ppm CO2? []

They've overlooked simple biomechanics before: "8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise. []

See also: There are winners and losers among corals under the accumulating impacts of climate change, according to a new scientific study. In the world’s first large-scale investigation of how climate affects the composition of coral reefs, an international team of marine scientists concludes that the picture is far more complicated than previously thought - but that total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely. Ref: [] "

Re:meh (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374153)

How do you think coral survived 7000ppm CO2?

The first corals were soft bodied, which probably helped.

"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.

If instead of relying on The Register you went to the NASA source for that [] , you'd find this quote:

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected

See also: There are winners and losers among corals under the accumulating impacts of climate change

The issue there is that different corals play massively different roles in a reef and in the growth and survival of reef-associated organisms. You can't just replace coral A with coral B and expect everything to be fine. As the authors themselves put it: "many of these novel coral reef communities are likely to lack contemporary analogs, with unknown but potentially far-reaching consequences for the ecology and evolution of reef organisms". In other words, the coral reefs could change massively but we can't predict what the reef ecology will be like afterwards. Bearing in mind that reefs are some of the most biodiverse habitats and that they're critical for ocean life in general that's something to worry about. For all we know the new reef systems could be dominated by a coral which doesn't support the fish and shellfish which we can make use of.

when i swim with dolphins i pee pee on them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42373907)

TEMPEST Attacks! LCD Monitor leaks system noise to FRS

This post is one example of why Tor developers should focus on anti-TEMPEST-ing the Tor Browser, in color, fonts, etc.
I don't operate any wireless equipment at my living location. This includes computers, computer equipment, routers, non-computer equipment, etc.

I'm having a problem with one of my LCD monitors.

It works without problems. That was until I picked up some heavy static noises from a hand held radio. I eliminated all sources of generating this type of noise until I came towards an LCD monitor. When the monitor is on and there is content on the screen the radio makes several types of garbage(static) sounds. As I manipulate contents on the screen, maximize and minimize windows, open different applications, the radio responds with scratchy(static) noises to match the activity on the screen. This includes typing and mouse movement.

When I switched the desktop background to a solid black color without wallpaper, the radio noise went down to almost nothing. But when I loaded any program with a white background, the noise from the radio exploded in volume.

When I passed the radio across different computer and non-computer electronic devices other than the LCD monitor, the wired mouse made a high pitched squeal sound within the static. None of the other computing devices such as the tower generated any noise.

I tried CRT monitors and separate computers attached to the CRT monitors but they did not generate any noise in the radio. On the computer connected to the net, I unplugged the cable leading to the router to rule this out but it made no difference, the LCD monitor is at fault.

While monitoring the radio noise, there were several instances where the noise on the channel being monitored stopped, and I switched to another channel and the same noise appeared. Why would the noise from the LCD switch channels during normal use of the LCD? Back and forth throughout the day the noise generated by the LCD would switch from one channel to the next and back to the first channel again.

The noise extends several steps within my living location. I'll test this another day to determine if it extends outside my living location and if so by how many feet.

The computer/monitor are grounded and attached to a surge protector. I'm not sure what I need to do to stop this, or if I should ignore it.

I assumed LCDs would be quieter than CRTs when it came to noise.

Unless I have a radio tuned to a specific channel, the LCD does not generate any noise which I can detect, unless it's above my hearing capacity.

The LCD monitor also functions as speakers, and while the sound cable is connected to the tower, I have disabled the onboard sound in my BIOS. The only other connection is the DVI cable to the tower.

How may I decrease this noise or eliminate it? It seems like the LCD is a mini radio station. When I turn it off the noise in the radio stops, if I blacken the screen the noise lessens. When I switch to a colorful background or load white screened applications like a web browser the noise jumps up loudly. I've tried grabbing and moving a browser window around the screen and the movement matches the noises in the radio.

Would any of this be considered normal?
This certainly isn't unheard of, it's because some part of the monitor is unshielded. The more fix-it stuff is at the top of the following, with the technical backdrop that just might be good to know is at the bottom.

Unfortunately, the issue is most likely the panel charging the LCs. The only thing you can do is see if the manufacturer will replace it or upgrade you. Complain to the manufacturer, be sure to come up with some important thing it's interfering with(if I recall some medical devices use some sort of radio).

If the issue is actually internal wiring which is highly unlikely as detailed below, and it isn't in warranty, attempt to shield it yourself. To shield it yourself, you'll need thin foil(not kitchen foil) and electrical tape.

