Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 3, Insightful) 301

Unless you're planning to exhume his remains and put them on trial (It's been done, see Oliver Cromwell) Goebbels has committed no crimes. Yes he is a monster, but he is no criminal.

That's nonsense. It's probably based on the legal principle "assumed innocent until proven guilty", but that fails in two ways. First, it's only a legal principle about how to treat suspects. It's not reality - guilt begins at the act, not at the conviction. And secondly, there is indeed plenty of proof of Goebbels crimes. There is no conviction (because he died before that), but that is also true for Bonnie and Clyde, Jack the Ripper, Richard Nixon, and even, as far as I know, Osama bin Laden.

Comment: Re:in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy (Score 4, Informative) 320

by Stephan Schulz (#49500453) Attached to: Columbia University Doctors Ask For Dr. Mehmet Oz's Dismissal

story I'll just leave that there for you to look at. Artic will be completely ice free by 2013, by your scientists that shouldn't be questioned.

Here it is 2015 and I'm the idiot for pointing out they are wrong. This is why I think science is groupthink. They made a prediction, they were 100% wrong in outcome, and I get called names by pointing it out. This happened in the past. A guy said the earth rotates around the sun and had evidence, but everyone else called him a heretic and said he was wrong and the sun rotates around the earth.

You do understand that a) Maslowski was speaking about the possibility, not the certainty, and b), that he did not represent the mainstream, but deviated from it significantly? Indeed, this is the very opposite of "group think" - it's a range of different opinions.

Comment: Re:It's been nice knowing y'all (Score 1) 417

The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean.

'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.

Hmmm... CO2 concentrations in liquid, sure. But what does that have to do with PH? You indicate that it's self-evident, but it's not to me. Maybe you can explain that relationship in high-school sciencey language. There are actually 3 different ways to measure PH, one of which is specific to ocean chemistry (the PH Seawater Scale - sws).

pH measures the concentration of H3O+, or, in simpler terms, the availability of free protons for reactions. Acids are substances that like losing a proton. The acid that causes acidification of our oceans (and sparkle in sodas and sparkling water) is carbonic acid, or CO2 dissolved in water. More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more CO2 dissolved in the water, which equals more carbonic acid and a lower pH. How you measure pH is an independent question.

I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem.

No, it's not, actually. Especially in science (not the scientific community that is awash in politic, but the work of science it certainly is).

I think you misread my comment. I'm trying hard to avoid an ad-hominem attack on you while pointing out that the level of understanding you exhibit does not give the impression that you understand the principles of the issue.

Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry.

Nice try. See above.

See what above?

What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?

I can't understand everything, certainly, but much of it is accessible to me. Much of it because I'm good at maths. And language.

Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.

I think you are misreading it. They are using the data from the lake in Japan to demonstrate specific relationships. For 280,000 years. It's no more an extrapolation than "More CO2 increases the greenhouse effect." Physical properties are physical properties.

Who is "they"? The authors of the original paper or the operators of Junk Science? The original paper is here, and looking at the abstract, you can see that the interpretation at Hockeyschtick parroted at Junk Science is completely misleading, and basically has nothing to do with the paper.

At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.

Most of that is a review of the ONE study on ocean acidification that keeps getting quoted. And those reviews are pretty damning to that study, IMHO.

Most of those links are to political propagandists, few of which have even a formal scientific qualification. And they don't seem to even mention a good reference to the original article they do whine about. Sabine and Feely have several articles on the topic, e.g. The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2 (2004), or The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 since the mid 1990s (2014), but I could not find one with those as the only authors. Google Scholar shows the first with over 2000 citations - if it is so bad, I would expect some serious criticism in the scientific literature, not just in the denialist echo chamber.

Comment: Re:It's been nice knowing y'all (Score 1) 417

More ad hominems to ignore.

Since when is a web site a hominus?

Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.

You seem to be more familiar with this aspect of the science than I am. I have not looked into those claims although I've skimmed some of the arguments on both sides.

I'm sorry, but the above is a very basic result from chemistry - typically something taught in high school. It's also something you experience in everyday live - a warm coke will go flat faster, but you also need some way to get the sparkle into the coke (by exposing it to CO2 at a very high partial pressure). This is not magic, it's basic physics and chemistry.

What I found interesting was the critique of the published numbers of PH readings. There are a lot of questions in the detail of what is being measured. Most of all, the most often-quoted studies that extrapolate changes BACKWARD - to the turn of the century - using trends from only 15 - 20 years of data. I haven't seen an explanation for this, but the EPA's website only shows readings from 1980 - 1985. They don't do the backward extrapolation, though.

It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Google filters those. But peer-reviewed papers are what I look for as an ultimate source.

I'm very hard trying to avoid ad-hominem. I do read scientific papers for a living (well, part of it). I do write reasonably well-regarded papers, and I frequently are asked to formally review papers (which I usually do). I find it quite hard to fully comprehend papers that are within my general area of science (computer science) and even my specialty (logic and deduction) if they are not within my area of micro-specialisation (first-order reasoning). Above, you admit that you do not fully understand basic high-school level chemistry. What makes you think that you can understand graduate-level climate science papers?

That's the reason I posted the links above. They include many references to the peer-reviewed work.

Your Junk Science link discusses and mentions only one paper. It takes the results out of context and misrepresents the paper by conflating temperature-driven processes (including e.g. seasonal changes) with CO2 driven processes (which increase the base level the pH varies around. Junk Science also take results from one inland lake in Japan and extrapolates that to the worlds ocean - talk about unjustified extrapolation.

At your second link, Sustainable Oregon , I fail to find a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. There may well be one, but if so it's carefully hidden among links to so-called think tank publications, denier blogs, and self-published (as opposed to scientific) opinion pieces.

