Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:Complete article (Score 1) 274

by sg_oneill (#49368705) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

You can't, however, use the change as proof of AGW, because that would be circular reasoning.

No, it would be called science.

(A) We've known the mechanism since the 1800s when Fourier et al first raised warnings about CO2s spectral absorbsion lines and the implication the coal spewing industrial revolution might have on atmosphere. This is validated science and underwrites so much physics that we'd have to turn the clock back on at least a century of scientific understanding in multiple fields if it wasn't true.

(B) We have a solid graps of how much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere from both economic modelling and satelite and terrestrial telemetry.

(C) This permits us to do a back of the napkin calculation as to how much energy (thermal and kinetic) is being added to the climate system from human intervention (its a lot).

(D) This in turn gives rise to more complicated modelling that can tell us how much of that energy goes to warming, how much to increased kinetic activity (cyclones/etc), how much gets absorbed by the ocean and how much radiates back out.

(E) The end result both matches up with observation (And *n o* natural process can account for what we are seeing. Volcanic activity is incredibly insubstantial. Even krakatoa hardly put a dent in it. And solar activity is also quite minor).

Occams razor says we *must* conclude humans are causing substantial climate change, because if they are not we have to find a mechanism that (A) Prevents physics from working as it is known, and (B) Makes it look like physics is working as it is known. Should this be found, it would be Nobel prize level monumental. However, as they say, big claims require big proof, and that proof is not remotely forthcoming.

Comment: Re:Complete article (Score 1) 274

by sg_oneill (#49368679) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

The fact that it's getting warmer isn't proof that AGW is correct

Yes, but the fact that the data matches the theory, and if it didn't we'd be rewriting nearly a century of physics indicates that suggesting something is magically making it only appear that physics is correct is some seriously magical violations of occams razor.

Comment: Energy balance over temperature (Score 4, Informative) 274

by BCGlorfindel (#49366479) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

The basic physics of climate change is that increasing levels of gases trap more energy from the sun, increasing the amount of energy in our atmosphere and climate system. We know by and large, most of the energy is stored in the oceans as water holds energy much better than gases in the air.

With such a simple observation, I'd like to make the observation that it seems too few of the IPCC guys pushing for policy stuff are paying any attention to the energy budget. Instead, we have the only basis scientifically being that the average surface temperature is warming, and CO2 levels are rising and we are the ones pushing them up. That's all well and good, and they are important observations. About 30 years ago though we started sending up satellites to measure incoming and outgoing radiation. The ERBS and CERES programs from NASA have given us direct measurements of trends in the overall energy balance at the edge of space. The most direct measurement of global warming that we can have. The summary from each program, has let us find a decade level average energy imbalance, and we've found it is in good or at least general agreement with energy levels measured via Ocean Heat Content observations.

Here's the important bit though. As the IPCC's most recent AR has observed, the satellite measurements show that for the duration of the CERES project, there has been NO TREND in the energy imbalance. The earlier ERBS data showed the same as well. Our satellite measurements have shown significant and very steady trends in energy balance cycling monthly, but the average over the years and decades we've measured is just a steady and consistent average neither shifting noticeably up or down. Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over that same time have climbed like nobody's business. All our models and expectation for X degrees of warming for so much CO2 kinda hinges pretty heavy on CO2 pushing up the energy imbalance. If it's not, and observations suggest that. We may not need to be so worried as some of the panic ridden crowd wants.

Before I get citation needed shoved down my throat, here's a peer reviewed journal article published in Geophysical Research Letters. It is comparing observed atmosphere energy imbalance to the CMIP5 model runs. It finds good agreement, but also makes the very notable observation that the energy imbalance trend is dominated by volcanic activity(ie NOT the CO2 levels that are higher than they've been in millenia). Full abstract:
Observational analyses of running 5 year ocean heat content trends (Ht) and net downward top of atmosphere radiation (N) are significantly correlated (r~0.6) from 1960 to 1999, but a spike in Ht in the early 2000s is likely spurious since it is inconsistent with estimates of N from both satellite observations and climate model simulations. Variations in N between 1960 and 2000 were dominated by volcanic eruptions and are well simulated by the ensemble mean of coupled models from the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). We find an observation-based reduction in N of 0.31±0.21Wm2 between 1999 and 2005 that potentially contributed to the recent warming slowdown, but the relative roles of external forcing and internal variability remain unclear. While present-day anomalies of N in the CMIP5 ensemble mean and observations agree, this may be due to a cancelation of errors in outgoing longwave and absorbed solar radiation.

Comment: Re:Memorizing site-unique passwords isn't possible (Score 3, Interesting) 257

by arth1 (#49351329) Attached to: Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess

Use a password manager and you:
- Cannot access your accounts without the password manager. Like when you've had everything stolen at an airport and need to transfer some money.
- Lose access to all your passwords in one fell swoop when you lose your password manager, or move to a system where that (by then) old piece of software won't run.
- Lose all your passwords in one fell swoop to any blackhat who manages to brute force or key log your password manager.

Password managers defeat much of the security of having passwords.

Comment: Re:Not concerned (Score 1) 176

by afidel (#49348275) Attached to: German Auto Firms Face Roadblock In Testing Driverless Car Software

I think it's more likely we'll ban human drivers. Just this morning I counted over 16 silver/grey/blue-grey vehicles driving in pouring rain and light fog without headlights on. On average a computer driver today is probably better than a human, and they'll just get better as time moves on whereas human improvements are a bit slower to happen.

Comment: Re: Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 876

by aardvarkjoe (#49346563) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Your argument doesn't make any sense. A corporation is an abstract entity that is made up of people. It doesn't exist in any independent sense. If you force a corporation to do something, you are forcing the people employed by that corporation to do it.

You don't get to put down your corporate shield whenever that suits you, yet hide behind it the rest of the time.

When have I claimed that an employee gets to hide behind this "corporate shield" whenever they like? A person, whether they are an employee (or owner) of a corporation, are still legally and morally responsible for their own actions. You can certainly be prosecuted for a crime committed while working for a corporation.

You are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that the concept of "limited liability" is more all-encompassing than it really is. That applies to the financial liability of shareholders, not to the actions of the corporation's employees.

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.