Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re: I lost interest when I saw brisket (Score 1) 138 138

I wasn't lying. I was mistaken. If you literally don't understand the difference then you're too stupid to have an opinion more meaningful than your favorite jello cup.

""Call It A Night, Cowboy!
Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 50 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email with your username "Karmashock". Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours. ""

Here is the message. I get this maybe once a month.

Comment: Re:Been standing for years... (Score 1) 175 175

It takes a couple weeks to get used to standing. Stick with it.

Or just change positions several times per day. I stand until I'm tired of it then sit for 30 minutes, repeat. I set a timer for the sitting periods, otherwise I find that when I'm focused on something I forget to stand up again. I've thought about hacking and arduino into the controls on my desk and automating that, so that after 30 minutes my desk automatically returns to the standing position, but haven't gotten around to it.

I have a motorized desk from VersaTables. Nice desk and the company was great to work with. Not cheap, though, not at all.

Comment: Re: I lost interest when I saw brisket (Score 1) 138 138

Ah, SEE... this is what is so funny. There are so many fewer of you idiots than it appears! You were the shit head AC from that discussion weren't you?

Well... I copied the error the next time I got it:
  Call It A Night, Cowboy!
Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 50 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email with your username "Karmashock". Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours. ""

I got this one the other day because I was arguing with so many halfwits... The hills were fucking alive with morons.

Anyway, I KNEW you'd keep stalking me so... when I got the error, I copied it. Bazzoom!

If you actually logged in... and you actually made a lot of posts... you'd get that message. I was wrong when I said 25 because I didn't remember the number. I love that you think you can claim I'm a liar for that... You're adorable.

Now you know. Suck it.

Comment: Re: The author doesn't understand Herbert (Score 1) 229 229

I hate to break it to you but a work of fiction is a work of art and a work of art can mean anything the author intends it to mean which can include complex philosphical ideas amongst many other things.

So... what you need to argue now is that Herbert did not express complex philosophical ideas in his books.

Spoiler alert... He did.

I've read all his novels and I think all of his novellas and even short stories. So... can you make the same claim, shithead?

Kind of doubt it.

*pushes the filthy peasant back into the pig sty he climbed out of and wipes the filth from touching him onto a hanky and then throws the hanky into the sty*

Fucking peasants.

Comment: Re:Pao Wants "Safe Spaces" for Shills and Ideologu (Score 1) 378 378

Obviously not... did you have any intelligent to say or only more embarrassingly stupid comments that do little more than stroke my ego by proving I'm better than one more meat sack?

Your navy seals comment was actually pretty revealing... you think I'm mad?

Bro... I just got done telling... I don't CARE about you enough to have an opinion. There's nothing you're saying that could even begin to evoke any emotion stronger than maybe frustration at your stupidity or disgust at your existence. But that's about it.

*kiss kiss*

Comment: Re:Alternatively... (Score 1) 81 81

I didn't explain properly. The military is not saying the new recruits are psychos. They're saying they don't have to be conditioned to kill. The average US WW2 vet was not a psycho. But after the war, he was much more able to shoot someone than he was prior to going to war.

He had had the violence normalized in his mind to a certain extent. However, that didn't mean he was a murderer. The crime rates after wars don't spike up above what they were went vets come home. They might go up above what they were during the war but they don't go up measurably above what they were before the war. And that is despite having many more people in your society that have psychologically normalized the concept of calculated methodical killing.

A certain amount of this is video games and violent movies. But that doesn't mean you're a psycho if you watch those things or even enjoy them as entertainment. But what it does mean is that when it comes time to actually pull the trigger it is less of a psychological shock. Parts of your mind are ready for it and it just blends into that same part of your mind.

Again, the military's attitude on the whole thing is that it is a mixed blessing. They like the "brains" of the new recruits. They find us to be better educated, smarter, faster with technology, less hesitant to pull the trigger, less psychologically conflicted about pulling the trigger... They are however fucking disgusted by the bodies.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 145 145

As to the added effect of CO2, you'll still talking about a very thin spectrum of the EM band and I've found nothing to suggest that that band is special in anyway.

Also, I've found some indication that this notion of heat trapping assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. Because after all, heat can move freely through the atmosphere simply by one gas touching another.

Lets say I had something that was hot... and I put that hot thing in a transparent bubble of CO2... are you suggesting that the hot thing would cool off or lose its heat more slowly than if the bubble were filled with nitrogen or oxygen or helium? Because I don't think that matters.

I mean, what we're really talking about here is light captured from the sun rays reflecting off the earth and being turned into heat before they can be make it out of the atmosphere. Right?

How much of the Earth's reflectivity is even in that spectrum in the first place? Because we're not talking about sunlight at that point. We're talking about Earth light.... like moonlight... just whatever the earth emits when the sun shines on it.

So we're looking at very narrow spectrum... how much of the earth's reflected light is even in that band? how much energy are we talking about?

And if some significant amount of energy is turned into heat by CO2... it would seem that the heat could just work its way through the atmosphere to emit into space. I saw several people complaining about the way this issue is discussed talking about how the treatment of this heat trapping effect assumes a vacuum between the lower atmosphere and the upper atmosphere. I think I cited the scientific term for the effect in play before. I can do it again.

As to Ocean acidification, I'm not sure about that as well. Apparently only records since 1988 are considered valid and if you look at record that go back an additional 60 years you don't see the same trend line. The data before that is not counted apparently because it isn't considered accurate. But absent a longer trend line I don't know if you can claim what is and is not the ocean's baseline.

Would you mind citing an ocean acidification graph that goes back more than 20 years? Ideally as far back as possible.

Here is one thing I found that is sort of interesting to me anyway:

I'm actually downloading the data he's citing from the NOAA. There is a site I didn't know about where any jerk can query data from an automated system. It apparently takes hours for the data to be pulled. So I'll wait for the email and then I'll have a download link for some giant excel files.

This is a thing I see a lot... cherry picking the beginning of trend. So if you back out you'll see some graph that shoots up and down and up and down all over the place. But the graph as cited in many contexts will start at some arbitrary year that perfectly allows them to show a clean linear trend line that would be unsupportable if you showed a slightly longer time scale and noticed that before going up or down it was going down or up by some equal measure.

I feel more comfortable with longer trend lines.

As to how heat leaves our atmosphere, the CO2 isn't in the upper atmosphere pretty much at all. So... I don't know why you're saying the CO2 is relevant up there. If the heat is transferred to the upper atmosphere then its going to emit it the same way it always did. The CO2 isn't even up there. Just like the water vapor, the CO2 is mostly concentrated in the lower atmosphere.

As to this energy budget thing... this is interesting:

Examine figure 1... .6 watts per square meter is the imbalance... with a margin of error of 17 watts.

I mean... when your margin of error exceed your value... you basically have no idea.

I mean... lets say you tell me that a man is measured to be six feet tall... with a margin of error of plus or minus 30 feet... The measurement is meaningless in that case.

As to your question about whether a scientific paper has ever misrepresented itself... this is a very odd statement you're making. You're suggesting that no scientist has ever lied? I mean... do I need to cite the dozens of science fraud cases that have come up lately... mostly in medical science? I mean... okay. I'll just cite those so you appreciate that I can't just assume someone isn't lying. And I'll point out that that isn't how science works either. You don't just accept what anyone says. You test it.

So just because you publish something and it gets peer reviewed, it doesn't mean anything in the paper is valid or that the underlying conclusions of the paper are beyond criticism. Scientists are people and people lie for all the reasons that people do anything. Ego, money, power, peer pressure... name anything that can motivate a person to do anything and if that motivation becomes strong enough it can overwhelm other considerations.

