Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Comments

top

Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

BCGlorfindel Re:It's getting hotter still! (624 comments)

What if it's on topic? Say, I dunno, when discussing climate change and citing a celebrity that won a noble prize for their related work?

I'll whole heartedly agree if you want to lay the failing at the feet of ever giving Gore the time of day in scientific circles, let alone a Noble prize. You'll have to forgive people for continually bringing Gore's statements on the matter forward though. His videos are showing up in schools to 'teach' kids about the important scientific research on climate change. My kids came home having watched before they were in grade 5. When the indoctrination is pushed that far out, people are NOT remiss to start pushing back.

IMO it's not much different than the situation with Islamic Jihadists and moderate Muslims. The fact some might claim common cause with a larger group doesn't make it so, but some denouncement from the greater community starts to become of importance. Regrettably, there has been little to no efforts made from the scientific community to distance itself from Gore's extreme proclamations and warnings. Yes, I know scientists don't appreciate having to come out of their research labs where they are doing actual real work to do stuff like that, but it's important. It's all the more important the more impact you believe your research has to society as a whole.

about a week ago
top

UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

BCGlorfindel Re:Talking Point (427 comments)

There is no hiatus, but a slowing down of warming. The warming is still happening, but at a slightly slower rate than predicted. So yeah, it's deniers who point out the hiatus, as it doesn't exist.

So deniers like the authors and editors of peer reviewed journals like The National Academy of Sciences and Geophysical Research Letters and Nature. Nature in particular publishing an article with the 'denier' skewed title of "Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus".

Nothing burns me more than somebody faking as though they are all for the scientific process and defending it's 'findings' while at the same time totally ignoring the actual science. The reality as pointed out in the 3 linked articles, and many, many, many more is that since 1998 the rate of warming has dropped off heavily enough it no longer matches most predictions or modelling very well. Something in the predictions and modelling was missed that is happening in the real world, and has caused an apparent 'hiatus' in the rate of warming that was expected. Tracking, identifying and understanding that is important science, and thankfully they haven't stopped to listen to people like you who would prefer to deny that reality.

about two weeks ago
top

UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

BCGlorfindel Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (427 comments)

In the case of AGW those scales are a) global, and b) range from a couple centuries, to several My depending on which line of evidence you're looking at.
It was unusually cold in New England this winter. That's weather. But overall, this winter was still one of the 5 warmest on record. That's climate.

Which is the source of a huge part of my skepticism regarding the severity of the 'problem'.

1. Our climate is warming, period. We have almost 125 years of instrumental data to prove it. The but is that, 125 years is not enough data points for phenomena that as you pointed out span centuries and even millenia.
2. CO2 is a GHG and contributes to warming, and we are dumping significant quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. What severity of impact is that causing though? We have just barely been dumping that CO2 for a century, and our best data points don't give us much reference of the 'before' trend.

What pushes me past skepticism though and into outright rejection is graphs like the IPCC published Mann et el graph showing temperature over the last 2k or more years. The work and principle of looking at older proxy records to get a longer reference of climate is vitally important, and a way to extend what we know and can use to improve prediction. The principal is good. The published articles are pure hack jobs though. Data points projected by proxy prior to 1900 are posted and attached to current instrumental records and show an alarming and sudden upward trend in temperature starting at 1900. Now, any sane, skeptical mind would point out the change in data sources as the first and most important cause. Instead, Mann et al claimed a eureka moment, as human CO2 emissions also roughly coincide with that time, so clearly human activity is the cause.

That isn't just bad science, IMO it is deliberately and intentionally bad science. The fact is further proven and demonstrated if you take Mann's oldest and original graphs and just map out what 2014 and 2020 aught to look like if his observed 'trend' is real.

about two weeks ago
top

UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

BCGlorfindel Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (427 comments)

I like to class myself in the rational crowd, and I think a major blind spot between sides is regarding the degree of warming. The following are further facts I think we can agree must be recognized if someone wants to be taken seriously:
1. The instrumental record over the last 125 years clearly shows things are warming.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a GHG and causes warming.
3. Human activity is dumping sizable quantities of CO2 into the environment and measurable amounts are accumulating in the atmosphere.

