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

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

KeensMustard Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (84 comments)

That is very far from what I actually stated. GP claimed not to have seen any papers about geothermal activity.

The GP said this: Is that the [west antarctic ice shelf] that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?

I asked for proof of this alleged causation, in the usual form of a scientific paper detailing the causation.

You, for some reason, butted in and said: I'll help GP a bit and show you one.

There is no logical explanation for this, except that you claiming the associated papers were proof of causation. Further i later explicitly described your attempts as an attempt to demonstrate causation:

Did you link to the right article? The article you linked makes no mention of geothermal effects being responsible for the shrinking of the west antarctic ice sheet.

I didn't see anybody claiming that there were no papers pertaining to geothermal activity. You must think we all share your self professed ignorance.

Don't try to put words in my mouth, unless you want to make an instant enemy. That's not ethical.

I'll put YOUR words into your mouth anytime it pleases me to do so.

2 days ago
top

Leaked Documents Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Ebola Vaccine Issues

KeensMustard Re:Summary (122 comments)

I don't disagree.

2 days ago
top

Leaked Documents Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Ebola Vaccine Issues

KeensMustard Summary (122 comments)

In summary, GSK (who makes the most promising vaccine) don't have enough manufacturing capacity to make this vaccine and other vaccines at the same time.

And the ethics around live human trials are tricky, because some participants in the trial will die from ebola.

Which isn't surprising. If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears. The framing of this as if the documents reveal some sort of 'scandal' is a bit troubling.

2 days ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

KeensMustard Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (84 comments)

Pardon me... do you see anywhere here where I claimed it was responsible for "all" the melting?

So what is the cause of the rest of the melting?

3 days ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

KeensMustard Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (84 comments)

But again, this says that geothermal activity might contribute to mobility of the glacier, not that geothermal activity has increased over the last 100 years and is thus the cause of the west antarcitc ice shelf melting: per the GP's assertion: Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?. The assertion you claimed was supported by scientific papers: I'll help GP a bit and show you [ a paper detailing geothermal activity as the cause of the observed melting of the west antarctic ice shelf ].

Is there a paper that meets the criteria - or were you planning to keep posting articles on glacial mobility?

3 days ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

KeensMustard Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (84 comments)

That's okay. Since you can't be bothered to google it yourself,

That's right.

I'll help GP a bit and show you one. [pnas.org]

Did you link to the right article? The article you linked makes no mention of geothermal effects being responsible for the shrinking of the west antarctic ice sheet.

I guess you weren't as helpful as you initially hoped?

3 days ago
top

Fiber Optics In Antarctica Will Monitor Ice Sheet Melting

KeensMustard Re:WTF, the antarctic gets FO before me? (84 comments)

Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?

Is it melting due to geothermal effects? Can you point us to a peer reviewed article which details these effects?

You understand how your assertions are your responsibility to prove - right?

4 days ago
top

Saturn's 'Death Star' Moon May Hide Subsurface Ocean

KeensMustard Re:What? (48 comments)

I think "rock" is synonymous with boring.

I daresay that geologists will disagree with you. So clearly, "boring" is not a scientific measure, it lacks objectivity.

Also regardless of that Mimas could hardly be considered a 'rock'. It's made of rock (well, mostly), but look at the thing: http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/s...

about a week ago
top

Saturn's 'Death Star' Moon May Hide Subsurface Ocean

KeensMustard What? (48 comments)

Saturn's moon Mimas was considered to be scientifically boring. Is there really such a thing as a scale of scientific boredom? What is the unit of measure?

I'd understand if TS said: considered a lower priority compared to the other bizarre and wonderful things in orbit around Saturn. That's believable given the level of freaky associated with some of the other satellites. But nothing about Mimas says 'boring'. As for scientifically boring I don't think that is a thing.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Your earlier reply was insufficient - hence you are given the opportunity to do better.

When you said "Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical". you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.

You may not have directly said:" there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

At first.

And then sometime in the future converted by the addition of extra technology to convert CO2 to something else - thus making the technology CO2 neutral.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Moron

When you said "Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical". you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.

You may not have directly said:" there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

You've neutralised the CO2 emitted from process A using process B - the whole process is now converted to be carbon neutral. Would we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (from process A) without mitigating it? Answer: no we wouldn't, so we've mitigated it with process B (on the proviso we power process B with carbon neutral technologies) - so taking into account all externalities,we have converted to carbon neutral technology.

In short, by introducing process B, you haven't avoided converting process A, you HAVE converted process A.

Your entire strategy relies on converting to carbon neutral processes.

Sorry, should have mentioned it earlier.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.

More hallucinations from you.

When you said Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical. you conceded the argument. I graciously accept your concession.

You may not have directly said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. but you conceded it was true. So obviously, to avoid insulting you by pointing out remarks that seemingly contradict this central theme, I just interpret your remarks in light of it.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Oh, I probably should have mentioned this before, but if you add a step to an existing process that converts the CO2 emitted to a different compound then you have (of course) converted that process to CO2 neutral. So your proposed process to convert CO2 to a different compound (sugars, organic compounds etc) is just another example of converting existing technologies to clean technology.

Should have mentioned that earlier - my bad :-)

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

No conversion of machines required. Existing machines keep working unchanged to generate power, manufacture goods, etc.

Sure. Except for the ones you've already said will be replaced. I.e the ones that generate CO2. Because as you've already said: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary.

New machines do reverse conversion.

Of course, as you've already said attempting to convert CO2 to other compounds using energy sourced from CO2 emitting technologies will be net CO2 positive. So you would not continue to employ CO2 emitting generation technologies and then try and convert that CO2 to some other compound. That would be unbelievably moronic.

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

The CO2 -> fuel conversion starts with somewhat CO2 neutral technologies.

Or to put that in plainer english: We need to convert our existing CO2 emitting power generation technology to CO2 neutral technology. Attempting to convert CO2 to other compounds using energy sourced from CO2 emitting technologies will be net CO2 positive.

Or to use the more common phrase: there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. .

Agreed.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

No, once reverse conversion is cheap, scalable and easy; CO2 neutral technologies are not necessary. There are other factors also which can cause this.

Assertion falsified - see discussion here

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

No, not a jot of difference - at least to the outcomes of this conversation.

To conclude then:

If you use clean technology you will require us to invest in clean energy on a scale equivalent to our fossil fuel energy generation capacity: In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.

consider it power source neutral. Power will need to mainly come from non-carbon-fossil-fuels, or non-fossil-fuels for it to be practical.

So your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary is false.

about two weeks ago
top

Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming

KeensMustard Re:90% ? (423 comments)

Your machine requires massive energy input.

To convert CO2 to fuel (i.e de-oxidise it by breaking the C-O bonds) requires (in a perfect world), the same energy as was released when those bonds were created. there's nothing magical about it - the energy from burning (oxidising) fossil fuels comes from the point where that bond C->O is created. That's what burning means.

This means to power your machine you need a power source of at least the same size as the power sources that created the CO2 that goes in.

If you use clean technology you will require us to invest in clean energy on a scale equivalent to our fossil fuel energy generation capacity: In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.

If you power your machine with fossil fuel more CO2 will be emitted powering your machine than it can convert. The end result is CO2 positive, and you've really achieved nothing. In which case, your assertion There is a future point where converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary. is false.

Your assertion is false, even before we consider it's likely ROI.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

Journals

KeensMustard has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?