As to whether my own intelligence is enough... you're missing the point. It has to be enough. If it isn't then I have no choice but to simply assume something is valid or disbelieve everything by default.

I'm not doing either.

As to my difficulty with ocean heat content, you couldn't translate that figure into temperature either so don't try to high hat or brow beat me on that one, sport. I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and be respectful. But don't let that go to your head and assume that you can presume you've a greater command over this stuff than I do unless you can actually demonstrate that by converting that calculation into a more useful unit of measure.

I mean... if I wanted to, I could sit here and look at estimates of the mass of the ocean at the depth ranges they're citing and then divide the joules by the number of tonnes of water... and then I could figure out what that number of joules would do that that mass of water... but think we both know the temp difference that would come out of that calculation is going to be some tiny fraction of a degree at best. And from what I've seen of the historical graphs... the numbers are jumping around all over the place when you back out to merely centuries of time much less millennia. And that frankly makes it hard to claim we have a problem unless you can show a long term trend line. I keep looking at all these trend lines and they keep starting in the 80s or something. Its ridiculous.

As to the consensus argument you're now making... that is a political argument and not a scientific one. I'm not interested in it unless you want to have a political discussion about voter roles or something.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 145 145

More of my shoddy back of napkin math:

7823Mt coal year
7,823,000,000 tonnes of coal per year
  2.86 tonnes of co2 per ton of coal
22,373,780,000 tonnes of CO2 per year from coal
22,373,780,000,000 kg of CO2 per year from coal

87,310,923 barrels per day
31,868,486,895 per year
433 kg co2 per barrel
13,799,054,825,535 kg co2 from crude per year

~36,200,000,000,000 kg co2 from oil and coal per year

total mass of atmospheric carbon is supposed to be around
2.996 x 10^12 tonnes
2,996,000,000,000,000 kg Total atmospheric carbon
----36,200,000,000,000 kg Yearly human emissions of CO2 from human sourced fossil fuels excluding natural gas which probably isn't important for this anyway.

anyway, that works out to about 1.2% of global CO2 per year.

Did I cock this math up as well? Are my variables wrong?

I got the coal and gas numbers from futures investment companies and then cross referenced that with some stuff I saw on wikipedia. The information was very similar.

The CO2 per tonne/barrel was obtained from a few people going through the molar equations on blogs and stuff. I don't know how valid that is... I was too lazy to do those calculations myself.

Anyway... It is looking like at our emissions rates it will take us 100 years... roughly to double atmospheric carbon... assuming carbon was not taken up by the biosphere at all which... it obviously does. So... that could mean the real doubling rate could be somewhere between never assuming the uptake rate is faster than our emission rate... or possibly hundreds or thousands of years.

Okay, looking at other data, it seems our CO2 has gone up by 18 percent since 1958. What I find the most interesting about those graphs is that the trend line is pretty constant while of course our emissions were not. I mean, we were emitting a lot less in 1958 then we are today. So... why hasn't the trend line accelerated? I'm looking at data from the NOAA. The CO2 from 1958 to 1970 shows a change in the trend line. But from 1970 to 2015 the trend line is linear while of course our emissions have increased consistently over that entire period.

I should see correlation between our emissions increases and the increase in atmospheric carbon. Our emissions haven't just gone up but they've gone up at an accelerating rate. That should be evident in the CO2 figures but it isn't.

That implies that the biosphere has to be eating it... and pretty quickly too.

But assuming current rates... we're looking at a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 1958 in another 228 years.... not 100 years. And I don't know how much of the actual increase is due to human or natural factors. And the actual consequences of that kind of increase appear to be... somewhere between confused and controversial. I saw something say it would happen in 100 years but they were saying that implied accelerating CO2 rates and... the graphs I saw from the NOAA shows linear growth. I'm seeing some people say its another .4 C with the doubling which I appreciate could mean disproportionate things for ice caps. But I'm having a hard time seeing the apocalypse here.