These are all well documented, measured and verifiable facts, not part of any honest debate.

That said, I STILL count myself a skeptic of the 'degree' or 'rate' of warming that we should be anticipating over the next decades. Having all the hottest years on record occurring in the last decade or two doesn't alarm me over much. We only have 100 some years of data, and the trend in it is a relatively linear warming from start to finish.

The point of contention is the question of whether or not we are facing 'catastrophic' change or not. Plenty of reconstructions and climate models argue for exponential warming. Such predictions go back to the very first IPCC report, which current global average temps are nearly cooler than the coolest error bars of predictions from back then. More recent estimates start the 'curve' later and later which has served to keep predictions consistent with measured reality. Despite this though, the best models all still DO recognize the absence of accelerated warming in recent years as a problem. They didn't predict it.

If anyone is still reading and thinks I'm missing important reasons to still anticipate catastrophic results, please let me know, but in all my searching of journals and actual, honest research I am just NOT finding any strong evidence or suggestion that it's time to 'panic'.

about two weeks ago
top

UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

BCGlorfindel Re:Talking Point (427 comments)

It's not 'deniers' pointing out the hiatus, but actual peer reviewed scientists. They point out that the hiatus DOES matter because it's getting close to falling outside the error bars that were meant to take into account the 'statistical noise' you want to claim as excuse for inaccuracy. Surely you realize the stupidity in claiming, essentially, conflicting data doesn't contradict method X, after all, the data the method was based on is far too noisy to expect good results. Seems like your admitting to knowing too little, which is presumably what you mean to be arguing against,

about two weeks ago
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

BCGlorfindel Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

Current estimates are that we are dumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, for a total of about 550 billion tons since 1870.

If we are just going to through out facts devoid of context, the IPCC fourth assessment pegs annual NATURAL CO2 emissions at 430 billion tonnes. Or worked backwards to 1870, about 62 trillion tonnes.

about a month ago
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

BCGlorfindel Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

a) What hiatus? The hiatus only appears when you use incomplete data. citation [slate.com]

It's cute using something like Slate as a citation to demonstrate the state of scientific research. Regrettably for your argument, actual scientific journal articles like these ones in Nature, IOPScience and Science all contradict your statement. These articles all note "Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century" with multiple citations to yet other scientific journal articles that demonstrated this.

... and that's assuming any positive feedback loops don't override it (look at the "clathrate gun hypothesis" for an example of what could happen).

And that's assuming any negative feedback loops don't override it (look at the Iris hypothesis for an example of what could happen).

The global mean temperature trend for the last decade has fallen outside the error bars of the climate model projections gathered by the first IPCC assessment. Go ahead and deny that all you like, but the actual scientists are looking at the why and trying to sort out what they got wrong, in articles like those I've linked above.

about a month ago
top

Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

BCGlorfindel Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (465 comments)

No model, in any branch of science or engineering, is complete and perfect; that doesn't mean they're useless [arstechnica.com].

Agreed, but how good are the climate models is a very important question. Plenty of people are pushing very, very hard for sweeping large scale economic and political level reforms based on the results of these models. Global CO2 emissions are tightly locked to economic development, particularly in developing nations like China, and significantly cutting those means significant economic fallout.

Look at the IPCC assessments and you can see what their current assessment of climate model reliability is. They rank it to be quite high. At the exact same time, they also note that climate models are NOT well agreed on what SIGN to place on the impact of cloud feedback. Apologies if it makes me sound like I'm cherry picking my data. Clouds contribute significantly more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, and models are uncertain what SIGN to place on clouds? I DO NOT believe the certainty the models can give on CO2 impact is all that powerful while there remains disagreement on the sign to attribute to clouds. Most importantly to all of us stuck on this rock, it certainly seems insufficient to advocate massive global political and economic reforms.

about a month ago
top

Does Italian Demo Show Cold Fusion, or Snake Oil?

BCGlorfindel Re:Where are the patents? (479 comments)

Well, save for the collapse of the world's ice sheets by 2100. You know, the most shocking and pinnacle of Gore's movie... But other than the parts he exaggerated, he was in keeping with the IPCC. Just like George W. Bush was a genius except for the times that he wasn't...

more than 2 years ago
top

Of Diamond Planets, Climate Change, and the Scientific Method

BCGlorfindel Re:There's a reason for that (821 comments)

science will be used in politics. you need to make peace with that. this notion you have that it somehow shouldn't may be a nice platitude, but that wish of yours will never be reality

given that i accept that ugly truth, my point of view is the correct one: policy derived from science, no matter the flaws, is superior to policy derived in opposition to science

now you can continue to wish for the impossibility of science not intersecting with politics. or you can accept that it will, and make a choice as to which policy you support. you don't have the luxury of not choosing, unless you wish to choose to be irrelevant in the discussion

Policy derived from science is superior to policy derived from opposition to science.

Agreed.

You are just restating our differences. I'm trying to tell you, the policy Al Gore is pushing for is NOT derived from science, but is in fact derived in it's absence.

about 3 years ago
top

Of Diamond Planets, Climate Change, and the Scientific Method

BCGlorfindel Re:There's a reason for that (821 comments)

and yet, for all the failures you see in politics derived from climate science, it is politics obviously superior to politics derived from denying climate science

politics derived from entrenched corporate interests, such as multinational petroleum companies, is something i react more strongly against

That's a very ugly logic there. One side isn't made white because the other is darker.

Politicizing the science is the problem, I don't care what side your on. Science aught to be about the provable, demonstrable facts and all the political wrangling left out as a separate field.

Science should inform political decisions, but it's a slippery relationship. If someone like Al Gore declares that science says you should buy his company's carbon credits or face disaster people can generally see to dismiss him as the problem, and someone misusing science for his own agenda. When he gets awarded a Nobel along side real scientists though, suddenly people start questioning where the scientists fall into the agenda too.

Again, I don't care who is misusing the science and to what end, it's wrong in every case, and it damages the public understanding of what science really is.

about 3 years ago
top

Of Diamond Planets, Climate Change, and the Scientific Method

BCGlorfindel Re:There's a reason for that (821 comments)

the political objective becomes a logical product of the climate science. you are suggesting the science is being used by leftists. what if the science just naturally and inevitably supports what leftists are saying?

But the science doesn't naturally support any of that. The agreed on science is that the world is warming, CO2 contributes to warming, and humans are producing CO2. Nowhere in that does it naturally fall out that carbon taxes are the correct scientific response. Even if the results of the warming will be catastrophic, the question that still needs answering is what solution is most cost effective? Reducing emissions, directly preparing to live with the warming, or both. Right now the political left is acting like reducing emissions is the only game in town, and the holy texts of science have their back...

It's no wonder people are recoiling at that, science is being mis-used as a political tool and guys like Al Gore who are doing it are getting Noble prizes. When the people pushing an agenda conflate their agenda with the science, and get a Nobel prize along the way, it shouldn't be surprising that people react more strongly against that science than against some report about a planet many light years away.

about 3 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Who is the new dictator? (271 comments)

You down play genocide by colloquially referring to it as "it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people".

Where is this downplaying genocide? Or are you of the big illusion that governments are inherently good?

That is evil, even if you are too ignorant to have intended it.

Since "evil" is 100% about intention, your sentence does not make sense.

You declare that governments are all bad, and thus that genocide really is nothing new. As though there are no degrees of bad that a government can fall under. Gaddafi was going to commit a widespread genocide against his opposition. Your defense for not stopping it amounts to observing that America's congress doesn't care about the American people either, so they are just as bad and no sense trading one bad government for another.

You downplay genocide because you want to take pot shots at NATO and the west to point out that yes, they are bad and have done evil things too.

Put on our big boy pants and face the real world. Every nation the world over has done horrible, terrible things to masses of people. America is not special in that regard. In order to try and make live better for people, sometimes that means working against a common enemy, like the rebels are working with NATO to remove Gaddafi. Removing Gaddafi doesn't guarantee a golden age for Libyan people. It just aborts the guaranteed retaliatory genocide Gaddafi would have enacted without his defeat, and a slim hope for a better future that was impossible without Gaddafi's removal. That is a good thing, however bleak the circumstances may be.

about 3 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Who is the new dictator? (271 comments)

In the beginning, Khadafi himself was a well-meaning rebel with real credibility. Same old story. The US really owes a great debt to George Washington, rarely do you find a powerful man who doesn't think he'd make a fine benevolent dictator.

An honest question. During Gaddafi's revolution, were all his supporters rallying in the streets demanding the basic freedom of democratic process? That would seem a very important distinction or commonality.

about 3 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Who is the new dictator? (271 comments)

You are quite evil to insist that would have been a good thing for the Libyan people.

Reading comprehension: Epic fail.

Here's what I wrote (emphasis added): "Yes, it would not have been good for the people"

What do you think the word I've now emphasized means?

Nice try, but your not back pedaling fast enough. Here is the context you responded to, and I called you out on:

The problem with Libya was that it had a stable, successful socialist economy

Doesn't look stable to me. Recall that the rebellion predated the foreign powers.

MaxWell Demon:Well, it was stable in the sense that without the help of NATO, Gaddafi would probably have been able to stop the rebellion. Yes, it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people

You down play genocide by colloquially referring to it as "it would not have been good for the people, but since when do any governments care about the people". What's more, you do it in the context of a discussion were stability is advocated as the one benefit for Libyan people of remaining under Gaddafi versus an unknown future with the NATO backed opposition.

That is evil, even if you are too ignorant to have intended it.

about 3 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Meanwhile, in Damascus... (271 comments)

Bashar al Assad is thanking Allah that there's no oil under his country.

I see what you did there, very clever and funny.

Well, except that part where the Syrian people are bleeding and dying for the same lack of intervention.

Oh, and except for the fact that 25% of Syria's revenues come from oil exports...

When do stupid, ignorant, and flat out false remarks about evil dictators murdering their people become funny?

about 3 years ago
top

Internet Restored In Tripoli As Rebels Take Control

BCGlorfindel Re:Who is the new dictator? (271 comments)

Well, it was stable in the sense that without the help of NATO, Gaddafi would probably have been able to stop the rebellion.

You realize that Gaddafi's own representatives at the UN agreed with you? They were well agreed that Gaddafi was hours away from initiating his genocide of the opposition. It was then, at the urging of the Arab League that the UN requested the assistance of member nations, and NATO volunteered to protect the Libyan civilians.

You are quite correct to observe that without NATO's stepping in, Gaddafi would have quickly stabilized his control of Libya.

You are quite evil to insist that would have been a good thing for the Libyan people.

about 3 years ago
top

Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

BCGlorfindel Re:Global Warming Denial (507 comments)

An argument from authority is not a fallacy as long as the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject and there is a consensus among the majority.

And how many authorities are there who are legitimate authorities in ALL of the required fields to declare that human CO2 emissions have caused the last century of warming? It spans virtually every scientific discipline that there is. There is meaningful individual consensus on specific, isolated facts. It has indeed been warming over the last 100 years. Human's have indeed been releasing measurable levels of CO2. CO2 is indeed a GHG that contributes to warming. I'm afraid however, that there is no legitimate expert and majority consensus that those individual pieces prove unprecedented and potentially catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is underway.

The legitimate experts that tell us the last 100 years have been warming equally have records showing similarly high temperatures within the last 2k years, with temperatures previously dropping as quickly as they are warming today(see even Mann's own corrections to his previous work). That seems to argue against the last 100 years of warming indicating catastrophic AGW is underway.

The legitimate experts that tell us that humans are emitting measurable levels of CO2 each year also tell us that those are a mere 3% of the natural emissions our planet produces every year. That seems to argue against our CO2 emissions being proof that catastrophic AGW is eminent.

The legitimate experts that tell us that CO2 is a powerful GHG also tell us that it is responsible for 10-25% of the greenhouse effect, while water vapor accounts for better than 70. Combine that with the small contribution humans make to natural CO2 emissions, and it is hardly compelling that catastrophic AGW is upon us.