So, in any given monitor, there's 3 main parts. Input, logic, and output. Output, as previously mentioned, can't really be shielded. To shield both of the other sections, all you really need to do is manipulate the wiring to reduce the number of holes in the foil wrap needed to put it all back together. Obviously this will take some trial and error, and time.


Shielding wires can best be thought of as a encasing a wire in a Faraday cage, made of foil. If you want to see an example, Apple's iPod charging cords are all shielded, strip the insulation and see for yourself. This shielding acts doubly, keeping EM noise from messing with the signal, and keeps the signal's own noise from leaving.

Because of the specific details you provided( bravo to you, the amount of data provided helped ), I can conclude that the charging panel(the array of electrodes responsible for producing the image) is putting out the interference. Three of your observations prove this.

First, you state the noise ceases completely when the monitor is turned off, which is consistent with it being EM noise.
Second, the noise's perceived pitch changes when the display is manipulated, which is to be expected, as the electrode charges would change as the display changes.
Third, a black screen is "quieter" than a white screen. Black is the lowest charge state, with the only power in use going to the backlight.

As for your questions:
Noise hopping channels isn't unheard of, though I don't know the science behind it. My best guess is that because the noise isn't an intended result of the electricity, small changes in voltage/amperage result in those hops.
(indirect question-ish) The mouse was likely the only other emitter because it has a fairly high density of wires + it emits light.

What 1s the d1fference between - and where may 1 obta1n the non-k1tchen "foil" you ment1oned?

The d1sturbances sound l1ke a bugged env1ronment. The squeal com1ng from one area and/or dev1ce could mean the locat1on of the bug has been found - and 1 know adding a small dev1ce and/or mod1f1cation to a keyboard and/or mouse 1s s1mple enough - espec1ally for a quick 1n and out the door type bugging.

1s there an affordable method of sh1elding the equ1pment while not violating FCC/TEMPEST laws? Would a simple screen d1mmer attached to the monitor bring the no1se down? Or would 1t be best to put out the extra money requ1red by purchas1ng spec1al paint or wallpaper wh1ch blocks RF signals?

Whether or not 1t's a bug, at this point you are broadcast1ng your computer mon1tor and 1ts activ1t1es, down to the keyboard and mouse movements. What 1s the use of using Tor or any other l1ke serv1ce 1f you are pwned over the a1r waves?
You could use kitchen foil, it's just more unwieldy to work with.

Yes, it could be a bug, I was running under the assumption you had no reason to believe you were bugged, and if you did you ran bug sweeps. If you believe you are bugged, you should definitely dismantle things to make sure a bug isn't simply piggybacking on the same power source.

Dimming the screen would reduce noise, but not completely eliminate it.
Thanks, W00t.

"Dimming the screen would reduce noise, but not completely eliminate it."

I have modified my browser to function with a black background and my choice of text colors and unchecked the option for all pages to use their own colors, so every page I visit is black with my choice of font/links colors. I'll rescan to determine if this lessens the noise. It's ugly, but tolerable. Coupled with a black theme for the desktop, including the background and system wide applications should also help - including disabling images in the browser.

You mentioned foil. I'm not an electrician, but wouldn't wrapping cords with foil and finishing the job off with a layer of strong black tape possibly conduct electricity? Are you suggesting I cover all wires leading to the computer(s) using this method? Wouldn't they each require special grounding? How many repeating layers of this and/or other material is needed? Have you tried "conductive tubing?"

While I want to shield enough to block noisy RF, I don't want to create a microwave type scenario where RF is contained but it still remains and is possibly amplified so as to add to the degeneration of my health, if that's possible.

1. Ferrite beads
2. Split beads
3. Toroids


I could try some or all of the three options above in addition to your advice? TY
Anyways this reminding me of Van Eck phreaking look it up, some pretty interesting stuff.

Yep, had the same thought.

