Slashdot Mirror


Rubber Duckies For Global Warming Research

The Wall Street Journal has a look at global warming research using rubber duckies. The toys have been employed in tracking ocean currents since 1992; but recently NASA robotics expert Alberto Behar released 90 yellow rubber ducks into the melt water flowing down a chasm in a Greenland glacier. "Each duck was imprinted with an email address and, in three languages, the offer of a reward. If all goes well, Dr. Behar hopes that one day they will emerge 30 miles or so away at the glacier's edge in the open water of Disko Bay near Ilulissat, bobbing brightly amid the icebergs north of the Arctic Circle, each one a significant clue to just how warming temperatures may speed the glacier's slide to the sea."

167 comments

  1. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a dupe.

    1. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this modded "flamebait"?
      TFS is almost word for word the same as the one from Sept. the only difference is the link to wsj.com
      Parent was smart to post AC (as am I) Now let me login and copy/paste a few +5's from the old one(-;

    2. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this modded "flamebait"? TFS is almost word for word the same as the one from Sept. the only difference is the link to wsj.com Parent was smart to post AC (as am I) Now let me login and copy/paste a few +5's from the old one(-;

      GP here. It just looks like someone went through the thread burning modpoints on low-rated posts. There are at least three "-1 flamebaits" on low rated but legitimate comments. It happens.
      Also, I posted AC since I figured I wasn't doing anything particularly useful to the discussion. Anyone can post a link to a dupe. No reason to get/burn karma for it.

    3. Re:Dupe by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea I posted on the other one that if they'd just throw more ducks and plastic and crap in there'd be no evaporation and no glowbull worming.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    4. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a rubber ducky.

      April Ryan, you have *got* to get over yourself.

    5. Re:Dupe by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      It's 5 years old. At least.

      I'll post under my real name, cause it's easy to prove.

      I for one bow to my half-decade rubber duck overlords.

    6. Re:Dupe by nmg196 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the dupe is intentional. They're actually going to post this story another 88 times and see if any of the other versions end up being read by a different demographic.

    7. Re:Dupe by stoofa · · Score: 1

      The accidental emptying of a container of ducks into the sea was 1992, as you reference above. But the deliberate release of plastic ducks around the world has also been done back in 2001 here: I Found A Duck.

    8. Re:Dupe by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      I think my friend Qwak was the one who sent me that link in the first place. Thanks, I'd forgotten ifoundaduck.com.

  2. Pollution Anyone? by tempestdata · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What are the chances that these rubber duckies end up inside the tummy of some sea creature? In which case, that is just more pollution floating around in our oceans.

    --
    - Tempestdata
    1. Re:Pollution Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does something have to end up inside the tummy of some sea creature to be pollution? How can it be "just" more pollution if it can help global warming research?

    2. Re:Pollution Anyone? by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh come off it! The amount of possible environmental damage of such a small release is easily offset by the potential gain in knowledge. I really hope that my humor detector is broken or something because if you are serious this kind of nonsense gives environmentalism a bad name.

    3. Re:Pollution Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it's only going to effect the one's that come up for air.
      The ones that forgot to evolve.

    4. Re:Pollution Anyone? by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Now where did they put the email address again?

    5. Re:Pollution Anyone? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Totally. Hell, we already did this tracking a couple of years ago when a container holding running shoes fell off a boat, and then runners started washing up on shore all over the world.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Pollution Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, running a car to test emissions just extends the amount of time the engine is on!
      of course I'm being sarcastic. Both what I said and what are you said are so fringe nutjob it's lunacy.

    7. Re:Pollution Anyone? by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now lets all calm down, nobody here needs to gain any knowledge.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    8. Re:Pollution Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't you know scientists _caused_ global warming just so they could study it? Do not trust scientists, encourage your children to become involved with NASCAR or pro wrestling... something more noble.

    9. Re:Pollution Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know who else we could potentially gain knowledge?

      You should gain some knowledge on grammar and then eat a dick.

      Anyone who tells someone else they need a stronger handle on English because of a misplaced W on a typed comment should be marveled at, and then humanely destroyed.

    10. Re:Pollution Anyone? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      What are the chances that these rubber duckies end up inside the tummy of some sea creature? In which case, that is just more pollution floating around in our oceans.

      But floating oil slicks don't provide quite as much information as these rubber duckies. They're also less funny.

    11. Re:Pollution Anyone? by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      The ducks were not released on sea on purpose. It was an accident and scientists took the opportunity. Its explained on the first paragraph of this link. Oh, BTW. This is not news by any means! The link above is from 2003...

      The ducks - along with other bathtub toys like beavers, turtles and frogs - fell overboard from a container ship en route from China to Seattle during a storm in 1992.

      --
      -- dnl
    12. Re:Pollution Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guys are both looking to gain a new boyfriend. So much need for dicks....

    13. Re:Pollution Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You too should date

  3. Irony. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    Raise your hand if the prospect of an environmentalist dumping plastic into the ocean for research purposes is deeply amusing.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes a bit more sense then going 'Round The World With The Rubber Duck.

    2. Re:Irony. by narcberry · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for one of them to propose creating the biggest CO2 emitting burner on earth to prove global warming.

      In the meantime, yeah I'm amused.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    3. Re:Irony. by philspear · · Score: 1

      You can't see it, but I'm kind of half raising my hand, because they're "RUBBER duckies" but I'm not sure if they're actually made out of plastic these days. Also I wouldn't say DEEPLY amused. So count that as a 1/4 hand raise.

    4. Re:Irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raise your hand if the prospect of someone understanding irony not knowing the difference between an environmentalist and an environmental scientist is slightly depressing.

    5. Re:Irony. by empaler · · Score: 1

      You're missing the even bigger point:
      What's the reward?
      Seriously, I have a huge family in the Disko Bay, and many of them have boats. Finally the greenies have an option to get rich quick!

  4. Rubber duckie, you're the one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rubber duckie, you're so fun.

    1. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You make bathtime lots of fun. Rubber ducky I'm awfully fond of you. Too bad I must now go litter our oceans with your cute little yellow non-biodegradable petroleum product carcasses.

    2. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubber ducky, joy of joys.. when I squeeze you, you make noise!

      Rubber Ducky my very best friend is you...
      1, 2, 3, 4!

      Everyday when I, make my way to the TUBBBYYYY, I find a, little fella, who's cute and yellow and chubby, rubber dubber ducky

    3. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by Zymergy · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      I thought rubber came from trees? ;)

    5. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      I only have a shower, you insensitive clod !

    6. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      I'm right there with you.. how will they feel when the discover global warming is caused by littering the oceans with millions of rubber ducks? Oh, and to grand-son: they call them rubber, but they are mostly artificial petrol-chemical duckies nowadays... not sure that is better though.

      --
      Get a web developer
    7. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by phud · · Score: 1

      Put down the duckie, leave that duckie alone.

    8. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You make bathtime lots of fun. Rubber ducky I'm awfully fond of you. Too bad I must now go litter our oceans with your cute little yellow non-biodegradable petroleum product carcasses.

      Ahh, but biodegradable plastic releases CO2, while non-degrading doesn't.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  5. Shortly afterwards by popmaker · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dr. Behar happily illustrated the idea in his baththub, using a bar of soap along with one of the ducks in question.

  6. Wotsit made of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't 'rubber' duckies actually made of plastic these days. Will environment advocates be upset? What if a whale, dolphin, seal etc eats one and it gets stuck in its digestive system.

