Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 315

It sounds to me like your position is that the government shouldn't make loans with your tax dollars if there's any chance of it being lost. Period. Is that right?

But even though Solyndra's money was lost the entire program that included them is now expected to make $5 to $6 billion for the federal government over the life of the program. That's $5 or $6 billion more than they would have had otherwise and over 10% profit. So they haven't lost money.

As the article explains the program was there to fund worthy projects that VC's wouldn't especially in the aftermath of the 2008 crash. I'd say the bureaucrats judgement of risk was pretty good if the program's making a profit.

Comment Re:Thank the Lord... (Score 1) 211

To some extent you're correct. People tend to pay much more attention to the short term immediate things to the detriment of longer term thinking. But I don't think climate scientists themselves fall into that trap. To them it's all just another small chunk of data to be added to the recorded history of weather that they analyze statistically to determine past climate.

Comment Re:"...need to be prepared..." (Score 1) 379

10 meters is almost 33 feet. 1000 years is within the historical record. If there had been sea level change anywhere close to that amount it would be slap you in the face obvious. Show me some historical evidence for that much sea level drop. Are there Roman ports that are now 33 feet above sea level? Do historical records from China or Japan show anything like that? 10 meters of sea level drop over the last 1000 years is impossible to support.

Here's a story on a detailed study of sea levels over the last 2000 years done on the North Carolina coast that doesn't show anything like 10 meters of change.

Comment Re:3mm is the key (Score 2) 379

How much of that $32 billion was spent on satellites, building, launching and downloading and processing the data over the lifetime of a satellite? How much of it was spent on constantly improving supercomputers to run models on? How much on 10s of thousands of Earthbound devices to monitor climate and collecting and processing that datta? The tools of the trade are expensive.

Comment Re:Oversimplification (Score 1) 379

Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.

Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?

The summary says sea level has gone up about 9 inches since 1992. That's 76 mm, divide that by 23 years and you get about 3.3 mm per year since 1992.

Comment Re:Meh so what... (Score 1) 379

The problem is that the great ice sheets are behind the curve on melting and even if it stopped getting warmer tomorrow they would continue to melt for several centuries until they caught up to the new equilibrium point. I'd be surprise if there was less than 20 feet of sea level rise by 300 years from now and what we do now has an effect on how much total SLR there will be in the future.

Comment Re:Action Required !! (Score 1) 379

If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!

Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.

The problem with New Orleans is that it's the major port city at the mouth of the Mississippi River. As long as it's feasible they'll keep it going. If the IPCC projections are correct 'Nawlins has maybe another 50 or 75 years.

!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH