Jupiter's Great Red Spot Is Shrinking

meme tag stole my post by tjstork · 2009-04-02 03:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Here I was ready to make some crack about how global warming is causing jupiter's red spot to shrink and this shows that the sun is having some other effect, and there it is in the tags:

"globalwarming manbearpig globalshrinking...."

totally burst my bubble, stole my thunder... I might actually have to do some work.

--
This is my sig.

Re:meme tag stole my post by Thanshin · 2009-04-02 03:43 · Score: 5, Funny

Here I was ready to make some crack
I knew it!
Even drug dealers read Slashdot!
Re:meme tag stole my post by bonch · 2009-04-02 04:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're forgetting that politicians like Al Gore have a financial interest in making you feel guilty enough to pay his company carbon credits. You know, the company he started right before he released his film. The company he used to pay himself through carbon credits when he got called out for having an enormous house.
Making people feel guilty tricks them into sacrificing things to the government such as money, rights, and common sense. With the media playing along with Al Gore and shunning any detractors, the system is able to keep the public stupid and gullible while they pay more money and give the government more power.
Re:meme tag stole my post by ColdWetDog · 2009-04-02 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe one day the global warming alarmists and hoaxsters will realize that change is a *natural* thing

'Natural' doesn't equate to "OK". If mean sea levels are rising, and continue to rise to the point that a significant fraction of the human population is put at risk and a significant fraction of international economy is put at risk, it's still a problem. Whether the FSM causes it or human-derived CO2 is the main driver, it's still a problem.

Your assertion that "overall level of societal wealth, comfort and knowledge tends to move upwards over time" is true, so far, for very short values of 'time'. It's good to look ahead and see if there are issues that might cause you to rethink your assumptions and subsequently your behavior. In the end, the ecosystem of Earth will deal with anything either mankind or the universe throws at it. Your progeny just might feel more generous towards us if we took a longer view of things.

QOTD: "If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:meme tag stole my post by Joe+U · 2009-04-02 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe one day the global warming alarmists and hoaxsters will realize that change is a *natural* thing in this universe whether caused by inanimate or animate forces
How about this, lets all declare global warming a myth and then go and convert to clean energy anyway, because maybe, just maybe, we could stop polluting our streams, rivers and lakes.
Even if global warming is a complete and total fabrication, polluting our land and water IS NOT.
Re:meme tag stole my post by eln · 2009-04-02 04:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Must you turn something going on on an entirely different planet into a political rant?
Global warming may or may not be affected by humans (I find it hard to believe that it isn't to at least some degree), but that has nothing at all to do with this story.
Personally, I think the Red Spot is shrinking because illegal immigrants are taking jobs from the Americans that would normally be maintaining it.
Re:meme tag stole my post by DikSeaCup · 2009-04-02 04:15 · Score: 4, Funny

No, the Red Spot shrinking is a sign that communism is failing.

--
I talk about stuff.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-02 04:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe one day the global warming alarmists and hoaxsters will realize that change is a *natural* thing in this universe whether caused by inanimate or animate forces.
Disease is natural.
Starvation is natural.
Death is natural.
Nature sucks.
We've got the big brains, so we can make it suck less.
Re:meme tag stole my post by windsleeper · 2009-04-02 04:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think we need to call in Al Gore. Maybe one day the global warming alarmists and hoaxsters will realize that change is a *natural* thing in this universe whether caused by inanimate or animate forces. Storms come and go. Icecaps expand and shrink. Glaciers advance and recede. Species thrive and decline. Get over it. Indeed, the one difference between animate and inanimate forces is that inanimate generated change is usually random in its effect while the net effect caused by animate generated change tends to be for the overall net better effect of humanity (not every aspect is positive, not every individual benefits equally and not every day is progress but the overall level of societal wealth, comfort, and knowledge tends to move upwards over time).

Maybe global warming deniers should get over it. Sometimes species have a huge impact on the environment. And sometimes that impact isn't very good for the species that makes the impact. One simple example: cyanobacteria. Way back before Earth had much free oxygen in the atmosphere, the anaerobes thrived. They thrived so well that they filled the atmosphere with tons of oxygen (their waste product). Which allowed aerobic bacteria to thrive and outcompete the cyanobacteria.
Humans are doing a great job of altering the environment. Those alterations will likely be beneficial to some species, but there is no gurantee that humans will be one of the species benefiting from the alterations.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-02 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to current events in the US. Communism is just kinder and gentler.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Chosen+Reject · 2009-04-02 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

If mean sea levels are rising, and continue to rise to the point that a significant fraction of the human population is put at risk and a significant fraction of international economy is put at risk, it's still a problem
It's not a problem for the dolphins. In fact, a great majority of the species on this planet would not notice, not care, or would benefit from us humans greatly shrinking our numbers.

--
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Re:meme tag stole my post by david.given · 2009-04-02 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

'Natural' doesn't equate to "OK". If mean sea levels are rising, and continue to rise to the point that a significant fraction of the human population is put at risk and a significant fraction of international economy is put at risk, it's still a problem. Whether the FSM causes it or human-derived CO2 is the main driver, it's still a problem.
It's also worth remembering that some of the most populated parts of the Earth are also very close to sealevel. It wouldn't take much of a rise to displace very, very large numbers of people --- like, billions, and they're not just going to sit there and drown.
If this ever happens, you're going to have an extremely large number of intelligent, highly motivated people looking, in order, for (a) somewhere to live and (b) someone to blame.
The simple technical problems involved with climate change will be nothing compared to the political problems.
Re:meme tag stole my post by averner · 2009-04-02 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Natural" is a really tricky concept, in my opinion. Where should we draw the line between what happens "naturally" and what happens as a result of human activity, if at all? How are the decisions of humans, being subject to the laws of nature, any less natural than the actions of animals, plants, and weather?

--
Member of the 7 Digit UID Club
Re:meme tag stole my post by Ceiynt · 2009-04-02 05:13 · Score: 1

