Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment The Garbage Dumpster Argument [Re:Climate chan...] (Score 3, Informative) 328

Ah, the garbage dumpster argument: pile enough garbage up, and tell the reader somewhere in the dumpster one argument might be real; you need to wade through all the garbage to find it.

I don't have time to wade through all the garbage. I'll go with the three strikes you're out approach: if your first three arguments aren't convincing, I'll stop there.

There are lots of reasons I am skeptical of this: 1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.

Not relevant.

2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history

Yep. And, you know what? All of those higher CO2 levels were associated with higher global temperatures! That's not evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming-- it's evidence for the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming

and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows..

Nope. Current levels are higher than it's ever been for as long as we can measure the CO2 record from ice cores, well over a million years. I think you're talking about really long ago. In that you'd be correct: carbon dioxide levels were higher before the Pleistocene. These were also, however, times when the Earth didn't have an ice cap or glaciers. So, again: this isn't evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on climate-- it's evidence for it.

We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.

Slightly misleading. Carbon dioxide increases plant growth-- but only in environments in which CO2 is the limiting resource, not other nutrients, water, or sunlight. In a greenhouse, where you make sure that the temperature, nutrients, and water are all optimal, sure, it's worth adding CO2. Outside, though, it's only one effect among many.

3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.

Doesn't stand out from the background... over tens of millions of years. Even so, actually, the current rate of warming is pretty exceptional. It does, however, stand out from the background over the period in which we have good measurements of both temperature and of all the other forcing factors, such a solar irradiance. So: no.

Comment Re:It's like I said the other day - if San Francis (Score 1) 328

This reminds me of something I mentioned here on Slashdot just the other day. Though it's not looking like San Francisco will really be underwater by 2020,

Correct. San Francisco is very hilly. They may have to elevate the freeway, but most of it will be fine.

http://www.floodmap.net/Elevat...

Comment Re:can we now get some throttling for netflix? (Score 1) 105

Or maybe your ISP could upgrade the lines to handle the bandwidth. No problems in my area, I've never seen less than half the advertised bandwidth during any time of the day.

Wow, it's a pretty sad state of society when people brag that the bandwidth they are getting is "only" half of what it had been advertised as.

Comment Up and down [Re:Dollar not depressed] (Score 1) 235

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Apparently you don't. Because in Canada, 1CAD=0.72USD, and 1CAD=0.69EUR, 1CAD=0.59GBP You figure out that 30% depression works in yet?

Up and down. The Canadian dollar was $(US) 0.69 in 2000, it's $(US) 0.744 now-- no long term difference.

30% down if you pick the right points.

Comment Re:How science is done. (Score 1) 235

Since you don't seem to know anything about climate science, it doesn't do much good to reread your reply.
The greenhouse effect, of course, has been known for well over a century, but the modern global climate model incorporating numerical integration was Manabe and Wetherald, 1967. But, of course, since you dismiss all climate scientists, you dismiss that, I suppose, along with all the other work ever done. In fact, you can dismiss every paper! They're all done by " 'only a small subset of "climate scientists'". Thousands of them! Decades of Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres: every single paper written by that 'small subset.' That "small subset" is so incredibly prolific-- they're simply amazing, that small subset; not only have they written every single paper on climate science for almost fifty years, they've taken over the whole of atmospheric science in America, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Australia.

Comment Re:How science is done. (Score 1) 235

You don't have the slightest notion of climate science when you say you think that it's 'only a small subset of "climate scientists' that have done the works underlying the science of global warming, or that there isn't independent review and verification.

Really.

Please, think about maybe learning something from a real science source. I don't know where you're getting your lack of information from, but it's certainly not from real science sources.

Comment How science is done. (Score 1) 235

Actually, it does. This is something non-scientists really really don't understand, because they're all familiar with all the hero scientist stories and not so much with the actual process of science. I love the hero scientist stories, too, but the final, and the most important part of science is that you have to explain your results to other scientists, and get them to understand it and understand and credit the evidence.

Wrong.

The only thing that matters is being able to reproduce the proof independently. If the results proving a theory are unable to be duplicated independently it's nothing more than an unproven hypothesis.

Exactly. That is how you get scientific consensus, when other scientists can duplicate your reasoning and follow your results, and compare your results to results from others (often, from others in different fields).

This is what we call scientific consensus.

Comment Re:@hyperbolic propaganda (Score 1) 235

...but there was never a scientific consensus on that like there is on this.

You keep talking about this 'consensus' like it means anything scientifically. It. Does. Not.

Actually, it does. This is something non-scientists really really don't understand, because they're all familiar with all the hero scientist stories and not so much with the actual process of science. I love the hero scientist stories, too, but the final, and the most important part of science is that you have to explain your results to other scientists, and get them to understand it and understand and credit the evidence.

Science is not a one person endeavor . Science is, in essence, a series of protocols to ensure that you are observing the world, and not fooling yourself, and an essential part of this is that you have to get other people's eyes looking at what you do. If you cannot explain it to other scientists and have them look at your data and agree that you're seeing what you say you're seeing: it's not science.

In the popular culture, this is called "scientific consensus."

Comment Dollar not depressed [Re:unlikely] (Score 1) 235

Now let's subtract 30% of that due to the dollar being depressed against every other western country.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The dollar was 1 Euro in 2000; it's 0.94 Euro today. https://www.google.com/finance... The dollar was106 Japanese yen in 2000; it's 113 yen today. https://www.google.com/finance... And the dollar has actually risen against the pound: https://www.google.com/finance...

I don't see how that can be described as as being "depressed".

...You apparently have no idea how small houses are here.

Since in an earlier post you said "Good thing I'm not American", I have no idea where "here" is.

Comment Cost of energy [Re:unlikely] (Score 2) 235

When your electricity rate goes from 0.07 to 0.18kWh in less then 10 years, and people have problems keeping the lights on? \

The cost of energy in constant dollars has been going down, not up.
Here's a graph of energy costs. Electrical costs have dropped from about $0.026/kWh (equal to $0.21/kWh in today's dollars) in 1960 to $12.67/kWh today.
http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/st...

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...