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:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 1) 264

From 1997 to 1998 there is no warming..

Year to year warming is dominated by statistical noise, which is what I suspect you are trying to say when you say that there was no warming between 1997 and 1998; however for what it is worth 1998 was significantly warmer than 1997, so by your definition there is "warming".

The 'warming' in 2016 is insignificant. It is as straight of a horizontal line between the two points as you can make on a graph

If you choose two points you will always get a straight line. If the end point is 2016 and the start point is any prior year in the instrumental record, the slope will be upward.

If the temperature doesn't reach 1998 or 2016 levels until the next El Nino, then there will still have been no warming.

This is what logicians call "equivocation", which is making up your own definition of a term to make your argument true. What most people understand "global warming" to be is an underlying upward trend in temperature created by increases in greenhouse gases. This is overlaid on both year-to-year variability and of course ENSO. Comparing an El Niño year to a La Niña or non-ENSO year is an apples-to-oranges comparison. If you want to compare individual years to determine whether there's an underlying warming trend, then you need to compare El Niño years to prior El Niño years, etc. Or you an take a moving average with a window that's large enough to average out any ENSO events.

If you take a ten year moving average, in the last 40 years that ten year average has dropped three times: in 1975, 1993, and 2008; remained the same as the prior year once: in 2000; and has increased 36 times. If there were no underlying warming trend then the ten year moving average would be equally likely to go up or down in successive years; in fact it's ten times more likely to go up than down. 2008 by the way was an anomaly in not only was it an unusually strong La Niña, it was a rare ten year period with *four* La Niña years in it. If you take a twenty year moving average the last time that average went down was 1965.

Comment Re:Is this the same "One Decade" we were promised. (Score 1) 264

Who cares about a single year ...

The people who argued that there was a global warming "hiatus" after 1998, evidently. That is assuming they aren't liars.

the climate models overestimated warming by nearly 2x for the average for the last two decades and 4x for the last 15 years

Which models are you speaking of? NASA's global instrumental record data is actually quite close to the IPCC 1990 FAR model runs that correspond to the actual greenhouse emissions. You have to allow for for La Niña (2000, 2001, 2008, 2010-2012) and El Niño (1997-1998, 2014-2016), of course which deviate below and above the model predictions.

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 181

There are killer apps. and look at the pebble forums ayou can find all kinds of really cool ideas that people are freely publishing.

Google and Apple prefer to hinder development and force people to pay $99 a year and go through a "you suck and your apps sucks" approval process for the watch ecosystem

Comment Article is 95% herp Derp (Score 4, Insightful) 181

Nobody is UPGRADING their smartwatches because why the hell should I pay $350 to get a watch that has zero features above what I already have? When I had a Pebble Time it did everything I wanted then and the other pebble offerings were useless iterations that either offered a useless feature (lighter and shorter battery).

the Apple Watch 2.0 only really offers waterproofing. no real advances that people would dump another $350+ to replace their 1 year old Apple Watch 1.0

The android watches, well nobody has been buying them, they have always been the last place runners, but their new iterations are all useless. Zero advantages on the new versions.

The ONLY smartwatch maker not with their head up their ass is Pebble. 10 day battery life in the Pebble Time Steel. Apple could have doubled the battery life, Samsung could have doubled battery life.... nope, they are all stuck in the "ZOMG THINNER!" stupidity.

Comment Not just smartwatches (Score 1) 181

Nobody except Asia buys watches anymore.

Watches, smartwatches, health monitors - if you're not actively sick, they tend to be a bad idea.

Research studies have shown smartwatches actually encourage you to self-defeat health and exercise goals, by setting an upper limit on how much you do. Better methods include bar measures (where you start off in Red, go to Yellow, go to Green, and then go Yellow if you exercise too long without water or a rest break), candy systems (e.g. Pokemon Go where you get candy for your monsters if you complete a designated unit, but it doesn't stop adding), and other real feedback cycles.

Also, self-monitoring tends to decrease the reward aspect of the exercise itself.

Plus, seriously, who spends $500 on a fricking wristband?

Comment Re:DGW - Dinosaurogenic Global Warming (Score 2) 264

I'm sure if climate scientists were in charge of things they would "put up". But they're not; politicians are, and politicians naturally worry more about being b lamed for action more than being blamed for inacdtion. They'd rather be forced to spend a trillion dollars than choose to spend a hundred billion.

