Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 114 114

Well, you took the time to write all that out, so I'll do you the courtesy of a response, but I will point out that none of it is worth saying without citations (which was the entire point of this thread).

You call it "common knowledge", but when it contradicts the published, peer-reviewed results from any number of studies, which are compiled, published and endorsed by organisations like NOAA, CRU, CSIRO, and the IPCC in numerous countries, then your "common knowledge" doesn't seem to be all that common at all. I provided linked citations of reputable sources for my claims, so you'll need data at least as reputable (please, no blogs or news articles). I've heard claims just like yours countless times, and nobody has yet provided any reliable data to back them up.

"[surface temperature stations] are mostly not very accurate" - a vague claim, but in aggregate they can still give a very accurate picture of the temperature trend.

"[satellites] have their readings INCREASED every year...The current "correction" is about .4 C" - citation certainly needed for this one, for both claims.

"the depths of the ocean are not warming... It rarely goes below 100 meters much less 200 meters." - the data shows that ocean heat content has been rising steadily down to 2,000m. Below that, NASA finds no significant change. But there's a huge amount of energy going into that top 2km of the world's oceans.

"there is no way to know how much [sea level rise] is the result of a climate change and how much is climate cycle." - well, we know that sea level rise accelerated significantly in the last 150 years. We know that it's consistent with predictions based on thermal expansion and measured ice loss. If it's part of a long-term cycle, there needs to be a cause, and there's no credible evidence of any cyclic cause at that timescale.

"There are regions that are losing ice and regions that are gaining ice... How much ice are you saying has melted... just give me your rough estimate." - Shepherd et al 2012 finds a net ice mass loss of over 200 gigatonnes/year for the last couple of decades, using multiple lines of evidence.

"ice extent is very easy to estimate. And ice extent doesn't show a decline." I cite ice mass because it's what matters, for rising heat content and for sea levels. Ice extent is a fairly inaccurate indicator of overall ice melt. That said, ice extent has been declining in the Arctic and Greenland while increasing in the Antarctic (despite overall ice mass decreasing there by around 70 Gt/y).

"if the ice packs were melting over all to any significant degree you'd see a great deal more sea level rise than we have seen thus far... We can look at the volume of water in the oceans and compare the change to your ice loss figures." - Yes, and it matches well with what we've observed, including accounting for thermal expansion (which, if you're tacitly admitting exists, requires significant ocean warming).

Citations - yes please. At this stage, if you have any further claims to make, I want to see only links to reputable published data and peer-reviewed studies, not talk of "common knowledge" or speculation from laymen or reporters.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 114 114

That's quite a rant there - assumptions, ad hominems, sweeping declarations, invective, ironic projection, the lot. In fact, pretty much everything except data.

Oh you want peer reviewed rebuttals? Done:

Science & Education, really? Remember what I said earlier about crap publications that would publish anything? Yeah. It's not exactly Nature, is it? Where is its peer-review policy anyway?

Shame the article is paywalled so we can't examine it, but these guys did. And if it's the article I think it is, applying Monckton's own peculiar standards for handwaving-away any papers that aren't explicit enough for him, only makes the numbers for rejection of AGW look even tinier, at a mere 9 out of 11,944 papers reviewed. And nowhere is there anything to back your claim that the consensus figures "included papers that argued against climate change".

And of course, Cook's paper isn't the only one that arrived at ~97% consensus - from Oreskes to Powell, they all give similar results. Plus, of course, the long list of scientific institutions that have confirmed the findings of AGW, and none dissenting.

[vague accusations & unsourced claims of bias & corruption omitted]

ice age predictions from the 1970s [...] New York was supposed to be under water by 2015

Ah, specifics. Cite the papers that predicted these, please. Or are you getting misled by bad reporting again?

Every year you get weaker and look more foolish

Every year, the surface temperatures rise, ocean temperatures keep going up, sea levels rise some more, global ice mass keeps decreasing - the ongoing trend is obvious everywhere to anyone who opens their eyes, and comes from climate scientists around the globe who couldn't care less about all that Republicans vs Democrats nonsense. The argument about what to do about global warming is certainly political - but the data aren't, and wild, unsourced claims of massive political bias in the field only make the accusers look like the foolish ones.

