Slashdot Mirror

I've seen some misunderstandings in several posts that warrant correction at the top level.

Dealing with relativistic speeds is an engineering problem, and not necessarily a difficult (at least when compared with other challenges of interstellar travel) one.
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-...

Deceleration with light sails is a solved problem, at least on paper. I'm not aware of any deployed examples.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/21...

In the United States and Canada, the term "Eskimo" was commonly used by ethnic europeans to describe the Inuit and Alaska's Yupik and Iñupiat peoples. However, "Inuit" is not accepted as a term for the Yupik, and "Eskimo"[11] is the only term that applies to Yupik, Iñupiat and Inuit. Since the late 20th century, indigenous peoples in Canada and Greenlandic Inuit consider "Eskimo" to be a pejorative term, and they more frequently identify as "Inuit" for an autonym.

And hey, look! A whole crapload of Inuit who reject the name 'Eskimo!' The Inuit Circumpolar Council!

And here's the Alaska Native Language Center pointing out that, gasp, outside of Alaska, 'Eskimo' is considered derogatory!

And another one! Which also points out the converse; go to Alaska, and refer to a Yupik as 'Inuit,' and you're wrong too!

Maybe you'd rather listen to a First Nations head of Native Studies at the University of Mantiba, who points out that "nobody uses Eskimo in Canada anymore - at all."

Here's an article by an Inuit answering an Alaskan about why he, the Inuit fellow, isn't an Eskimo.

Look, mate, I've learned something new, which is that some tribes do indeed identify themselves as 'Eskimo.' But hopefully you've learned something too, which is that a lot more don't, and actively consider the term to be pejorative.

The disadvantages of putting solar panels on roads are huge: not only is the angle wrong and are the panels covered by dirt, dust, snow, etc. but roads are subject to considerable wear and tear that requires a massive construction to have any kind of longevity

And? We can make a bucket list of hard things for any technology. Rockets, Silicon wafers, Chicken McNuggets, Nuclear power generation.

If it then turns out that the panels are only good enough to light up a few streetlights (i.e. do not even recover the energy used in their production), I think it is absolutely fair to criticize this project.

No one is stopping you. What you really don't like is anyone rebutting you.

Give some thought for a moment. Is the only goal of this project to provide electrical power for street lamps?

Not at all. As you and some others have pointed out, it isn't ideal conditions for solar. More on that later.

So we have some other things going on in this experiment. The roadway itself might be a candidate. I'd wager that it exactly is the main thrust of the experiment. Maybe some battery technology as a side experiment. But the solar cells themselves are the least of this test.

Moreover, both the angle problem, and the 'wear and tear' problem, are going to remain, while all kinds of much more useful surfaces (roofs) go unused.

You are still stuck on the purpose of the install. If your only purpose is to light streetlamps, some individual panels on individual street lamps with some long lasting rechargeable batteries is the way to go. But that "problem" has been pretty well solved, except for increments, and is infrastructure status, so is not a basic technology experiment.

Now for your ideal conditions touchstone. Not many installs are ideal. Roofs are not always in the ideal locations or angles, and in either case, few to none follow the sun as it traces it's anelemma across the sky. And they get dirty, and they break.

Here's a little mind blower - there are many places in Alaska that use solar. And interior Alaska has to be one of the strangest places to use solar power, with months of mostly darkness and all. As well, given the nature of the anelemma of the sun there, some installs are approaching circular in shape: http://acep.uaf.edu/projects/s...

That in itself probably violates your apparent "Don't do it if it isn't ideal" outlook. Months without useable daylight, Only a few panels in optimum position at any one time. But it allows these folk to stockpile the diesel fuel they need to get through the dark part of the year, and saves them money.

As for the ad hominems - I really think the good people here on slashdot, including you, need to learn to discuss without ending every comment with something like

I have a tendency to give as I receive. And I heartily suggest that people who find me intolerable simply avoid me, since I have nothing to offer except ad-hominums and calling people "morons". Actually I don't know that I've ever called anyone a moron anywhere. I usually use "asshat" for people who are behaving like asshats, and Pepe' for those who fit that mold.

Regardless, if that is all I have to offer, just pass me by, and blessed be.

