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

NSW Police Named as FinFisher Spyware Users

TapeCutter Re:Bwahahahah! (56 comments)

Every one of the links you have posted comes from a mainstream Aussie media outlet, when those stories stop appearing you have a real corruption problem. The NSW ICAC judicial inquiry has forced the resignation of at least a dozen MP's who took illegal donations from property developers and is still going strong. Now think about real oppression (say) Mugabe or Saddam, they tow the line or risk summary execution.

Internet snooping by cops is a double edged sword, sure it can be used as a tool of oppression (if the political climate is ripe) but it has also been used to solve some high profile murder/rape cases. In the Jill Megan (sic?) case the cops didn't spy on anyone, they simply explained the situation to the banks (on the weekend) and the banks voluntarily gave them what they needed to track the bastard down.

Disclaimer: I have a female cousin who has served in the Victorian police for over 3 decades. I'm not claiming all Aussie cops are saints, but certainly the vast majority have their heart in the right place and are doing a tough job as best they can.

7 hours ago
top

Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

TapeCutter Re:It's getting hotter still! (557 comments)

PS: Bad form to reply to own post but I'd also like to say I agree with your post, those consideration are a matter of due-diligence in my mind.

Of course you will also want to apply the same standards to the claims made by those upholding the status quo. After all, the FF industry is one of the most powerful economic entities on the planet, it has a lot more power and wealth than Gore, they are at least an order of magnitude higher in assets than the clean energy industry as a whole.

We have already seen the US senate abused in a failed attempt to discredit a single scientific paper. What I would like to see now is a repeat of the "tobacco trials" for the coal industry and their pet politicians (yes senator Inhofe, I'm looking at you)..

yesterday
top

Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

TapeCutter Re:It's getting hotter still! (557 comments)

Another way of looking at it is that Gore puts his money where his mouth is, and considering the profits are fed back into his educational charity it's hard to see how it has given him more power and wealth than (say) a post-political career as a corporate lobbyist. For the most part I find American's in particular are generally for/against his charitable work based not on the contents of his documentaries, but on the perceived colour of his politics. The rest of the world don't really know him as as a politician, and are therefore less inclined to instinctively "shoot the messenger".

yesterday
top

Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

TapeCutter Re:It's getting hotter still! (557 comments)

Regrettably, there has been little to no efforts made from the scientific community to distance itself from Gore's extreme proclamations and warnings.

Sigh, the scientific community almost unanimously came out of the lab to praise the documentary because they felt it was a "bloody accurate" representation of their work.

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.

Agree, now if you do some fact checking you will find the vast majority of climate scientists have already come out of their labs to loudly defend Gore's work, I'm not sure what your reading/viewing habits are, but you obviously missed the last 10yrs of debate, so the question is now - what will you tell your kids? - Can you set a good example by demonstrating a true skeptic changes his mind when confronted with inconvenient facts, or will misplaced pride take you down the creationist road?

yesterday
top

Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

TapeCutter Perfection is the enemy of progress. (557 comments)

I agree with your basic premise but most AGW advocates ignore and will not address contrary evidence, preferring instead to ridicule and cast aspersions, as you do.

Increasing seasonal sea ice in Antarctica is not "contra-evidence", it's a prediction that most models have been making for over 20yrs now, the mechanism that causes the counter intuitive result is well understood. So called "skeptics" are flogging a dead horse in their attempts to cite it as some sort of "smoking gun" that climate scientists are attempting to hide. The often intentionally misleading claim is ranked at #10 on skeptical sciences list of most popular climate myths.

As for Al Gore, any internet idiot can play "gottcha science" by taking words out of context and deliberately misinterpreting them. However the scientists who were lead authors of the IPCC reports that Gore's documentary was based on gave it a good review for it's representation of the report. Of course there were minor errors, and yes, the scientists pointed them out. The reason Gore shared the Nobel prize with the IPCC is that he put the IPCC's monumental lit-review effort squarely at the center of public policy debate.