    1. Re:Wotsit made of by popmaker · · Score: 1

      They're only releasing about 90 of them each time, so I don't think any environmentalist would be bothered.

    2. Re:Wotsit made of by XSpud · · Score: 1

      I hear they considered the environmentally friendly Pooh Stick alternative but felt that was too childish.

  7. disko bay dux by freeasinrealale · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    disko ducks. so 70's. Quack.

    --
    A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
  8. What if by junkwerks · · Score: 0

    they take 100 years to show up? Are we still experiencing a warming trend?

    1. Re:What if by narcberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they show up soon -> Proof of Global Warming.
      If they show up in 100 years -> Proof of Climate Change.

      Either way, we need to stop whatever we're about to do.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    2. Re:What if by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If they show up soon -> Proof that the glacier is melting quickly
      If they show up in a long time -> Proof that the glacier is melting slowly

      Yeah yeah, we get it, Global Warming is just a worldwide conspiracy to destroy the US economy...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  9. Great idea, it's happened before by accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure this is where he got the idea.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464768/Thousands-rubber-ducks-land-British-shores-15-year-journey.html

    1. Re:Great idea, it's happened before by accident by popmaker · · Score: 3, Informative
      That's right. From the article:

      Indeed, it was a shipment of such bath tub toys washed overboard in the Pacific during a 1992 storm that accidentally launched this unusual field.

  10. What do they expect to prove with this? by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what I could tell when I RTFA, they already suspect that the melt water from the glacier reaches the ocean and I doubt that anybody would have any reason to dispute this. If and when somebody reports finding one, they'll have proved this. TFA talks about learning about conditions under the glacier, but makes no mention of how. There are no instruments inside the duckies or any way to record what they go through, so how can the scientists learn anything from them, other than the (as I pointed out above) obvious fact that the melt water reaches the sea?

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How long it takes is rather important.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by ductonius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're not only wondering where the water goes, but how long it takes to get there and where it goes after that.

      If they all come out at once then we know the routes they all took about the same route, or the routes they took were all more or less direct. If they emerge over years or even decades then we know some are becoming trapped, only to be released later. What if a duck washes up in India, twelve years after it was released in Greenland?

      They're interested in knowing *everything* that could happen to these ducks after they're released. Furthermore, data from this experiment could confirm or falsify other oceanographic theories, all for $200 worth of rubber ducks.

    3. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Thanks; I'd not thought of that. I'd imagine that how long it took to find one near the exit would be important, because it would show how fast the current was. But what if none of them turn up for several years, hundreds if not thousands of miles away? Could they still learn something from that? (Not a challenge; I'm trying to find out just how much they can get out of this.)

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the experiment shouldn't be done, I was just looking for more information about what they can expect to learn. Thank you.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In that case, they probably wouldn't learn much about glacier melt, but they could learn something about the ocean currents in the region.

    6. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They might also learn that rubber duckies that have been ripped to shreds under the increadible pressure of a freaking glacier simply dont float, but make a stylish home for deep-sea hermit crabs.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by narcberry · · Score: 1

      Hmm, sounds like a job for the alternate scientific method at Mythbusters.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    8. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      Its a great way to get a grant..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    9. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Should also be useful to climatologists, since the ocean currents and their temperature gradients have a profound impact on climate, notably precipitation (frex, El Niño/La Niña).

      This isn't the first time such an experiment has been done by any means, but AFAIK it's the first time on this scale. I do find it interesting that rubber ducks seem to have a much better survival rate than more-expensive gadgets (apparently they are both durable and so obviously inedible or tasteless that random critters don't try to lunch or gnaw on them).

      Also occurs to me that small recording and GPS-type devices could be inserted without significantly changing the duckies' survival characteristics. Could be a great way to cheaply gather very accurate data on the currents' speed and temperature.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    10. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by sorak · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should put GPS systems on the ducks and make a deal with Google Maps. Then we could all go to tracktheduckie.com (not sure if it's a real domain, probably a porn site if it is), and get regular updates on their locations, which one is winning, etc. Who knows, place a banner ad or two on the site, get slashdotted, they could actually make money off of it.

    11. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      ANd when you find one you can threaten it with "Shall I send you back to where you were? Unemployed? In GREENLAND?"

      That should male them cough up all the details of their trip.

  11. Yes, but what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is all fun and games until the Italians get a hold of the ducks and hold them for ransom. Then our world will have no defense against global warming. What will these "scientists" be saying when the Italians control our weather with their nefarious ices?????

    1. Re:Yes, but what if by fractoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      See, if I found one of these I don't think I could restrain myself from doing one of either (a) sending the duckie to Switzerland and claiming it had washed up at the beach, or (b) giving it to my kids and telling them to keep it until THEY get old at which time they should report it found.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:Yes, but what if by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Your sig works out great for this post.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Yes, but what if by narcberry · · Score: 1

      "Um, yeah hi, I want to collect the reward for finding your duckie...
      "oh, well I found it in the stomach of this endangered peregrine falcon...
      "hello?"

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
  12. Dupe by Overkill+Nbuta · · Score: 0, Redundant
  13. Spam begets research begets spam by Valacosa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Each duck was imprinted with an email address and, in three languages, the offer of a reward.

    "This duck was lost by a Nigerian prince. Email this address to claim your reward."

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    1. Re:Spam begets research begets spam by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "This duck was lost by a Nigerian prince. Email this address to claim your reward."

      Ha ha! Like anyone would believe that a Nigerian prince could have accidentally lost a rubber duck in Greenland (AND that he could have been so long-headed that he had written a message in advance) and reply...oh, wait a minute...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  14. The Reward...? by Zathain+Sicarius · · Score: 1

    "Each duck was imprinted with an email address and, in three languages, the offer of a reward."
    Congratulations! You found one of our rubber ducks! Now send us an email and we'll let you keep it!

    I do wonder what they are offering though...

  15. Suggested Sesame Street Tags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cute and yellow and chubby
    rub-a-dub-a-dubby
    woh woh, bee doh
    doo doo, be doo

  16. Rubber Duckie - You're the One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. GPS tracker anyone? by Blazeheart · · Score: 1

    Okay, yeah, sure. Rubber duckies floating in the middle of the ocean and hoping someone will find it is always a fun idea. I never really thought it should be practiced however. As much as I do love the rubber duckies wouldn't it be a better idea just to use a GPS tracker instead?

    Yes, a GPS. While sending 90 GPS systems might be a little expensive, you wouldn't send off 90 of them. How many of the 90 duckies would they expect to get back? 5, maybe.

    It would be way more efficient for the scientist to throw some GPSs into the ocean than some ducks. Now they could see where they would end up and where they went to get to where they ended up. Much better way to track ocean currents right?

    Well the probable truth is that this is just a fun way that they can waste their time, still get paid, and not actually do any research... Go our environmentalists!

    1. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by Ironsides · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Greenland Glaciers can be over a mile thick in places. I doubt GPS signals can penetrate 10 meters of ice. Sorry, but there really is no way to track them. Even supplying a power source for that long in that small of a package would be dificult.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article says he already tried a GPS tracker, and it failed to report in. I suppose he figured that rather than continuing to toss in expensive devices, he'd try a larger number of cheaper objects. If nobody finds them, at least it wasn't a big waste of money.

      By the way, there are already robot floats in the ocean which can be tracked to show ocean currents (ARGO). Most of them don't use GPS, though, but Doppler radio tracking (here).

    3. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few problems with that though.

