Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Improving data [Re:The Gods] (Score 4, Insightful) 385 385

I'm not sure what your point is. The way science works is that scientists are constantly improving their work. You would be more worried if they didn't upgrade their data analysis methods from time to time.

There's a vast difference between improving your analysis and dropping data you don't like.

There's also a vast difference between ignorant and being willfully ignorant. There is a full detailed scientific explanation of WHY the change was made. It has nothing to do with "Oh we don't like it".

Grow up.

Comment Re:400 years away? (Score 1) 195 195

If it's been 400 years since the Maunder Minimum, and assuming we peak on temperature right now, wouldn't that mean the new minimum is still a problem for our [great-]+grandchildren?

No, because solar variation even during the minimum wouldn't even be close to enough to offset the additional warming we've introduced. Even if our temperature peaked right now, we're at about .8C above the 20th century average. A Maunder Minimum type event would drop that by about .2C. So even if this was as warm as it gets (which it isn't) then global average temperature would still be about .6C above the 20th century average.

Comment Re:"more media hype than science" - LOL (Score 1) 195 195

I would just like climatologists to admit that most of their prior models have had their faults and this one may as well...

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you don't really ever read research papers. Because if you did, you'd know that just about every piece of research includes a section for ERROR ANALYSIS. In other words, scientists know there are errors and they analyze them to describe what they are, how they're bounded, etc.

Comment Re:Nothing to see here, move along... (Score 3, Informative) 195 195

This is where I have an issue. ANY piece of science than, in any way, might somehow make someone question the global warming dogma is immediately attacked and discredited. As a former scientist, this is really scary.

Every scientific point of view deserves scrutiny. To immediately try to discredit people of differing opinions to stop the global warming money train is really scary.

Same thing happened back in the 90s, when the theory of dinosaurs evolving into birds surfaced. For a few years there, any opposing theory was mocked and laughed at.

If you were a real scientist then you wouldn't type that "money train" denialist bullshit.

Also, if you were real scientist then you would actually have a clue about what the research actually was. People aren't attacking the the double dynamo hypothesis proposed by the paper. They're attacking the outrageous stupidity by the media and science deniers saying that a predicted solar minimum event will result in a mini ice age.

If you passed third grade math class then you should be able to tell pretty quickly that the "mini-ice age" claim is 100% garbage. Even during the Maunder Minimum (which, if you read the paper, isn't what's predicted to happen) insolation changed by a whopping .2%. The forcing from additional greenhouse gases significantly exceeds that to the point where it will barely make a dent in the best case scenario (2C temperature increase).

Comment Re:"Less than 20 lines of code" (Score 1) 91 91

It's syntactical sugar really. As noted, most of the work is handled under the covers by what are essentially library calls. Any language can replicate this, and in a similar number of lines of code (given that the functionality available in a similar library).

Comment Re:You mean NEOs like Russia? (Score 1) 272 272

All joking aside, nuclear missiles will do precisely dick to any incoming impactor that could threaten even a city. A 1 km wide nickel-iron asteroid traveling at a typical impactor's velocity would yield about 60,000 megatons. Throwing a handful of nukes at it would be about as effective as throwing pebbles at a tank.

Comment Re:Not news, not for nerds, doesn't matter (Score 1) 231 231

nobody gives a shit about Benghazi

Except for people who care that Obama and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Hillary Clinton knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by her, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Obama was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.

Except for people who care that Bush and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Colin Powell knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by him, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Bush was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Powell's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.

The hypocrisy is real.

At least if there was some sort of conspiracy involved, this one kept the body count in single digits and didn't destabilize an entire region of the globe. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Comment Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 1) 231 231

You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.

By far the coolest part of all this is now a "crowd" will form an opinion about Clinton and Benghazi from reading her emails. Primary sources FTW. Not want any journalist wants them to think, not a quote picked carefully for a political ad, but by actually reading what was said at the time. That's more informed democracy already than I expected in this whole election cycle!

