Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

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:The bigger issue (Score 0) 743

by WarpSnotTheDark (#20303459) Attached to: James Hansen on the Warmest Year Brouhaha
1. The distance from the sun a planet is does NOT make as much a difference in the amount of radiation the planet will absorb as the composition of the atmosphere. As I have demonstrated, we know the makeup of the atmosphere and they are extremely similar. Your distance theory just makes you look stupid. Mercury is 27 Million miles from the sun and has an average surface temperature of 250F - yeah, that seems really low for being so close to the sun, but that's because it spins so slowly and the high temperature only reaches about 800F (How can that be???). According to your distance logic, the average temperature of Mercury should be about 1450F and the average temperature of Earth should be approximately 413F - really dumb statements on your part. 2. The planet's size makes a difference? So, you're saying that if you put a bowling ball on the sidewalk next to ball bearing, the bowling ball will get hotter? I bet they fall at different speeds if tossed off a building too - where did your learn your physics? Assuming they had similar enough compositions, the temperatures would be very similar eventually - the bowling ball would store more energy, but it can't change that energy into more heat just because you want it to. Maybe Al Gore will change the laws of physics for you if you vote for him. 3. Composition of the planet does matter too - but you don't know how it matters or why it matters do you? I can't effective explain it here, and will not even bother trying. It's like having a stimulating conversation with bunny turds - there is a lot we don't know about Venus and why it is so hot, but we do know that it is NOT all CO2's fault and knowing this; why do idiots still insist that CO2 is going to kill us all? The point I was making is that all these fruit-cakes just itching to give themselves over to the next socialist dictator who offers to give them something for free (Pretty much any Modern Democratic Politian's aspiration) have absolutely no interest in finding the truth. They attempt to poke holes in actual explanations offered by others while providing absolutely no actual evidence to support their theories. Go buy your hybrid and make your favorite Zinc miner richer. You're not part of the solution no matter how badly you want to be; you and those like you are merely prolonging the suffering of others because you want to be important and believe you should be. Not every child gets to be an Astronaut, but every moron that watched "An Inconvienent Truth" and believed it is now dumber than the average sack of cat vomit.

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.