Useful idiots? - As someone who has followed climate science with interest since the late 70's, Gore's documentary was an excellent (but imperfect) explanation of the science and it's real world consequences. It's a shame so many slashdotters mindlessly join in when the Gore bashing starts, he's the only well educated geek that has come close to sitting in the whitehouse for a very long time. History will admire his charitable public education efforts, even if most american's currently do not.

Disclaimer: I've been well known on slashdot for commenting on climate related stories for around 15yrs now, I'm not and have never been an "AGW advocate", I'm a science advocate.

yesterday
top

Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

TapeCutter Re:10 and 2 is for older cars (323 comments)

If it saves the life of an imbecile who can't trouble to buckle up it MAY be worthwhile, but for anyone of normal intelligence it is a liability.

To understand why this "imbecile" has air bags, first put your seat belt on, now see if you can tap your head gently against the door pillar, now imagine tapping it at 50mph. As for the steering wheel bag it's not there to stop you from leaving your seat and being slammed into the steering column, that's the seat belt's job. The wheel bag is there because "collapsible" steering columns still have a nasty tendency to intrude into the cabin, significantly reducing the the wheel to face gap.

Disclaimer: I think keep my "liability". Sure it may one day cost me "an arm and a leg" but that's a perfectly rational insurance arrangement given the alternatives.

2 days ago
top

Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

TapeCutter Re:10 and 2 is for older cars (323 comments)

RE: my other reply, I've heard that in the US some of the bags are set to ridiculously low speeds, something like 10-15mph, if that's what happened to you then I think you have a valid point, set at 25-30mph they are definitely an "intelligent" option ad serve a different role to seat belts. In fact a properly designed air bag assumes the person is strapped into their seat.

No offence but I found the part about your glasses leaving your face for a split second fascinating, did it happen in that weird "slow motion" phase of the car crash or did you not even see it because it was so fast?

2 days ago
top

Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World

TapeCutter Re:old person surrounded by old people (162 comments)

technology is merely a tool.

Wow sounds like you have actually read 1984. Big brother is an unseen but omnipresent demigod who will strap a live rat to your face if he sees you doing something he doesn't like. 'Animal Farm' is a more accurate criticism of the modern democratic state that arises from the revolutionary ashes of such demigods..

2 days ago
top

Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World

TapeCutter Re:So did Orwell (162 comments)

Where does the notion come from

They teach civics on Fox these days, apparently there's something called an "activist judge" that can rewrite laws on a whim. According to Fox, these activist judges always make the wrong decision for the wrong reason.

2 days ago
top

CERN Tests First Artificial Retina Capable of Looking For High Energy Particles

TapeCutter Re:In the retina? (60 comments)

Yep, the eye is basically a part of the brain.

3 days ago
top

Scientists Capture the Sound Made By a Single Atom

TapeCutter Re:forest (100 comments)

I'm still waiting for lead to transmute to gold

You can do that nowadays, it's the reason why nuclear power is sometimes called "The philospohers stone".

4 days ago
top

Massive Study Searching For Genes Behind Intelligence Finds Little

TapeCutter Re:Great news (268 comments)

To be fair though, academic achievement is probably more important than intelligence, at least for some things.

I'm quite proud of my degree but the only thing it demonstrates is that I can follow instructions, it says nothing about my ability to hunt Mammoths or evict cave bears from my new home.

4 days ago
top

Information Theory Places New Limits On Origin of Life

TapeCutter Re:Gibbs Free Energy (211 comments)

What do you think a tornado is?

The finger of God. However you have a good point. Matter spontaneously organises itself in order to reach maximum entropy in minimum time, Brian Cox has done an excellent documentary series about this stuff. At first glance life ( and tornadoes ) appear to go against the laws of thermodynamics by making itself more organised but such observations (often made by creationists) ignore the rate of increase in entropy of the system as a whole. Like tornadoes, life will spontaneously arise where there is an energy gradient and the right kind of matter, it will continue to evolve into more complex forms until it brings the energy gradient down tom zero. The "right type" of matter for life to arise just happens to be made from the most common types of atoms in the universe. By induction life must be at least as common as vortexes throughout the universe, it's just that you need to look for it with a microscope, not a telescope

5 days ago
top

AT&T Says 10Mbps Is Too Fast For "Broadband," 4Mbps Is Enough

TapeCutter Re:We really need (524 comments)

The size theory does not hold water when you look at places like Australia and Canada, even New Zealand way down in the Southern ocean which is connected to everything by sea floor cabling has better retail speeds than most US cities. The major difference between the US and Oz/Europe is that the US ISP market is not a free market, it's a series of government granted monopolies which are by their nature are heavily weighted against consumer choice. Consumer choice is what drives competition in any market, the dismal state of retail internet in the US is entirely predictable and has nothing to do with an averaged US population density.

