Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 2) 250

It's Trillions less than WWI, WWII, or any number of volcanic eruptions *alone*

And here we see an example of complete bullshit.

Human emissions are 120 times volcanic eruptions.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. - Scientific American.

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 1) 250

Paid for by the people that profit from the fear mongering.

The IPCC is funded by the World Meteorological Organisation and by the United Nations Environment Programme.

But the reports are written by scientist volunteers.

How do you claim "fear mongering" is monetized bu these bodies?

Bunch of chicken little politicians making money.

The political review waters down the results. This is because a democracy doesn't want to spend any money now to counter a problem what will fall in someone else's term.

There's no money in it for politicians, just cost.

News flash, the Earth changes, and always will.

Nevertheless, if you increase the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses, you will increase the greenhouse effect.

It's not rocket science.

The old timers will tell you.

Plenty of old timers will tell you that the weather is warming unlike anything before. But it is the measurements that make evidence, not anecdotes.

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 1) 250

I am sorry that would be because rivers don't change course on their own.

The river in the article changed course the lake that used to be its source emptied in another direction that was previously blocked by ice.

The precipitating event for all of this happened in summer 2016, when meltwater from the retreating Kaskawulsh glacier burst through a channel of ice, suddenly draining a glacial lake that had fed Slims river and directing waters into a different river that ultimately heads south toward the Gulf of Alaska. Previously, these waters had ultimately fed into the vast Yukon river, which empties on Alaska’s west coast. - The fucking article.

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 2) 250

What makes you think that they haven't produced reports stating what proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from what source.

The oceans and terrestrial biosphere are net carbon sinks. They have sunk 55-60% of the carbon emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels and land use change.
All the increase is due to human activity. Natural systems are balancing some of it. (Hence ocean acidification and CO2 fertilization).

In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40% to 45%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability.

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 3, Insightful) 250

With claims it's "human-caused" without any scientific basis.

No, showing the reasoning with references to the hundreds of peer reviewed scholarly papers that provide the basis for that reasoning is with scientific basis.

"Without scientific basis" means without reference to the scholarly literature, and generally also without sound reasoning or true axioms.

And all these smart people lauding this shit can't answer how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?

As of 2000 it's about 80% of the past 100 years, and about 110% of the past 50 years.

I'm not denying climate change, hell, i'm not denying that it's in part human cause... but screaming that human-caused climate change rerouted a river is a fucking hyperbole.

The current climate change is human caused. That's not hyperbole. It's certainly not fucking hyperbole. And calling something fucking hyperbole without any scientific basis is ironic considering how your post began.

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 3, Informative) 250

1) If you measure all the sources of radiative forcing, you see that the natural ones are pretty much negligible with respect to the current warming, where as the "human-caused" ones are large.

2) There have been papers that split the warming into the warming that would have happened from natural forcing, and that which would have happened from anthropogenic forcing. ((paper). Satisfyingly, the warming that has happened from the sum of the forcings, is approximately the sum of the warmings from each forcing. So it's nice and additive, therefore statements like "x% of the warming of the past y years is anthropogenic" are meaningful. Such as "80% of the warming of the past 100 years is anthropogenic" or "110% of the warming of the past 50 years is anthropogenic".

Comment Not as valuable as they were. (Score 1) 1310

A lot of projects left sourceforge when they started bundling malware with downloads.

At some point climate science denial became vogue in here, complete with links to Forbes ... and removal of modding from people like myself who tried to keep that one scientific.

There's a lot of goodwill to win back for a couple of environments that have to compete for users.

Good Luck.

Comment It might be a little more complicated than that. (Score 2) 447

In Dr Goldacre's talk at nerdstock 2009, he mentions a study in which there were measurable physiological changes. Particularly in the non-placebo group those that were given a muscle relaxant had high muscle relaxant levels in their blood plasma than those who were given the muscle relaxant and were told it was a placebo.

Slashdot Top Deals

Logic doesn't apply to the real world. -- Marvin Minsky