Comment: Re: Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? (Score 1) 274 274

The *only * piece of the puzzle needed for intermittent renewables to be practical is storage - and there are many many options beyond stacked 18650 cells.

Pumped hydro (if the geography suits), reflow batteries with scaled-up electrolyte tanks, buried flywheels on magnetic bearings, lumps of concrete on inclined rails - the list goes on. There's something suitable for virtually every site, and it's all doable today, no breakthroughs needed. The only real concern is efficiency and economics - and those have had to compete against the skewed costs of fossil fuels.

Can renewables + storage compete against entrenched fossil fuels, if you even up the subsidies and account for the (massive) external costs? A number of studies have said "yes", and "we'll actually *save billions*", and "why the hell aren't we doing this already?"

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 114 114

All those links, and not one published paper among them. Seems like you completely missed my point.

Your Forbes link illustrates precisely what I'm talking about. It is not a peer-reviewed analysis, it is not subject to any stringent scientific standards, it is merely one layman's opinion, and judging from the language it's a highly biased opinion at that. *Exactly* the sort of reporting that only muddies the waters. What makes you believe he didn't "form his theory before the data came in" - or that the scientists in question did?

And nobody is claiming the peer-review is perfect - but it is *far* better than no peer review at all! It can't guarantee perfection of course, but the review process weeds out the vast majority of mistakes, obvious and subtle, and expert review does this better than any layman could. Inevitably there are crap publications that merely pretend to review, just like there are equally useless blogs and editorials, but reputable publications are still looked to as reliable sources by all in the field. There is a reason why, in every scientific discipline, peer-reviewed papers continue to be our highest standard of information quality.

You make vague accusations of bias, yet no offer explanation why so many researchers around the world in this one specific field would be risking their all-important reputation by apparently submitting (and passing) sloppy, biased work - only your claim that all their politics are different to your own. Plus of course, you fail to say why your preferred, non-scientific source is any better, particularly as it hasn't even had the benefit of an expert review.

Comment: Re: Of course (Score 1) 114 114

It seems unlikely that all the coral will go completely extinct, yes. Some small percentage will doubtless adapt and survive. But sudden drastic changes to the environment will certainly result in massive diebacks, of the coral and the ecosystems that depend on them.

It'd also suck for the local tourism & fishing trades, and the many livelihoods that depend on them, not to mention losing at least one of the natural wonders of the world, but hey, at least the coral won't be completely extinct.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score -1, Offtopic) 114 114

The 98 percent consensus for example arrived at that number by collecting a big sample of published papers and citing any paper that referenced climate change as the author supporting the most extreme predictions of climate change.
This included papers that argued against climate change.

That is completely untrue, nor would that sort of obvious crap ever get past peer review. There have been 6 or 7 papers on the consensus among climatologists that did pass peer review, and all arrived at similar numbers using different methodology; I suggest you read a few for yourself, and don't just accept other people's versions.

You're right that a lot of the reporting is highly charged one way or the other, and its difficult to get a clear picture of the facts. But published, peer-reviewed papers are still the most accurate and least biased source of information we have. All our best information in every field still comes through the peer review process; all else is speculation at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

Don't trust *any* reporting on the matter unless it provides links to published sources, and be sure to *always* at least read the linked papers' abstracts and conclusions to get as close as a layman can to the original data. I've seen blogs link to papers that stated the exact opposite of the blog author's conclusions.

Comment: Re:Yeah, well .... (Score 2) 308 308

What we don't know is what the effects will be when we start drawing thousands of megawatts directly out of the environment.

Well, considering the solar energy coming into the environment is a net 170,000 terawatts, the 0.0003% represented by a few hundred gigawatts isn't really all that significant. Even the geothermal flux of 47 terawatts dwarfs it.