Trivia: Oz is ~0.8X the size of the US but the US has ~15X as many people. Canada is slightly larger than the US, shares the same continent with the US, has ~0.12X the US population, and yet both nations provide faster (average) speeds than the US.

The rest of the western world can clearly see that American's are getting screwed in broad daylight by telco's and health insurance companies because people like you still believe (and parrot) the ridiculous excuses these corporations and their pet poli-critters have to offer. Europeans are no more or less "geographically challenged" than Americans, rather your natural tribal instinct has been expertly manipulated* by corporate propaganda to fight against your own best interest. In other words we can see the root problems in the US and are trying to tell you there are better ways to structure the telco/health markets. It's you who does not understand what is happening to you and why.

manipulated* - We are all heavily influenced by what we read, hear and watch, the only effective defense is to practice self-skepticism, ie: don't just blindly accept one cherry-picked data point, pick your own comparisons and do some basic sanity tests on the "economies of scale" excuse.

about a week ago
top

AT&T Says 10Mbps Is Too Fast For "Broadband," 4Mbps Is Enough

TapeCutter Size is overrated (524 comments)

Australia's land mass is comparable to that of the US but with roughly half the population of California, however there's more competition between ISP's in rural Ballarat than there is in downtown Los Angeles.\

I just tested my speed on zdnet and it comes out at ~18mbps, a pleasant surprise since it was ~12mbps for many years, the faster speed has not increased my bill. ZDnet also have an informative list of average speeds by nation, spoiler the US can't even keep up with NZ.

about a week ago
top

Deadmau5 Accuses Disney of Pirating His Music

TapeCutter Re:How to avoid this sort of infringement? (137 comments)

It can't be avoided. "Men at work" lost several million dollars because they had "stolen" 2 bars of "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree". It's almost certain the band had innocently re-invented the same sequence of notes. Most people (including the band) didn't notice until it was pointed out but once pointed out you can't miss it. M@W lost the case becuse the argument that they didn't "steal" it was irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

about two weeks ago
top

Ask David Saltzberg About Being The Big Bang Theory's Science Advisor

TapeCutter PC insanity (226 comments)

Can't play video games because they stereotypes women, can't listen to taylor swift because she stereotypes blacks, can't watch BBT because it stereotypes geeks....WTF is wrong with you people?

about two weeks ago
top

Ask David Saltzberg About Being The Big Bang Theory's Science Advisor

TapeCutter Re:Do Penny's boobs defy gravity? (226 comments)

He has autistic tendencies, sex is simply not part of his routine because he's too busy with his other obsessions.

about two weeks ago
top

Invasion of Ukraine Continues As Russia Begins Nuclear Weapons Sabre Rattling

TapeCutter A modern solution (789 comments)

I read the speech yesterday, seemed rather tame compared to the hate US politicians regularly spout. His main point was that Ukraine must negotiate a ceasefire directly with the rebels. Russia has the upper hand, yet it is the Russians who are pressing for a diplomatic solution, Ukraine (and presumably their western sponsors) are refusing to negotiate with "terrorists". The bit about nukes was not a threat it was a defiant warning to the west, "don't fuck with Russia", it was made in the context of a plea to the west to help solve the dispute in a "modern way", ie: through diplomacy.

Putin has demonstrated he has a stronger influence over the rebels than the west has over Ukraine, a few days ago he averted a potential slaughter by calling on the rebels to open a corridor so that surrounded and outnumbered Ukrainian troops could withdraw, sadly I haven't seen any reports of efforts to defuse the situation by the Ukrainian government or the west. The consistent response of Ukraine to military defeats in various towns and cities has been to shell the people they are trying to "liberate" with heavy artillery. Such actions do nothing but kill civilians, destroy infrastructure, and ultimately swell the ranks of the rebels.

