Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:They don't agree with us! Burn them! (Score 1) 661

If CO2 is having no effect, it is not pollution, if it does, it is.

So if CO2 is a pollutant, then I suppose the optimal concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is zero?

The term "pollutant" applied to CO2 doesn't make sense. Not everything that changes the environment is, by definition, a "pollutant." Too much water can kill you. Does that make water a poison? It's pretty much the same thing.

Comment: Re: It's only "settled" in the minds of zealots... (Score 1) 661

Wine grape grows pretty succesfully in england now. Google 'English Sparkling Wine'. It's been getting easier to do this for the last twenty years, and the results are winning awards internationally.

And what does this have to do with the post to which you were responding?

Nobody sane questions the established fact that the global temperature is increasing. That's been true, on average, since the last Ice Age.

The issue is whether man-made CO2 emissions are the main cause of the warming in the 20th century or not.

It's impossible to have a scientific discussion when people misrepresent the sides of the discussion like this.

Comment: Re:Arcs are a lie (Score 1) 145

by daknapp (#46503283) Attached to: US Navy Strategists Have a Long History of Finding the Lost

But the timing will not be known perfectly and neither will the height of the plane, so the location of the arc will not be known perfectly. Knowing how imperfect the information is and hence how wide an area on either side of the arc needs to be searched would seem rather important.

The fact that you cite the altitude of the plane as a potential source of error pretty much demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about. The satellite is in GEO, which means it is about 36,000 km above the surface. You think that an effect from 10 km elevation would show up?

Likewise, the timing is probably known to about a few microsec, which amounts to a distance of a few km. Once again, not a big error.

Comment: Re:Wilhelm Roentgen Would be Proud (Score 4, Interesting) 23

by daknapp (#46293149) Attached to: Supernova Secrets Seen In X-Rays

Universal, no, but physicists agree, and, really, who else matters? X-rays are emitted by electrons (atomic transitions or bremsstrahlung); gamma rays by nuclear transitions. Those definitions have been pretty well agreed upon by physicists for at least the last 15 years.

Astronomers, however, seem to characterize photons only by energy, which kind of makes sense if you realize that they frequently don't know the origin of the observed photons and build instruments for energy ranges instead.

But nonetheless it is still incorrect to characterize these photons as "x-rays."

Comment: Re:Wilhelm Roentgen Would be Proud (Score 4, Informative) 23

by daknapp (#46293041) Attached to: Supernova Secrets Seen In X-Rays

Unfortunately, in this case the observed photons were actually low-energy gamma rays. I guess they are called "x-rays" in the article because they fall into the region of the electromagnetic spectrum that is usually associated with x-rays. Ti-44 undergoes electron capture to Sc-44, which emits the two gamma rays at 78 and 68 keV, and then the Sc-44 decays (again by electron capture) to Ca-44.

But they are not true x-rays.

Comment: Re:Grasping at Straws (Score 1) 552

by daknapp (#45774069) Attached to: Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

God I love how you guys (both sides) goes totally ballistic about some minor detail of a post. No point in trying to deduce what someone said, if there is the smallest amount of unfactual commentary or the slightest error, they will be bombed back to kingdom come.

The statement to which I responded was not wrong in some minor detail, but completely wrong.

How are scientists ever going to convince a doubting public when we endorse complete nonsense like this just because it doesn't contradict our favored position?

You may not like it, but science is (at least partly) about facts, and facts matter.

Comment: Re:Grasping at Straws (Score 0, Troll) 552

by daknapp (#45773387) Attached to: Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change

Which of course begs the question of why if its not getting warmer all the world's glaciers are simultaneously receding a a record pace not previously observed in human history.

Really? All of them? Wow! Who knew?

At a pace never previously seen in human history? Including the end of the last Ice Age? Amazing!

With facts like yours, who could possibly doubt?

Comment: Re:Time to start talking about climate change (Score 2) 114

by daknapp (#45389519) Attached to: Typhoon Haiyan Continues To Scourge Southeast Asia

Um, not exactly.

I'm not sure where exact comes into the picture when you use US data to talk about increasing typhoon activity (or the lack thereof) in Asia or globally. Irrelevant comes to mind.

So in your mind Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes have no correlation. OK. Go here:

Global data. Western Pacific ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is still slightly below average for the year, and worldwide ACE is only about 75% of normal. Does that help?

Comment: Re:can "do quantum mechanics" at school (Score 1) 71

by daknapp (#45179265) Attached to: Google Sparking Interest To Quantum Mechanics With <em>Minecraft</em>

No. The "wave function" is only tangentially related to the concept of whether light acts like a wave, a particle, or has some kind of duality. It is tangentially related only because as you dig into the quantum mechanical nature of the universe, you end up with this statistical function that we happen to use the word "wave" in its name.

Wow. In the words of Pauli, that is not even wrong.

First off, the wavefunction is not a statistical function. And "wavefunction" includes that "wave" word for a very good reason. You are, I suspect, perfectly capable of reading an introductory quantum mechanics text. You just have chosen not to and yet feel the need to spout nonsense as if you were an expert.

The beer-cooled computer does not harm the ozone layer. -- John M. Ford, a.k.a. Dr. Mike