Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment We still can't analyze data we don't have (Score 1) 249 249

We can't analyze data we don't have.

I think this conversation has pretty much reached a dead end.

You're right: when you assume that scientists are all biased, and all the actual analysis and results and data and models can be dismissed without the effort of paying any attention to them because you have already decided they're biased, you can indeed draw any conclusion you like.

Comment Re:they made the planes the bombed pearl harbor (Score 2) 85 85

And then a million people (men, women, children, civilians all) died when the only atomic weapons used in combat were dropped on them. I'd say that balances out Pearl Harbor a bit. I don't think they "got away" with anything.

First, your death count is wrong-- it's high by roughly a factor of five. Second, the deaths from the nuclear weapons were small compared to the deaths from conventional bombings. War kills people. If you're complaining about bombing, complain about that. Third, the estimated death count from the nuclear weapons was about equal to the death rate from five weeks of the war: if the bombing shortened the war by five weeks, it saved lives. Fourth, the Japanese put every man they had into the war effort-- even the farmers. If they war hadn't ended, the number of Japanese starving would have been millions: there was not enough manpower in the form of women and children left to harvest the fields.

Comment We can't analyze data we don't have [Re:Bias] (Score 1) 249 249

But the solar variation is not ten times as much. We measure the solar output. We know that this is not responsible for the current warming because we measure it.

Nobody measured solar output during the Maunder minimum.

You are confusing two different things.

Solar variation is not the cause of the current warming. Got that? Good.

The climate in 1700 is somewhat harder to model. You quoted what I already said, and I see no reason not to just repeat it:

Well, except nobody knowns whether the Maunder minimum even had anything to do with the little ice age, except for the coincidence of timing. The best understanding at the moment is that the little ice age was due to volcanic eruptions:

That seems straightforward. Nobody knows if there's a connection.

  Your comment on that post is

We see here a willingness by researchers to rule out conflating factors despite having insufficient evidence. That is IMHO evidence for the bias I referred to.

I don't understand your logic here. Those "conflating factors" in analyzing climate of the 14-19 centuries don't have anything to do with current climate. For that we have measurements of solar activity.

People have been looking for a solar activity/climate connection for literally hundreds of years*. They haven't found it yet. Understanding the connection between the Maunder minimum and the little ice age, if one exists, would be a huge advance in climate science. But it's not really possible to do science on the basis of "here's something we don't know because the data is poor or non-existent. Maybe there is something we don't understand, but we don't even know if there's anything there."

However, here is something to think about. If it were discovered that the solar variation during the Maunder minimum caused the temperature drop of the Little Ice Age, that would make the climate scientists say "oh my god, the highest estimates of warming due to the greenhouse effect are the right ones; it's a lot worse that the conservative estimates."

Because if the Maunder minimum actually did cause the little ice age, that implies that there must be a big positive feedback loop between radiative forcing and climate. The exact size of the feedback look is the main uncertainty in climate. The short term feedbacks are getting to be well understood. But if there's a large long-term feedback-- one that hasn't really kicked in yet-- then the greenhouse effect is really much worse than the average of current estimates.

But, in either case, whether the Maunder minimum does or doesn't explain all or part of the little ice age isn't really relevant to the question of whether we understand current climate, because we don't need proxies for solar activity to understand current climate: we have measurements. Saying "we haven't found a connection between the Maunder minimum and the climate" isn't bias-- it's just a statement of what we don't know.


*mostly in the century-long series of studies trying to understand the cause of ice-age cycles.

Comment Bad calculation (Score 4, Insightful) 212 212

"every year there are close to 140,000 jobs requiring a CS degree, but only 40,000 U.S. college graduates major in CS, which means that 100,000 positions go unfilled by domestic talent."

And this would be a logical inference if the only people looking for jobs were that year's college graduates.

But, actually, very few job openings are filled by fresh-outs.

Conclusion: mIsleading and false.

Comment Bias [Re:Do the calculation] (Score 1) 249 249

But the solar variation is not ten times as much. We measure the solar output. We know that this is not responsible for the current warming because we measure it.

