Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

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: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.

Comment: Re:Good grief... (Score 1) 681

by Stephan Schulz (#49109909) Attached to: Bill Nye Disses "Regular" Software Writers' Science Knowledge

You may not know every detail of every computer, but if you can't build your own computer at home, then you should figure out how. It's doable in less than a semester, and you'll be happy you did.

Well, I can order an iMac from Apple, plug in the keyboard and the mouse, and say "I build a computer". Or I start with a shovel of sand and make my own silicon. I don't know how many computer users understand flip-flops, or nand-gates, or FETs. I think some of that should be in the general understanding of science. And for computer scientists, knowing about things like cache size and organisation, register set, and ALU capabilities does make a significant difference if coding for performance. I was once bitten during the transition from SPARC to Intel when I found out that SPARC's fantastically thought out register windows (meant to sped up function calls) actually slowed down function calls once your calling depth became great enough that you ran through the register file and had to start putting those large register windows on the stack. Register-starved Intel did better in that case. So benchmarking on SPARC indicated "no recursion", while in Intel recursion was actually faster than iteration with a dedicated stack in software.

Comment: Re:About time. (Score 1) 309

by Stephan Schulz (#49021667) Attached to: The IPCC's Shifting Position On Nuclear Energy

Additionally, most of these approaches most naturally generate DC rather than AC, so you may need to replace large amounts of equipment. (OTOH, solar cells generate DC, so you can probably just feed it into whatever converter you are already using.)

That particular converter is called an inverter, and is pretty standard today. There are some good reasons for using more DC (in particular high-voltage DC for long-distance transmission).

Comment: Re:WTF (Score 2) 297

We either see the change over a generation or two and watch the rich lose some land or we take action right now to ptotect the mega corporate farms and the rich's land holding and see the costs increase in a decade of less.

While the Dutch people may be on the rich side world-wide (and by median maybe even by US standards), I'm no so sure about the Bangladeshi. But hey, there only 150000000 of them, and most of them are on the brown side...

Comment: Re:More proof (Score 1) 667

by Stephan Schulz (#48870397) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community.

In other words, there's less validation on a potentially world-changing theory than on the validity of a single bitcoin.

Absolute certainty is only available in the realm of pure maths and logic. Well-programmed computers come quite close to that, but most systems cannot be perfectly understood even in principle - see The Matrix and Descarte's evil demon. The level of certainty of AGW is much better than the level of certainty we accept to send people to prison (which is supposed to be "beyond reasonable doubt").

Comment: Re:More proof (Score 1) 667

by Stephan Schulz (#48869801) Attached to: US Senate Set To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is a Hoax

How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.

We have determined that to a very high level of consensus in the scientific community. The result is politically and economically unwelcome, which is why some people and organisation deny the consensus. You don't need to get the politics out of science, you need to get the science into politics.

That said, the vote very much reminds me of Indiana in 1897 and some thing with square circles ;-).

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Working...