I would mod you up if I had points, but I don't, so I will reply to the "Off Topic" Post.
I agree with this post. Granted we are starting to see people start to care about the environment a bit more. That's nice. Even if they are doing it for the wrong reason, the benefits are good. Less pollution over cities, less health related problems. I could care less if the polar bear sees a difference, I care that my daughter will have clean water 20 years from now and not have to wear a mask like those in China or Japan or where ever they do that.
Clean energy for us,; not for the super rare 3 footed, red breasted, living in a 2 square foot environment, no one cares about Preebles jumping mouse that we have to build the highway 4 miles away from.
Re:meme tag stole my post by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-04-02 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe one day the global warming alarmists and hoaxsters will realize that change is a *natural* thing in this universe whether caused by inanimate or animate forces. Storms come and go. Icecaps expand and shrink. Glaciers advance and recede. Species thrive and decline. Get over it.
There is a difference between climate change alarmism and acceptance of anthropomorphic climate change. Due to the shoddy nature of science reporting, and the credulous attidude of many, the two have been confused.
Anthropomorphic climate change is the idea that humans, and more specifically, human industrial output, is having a measurable and significant effect on the climate of the earth. This argument is not so far away from the argument that industry has an effect on the environment, which is obviously true. The difference here is that anthropomorphic climate change states that the effects of human industry are now on a global scale. It's important to note at this point that climate scientists have the evidence to prove these claims.
Proponents of the idea of anthropomorphic climate change usually advocate measures to halt or reduce the effect of humans on the environment. There are adverse effects to climate change, as well as some beneficial ones, but ultimately they argue that we as a society should practice good husbandry and not risk causing adverse effects for ourselves or for others. A swift change in global or regional climates is ultimately in no ones best interests, and of least interest of all to our environment.
Climate change alarmism is different. Global warming alarmists typically take the most spectacular, alarming, devastating and ultimately least likely potential outcomes of climate change and loudly proclaim their inevitability. Usually, they advocate personal efforts by individuals. (but not by industry, ho hum). It's easy to dismiss many of their claims.
But dismissing alarmism is often extrapolated out to dismissing anthropomorphic climate change as a whole. You really shouldn't do this. The effects of climate change may not be worthy of a hollywood spectacle, but they will be real and probably permanent. If a few million of hectares of scrubland are turned to desert, or forests turn to grassland, or if your summers are too wet or too hot, of if a few species become extinct, or if your children will never be able to build a snowman, then it is true that you will not have lost a lot objectively. But you will have lost something. And needlessly.
You mentioned in your post that "Species thrive and decline." This is true, but species can and have been declined or destroyed not by natural causes but by the effect of human industry. Consider whales. Fished to the point of, and in effect probably to, extinction not by any natural cause, but by the will of human societies and industry. I think it's safe to say that no one wanted this to happen, but it did anyway and we cannot ever undo this. The greater tragedy is that is need never have happened.
It's the same with climate change. A few degrees may not sound like a lot to most people, but it is a big change. The earth will pull through, but it will be a slightly different place. But Things and places will be lost to us forever. And they will be lost not because we as a society did nothing, but because we refused to stop doing things which we could easily have done without. That doesn't sound like a lot of progress to me.

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:meme tag stole my post by interkin3tic · 2009-04-02 05:16 · Score: 2, Funny

'Natural' doesn't equate to "OK".
I reject this on principle! Natural = better! Tons of infomercials for herbal supplements have implicitly told me so! Just look at ginseng, herbal tea, cyanide, tobacco, botulin, the plague, male pattern baldness, and dying of old age at 30. All good reasons why natural equates to better!
Re:meme tag stole my post by Anonymusing · 2009-04-02 05:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

'Natural' doesn't equate to "OK". If mean sea levels are rising, and continue to rise to the point that a significant fraction of the human population is put at risk and a significant fraction of international economy is put at risk, it's still a problem.
From a purely evolutionary perspective, it really does equate to "OK." The universe changes. Organisms die. Others survive. Get over it. It's only bad if you really think humans are a special part of the universe, rather than what they really are: just one little tiny product of an infinitely random spectacle.

--
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Re:meme tag stole my post by Talderas · 2009-04-02 05:22 · Score: 1

What makes human activity unnatural? Considering that adaptivity is a natural human trait, I would really like to know what about human society is unnatural.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:meme tag stole my post by v1 · 2009-04-02 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's also worth remembering that some of the most populated parts of the Earth are also very close to sealevel.
But the reason for this is, populations tend to settle where there is water, usually for transportation.
So if the water level changes, they don't just sit there and starve or whatever.
they move to where the water is
This really isn't a big deal. It's worked this way for a long long time. They are there now because the water is there, not the other way around. People follow the water, water does not follow the people.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:meme tag stole my post by danbert8 · 2009-04-02 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem in your logic is that people won't be looking for somewhere else to live. The people will be whining to the government to create a way for them to live beneath sea level at the expense of all the people who don't live near the ocean.

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:meme tag stole my post by drinkypoo · 2009-04-02 05:45 · Score: 1

If this ever happens, you're going to have an extremely large number of intelligent, highly motivated people looking, in order, for (a) somewhere to live and (b) someone to blame. The simple technical problems involved with climate change will be nothing compared to the political problems.
Those people are of statistical insignificance compared to the number of stupid, highly motivated people who will be looking, in order, for (a) something to eat and (b) somewhere to live.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:meme tag stole my post by Five+Bucks! · 2009-04-02 05:47 · Score: 1

I've been saying this to people for a long time.
I don't care if people don't believe in anthropogenic global warming... if our houses can be powered with windmills instead of power plants burning bunker C (which stinks), then lets do it.

--
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
Re:meme tag stole my post by Thiez · 2009-04-02 05:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

> From a purely evolutionary perspective, it really does equate to "OK."
Evolution is a mindless process, it has no perspective. Nor does it have a purpose, needs, wants, hopes and dreams. Most importantly, it doesn't have a goal. Saying 'from a evolutionary perspective' is about as insightful as saying 'from gravity's perspective' or 'from a cake's perspective'.
> Organisms die. Others survive. Get over it.
I wont stop you from laying down and starving to death, but personally, I'd rather live. Sure, organisms die, but I don't want to be one of those particular organisms for at least another few decades. Why should we accept death by drowning when we can do something to change it?
> It's only bad if you really think humans are a special part of the universe, rather than what they really are: just one little tiny product of an infinitely random spectacle.
Humans may not be special, but neither is the rest of the universe, so why SHOULDN'T we try to change the universe? We may be 'tiny products of an infinitely random spectacle' (is the universe infinitely random? I hope not!) but few things on our planet can resist us, so hell yes, lets use our power to change this rock to a better place for us. Fuck the natural changes in the climate, they are, after all, 'just one little tiny product of an infinitely random spectacle'.
Re:meme tag stole my post by SquirrelsUnite · 2009-04-02 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

The consequences and benefits of greenhouse gas emission should be evaluated in itself not as part of meaningless proposition about the utility of human generated change in general.
Otherwise you could justify any action by saying that human generated change on average is positive (and probably destroy the premise in the process).
Re:meme tag stole my post by conureman · 2009-04-02 06:00 · Score: 1

I, for one, believe that my personal observations support the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. This does look like an interesting observation, but is it really correlating with terrestrial phenomena? Further study may be indicated.

--
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Joe+U · 2009-04-02 06:18 · Score: 1

Clean energy for us,; not for the super rare 3 footed, red breasted, living in a 2 square foot environment, no one cares about Preebles jumping mouse that we have to build the highway 4 miles away from.
I know, they're not people, they don't deserve to live, they're not important enough.
The only important animals are people. The only important people are Americans. Especially the ones in your region. And especially the ones in your state. And especially the ones in your town. And especially the ones in your neighborhood. And especially the ones on your block. And especially the ones in your house. And especially you, the only important one.
How about not building yet another highway in the first place?
Re:meme tag stole my post by Anonymusing · 2009-04-02 06:19 · Score: 1

few things on our planet can resist us, so hell yes, lets use our power to change this rock to a better place for us.
And that is totally valid.
Just don't try to pretend that "saving" the environment is "good" for the planet. Really, we are trying to save our place on the planet. It is selfish. Let's stop pretending that environmentalism is somehow benevolent just because it fits our idea of what we think would be best for the planet.

--
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Re:meme tag stole my post by mangu · 2009-04-02 06:37 · Score: 1

the overall level of societal wealth, comfort, and knowledge tends to move upwards over time
That depends on which period of history you are considering.
Re:meme tag stole my post by mR.bRiGhTsId3 · 2009-04-02 06:45 · Score: 1

Silly me for thinking highly motivated, intelligent people would (a) look for a way to fix it.
Re:meme tag stole my post by WoodenTable · 2009-04-02 06:56 · Score: 1

Bah, American propaganda! In Soviet Russia, the Red Spot shrinks you!
Re:meme tag stole my post by DM9290 · 2009-04-02 07:09 · Score: 1

WTF? It's bad if you are a human. Good/bad are words that have context: human context.
nice job being human centric. this is natural evolution. there is no good/bad, those are constructs you have imposed on the world to identify and protect your percieved self-interests.
and protecting them is entirely consistant with the nature of living organisms.
or does disregarding your own self interest sound like something natural evolution would select for?

the *universe* has nothing to do with good/bad, it may very well be that killing all humanitiy is "good" for the planet. you just don't want to admit it
if thats what you think, then kill yourself.

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Re:meme tag stole my post by DM9290 · 2009-04-02 07:12 · Score: 1

Your progeny just might feel more generous towards us if we took a longer view of things.
I couldn't agree more. Let's just hope that we take a longer view on the massive amount of debt we are collecting. Our progeny will not appreciate our destroying all their wealth either.
debt does not destroy wealth.

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Re:meme tag stole my post by leenoble_uk · 2009-04-02 07:46 · Score: 1

Sea level rising is the problem that solves itself.
All those people who get displaced by rising water simply get first dibs on the new land appearing in the rapidly warming antarctic.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Patch86 · 2009-04-02 07:53 · Score: 1

"Evolution" is the name for things adapting to survive.
We would be pretty unnatural if, as a species, we all let ourselves get wiped out. It's our evolutionary imperative to do our damnedest to not die. If that means trying to change our environment to keep us alive, that's what we should be doing.
No-one said that "natural" had to mean "surrender ourselves to random chance and do nothing to help ourselves". That kind of thinking is for religious people and pandas.
Re:meme tag stole my post by jmorris42 · 2009-04-02 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

> So if the water level changes, they don't just sit there and starve or whatever.
Nope. They turn their city into a tourist attraction like Venice or a charity case like New Orleans. Seriously, when you see ships going by ABOVE the horizon level shouldn't that be a hint that you might not be in the safest place? Change happens, when your city decides to sink into the swamp perhaps you should move instead of asking the rest of your fellow citizens to spend Sagan's trying to build ever higher levees.
Yes, I'm going to hell for that. But I live in Louisiana so if I can't make jokes about our den of corruption and sin who can?

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:meme tag stole my post by jmorris42 · 2009-04-02 08:08 · Score: 1

> Even if global warming is a complete and total fabrication, polluting our land and water IS NOT.
The problem with that logic is that we really do need to debunk AGW for several different reasons.
1. While you are correct that cutting down on polluting the environment we live in is a good thing, accepting the AGW theory has immediate consequences in what we do. There is no free lunch. If we go all out to reduce CO2 emmissions that means we have fewer resources to expend reducing other things. And if we go cap and trade we put huge parts of teh economy under government control and the history of government is that short of a revolution it rarely releases power once acquired. So stopping cap and trade is, right now, the most important issue.
2. A through debunking of AGW would discredit the radical (mostly Marxist 'watermelons') enviromentalist 'green' movement, this could open up a once in a lifetime opportunity for sensible heads to prevail on steps that would actually help the environment instead of helping promote government control. Personally I'd favor an emergency program of building nuke plants to get the entire electrical grid off of fossil fuels. The only politically viable path to something like that is to reduce the current enviro lobby to impotence.
3. AGW has had a very corrosive effect on science. Rooting that out is a worthwhile goal.

--
Democrat delenda est
Re:meme tag stole my post by Ogive17 · 2009-04-02 08:13 · Score: 1

It's also worth remembering that some of the most populated parts of the Earth are also very close to sealevel. It wouldn't take much of a rise to displace very, very large numbers of people --- like, billions, and they're not just going to sit there and drown.
I'm in Ohio, I've always wanted to be closer to the ocean!

If this ever happens, you're going to have an extremely large number of intelligent, highly motivated people looking, in order, for (a) somewhere to live and (b) someone to blame.
Not looking so intelligent now!

(i'm joking)

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:meme tag stole my post by deets101 · 2009-04-02 08:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't tell this to the alliance of East Coast liberals who fought the building of the largest wind farm in the world outside of Martha's Vinyard. I guess clean energy is good as long as only poor people have to put up with the effects.

--

--
My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
Re:meme tag stole my post by neomunk · 2009-04-02 08:29 · Score: 1

I pretty much agree with that (I refer to it as the George Carlin Theory of Environmentalism), but I think that we humans ARE special. Not for any of the reasons most people would offer, but simply because of the amount of entropy we displace on a grand scale. We shift information around and organize it like nothing else on our scale has even come close to doing.
I don't know what that means from a universal perspective, but it seems to me that imposing that much order on the universe seems 'special', somehow.
Re:meme tag stole my post by ross.w · 2009-04-02 08:31 · Score: 1

I guess they're about as highly motivated and intelligent as all those clever bankers.

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Re:meme tag stole my post by EvolutionsPeak · 2009-04-02 08:41 · Score: 1

When the debt must be repaid by taxation thus creating inefficiency in the market, yes it does.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Asic+Eng · 2009-04-02 08:48 · Score: 1

How about this, lets all declare global warming a myth
How about: let's not. We have the overwhelming majority of experts in this field on one side - all the world over, and on the other side we have a few lobbyists claiming it's all a vast global conspiracy involving virtually all of the worlds democratic governments, reputable research institutions and even several oil company executives. If we are not willing to act on that basis, then why bother trying to formulate any rational policy at all?
Re:meme tag stole my post by Golddess · 2009-04-02 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it's safe to assume that GP meant that in regards to human survivability. Or if GP is some other species, then to the survivability of GP's species. The point is, that from a purely evolutionary perspective, environmental change (because that's the kind of change we're talking about) isn't ok. The only way to qualify change as being good or bad is by reference to something that currently exists. In this case, the organisms currently inhabiting this mudball. Otherwise the change merely occurs, being neither good nor bad. And for those organisms, change is generally not a good thing.

And to the GP, THANK YOU!!! It always seems to me that such an important point is always missed whenever climate change gets discussed. It doesn't matter whether we're causing the change, or we're simply significantly speeding up a natural periodic cycle, or are having little to no impact, because we're still just as fucked if we don't learn how to adapt before it's too late. Good to see that there are others out there who realize this.

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Re:meme tag stole my post by luzr · 2009-04-02 08:58 · Score: 1

Well, for a time I have agreed.
Anyway, imagine this.
- maybe, global warming is hoax. Now, please, just take this as premise for other points, not as fact
- first of all, if we solely concetrate on reducing co2 levels, this might reduce other pollution as well, but not as effectively as if we have focused on really harmfull substances first.
- anyway, much worse possible problem is if temeperatures start going down (while co2 keep still or rising), high costs of these measures will swing the historical pendulum back and we *might* get another dark age of dismissal of *real* environmental issues.
Sort of: if "science" got wrong this one, nobody will believe it again.... It is too hyped to be tolerated.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-02 08:59 · Score: 1

This really isn't a big deal.
Maybe you think picking up and moving some of the world's largest population centers, i.e. gigantic cities, due to them being flooded is no big deal. But I assure you that this is incorrect, and it is in fact a big deal.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:meme tag stole my post by v1 · 2009-04-02 09:02 · Score: 1

when you see ships going by ABOVE the horizon level shouldn't that be a hint that you might not be in the safest place?
There are a number of places you can see that, where there's a diked river that runs through a bottoms area, and you look off to the right and see a barge or something up above you on the other side of the dike. Ya, New Orleans isn't the only place where people are living one downpour from disaster.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Mab_Mass · 2009-04-02 10:03 · Score: 1

If this ever happens, you're going to have an extremely large number of angry, desperate, highly motivated people looking, in order, for (a) somewhere to live and (b) someone to blame.