I was born in 1959 at the height of the cold war, the enthusiasm of the western media to label Putin as a modern day Hitler is troubling, the fact that a large chunk of western society believes it, is frightening. The village idiot who's running things down here in Oz has been thrusting his chin in the air and sprouting macho bullshit, he's threatened to stop Putin attending the G20 meeting in Brisbane. He does not represent my views, my view is that our government should be supporting the call Putin made in the speech for a "modern" solution to what is essentially a proxy war between the nuclear heavyweights.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

top

Scientific Heresy

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 3 years ago

TapeCutter (624760) writes "Gavin Schmidt from realclimate has published an excellent opinion piece on the narrative of the scientific heretic and it's appeal to journalists and the general public.

Quoth TFA — "This idea of knowledge sitting on a knife edge ready to flip whenever some new observation or insight arrives, is the reason why science is so exciting and fascinating. That is the reason why science deserves to be the story, and why journalists should be continuously searching for the 'front page' thought that will allow this story to be told to a wide audience. But all too often the real story is neglected in favour of a familiar well-worn, but inappropriate, trope.""

Link to Original Source
top

Universe closer to heat death than once thought?

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 4 years ago

TapeCutter (624760) writes "In a paper soon to be published in the Astrophisical journal Australian researchers have estimated the entrophy of the universe is about 30 times higher than current estimates. For those of us who like their science in the form of a car analogy Dr. Lineweaver compared their results to a car's gas tank. He states, "It's a bit like looking at your gas gauge and saying `I thought I had half a gas tank, but I only have a quarter of a tank.""
Link to Original Source
top

Does climate change affect bushfires?

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 5 years ago

TapeCutter (624760) writes "After the devastating firestorm in Australia, there has been a lot of speculation in the press about the role of climate change. For the 'pro' argument the BBC article points to reaseach by the CSIRO. For the 'con' argument they quote David Packham of Monash university who is not alone in thinking "...excluding prescribed burning and fuel management has led to the highest fuel concentrations we have ever had...". However the DSE's 2008 annual report states; "[The DSE] achieved a planned burning program of more than 156,000 hectares, the best result for more than a decade. The planned burning of forest undergrowth is by far the most powerful management tool available... ".

I drove through Kilmore on the evening of the firestorm and in my 50yrs of living with fire have never seen a smoke plume anything like it. It was reported to be 15km high and creating it's own lightning, there were also reports of car windscreens and engine blocks melting. So what was it that made such an unusual firestorm possible and will it happen again?"
top

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 7 years ago

TapeCutter (624760) writes "A recent slashdot story reported on an article by the ex-editor of New Scientist, Nigel Calder. RealClimate have taken issue with what they call "bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change". They have posted a rebuttal to Calder's article that basically concludes: "No trend = no explanation for current changes".

It should also be noted that Calder's article ended with an advertisment for his new book "The Chilling Stars"."
top

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 7 years ago

TapeCutter (624760) writes "M. Mann and co. over at RealClimate have started a disscussion analysing the contents of the recently released IPCC SPM. They intend to write a series of articles going over the report chapter by chapter and answer readers comments. So for the dwindling army of "skeptics" and those who want to know more, fire away, but please respect the "dinner coversation" atmosphere."
top

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 7 years ago

TapeCutter (624760) writes " Australia's ABC reports — "The Nine Network is taking a small newcomer to court, alleging a breach of copyright for producing its own TV guide that allows people to record programs and watch them later. It's a case of David and Goliath." — Not so long ago ( before a certain free trade agreement ), Australians had the right to record TV for personal use and other "fair use rights", the laws have now been harmonised in accordance with the FTA. For those interested in Australian politics it will come as no surprise that Ruddock is handling the copyright angle in the government's current push for media reform."

Journals

top

Continuation of climate disscussion with robinjo

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 4 years ago I've tried to answer you main points below, let me know if you think I missed anything.