You keep repeating that word "bias." The only bias I've seen you refer to is "every organization that produces a scientific result that confirms climate scientific models is biased." As far as I can tell, the only evidence you have for that purported bias is that you don't want to credit their results.

I have a suggestion: consider the possibility that the people who are telling you that all these institutions are biased might, themselves, be biased.

Comment Re:Do the calculation [Re:Data you won't look...] (Score 1) 249 249

I think you slipped a decimal.

I did. Should have been 0.025%. That corresponds to 0.075 C difference in the case of 300 K.

In either case, though, that's not enough to explain the current warming. Does not explain enough of the current warming to really bother with.

A key problem here is that the real problem is not whether global warming exists or not, but rather how dire and urgent a problem is it? If a significant component of global warming is due to non-human factors,

It isn't.

You just did the numbers.

It isn't.

then that weakens the case for various expensive public policies and remedies such as ending dependence on fossil fuels (which perversely can include valuable market protection for existing fossil fuel providers), various public subsidies, and carbon markets.>

Now you're talking a completey different subject, which is "what (if anything) shall we do about the warming?"

That's a good question to address... but addressing it by saying "the science is wrong, so we don't need to even think about what to do" doesn't address it.

The question of what we should do about global warming has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the science is correct. People are attacking the science to make political points-- specifically in order to not address the question "what should we do about it", because they are afraid that they would not like the answer.

Comment Re:Do the calculation [Re:Data you won't look...] (Score 1) 249 249

Excellent-- that's good enough for a back of the envelope calculation. I like back of the envelope calculations.

My calculator says that the fourth root of 1.001 is 1.00025, though. I think you slipped a decimal.

In either case, though, that's not enough to explain the current warming. Does not explain enough of the current warming to really bother with.

Comment Re:Ironic (Score 1) 195 195

What does seem to have contributed to the abandonment of the Western Settlements, archaeologists said, is climate change. The onset of a ''little ice age'' made living halfway up Greenland's coast untenable in the mid-1300's, argues Dr. Charles Schweger,

..which is about three hundred years before the Maunder minimum.

Comment Re:Also ironic: Claiming Plait debunked it. (Score 1) 195 195

Sorry-- Phil Plait wrote a detailed analysis of the claims that decreases solar activity means that the Earth is likely to slip into a mini ice age.

The new model of the solar dynamo is new, but doesn't mention a "mini ice age". The part Plait analysed is not new.

Submission + - Mini Ice Age: nothing to worry about

Geoffrey.landis writes: Last week a news story suggested that a new model of sunspot activity predicted a dramatic drop in solar activity coming up, possibly resulting in coming a mini-ice age. Take that prediction with a bit of skepticism, though-- later news analysis suggests that the story may be more media hype than science. Valentina Zharkova, the scientist whose research is being quoted, made no mention of a "mini Ice age"-- her work was only on modelling the solar dynamo. And, in any case, the solar minimum predicted was estimated to last only three solar cycles-- far less than the 17th century Maunder Minimum.

Phil Plait, known for his "bad astronomy" column, does a more detailed analysis of the claims, pointing out that the effect, if it even exists at all, is weak-- and the much discussed "Little Ice Age" is currently believed to most likely have been triggered by volcanic action, not sunspots. And, in any case, any predicted cooling is small compared to already-present global warming. So, probably no need to stock up on firewood, dried food, and ammunition quite yet-- the mini ice age isn't likely to be coming quite yet.

Comment Re:Do the calculation [Re:Data you won't look...] (Score 1) 249 249

Ah, I thought you were a skeptic, but turns out you're a denier. My mistake. It is quite amazing how deniers will do anything possible to avoid actually doing a calculation.

You asserted, with no evidence, that the change in total solar irradiance between active sun and quiet sun is a plausible explanation of the 20th century warming. A quick back of the envelope analysis would show that this is not the case. But you're not willing to do the calculation, and not willing to look at the calculation from people who have.

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!