Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:How insane can you get? (Score 2) 360

I know politicians are not very bright, and some, if not many, are corrupt, but how can they allow this to pass, especially when the alternative is coal powered power plants!

Wyoming is a major coal-producing state.

In the view of politicians, when you say "the alternative is coal powered power plants"-- that's exactly why they want to pass the bill.

Comment Re:At this rate... (Score 1) 266

depends on what you call "slightly" and what you call "significantly," I suppose.
At the moment, the warming rate is 0.18C per decade.
The projections for a century from now will depend on assumptions of what amount of greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere over the next century, which is going to be a guess.

Comment Thunderbolts and lightning, very very frightening (Score 1) 266

Thunderstorms are impressive, but at their basics, they are just a manifestation of the convective transfer that establishes and maintains the adiabatic lapse, which has been incorporated into climate models for the last fifty years. Convective heat transfer is the cause; thunderstorms are merely a manifestation. That's the way (or much of the way) heat is moved in the atmosphere: by convection.
And, yes, convection is pretty well understood. Your proposal that convection represents a "new" feedback mechanism that atmospheric scientists have never thought about, and that therefore invalidates all the previous models, is a little naïve. In any case, however, precipitation represents 100% humidity. To "invalidate" the feedback effect of humidity, you need to show that humidity decreases with temperature. Saying that thunderstorms increase will, if anything, serve as a demonstration that humidity increased with temperature.

Comment Re:EVEN TILLERSON says it's real. (Score 0) 266

There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".

Right!!!! You got it!!

Stop attacking the science and the scientists when it's the policy you object to.

The fact that you don't like the proposed policy does not make the science wrong.

Comment Re:End of the glaciation was ten thousand years ag (Score 1) 266

1) The Earth is usually a lot hotter than it is right now. We are climbing out of an ice age.

We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago.

You didn't look at the graphs in the referenced article, did you? >By those graphs we STARTED climbing out of an ice age back then but we still have a long way to go. So they support the poster's claim, not yours.

The graphs show nothing of the sort. Look at it more closely and pay attention to the scale. The smallest time division on that graph is 50,000 years, and the temperature has been warm for about a quarter of a division.
The article summarizes it clearly: "Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago" which is pretty much what I just said.

Here's a good graph showing the sea level rise at the end of the glaciation. You can see the warming very clearly, and it's pretty much over by eight thousand years ago.

Comment Re:Politically driven pseudo-science garbage (Score 2) 266

All of this fear mongering is just to push forward the globalist agenda of bringing down western civilization.

So, have you considered attacking the "globalist agenda," rather than attacking the science and the scientists?

Climate fluctuations are cyclical, and solar output DOES have a lot to do with the climate.

Of course it does. Nobody is challenging that point. But we measure solar output, and it is not the cause of the current warming.

Comment Re:The Issue is Settled? (Score 1) 266

The additional warming they're saying is going to happen comes from unproven, unsettled, feedback loop theories.

You're aware that the "feedback loop theory" you're referring to is the assumption of constant relative humidity, right?

If you want to suggest that this feedback doesn't exist, you are making the assumption that humidity decreases as temperature increases. Unless you can come up with a plausible mechanism for that, I'd call that an "unproven, unsettled" theory.

Comment Re:Where are the error bars? (Score 2) 266

There is a time-series of global average temperature, but there is not a description of the error. I'd like a full statistical treatment, including the number of measurements varying as a function of time, as well as an assessment of the quality of the measurements (I'm sure the thermometer technology has changed in the last 100 years).

So, look on their site.

Comment Data is here (Score 5, Informative) 266

Show the raw temperature measurements NASA! We don't want to see those "corrected" data sets from James Hansen et al. anymore.

All of the data is available on the GISS site, which I assume you haven't bothered to look at:
The site includes the source code for the analysis and a discussion of what all the data corrections are, why they were done, and what the data looks like before and after corrections.
You might want to start with the FAQ on how the data analysis is done, here:

If you don't like the way NASA does the data analysis, there's an independent analysis from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, here:

Slashdot Top Deals

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?