There. Fixed that for you.
If this happens, fierce debate and political problems will not be the response. Think mass starvation and war anywhere there is a large coastal population.
Re:meme tag stole my post by R3d+M3rcury · 2009-04-02 10:12 · Score: 1

So if the water level changes, they don't just sit there and starve or whatever.
they move to where the water is

Which is awesome because in a hundred years or so, according to various maps done on southern California, I'm going to have oceanfront property.
Thank you global warming!
Re:meme tag stole my post by novakyu · 2009-04-02 11:03 · Score: 1

I don't care if people don't believe in anthropogenic global warming... if our houses can be powered with windmills instead of power plants burning bunker C (which stinks), then lets do it.
But how much are you willing to spend to do it? Or, perhaps more precisely, how much would the people be willing to spend to do it? If Al Gore hadn't lied and made them believe in global warming, would they be willing to pay twice as much for "clean energy" as for "dirty energy"?
It is a good idea not to pee in your own drinking water. But, when the choice is between peeing in my own drinking water or not peeing at all, you know what, I think I will pee in my drinking water and somehow purify it afterwards.
When the "dirty energy" makes so much more economic sense (it would be nice if "clean energy" made economic sense, of course), the only way to get people to make sacrifices for this climate change agenda is to lie to them—as Al Gore apparently realized (see factual misstatements and exaggerations in his "documentary").
Re:meme tag stole my post by digitalchinky · 2009-04-02 11:06 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm missing something here, but google, all knowing and everything, tells me that the ocean level has been on the rise at a fairly steady rate of 1.8 millimeters (yes mm) per year for the last century or two. However, in the last 10 or 15 years that number has been trending in the upward direction by an additional 1.3mm. Now I don't know where you live, but by the time this affects the place where I'm sitting, new main stream religions will have formed, people will look back on us as though we were savages still swinging in the trees, and flying cars will still be just a couple of years away from rolling off show room floors. It's not like I live on the side of a mountain in a cave either. Myself, and 18 million others nearly like me, all of us are at about 4 meters above mean sea level on average. I personally have around 1400 years left to figure out where to make new house, and that's still allowing for a fairly modest increase in sea level rise from its current value.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-02 11:27 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm missing something here
Seems you're missing the fact that that 1.3mm 'upward trend' is in fact an acceleration.
d = 4m.
v = 0.0018m/y
a = 0.0013m/15y^2 = 0.00086m/y^2 (taking your stated figure to mean it took 15 years to go from 1.8mm/y to 3.1mm/y)
d = v*t + 0.5*a*t^2
0.00043*t^2 + 0.0018*t - 4 = 0
t = 94.37y.
We'll probably have some new religions by then (though the old ones won't be around), but the flying car is still going to be a long way off. Starting to see why people are nervous about "If this trend continues..." scenarios?

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:meme tag stole my post by Joe+U · 2009-04-02 12:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

1. While you are correct that cutting down on polluting the environment we live in is a good thing, accepting the AGW theory has immediate consequences in what we do. There is no free lunch. If we go all out to reduce CO2 emmissions that means we have fewer resources to expend reducing other things. And if we go cap and trade we put huge parts of teh economy under government control and the history of government is that short of a revolution it rarely releases power once acquired. So stopping cap and trade is, right now, the most important issue.
One flaw in your logic. The government already owns and runs the economy, it always has. It is usually lax about control, but make no mistake, corporations have always been grants from the people via the government. Corporations have no rights.

2. A through debunking of AGW would discredit the radical (mostly Marxist 'watermelons') enviromentalist 'green' movement, this could open up a once in a lifetime opportunity for sensible heads to prevail on steps that would actually help the environment instead of helping promote government control. Personally I'd favor an emergency program of building nuke plants to get the entire electrical grid off of fossil fuels. The only politically viable path to something like that is to reduce the current enviro lobby to impotence.
They never will, becuase the corporations only want profit at any cost to their surroundings. Most companies have to be forced to do things properly.

3. AGW has had a very corrosive effect on science. Rooting that out is a worthwhile goal.
Science can sort it's own problems out. That's why scientists have set methods to work through.
Re:meme tag stole my post by The+Mighty+Buzzard · 2009-04-02 13:17 · Score: 1

and they're not just going to sit there and drown.
You obviously underestimate what a sufficient quantity of strategically applied duct tape can accomplish.

--
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
Re:meme tag stole my post by INowRegretThesePosts · 2009-04-02 13:51 · Score: 1

When the "dirty energy" makes so much more economic sense
No it doesn't. It creates horrible pollution. It is not sustainable.
I see two extremes in the energy debate:
1) Mindless radical environmentalists, that oppose all current mainstream energy
sources and want us to immediately move to solar power; the disastrous effects
on the economy don't matter because "the Earth is more important than money".
They actually harm the environment, because they greatly help the mass hysteria
against nuclear power with the goal of making people use solar power,
but since solar power is not viable, people use petroleum or coal instead.
2) People who don't care about energy production at all, and in particular don't
care about energy-production-related pollution. Some of them have this stance
because they see how irrational the radical environmentalists are, so they become
the opposite. But this is *also irrational*.
Rational people sit in the middle. Let's build nuclear fission plants, hydroelectric
plants (where it is economically and environmentally viable) and lets research
alternate sources like nuclear fusion and solar power.
Remember: if you do the opposite of Greenpeace just because they are mindless
potheads, you too act irrationally. You should disregard them and think on your
own. And by thinking on your own I believe you'll agree that the current situation
is not sustainable.
Regarding energy production, coal or petroleum based plants are both very dirty
and use a resource that won't last too long. And petroleum is very important to
the chemical industry, and it is a travesty that we burn this strategical
resource for energy, instead of using nuclear and hydroelectric and saving the
petroleum for situations where it is not easily replaceable.
Not to mention, every time you buy petroleum you help the world's worst
governments (many of which are dictatorships).
Re:meme tag stole my post by fractoid · 2009-04-02 14:08 · Score: 1

It's also worth remembering that some of the most populated parts of the Earth are also very close to sealevel. It wouldn't take much of a rise to displace very, very large numbers of people --- like, billions, and they're not just going to sit there and drown.
Of course not, they'll evolve to become aquatic apes, and thousands of years in the future, after extensive genetic remodelling to make themselves more suited to open ocean life, they will use pure mind power to transport themselves millions of years into the past to a time when the oceans were unsullied.

Much later, their great-great-great-grandchildren will be mixed in with your can of tuna.

That aside, Jupiter just phoned. Apparently it's winter there, and while slightly embarrassed, Jupiter assures us that its spot is "just a bit chilly" and not permanently shrinking. It goes on to remind you that its spot is still bigger than our silly little planet so who are we to make fun of it.

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:meme tag stole my post by fractoid · 2009-04-02 14:11 · Score: 1

Change happens, when your city decides to sink into the swamp perhaps you should move instead of asking the rest of your fellow citizens to spend Sagan's trying to build ever higher levees.
Most of the estimates of sea level rises that I've seen are on the order of 50cm. Is it really that hard to add another half meter of dyke on top of a wall that's already several meters high? Honestly I'd think that reclaimed land is some of the least at risk, compared with land that's already at sea level but completely unprotected.

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:meme tag stole my post by fractoid · 2009-04-02 14:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

WTF? It's bad if you are a human. Good/bad are words that have context: human context.
We need to distinguish here between "bad for me" (which seas rising and humans being wiped out in droves probably is for a human) and "bad for life on this planet". Nature doesn't really care about you, me, the precious endangered tree frogs in the Amazon. Nature just is. All that shit about saving endangered species is just a pathological overextension of the empathy/altruism that we've evolved to allow us to live successfully in large groups.

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:meme tag stole my post by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-02 16:32 · Score: 1

LOL not that it's anywhere near that simple of course.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:meme tag stole my post by esmrg · 2009-04-02 16:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Corporations are merely a symptom of the problem, not the cause. Civilization at its very core has a flawed world-view. It perceives the environment as a collection of resources. The resources are to be extracted, used up, and wasted. (Don't give me that BS about recycling. We are still way off. But granted, it is a start.) There is nothing in the perception about balance with nature/environment. The environment is not something 'out there' to be saved. It is everything. The air you breathe, the water you drink. Even sitting at your desk you are still in the environment. You've just be separated from the living environment by the dead environment. (Concrete, metal and glass.) Living things were killed and remade into a buffer called the city. The goal of civilization is to make you fear wild, living nature so that you accept the comforts of the city and work hard to amass wealth for the masters. Resources are extracted from the country into the city and cause them to grow beyond the carrying capacity of the land. This is where the 'profit' comes from. A society living in balance with the land will fluctuate in population and enjoy good healthy food (when available). The Native Americans enjoyed a life like this, each tribe adapted to the many climates on the continent. Sure, they were no match for the well-armed civilized, but that doesn't make them wrong. One can hardly turn a profit if one is a circular reciprocity with the land, giving and taking equally. Profit only comes from theft. Lands are conquered (taken), and materials are extracted for (nearly) free. Don't believe me? Check out some of our laws on mining and forestry. You may be surprised to discover how much go-ahead the companies have on our public lands.
Of course all this taking has given us so much wonderful stuff, right? I am a total hypocrite for speaking like this on a global interactive network of computers.
Well, the problem comes when you've taken so much you can take no more. Have we forgotten the laws of thermal dynamics? I can't wait to work in the garbage mines of the future.
Re:meme tag stole my post by rrvau · 2009-04-02 17:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

The sea levels are NOT rising outside of historically defined parameters. The ice cap is thickening. The Earth is and has been cooling since 1998. The warming/cooling process is NOT caused by C02 levels but sun spot activity or lack thereof, the planetary alignments and the Earth's natural cycles. Look forward to a mini ice age starting in 30 to 60 years time. Remember, mankind has not had the wherewithal to accurately measure global temperatures prior to about 1972. Mankind is so bloody arrogant that anything out side of its history DID NOT HAPPEN. Mankind's arrogance and conceit knows no boundaries. To believe that we, who have been on Earth for an insignificant period, can change the outcome of natural and cosmic forces that affect this planet is the epitome of boof headedness. Mars is warming and we haven't stuffed that up, yet!

--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) H.L. Menc
Re:meme tag stole my post by RockDoctor · 2009-04-02 19:48 · Score: 1

Here I was ready to make some crack
I knew it!
Even drug dealers read Slashdot!
[SIGH] If he were a drug DEALER, he'd have said "Here I was ready to resell some crack".
Give drug manufacturers the respect they deserve instead of getting confused between the production process and the distribution chain.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:meme tag stole my post by master_p · 2009-04-02 20:03 · Score: 1

Even dolphins read Slashdot!!!
Re:meme tag stole my post by jav1231 · 2009-04-03 00:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, so even if its a natural problem we should tamper with it. I mean, hey we have a great track record of tampering with natural and things working out. What could happen? At least we could try! And like most leftist propaganda, that's what really matters. That our intentions are good and that enough money was spent. Fuck Al Gore!

In Jupiter's Defense by eldavojohn · 2009-04-02 03:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Scientists know about shrinkage, right?

Let me just point out that it's very cold in space. Even with the sun nearby, I think we'd all experience at least a little bit of shrinkage if we were in Jupiter's position and it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:In Jupiter's Defense by fracai · 2009-04-02 03:49 · Score: 2, Funny

... it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
I don't think the other planets are listening to you as I'm pretty sure I can hear Pluto laughing from here; something about "serves you right!".

--
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by girlintraining · 2009-04-02 03:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Let me just point out that it's very cold in space. Even with the sun nearby, I think we'd all experience at least a little bit of shrinkage if we were in Jupiter's position and it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
Venus: That's what every man says. The truth is, you're just upset that Saturn has over 200 satellites to your... uhh... 63. Plus, you've completely lost control of your weight these past few millenia and have horrible acne. Seriously, clean up your atmosphere and do something about those red splotches and maybe you'll have a chance with some of the inner planets.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by Barumpus · 2009-04-02 04:06 · Score: 1

In space, no one can see you shrink.
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by ConceptJunkie · 2009-04-02 04:09 · Score: 1

Man, I still recall when I was a kid and Jupiter and Saturn only had about 10 moons each. Also, Pluto was a planet. And the only pictures of Uranus and Neptune were blurry blobs with more lens flare than detail and Pluto was just a little dot.
And despite all that I was _still_ obsessed with astronomy! :-)

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by skinlayers · 2009-04-02 04:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Factual C It is not "very cold in space". In fact, depending on your point of view, the radiation can make it quite 'hot'. Temperature is the kinetic vibration of matter. Its just there's not a lot of matter to vibrate in the void. What we often perceive as the effects of the tempurature of space, is actually the near vacuum.
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by skinlayers · 2009-04-02 04:29 · Score: 1

That "Factual C" should be "Factual Correction" *facepalm*
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-02 04:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Let me just point out that it's very cold in space. Even with the sun nearby, I think we'd all experience at least a little bit of shrinkage if we were in Jupiter's position and it's not fair for the other planets to laugh at him.
Well we sure have no room to laugh. Jupiter's spot, shrinkage and all, is still several times bigger than our entire planet.
Saturn probably has the right for a chuckle or two, though, and Neptune might join in. Uranus as usual will just try to avoid attention since it always ends up with it being made fun of.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-04-02 05:19 · Score: 1

Scientists know about shrinkage, right?
Let me just point out that it's very cold in space.
What the hell is shrinkage and what does it have to do with being cold? Is this another one of those North American things?

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by stainless-steel-vash · 2009-04-02 05:54 · Score: 1

"Uranus as usual will just try to avoid attention since it always ends up with it being made fun of." You mean, since Uranus ends up as the butt of all jokes?

--
I'm so awesome I don't need a sig file -Me
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by Hurricane78 · 2009-04-02 07:23 · Score: 1

(Americans, please don't be too offended, we're all grown-ups and sexual topics should not be a taboo, Ok :)
They think their dick shrinks, when in fact their body fat just grows.
Sadly, I know this from my own experience. I lost 4 cm when I was 115 kg.
So the best secret for the additional inch (and for many many other problems): Lose weight. :)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-04-02 07:36 · Score: 1

They think their dick shrinks, when in fact their body fat just grows.
Ahh! So it was a North American problem!

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by ConceptJunkie · 2009-04-02 07:49 · Score: 1

O.o, I had no idea Pluto was no longer a planet until now. Wow.
It is to me. I don't care what the eggheads say. :-/

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by juenger1701 · 2009-04-02 08:58 · Score: 1

hey he's got a lot of shrinking to do before most of the other planets can even talk (when it's bigger then YOU you have no room to talk)
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by ArsonSmith · 2009-04-02 10:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Wow grandpa, did you know Galileo personally?
Pluto a planet?!? That was like what the people that thought the earth was flat thought, right?

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by SEE · 2009-04-02 12:45 · Score: 1

Space, at Jupiter's distance, is cold. Out there, under direct sunlight, ice does not sublimate in the vacuum, meaning it's colder than inside your household freezer.
Re:In Jupiter's Defense by ConceptJunkie · 2009-04-03 05:00 · Score: 1

Wow grandpa, did you know Galileo personally?
Now come on, let's not exaggerate. Galileo lived in Italy. I lived in Virginia at the time (and still do).
BTW, did you know Galileo almost discovered Neptune? He saw it, and recorded it, but as it was transitioning to retrograde movement and thus wasn't moving relative to the stars, he thought it was another star.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

That's strange. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-02 03:24 · Score: 1

Could this be related to the expanding of Uranus?

Re:That's strange. by Talderas · 2009-04-02 07:05 · Score: 1

Has the goatse guy been spotted recently?

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork

Global warming at fault?! by GottMitUns · 2009-04-02 03:25 · Score: 1

For a moment I thought this was related to global warming theory. Any explanation WHY the heck it's shrinking with no human activity on Jupiter? Or is there?

Re:Global warming at fault?! by notarockstar1979 · 2009-04-02 03:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

Because, believe it or not, things do happen naturally without human intervention sometimes. There could be a lot of things causing it, but it's probably the same things that cause storms here on earth (no, not giant weather making machines). The fact that it's large and red doesn't change how storms are created. It's actually pretty amazing that it's been tracked since the 1870s and is still happening, but that shouldn't affect how it was created in the first place.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by SatanicPuppy · 2009-04-02 03:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's a fricking storm. It's subject to entropy like everything else. Eventually, it will go away.
It's the scale that's messing with your head. That storm is about the same diameter as the entire Earth. It only seems permanent because it's so big that change happens slowly.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by f1vlad · 2009-04-02 03:33 · Score: 1

Unlikely there is any terrestrial activity on Jupiter.

--
o_O
Re:Global warming at fault?! by rotide · 2009-04-02 03:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Was going to make a post like this myself.
I think it's fair to point out to everyone that even on an untouched planet, major changes can happen. It's the nature of planets.
I'm not saying humans aren't causing changes on earth, because, well, they ARE. But this just goes to show that even if we don't do anything to influence change, it still happens.
Change isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just something that happens. Sometimes it happens and it's bad for our type of life and that sucks.
Every now and again, I get this feeling that the masses don't understand that planets evolve, even on their own. If humans never came to be, the earth would still be changing on it's own.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by mea37 · 2009-04-02 03:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes. And, so?
If humans are accelerating the change in equilibrium conditions on Earth, that is against our own interests, as we are adapted to current conditions. We should, in that case, be interested in how to stop doing that.
On the other hand, if the equilibrum conditions on Earth are changing naturally, then allowing that to happen unchecked is against our interests, as we are adapted to current conditions. We should, in that case, be interested in how to slow those naturally-occuring changes.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by pitchpipe · 2009-04-02 03:47 · Score: 1

Every now and again, I get this feeling that the masses don't understand that planets evolve, even on their own.
You mean like storms and stuff??? WOW! Like, I totally didn't know that!

--
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by MozeeToby · 2009-04-02 03:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Storms are created by temperatures differences, which are in turn created by sunlight warming different areas at different rates. So yes, the same kinds of things will happen on Jupiter, if nothing else based on the temperature difference from the day to the night side. The real question is, why has the Red Spot been so stable for so long?
Think about it; surface features shouldn't effect warming rates since all solar radiation is absorbed long before it gets to the surface. Pockets of atmosphere will absorb heat at different rates, but those pockets aren't stationary. That leaves complex, self-correcting fluid dynamics or massive surface features that significantly change the wind patterns hundreds or thousands of miles up or something we just don't understand yet. All of which are pretty interesting.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by ChrisBader · 2009-04-02 03:53 · Score: 1

and right now I'm fairly confident to put up a small wager stating that NASA is already planning a mission to see what caused this and see what has been hiding underneath that storm for all these years.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by poena.dare · 2009-04-02 04:17 · Score: 1

Every now and again, I get this feeling that the masses don't understand that planets evolve
Once again, we see how the liberal agenda is spreading like cancer in this country. Biology wasn't enough for you so now you go after planetary science. I supposed the next thing you will start spouting is how Jupiter is descended from monkeys. You could not be more wrong, sir or madam!
The tru7h is that Jupiter was intelligently designed by associates of Slartibartfast. Unfortunately, the shrinkage of the red spot indicates Jupiter's warranty is about to expire. I strongly encourage relocation if you happen to live in the neighborhood.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by Bemopolis · 2009-04-02 04:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

Storms are created by temperatures differences, which are in turn created by sunlight warming different areas at different rates. So yes, the same kinds of things will happen on Jupiter, if nothing else based on the temperature difference from the day to the night side. The real question is, why has the Red Spot been so stable for so long?
You are overlooking one important energy source: Jupiter itself. Because of ongoing differentiation, Jupiter produces about twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun. Given this and the fact that this source is coming from below rather than above, it is likely the more important contribution to the dynamics of the atmosphere.

--
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Re:Global warming at fault?! by BlackSnake112 · 2009-04-02 04:46 · Score: 1

I always thought and read that the big red spot was about three Earth's wide. Jupiter is freaking huge compared to Earth.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by macxcool · 2009-04-02 05:07 · Score: 1

...as we are adapted to current conditions
Would these conditions be the conditions in the Arctic where people have to deal with a very short growing season, almost no precipitation, extreme cold for a long period of time and days on end of almost continuous darkness for part of the year? Perhaps these conditions would be the extreme heat of equatorial regions with certain places getting almost no rain and others having a long, wet rainy season.
It seems to me that humans were designed very well for adapting to almost any kind of condition. If the conditions are too extreme we adapt them to suit our needs or move to more suitable areas.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by SatanicPuppy · 2009-04-02 05:13 · Score: 1

Yea, I misread. It's the eye, the darker spot in the middle, that's the diameter of earth. Heh.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by rts008 · 2009-04-02 05:33 · Score: 1

Done, and done. :-)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Global warming at fault?! by mike2R · 2009-04-02 06:00 · Score: 1

It seems to me that humans were designed very well for adapting to almost any kind of condition. If the conditions are too extreme we adapt them to suit our needs or move to more suitable areas.
Which is fine for Homo Sapiens as a whole. But speaking personally this particular example of the species is quite accustomed to the area and conditions it has at the moment, and would like to avoid or mitigate radical changes if possible. I don't think I'm alone in this.

--
This sig all sigs devours
Re:Global warming at fault?! by smoker2 · 2009-04-02 06:57 · Score: 1

You are overlooking one important energy source: Jupiter itself. Because of ongoing differentiation, Jupiter produces about twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun. Given this and the fact that this source is coming from below rather than above, it is likely the more important contribution to the dynamics of the atmosphere.
So the Sun provides one third of Jupiters energy ? Seems like the sun could play a fairly significant role in the weather on Jupiter then.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by mea37 · 2009-04-02 07:38 · Score: 1

Human adaptability is pretty impressive, but far from boundless.
The "extremes" you noted can support some humans, but not at the level of population density we have in temperate climates. If the entire planet were at those extremes, there would be no densely-populated, highly-developed parts of the world that could provide the support that allows population densities in "extreme" areas to be as high as they are.
Plus, those areas you mention aren't really the extremes of what the planet can throw at us today. 70% of the planet is uninhabitable because it's underwater. The poles are uninhabitable. The majority of Austrailia, large parts of Affrica... the list goes on. Climate change can conform larger parts of the plaent to the true extremes where we cannot live, and could even create more extreme conditions than those.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by Ogive17 · 2009-04-02 08:22 · Score: 1

Maybe the planet is sick of the human infestation and is doing this in order to lower our numbers. We've got people living in freezing conditions year round, and people living in tropical climates year round, and people who have to deal with cold winters and hot summers... unless the global temperature drops or rises significantly (meaning the entire planet becomes so extreme in either direction) we'll continue to survive and prosper... maybe a bit more compacted than we're use to.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:Global warming at fault?! by mea37 · 2009-04-02 08:43 · Score: 1

The impact of global climate is very different from the impact of local weather (or even local climate). There's a lot more to it than "the expected high and low temperature in your 5-day forcast will be X degrees higher/lower than before". Your assumption about the range of conditions in which humanity can prosper is extremely optimistic.
As for species survival... if your concerns are limited to "will the species survive", then neither this nor any other matter is important enough to deserve your attention. That isn't how I see the world, though.
Re:Global warming at fault?! by CorSci81 · 2009-04-02 08:53 · Score: 1

The sun does play some role in Jupiter's weather, but not nearly as much as it does on Earth. Our atmosphere is almost exclusively driven by solar input, on Jupiter 2/3 of the energy in the atmosphere is coming from the interior of the planet. This means sun or no Jupiter would still have very active meteorology, the Sun just adds an extra layer of complication to an already complicated fluid dynamics problem.

Yes they do know about shrinkage by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2009-04-02 03:28 · Score: 1

Given the area of Jupiter's red spot (Which is humongous) I'm surprised it's shrunk as much as 15% but the Pi was never my strong point :)

It may start to grow again or it my shrink even further all we really know is one day it will probably disappear only to be replaced by another

--

Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

Re:Yes they do know about shrinkage by blackholepcs · 2009-04-02 04:15 · Score: 1

I'm surprised it's shrunk as much as 15% but the Hair Pie was never my strong point :)
There. Fixed that for ya!

--
Halitosis - (n.) Halle Berry's Camel Toe.

Red spot shrinking? by Thanshin · 2009-04-02 03:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Perfect time to send some spam to Jupiter.

Re:Red spot shrinking? by CompMD · 2009-04-02 05:43 · Score: 1

Better yet, make the message personal, and send spammers to Jupiter.
Re:Red spot shrinking? by Calithulu · 2009-04-02 09:35 · Score: 1

Natural Storm Enhancement pills?
Re:Red spot shrinking? by RockDoctor · 2009-04-02 20:03 · Score: 1

Better yet, make the message personal, and send spammers to Jupiter.
I see no need to waste money on non-essential equipment for this mission. Little things like life support, atmosphere, that sort of thing.
Actually, no, I do see a need for life support. Just enough to allow one person to make the round trip, plus about 1/3 excess. And cameras, to transmit the evolutionary struggle back to Earth.
It wouldn't stop the spam problem on Earth, but if we repeated the process a few times, and bred together the spammers that survived the hecatomb ... after a few generations, wouldn't we end up with pond scum?

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

Weather's clearing up by Captain+Spam · 2009-04-02 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Somewhere on Jupiter...

"Welp, reckon that storm front's finally breakin' up, Edgar."
"Ayup. Haven't seen a storm like that since the hundred-fifty-year* one back up near the poles."
"Yup, yup, that one had the cattle all rustled up somethin' fierce."
"Reckon y'don't see storms like that any more."

For some reason, this entire story strikes me as just realizing that Jupiter has weather systems. They just might be longer than Earth ones.

*: Jupiter years.

--
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.

Re:Weather's clearing up by ArsonSmith · 2009-04-02 10:38 · Score: 1

I'm just curios what were going to do about this human caused storm shrinking. If people would just stop driving there SUVs these kind of things wouldn't happen.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.

The birth of europa? by new_breed · 2009-04-02 03:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Please tell me there will be a 2010 joke in here somewhere...don't dissapoint me moviegeeks!

Re:The birth of europa? by mmkkbb · 2009-04-02 03:36 · Score: 2, Funny

You could have just, I dunno, made one.
**spoiler!!!**
I wonder if Clarke chose that year because a craft leaving Earth in 2010 would arrive at Jupiter in 2012 and thus the Leonov would witness the birth of a new sun just as the world is ending!

--
-mkb
Re:The birth of europa? by click2005 · 2009-04-02 03:38 · Score: 2, Funny

2010: The Space Oxy??

--
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Re:The birth of europa? by Whammy666 · 2009-04-02 03:46 · Score: 1

I was wondering if anyone was going to connect this to 2010. Maybe Jupiter has finally passed puberty.

--
When all else fails, run.
Re:The birth of europa? by noundi · 2009-04-02 03:58 · Score: 1

Maybe Jupiter has finally passed puberty.
It shrunk 15% in 10 years. More like Jupiter finally retired.

--
I am the lawn!
Re:The birth of europa? by breadlord · 2009-04-02 04:05 · Score: 1

IT'S SHRINKING! IT'S SHRINKING! That IS the quote you're looking for, ya?
Re:The birth of europa? by HeliosTrick · 2009-04-02 04:20 · Score: 1

I was just going to make a post about this. I think we're safe as long as we don't notice a little black spot growing...
Re:The birth of europa? by iluvcapra · 2009-04-02 04:28 · Score: 1

All of these worlds are yours, except Europa. attempt no landings there. Use them together. Use them in peace.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:The birth of europa? by cashman73 · 2009-04-02 04:28 · Score: 1

All these worlds are yours,
EXCEPT EUROPA.
Attempt no landings there.
Use them together.
Use them in peace.
There, fixed it for ya!
Re:The birth of europa? by Chabo · 2009-04-02 04:47 · Score: 1

moviegeeks
Pfft. I read the whole book series. He made four books, only two of which were made into movies.

--
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Re:The birth of europa? by evilbessie · 2009-04-02 05:50 · Score: 1

He is, like most of the people who wrote stories yesterday, possibly lacking the funny.

It's just shy by thered2001 · 2009-04-02 03:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

With all the photos we've been taking of it over the past 30 or so years, it's just being coy.

--

If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.

*wink* by T+Murphy · 2009-04-02 03:30 · Score: 1

Jupiter is just winking at us.

--
My webcomic

How about color? by Tibor+the+Hun · 2009-04-02 03:31 · Score: 4, Funny

It's not getting blacker by chance is it?