But even if you are willing to take the hit as a politician, you can't do it alone. You need to bring other politicians around, and the public around as well. If you can't take effective steps right away, you take what you can. This gets people working on CO2 reduction technologies and businesses, and builds a constituency for more steps. It's like stopping a cattle stampede. You can't make the entire herd stop and change direction at once, you get the lead cows heading in a slightly different direction.

Comment Re:Pretty sure I read this story last decade. (Score 4, Interesting) 264

no, peer reviewed scientific journals on ScienceDirect. Most alumni of research colleges and universities can access that, and a larger quantity of such research is available to the general public if it's federally funded in part. You can usually read the published articles, whereas research students staff and faculty can read the not yet published research.

Adapt. The future owes you nothing. Science has no agenda.

Comment Re:DGW - Dinosaurogenic Global Warming (Score 4, Informative) 264

Of course, the problem with focusing exclusively on the costs of trying to stop or (more realistically) slow climate change implicitly assumes that inaction won't cost us anything. In fact we're looking at costs either way. We're in a minimax kind of situation: how do we minimize the maximum costs?

There's also another wrinkle to this, which is that costs (and indeed profits -- every misfortune profits someone) aren't distributed evenly. The key determinant of how much you have to pay for or profit from climate change is how mobile your capital is. If you're a Bengladeshi subsistence farmer you're going to take +2C right on the chin. If you're a Wall Street bank you take your investments out of farms which are going to lose productivity in the next ten years or so shift to underwriting the opening of new farms in newly favorable places. In other words you make money going and coming. Likewise if you own multiple homes your risk from local changes is spread out. If the lion's share of your nest egg is in a house that is in the new 20 year floodplain or in the range of a newly endemic zoonosis, you're screwed.

So even if you can't avoid +2C without climate engineering (which might not be such a bad thing), getting there in ten years instead of twenty or thirty makes a huge difference. And beyond 2C, there are other benchmarks beyond that we don't want to hit in a hurry.

This is not a black-and-white situation: that we had our chance to do something and now there is nothing we can do. We had our chance to avoid this situation and now we're talking about how much time we'll have to adapt.

Comment Re:Moving goal posts (Score 0) 264

The energy of that storm was, from our own calculations, about 50/50 normal cyclical energy and human added climate change energy.

Future storms will be even higher levels of human created energy.

Heat doesn't just disappear. Although some ME and CE colleagues here at the UW have a cool example of transforming low grade heat into electricity to charge your cell phones in Africa and disaster zones (and also for hiking) check out their kickstarter

Comment Re:Problem is effects now are from 20 years ago (Score 2) 264

No, that's like thinking that your full tank of gas is immediately burnt after you fill it. The effects of the mass of your gas are added to vehicle weight over the duration of the gas tank being used. You start off with a full mass and it gets used up over the lifespan of the tank of gas, at the end of which it's a mostly empty (theoretical) tank of gas (actually, tanks are designed with a 10 percent reserve, so it goes from 110 percent to 10 percent).

The C02 you release does go in the atmosphere immediately, but the effect is over a 100 year period (as was proved more than 100 years ago). N02 has a 10-20 year lifespan. Methane is also a short duration gas, like N02, but both have other side effects. Think of it as a slowly deflating bubble of C02 - at the end of 100 years it's empty, but 50 years on it's only half empty. All the C02 in the atmosphere is from the last 100 years. We add a small fraction today (say 2016), but the prior 100 years is all there, on average. Thus we get the effects of the Arctic melting permafrost impacting us now, and for the time it takes to cycle it out.

it's like adding more and more blankets as you get hot. stop putting on more blankets. the blankets are slowly removed, but you'll still get hotter, since you have too many blankets on.

Comment Re:Just click on ADA accessible (Score 1) 271

If you are having font size problems due to readability, in general, a site-wide font size increase is recommended. If a specific article chose very small fonts, most sites have A symbols with a +/- font size increase/decrease that applies to the page.

Or you can increase font sizes in general on Chrome and Opera and Firefox.

Now go Read The Fine Manual. I'm not here to solve your problems, grandpa.

Slashdot Top Deals

To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire