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:The Issue is Settled? (Score 1) 266

It's not an issue of my math improving. It's an issue of you not understanding how logarithmic functions work. The increase in T when CO2 doubles from 280ppm to 560ppm is calculated to be 1.2C. But we're already at 400ppm, and the increase in T so far is very close to 1C. The remaining 160ppm increase will increase T much less than the 120ppm to get us to 400ppm already increased it. Unfortunately I can't find the original paper I had read that calculated the temperature increase to be ~0.1C when going from 400ppm to 500ppm CO2, but the 1.2C per doubling will give you very similar results.

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

Your numbers are wrong. CO2 doubling from pre-industrial level of 280ppm (to 560ppm) is supposed to generate 1.2C. source:
Because the effect is logarithmic, it takes more and more CO2 to barely budge the temperature as CO2 concentrations rise. To generate another 1.2C in temperature rise, we would then have to increase CO2 to 1120ppm. To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.

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

And you're aware that constant relative humidity isn't applicable in a complex atmosphere where the frequency of thunderstorms increases with surface temperature, right? Meaning, the hotter it gets at the surface, the more thunderstorm cells form. And thunderstorm cells, incidentally, tend to move massive amounts of heat from the surface to the top of the Troposphere. Almost like the opposite of a feedback loop....

Comment The Issue is Settled? (Score 0) 266

What's settled?
CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It's effect is logarithmic, not linear. How much warming will we see if we continue pumping CO2 at current rates?
We currently sit just over 400ppm CO2. According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.

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

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 797

While you're technically correct, that logic will not be accepted here. Slashdot is dominated by the politically correct doctrine currently being taught in universities and colleges. So gender is a social construct, age isn't. Yet. Neither is race. Yet. Or species. Yet. I look forward to the day when we are to accept Species Dysphoria not as a psychological disorder but as something we should all be tolerant and accepting of.

Comment Re:Outlaw Diesel Cars. (Score 1) 154

Getting rid of all combustion engines in North America and Europe will still accomplish almost nothing in relation to worldwide pollution output as long as we continue to buy products from SE Asia. The massive manufacturing capacity of this region is mostly powered by dirty power plants. If people are truly interested in reducing actual worldwide pollution output instead of just moving it from one region to another, this issue needs to be addressed.

Comment Re:Why should anyone trust the report? (Score 1) 404

I have no problem with foreign governments hacking into political parties and releasing all of their nasty secrets. Politicians are supposed to be honest people serving their country. It's much easier to vote for the right candidate when all of their dirty secrets have been revealed for all to see.

Comment Re:Why should anyone trust the report? (Score 1) 404

I too am appalled at how many people don't take Russian interference seriously. The KGB spent a half century working to undermine the democratic institutions of the free West, and in many cases they succeeded spectacularly. When the Berlin wall fell and the USSR dissolved, all of the disinformation, subterfuge, misdirection, and methods of internal destruction were left in place: Did the current Russian government actively work to influence the US election? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm skeptical of the claim. Why would they work to get Hillary defeated when they would have had so much material with which to blackmail her? But former Russian (USSR) governments definitely acted to undermine future US governments, and we're still suffering the effects of those efforts today. Take the time to watch the video and listen to the efforts and plans the KGB implemented against the West, and how successful they were.

Comment Re: Cheaper than wind? (Score 1) 220

No I'm not. I'm comparing the price stipulated in a contract from a solar plant to the base cost of coal required to generate the same amount of electricity. I can't factor delivery, shipping, and operation into that, because I'm not citing an actual existing coal plant. As I stated, the article doesn't give any details as to what coal generated electricity costs in Chile. I also don't know how much profit the solar plant is expected to generate, if any, or if the solar plant is receiving subsidies in order to deliver the solar at this rate.

Comment Re: Way to waste every modicum of self-respect Oba (Score 1) 531

You can argue all you want about the bad reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. But none of that will change the fact that in 2008, there were more violent deaths in Chicago than there were in Iraq. The Obama/Clinton approach to the Middle East is a complete disaster. Millions of refugees from across North Africa and the middle east thanks to their arming of rebels everywhere. US armed rebels have been responsible for indiscriminately killing civilians everywhere across the Middle East including Libya, Egypt, Syria, northern Iraq, Yemen and Tunisia. But please, keep bringing up the invasion of Iraq to distract from this foreign policy disaster.

Comment Re: You do it, or you talk about doing it. (Score 1) 531

A guy with a gun who just shot someone is suddenly spooked, and can't take the 5 seconds it takes to check his victim's back pockets for a wallet? Who spooked him? He was shot multiple times in the back. Isn't that odd for a robber to shoot him multiple times and then run without taking his wallet?

Slashdot Top Deals

According to all the latest reports, there was no truth in any of the earlier reports.