Open house at HAARP planned for end of August, 2016

Really? https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/...

Note the complete lack of any discussion of artificial lighting. Heat is important for winter greenhouses in England, but with regard to light the only discussion is about shading during the summer. Moreover, I have a colleague who lives in a small town just north of Sheffield who gardens year-round in an un-lit greenhouse. He says the shorter days in the winter result in slower growth, and some plants like it more than others so he changes the mix of what he's growing seasonally. But he grows herbs and vegetables year-round.

If you go far enough north, lighting does become an issue for winter growing. For example, in Alaska: http://www.uaf.edu/files/ces/p.... But that's pretty extreme. In Fairbanks the shortest day of the year is barely three hours long. London days don't get much less than 8 hours.

I'm not saying that LEDs couldn't help in northerly climes, but the article seems to say that using LEDs in a cave is more efficient somehow than using the sun. Which is ridiculous.

CO2 is causing problems, right now. Real problems.

Actually Crop production is at near record highes [fao.org] , in part because the necessary nutrient CO2 is available in increased amounts. Both Arctic [uaf.edu] and Antarctic [uiuc.edu] sea ice is increasing, and there hasn't been any statistically significant Global Warming/Climate Change for 18 years; so please feel free to be more specific. If you'd go outside and actually experience some enviroment, you'd realizes that it's pretty fucking cold outside and we still have 4 weeks to go before winter starts.

I always blame Global Warming for cold weather. PC name may be Climate Change, but the only real 'change' that is ever talked about is how the planet is warming up.

CO2 is causing problems, right now. Real problems.

Actually Crop production is at near record highes, in part because the necessary nutrient CO2 is available in increased amounts. Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and there hasn't been any statistically significant Global Warming/Climate Change for 18 years; so please feel free to be more specific. If you'd go outside and actually experience some enviroment, you'd realizes that it's pretty fucking cold outside and we still have 4 weeks to go before winter starts.

Alaskas perspective: http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resour...

Although the name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean "eater of raw meat."

Linguists now believe that "Eskimo" is derived from an Ojibwa word meaning "to net snowshoes." However, the people of Canada and Greenland prefer other names. "Inuit," meaning "people," is used in most of Canada, and the language is called "Inuktitut" in eastern Canada although other local designations are used also. The Inuit people of Greenland refer to themselves as "Greenlanders" or "Kalaallit" in their language, which they call "Greenlandic" or "Kalaallisut."

Perhaps we are trying to force a term on a group of peoples which never considered themselves as a group of peoples.

"They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"

http://seagrant.uaf.edu/marine...

I spent a year on Adak, and I flew into Shemya and Attu. From a few thousand feet up in the air, you can look westward, and see land. You did NOT see Soviet land while standing on the ground, due to the curvature of the earth.

I read a story not long ago, about Aleuts from the American islands going to visit kinfolk on the Soviet islands during the Cold War. Nowhere in the story do I remember any implication that they could SEE the islands of one side from the other. It wasn't a thirty minute ride on a fishing boat or anything like that. The visits were days long affairs.

"Recorded History" on arctic ice extent is pretty damn short. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) used to list something they called the '1979-2001' average and then showed that, based on that, the current ice extent was pathetically low. Lately, they have switched to showing the '1981-2010' average because the early years of satellite measurements have been found to be wildly inaccurate. Better quality data has only been available since 2002 and, based on that, 2013 is the 6th highest ice extent minimum on record.

The data shows that after a spike in Earth's surface temperature two decades ago the temperature has stopped rising for 16 years. Even the British Meteorological Office has finally been forced to concede that the warming predicted from climate models has not occurred. Rather than confess that Global Warming is and always was based on poor science, the British Met Office now says warming has "paused" (as if they knew the future, which they clearly don't, since they've been wrong so far).

Then we have climate 'scientists' like James Hansen and Michael Mann who have been fraudulently manipulating NOAO and NASA data that didn't fit their climate warming alarmist hypothesis.