Sea Levels:
Two years ago I bought a half a million dollar house that is a couple of hundred meters from the beach and a few meters above sea level. The beach is part of Port Philip Bay in Melbourne Australia, since I'm already in my 50's I figure I will be safe.
This is a good summary of expected sea level impacts.

Authoritive Names:
Chris Landsea: His science on Hurricanes simply didin't stand up to scutiny but rather than accept critisisim he quit. I'm not going to deny that scientists have an ego and that sometimes it gets in the way.
Freeman Dyson: Quote: "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

Why didn't Mann and Jones explain tree rings?:
Here is an article from M. Mann's website that talks about the CRU hack and the tree rings. I belive Jones became frustraed at having to reply to over 50 simultaneous FOI requests for data, (most of wich was available in the litrature), the people making the requests were not interested in science they were interested in obstructing his work. Burrying someone under FOI requests is a well known delaying tatic of political hacks. AFAIK Mann has not obstructed requests for data and does not work for the CRU.

Harry:
I have skimmed the infamous HARRY_README, I hold a degree in computer science and have been making a good living from software development for 20yrs now. To me it sounds like every programmer I have ever met when confronted with a large project. The stuff he is complaining about are errors from the raw data, this is exactly what Jones has spent his entire carrer trying to clean up.

The myriad of problems in the raw data actually don't make a very big difference to the end results. I'm sure you have heard of Anthony Watts and his claims about how the instrumental record is worse than useless. Well after ignoring the crank for quite some time NOAA shot his whole theory to pieces with a single experiment. They took 70 stations that Watts himself had rated as "good" or "best" and ran the same analysis on those stations as thay had had run on all 1200+ US stations, lo and behold the curves were vistually identical. There's a nice sarcastic video about it on youtube that Watts attempted to remove with a DCMA takedown notice (climate crock is actually a very infromative series and I highly recommend you watch a few of them). The same principle applies to the global record, you can pick 100 stations at random and a simple least squares fit will give you a trend very close to the more pedantic analysis of Jones, Mann and eveyone else. I know this because I've done it myself! If you want to try it these data links will help.

Artic Ice:
There is a big problem with the Arctic sea ice, here is a NASA video of the NSIDC data from my own youtube channel. Here is another climate crock video on the subject.

Confessions:
Your last paragraph is basically an unfounded ad-hom, the only IPCC error I am aware of that is trully an IPCC error is the Himalayan date. The error was not picked up by "skeptics" it was picked up by IPCC scientists and as soon as it was realised to be a problem the IPCC put a prominent link to a statement about it directly above the links to the reports on their website. I think you a vastly underestimating the efforts that have gone into the IPCC reports and the robustness of their process. I also think you are vastly overestimating the honesty of your sources whatever they may be.

top

A promise kept

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 5 years ago This rather long entry is the delivery of a promise I made to slashbart when he asked me to read a paper by Nir Shaviv in this thread. I invite slashbart (Bart), his collegue Bas van Geel (Professor of Paleo-Ecology of the University of Amsterdam), or anyone else to comment but I ask that the conversation be kept civil as was the case in the linked thread.

To use Bart's words, Bart and Bas are "completely unconvinced about CO2 being such an important factor [in climate change]". There are quite a few good links in the thread but the main thrust of this post is centered around the Shaviv paper and the cosmic ray theory which Bart believes supports his stance, I will also take Bart to task over some other bits and pieces mentioned in the thread. But first of all let's state a few points I belive we have agreed on, the majority of which are based on Bart's words in the original thread.