Not really. The amount of cognitive dissonance that runs through this country when it comes to things like politics and, sadly, science, is quite staggering. People aren't going through those emails to become informed. They're going through them for dirt/vindication/etc. of whatever biases they have.

There's going to be a thousand cherry picked quotes out of context and a thousand facepalms. Fox news will more than likely take some of the juiciest out-of-context quotes and try to make Hillary sound like the next Pol Pot. MSNBC will make her out to be a saint. CNN will create some sort of pointless 3D fly through graphic that has nothing to do with anything and will make blue hairs think they didn't take their meds.

Whatever. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -Cardinal Richelieu

Comment Re:Passive voice alert! (Score 1) 525 525

"It's a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models ... have been found ... to be in error."

Ha ha ha. He used the notorious passive voice: "have been found". I wonder why?

Clues:

1. Does not specify who did the finding.
2. Provides no link to any actual information.

More importantly, he's flat out wrong.

1. It isn't a secret. Every single research article includes an error analysis. So unless he'scompletely ignorant, batshit insane, or completely fucking stupid he and anyone else should be well aware that models/research/etc. contain errors.

2. 100% of climate models are in error. 100% of any model is in error. That's why they're models. It's logic and algorithms trying to simulate complex real world situations. And since you never have absolutely perfect information nor absolutely perfect algorithms, there is always some error. Hence why scientists include error analysis in their research.

There's no excuse for this level of stupidity, other than malice. Nice fat paychecks in exchange for support to continue screwing up our environment.

Comment Re: A conspiracy of academics? (Score 1) 525 525

nobody has a grant which depends on finding out that global warming is real.
nobody has that grant because we have known it is real, for sure, since the 1980s
Any academic would stand to make a huge name for himself or herself by finding compelling evidence that it *wasn't* real.

Correction, we've known it for almost 200 years. Fourier (which I'm sure most slashdotters have heard of) laid the preliminary groundwork back in the 1820's. The first climate model predicting global warming as a result of increased greenhouse gases was developed in the 1890's by Svante Arrhenius (if you're a chemist, you know who this guy is). Greenhouse theory and the theory of anthropogenic global warming are not new science. It is OLD SCIENCE.

The only thing relatively new is that our modern technology allows us to collect more data and run far more detailed and advanced global climate models. Instead of just predicting warming, we can get a better idea of what the impacts of that warming will be.

Comment Re:Seriously...? (Score 5, Interesting) 241 241

I have an idea. How about instead of wiping his ass with the Constitution, burning it, then shitting on the ashes for good measure, maybe this Stalinist assclown could try to protect us from some real threats to the American people.

Terrorism? Fucking idiot. Terrorism isn't a threat. Heart disease is a threat. Obesity and complications related to obesity are a threat. Car accidents are a threat. Cancer is a threat.

In fact, just about everything in life is more of a threat to the average American than terrorism, from accidentally dropping an electrical appliance in the tub while you're in it to falling down the fucking stairs. Even getting struck by lightning is more of a fucking threat.

Terrorism? This guy needs to get some fucking perspective.Terrorism is an excuse. It's a cash cow. It's a blunt object to club over the collective head of the populace. The fear of terrorism is doing more to destroy this country than any terrorist or terrorist organization could ever hope to accomplish on their own. In fact, if terrorists really want to bring down America all they need to do is open cheap shops of deep fried donut wrapped sausages and watch us die by the millions from strokes and heart attacks. They can laugh their asses off watching us drop like flies while we chant "protect us from the terrorists!".

Sad.

Comment Re:Milestone my ass (Score 1) 372 372

A Maunder or Dalton type minimum would have almost no effect on climate given the current forcings. The Maunder minimum represented about a 0.25% change in overall solar output. Multiple papers have been written on the subject, including what would happen today if such a minimum occurred. The average cooling expected from several papers on the subject would be a cooling of about 0.2C. The most conservative estimate of warming due to increased anthropogenic forcings is about 10 times greater than that.

Scientists are well aware that the sun has very minor variations in solar output. They are also well aware that a Maunder type minimum would do jack to offset the current warming.

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't have a fix. -- Rhett Buggler

Working...