Yes, I know this information will be a big surprise for many of you. Before you call me a "loon" (or the favorite word of the anti-scientific climate alarmists, a "denier") or mod me down, I urge you to consider the science and analysis displayed here (mixed in with other articles): http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

As an example, check out some of these graphs:
Arctic Sea Ice up 67% this year:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/in-praise-of-nasa/ [This graph is excellent, easy to see how the reported changes reported at the minimum exaggerate the change, good if you intend to freak people out]
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e
Fraudulent scientist James Hansen's predictions vs observation:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hansen-forecast-0-6oc-warming-from-1997-to-2013/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/arctic-gains-seven-hundred-million-hockey-rinks-of-ice-since-last-year/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-specious-long-term-trend/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/monthly-ncdc-us-fraud-update/ [examples of data tampered with by climate scientists]
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/tennessee-summers-have-cooled-dramatically-since-the-1920s/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/arctic-ice-experts-say-the-arctic-is-past-the-point-of-no-return/

If anyone has any questions about the graphs, or data that contradicts them then I'll be interested to hear it. I have an open mind - I'm just following the Scientific Method and going where the data leads. I hope you do too :)

The simplest explanation for the observed ice cap data, Antarctic ice growth, lack of any hurricanes in the US this August, drop in wildfires in the Continental US, many US States recording below average winter temperatures, etc etc is simply that the predicted "Global Warming" has not continued. In fact, there appears to be a very slight cooling (especially in the Southern Hemisphere). The weather has simply been going up and down as it always does on a year-to-year basis, with no real trend over the hundred year timescale.

Why does it matter? because the current meme of "Global Warming" is out of dat

Arctic sea ice extent is still falling, not increasing. Best to wait until mid-October to be sure it is on the rebound. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Arctic sea ice volume may have turned around already. We won't know until the calculations are released around the end of September. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Arctic sea ice average thickness as fallen below the 2012 thickness at the end of August (same link) and could set a record low sometime in November. I'd say you are skating on thin ice when you are not careful how you put things, particularly when you are making absurd insinuations.

" One of the more notable was for an "ice free Arctic by 2000" and recent prediction that it would be ice free by 2013 (to be fair there are a couple of months yet there)."

Agreed that this was jumping the gun.

But the basic idea is sound:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

This suggests an ice free Arctic (at ice minimum) by about 2020-2030

Normal might be too strong, but arctic sea-ice extent is certainly above the average for the 2000's.

Weather report as of 28 minutes ago (20:00 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 6.7 meters per second (15.0 miles per hour) from West/Southwest in Resolute, Canada. The temperature was -13 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,014 hPa (29.94 inHg). Relative humidity was 71.8%. There were broken clouds at a height of 427 meters (1400 feet) and overcast at a height of 914 meters (3000 feet). The visibility was 2.0 kilometers (1.3 miles). Current weather is Light Snow . Arthropolis

so it's still plenty cold enough. Personally I think Ice loss is more a matter of Sea currents and wind direction than temperature, and the ice is flowing more toward the bottleneck of the Bering Straits than the Greenland Sea. Right now the ENSO index is holding close to neutral so I don't expect anything noteworthy happening this summer, the rate of warming has been zero and the temperature anomaly has stuck in the .3-.10 degree range for 15-20 years. I just don't see anything to get excited about.

What happened to the link? Why didn't it show up when I previewed the comment? That should have been to http://www.uaf.edu/ .

what a load of BULLSHIT

locking the brakes decreases stopping distance? what fucking planet are you on? not locking the tires INCREASES friction. static friction is greater than kinetic friction http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/ben_townsend/staticandkineticfriction.htm

Also, if the car is *moving* and you have strength that even barely surpasses that of a paraplegic newt, you can still steer. ... What the fuck, locking the brakes is better, yeah, that is why you see them locking the brakes all the time when racing.

It's also helps to take this into perspective, look at this graph, you'll see that we keep talking about the summer extent; the winter extent hasn't changed much.

The reason for this is very obvious if you go to this page: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi, and change the date to the 1st of March (when the extent is largest). Basically the hole sea area is covered in ice - and it will be for a lot of years. You can not measure the winter change by measuring ice extent. You need to track this by measuring ice thickness. Most likely we will experience a ice free Noth Pole during summer before seeing any significant change in the ice cover extent during winter.

