Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It's getting hotter still! (Score 1) 622

by BCGlorfindel (#47912179) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

What if it's on topic? Say, I dunno, when discussing climate change and citing a celebrity that won a noble prize for their related work?

I'll whole heartedly agree if you want to lay the failing at the feet of ever giving Gore the time of day in scientific circles, let alone a Noble prize. You'll have to forgive people for continually bringing Gore's statements on the matter forward though. His videos are showing up in schools to 'teach' kids about the important scientific research on climate change. My kids came home having watched before they were in grade 5. When the indoctrination is pushed that far out, people are NOT remiss to start pushing back.

IMO it's not much different than the situation with Islamic Jihadists and moderate Muslims. The fact some might claim common cause with a larger group doesn't make it so, but some denouncement from the greater community starts to become of importance. Regrettably, there has been little to no efforts made from the scientific community to distance itself from Gore's extreme proclamations and warnings. 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.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by BCGlorfindel (#47871357) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

There is no hiatus, but a slowing down of warming. The warming is still happening, but at a slightly slower rate than predicted. So yeah, it's deniers who point out the hiatus, as it doesn't exist.

So deniers like the authors and editors of peer reviewed journals like The National Academy of Sciences and Geophysical Research Letters and Nature. Nature in particular publishing an article with the 'denier' skewed title of "Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus".

Nothing burns me more than somebody faking as though they are all for the scientific process and defending it's 'findings' while at the same time totally ignoring the actual science. The reality as pointed out in the 3 linked articles, and many, many, many more is that since 1998 the rate of warming has dropped off heavily enough it no longer matches most predictions or modelling very well. Something in the predictions and modelling was missed that is happening in the real world, and has caused an apparent 'hiatus' in the rate of warming that was expected. Tracking, identifying and understanding that is important science, and thankfully they haven't stopped to listen to people like you who would prefer to deny that reality.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score 1) 427

by BCGlorfindel (#47865493) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

In the case of AGW those scales are a) global, and b) range from a couple centuries, to several My depending on which line of evidence you're looking at.
It was unusually cold in New England this winter. That's weather. But overall, this winter was still one of the 5 warmest on record. That's climate.

Which is the source of a huge part of my skepticism regarding the severity of the 'problem'.

1. Our climate is warming, period. We have almost 125 years of instrumental data to prove it. The but is that, 125 years is not enough data points for phenomena that as you pointed out span centuries and even millenia.
2. CO2 is a GHG and contributes to warming, and we are dumping significant quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. What severity of impact is that causing though? We have just barely been dumping that CO2 for a century, and our best data points don't give us much reference of the 'before' trend.

What pushes me past skepticism though and into outright rejection is graphs like the IPCC published Mann et el graph showing temperature over the last 2k or more years. The work and principle of looking at older proxy records to get a longer reference of climate is vitally important, and a way to extend what we know and can use to improve prediction. The principal is good. The published articles are pure hack jobs though. Data points projected by proxy prior to 1900 are posted and attached to current instrumental records and show an alarming and sudden upward trend in temperature starting at 1900. Now, any sane, skeptical mind would point out the change in data sources as the first and most important cause. Instead, Mann et al claimed a eureka moment, as human CO2 emissions also roughly coincide with that time, so clearly human activity is the cause.

That isn't just bad science, IMO it is deliberately and intentionally bad science. The fact is further proven and demonstrated if you take Mann's oldest and original graphs and just map out what 2014 and 2020 aught to look like if his observed 'trend' is real.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score 1) 427

by BCGlorfindel (#47863415) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

I like to class myself in the rational crowd, and I think a major blind spot between sides is regarding the degree of warming. The following are further facts I think we can agree must be recognized if someone wants to be taken seriously:
1. The instrumental record over the last 125 years clearly shows things are warming.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a GHG and causes warming.
3. Human activity is dumping sizable quantities of CO2 into the environment and measurable amounts are accumulating in the atmosphere.

These are all well documented, measured and verifiable facts, not part of any honest debate.

That said, I STILL count myself a skeptic of the 'degree' or 'rate' of warming that we should be anticipating over the next decades. Having all the hottest years on record occurring in the last decade or two doesn't alarm me over much. We only have 100 some years of data, and the trend in it is a relatively linear warming from start to finish.

The point of contention is the question of whether or not we are facing 'catastrophic' change or not. Plenty of reconstructions and climate models argue for exponential warming. Such predictions go back to the very first IPCC report, which current global average temps are nearly cooler than the coolest error bars of predictions from back then. More recent estimates start the 'curve' later and later which has served to keep predictions consistent with measured reality. Despite this though, the best models all still DO recognize the absence of accelerated warming in recent years as a problem. They didn't predict it.

If anyone is still reading and thinks I'm missing important reasons to still anticipate catastrophic results, please let me know, but in all my searching of journals and actual, honest research I am just NOT finding any strong evidence or suggestion that it's time to 'panic'.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by BCGlorfindel (#47863167) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

It's not 'deniers' pointing out the hiatus, but actual peer reviewed scientists. They point out that the hiatus DOES matter because it's getting close to falling outside the error bars that were meant to take into account the 'statistical noise' you want to claim as excuse for inaccuracy. Surely you realize the stupidity in claiming, essentially, conflicting data doesn't contradict method X, after all, the data the method was based on is far too noisy to expect good results. Seems like your admitting to knowing too little, which is presumably what you mean to be arguing against,

Comment: Re:Global Warming? (Score 1) 273

by BCGlorfindel (#47758313) Attached to: Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

Current estimates are that we are dumping 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, for a total of about 550 billion tons since 1870.