      First of all, GPS devices aren't cheap, and I'm guessing that since we don't know where the device will emerge, we don't know WHEN it will as well. Secondly, getting a GPS to fit in a small package with enough power to keep them going for a significant period of time is not only expensive, but technically challenging. And thirdly, and possibly most importantly, the thickness of the ice would make such a GPS device pretty much useless until it emerged from the other end in who knows how much later, coming back to the power requirements problem. That is, the device can receive GPS signals to know where it is, but how will it transmit this data back home? Considering the battery life of my iPhone 3G (with GPS), and the unlikeliness that there is a cell tower north of the arctic circle, power requirements become an even bigger headache.

      There's a reason that a lot of ocean current monitoring buoys don't use GPS, and power is one of them. (Size is not a consideration for those however, thus the same techniques being impractical for this kind of a glacier dive.) The rubber duckies provide a very economical way to "just try it".

    4. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Nobody's talking about tracking anything under the ice. You can't track rubber ducks under the ice either. It's when they're on the open sea that people want to track them. (Well, they'd like to be able to track things under the glacier, but they can't. They have to wait for whatever it is to emerge in the ocean.)

    5. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      They don't need to know where it is if it's still ice-locked. However, if they included a solar panel and a supercapacitor that could supply power to a little GPS tracker when the rubber ducky is bobbing about on the surface of the ocean, that could possibly supply some very useful data.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    6. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by narcberry · · Score: 3, Funny

      Embed a hit single from Mariah Carrey in each one. Let the RIAA find them.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    7. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      you could tag their legal team and see where they go... brilliant!

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  18. This is showmanship, not science by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The melt waters flowing under the glacier and through small streams will flow through gravels and other obstructions that the rubber duckies can't flow through. Thus, any data coming back will have a huge caveat hanging over it and will be rather useless from a scientific point of view. Radioactive tracers etc can give far better information.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:This is showmanship, not science by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      The melt waters flowing under the glacier and through small streams will flow through gravels and other obstructions that the rubber duckies can't flow through. Thus, any data coming back will have a huge caveat hanging over it and will be rather useless from a scientific point of view.

      Huh? If data comes back, it's because the ducks made it through the obstructions, which is scientifically interesting; people may see where the ducks emerge into the ocean, which is scientifically interesting; and if anyone finds the ducks later, they will indicate where the ocean currents from the glacier goes, which is scientifically interesting.

      Radioactive tracers etc can give far better information.

      I don't know about radioactive tracers, but the article says that another scientist tried dye and it didn't work — they couldn't find any trace of it. I don't know if tracers will be detected unless you know roughly where to look, but I could be wrong. The idea of the ducks is that you don't have to know where they go, you wait for people to find them and tell you. And by the time it reaches shore, which is where people are supposed to find these ducks, I suspect even a radioactive tracer will be too dilute to measure.

    2. Re:This is showmanship, not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with rubber ducks is that they're highly buoyant. So a serious obstruction for a flock of ducks inside a glacier would include any upturn in the channel (say, to go over a rock protrusion). From what we know of cave topology, underwater lakes (whether they have air on top or not) are frequent - cavers don't get to treat the experience like a waterslide, they have to watch their heads.

      For a similar manner of getting stuck, imagine using one to see whether a highland stream is reaching the ocean. With dye or radioactive tracers, you're guaranteed that they will follow the flow of water. 100% of your floating rubber ducks, meanwhile, will get caught for good behind the dam halfway down which has an underwater outflow.

      A gadget could be engineered which works better than rubber ducks, but it's not something you can pick up at the dollar store.

  19. Saving the world by davidfromoz · · Score: 1

    Without dismissing the value of research, I'd say we already know what we can do today with today's available tools to reduce our impact on the warming of the planet.

    Stories like this make us feel better that we are doing more to combat global warming. But actually, if we rode our bike to work, bought less stuff and used things that required less power then we'd be making a positive difference.

    Or we could wait for researchers and government to come up with a silver bullet. Human interest, feel good articles like this don't make me think this is imminent.

    I know opinions like this aren't popular on Slashdot where its more important to find a way to justify upgrading the next gadget. But really, if its no the intelligent, wealthy population of the planet who will lead us to a solution by example, exactly who is it?

    cheers,
    david

    1. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      if we rode our bike to work

      What the hell do you think? Muscle energy isn't free energy, it comes from food, and food is anything but green energy. Funny you should talk about "making us feel better", because it's exactly what the type of stuff does, with disputable benefits.

      bought less stuff

      So your idea of saving the world is downscaling the economy and living like Cubans?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Saving the world by davidfromoz · · Score: 1

      What the hell do you think? Muscle energy isn't free energy, it comes from food, and food is anything but green energy.

      Are you seriously suggesting that riding a bike to work and driving your car to work have a similar impact on global warming? Or are you just suggesting that leaving the solution to our duck lobbing scientist friends is preferable to doing something yourself?

      Driving your car to work does release carbon into the environment that was not there last year. Riding your bike does not. The reduction of carbon in the environment is behind the discussion of carbon capture.

      So your idea of saving the world is downscaling the economy and living like Cubans?

      No, I do however suggest that our living environment is more important than our economy. If its necessary for me to make some changes to my life in order to reduce global warming then thats OK with me. People repeatedly accept changes to their life to improve the economy.

      Your hostility to a proposal to actually make some personal changes is exactly the attitude that I sought to highlight in my previous post. In my post I meant to say that people could take action to help with the situation or they could wait for the scientists and government to solve the problem.

    3. Re:Saving the world by Ambitwistor · · Score: 0

      What the hell do you think? Muscle energy isn't free energy, it comes from food, and food is anything but green energy.

      Unless you're proposing that riding a bike to work will cause people to consume vastly more food than they otherwise would, that's a moot point: switching from driving to cycling will eliminate greenhouse gases from vehicles, but won't substantially increase greenhouse gases from agriculture.

      So your idea of saving the world is downscaling the economy and living like Cubans?

      Hyperbole much?

    4. Re:Saving the world by arkane1234 · · Score: 0

      What the hell do you think? Muscle energy isn't free energy, it comes from food, and food is anything but green energy. Funny you should talk about "making us feel better", because it's exactly what the type of stuff does, with disputable benefits.

      Buddy, everything takes energy. It's all about energy efficiency and environmental friendliness.

      A human riding their bike to work produces significantly lower amounts of produced environmental pollutants.

      Though riding to work needs to be very well planned and preparation both before and after needs to be set up. It's not quite as simple as starting a Hummer and parking it to walk into work. At least 20 miles distance-wise in less than 1.5 hours.

      Living like Cubans is not necessarily a great thing to describe a scenario like this... considering that's an embargoed country that doesn't have much money running through it. Changing your spending is not unAmerican, in spite of what anyone else has said.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    5. Re:Saving the world by maxume · · Score: 1

      Most food comes from farms that transform natural gas (fertilizer) and diesel (tractors) into calories. I guess some agriculture might be carbon-neutral, but a great deal of it simply isn't.

      Going further, western society would not function without transportation fuels, and 10% of people opting out isn't going to do much to change the final outcome.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It will make people eat more, you could expect it to make them eat just enough to make up for the energy spent. The point being, that food is everything but green. There's lots of trucking/tractoring involve in the making and transportation of everything you eat, your food itself produces polluting crap (i.e. how pig shit pollutes underground water), and so on. Unless they're all trying to become skinny, people are going to eat more if they spend more. i'm just knocking on the myth of green/free human energy, which is complete hippie bullshit, and a fallacy comparable to the broken window fallacy.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    7. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      A human riding their bike to work produces significantly lower amounts of produced environmental pollutants.

