Inside BitFury's 20 Megawatt Bitcoin Mine
The hero's of the neo-con movement, Reagan and Thatcher, jointly proposed and won the existing international cap and trade treaty for sulphur emissions, the fact we rarely hear about the sulphur emissions market or acid rain these days is testament to how well it has worked for almost 30yrs now.
Inside BitFury's 20 Megawatt Bitcoin Mine
Actually it was working as advertised, that's why our current far right government was so hell bent on getting rid of it.
CIA Director Brennan Admits He Was Lying: CIA Really Did Spy On Congress
I'm guessing you don't have teenage kids. Most parents know the house will be trashed to some degree, but they hand over the keys anyway because it's a "life lesson" all older teenagers need to experience, the phone call is to make sure the kid is still alive.
More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties
is the electron ACTUALLY doing that, or was that simply a mathematical/logical proof that correlates highly with what we see?
Ummm. physics has been all about testing for discrepancies between the two for at least a century now. There's a nobel prize waiting for anyone who can show an electron not behaving itself in accordance with the standard model.
An Accidental Wikipedia Hoax
Wikipedia articles cite sources.
Exactly, WP is an encyclopedia, academics do not cite encyclopedias, never have, and most probably never will.
How Bird Flocks Resemble Liquid Helium
Can this claim even be proven or disproven?
Silly question on a nerd site, you don't "prove" anything with science, and Jurassic park was a movie, not a scientific model.
Back then the short cut they took probably saved them weeks in rendering time, and as you say, came out looking realistic. A scientific simulation would be comparing real data points to the output, it would be able to identify the "handful of leaders" that initiate each manoeuvre of a real flock, it would definitely not be a bunch of lab coats looking at the pretty pictures and nodding.
Disclaimer: I like Crichton's stories too, but he tends to write in "false document" style and every story has the same "science gone mad" plot.
Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine
Yeah right, the infamous "mushroom cloud" comment was all about chemical weapons. Also I'm old enough to recall the attack on the Kurds, it happened in the 80's long before Clinton was elected. The Bush administration lied about nukes and lied about Saddam's connection to 911 because they wanted to "fix" the ME once and for all.
Sure most people wanted Saddam gone but most people could also see the end was not worth the means. The US should have backed down when it did not gain the support of the UN but they did the exact opposite. The US should have kept Iraq's public service intact but they disbanded them on the third day and the entire nation went on a looting rampage from which they still haven't recovered.
Australian Government Moving Forward With Anti-Piracy Mandate For ISPs
Yes, the proof is in the pudding, the "land of the free" has the highest incarceration rates in the world, roughly 7X the rate of countries like China, Europe, and Australia. They are even more enthusiastic about locking up their own people than Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
As for TFA, most people outside Australia and many inside of it do not understand why this is a perennial issue in parliament. Neither side are serious about these things, they use the issue purely for political gain in the senate.
Aussie governments on both sides have argued both for and against this type of legislation since video cassettes became popular in the 80's. Malcolm Turnbull is not personally in favour of this legislation and Brandis just made a huge "free speech" fuss about changing the racial discrimination act to give people the right to be a bigot (specifically because his own media attack dog was found guilty under the act). However their personal stance is largely irrelevant since I'll bet that there is a minority "balance of power" senator that wants this, my guess is Bob Day from "family first". They were the ones who pushed this issue under the Labour gov, then spat the dummy when their own anti-abortion web sites started appearing on the "leaked" blacklist.
Both sides of government have used this issue as bait for independent senators, they promise to implement if the senator cooperates on other matters, knowing full well the majority of parliamentarians won't accept it when, or rather if, it comes to a vote. They get the senate vote(s) early in their term, then they have endless inquires about how to implement "stupid idea X", people get stirred up, enquires come back with mixed results, the issue goes quiet before the next election. Independent senator loses seat he was luck to win in the first place and is replaced by a new independent from a different electorate with similar ideas and no experience bargaining with a major political party.
In other words unless the pure political cynicism in keeping the status-quo concerns you, then this is a non-story.
For Half, Degrees In Computing, Math, Or Stats Lead To Other Jobs
Both the accountant and solicitor I use for tax, conveyancing, etc, have a BSc as their first degree.
Finding Life In Space By Looking For Extraterrestrial Pollution
Pollution occurs wherever there is life.
Indeed, the oxygen we breath is another life-form's pollution.
Finding Life In Space By Looking For Extraterrestrial Pollution
One of the assumptions behind SETI is that aliens want to be heard, we have deliberately broadcast radio messages to nearby stars, SETI are hoping aliens will do the same thing.
The idea of looking for atmospheric signatures of technological life that do not occur in nature (such as CFC's) has been around for a long time. Non technological life can be inferred from an atmosphere rich in both methane and oxygen. People are trying to perform atmospheric spectroscopy on exoplanets but the technology is not quite there yet, I believe someone recently claimed to have detected water vapour on an exoplanet.
Having said that I was taught in 1970's high school that it was theoretically impossible to detect an exoplanet from Earth, but that was before wobble mirrors were invented..
Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Rests On Battery Drain Claims
I haven't a mobile phone of any kind for almost a decade but google and facebook know (from my bank) that I have spent some serious dollars on dentistry recently, their computers are thoroughly convinced I should buy a $350 set of plastic clip on teeth. I don't need false teeth but I post something random about the plastic teeth to web sites about once a week, like I'm doing here. I've been doing this for about six weeks, almost every page I visit is now plastered with the same ad (I clicked on it once just to tease them).
There's some people selling porcelain teeth that started following me last week, I'm currently experimenting with different phrases to see if I can ignite a bidding war between the two vendors. Would love to know how much they have spent on me so far....
