Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 252

With respect, the phlogiston theory worked apart from the oxidation of iron. Noticing this shortcoming was one of the things that led to the discovery of oxygen.

Exactly. And aether made a lot of sense. And Freud had to start somewhere. None of that was bad science, that's just what early science looks like. We've just since the late 90s had the technology to seriously contemplate climate modeling, and only really in the past 5-8 years has the vast parallelism needed to do it well been available from more than a couple of research computers.

Again, just as it's a mistake to call it "pseudoscience", it's a mistake to believe than any of these early models in the first generation of a new science are particularly worthwhile. Certainly Climate Science is a field that needs more funding and research for decades to come. But just as certainly, it's not a fucking unfallible font of religious truth, and people who act as if it is are as annoying as the SJWs.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 2) 252

Look at the historical data.

It should jump out at you that the past 10k years of relative climate stability is an anomaly, and that rapid (on geological scales) swings in temperature and CO2 are the norm. That whole system is not well understood, though I believe solar variation is the leading hypothesis right now. On a scale beyond a century, there's just no reason to expect climate stability in the first place.

On a decade by decade scale, there's no evidence of warming in the 17 years of reliable satellite temperature data. The null hypothesis - that average temperatures aren't changing - has actually been the best predictor of climate data since the late 90s, odd as that may sound.

The simple fact is: the atmosphere and oceans are chaotic systems, with a variety of positive and negative feedback loops, quite difficult to model, and you can't talk about climate change in a scientific way without doing so. There are no obvious conclusions to draw, as the system we live in is simply too complex for hand-wavy, back-of-the-envelope calculations to be interesting. We may simply lack the technology today to do this science properly. That's not a reason to stop - we built the LHC, proof we can do some fucking impressive technological advancement to achieve a scientific goal. But it is a reason to avoid arrogance.

Climate science is at the phlogiston / aether / Freud stage right now. That's fine, every science must start that way, and the scientific method works given time. But for goodness sake the lay believers are very much like a religion right now, complete with a list of sins and a Hell to roast in, and that's taking it too far!

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1, Informative) 252

It's easy to be self-righteous. I used to see it all the time from member of the Christian religion- most of whom weren't really that familiar with scripture. It's no more appealing seeing the same attitude from members of the new Global Warming religion, most of whom aren't really that familiar with the science.

Climate models may one day mature to something beyond the basket of hypotheses they are now, but none of them have yet been successful in predicting climate data, except where the null hypothesis also predicted that data. The science doesn't justify your arrogance. I wouldn't call it "pseudoscientific", but it's far from certain as well, and the actual predictive models (as opposed to hand-wavey claims) aren't yet well supported by actual data.

Comment: Re:Ethics? (Score 1) 492

by lgw (#48637587) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

Your focused on a very narrow kind of gaming, and frankly nobody gives a fuck about that sort of political statement except SJWs. Ultimately I think that's the root of the gamergame fight:

SJW: Politics! Identity! Identity politics!
GG: Fuck off, we don't care about that stuff
SJW: See! Oppression! Misogyny! Identity politics!
GG: No, seriously, fuck off! We just play games for the game mechanics, the presentation doesn't really matter.*
SJW: Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

*There are actual academic studies to back this up. E.g., gamers pick an avatar/character based on in-game performance, not on any sense of identification with the character.

Heck, I remember the days of Quake 2, back when that was gaming, when everyone used the female character because her hit box was a bit smaller than the male. 0 fucks were given about gender identity in that choice.

Comment: Re:Is SONY breaking the law with this (Score 1) 189

(When he ordered the first five rows of the Colosseum thrown into the arena, those were the ring side seats, filled with the rich and famous, which went down very well with the common man).

But he's a *populist* sociopath. :) Awesome, thanks for the correction!

Comment: Re:Copenhagen interpretation != less complicated (Score 1) 159

by Cyberax (#48635971) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated
Non-locality means transmission of information with faster-than-light speeds (essentially, from future to past). To preserve causality you have to impose limitations on this transfer and these limitations are even more magical (see: "superdeterminism"). See my explanation at http://slashdot.org/comments.p... for an example.

Comment: Re:Copenhagen interpretation != less complicated (Score 1) 159

by Cyberax (#48635907) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated
It doesn't matter. A pilot wave is a type of a hidden state, in such theories particle take a unique way determined by a pilot wave.

Think about it - how can a pilot wave communicate which way a particle must take without going backwards in time (i.e. violating the Lorentz invariance)? Imagine that you have a classic two-slit single electron interference experiment. Suppose that the pilot wave theory is true - in this case a pilot wave interferes with itself and electron chooses one path and ultimately hits a scintillating screen where it's detected as a particle. For an external observer it would look as if a particle interfered with itself. So far so good.

However, let's add another twist - suppose that there's a device (a simple metallic screen) that blocks one of the paths that the electron can take _after_ flying through the slit - this device will cause the interference pattern to disappear (and this was checked by experiments!). However, how would an electron "know" about it when it flies through two slits? Moreover, we can complicate the device by making the screen move and block one path only after electron flies through the slits (it's complicated to do with electrons but it's essentially what happens in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment). Somehow the pilot wave must provide information to the electron from its future!

Comment: Re: Entropy underlies all? (Score 3, Interesting) 159

by bill_mcgonigle (#48635289) Attached to: Quantum Physics Just Got Less Complicated

There's a gravity wave experiment in Poland looking at the simulation question. They've found our universe to cheat between the minimum length that would need to be simulated and the Plank length - it's all noise down there where we expected to find signal.

There could also be an undiscovered reason, but the shape of the noise matches to a few sigma that predicted by the 'spherical projection' simulation model, so that's a good place to look.

Science and religion are in full accord but science and faith are in complete discord.

Working...