      Citation needed. How do you know that? Do you have any idea how much pollution goes in average into each ounce of food you eat? No? So? Where are you pulling your facts from?

      I didn't say become Cuba, I said live like Cubans, that is with like $7 a day. The economy depends on spending, people spending. Just imagine everybody is buying twice less stuff at your local Walmart, and that for the sake of simplification Walmart is where everyone in your area buys stuff. Your Walmart makes twice less money, needs a whole lot less employees/becomes smaller, buys twice less stuff from its providers which themselves downsize and lay people off, and before you know it your local unemployment is soaring. So how's spending less a good thing, do tell me? More like you didn't think about it because when you think on a nation-wide scale you just fail to see the hidden consequences.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    8. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Driving your car to work does release carbon into the environment that was not there last year. Riding your bike does not.

      That's because you're an idiot. You only see what's obvious, i.e. "look, there's no nasty gases coming out of my bike" ADUH OH YOU THINK?? What you don't see is the pollution that goes into the making of your food, that you need to make that bike move forth, which you'll eat more of unless you hate your silhouette. The tractors and trucks used in the making of your food ate gas too, lots of it, and it's not the only thing. For more elaboration on this see the other comments I posted as a reply to the other replies to the GP post.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    9. Re:Saving the world by davidfromoz · · Score: 1

      I think its hard to infer that I'm an idiot for simple stating an opinion counter to yours.

      I don't know why you suggest riding a bicycle is more environmentally expensive than driving a car. Lets play with the numbers shall we?

      A bunch of banana's costs about $2 where I live. Lets assume that the component cost of bananas in terms of fuel is close to 100%. That would mean that to produce those bananas less than $2 of fuel was been spent. Probably much less, but lets keep the number at $2.

      Lets assume you drive a fuel efficient vehicle. I'll give you 40 mpg. Lets say that your round trip drive to work is 20 miles. Lets price petrol about $2 a gallon.

      Lets also a assume that I eat an extra 2 bananas over my friends who drive to work. I believe it to be less than that. Lets say there are 6 bananas in a bunch. So your driving to work costs:
      20 miles / 40 mpg = 1/2 a gallon a day. (plus your car maintenance expenses)

      My costs of riding to work:
      $2 a bunch * 1/3 of a bunch a day / $2 a gallon = 1/3 of a gallon a day. (plus the cost of maintaining my bicycle.

      Now I would contend that you might well drive a more expensive vehicle than that, I eat less than 2 bananas a day to drive my bicycle, the environmental cost of producing a banana is less than 100% of its total cost, there are more than 6 bananas in a bunch of bananas where I live and that the mileage related costs of maintaining a car vs. a bicycle are relevant. I admit I do own a car so I can't claim all the production costs of a car as an advantage. Also I admit that it is possible that the environmental cost of making a banana _could_ be more than 100% of its cost in fuel, but I don't think so. I'm not sure about the cost of fuel, but I think if that is higher (as it is in banana producing nations like Brazil and India) that works to strengthen bicycles advantage too since it would mean using less fuel to make the banana at that price.

      But anyway, bicycles are cheaper. Probably much, much cheaper, but even giving you _every_ benefit of the doubt bicycles win.

      cheers,
      david

      PS. Most upsetting of all is you force me to sound like a rabid greeny just to argue a ridiculous contention with you. I'm not, I'm just a person who would like to personally do something about a problem that I judge to be real. On the other hand thank you for forcing me to do the exercise, I thought it might turn out to be many orders of magnitude better, but now I think I can just say riding a bicycle is much better.

    10. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      2 bananas to fuel a trip to work? Damn, can't wait until they invent Mr. Fusion, I had no idea how much power was contained in a single banana. Hey, nice comparing bicycles to cars, how about you compare what's more comparable, like bicycles and scooters? Anyways, you pretty much proved my point, your stack of assumptions are imprecise enough so that your estimates could be easily tipped to make cars seem more efficient.

      Ha, the things you can make people do just by calling them idiots. *high fives self*

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    11. Re:Saving the world by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [laughing] I had similar thoughts.... and muscle energy isn't even particularly efficient. I wonder how many Kcal it takes for a bicyclist to move, say, a ton of goods for a mile, vs. how many Kcal it takes for a lorry to move the same ton of goods for a mile? remember, the cyclist will have to make many trips, while the lorry makes one. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    12. Re:Saving the world by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Using dollars is not a good metric. Food production is heavily subsidized; the price you pay for food at the grocery store in no way represents its actual costs to produce. (And it gets even worse when you try to take into account the externalities of food production that are allowed to be placed on the public without recompense -- the runoff from farms into water supplies and the Gulf, for one example.)

      A better way is to look at energy and calories. The exact values depend on the food, your location, and other factors, but it's not atypical for 1 calorie of food energy to use over 100 calories of petroleum energy in its creation, transportation, packaging, and retail sale. If you buy nothing but raw foods at farmers' markets, the number will of course be lower, but even something as innocent as iceberg lettuce can have a huge energy debt. Michael Pollan does an analysis in one of his books, and if you are on the East Coast, eating lettuce from California, it's something like 4500 cal of petroleum for the measly 80 cal of human-consumable energy in the lettuce. It's much worse for heavily-processed foods.

      I am a big proponent of bicycling, but it's not necessarily as obvious a win on carbon-emission grounds as it might appear. There are lots of other good reasons to bike, though. (To name a few, it decreases urban air pollution, which leads to health problems that consume resources, same also with obesity-related issues, if widely adopted it would make the roads safer, etc.)

      I think of it as a "healthy / pleasant lifestyle" choice, rather than an "environmental" choice. You cannot claim to be much of an environmentalist while leading a resource-intensive, Western lifestyle. It simply cannot be done. Even the most "environmentally conscious," bike-riding, CFL-using, Prius-owning, self-righteous neo-hippies are contributing massively to the problem, practically just by getting up in the morning. You cannot eat, drink, shit, or die in America and not be contributing to the problem in some way. (You can't really even kill yourself without incurring a debt, since the way we deal with dead bodies is, in itself, not exactly environmentally sound. Although that's probably the most un-hypocritical approach.)

      The truth is that individual choices matter very little in the grand scheme. If you drive an efficient vehicle, or ride a bike, great -- that's slightly less demand for gasoline, slightly lower prices, and slightly more gas for someone else to put in their Hummer (or someone in India to fuel their shiny new Tata). It's still getting pumped out of the ground as fast as we can find it either way. Our civilization is going to hurtle down the road it's going down, until it runs into something Really Bad -- maybe global warming, maybe Peak Oil, maybe something else -- and either engineers a clever way around it, or collapses in an orgy of suffering and death like nothing history has ever recorded. Whether or not you rode a bike to work won't change the outcome in the slightest.

      It might make you feel a lot better, though, in the meantime. That's why I do it, and why I'd tell anyone they should as well.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    13. Re:Saving the world by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      and muscle energy isn't even particularly efficient.

      A bike is the most efficient mode of transport per kilos moved unless you travel over 3000 miles with a plane or so. There is a comparison of this somewhere but you'll have to find it yourself. The design of a bike is already very efficient - even better when it's recumbent.

    14. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Why would you have to travel over 3,000 miles in airplane for it to become efficient? Wouldn't it be as efficient if you only travelled 2,000 miles?

      Also, citation needed.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    15. Re:Saving the world by davidfromoz · · Score: 1

      The reason I didn't compare scooters is because thats not what most people take to work. But I might have done well to recommend people consider scooters instead of or along with bicycles.

      Its rather interesting that the numbers for bicycles and cars are closer than I had though (except my banana number which is way off). This guy suggests, with numbers to support for USA conditions, that walking and driving are not too far separated for same distance trips.

      And that bicycling is about twice as efficient as single passenger car trips in fuel efficient cars.

      So riding to work is still a good thing, especially if it doubles as part of your exercise habit. But is nowhere near as good idea as riding somewhere in your recreational time, where time and not distance might be more of a factor. And sharing a car might be more efficient that riding a bike.

      Honestly speaking, I still have a slightly hard time believing it. But I don't have a better story. The whole thing does bear a bit more investigation.

      cheers,
      david

    16. Re:Saving the world by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      It will make people eat more, you could expect it to make them eat just enough to make up for the energy spent.

      Give me a break. I could bike to work on the breakfast I eat now, as could I suspect most people; at best, I'd have to eat a small amount more. You'd have to increase your food consumption for that to matter at all, and the resulting marginal increase in food-related emissions still isn't going to match the total amount of emissions from driving. There are legitimate reasons for people not to bike to work, but "I'm not eating enough to do it" isn't really one of them.

      The point being, that food is everything but green.

      True, but as I said, irrelevant.

      Unless they're all trying to become skinny, people are going to eat more if they spend more.

      What the hell are you talking about? Buying more stuff doesn't cause me to eat more, unless I'm buying more food, for which I need to have a reason.

      i'm just knocking on the myth of green/free human energy,

      You're wrong. You're so obsessed with "hippies" that you can't rationally admit that biking to work produces fewer CO2 emissions than driving. There are plenty of myths out there about green energy (such that eating locally cuts down on CO2 emissions), but this isn't one of them.

    17. Re:Saving the world by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1


      Our civilization is going to hurtle down the road it's going down, until it runs into something Really Bad -- maybe global warming, maybe Peak Oil, maybe something else -- and either engineers a clever way around it, or collapses in an orgy of suffering and death like nothing history has ever recorded.

      Given how much money is at stake in finding a solution, my money is on engineering a clever way around it. Like more fission power plants to be later replaced by fusion or solar and efficient electric cars, problem solved. And as bad as America's pollution may be now, it is vastly better than it was 20,40,60 years ago. We are making steady progress and as long as we continue researching better solutions I'm far more worried about global social problems than environmental ones. A half million dead in Rwanda while the world does nothing offends me far more than any neo-hippie driving a hummer.

    18. Re:Saving the world by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      fuel expenditure is not constant, I think takeoff requires a significant energy investment. By increasing the distance traveled, you divide that investment across a greater distance, increasing efficiency.

    19. Re:Saving the world by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Why does anybody assume that more physical effort means more food required ? Given that a large proportion of people are medically obese, I would argue that food consumption would not rise at all. In fact, eating better usually means you eat less anyway. I'm not talking about antarctic walking expeditions where high calorie intake is essential, just riding a bike. Most effort is expended getting it moving initially, once you're rolling it is quite easy (we have things called gears these days). If these lard arses were to cycle instead of using the car, tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuels would not enter the atmosphere. That is a net fall in CO2 emission. Add to that the costs involved with all other aspects of driving, and other areas could benefit from that greater efficiency too.
      Maybe that alone won't make a difference to the future condition of the planet, but combined with all the other measures that can be taken, it certainly will.

      I'm not entirely sure my calculations are correct, but the stoichiometric (ideal air/fuel) mixture for an ICE is roughly 14.7:1
      So for every gallon of fuel, your car is using up just under 3 gallons* of free oxygen and spitting out toxic gases in return. A highly tuned ICE will use roughly 1.67 cubic feet of air per minute for every unit of horsepower that it produces. If you have a 200hp engine, it is sucking in 334 cubic feet of air per minute (at full throttle - the larger the car, the more power needed to keep it moving without using full throttle). That's just a pollution making machine. Take a million cars on the road at once, and that's a lot of air we are stuffing through (and stripping of useful O2) just to travel in ease and comfort. Take the figure to be 20 million and you are sucking in 6.75 billion cubic feet of air PER MINUTE. (That's equivalent to 104 New York Giants stadiums per minute) Even 20 million vehicles is an under estimate of simultaneous traffic worldwide. That is not sustainable when we are constantly reducing the amount of oxygen producing life available. I would rather breathe than drive. Yeah you can demonstrate anything with statistics, but those are some large figures for just one type of machine.

      * I used a figure of 20% for the oxygen ratio in the atmosphere.

    20. Re:Saving the world by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      But really, if its no the intelligent, wealthy population of the planet [...]

      Wealthy, sure, but intelligent? Don't get ahead of yourself.

    21. Re:Saving the world by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Efficient in terms of minimal weight from point A to point B. Not so efficient if you need to move significantly more than your own mass, or under less than ideal conditions, or in time compared to distance. (Having biked in extreme wind, rain, and snow conditions, and having hauled heavy loads with a bike, I can attest to that.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    22. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.

      What the hell are you talking about? Buying more stuff doesn't cause me to eat more, unless I'm buying more food, for which I need to have a reason.

      I'm talking about spending body energy. There's a context to what I'm talking about, you twit.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    23. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      The reason I didn't compare scooters is because thats not what most people take to work

      So, they don't take bikes either. If people ponder taking bikes, maybe they could also pondering scooters, as you said.

      Indeed, yes, it's unfortunate that more research hasn't been done on that, because it's interesting and as you see, it's not safe to assume that bikes are "clean", which is unfortunately what we do.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    24. Re:Saving the world by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.

      I didn't say you could bike to work on an empty stomach, you twit. I said that most people already eat enough for breakfast that they could bike to work without eating significantly more.

      I'm talking about spending body energy.

      I still have no idea what you're talking about. What does buying more stuff have to do with anything? Are you talking about buying more food? If you said the opposite, that people will buy more food if they eat more, you might make some small amount of sense. But what's the point of saying that people will eat more if they buy more?

    25. Re:Saving the world by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.

      And by the way, I didn't claim that there weren't any downsides to biking to work. In fact, I said the opposite, that there are drawbacks; as you say, time is one example. I just said that consuming more food leading to increased CO2 emissions is not really one of them.

    26. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you could bike to work on an empty stomach, you twit

      Duh, I know, get subtle, I was stretching your claim to show that while it's equally true, it doesn't mean that biking doesn't require food, while your claim could have been interpreted (although you surely didn't mean this way) to say that a breakfast was enough to fuel the trip. I used to bike to school with an empty stomach by the way.

      Good Lord, you really don't get it. I never talked about buying more stuff, I talked about "spending more", by which I clarified as meaning "spending body energy". I don't think I can make it any clearer than I already did in the previous post. At last I meet someone with worse reading comprehension skills than myself, hurray!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  20. NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's publish the rubber duckies for Global Warming Research and ignore Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA headed by James Hansen which published falsified data. James Hansen is a global warming alarmist.

    A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

    This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

    So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

    This is simply another proof that the mainstream media is no longer interested in facts or reporting unbiased news, just like during the election of the Anointed One. Rather, they simply parrot agendas that fit their own opinion.

    1. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      Im just glad to see that California with their wildfires are doing their part to reverse this cooling trend...

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt it was intentional, but certainly Al Gore wants Global Warming to be true since fear mongering about it makes him money.

    3. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Ambitwistor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's publish the rubber duckies for Global Warming Research and ignore Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA headed by James Hansen which published falsified data.

      I hate to break it to you, but making a clerical mistake is not the same as "falsifying data".

      This is simply another proof that the mainstream media is no longer interested in facts or reporting unbiased news

      Uh, no, it's a sign that quickly-fixed data reporting errors which have no impact on any major climate studies are not front page news.

      I also hate to break it to you, but minor errors are found and fixed in scientific data sets all the time. It's only news when the data error is the basis for some important scientific conclusion. (That has been the case, for instance, with the XBT ocean thermometers and the UAH satellite data.)

      Your post is a prime example of how ridiculously polarized the global warming debate has become. You're grasping at straws, man. A mistake in two month's data reporting, which has nothing to do with James Hansen personally, is not a global scientific conspiracy nor a disproof of global warming.

      just like during the election of the Anointed One

      Anointed One? Yeah, you really sound like an impartial arbiter of scientific accuracy. You might want to tone down the hypocrisy while whinging about "bias".

    4. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Kohath · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't understand. The glacier is melting at 0.2 ducks per year! Prior to this experiment, the glacier was melting at zero ducks per year. It has increased 2 whole ducks per 10 year period! At this rate of increase, the entire population of ducks will be exhausted by 2142! Don't you care about the ducks?

      The only upside is that, barring any additional interference, the glacier's melting will return to zero ducks per year once all the ducks are gone.

    5. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by izomiac · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Clerical mistakes can happen, but in this case it's essentially falsifying data just without the intent. If something unexpected happens then one should look for errors first. Instead, it seems like this researcher just assumed that it was more support for a theory he liked. Little things like this can add up across various studies, leading to a theory being unduly strong (self perpetuating). In any case, it's pretty shoddy work to let an obvious outlier make it into a study.

      how ridiculously polarized the global warming debate has become

      Quite true. Personally I've become nearly apathetic upon the realization that both sides exaggerate to the point of dishonesty. Well, really it's the extremists on either side that do the lying, but since the issue is so polarized there's the illusion (perhaps becoming reality) that they speak for their respective groups.

    6. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      It sounds an awful lot like a case of bad interpolation of missing data. Copy previous month is a heck of a lot lower order than a simple linear function, even. But some interpolation would be necessary to start working with the results. You push out the corrections in the errata when the data comes in if you miss CD press time.

      Now there is definitely some question as to why the gaps would be represented by previous data instead of nulls or flag values, and clerical error is certainly a plausible reason.

      But.. it's an awfully convenient excuse, especially if there was some pressure to publish quickly or the cleverly nefarious scheme of announcing "warmest October ever" then quietly correcting the data in February, followed by yet another "warmest october ever" even if one of them wasn't.

      If one wanted, every year could be the warmest on record, in a big announcement, fostering the perception of ever increasing, record-setting temperatures despite a more volatile actual record. It doesn't even take a conspiracy, and it doesn't even need to be an ongoing operation. It just takes one researcher every few seasons to make a "clerical error" that happens to fit preconceived notions of article reviewers and an otherwise well-written piece.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Hellsbells · · Score: 5, Informative

      About the author of this opinion article:

      He has claimed that Asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder", and the BBC has accused him of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Criticism

      He is not a credible person.

    8. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above post is troll, not insightful.

      Begone denialists and right wingers you lost, learn to live with it, and fuck off.

    9. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "James Hansen is a global warming alarmist...[snip]...This is simply another proof that the mainstream media...[snip]...simply parrot agendas that fit their own opinion."

      Pot meets kettle.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Falconhell · · Score: 0

      Fuck you right wingers are morons, stop stamping your little feet, you lost, deal with it.

      I would by far rather have Obama then his predecessor, and that counts for most of the non fucked in the head folk in the world.

      Sore loser!

    11. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the intelligent argument of Obama's supporter. Glad I am not one of them. FYI, I am not an American and I didn't lose. You are the loser because he IS your president now. BTW, Obama didn't run against Bush, so comparing the two to pick the next president does not make any sense whatsoever. So much for the non-fucked in the head folk.

    12. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite true. Personally I've become nearly apathetic upon the realization that both sides exaggerate to the point of dishonesty. Well, really it's the extremists on either side that do the lying, but since the issue is so polarized there's the illusion (perhaps becoming reality) that they speak for their respective groups.

      I guess it's easy to be apathetic. You're a fat, happy American. Those who starved to death this summer due to the commodity price explosion that resulted from biofuel production might disagree. Who knows though, maybe they enjoyed eating rats and inedible roots in their final days. Too bad we can't ask them... they being dead and all.

    13. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Instead, it seems like this researcher just assumed that it was more support for a theory he liked.

      I don't see any evidence that Hansen even knew there was anything anomalous either way. The article rather exaggerated that NASA "announced that last month was the hottest October on record". It appeared in their database update, but they didn't announce any press releases about it or anything — they only publish analysis of records at the end of the year.

      Little things like this can add up across various studies, leading to a theory being unduly strong (self perpetuating).

      That's true; I mentioned two other cases where mistakes did add up. However, considering the other temperature records out there (both surface and satellite), it's simply not plausible that all of them have major errors which all add up in the same way. Global warming is not a data artifact.

    14. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      But.. it's an awfully convenient excuse,

      Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by human error.

      especially if there was some pressure to publish quickly or the cleverly nefarious scheme of announcing "warmest October ever"

      They didn't publish it; it was just a routine data update. And, contrary to the article's implication, they didn't "announce" the warmest October ever, either. The anomalous data showed up in the data base, but they didn't issue a press release or publish a paper or contact the media about it. It looks like they didn't even notice it until someone else pointed it out.

      If one wanted, every year could be the warmest on record, in a big announcement

      But it isn't, which casts doubt both on global conspiracy and "convenient" clerical errors.

    15. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Clerical error does not include "hastily revising" the figures using another set of false data unsupported by satellite images.

      Your conspiracy theories get lamer and lamer.

      First, if they were faking data to make October come out warm, you'd think they'd fake enough of a temperature change to make October still be a record year, but they didn't. What's the point of faking data in a way that doesn't actually matter?

      Second, they didn't use any second set of false data. They used existing Canadian temperature stations which hadn't reported in by the last data dump. In the previous anomaly map, they just left that area blank, because there was no data. Now there is data is in, and there is warming there. They didn't change cooling to warming or anything like that, they just included data that didn't make it into the last release.

      Third, the northern Canada warming visible in the revised NASA anomaly maps is also visible in both the Hadley Centre surface maps and in the RSS/MSU satellite data, contrary to your claim. It's not fake and it doesn't contradict other data sources.

      I know global warming skeptics like to wet themselves fantasizing about how global warming is all a big fabrication, but it's not gonna happen. Just give it up, man. There are legitimate areas of controversy in climate science (such as the magnitude of the climate feedback factors which amplify the climate sensitivity to CO2). Whether the planet is warming is not one of them.

    16. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by kadehje · · Score: 1

      From the Telegraph article linked to by the parent:

      This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

      This is effectively using a single data point (the month of October 2008) to argue that the theory of global warming is false. Claims like this are just a red herring on this issue. Episodes like this can be consistent with global warming, provided that averaged across time and space they are the exception rather than the rule.

      The theory of global warming states that on average the world's temperature will rise as a result of increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases generated by human activities. A downward tick in temperature over the course of a month or a year will not refute global warming, provided the world's average temperature resumes its increasing trend soon thereafter. Using local incidents to refute global warming is also spurious. Even in the long run, there may be parts of the world that will have a lower average long-term temperature as a result of changes in ocean or atmospheric currents. Such locations, provided they are not common enough to counteract increasing temeperatures in the rest of of the world, will not refute global warming.

      An analogy that I like to use to people who don't understand this fact is that of a casino. Many patrons who play blackjack, slot machines, or other games against the house do leave the casino winners after a given session. However, to claim that these winning patrons are sufficient to dispute the claim that the games are in the house's favor would be ludicrous to almost anybody regardless of whether they've set foot in a casino. Yet the Telegraph and the parent poster are effectively trying to do the same thing by taking a very limited dataset and claiming that a theory is false based on that dataset. Using 1998 (in which one of the world's highest temperatures was recorded) by itself to claim that global warming is real and occurring would be equally specious.

      In order to refute global warming, you would need either (a) to identify a cause dominant over increasing greenhouse gas concentrations that is demonstrably increasing the earth's temperature, or (b) a long-term data set of stable or decreasing temperatures in the presence of increasing greenhouse gas levels. In order to prove it, you need (a) a long-term dataset of both temperatures and greenhouse gas levels increasing, and (b) a sound explanation as to how the greenhouse gases are contributing to the increase in temperature (to establish causation). What "long-term" means depend on whether a person believes in global warming or is a skeptic, but most people would want at least 20 years worth of data, preferably more, before deciding on the truth or falsity of the theory. To use a single month or a year to make a claim on it is irrelevant to the discussion and such claims distract people from really finding out what's going on.

    17. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Ironically, brave AC I am not an American either.

      You obviously disliked Obama so yes, you lost.

      Next player please.

      The whole world wins with the Obama presidency.

    18. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please!!! If this global warming religion is ever proven bogus will all the cheerleaders jump off a glacier? Noooo I think not. They will just go on to some other foolishness, like old line communists from the 1920s & 30s. who went to their graves true believers. Delusions die hard and fantastic theories, taught to children have lives of their own. Did anyone ever apologize for embracing eugenics during the first 45 years of the last century? NO! Fanatics never do, they just go on to the next THING that appeals to their empty intellects. The simple solutions put forth by the "warms" seem to always give power to one group to save the world while herding the masses to dance to their controlling music. Oh I forgot the debate is over sorry for speaking about an issued that is closed.

    19. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you break it to me why people are so uncritical of data that supports their preconceived ideas that they would miss data which on its face is so far off the charts (Warmest October ever) as to be silly. How much of this tunnel vision is taking place in the "scientific community" and force feeding the media "gigo" that is skewered toward supporting, not so much global warming, but its cause and the solution that plays into the control freaks need to "lead" the rest of us.

    20. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Could you break it to me why people are so uncritical of data that supports their preconceived ideas that they would miss data which on its face is so far off the charts (Warmest October ever) as to be silly.

      Even the corrected data are still close to being the warmest October ever. Globally speaking, it wasn't actually that far off the charts. However, some individual stations were far above what is normal for those particular stations. It seems nobody noticed what was going on at those specific locations, and when they got averaged in with the other normal stations, the regional temperature wasn't too out of line. I'm not surprised that nobody at GISS immediately noticed something weird going on at those particular stations, since there are many thousands of stations and so they don't routinely inspect all their data every single month. I am surprised that their automated data-error flagging algorithm apparently doesn't work at the individual station level. It does look for step discontinuities in individual station data, but evidently not for duplication.

      ... How much of this tunnel vision is taking place in the "scientific community" and force feeding the media "gigo" that is skewered toward supporting, not so much global warming, but its cause and the solution that plays into the control freaks need to "lead" the rest of us.

      ... and this is where skepticism runs off the rails into insane paranoia.

  21. Reward by renegadesx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Missing: One large yellow rubber duck, answers to the name 'Rubber Duckie'
    Has made apperances on childrens television shows
    Please report any information on the whereabouts on Rubber Duckie to Ernie, Sesame St NY. +123 (456) 789-10-11-12
    Cash reward

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
    1. Re:Reward by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      The Sesame Street-themed post and your sig fit together well. :)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  22. Disko Ducks? by johnkennethhunter · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the ducks first hit open water at Disko Bay, are these ducks intended to be called the Disko Ducks? [Wikipedia]

  23. Next month's story by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientists are extremely alarmed over a new phenomenon recently observed in the arctic glaciers. Melt water, which normally flows through micro rivers deep in the glacier until it reaches the sea, has started to flow over the surface instead, accelerating the rate at which the ice melts. "It's like something went and plugged up the flow, and now it's backing up like a giant toilet with a rubber duck stuck in it." remarked one researcher.

    The researchers are currently seeking a $10 million grant to investigate the cause of this disturbing event.

    1. Re:Next month's story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if homo had any skillz he'd cellular enable these to 'call home' why wait?

  24. oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not rubber, and biodegrade well.

    They were used in a similar manner in Lake champlain.

  25. Doubleplusgood Duckspeaker by fnordtastic · · Score: 1

    Whoever thought of this must have been a real quack.

    1. Re:Doubleplusgood Duckspeaker by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      Back in the days of Bush the 1st (Jan 1992) the ducks left China. 10 months later, they invade Alaska. This was pre-Palin.

      Three years later the fowl yellow molded ducks show up in Hawaii. We survive the first raid.

      Eight years after gaining freedom, our fine feathered flightless molded friends start showing up in the Northeast US. Maine to Mass, ducks are ashore.

      Eleven years after the spill the spiller offers a reward for the ducks. A $100 US Savings Bond. (Not the best deal in hindsight.) To be valid ducks must be sent to the company and must be found in New England, Canada or Iceland. Britain is warned.

      2005-2008, the ducks invade again. They may have multiplied over the years. Or, we're just pussified. Either way, it's fowl.

    2. Re:Doubleplusgood Duckspeaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go duck a fuck?

  26. Science Project or Phishing? by doublecuffs · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So do you need to send any personal information to report a rubber duckie finding? If not, how can they verify the finding? If so, and had you not read this posting, would you believe that this was a genuine scientific experiment and not a phishing attempt?

    1. Re:Science Project or Phishing? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      They could verify that the duck was found without asking for any personal info if they mark the ducks with some unique ID. If you report a valid ID, you've found a duck. Of course, they still have to trust that you found it where you said you found it. But that's a problem regardless of whether you give out your home address.

  27. No phishing here by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's no phishing. It sounds more like paultrying.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  28. Global Warming Partisans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, really it's the extremists on either side that do the lying, but since the issue is so polarized there's the illusion (perhaps becoming reality) that they speak for their respective groups.

    It's not like everyone has to commit to being 100% sure of how Global Warming works or 100% sure that it doesn't exist. A minority may have reached 100% certainty, but most of us are still waiting for better data. (Go rubber duckies!) It is the extremists who don't think any additional data is necessary, since there is nothing left for them to learn.

  29. They expect to prove... by patio11 · · Score: 1

    ... that good PR achieves better results in maintaining and increasing funding than providing scientific value does.

    NASA's brief is not science -- science is a rare but happy side-effect which they use to justify their budget.*

    The reason they exist is to funnel taxdollars to favored companies, largely defense contractors, and congressional districts.

    * No intellectually serious person could suggest that the shuttle program is an effective use of R&D dollars. NASA *loves* the shuttle. In terms of press mentions gained per billion dollars spent it is their best investment since going to the moon. Plus if you have the shuttle around you've got to be able to use it, which justifies spending several hundred billion on an equally purposeless space station. Construction began in '98, is projected to complete in 2011, and if things go according to plan they'll be using it until 2016, after which it is "please insert 100 billion to continue".

    Oh, and check this out -- NASA is pleading for extra money to keep the Shuttle running so they can actually *visit* the Space Station they built so as to have something to do with the Shuttle!

    http://www.space.com/news/080907-nasa-griffin-email.html

  30. Slightly interesting, but misleading by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    A vast % of water flowing from glaciers etc flows under the gravels and underground. If people could not follow the tracers (dyes etc) then how will they follow ducks? That they could not follow tracers indicates that the water travels via some non-obvious (ie. non-surface) path. Sure some ducks might turn up at point A, but likely a lot of water is traveling underground and the ducks won't go there.

    I live in a place which is the result of glacial deposits and only a small % of the water here travels on the surface, or even anywhere near where the rivers are.

    Sure, the ducks might provide a bit of curiosity, but it would be misleading to take them as being representative of water flow as a whole.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Slightly interesting, but misleading by hey! · · Score: 1

      Tracers can be diluted. Ducks cannot. The fact that tracers can flow through obstructions and ducks cannot make the ducks a useful complement to tracers. Rubber ducks also attract attention from beachcombers, allowing them to be of service for years.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Slightly interesting, but misleading by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      A vast % of water flowing from glaciers etc flows under the gravels and underground. If people could not follow the tracers (dyes etc) then how will they follow ducks?

      They're more visible and they can count on more people looking for them.

      That they could not follow tracers indicates that the water travels via some non-obvious (ie. non-surface) path.

      I don't see how that implies anything. Tracers can travel below the surface too.

      Sure, the ducks might provide a bit of curiosity, but it would be misleading to take them as being representative of water flow as a whole.

      If they do make it out, there's probably some fairly big channel outlet.

  31. 'great' idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now we just need to scoop them up and say they were found headed the opposite way as expected...

  32. Just a stunt by S-100 · · Score: 1

    Just a stunt to get more publicity to promote more non-science "proof" of global warming. Oh wait, we have to call it "climate change" now. Guess those temperature measurements aren't going the way you hoped, Al?

    1. Re:Just a stunt by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's all a big data cover up so they have to re-brand the theory.

      Sheesh.

      They call it climate change now because it's important to emphasize that temperature isn't the only thing which is changing.

  33. Who cycles to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with a 1 ton pannier on the back???

    Now, how many calories are used by an 18-wheeler propelling one person to and from work (4 miles) compared to a bicycle?

  34. Scammers using new ploy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reports of nigeran 912 scammers dumping tens of thousands of rubber duckies into ocean with an email address with promise of a big reward. duping ever gullable tree huggers into handing over thousands in fees to dump their thin veneer of social concern and chase money that has a much reality as an Al Gore flick.

  35. How is this gonna work? by mattb112885 · · Score: 1

    I say it's more likely that the rubber duckies get taken away by a bird / hit by a sharp edge of the glacier and pops / it arrives at the wrong country and people don't know what's going on than that this will work. How long do they expect it will take to travel 30 miles?

  36. Pollution by oobayly · · Score: 0

    So, what's the line between environmental research and pollution? The original rubber duck release was due to containers being swept overboard.
    Whilst the end effect may be noble, one has to wonder what you can get away with by tagging the words "Environmental impact" into any research product.

    1. Re:Pollution by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      It's only 90 ducks. Sheesh. Compared to this, that's nothing.

    2. Re:Pollution by oobayly · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely correct. The effect of 90 rubber ducks is negligible, and I was being pretty cynical. However I'll stand by my comment that putting "Climate Change" / "Global Warming" into a research title or summary is a great way of getting funding.

      I'm trying to remember who said this:
      "if you want to get a research grant to study squirrels, you won't get funds, but if the request were to study the impact of global warming on squirrels, then there is plenty of money available."

      Yes, it was from "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which made it's fair share of cock-ups, but it was interesting to hear it being said.

    3. Re:Pollution by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      "if you want to get a research grant to study squirrels, you won't get funds, but if the request were to study the impact of global warming on squirrels, then there is plenty of money available."

      That may be true, to an extent. Of course, people do get grants to study squirrels independent of climate change. And of course, you have more options for funding to study squirrels if you can apply in two different areas (biology and climate). But it's not clear that there's anything wrong with this. If something has the potential to, say, decimate squirrel populations, that's obviously something of interest to the squirrel research community and perhaps deserves some extra funding.

      Where the cynics cross the line is where they claim that the evidence for global warming itself has been fabricated by climate scientists in order to get funding. (Not that squirrel researchers have anything to do with that anyway. Scientists aren't one big homogeneous group.) The evidence is very real.

  37. Easier, more 'scientific' way to do it by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    Pour a large quantity of fluorescein into the melt water in question. Observe the ocean surrounding the glacier (perhaps from a satellite) for a bright yellow-green patch.

    If you want to trace the flow, introduce a neutrally buoyant, screaming hot but short half-life gamma radiation source into the meltwater. Track it via sensitive correlated gamma detectors in 3 dimensions. Some choices include Sodium-24 with a half-life of 15 hours and gamma energies of 1368 keV and 2754 keV, or Ir-188, or Y-90.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:Easier, more 'scientific' way to do it by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      The article says another scientist tried (non-radioactive) tracer dyes and didn't see anything. I suppose you eventually would if you used a huge amount.

    2. Re:Easier, more 'scientific' way to do it by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Maybe he didn't use 'large' quantities of dye for sufficiently large values of 'large'. 8-)

      I was going to originally propose radioactive fluorescein so that you could compare the isotopic ratios to determine how long it took the sample to traverse the path, but realized that the appearance of the dye would do the same thing. Duh. I like the radioactive tracking, however. If you make it radioactive enough that it's not only radiologically hot but physically hot, it'll melt it's way through any constrictions.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:Easier, more 'scientific' way to do it by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      I think if your tracer is radioactive enough to melt through ice, you're going to have some trouble with Homeland Security ...

    4. Re:Easier, more 'scientific' way to do it by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      There aren't that many glaciers in their territory. 8-)

      Radioactive heating (particularly alpha-induced heating) is very effective. This fascinating article states:

      "Among all gamma-free alpha-only emitters with t1/2 > 106 sec, the highest volumetric power density is available using Gd148 (gadolinium) which a-decays directly to Sm144 (samarium), a stable rare-earth isotope. A solid sphere of pure Gd148 (~7900 kg/m3) of radius r = 95 microns surrounded by a 5-micron thick platinum shield (total device radius R = 100 microns) and a thin polished silver coating of emissivity er = 0.02 suspended in vacuo would initially maintain a constant temperature T2 (far from a surface held at T1 = 310 K) of 600 K."

      That's pretty darned hot for such a tiny bead. Note that it only generates 17 uW of thermal power.

      I've long thought that alloys containing Gd148 would make excellent additions to cold-weather emergency gear. A small ceramic puck containing a small amount of Gd148 (which is a pure alpha emitter, is itself not toxic, and decays into a stable isotope of Samarium) would generate enough heat to keep a lost hiker alive, or keep someone alive in a life raft in frigid waters.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  38. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goldmine! Genuine material right there!

  39. Historical research by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

    You can glean a great deal from historic documents, such as ice reports from Lloyd's List, which could help with this; each years reports are different. I collated the reports for one month in April 1912, and have written up my results here. Theres a Java applet in there showing time evolution of the reports, and I am working on a few bugs in it.