Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:Mitch McConnell pulls a Boehner (Score 1) 285

What McConnell and others who voted to approve the resolution demanded was that the Developing World (which includes China) agree to "new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period" as was being expected for First World (aka USA) nations.

Obama's ridiculous deal with China allows them to keep raising their emissions until 2030, whereas we're supposed to meet our reduction targets by 2025. The accord fails the test that the Senate's resolution specified.

Comment That Obama! What a negotiator! (Score 1) 285

So, according to the article, we reduce our emissions by up to 28% by 2025, meanwhile China agrees that their emissions will stop climbing by 2030:

As part of the agreement, Mr. Obama announced that the United States would emit 26 percent to 28 percent less carbon in 2025 than it did in 2005. That is double the pace of reduction it targeted for the period from 2005 to 2020.

China’s pledge to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030, if not sooner, is even more remarkable. To reach that goal, Mr. Xi pledged that so-called clean energy sources, like solar power and windmills, would account for 20 percent of China’s total energy production by 2030.

This is a good deal?! China already pumps out 25% of the world's CO2 compared to the US's 16%.

A fair deal would have had China pledging to reduce their emissions, not continue raising them!

Probably that cardshark Obama tried his "don't call my bluff!" threat again. That would explain it.

Comment This kinda sounds familiar...ah yes, I remember... (Score 1) 421

IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

Comment Re:U.S. is established on religion, so (Score 1) 900

Wrong. To be worthy of the hullabaloo, AGW effects have to be catastrophic in nature, merely warming things up a degree in a century does not qualify as such.

We don't have reliable historic reconstructions of temperature and even the current data is suspect. Which leaves satellite data as our most reliable measure of what's going on with the climate.

AGW alarmists need to back off, be patient, and let us gather data for fifty years (until 2030) as an honest baseline of where the climate is going.

Comment Re:Thorough and unbiased (Score 1) 650

I accept as obvious the argument that mankind doubling concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in warmer temps.

What makes me a skeptic is the AGW faithful arguing that doubling atmospheric CO2 will result in a global cataclysm. Even the IPCC admits that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial concentrations will only raise temps 1.1 degrees C, which, when you consider that the doubling takes about 150 years, is a negligible increase.

So it's absurd to predict, as many Catastrophic AGW proponents are wont to do, that forcings and feedbacks from so small a rise in temps can result in up to 10 degree C increases when equilibrium is achieved.

And experience shows how silly such dire predictions have been. In the 20th century, temps only rose 0.75 degrees C. Currently temps are rising at a rate of 1.3 degrees C per century. But since CO2 warming occurs logarithmically, at some point in the next decades, the doubling will attenuate to the point that its effect will be negligible, making it unlikely that we'll get even the moderate 1.3 degrees C by the time doubling occurs late in this century. It'll more likely be another benign rise of about 0.75 degrees C.

Comment Re:Warming is not bad (Score 1) 650

You want disaster? Try a 2 degree C warming across all our most important foodbelts! Even a minor, persistent decline in ecological carrying capacity will cause serious production issues.

Sure, a 2 degree C increase overnight would be catastrophic, but it's not going to happen because it can't. There simply isn't enough potential in the CO2 doubling to cause such a huge increase:

A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will, by itself, only raise temps by 1.1 degree C over the time it takes to double.

The doubling happens logarithmically, therefore most of the effect happens in the early stages. We've been into the doubling for more than a 100 years, but in the 20th century we only saw a 0.75 degree increase in temps. Currently temps are rising at 1.3 degrees C per century, which is very moderate, but even that increase will fall as effects from the CO2 doubling dwindle later in this century.

Any additional warming that results from the doubling will be from forcings and feedbacks duking it out until equilibrium is reached, which is likely to be in the range of 0.75 to 1.3 degrees C.

Comment 2020 arrives, Big Brother WILL be watching you (Score 1) 461

The telescreen that made it possible for Big Brother to constantly observe the population of Oceania never seemed practical when I first read the book back in 1975. How could you have that much bandwidth available for so many two-way video links, and who could possibly monitor all of them 24/7?

But now we've got computers for emotion, face, and voice recognition, so all you'd need is a few hundred techs to work the Automated Crisis Avoidance Machines run by the Department of Mental Health (soon to be a Cabinet-level position) and we could make sure everybody loves Big Brother, even in the "privacy" of their own homes.

If we only had the bandwidth...

Comment Re:I think this is BS... (Score 1) 882

Forgot one: Those who zip past the point where the merge is supposed to take place, using the emergency lane to jump a few cars further in line suffer from narcissistic personality disorder (i.e., generally contemptuous of others, lack a mature conscience and empathy, have a sense of entitlement, and take advantage of others to achieve their own ends).

Comment Re:I think this is BS... (Score 1) 882

I have a theory that merging brings out psychological flaws in people:

- Those who change lanes as soon as they see the Shift Left 1/4 Mile sign rather than waiting to merge at the point where the sign specified, suffer from a lack of assertiveness and poor self worth. An irrational fear of the "what if they won't let me into the left lane?!" variety causes them to avoid potential confrontation.

- Those stuck in traffic who resent drivers speeding along an empty lane to merge where the sign specified, and who take the opportunity to block merging traffic have a classic negativistic personality disorder (i.e., passive-aggressive plus mad at the world plus envious and resentful plus feeling cheated by life).

- Those who wait to merge until the lane ends so they can smoothly change lanes, alternating one car at a time in an elegant ballet of efficiency have healthy personalities when it comes to driving.

Comment Re:It's so very odd..... (Score 1) 1376

You bet your ass I'm going to try to figure out the meaning of it all, and I'm not satisfied with "you can't do this yet." In the end I may not be able to do it, but it is my right to try.

By all means, try. You might be the first person ever to prove that a deity exists. Odds are seriously stacked against you, but maybe your god will finally decided enough is enough and say a big hello to the world.

Only if you limit "serious attempts to understand the world around us" to "stuff we learn through application of something approaching the scientific method."


None of this is intended to diminish the fruits of scientific labor, which are many and varied, or its continued practice. But I am inclined to believe that science is and shall remain incapable of answering at least one ("why are we here?") or two ("where did we come from?") of the big questions in a satisfactory manner. Did it make a fundamental difference in how you acted when you found out that your body is composed of cells, or that your brain functions through electrochemical waves? The latter was a big step in the scientific understanding of "why are we here," dealing directly with consciousness, yet it is powerless to explain the experience of "I am."

You keep mentioning our ignorance of the answers to the ultimate questions. We still have a million years to find the answers before accepting that everything is here thanks to an absentee landlord/superbeing. For all we know, life and consciousness may be aspects of normal matter, extending into a fourth dimension, or the "soul" may become part of a cloud of dark energy after death. Who knows? But I think we will eventually figure it out.

Slashdot Top Deals

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more. -- Bill Hoest