Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Such folly... (Score 1) 795

We don't have to be "the warmest the planet has ever been" to avert an ice age. Current temp or higher is good enough for that, and there is no prospect of it being lower short of humanity wiping itself out.

Our inputs are swamping the natural cycles unintentionally. If in a far future, post carbon era, temps started to go down, we could easily pump greenhouse gases into the air to prevent it going lower. But no matter what energy we use, we're going to be producing more raw heat every year anyway. Short of a nuclear winter, there will never be another ice age.

Comment Re:Also (Score 2) 795

"the next ice age is an inevitability"

No, it's been cancelled, at least as long as human civilisation is around.

If we actually needed more global warming, therw are plenty of ways -- pumping out methane, for instance.
Look at the ways proposed to terraform Mars. They'd all be much easier to do here.

Of course, if we nuke ourselves back to the stone age, yes, the natural climate cycles will eventually reassert themselves.

Comment Re:This just in! (Score 1) 85


Welcome to 1800. As soon as people made machines out of metal, humidity was fucking them up.

I live in Hong Kong where for half the year we have humidity over 90% every day.

Everything either rusts, corrodes or goes mouldy. Bicycles turn to piles of rust in a few months. Fungus grows in your crotch. The many and various colours of corroded metals on electronics are marvellous to behold.

Comment Re:Not this old info again (Score 0) 521

"No one is talking about making cars illegal because terrorists use cars. Why is that?"

For the same reason that no one dares talk about making guns illegal whenever some nutjob massacres a class of schoolkids with an assault rifle.

People want to have guns and cars and don't care how many thousands are going to die year after year as a cost.

Comment Re:Not this old info again (Score 1) 521

"They keep trying, however the true fact remains no encryption was used by these terrorists."

I don't know if this is true. But it doesn't matter. You can't uninvent encryption. If every American company is forced to backdoor their software, it won't stop terrorists using perfectly secure encryption.

Maybe the idea is that all "innocent" people will use the broken encryption, leaving anyone using the real thing as a target. But there are enough people, and especially companies, that will insist on using secure encryption to make this unworkable in a short time.

Comment Re:zealots ^2 (Score 1) 248

Please allow me to revise my response to:
"The Ice Age question was a potential concern for an indefinite future of unknown timing. Again this uncertainty was a driver for initial funding on major climate science."

-- Yes, the climate cycles that lead to ice ages in the past and would have normally caused their return was being studied, But the timescales were in the tens of thousands of years, and once the impact of humanity in greenhouse gases, deforestation, etc, was taken into account it completely swamped the natural cycles.

Whether the next ice age would have come in five or ten thousand years without human intervention is an interesting but purely academic question. Global warming is a problem for our children, not the next millennium.

Comment Re:zealots ^2 (Score 1) 248

"you obviously weren't there in my grad school. The Ice Age question was a potential concern for an indefinite future of unknown timing. Again this uncertainty was a driver for initial funding on major climate science."
Give a citation, not an anecdote with not one verifiable fact.

"There is an element of changing perspectives, and repeating fashions here."
The "changing perspective" is that what was highly speculative in the 70s is now based on incontrovertible peer-reviewed evidence collected over decades by thousands of scientists. Yet you argue that uncited statements made by unnamed people 50 years ago invalidates any research presented since.

"And you slightly demonstrate my thesis of angry dissonant crowds "
You called people who disagree with you "zealots" while those who do agree with you are "realists". Then you tut tut at people getting annoyed at your labels. Sorry, arrogant hypocrites do make me angry. It's a character flaw, I admit.

Comment Re:zealots ^2 (Score 1) 248

First you say: "Angry CAGW zealots meet climate realists"
Ten you hypocritically complain: "simple denigration of oppositional views and their holders is not going to be effective"

"I have a much harder science background"... in climate science? I studied physics and computer science. And I know enough to know what I'm not an expert in.

Also, the repeated talking point "the principal criticism of CO2 was its likely lack of adequate effect to prevent an Ice Age" is a complete fabrication by denialists, based on a few Sunday supplement stories, not peer-reviewed scientific articles. And that was 50 years ago. We have collected a bit more data since then.

Cite real sources or STFU.

Slashdot Top Deals

If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.