Countermeasures are detailed in the article on TEMPEST, the NSA's standard on spy-proofing digital equipment. One countermeasure involves shielding the equipment to minimize electromagnetic emissions. Another method, specifically for video information, scrambles the signals such that the image is perceptually undisturbed, but the emissions are harder to reverse engineer into images. Examples of this include low pass filtering fonts and randomizing the least significant bit of the video data information.
can someone please point me to techie LCD monitor internal guides? If I'm going to take it apart I'd like to know what to expect. I've read more about Van Eck and Tempest than anyone can teach me here. Now I'm looking for LCD guides of what's inside.
To be honest, its not the whats inside the LCD monitor you should be worrying about if you want to phreak LCD's . You should be worry more about the RF side of things, and figuring out the spread spectrum clock signal so you can pick up the signal. Top if off background noise is going to be bitch when it comes to LCD. Old CRT monitors are way easier to phreak those thing throw off EM radiation like nobody business.
The noise coming from the LCD monitor is appearing on FRS channels:

- []

It continues for several minutes before it jumps to another channel then after a few minutes jumps back to the original channel. One of my concerns is the ability for others to pluck this noise from the air (Van Eck/TEMPEST) and monitor my activity, or possibly use an attack against the computer somehow. A recent UN report mentioned a high tech method(s):

* U.N. report reveals secret law enforcement techniques

"Point 201: Mentions a new covert communications technique using software defined high frequency radio receivers routed through the computer creating no logs, using no central server and extremely difficult for law enforcement to intercept."

- []
- []

In addition, I don't want my LCD monitor constantly sending monitor and/or system activity to a FRS channel(s) for others to hear. I choose wired over wireless for a reason, and there shouldn't be any noise coming from my LCD monitor and appearing over FRS, unless there is a bug or problem with the monitor. All of my
CRT systems are silent on FRS.

When I position the radio near different components, the power supply doesn't emit any noise on FRS, but it could be a problem, I don't know, I'll move to that once I resolve the LCD monitor problem, unless the PSU is the problem and not the monitor.

I may take apart the LCD monitor, I'm looking for a good list of what I'll find if I do.

I peered inside the vents on the top/back left hand side with a strong flashlight and came across a strange piece of silver tape inside, here's how I describe it:


OO = a small thin black material coming out from underneath the silver piece of tape
GG = the strip of silver tape
__ = the bottom right hand portion of the silver tape is raised enough to allow a pinky finger entry

The silver tape/material/opening under tape is on the top left corner inside the monitor. The rest of the length and area inside that I can see contain no tape or black material. I've seen photos of planted bugs in people's living spaces and most if not all of the invasive ones are wrapped/covered in silver foil. I've found no other reason for that strip and material to be there, but what do I know.
In addition, my CDROM drive light blinks once every second, sometimes with a second or 1/2 second in between, and I found this: []

"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer's
CD-ROM drive to pulse the motor as a signalling method:

* Modern high-speed CD-ROM drive motors are both acoustically and
electrically noisy, giving you two attack methods for the price of one;

* Laptop computer users without CRTs, and the PC users that can afford
large LCD screens instead of CRTs, often have CD-ROM drives;

* Users are getting quite used to sitting patiently while their
CD-ROM drives grind away for no visibly obvious reason (but
that's quite enough about the widespread installs of software from
Microsoft CD-ROMs that prompted Kuhn's investigation in the first place.)"
"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer' personal computer' CD-ROM drive"

Yes and the hard drive and in some PC's the cooling fans as well are under CPU control.

You can also do it with PC's where the CPU does not control the fan, but the hardware has a simple thermal sensor to control it's speed. You do this by simply having a process that uses power expensive instructions in tight loops, thus raising the CPU temprature (it's one of the side channels I was considering a long time ago when thinking about how the temp inside the case changed various things including the CPU clock XTAL frequency).

The change in sound side channel is one of the first identified problems with Quantum Key Distribution. Basicaly the bod who came up with the idea whilst first testing the idea could tell the state of "Alice's polarizer" simply by the amount of noise it made...

The CD-ROM motor idea I'd heard befor but could not remember where till I followed your link.

Dr Lloyd Wood has worked with the UK's Surrey Uni, the European Space Agency and Americas NASA and one or two other places as part of his work for Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. He has been involved with CLEO (Cisco router in Low Earth Orbit) and other work on what's being called "The Space Internet".

Of interest is his work on Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networks (DTN). It's not been said "publicaly" as far as I'm aware but the work has aspects that are important to anonymity networks such as TOR.

You can read more on Dr Wood's DTN work etc at, []

The UK occupies an odd position in the "Space Race" it is the only nation who having put a satellite into space then stopped further space rocket development (the Black Knight launch platform was considerably safer and more economic than the then US and CCCP systems). The UK has however continued in the Space Game and is perhaps the leading designers of payloads for scientific and industrial satellites (it probably is on military sats as well but nobody who knows for sure is telling ;-)

Clive Robinson []
I don't think there should be anymore blinking if you remove the CD/DVD inside.
If it keeps blinking, find out which process uses it.
Anyway, you can disable it when you're not using it, if it's bothering you.

And shield your monitor. []
"I don't think there should be anymore blinking if you remove the CD/DVD inside."

Does Tails support this at boot?

If not, is there a Linux LiveCD which allows this and does not give you root access at boot?

I've looked at several different distributions which allow you to boot into RAM and remove the CD, but they all give you root and that's a very insecure environment to run TBB in!

"If it keeps blinking, find out which process uses it."

It doesn't blink on the several distros which boot into RAM, but I don't want to run Tor as root or reconfigure the permissions/PAM/etc. just to use TBB. As above, with Tails and many LiveCDs which don't boot into RAM, 99% of them have this blinking light issue. The actual INSTALLS I've done to HDD experience constant light activity too, even more so, without anything to explain them.

For Linux, I've ran rkhunter, chkrootkit, tiger, and other tools and nothing malicious is found. Without a deep binary analysis I don't know what else I could do.

For Windows, I use a few programs in the SysInternals Suite and they display strange usage on the system and reference programs which cannot be found with a search on the system, references to impersonation, spoofing, and more. I've ran almost every N.American scanner on the Windows systems, including command line only rootkit detectors and I've seen some strange 'strings' of binaries mentioned, but have no idea on how to clean the system.

I prefer to run LiveCDs because all installations, Windows and Linux, contain unexplainable frenzies of blinking lights, far worse than the blink every second on most LiveCDs. I'm wondering if this is firmware malware on my NIC or the CDROM itself. This has existed for years and never goes away, no matter what system I use, this strange baggage seems to re-infect everything.

"Anyway, you can disable it when you're not using it, if it's bothering you."

Disable what?

"And shield your monitor."

Thanks. I'm investigating and most of the guides require specific addons to the computer's cabling system. Most of the guides appear incomplete, or are in another language other than English.

Any comments on the Tempest/blinking light possibility?

Any comments on why it's spewing out noise to FRS stations and freq hopping?
More comments from elsewhere:


"You're making a mountain out of a mole hill."

I respect your opinion and I don't wish to argue against it, but please look at it from the way I and some others have. I want to eliminate the noise created by the LCD monitor. If this was such a common experience, I would expect at least one of the dozens of other electronic equipment to generate some noise, however faint, on FRS - but they do not.

"You are under the wrong impression that somehow RF hash from the back light can somehow carry data. A liquid crystal display (LCD) does not generate its own light like a CRT or plasma screen and requires a light source to make the display visible. Even those that do cannot transmit computer data being none reaches the monitor."

The LCD is connected to a tower, which other devices connect to. Under testing I've heard the CDROM drive accessing data noises within the FRS channels, along with mouse movements and keyboard activity, along with other noises. When I disable the LCD monitor, all of these disturbances vanish. This means the weakness is in the monitor, and my tower is well shielded or shielded enough so as not to generate any noise in radios I can notice. The reference I made to the strange tape and material within the back side of the LCD monitor at the top could be a sign of some type of antenna or device for amping.

"Their FRS radios will only hear what yours does, RF hash, no data whatsoever THAT IS if one is standing outside your house tapping the radio and scratching his head wondering what's the matter with his radio. You and only you know what it is and where it's coming from."

And what of experienced and curious sysadmins? Rogue crackers? Bored HAMs?
Are there any remote radio injection attacks against systems? This is something I'll research later, as I do believe it was mentioned in at least one whitepaper on side channel attacks.

"Thanks for the chuckles, if the report reveals secrets it would not be published but sent by secret courier to the KGB in Moscow."

I'm not aware of any secrets revealed within the document. But it did raise an interesting point without exposing the method(s) delivered to us from an interesting party. This wasn't just some random article written by some anonymous, disturbed fellow and posted to a pastebin or conspiracy minded blog or forum. And one cannot deny the dozens of TEMPEST attacks available today.

"So... all this and no word on moving the radio farther from the monitor. Why don't you try talking somewhere besides in front of the computer if it bothers you so much?"

Thank you for considering conversation as my reason for posting this, but it is not. I would not choose a noisy channel to talk on. Clear conversation is not the point of this thread. I desire the elimination of this garbage coming from the LCD monitor. I don't care if no one in the world can pick up on it and hear it, I would like to properly resolve it and not ignore it.