If you look at the IPCC report (wg1 chapter 2 page 136 although it's already starting to get a bit old), there is still a (minimal) chance that none of it is caused by CO2, because human release of aerosols cause a cooling effect. Of course there are other considerations like methane, etc. Most scientific organizations say things like, "most of the warming we've seen is caused by humans....." Although 'most' is a wiggle word that accurately represents our uncertainty on the matter.

It's also helps to take this into perspective, look at this graph, you'll see that we keep talking about the summer extent; the winter extent hasn't changed much. The past year was right up there with 1990s average. And the annual change is dramatically larger than the change in either the summer extent or the winter extent. Also, it is arguably more important to measure the thickness of the ice, rather than the extent, but a falling summer extent might suggest the thickness is shrinking as well. We are measuring that now, but only for a few years.

In any case you should check out this amazing picture from the article. Can you guess which direction the earth is spinning?

Interesting point. In 2007 recovery started September 25 but did not really get steep until late October. My point was that the decline is still steep now and there may need to be enough deceleration time that the final minimum is pushed into October (six days or more later than the case in 2007). But perhaps there is an impenetrable barrier on September 30 that requires a bounce. We'll know sooner or later though watch out for the wiggles such as the false recovery starting September 17, 2007. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

Why not build things that require big current / power stuff?

Rail gun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP4pL2fZQBo&feature=related

Tesla Coil: http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-build-a-Tesla-Coil/

Jacob's ladder: http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2005.web.dir/kenneth_sweet/

You could totally over-build the stuff so it looks awesome and lasts a few generations!

Also, on a non-electrical note, these: http://www.en.boehm-stirling.com/ are totally awesome and come in kit form.

Coal plants are 35-45% efficient, where your stock car engine is about 20% efficient.

This year doesn't seem too unusual or alarming:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

More info:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

I would amplify some of the comments suggesting a non-engineering solution by saying that, if you have not already done so, you might capitalize on some existing programs already extant in the state. Among these, there are or two LTER Schoolyard programs in Alaska. Schoolyard is the outreach and education component of the National Science Foundation's Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network. The Bonanza Creek LTER and their Schoolyard Programis hosted at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and, although the Arctic LTER is hosted at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA, their Schoolyard Program does have a local component. Each may have ideas and directions you can use.

I would amplify some of the comments suggesting a non-engineering solution by saying that, if you have not already done so, you might capitalize on some existing programs already extant in the state. Among these, there are or two LTER Schoolyard programs in Alaska. Schoolyard is the outreach and education component of the National Science Foundation's Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network. The Bonanza Creek LTER and their Schoolyard Programis hosted at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and, although the Arctic LTER is hosted at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA, their Schoolyard Program does have a local component. Each may have ideas and directions you can use.

This year we are going to see a new record low for arctic sea ice --- surpassing even the dramatic 2007 decline.

No one can say with certainty what 'might' happen...but it can be said
what has already happened with arctic sea ice extent...and you are
wrong. Arctic sea ice extent this year is greater
than it was on the same date in 2007 AND 2008.

Are we talking about the same Artic ice here. It's quite understandable that ice melts at summer. There's anything special about this year.

Meanwhile in Antarctic. At the end of June, Southern Hemisphere mid-winter, the sea ice surrounding Antarctica was more than two standard deviations greater than normal.

Doesn't that mean that someone can copy every page in Wikipedia and setup their own competing website?

In fact, there's even a howto: How to mirror Wikipedia

Because of graphs like this: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png that contradict your very first statement about the arctic ice. When you look at it, you see that there is more ice now than the previous 2 years

A number of problems with your argument:

1. Sea ice extent is not the same as sea ice volume. Extent measures surface area covered, but not the thickness. Survey of the thickness of the arctic sea ice (by both satellite and manually) have shown that the overall ice volume of the arctic is rapidly declining. See here for some data: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

2. Finally, given the amount of noise in the signal and the number of years it takes to make a statistical difference show up, it is impossible to make any determination of current trends using only a few years. Climate trends need to be taken over decades, not a few years. The shorter the time period, the more likely you are just measuring differences in weather and not necessarily climate.

I am not sure where you are getting the 2,500 number, but from what I can tell, it is referencing the work of around 2500, but it was only prepared by a handful of scientists.

There is no scientific consensus at all as to what degree the CO2 levels are affecting the arctic ice coverage. Also, in 2009, it appears to have recovered back to 2005 levels. 2008 winter levels were some of the highest of the decade, although none of the changes are really significant when compared to the differences from summer to winter.

The mountains of research done on this is pretty clear about why
it's happening. But I don't expect facts to get in the way of beliefs
anytime soon. Be that as it may, why is not the important. The
important questions, and the ones the climate scientists spend a lot of
time working out, are how it's going to affect us and what we can do to
prepare for it.

There are no mountains of research that show why any climate change is
happening or even IF climate change is happening. Arctic ice cover has increased
every year since 2007, for example, while the AGW models pushed by the NSIDC and IPCC
don't allow for any such increase. Carbon dioxide is
routinely pushed by politicians as the cause of global warming and yet
it is a simple calculation to show that there is already more
than sufficient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb ALL of the
IR radiation radiating from Earth that is in the wavelength where it
can be absorbed by carbon dioxide... within the first few hundred
meters of the atmosphere. It is even easier to show
that gas-phase H2O in the atmosphere (commonly referred to as humidity)
is present in much higher concentrations in the atmosphere than CO2 and
is a far more potent 'greenhouse' gas than CO2...and yet the planet is
obviously still able to radiate sufficient heat to space in the
non-absorbable IR wavelengths to cool itself. Finally,
supposing for argument's sake that atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration really was: 1) a problem and 2) correctable, why
would it be the 'climate scientist's' job (read IPCC and NSIDC) to tell
us how to prepare for it's impact? They seem even less qualified
for that job than they are for the investigation of global
warming.

http://elbitz.net/home.php is good, but they only open up registering every now and then (I remember I waited like 2 months to get my user). In general, though I just use the same popular torrent sites for everything else I get for books, too and I've gotten 6.28GB that way. Also, appear to have just found a .pdf with a huge list of ebook sites (and one for how to swear in all languages!). Haven't tried any of them, but go for it:
O'Reilly online http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/ | http://sysadmin.oreilly.com/ Computer books and manuals http://www.hoganbooks.com/freebook/webbooks.html | http://www.informit.com/itlibrary/ | http://www.fore.com/support/manuals/home/home.htm | http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/webbuy/freebooks.html The Network Book http://www.cs.columbia.edu/netbook/ Some #bookwarez.efnet.irc links http://www.extrema.net/books/links.shtml Some #bookwarez.efnet.irc fiction http://194.58.154.90:4431/enscifi/ Pimpas online books (Indonesia) http://202.159.16.55/~pimpa2000 | http://202.159.15.46/~om-pimpa/buku Security, privacy and cryptography http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/crypto-security.html | http://www.oberlin.edu/~brchkind/cyphernomicon/ My own misc online reading material http://www.eastcoastfx.com/docs/admin-guides/ | http://www.eastcoastfx.com/~jorn/reading/ Computer books http://solaris.inorg.chem.msu.ru/cs-books/ | http://sweetrude.net/~cab/books/ | http://alaska.mine.nu/books/ | http://poprocks.dyn.ns.ca/dave/books/ | http://58-160.skarland.uaf.edu/books/ | http://202.186.247.194/~ebook/ | http://hooligans.org/reference/ Linux documentation http://www.linuxdoc.org/docs.html FreeBSD documentation http://www.freebsd.org/tutorials/ Sun documentation http://osiris.imw.tu-clausthal.de:8888/ | http://uran.vvsu.ru:8888/ SGI documentation http://newton.unicc.chalmers.se/ebt-bin/nph-dweb/dynaweb;td=2 | http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/cgi-bin/init.cgi IBM Online Redbooks http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/ Digital Unix documentation http://www.unix.digital.com/faqs/publications/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V40D_HTML/V40D_HTML/LIBRARY.HTM Filesystem Hierarchy Standard http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-toc.html | http://www.linuxbase.com/ UNIX stuff http://ww

Why would it surprise you? Ice extent has been growing in Antarctica for quite some time, and the same goes for the Arctic since 2007.

This is not disputed, it's simple fact.

http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Watch out for the hyperbole in popular media that's simply not based on actual observations but "models".

The NASA Earth Observation site has measurements of the ice coverage at the north pole. While their text speaks of massive ice loss and continuing doom, the actual graph they provide of the data shows that while the minimum ice cover is less than the average of a decade ago, there is actually more minimum ice cover than last year, and last year had more cover than the year before. Why do they not mention this at all ? Maybe the point is to mislead?

Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.

If they were to publish the proper figures for 1979 to 2000 instead of just a vague average, we could maybe see whether there is a regular fluctuation, instead of guessing that the decline has been constant.

Ask, and you shall receive. No serious scientist is actually "guessing" that the decline has been constant, and no climate model that I'm aware of makes that prediction. Short term variability is expected, but the data shows a clear downward trend over the last 30 years.

So we can ignore data if it suits your argument ? Sea ice is formed from and floats in the sea (duh). Global warming causes the oceans to warm - true or false ? So more sea ice can not mean a warmer ocean can it ?

I read that article, and wondered why the authors missed the crucial part of the story. Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.

http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html it is amusing the language/reading gap that favors women is just accepted, when under the same viewpoint it should mean that boys are horribly discriminated against when it comes to that aspect of education!! look at the gpas, women outperform men in many areas other than mathematics. are we to conclude that men are being highly discriminated against as well? that is the logical conclusion from such thinking. "Grades: That females receive higher grades in virtually every subject is undisputed. In reviewing the literature on gender differences in cognitive tests, for the flagship journal of the field, American Psychologist, Halpern (1997, p. 1102) points out that "higher grades in school, all or most subjects" is an area of unquestioned female advantage. Another recent, comprehensive review of the research literature on gender differences in school performance comes to the same conclusion: Data from a wide variety of sources and educational settings show that females in all ethnic groups tend to earn higher grades in school than do males, across different ages and eras, and across different subject matter disciplines. Many researchers in past times and today consider this to be such an obvious fact that they treat it as axiomatic....Modern reviews of the subject are unanimous in their finding of higher grades for females (Dwyer & Johnson, 1997, pp. 128-129)." "Class Rank and Honors: Since girls receive higher grades in school, they should also surpass boys in class rank. This is exactly what happens. Examining gender differences in high school class rank and honors in a nationally representative sample from the 1970s, Adelman (1991, p. 3) makes this point, "No matter how one slices the high school class of 1972, women's mean class rank exceeded that of men by a minimum of 10 points." Caucasian women attained, on the average, the highest class rank (67th percentile), while African-American men attained, on the average the lowest class rank (44th percentile). African-American women ranked far higher (56th percentile) than African-American men. The same pattern of female advantage in grades and honors shows up in the 1990s, in a nationally representative longitudinal study of the high school class of 1992 (NELS Second Follow-up, cited in Dwyer & Johnson, 1997, p. 139). In the academic arena, high school girls outdistanced boys in making the honor roll, in getting elected to a class office, and in receiving writing awards and other academic honors. In the academic arena, boys outdistanced women in vocational-technical honors and in awards in science and mathematics competitions. While males are still ahead in gaining mathematics and science honors, females are making strong gains. From 1995-1998, close to 40 percent of the winners of the most prestigious science competition, the Westinghouse Science Talent Search, were female (Science Service, 1998). The Westinghouse Science Talent Search requires high school students to complete a project in science, mathematics, and engineering and submit a report communicating the results. The work goes on over many months, often with the assistance of a parent, teacher, or other researcher. The contest is notable for producing winners who later go on to win a Nobel Prize. Westinghouse finalists from the 1940s through the 1970s were overwhelmingly male. The number of females among the top 40 finalists has increased since the 1980s and is approaching parity (Table 2)." all this hand wringing over women is clearly missing the real problem eh?

Global warming gets you colder winters at the poles because of the increased air circulation. He also claimed that the winters would become _shorter_, and I assume the summers then would also be warmer.

Let us then keep an eye on this sea ice graph. The peaks and valleys should get more extreme.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

How much of the melting, though, is caused by coal and wood soot from India and China?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.html>

black carbon ... recent studies estimating that it is responsible for 18 percent of the planet's warming

But the awareness of black carbon's role in climate change has come so recently that it was not even mentioned as a warming agent in the 2007 summary report by the (IPCC) that pronounced the evidence for global warming to be "unequivocal."

BTW, if 1/5 of the cause of AGW was "discovered" less than 2 years ago, what are scientists going to discover 2 years from now? That it's really 2/5 of the cause? Or something else that's totally unexpected?

While the developed world spends even more money that we don't have on projects with dubious worth?

...back in the day.

Alaska was also the site of several nuclear test blasts, among them the largest one the U.S. ever conducted: Amchitka's Nuclear Legacy.

- Alaska Jack

That explains what's wrong with the Palins! Exposure to Radiation!

...back in the day.

Project Chariot was a program to blast a new harbor near Point Hope, led by none other than Ed Teller.

Alaska was also the site of several nuclear test blasts, among them the largest one the U.S. ever conducted: Amchitka's Nuclear Legacy.

- Alaska Jack

Wow. That's a serious why to twist around the facts. If you look at the plot from your link, you'll see that the minimum sea ice extent is small. This is where the news has been. Anyway, ice volume matters more. Notice my article is also from NSIDC and directly contracts the bent in your article on a site dedicated to spreading misinformation about the science behind climate change.

I strongly doubt you can find an article from NSIDC that agrees with what Watts Up With That? claimed they said, but I don't expect you to want to find anything that might change your views.

this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice

Except that different scientists, using more accurate sensors, find a different result:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Also from TFA:

AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.

This quote (IOW, "we don't use accurate data which conflicts with our worldview") shocked me by it's sheer religious, anti-science nature.

The result has direct connections to NASA-funded studies conducted last year that found perennial, or year-round, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at a rate of nine percent per decade and that in 2002 summer sea ice was at record low levels. Early results indicate this persisted in 2003.

Looking at the new graph it's still pretty obvious that the trend is "downwards", there was about 2 million square kilometers less ice in September 2007 than in September 2003.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

But yeah, the deniers will be all over this.

• A Zoomable User Interface. The project Piccolo http://www.piccolo2d.org/ is really nice.
• A Powerwall http://www.cs.uaf.edu/2007/powerwall/ (A Beowulf cluster with high end video cards)

Both tools combined allow you to easily visualize large data sets and adjust the resolution of your data.

Global warming is real! But temporary. The real question is: "is it anthropogenic?" and "is it permanent?"

We have a very limited view of what weather should be like. Only now are we finding out that Cairo Egypt used to be a very fertile place, with water up to the pyramids. Of course, anthropogenic factors did not cause /that/ warming, but now for some reason, the /current/ warming is somehow our fault? Co2 has been 0.28 of one percent! Now it went up by 0.040 of one percent over two hundred years.

There are dicussions being started about the growing evidence to the anthropogenic contrary. How many outlier events do we have to have before the outliers are no longer outliers?

When is the warming trend over? And melting trend over as well? When are record lows a sign of a change in direction?

It seems there is as much more evidence against global warming continuing as there is for it to continue.

When will we see NASA AIRS co2 distribution factored into the IPCC models? (Right now they assume even atmospheric distribution)

According to the study's website, the extent of the ice coverage is an estimate "calculated by certain algorithm."

It would be premature to suggest this as a panacea without knowing the statistics behind this estimate. Without this, we don't know if 3.8% is even statistically significant? They don't even offer a margin of error.

Even the "Data Download" offers only the bottom line estimate at a given point in time. What is the formula that feeds into that?

According to the study's website, the extent of the ice coverage is an estimate "calculated by certain algorithm."

It would be premature to suggest this as a panacea without knowing the statistics behind this estimate. Without this, we don't know if 3.8% is even statistically significant? They don't even offer a margin of error.

Even the "Data Download" offers only the bottom line estimate at a given point in time. What is the formula that feeds into that?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

(No misinformation, feel free to correct the BBC article if you want)

Your link does not support your statement (thickness, no data for 2008). Please try again. I do read your reply as you acknowledging your first error though (extent).

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

a better link.

My understanding of slashdot culture says red meat and bar fights are nigh on impossible to inspire here anyway.

Somehow a group of rowdy sysadmins taking over the local rusty nail frightens me in a way only that sexy Bill Gates picture ever has.