Your post is spot on, it's exceedingly difficult to opt out of the civilization you found yourself born into. Ridicule is the best defense against extremists, so my advice is try to have some fun with the absurdities of "targeted advertising", and the crusaders who are battling it..
Disclaimer: For many years I have had the slashdot "disable advertising" option available, I don't use it because I actually want slashdot to make a few pennies from my eyeballs. It's also humourous seeing ads for religious scams posted to a bunch of atheist nerds ranting against religion. If we keep burning gods money like that maybe (s)he won't be able to buy as many congressmen in the future.
The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry
Here's an informative response to one of those trolls, pay no attention to his bad math it doesn't distract from the central point.
Why Are the World's Scientists Continuing To Take Chances With Smallpox?
we suck at knowing things, even when those things are big enough for us to see
Welcome to the real world where imperfect knowledge has been enshrined in a very useful philosophy we call "Science".
Science is just highly refined common sense. The fact that the biblical plague of smallpox has not been seen in the wild for decades convincingly demonstrates science knows enough to control it, what more do you need to know? Sure it may pop up somewhere after all these years, but even if that very unlikely* event was to occur we have already demonstrated we know how to deal with it and stop it spreading. So even though we can never know for sure that every last smallpox bug has been killed, we do know that as long as our current knowledge is passed on to the next generation, smallpox will never again cause human miseries of biblical proportions. This scant knowledge also tells us that smallpox (alone) would be a stupid choice for a biological weapon.
very unlikely* - Without special care smallpox does not survive for very long outside of a human host, the human body is it's unique natural habitat.
MIT's Ted Postol Presents More Evidence On Iron Dome Failures
But we have one side ready for peaceful coexistence and the other side who wants only the total destruction of their enemies.
If you watch it for a few decades you will see the sides alternating, when Israel makes a peaceful move in conjunction with Fatah, Hamas retaliates with rockets. When Hamas declares and keeps a 2yr ceasefire, Israel lays the boots in. Israel does want a 2 state solution but only if they can veto who's running it, in the meantime they call it an occupation territory so that it doesn't screw up the demographics of a jewish state, similar to the way S.Africa denied the black a vote to keep their "white demographic" intact. Fatah has been widely seen as Israeli puppets by people in Gaza since the death of Arafat. The Israelis came close to a resolution with Arafat in the 90's but he backed out at the last minute over the "right of return", Arafat wasn't the only one punished because of that act of political disobedience.
The situation also has similarities with the British occupation of Ireland in the early 20th century, the Brits solved that mess in the 80's and 90's by talking the high moral ground of allowing full participation on the political side while simultaneously infiltrating the IRA and bringing members of the military wing to justice via criminal courts and local police. Trust has to start somewhere and Israel are supposed to be the grown up government in this equation.
Hamas cannot defeat Israel, from a purely militarily POV Hamas is a nuisance largely of Israel's and Egypt's own making. When will Isreali soldiers follow the lead of the Brits in 1980's N. Ireland and remove their riot helmets while on street patrol. Replace the live ammo with rubber, swap real cannons for water cannons, stop shifting the border, stop evicting people and bulldozing homes that have been occupied for centuries by the same family, bring your own extremist dogs to heal to show the palestinians how it's done.
MIT's Ted Postol Presents More Evidence On Iron Dome Failures
It wasn't widely broadcast at the time but after Hamas came to power with 70% of the vote in what all international observers called a "free and fair" election. They declared a unilateral ceasefire and kept it for about 2yrs. During this time Israel and the west in general simply punished the palestinians for "picking the wrong team". This doesn't mean the palestinians are blameless Arafat fucked up a 2 state deal before that and was duly punished for it. However it's clear to see the palestinians are the significantly weaker under-dog, and the similarities with apartheid era South Africa is not lost on anyone old enough to remember it.
The hypocrisy and immorality inherent in international politics is simply offensive to any thinking person, the west bitches about Putin's rockets shooting down airliners while Israelis watch and cheer US bombs landing on hospitals from nearby hills. Neither of these events has anything to do with self defense, it's just the same old proxy wars the 5 veto powers have been playing since they agreed not to shoot directly at each other.
UEA Research Shows Oceans Vital For Possibility of Alien Life
How so? What did it accomplish or change?
There's more than a touch of irony in military project that reached the ultimate high ground only to show us that the world domination game was not worth playing.
But I guess you had to be there to really grasp the significance of Apollo's role in the cold war. Personally I think the 1968 "earthrise" photo from apollo 8 was the most significant contribution, it's often credited with igniting the environmental movement (along with the book "Silent Spring").
The notion of the "pale blue dot" (google it) came out of that photo and exploded in our cultural consciousness several years before Carl Sagan gave it an eloquent voice. The Earthrise photo made it very clear in a lot of people's minds that there is nowhere else to go in the foreseeable future. It was clear that mankind had run out of territory to conquer on Earth and it asked the question at the height of the Vietnam war - why are we still squabbling over the spoils?
Earthrise and the PBDot are now popular cultural icons, they say something to us in the same way a red cross says something to a soldier on a battlefield.
Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45
The National Geographic that came out with the wonderful moon maps and photos was a treasure of my childhood.
I still have a copy of that issue. :)
The "mankind" thing was just poetry for a domestic audience, read Kennedy's speech and it's crystal clear that the Apollo project was a military response to the "threat" posed by sputnik.
Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45
The day they landed on the moon, I landed on a plate of spaghetti. I was 10, I had put my meal on my chair and gone to get some juice, I came back and was so enthralled with the TV I sat back down on the chair without looking.
Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45
I'm not sure which came first, the fake landing theory or the movie Capricorn One.
Continuation of climate disscussion with robinjo
A promise kept
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.
Cosmic Rays and Climate Change