Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:So global warming started... TSARKON reports (Score 2, Insightful) 680

The *planet* is clearly fine with high levels of CO2. The biosphere is fine with it too - given enough time to evolve and respond.

But we humans won't enjoy our cities getting flooded and our crops drying out (adapting will be very expensive). And a lot of the biosphere isn't being given time to respond either, since the temperature rise is happening so quickly. Those coral reefs can't just pick up and walk to a cooler area.

Comment Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score 5, Insightful) 680

anti-science nutters that cannot understand

My irony meter just exploded.

Yes some warming is occurring, but not enough to matter in any way worth even getting excited about - at least that's what the hard facts and careful research tell us.

Funny how the anti-science nutters are always so highly selective about their "hard facts and careful research", hand-waving away all the rest of the data that doesn't fit their own narrative as "manipulated". Let me guess, the whole of the IPCC Working Group II's collected data is all compromised and ignorable, every bit; none of those described impacts could possibly happen, amirite?

Heck it's probably

Ah, another hard fact, with more careful research behind it?

not even enough to counteract the next global cooling phase which is close at hand

It started 8000 years ago, temperatures have been dropping since then - up until we changed everything.

Now the soft facts and panicked revelations made by so called "scientists" who are backed by governments trying to bilk the people into more central control

Now the baseless allegations of conspiracy and paranoia, with the inevitable government agenda behind it. Did you notice all the Australian climate scientists recently protesting their government's agenda?

But of course I forgot, they just want to keep their jobs, and they have to keep manipulating their data and falsifying their results even when their government clearly doesn't want to hear it - low-paying research on global warming is all they can do, because the fossil fuel industry certainly doesn't have any money for them.

isn't it astounding that after literally decades of being utterly wrong about long term climate forecasts, people still listen to them?

Dammit, my brand new irony meter just exploded as well.

Comment Re:It did what it was designed to do (Score 4, Informative) 319

It contained the leak, yes, and the public is in no danger, but for workers in that facility it's a real problem, hence the cleanup expense

The amount of radioactivity released was estimated at 2 to 10 plutonium-equivalent Curies - not a small amount. While you could walk through the room and receive an insignificant dose from a meter away, if even a tiny fraction of that got into your body (e.g. via the contaminated ventilation system), that's an entirely different matter - close-range exposure for days or months is far more serious.

Comment Re:"Ghandi" quote updated (Score 1) 412

Personally I'm open to nuclear power, where it makes sense - and there are certainly sites where it makes the most sense. However I disagree that it's always the best alternative, and especially that any other option is "suicide".

For one, nuclear isn't as cheap as you seem to think. According to the EIA, (onshore) wind and solar PV both have significantly lower LCOE than nuclear, at $58.5 and $74.2 per MWh, vs $99.7 for nuclear. That's after accounting for their lower capacity factors, and before any tax credits. Wind and solar are cheaper to build, generally cheaper to maintain, and have zero ongoing fuel costs.

And while I agree that modern nuclear has a very low chance of dangerous failure, it's still non-zero, and you have to multiply that chance by the economic costs of consequences, which can be very high. Failure costs aren't factored in to the above numbers, but they can't be dismissed either. Despite that, I think nuclear should still be considered, particularly for more northern sites where solar is less effective and available wind may not be enough.

I'm guessing your objection to solar & wind is the "baseload" concern, where low capacity factors require alternate sources. This isn't a new issue for the energy industry (nothing has a 100% capacity factor), and is traditionally solved by distributing the load over multiple plants. A number of studies show that reliable power is certainly feasible with renewables too. For example, with widely-distributed wind farms, local variations can be spread out over the larger grid, and excess solar can be stored with pumped hydro (where available) or any of a number of commercially-available grid storage technologies, including reflow batteries (which can be easily scaled to almost any desired storage capacity). During the transition (which would likely take decades), existing gas turbines can help cover any shortfalls. I also note that geothermal plants are particularly interesting here, as not only do they have a capacity factor even better than nuclear's, they also have the cheapest LCOE of all.

Comment Re:Recorded history (Score 2) 412

Do we really care how the climate changed 315 million years ago? We weren't around then.

It's changing now, and that's affecting us directly. And unlike past events, we can see that this time it's us that's causing it. The planet will be fine of course, but in the mean time it will be very expensive for us to adapt - moving our cities and infrastructure away from low-lying areas, dealing with the increased droughts and storm damage. We can save literally trillions of dollars of costs in the longer term by phasing out coal & oil sooner, rather than later.

Comment Re: Land is always "hot" (Score 4, Informative) 412

Go read up on the BEST project. They had similar concerns about the current analyses, including the influence of the urban heat island effect.

Unlike the armchair deniers found on the internet, they actually did their own analysis, both with and without urban readings. Somewhat to their surprise, excluding the warmer urban readings completely made virtually no difference to the overall result.

specially when there is such a huge agenda behind it with massive amounts of money

I don't suppose you're referring to the fossil-fuel industry's agenda? It's hard to get more massive than the trillions of dollars they have at stake.

Comment Re:"Ghandi" quote updated (Score 2) 412

if it's hot it's climate change and we need a totalitarian state to fix it

Even if the first part were true, there's absolutely no need for a totalitarian state to fix it.

Please don't conflate the problem with an entirely different problem. There are many paths to mitigating climate change, and potential solutions from across the whole political spectrum. Instead of denying the problem exists, why not promote a solution you're comfortable with?

Comment Re: Was this before or after adjustments? (Score 3, Insightful) 270

You haven't made any points to rebut. All you've done is spout a baseless opinion that the adjustments are bad because you think they are, without ever saying how they're bad, or why they should not be made.

When you need to adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion

And where is your evidence for this claim of deliberate data fudging? Where is your evidence that NOAA's adjustments are incorrect, given that the reported land temperature rises correlate with tropospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea level rise, physically-based CO2 models, and indeed independent data from the NASA and HadCRUT sets as well? Are you also going to claim a global conspiracy next?

All measurements need proper calibration. Raw sensor output is meaningless without this, particularly if the sensor's bias is expected to change over time. Your link cites peer-reviewed methodology for the adjustments described, so unless you can explain convincingly why all those scientists are flat-out (and deliberately) wrong, don't expect your nonspecific ramblings to be taken seriously by anyone who counts.

Comment Re:Has nobody heard of El Nino ? (Score 1) 303

Do a comparison between previous releases of NOAA data and newer releases.

Yes, some of it has been changed. The reasons for this (identification and elimination of calibration errors) have been published, and the methods too. If you have a problem with the methodology, rather than just bitching about the results, then be more specific.

There are systematic trends introduced.

Your opinion. Some calibrations have enhanced (not introduced) an existing trend, some have mitigated it. But the results are what they are; unless you can provide better data, or at least offer a convincing (to real climatologists) explanation as to why the calibrations performed cannot be valid, then there's no reason to suppose they reduce the data quality, instead of enhancing it as claimed.

NOAA is the source of their data

And yet, the HadCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST datasets are also freely available, many analyses are based on these, and all agree closely with NOAA's results. A huge array of different, independent lines of observations all confirm and substantiate their conclusions. Again, where is your data?

do you understand the meaning of the word "Lysenkosim"

Lysenko had political support but no data. Climate change has a huge amount of data behind it, from many different nations. Claiming political interference in the process from all these governments (with nothing more than unsubstantiated claims about "undesirable" research being underfunded) just makes you look like another yet loony conspiracy theorist.

There's no shortage of evidence of private and corporate millions being funnelled to discredit AGW, so funding obviously isn't the hurdle you claim - yet so far the only serious attempt by sceptics at providing an "impartial" analysis ended up backing the mainstream conclusions anyway. Data talks; bullshit has to resort to FUD on the internet.

Uncertainties are hugely important.

Of course, but neither do they render results "useless" - particularly when confirmed by other, independent lines of evidence. Even large uncertainties can provide clear evidence of a trend; only the degree of that trend is still uncertain.

TCS is observable, and we now have 36 years of measurements

How? Cite these TCS "measurements", please.

ANY values that are contra to the hypothesis invalidate the hypothesis

First, we still only have your baseless opinion that any hypotheses have been invalidated, as you have yet to cite specific data (or even a specific hypothesis - are you really still claiming the world has not been warming?).

Second, the vast majority of climatologists remain entirely unconvinced by any supposedly-contrary points argued by the "sceptics"; why is this? You claim they're all in a global conspiracy. Far more likely that they simply know something you don't (as they should, since they've spent considerably more time in their field than you).

Third, in any complex field relying on statistical models, whether climatology or particle physics, outlier values always exist. In fields where underlying randomness is a major factor and probabilistic analyses are required to establish evidence, then a handful of values that don't fit cleanly into the centre of the bell-curve do not disprove anything - and claims that suggest that show nothing more than wilful oversimplification. A full analysis of all the data is required to establish the trends behind the randomness - and so far, every such comprehensive analysis has supported the warming trend.

Do you know that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has determined that CAGW is not happening?

Wrong, and your claim (no doubt parroted from Heartland via Watts et al) was refuted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences themselves, three years ago. Shows how willing you are to accept anything that fits your beliefs, rather than actually check for yourself. Do your own homework.

It always comes back to the same thing. Deniers never produce data of their own - all they ever do is attempt to cast doubt on existing data that doesn't fit their own pet hypothesis. You're doing exactly the same. Get back to us when & if you can produce some original data that actually supports your position.

Comment Re:Fool and his money are soon parted (Score 1) 303

Man, did you even read that stuff you posted? "warm section of space", really? The two links even contradict each other.

There's billions being made here. What would you do for a million?

No no, there's trillions being made here - what would an Oil CEO do for a hundred-billion-dollar slice of that?

Ask yourself, who is selling the carbon itself? Who stands to lose the most if governments start getting serious about climate change? The energy markets make the carbon-credit markets look like lost change.

Climate denial will exist so long as there's money to made from fossil fuels - regardless of the cost to the rest of us. Don't eat everything the oil barons feed you.

Comment Re:Has nobody heard of El Nino ? (Score 1) 303

NOAA has been found corrupting their data

According to whom? Their results agree with all the other major research groups, so either their "corruption" actually made the data more accurate (as they say), or maybe they're just one part of the vast global conspiracy of climate scientists to perpetuate a massive hoax, against their own best interests, and somehow leaving no hard evidence anywhere..

did you see the uncertainty bars? they are so huge one can't say anything

Nonsense, you don't need to know the exact figure to say the tropospheric temperatures are clearly going up. Maybe not by much - or maybe even faster than we think.

observations refute the predictions made by CAGW proponents

Which observations? Please cite them. If you're referring to the TCS, that's not "observed", that's calculated from the models - and there's been a wide range of calculated values for it.

Claiming that one or two cherry-picked measurements somehow refutes the last 40+ years of peer-reviewed evidence from a vast array of sources shows exactly the blinkered willingness to ignore the contra-evidence you're accusing others of. Get back to me when you can cite actual studies that not only contradict but explain all the evidence that's been summarised in the last few IPCC reports, like a real sceptic would. Making unsubstantiated claims and trying to cast doubt on existing data while providing none of your own just pigeonholes you firmly into the "another loonier denier" camp

ps. your political straw-man comments are entirely irrelevant to the science. Galileo had evidence; you've shown nothing.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Working...