One can also dredge up the subject of EMF on health, too, but I have not experienced any disturbance of health from exposure to this noise and most people would argue any possible EMF effects on health to be one of one's over active imagination and not real world application.


A continued discussion was posted elsewhere, this may be useful in the voyage to remove this "noise":


In addition, my CDROM drive light blinks once every second, sometimes with a second or 1/2 second in between, and I found this:

[-] []

"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer's
CD-ROM drive to pulse the motor as a signalling method:

* Modern high-speed CD-ROM drive motors are both acoustically and
electrically noisy, giving you two attack methods for the price of one;

* Laptop computer users without CRTs, and the PC users that can afford
large LCD screens instead of CRTs, often have CD-ROM drives;

* Users are getting quite used to sitting patiently while their
CD-ROM drives grind away for no visibly obvious reason (but
that's quite enough about the widespread installs of software from
Microsoft CD-ROMs that prompted Kuhn's investigation in the first place.)"


Any comments on the silver tape and material inside the back of the LCD? ...Disconnection of the LED CDROM and HDD lights could be something I should do to relieve one possible issue.


Some articles with examples:

"If everything is just right, you can pick up signals from some distance. "I was able to eavesdrop certain laptops through three walls," says Kuhn. "At the CEBIT conference, in 2006, I was able to see the Powerpoint presentation from a stand 25 metres away."

uhn also mentioned that one laptop was vulnerable because it had metal hinges that carried the signal of the display cable. I asked if you could alter a device to make it easier to spy on. "There are a lot of innocuous modifications you can make to maximise the chance of getting a good signal," he told me. For example, adding small pieces of wire or cable to a display could make a big difference.

As for defending against this kind of attack, Kuhn says using well-shielded cables, certain combinations of colours and making everything a little fuzzy all work."

- []


Online viewer for PDF, PostScript and Word:

"This is an online viewer, with which you can view PDF and PostScript files as browsable images and Word documents as web pages. Given a URL on the net or a file on your computer, the viewer will try to retrieve the document, convert it and show it to you. No plugin software is required." []

The viewer software is open source, licensed under the GNU Public License.

Electromagnetic eavesdropping risks of flat-panel displays []


Eavesdropping attacks on computer displays
- []


Compromising emanations: eavesdropping risks of computer displays
- []
- []


Compromising emanations of LCD TV sets
- []


"Q: Can I use filtered fonts also on flat-panel displays

My experience so far has been that with LCDs, the video cable is the most significant source of radiated information leakage. Where an analogue video cable (with 15-pin VGA connector) is used, low-pass filtered fonts have the same benefits as with CRTs. Where a purely digital video cable is used (DVI-D, laptop-internal displays with FPD/LVDS links, etc.) only the last step, namely randomizing the least-significant bits, should be implemented.

Where the video signal is entirely encoded in digital form, the low-pass filtered step will not have the desired effect. In fact, it can actually increase the differences between the signal generated by individual characters, and thereby make automatic radio character recognition more reliable."

- []


Remotely Eavesdropping on Keyboards (and read the comments!)

"The researchers from the Security and Cryptography Laboratory at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne are able to capture keystrokes by monitoring the electromagnetic radiation of PS/2, universal serial bus, or laptop keyboards. They've outline four separate attack methods, some that work at a distance of as much as 65 feet from the target.

In one video demonstration, researchers Martin Vuagnoux and Sylvain Pasini sniff out the the keystrokes typed into a standard keyboard using a large antenna that's about 20 to 30 feet away in an adjacent room."

- []


Video eavesdropping demo at CeBIT 2006
- []


Optical Emission Security â" Frequently Asked Questions

"Q: What about LEDs?

For devices with RS-232 serial ports, it is customary to provide a status indicator LED for some of the signal lines (in particular transmit data and receive data). Often, these LEDs are directly connected to the line via just a resistor. As a result, anyone with a line of sight to the LED, some optics and a simple photosensor can see the data stream. Joe Loughry and David A. Umphress have recently announced a detailed study (submitted to ACM Transactions on Information and System Security) in which they tested 39 communications devices with 164 LED indicators, and on 14 of the tested devices they found serial port data in the LED light. Based on their findings, it seems reasonable to conclude that LEDs for RS-232 ports are most likely carrying the data signal today, whereas LEDs on high-speed data links (LANs, harddisk) do not. Even these LEDs are still available as a covert channel for malicious software that actively tries to transmit data optically.

I expect that this paper will cause a number of modem manufacturers to add a little pulse stretcher (monostable multivibrator) to the LEDs in the next chip set revision, and that at some facilities with particular security concerns, the relevant LEDs will be removed or covered with black tape.

The data traffic on LEDs is not a periodic signal, and therefore, unlike with video signals, periodic averaging cannot be used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The shot-noise limit estimation technique that I used to estimate the CRT eavesdropping risk can even more easily (because no deconvolution is needed) also be applied to serial port indicators and allows us to estimate a lower bound for the bit-error rate at a given distance. I have performed a few example calculations and concluded that with a direct line of sight, and a 100 kbit/s signal (typical for an external telephone modem), at 500 m distance it should be no problem to acquire a reliable signal (one wrong bit every 10 megabit), whereas for indirect reflection from the wall of a dark room, a somewhat more noisy signal (at least one wrong bit per 10 kilobit) can be expected to be receivable in a few tens of meters distance.

- []


Ancient Story on Slashdot: Coming to a Desktop near you: Tempest Capabilities

"New Scientist has an interesting article about a new toy we will all want. It's a card that plugs in one of your PCI slots and allows you to scan the EMF spectrum and read your neighbours terminal. In about 5 years you might be able to get one for just under £1000. (Modern Tempest Hardware costs about £30000) " []


"Any unshielded electrical device with a variable current (including LCDs) will give out EMF radiation. It's the nature of the beast.

For that matter, light is EMF radiation, so unless you have your LCD in a coal-mine, it's reflecting EMF all the time it's switched on.

Then, there's the fact that screen monitoring isn't the only monitoring you can do. I used to use a radio, tuned into the bus for the PET, as a sound card. Worked surprisingly well, for all that very clunky metal shielding. What's to stop a much higher-quality receiver from seeing the data, in an unshielded box, being sent TO the LCD, or to any other device on the machine?

It's a mistake to assume that Tempest technology is single-function and that that single-function only works in a single situation."

- []


800Mbps Wireless Network Made With LED Light Bulbs
- []


There are a lot of other files, many in PPT format, which can be found easily on this subject of LCD monitor (and other computing devices) TEMPEST sniffing.


Sources for this discussion:

- []
- http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10919 [clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion] .onion link above requires a running Tor client session in order to view. (

This on-going discussion backed up to Pastebin(s) in order to retain it as an artifact. Many of these
types of discussions are REMOVED from the net because of the nature of the discussion (TEMPEST).

CO2 Increasing? (1)

Whiteox (919863) | about 2 years ago | (#42373997)

Really? Is CO2 increasing?
There is a huge difference between global warming and man-made production of CO2 - everything being attenuated by global dimming.
There is so much BS about this that I really hope anyone who has some critical thinking skills use them and make up their own mind. [] in case you need a refresher.

Re:CO2 Increasing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374275)

Sandy was a pretty huge fucking cloud.

The new Mayan calendar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374113)

It is only two days since the world survived its last apocalyptic prediction. I guess there is room for the next one.

It is all a moot point in so many ways (1)

Jenny Z (1028212) | about 2 years ago | (#42374191)

"This paper presents a new formula for calculating when fossil fuel reserves are likely to be depleted and develops an econometrics model to demonstrate the relationship between fossil fuel reserves and some main variables. The new formula is modified from the Klass model and thus assumes a continuous compound rate and computes fossil fuel reserve depletion times for oil, coal and gas of approximately 35, 107 and 37 years, respectively. This means that coal reserves are available up to 2112, and will be the only fossil fuel remaining after 2042." []

    Current trends cannot be continued until 2100. There isn't enough fossil fuel. All the easily reachable oil is going to be burned and go into the atmosphere, no matter how successful the attempts to curb global warming. If we dramatically curb the use of fossil fuels, it will simply take a little longer to burn it all up. But it is all going into the atmosphere. There is no political force strong enough to tell all the people of the world they can't run their cars or heat their homes with fossil fuels any more. Since is entirely futile to stop all the easily extracted fossil fuel from being burned, there is no point in debating how to curb emissions. Our focus should be on what we can do to minimize the impact.


Trees absorb a negligble amount of CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374197)

Plant a tree?

Are these supposedly 'educated' scientists really promoting the tree as a major net CO2 filter?

And they wonder why we don't take the entirely natural process of THE FUCKING WEATHER as a cry to end human existence?


Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42374211)

You shouldn't be, this is all made up !! You're academia set you up !!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?