1.The three of us are all genuine skeptics who belive the philosphy and practice of science trumps all other "ways of knowing" such as religion, intuition, etc. We believe that questioning our own assumptions and assertions is a crucial ingredient of any self respecting skeptic. Without this understanding there is no basis for reasoned debate and thus no point in debating.
2. Sugar in the petrol tank does not harm one's engine...
3.Climatologists have (correctly) discounted the change of TSI as the cause of the warm late 20th century.
4.Clouds and solar forcing have a "very low LOSU" as defined in the IPCC reports.
5.There are awfully complicated feedback mechanisms (plant growth, albedo changes, clouds, aerosols,...) ie: there is a low-very low LOSU of these feedbacks.
6.It's an excellent idea to start living more energy efficient lives, but we don't need to get all panicky, and we really shouldn't begin geo-engineering efforts when we really don't know what we're messing with. I further assume this includes our current uncontrolled geo-engineering in the form of GHG emmissions and other nastier chemicals which are relesed as a result of burning fossil fuels, in particular coal.
7.Science is not in the business of "proof" and is never "settled".
8.We all have scientific training and a keen interest in climate but none of us are climatologists. Bart is a Physicist, Bas is a Proffesor of paleo-ecology and I have a BSc with majors in computer science and operations research.
9.There exists what I call psuedo-skeptics, people who deliberatly misinform and mislead the public for political or financial gain in much the same way as tabacco companies did prior to the 1990's and for pretty much the same reason. None of us are psuedo-skeptics, none of us are totally immune from their carefully constructed bullshit. Andrew Bolt from Australia and George Will from the US are two fine examples of what a psuedo-skeptic is under my definition.
10.A large part of the IPCC work has to do with collecting climate change data, and not with the causes of that change. I agree in fact it is more than a large part your statement nicely sums up it's stated goals, of course that data is peer-revived to a very stringent criteria and the cases and likely effects from those papers goes into the SPM.

Bart, Bas, please activate your bullshit detectors if you have not already done so and I will breifly describe my understanding of (and problems with) the Shaviv paper, the cosmic ray theory and some related topics, please don't take anything I say as personal criticisim I am simply trying to appeal to your skepticisim and capacity for introspection. Why? - Because I think it is important to my grandchildren that scientifically minded people understand the issue of climate change to the best of their abilities and communicate their knowledge and understanding to the public as both Bart and I have done here on slashdot.

I read the paper quite dillegently but I admit I skimmed over the maths, it's no use going down to that level of detail because in all likelihood it is correct as most papers are if you accept their assumptions. So let's examine the assumptions. They make quite a few explicitly stated assumptions there is one thay make repeatedly that is at the heart of the matter ie: "that the CRF is indeed a climate driver".

They state this assumption even more strongly as: "We will not dwell here on the actual mechanism responsible for CRF link with cloud behavior. We will simply assume henceforth that this link exists, as supported by empirical and experimental data, even though it is still an issue of debate. This point has to be kept in mind since the conclusions we shall reach, will only be valid if this assumption is correct." (My emphasis).

Now as you have pointed out this effect has been observed in the laboratory and I am not disputing that. However in our intial debate you state: "I know about the laboratory scale effect of CO2. However, what is far from [certain] is how far this effect is actually influencing climate, because of the awfully complicated feedback mechanisms (plant growth, albedo changes, clouds, aerosols,...) ". Correct me if I'm wrong but this statement seems to indicate that a lab result is not enough because you think that in the real world other (agreed) problems make it impossible to apply the results from the lab. I think you need to look at that argument with some self-skeptical introspection, ie: why are you so willing to apply the (observed in the lab) cosmic ray effect to the 'real world' but dismiss the much more robust (observed in the lab) greenhouse effect in the 'real world'?

Let's get back to the basic assumption that is: "CRF is linked with cloud behavior". I had a quick look around for some cites of Shaviv's paper, those that I found were brief and unflattering A recent paper in Nature serves as an exapmple (more complete free version here ). A much better paper that directly tests Shaviv's basic assumption is titled Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover.

Papers that actually do some testing of Shaviv's assumption seem to be quite rare, (note I only have access to free pubs and abstracts on the net). However there is a plethora of papers that attempt to test and quantify the CO2 causal link in the real world such as the one I linked to above or this simplistic search

Let's move out a bit from examining the trees and look at the cosmic ray idea in more general terms. As I understand it basically goes something like this: The debateable link between cloud cover and cosmic rays says that an increase in CRF will create more (longer lasting?) clouds, clouds reflect the Sun's rays ( ie: higher albido ) and thus the Earth cools, I belive it has been refered to as the Iris effect. I checked out your claim of increased CRF over the last decade and it seems my assertion of no trend was (slightly) out of date although I was speaking of the pre-2000 ground based observations I did not state that clearly, here is the evidence at NASA

It basically says the Ulysees spacecraft has recorded a drop in solar wind, it is now 13% cooler and 20% less dense than a decade ago, this in turn means that it's ability to deflect the CRF been reduced and therefore a higher CRF should be observed on Earth (as you have claimed). It also goes on to say a 30% drop in the Sun's magnetic field strength has also been observed and that this further enhances the CRF reaching the Earth. This certainly is very interesting but I don't think it means what you think it does...