The tricky part about science is cross-disciplinary studies and a failure to recognize uncertainties in results that get picked up as input from another discipline. The IPCC has tried to get around that with committees of experts, but it seems to have only managed to add the additional problem of politics into the mix.

more than 3 years ago
top

Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

BCGlorfindel Re:Yep (507 comments)

Typically Volcano Emissions are brought up to say something like "OMG one volcano outputs 100's of times the CO2 that people do in a whole year OMG are you dumb people can't cause global warming! think of the volcanoes!" This is probably why it's become standard argument to say that volcano emissions do not overwhelm human activity and cite percentages. Not that volcanoes have no effect, just that humans have more and probably both should be accounted for.

Agreed on them both needing to be accounted for. Why is it then that a google scholar search for scientific studies on increases in atmospheric CO2 do NOT include volcanoes, or ANY other natural sources, and instead try and correlate only human emissions to to measured atmospheric CO2 increases?

How about the IPCC's projections for atmospheric CO2 levels? They too include the built in presumption that the only variation in the carbon cycle is human emissions. That may be useful as a comparison number to say the difference humans might make, all other things ignored. It doesn't tell us anything about the overall human contribution though. A 1% shift in natural sinks and sources, which we understand poorly, throws a wrench in everything.

The science that is settled is that things have been warming the last 1-200 years, that CO2 is a GHG, and that human activity is about 3% of annual global CO2 emissions. The science that isn't settled is EVERYTHING tying those together in any quantitative manner. Our future actions rely entirely on just how much of the past and future warming is contributed to by human vs. natural activity, and one other piece of the science that is well agreed upon is that we do NOT understand the role of the natural carbon cycle and climate change very well at all.

more than 3 years ago
top

Climate Unit Releases Virtually All Remaining Data

BCGlorfindel Re:Yep (507 comments)

Hmm... I think you generally have it right but saying humans only emit 3-4% as much as natural sources while true is misleading. If you understand the carbon cycle you know that every year the natural sinks absorb about the same amount of CO2 as the natural sources emit so the long term average level of CO2 in the atmosphere remained at 280 ppmv for thousands of years until humans started adding significant amounts of carbon to the cycle about 200 years ago. In fact the carbon cycle processes absorb more than half of the human emissions so the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels amounts to about 42% of human emissions.

Water vapor and clouds together amount to ~70% of the greenhouse effect but water vapor is well understood and is always a positive feedback. Clouds are less well understood and have both positive and negative feedbacks. The overall net effect of clouds on the greenhouse effect appears to be slightly positive according to the latest studies I've seen.

Ah, but the scientific "consensus" is that we DON'T really understand the carbon cycle, is it not? Go do a google scholar search on the subject, half the papers are studies on why there is such discrepancy in past results. The other half that try and make claims like yours use absurd methodologies, like trying to find the correlation between human CO2 emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. That might sound like a decent study, save for the consideration that human CO2 emissions are 3-4% of natural emissions, so if natural emissions(or sinks for that matter) vary at all, the human contribution is all but lost in the noise. I've a very simple theory why their results are inconsistent and vary so much, the 3% human contribution being looked at is getting lost in the noise of the other 98% that is being ignored.

As for clouds, I have problems with arguing that it is separate from water vapor AND with any study using them as a net positive feedback. Maybe I'm relying too much on my own experience(anecdote), but I understood clouds to be inextricably linked to water vapor, almost as though being virtually the same thing in many cases. Additionally, I've never found a day to generally be warmer for the presence of clouds, making them as a positive feedback a hard thing to swallow.

more than 3 years ago

Submissions

top

Navy to continue funding of Polywell fusion

BCGlorfindel BCGlorfindel writes  |  about 7 years ago

BCGlorfindel writes "On the 21st of August the Navy signed the release of the remainder of Dr. Bussard's funding for research into his Polywell device. Details emerging via an email to Tom Ligon here. Tom Ligon worked on the project with Bussard a few years before the funding was cut. Many will remember the google talk he gave shortly after analyzing their last test results before they had to shut down. I've been following this for awhile now, this should be great news for everyone. If Bussard reproduces the results of his last test it'd top the expectations from the $12B ITER project."
Link to Original Source

Journals

top

Game Engine Development

BCGlorfindel BCGlorfindel writes  |  more than 11 years ago

This will be a collection of thoughts on the current state of development for game engines. Particularly a focus on reusability and long term viability of a generic engine design.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>