Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Do I know you? (Score 2) 232

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47925079) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?

So you worked on that project too then?
Seriously, are some of the fears you mentioned not present in almost every project? My experience is that the more a project goes wrong the more the 'forces' mentioned above tend to make things worse. In that case only strong leadership that holds on to a clear vision and keeps the team away from 'the blame game' is the only way out.
If not: run. Don't walk away. Run.

Comment: Re:Time for new terminology (Score 1) 628

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47924725) Attached to: Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

Great post!
What I often do is refer to the IPCC's documents website. They have 3 major workgroups. WGI is about the physical science. In their 5th Summary for Policymakers (SPM) they explain in 28 pages what the evidences for global warming are how the climate models stack up against the prediction.
In WG II they discus the impact of the global warming on our planet and our way of life (economie, argriculture, sea level rising, storms...)
In the WGIII they try to see what we could do to limit the damage.
Each of the WG has a fifth SPM document (available from the main page of the website) of about 30 pages that give scientifically founded answers in laymen terms to the most common denier question: are we sure there is global warming? Are we sure it is man-made? Are we sure there will be a big impact?

Comment: Re:Dynamic CO2 Absorption (Score 1) 427

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47870407) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

From the IPPC WG1 (which deals with the physical science behind the global warming) SPM report (Summary for Policymakers): "The ocean has absorbed
about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4)"
So the oceans compensate, to a large extend, for the emissions in CO2. But the acidification is not without risk and the ocean is likely not to do that for ever. Hence the importance of this new measurement. It could be an indication that the compensation effect of the oceans is coming at an end. That would mean that the CO2 levels are about the rise much more quickly the coming years.

A.k.a. very bad news (but you won't care about it I guess).

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47860255) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

I respond to your post because it seems to me you are still suseptible for reason-based arguments.

If you look for evidence or as the GP states a 'textbook' you could simply start with the latest IPPC reports. Start with the SPM (Summary for Policymakers) (find the 5th report of WG1 the physical science basis, WG2 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and WG3 Mitigation of Climate Change here, here and here respectively. All these links can be found on the main page of the IPPC http://www.ipcc.ch

In it you will find the answers to the most common questions asked by deniers: how big is the evidence for global warming? How sure are we that the warming is the result of human activity? What are the consequences? And last but not least: what can we do to reduce the impact?

If you are unconvinced by the figures, maps, graphs and plain language of these documents: they copiously refer to the full report (also available from the main page) where you can readup on the background for each and every conclusion they make. Still not conviced? The full report refers on it's turn to underlying publications etc. And if you're this deep down into the matter that you feel you can question the validity of individual publications: contact the authors and put forward you questions to them.

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47860113) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Exactly. Warming may be happening and CO2 emissions may be making it worse. But you can't scientifically say that we should cut carbon emissions, tax carbon, use ethanol, subsidize electric vehicles, etc.

I think the parent post was more along the lines that science can say that the sudden rise of CO2 has serious impact on the climate. So a cut in CO2 emision IS necessary. The means for doing that (tax carbon emissions, subsidize electric vehicles) is a political decision.

But if we simply go on buring fossile fuels we can't say that science didn't warn us that this is extremely dangerous.

Comment: Re:Sigh... (Score 1) 789

Ironically: today France delivered the first response by western nations that Putin really cares about.
It will not deliver the two advance helicopter carriers as agreed since "the conditions are not right".

The article mentioned that delivery of the helicopter carriers would have resulted in "a marked improvement in Russia's amphibious capability".

Comment: Re:Sigh... (Score 1) 789

I tend to agree with you on most things. Execpt the "France? Don't make me laugh" thing.

Did you know that outside the big nuclear powers (US, Russia, China later joinedby India) France is one of the only countries that has developed an independend nuclear capability? And has had it for quite some time? And they have diverse means of delivering them: via long range ballistic missiles but also via longrange targeting missile that can search for a specific target. Their rafale fighter bomber has a nuclear capability too.

So look out with the french. They can sometimes act quite surprising.

+ - Climate damage 'Irreversible' according leaked climate report 1

Submitted by SomeoneFromBelgium
SomeoneFromBelgium (3420851) writes "According to Bloomberg a leaked climate report of the IPPC speaks of 'Irreversible Damage'.
The warnings in the report are, as such, not new but the tone of voice is more urgent and more direct than ever.

It states among other things that global warming already is affecting “all continents and across the oceans,” and that “Risks from mitigation can be substantial, but they do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation action,”"

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

by SomeoneFromBelgium (#47754619) Attached to: Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

Is this part of the "man made" global warming thing?

[bitter sarcasm]
No!
So then it's not our fault!
So then we can continue to pollute the world. The climate is still changing but we can explain to future generation: we didn't do it. You shouldn't blame us for standing by and doing nothing. It's those methane plumes. See that? Those are the guilty ones.

I feel better about global warming already.
[/bitter sarcasm]

Sorry, it get's on my nerves that every news about global warming is always interpreted as being a 'proof' that global warming is nothing to worry about, wether the news is good ("there you see") or bad ("it's not our fault" or even "it's too costly to do something about").

Global warming is here. Now. We will see the effects even more in the comming decades. And so will our childeren. How bad will it be? Nobody knows really very well.
And that particular thought doesn't give me any comfort at all. And you?

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...