If we are just going to through out facts devoid of context, the IPCC fourth assessment pegs annual NATURAL CO2 emissions at 430 billion tonnes. Or worked backwards to 1870, about 62 trillion tonnes.

Comment: Re:Global Warming? (Score 1) 273

by BCGlorfindel (#47755951) Attached to: Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

a) What hiatus? The hiatus only appears when you use incomplete data. citation []

It's cute using something like Slate as a citation to demonstrate the state of scientific research. Regrettably for your argument, actual scientific journal articles like these ones in Nature, IOPScience and Science all contradict your statement. These articles all note "Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century" with multiple citations to yet other scientific journal articles that demonstrated this.

... and that's assuming any positive feedback loops don't override it (look at the "clathrate gun hypothesis" for an example of what could happen).

And that's assuming any negative feedback loops don't override it (look at the Iris hypothesis for an example of what could happen).

The global mean temperature trend for the last decade has fallen outside the error bars of the climate model projections gathered by the first IPCC assessment. Go ahead and deny that all you like, but the actual scientists are looking at the why and trying to sort out what they got wrong, in articles like those I've linked above.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 465

by BCGlorfindel (#47730325) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

No model, in any branch of science or engineering, is complete and perfect; that doesn't mean they're useless [].

Agreed, but how good are the climate models is a very important question. Plenty of people are pushing very, very hard for sweeping large scale economic and political level reforms based on the results of these models. Global CO2 emissions are tightly locked to economic development, particularly in developing nations like China, and significantly cutting those means significant economic fallout.

Look at the IPCC assessments and you can see what their current assessment of climate model reliability is. They rank it to be quite high. At the exact same time, they also note that climate models are NOT well agreed on what SIGN to place on the impact of cloud feedback. Apologies if it makes me sound like I'm cherry picking my data. Clouds contribute significantly more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, and models are uncertain what SIGN to place on clouds? I DO NOT believe the certainty the models can give on CO2 impact is all that powerful while there remains disagreement on the sign to attribute to clouds. Most importantly to all of us stuck on this rock, it certainly seems insufficient to advocate massive global political and economic reforms.

Comment: Re:Wish Red Hat 7 had a better interface (Score 1) 209

by chuckymonkey (#47647387) Attached to: Elementary OS "Freya" Beta Released
What we're trying to move towards where I work is RHEL on the server and making use of Docker. The plan is that we'll put some more user friendly OS on the desktop so our users aren't endlessly frustrated by the desktop being shit and let the developers use Docker to create application stack builds. Once they go through the testing and vetting process we'll just push the containers up to the production RHEL servers. This serves two purposes, the people that actually have to interface with the desktop can have something that looks nice like Ubuntu(I get it you don't like Unity, grow up and realize that it's not the horrible end of the world.), Elementary, or some other more desktop oriented distribution that supports Docker. On the other side we get all the excellence that is RHEL on the server side with a nice clean and seamless integration for out developers. It also allows us to keep our developers from needing root or even sudo access because they can do whatever the hell they want with the Docker containers. Once they're vetted for stability and security I honestly don't give a damn how they handle them. I'm very interested in this Atomic Server Red Hat is exploring for this very reason.

Comment: Re:SteamBox just got really interesting (Score 1) 106

by chuckymonkey (#47065299) Attached to: Valve In-Home Game Streaming Supports Windows, OS X & Linux
Where it gets even more interesting is when you have things like GPU passthrough to a VM. That's something I'm working on right now, virtualizing Windows and passing it a GPU. I have the VM bridged to the network so it has a native IP address and assign it whatever resources I think it needs to play games. This lets me have a pretty beefy server that's running Windows in a VM as well as doing all the other server tasks I ask of it like file serving, Plex, a VM for web development. All in one machine. Then my desktops/laptops are relatively low powered and let my server do all the work. What was old is new again.

Comment: Re:not an axe (Score 1) 217

by chuckymonkey (#46809243) Attached to: Reinventing the Axe
I grew up splitting wood with a single bit axe instead of a maul and wedge(all hardwood, maple, oak, cherry, beech, ash). I could hit like the fist of an angry god with an axe because I could get a lot more velocity out of it, plus if you've ever swung a splittle maul that weighs in at six pounds-ish you get really tired really really fast. All that being said this is a great design.

Comment: Re:Neat (Score 4, Informative) 217

by chuckymonkey (#46809201) Attached to: Reinventing the Axe
Having grown up splitting enough wood to fill a 30'x30'x10' wood shed every year(not all of it was split but a lot was) and all of it by hand because I grew up poor as dirt I can tell you that it's not as bad as you think. The way this thing rotates is actually how you should split wood anyway, it just takes a ridiculous amount of practice to get it right. With a more traditional single bit axe(no maul, too heavy to swing for hours like I used to) you come down as hard as you can and then right at the moment of impact twist to transfer some of the inertia laterally causing a wider split. The only thing this changes is makes it a hell of a lot easier to do and more efficient because you can get consistent results.

Comment: Re:LaserJet II and LaserJet 3 (Score 1) 702

by chuckymonkey (#46790877) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Tech Products Were Built To Last?
We had a LaserJet II when I deployed with the Army in 2003. It had been in constant use all the preceding years and it's the only printer that made it through every single deployment. That thing went all over the desert, was filled with dirt and dust, bounced around in trucks, flown all over the place, shocked, dropped, banged and beaten. As far as I know it still works.

Round Numbers are always false. -- Samuel Johnson