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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: They're called trees. (Score 4, Informative) 128

by bdeclerc (#49494235) Attached to: Breakthrough In Artificial Photosynthesis Captures CO2 In Acetate

The sun is _slowly_ brightening - this is happening on timescales of tens to hundreds of millions of years. The fact that CO2 was significantly higher tens or hundreds of millions of years ago is not super-relevant to today's conditions, but it helped keep temperatures bearable in the distant past, when the sun was fainter. We are adding CO2 at a rate that is essentially instantaneous compared to the effects of this solar evolution, they are even still extremely quick on the much shorter (tens of thousands of years) timescales of the Milankovitch-cycles (which are the orbital cycles which are the underlying cause of our glacial-interglacial variation in the past few million years)

What interests us at this time is what we are doing to our atmosphere over a period of tens to hundreds of years, and what effect that has on timescales of tens, hundreds and thousands of years - even if we humans stop all of our CO2 emissions (except breathing of course), the increased concentration versus "before" will be considerable thousands of years into the future, as will the effects of that increase on climate.

So stating "still at the extreme lower end of historic levels" is technically correct, but practically misleading, as it suggests there's nothing wrong with CO2-levels.

Comment: Re:Neutrino Detection? (Score 2) 85

Yes, neutrinos have been detected in this type of detector for many, many years - in 1987 the neutrino's from SN1987A were detected by several of these detectors.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

For the actual papers, consult the "sources" listing at the end of each Wikipedia entry.

Comment: Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent (Score 1) 130

Keep drinking the cool-aid, their latest report doesn't "admit" what you claim here, not by a long shot - it actually states that they're even more certain now that most of the recent warming is caused by Anthropogenic CO2. What has happened is that the right wing climate denialosphere are spinning like they've never spun before, trying to deform and cherry-pick statements from the report into what they want it to say... And you're clearly lapping it up uncritically, probably because it reinforces what you *want* to hear...

And Dr. Richard Lindzen may be a "climate scientist" (I would certainly dispute the "top" prefix....), but he doesn't walk the walk like he talks the talk - he's always up for yapping away in the media about not trusting models & stuff, but when he actually goes about publishing articles, those recognise the reality of AGW... At this point, he's little more than a paid shill for the Oil industry...

Comment: Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (Score 2) 130

What Steve Goddard "forgets" to mention is that it's actually only the Antarctic sea ice that is growing, while the land-ice there is melting away ever faster...

And the 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012 still puts 2013 in 6th lowest position for arctic ice-extent in the observational record, curiously together with 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012) - so it is lower than *any* observed ice-extent prior to 2007... Doing better than the single worst year on record is not proof that nothing's wrong, it's just proof of the fact that there are significant annual fluctuations in ice-extent, primarily due to short-term weather.

Average thickness and ice-volume in the Arctic are actually far more relevant measurements (as unlike "extent", they measure the *amount* of ice, not how thinly it's spread out) and those have been dropping almost without fail year after year after year...

Comment: Re:Is the end nigh again? (Score 2) 130

Antarctic *sea ice* is "growing" (most of it actually melts away each summer) - Antarctic land ice is shrinking, in part because it's melting away and in part because it's more quickly flowing to the sea, where it contributes to the sea ice growth.

Sea ice growth around Antarctica is a *consequence* of global warming, not proof against it...

And the situation is profoundly different for the Antarctic then for the Arctic, due precisely to the completely different land/sea configurations at both poles...

Comment: Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (Score 1) 130

uhm - Antarctic *sea ice* is growing (and that only in winter, it mostly melts away in summer), in part because Antarctic land ice is shrinking - some of it is melting, some of it is floating to sea faster than before...

So, no imminent collapse of AGW...

Comment: Re:Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score 4, Interesting) 520

by bdeclerc (#43062119) Attached to: Neil deGrasse Tyson On How To Stop a Meteor Hitting the Earth

The whole idea is conceptually idiotic. You spend a strong force of reaction mass ejection to maintain a weak force of gravity at a constant distance from the target mass producing a microscopic tug on the object. This guy must have received his degree in a box of crackerjack.
Place the reaction mass generator (be it ion jet, or rocket) directly on the mass and divert it.

Amazing that they didn't think of that!!! You must be a genius...

Or... maybe they did consider that, then realised that many, many small asteroids are apparently heaps of weakly bound rubble, just as bad as a solid object when hitting the surface of earth, but impossible to attach a rocket to.

The "gravity tug" concept works the same regardless of the structural integrity of the asteroid, *that* is why this is the proposed mechanism, not because Tyson is stupid...

Bet you feel a lot less like a genius now, smarty-pants?

Comment: Re:No HST ? (Score 1) 225

by bdeclerc (#42750215) Attached to: NASA Says Asteroid Will Buzz Earth Closer Than Many Satellites

They're going to use radar to map the asteroid, which will give us a complete 3D picture of it at much higher resolution than the HST can give - the distances in space are enormous, even supposing Hubble was easily capable of tracking this asteroid (it isn't, the asteroid is moving too fast) the biggest it gets is about 10-15 pixels large. And considering that HST is in an orbit about 550km above the surface of the earth, and the asteroid is passing us by at 25000km it's not even that much "closer" to it than telescopes on earth are.

"Ada is PL/I trying to be Smalltalk. -- Codoso diBlini

Working...