Comment: Re:Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Pricel (Score 1) 394 394

... and another non-falsifiable argument. Congrats.

It is impossible for you to be wrong.

It is also impossible for you to be right... because you didn't actually make an argument.

You're like one of those idiots that calls tech support because he can't find the fucking "on" button.

Comment: Re: Coral dies all the time (Score 1) 145 145

Yeah but the sats are calibrated with ground data. You don't take raw sat data and say "the reading from the sats is X". The sats have their information calibrated by the ground stations. And there has been the adjustments to the sat data is all an increase in temperature. The raw data from the sats shows a much lower temperature... I think they were actually showing global cooling. Every year their numbers are adjusted up...

I find that to be problematic because the output from the sats is then only as good as the calibration and the calibration is based on the ground stations which means we're still dealing with the ground stations as our only real source.

When everything references back to the same source that is a problem.

As to Zeta joules... don't be silly... I've explained that one, the issue is that the number can't be audited it. I can't cross reference that information with any other source to find confirmation or conflict.

What is more it doesn't tell us what we really care about which is how much the oceans have warmed. From what I can tell, their warming isn't outside of normal climate cycles. Can you show me evidence to the contrary? I don't want to talk about the zeta joules anymore... its not usable. Talk about temperature.

As to Vermeer, that contradicts what was in the Church paper that you cited yourself. I cited the figures that show a consistent trend line with no apparent acceleration.

You need to address that. I cited it in the previous post. Figures 5-7 which you actually cited yourself when I asked for historical figures but... you citation shows no acceleration in the trend.

Here is another thing, how long do you think CO2 remains in the atmosphere? That is how long do you think it takes before CO2 is absorbed by the biosphere in some manner?

Because I've seen citations of as low as 5-10 years. And that something like 90 percent of all CO2 in our atmosphere has been emitted in the last 20 years or so.

If true this implies the CO2 from our sources is being emitted at a lower rate than the biosphere's absorption ability.

I'll look as well, but one thing which I'd be interested to know is how long it takes for a volcanic emission of CO2 to disappear from the graph.

That is... a big volcanic emission is large enough that it can individually effect the global CO2 levels. And that means its showing on the graphs. How long does it take after it shows up on the graphs before the emission can no longer be detected? That is how long before the graph returns to a previous trend line or base line figure?

I don't think that takes centuries. I'll look as well, but I'd ask you look also because you seem like you're very good at finding some of these reports.

Comment: Re:Shocker... (Score 1) 278 278

Wrong. That's what the point of the term "Denier" was... it was a term cooked up by political elements.... not scientists. You use it, and you're using their term which they cooked up for their purposes.

So you either use a non-political term or you're having a scientific discussion.

Choose what matters more to you? Politics or science?

Comment: Re: Good for greece (Score 1) 1114 1114

So you are saying Greece lied, therefore the fault isn't with Greece, it's with the other EU countries? You're making my head hurt.

There's a difference, and an important one, between 'fault' in the moral, blame-attached-for-wrongdoing sense and 'fault' in the 'error, mistake, deviation from correct operation' sense.

You know the saying "If I owe you $1000, I have a problem. If I owe you $1,000,000, you have a problem."? It's not that Greece's government is somehow the morally blameless party; but it's the eurozone who is revealed, by Greece's failure, as having been...'optimistic'...about its due diligence in the past; and apparently without a coherent plan for what to do if that comes back to bite them.

It's not entirely unlike the US mortgage fuckup: sure, you can scold the irresponsible borrowers, taking out those loans they can't afford; but it's the lenders who have a giant pile of bad loans on their books, a strong suspicion of insufficient scrutiny in their past dealings; and no terribly coherent plan to do anything about it. Greece is unlikely to enjoy the experience; but countries defaulting is a thing that happens from time to time. For the euro, though, this is new territory; and potentially not the last country they'll have to do some variant of this to. So far, they aren't showing all that much promise.

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"