Consider also that we're not removing energy from the environment (it's not destroyed), we're just redistributing it - the energy is re-radiated elsewhere, ending up as heat (which is what most solar radiation, wind energy etc ends up as also). There may of course be specific sites that are affected by this redistribution, but that's what environmental impact studies are designed to assess.

Comment: Re:"Clean Energy Candidate" (Score 1) 308 308

Before the Civil War they said freeing the slaves would ruin the economy

Emphasised that for you.

But yeah, there's little doubt that the value of slaves as assets and production & fears of economic catastrophe were a major factor in the Civil War, though the war itself was an even bigger economic disaster.

The primary byproducts are carbon dioxide and water, neither of which is a poison at the concentrations at which they are currently generated.

CO2 isn't a poison - but CO is, as are SO2, NOx, formaldehyde, benzene, mercury etc, all of which are produced by burning fossil fuels. Of course our economy isn't "based on" these poison gases, but it is based on the burning of fossil fuels, and the resulting toxic byproducts from fossil fuel electricity alone in the US is estimated at "$361.7–886.5 billion annually, representing 2.5–6.0% of the national GDP."

Comment: He still has his channel (Score 0) 271 271

and it's still at the same URL it's always been at: Lush Cosmetics' channel is still at the same URL it's always been at too:

What's changed here is only the shortened URL, Neither party registered this URL, so neither has prior claim - it was simply a shortcut that an algorithm pointed at whatever related page met its criteria. Since it was never registered, neither party should be using this on their marketing materials.

That said, I wonder if YouTube ever made that clear to anyone - that shortcut URLs could change without notice, because that would seem to be a fairly crucial point. And I'm curious as to why the algorithm apparently deemed the Lush Cosmetics page more "worthy", despite having 1/10 the subscribers. Possibly due to them owning the domain, or having a higher pagerank?

Comment: Re: Such a nice, sugary story.... (Score 1) 614 614

Undoing my moderation to add - absolutely, this is the Free Labour Market at work, with the added benefit of giving the underprivileged 90% a chance at earning some of the money that the rich 10% (i.e. most Americans) have been keeping to themselves. Certainly sucks for the laid-off workers but I bet the H1B replacements are delighted. From a global perspective, it's all good, competition at work.

However, like any other form of import, there are options. If the foreign services are out-competing the local labour market (on wages at least) and harming US tech-worker self-sufficiency, then the Government can just do what it does for every other shaky local industry: impose a duty.

The Government can allow H1Bs in, but collect a duty on their wages, bringing the total cost of the worker inline with the local market. Result: US workers can more easily compete with imported labour, companies can still bring in truly skilled workers if they need them that much, and the Government gets a nice new revenue stream. All assuming that the companies involved allow the Government to do this, of course...

Comment: Re:This is a great example. (Score 4, Insightful) 144 144

You're ignoring the decades of government-funded research that Tri-Alpha are building on. They didn't start from scratch.

Private enterprise is great at solving engineering problems, including some directed research if the payoff isn't too far off. But very few companies can sustain a $10-50 billion research effort for the really hard stuff. You need a government for that.

The other thing that governments are good for is big research & engineering jobs with little direct payoff but substantial indirect benefit to society - national infrastructure stuff. Private enterprise just doesn't see the value unless the profits go to them.

Comment: Re: Ner ner! (Score 1) 175 175

Selective much? You missed the sentance before:

You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

and particularly the sentance immediately after:

The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.

So no, they can't do anything they like with your content. Worst they can do is use it in an ad for the Photos service, or use it in a training dataset.

Comment: Re: oajds (Score 2) 175 175

Google's offering unlimited storage of 16MP images and smaller. For most consumers that's all they need, though professionals will still want to back up their larger & raw files themselves of course. 1080p video is now unlimited too.

The categorization that Google is doing uses image recognition that goes a fair ways beyond any photo management software you can run yourself, but again likely won't be flexible enough for pro users.

The "unlimited" part isn't actually new, BTW. Google have been storing unlimited photos and video for a while now, but the size limits were 2MP and 15 minute clips, previously. This is much more useful for the average person.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.