Comment: Re:It's been nice knowing y'all (Score 1) 417

No, it turns out the PH scare was false. The original study, it turns out, didn't even use real data - it extrapolated 80 years of PH levels from about 15 years of data. Lots more details.

Actually, JunkScience is, well, junk science. Yes, all things being equal, warmer water holds less dissolved CO2, i.e. it becomes less acidic. But all things are not equal. The equilibrium CO2 concentration also depends on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and as that increases, so does the acidity of the ocean. And that is something we can actually observe, both in the lab and in nature.

It's a bad idea to take one's science from most blogs or propaganda outfits. Check Google Scholar for peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Comment: Re:Good. +1 for Google. (Score 1) 176

Who decides who "example.com" is? A collection of CAs or the person who gets the money for adding the NS entry for example.com? You may have existential angst over this, but at a practical level the registrar is going to be intimately involved in deciding who owns your domain and will have a de facto ability to spoof that, cut you off, or do other bad things. The question is whether they can do any of this stealthily. One nice thing about DANE is that you can actually monitor the records which are being provided to ensure that people are getting the correct records (doing this right would mean either having a number of test locations or hiring a third-party provider that does this as a service). This is in contrast to the CA model, in which you don't know that someone is presenting a bogus cert unless you're google and you get to instrument everybody's browser.

As for the price, you misunderstand. Paying more certainly doesn't guarantee quality, but not paying certainly guarantees that a provider won't implement expensive controls. If you need a highly secure domain in the DNSSEC scheme, then you want a registrar that will implement things like out of band verification of changes, multi-party controls on their end to prevent unauthorized changes, routine auditing, etc. That will cost more than getting a domain from a registrar that doesn't provide those services. You're probably going to be using a registrar that has a low enough volume that they can actually inspect changes to a degree impossible if you support automated bulk registrations (so the costs are spread over fewer customers).The neat thing is, you get to decide what you need--there's no good reason why my vanity domain needs the same level of security as microsoft.com. If you're on the really high end, I'd expect that you'd actually third-party audit the registrar to make sure that they're doing the things they say they are. (That also won't be free.) But at least there would be economic incentives to do all of these things, unlike the current regime where there's no effective difference between a $100k verisign EV cert and a free startssl cert.

Comment: Re:Good. +1 for Google. (Score 1) 176

>>registrars between you and the root can spoof you.
Not good.

Why is that not good? If your registrar is malicious, they can get a certificate issued for you anyway. The really nice thing about the "you have to trust your registrar" model is that you can actually vote with your wallet. Don't care about security? Get a cheap registrar. Want really good security? Pay extra for a registrar that has stronger guarantees. Even better: if a registrar screws up, its customers can leave. (Unlike the CA model, where if the CA screws up, they're too big to fail.) The techincal aspects are almost secondary to the benefits of providing economic incentives for the security-critical actors to do the right things.

Comment: Re:Let's see (Score 1) 442

by Stephan Schulz (#49373181) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

I am sorry what is it about ice being melted by volcanoes escaped your notice ?

You mean the section that says "It is important to note that none of this research suggests that global warming and climate change are not affecting the ice sheets of Antarctica but they do imply that any melting due to global warming is being exacerbated by geothermal heating from beneath the ice cap"? Yes, I read that. I also read that "A survey of the thickness of the Earth's crust in Antarctica found a particularly thin zone under Marie Byrd Land, where the Thwaites Glacier is located, which is consistent with the presence of a 'major volcanic dome'", which indicates that this is a long-term effect and should not affect the net rate of melting - it would be part of the steady state if we had one.

Despite that the coverage area is still increasing

Again, what is increasing is the maximum sea ice extend. The ice mass balance is strictly negative - i.e. there is more ice melting than water freezing year over year. The amount of ice is going down, by about 70 Gt per year (albeit with large uncertainties), and accelerating.

Comment: Re:Let's see (Score 1) 442

by Stephan Schulz (#49372749) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

Try again http://www.reportingclimatesci...

Total ice covering antarctica expanding despite Geothermal Melting

Want to explain just how atmospheric CO2 triggers vulcanism ?

But please keep on proving Emily Dickinson correct about the perils of an unexamined life.

From your source: "Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year." Do you read those sources, or do you just google for confirmation using bad search terms?

Comment: Re:Let's see (Score 2) 442

by Stephan Schulz (#49369797) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

15 years after the prediction date the Arctic is still covered in ice and the and the Antarctic ice is expanding.

And your point is? Because one non-scientist made an ambiguous claim about a possible outcome, all scientific claims are invalid? We've started commercial shipping through the Arctic, and "Antarctic ice" is shrinking, what is growing slightly is maximum Antarctic sea ice extend.

Comment: Re:Let's see (Score 2) 442

by Stephan Schulz (#49368971) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

Lets Hypothetically ?

https://news.google.com/newspa...

That would be like the "Hypothetically " ice free north pole by 2000 ?

Actually, the full quote is "...and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean..." (emphasis mine). The source of the claim, Berndt Balchen certainly had an interesting biography, but neither was he trained as a scientist, nor what the statement in a scientific publication.

Comment: Re:Tax (Score 1) 442

by Stephan Schulz (#49366603) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

yeah why don't you go tax a volcano because just one small eruption is millions of times larger in volume of CO than the entire world production of hydrocarbon fuels... [...]

I'm sorry, but that is simply unscientific nonsense. Human emissions are about 2 orders of magnitude greater than all volcanic emissions combined. None of the major volcanic eruptions of the last decades have left a significant blip in the CO2 curves. See e.g. the USGS on the issue.

As of next Tuesday, C will be flushed in favor of COBOL. Please update your programs.

Working...