First of all the reduced solar wind should have some cooling effect, secondly according to the CR theory increased CRF should add to that cooling. However as I stated in the original debate the hottest 10yrs on record have all occurred within the last 12yrs, the evidence for this is found at the Hadley Center and is backed by the WMO and NASA amoung others. Ignoring the CRF for the moment the expected cooling from the reduced solar wind should by itself have been observed as a cooler Earth but since this is not the case it's lends some credence to my claim that the IPCC reports err on the side of caution (ie: they are conservative estimates).

Now in the original debate you dismissed M. Mann as being an activist. You also accused him of intolerance of opposing views with the line "You will not find information that disagrees with Michael Mann [at realclimate], unless he has managed to really stomp the counter arguments into the ground". This is simply false as I demontrated in the original debate and can be seen by actually reading any of his posts. Personally I would have thought stomping on counter arguments as I am doing here would be a good trait for a scientist and skeptic provided the boots you use avoid ad-homs and are intellectually honest.

ALL the IPCC reports are written soley by scientists and are generally accepted to represent the "best science available" on the issue, ie: they analogous to a text book written by 2500 scienists representing the vast majority of the world's scientific bodies who review all the litrature over a four year cycle. Your stated reason for dimmising the IPCC out of hand was "Also the politicised nature of the IPCC where its chairman calls Svensmark 'irresponsible' because his ideas don't fit in the consensus is insane, and thoroughly discredits its summary for policymakers."

I tend to agree with the chairman but not with the words you put in his mouth, I cannot see calling Svensmark 'irresponsible' discredits the entire IPCC or anyone else, a thorough stomping of Svensmark's CR ideas can be found at physicsworld. It's interesting to note that Svensmark decided to use a ghost authour to write his book "The Chilling Stars" in which he praises himself heavily in the third person.

I do not know why you choose to believe Svensmark and Shaviv or why you choose to dismiss the mountain of evidence collected by the IPCC and the large body of work that preceded them that streaches all the way back to Fourier in the early 1800's. There is certainly no scientific reason for that attitude and again I think you need to look at that with a healthy dose self-skeptical introspection.

The last major beef I have with our debate was your off-hand dissmisal of models with this comment: "As far as the modelling goes. I have built too many models to trust them when the basic science is not understood in detail. It's dead easy to model something that models the past, just put in enough parameters." First of all it's is not "dead easy" to reconstruct climate since you first have to get yourself tens of millions of dollars to buy the hardware as a number of institutions around the world have done, not the least of these is Japan's Earth Simulator.

Your comment seem to indicate you believe that this is all about twiddling statistcal parameters until it looks good, this is not the case and if that is how you build your numerical models I can tell you with a great deal certainty you are doing it wrong. I pointed to what I consider an exceptional demonstration of the power of these models in the original debate, if you did look at the site the fact of the matter is the computer you used to do so would have been impossible to build without the use of computer models. Again I think you need to look at your reasons for dismissing models that have proved their worth time and again in a vast array of endevours with a healthy dose self-skeptical introspection. One last tip: "G'day mate" means hello not goodbye.

top

Cosmic Rays and Climate Change

TapeCutter TapeCutter writes  |  more than 7 years ago A recent slashdot story reported on an article by the ex-editor of New Scientist, Nigel Calder. RealClimate have taken issue with what they call "bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change". They have posted a rebuttal to Calder's article that basically concludes: "No trend = no explanation for current changes".

It should also be noted that Calder's article ended with an advertisment for his new book "The Chilling Stars".

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>