--
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.

Re:How about color? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-02 03:33 · Score: 5, Funny

OMG its full of ponies!
Re:How about color? by Pharmboy · 2009-04-02 03:50 · Score: 1

Ok, fuck anyone who disagrees, that was funny...

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:How about color? by Chabo · 2009-04-02 04:55 · Score: 1

Don't forget, the red spot lost its color before a black spot started appearing inside it.

--
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher

Re:Let's celebrate! by SatanicPuppy · 2009-04-02 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, it is reasonable to look to other planets for comparison when events happen on a planetary scale.

However, looking at a gas giant is a bit of a stretch. There are basically no points of congruence between a supermassive ball of gaseous, liquid, and metallic hydrogen, and a tiny ball of rock with a thin scrim of water on the top.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.

When it's done.. by spurious+cowherd · 2009-04-02 03:40 · Score: 3, Funny

..we need to make sure we stay away from Europa

--

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

Re:When it's done.. by pete-classic · 2009-04-02 03:58 · Score: 1

Wait, are you saying that I should attempt no landing there?
-Peter
Re:When it's done.. by Chabo · 2009-04-02 04:51 · Score: 1

It's the only way to be sure.

--
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher

Re:Let's celebrate! by Mr.+Firewall · 2009-04-02 03:40 · Score: 2, Informative

eez. I realize that we get a lot of overheated (excuse the pun) rhetoric from proponents of AGW, but do you skeptics really have to take your rhetorical bandwagon so far in the opposite direction?

Calm down. It's a joke.

--
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll

Time for a bailout by Lord+Byron+II · 2009-04-02 03:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Let me be the first to say that the Great Red Spot is too big to fail!

Re:Time for a bailout by Zordak · 2009-04-02 04:17 · Score: 1

This is the only truly funny thing I've read on Slashdot in 48 hours (and yes, I'm including Squeez Bacon---that was just disturbing).

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.

I swear by Phizzle · 2009-04-02 03:41 · Score: 1

I didn't do it!

--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

Bailout money? by quangdog · 2009-04-02 03:43 · Score: 1

I hear Jupiter has approached Obama's administration to request some bailout cash - It's not the planet's fault the spot is shrinking, after all.

2010 by HunterZ · 2009-04-02 03:43 · Score: 3, Funny

We should see if we can get the Russians to take US scientists along on a ship next year to investigate.

--
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.

Re:2010 by ozbird · 2009-04-02 09:28 · Score: 1

Sure, the Americans can go along - but they can't use the toilet. Eww.

Aw, Jupiter is finally out of puberty! by cwiegmann24 · 2009-04-02 03:44 · Score: 2, Funny

Jupiter's acne is finally clearing up! Should really do something about all those brown and white rings though... I mean, take a shower once in a while

Bob? by Archangel+Michael · 2009-04-02 03:45 · Score: 1

Where is Smiling Bob when you need him?

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Monolith by koterica · 2009-04-02 03:46 · Score: 2, Funny

In a related story, NASA has announced the first manned mission to Jupiter, the purpose of which is to examine a large rectangular black object sitting in synchronous orbit above the storm.

Not to be a troll, but... by Tarlus · 2009-04-02 03:46 · Score: 1

I remember hearing this when I was in grade school. Hasn't this been supposedly been going on throughout the latter part of the last century?

--
/* No Comment */

Re:Not to be a troll, but... by Aladrin · 2009-04-02 03:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, I remember the same thing from gradeschool... Over 20 years ago.

--
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM

Re:Global climate change!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-02 03:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

You're a douchebag. Just wanted to let you know.

Re:Let's celebrate! by timkar · 2009-04-02 03:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Isn't it enough just not to believe?

No, we must also mock. Mock heartily. That's what we do in this country.

Don't worry by rockbottoms · 2009-04-02 03:58 · Score: 2, Funny

The Great Red Spot will start to grow again next month

Damn Global Warming by rshol · 2009-04-02 03:59 · Score: 1

NT

The Solar System's Timer by Gallenod · 2009-04-02 04:01 · Score: 1

Maybe the Red Spot is a timer, and when it finally disappears something really interesting will happen, like:

- God (in his Flying Spaghetti Monster incarnation) will appear and prove Its existence once and for all
- Jupiter will emit a cosmic alarm announcing that our solar system is finally finished
- Jupiter will ignite and become a small star
- Mankind will achieve true enlightenment (as every nuclear weapon on the planet goes off simiultaneously)

Any other ideas?

--

TLR

A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company

Re:The Solar System's Timer by Thanshin · 2009-04-02 04:09 · Score: 1

Maybe the Red Spot is a timer, and when it finally disappears something really interesting will happen, like:
It will go "BING!" and we'll know it's ready to be eaten.
And it will taste like chicken.
Re:The Solar System's Timer by PPH · 2009-04-02 04:54 · Score: 1
Maybe the Red Spot is a timer, and when it finally disappears something really interesting will happen, like:
- God (in his Flying Spaghetti Monster incarnation) will appear and prove Its existence once and for all
Its a giant meatball, sinking into the sauce!
--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:The Solar System's Timer by Xtifr · 2009-04-02 05:49 · Score: 1

- God (in his Flying Spaghetti Monster incarnation) will appear and prove Its existence once and for all
Y'know, that's a tricky one. Given Clarke's third law, I don't see any way that Yaweh or FSM or Zeus or whatever can prove anything other that the fact that He (She/It/Them/Whatever) is a sufficiently advanced alien. I'm certainly not qualified to judge the difference, and I don't believe anyone who claims that they are.

- Mankind will achieve true enlightenment (as every nuclear weapon on the planet goes off simiultaneously)
Oh, well, in that case, I suppose it will no longer matter whether the "proof" is valid or not. Never mind. :)
Re:The Solar System's Timer by huckamania · 2009-04-02 06:12 · Score: 1

If they want to borrow your Spaceship, then they are probably not God.

Great red spot? by TheBolten · 2009-04-02 04:06 · Score: 1

Personally I've always thought it was a rather lousy red spot.

Re:Let's celebrate! by notarockstar1979 · 2009-04-02 04:08 · Score: 1

Isn't it enough just not to believe?

No, it isn't. Not ever, and not in either direction (for or against Big Al in this particular case). This is why we have science, which is there to PROVE whether or not a thing is true. Belief is a great starting point, but it will never be enough in and of itself.

This brings an interesting, off-topic thought... by erroneus · 2009-04-02 04:13 · Score: 1

Someone commented on global warming and other things and I wonder about that. Some say global warming is caused by man and his emissions. Other say it's due to natural causes and likely has a lot to do with changes in solar activity.

This is a potentially testable argument. We have, after all, various probes in the solar system and at least two roaming around on a neighbor planet. Can't we make some determinations based on data outside of our atmosphere how changes in the sun's state affects other bodies in the solar system? Could the changes in Jupiter's storm be related to changes in the sun? And if that were the case, it would seem to lend credence to one side of the global warming argument.

Re:Good by Ukab+the+Great · 2009-04-02 04:17 · Score: 1

Or that the Rogaine is failing.

There's apologists... and then there's you.... by macraig · 2009-04-02 04:22 · Score: 1

There's "apologists", sure, but then on the extreme other end of that spectrum... there's you.

You'd have us believe that all change is good, and all (specific) change is unavoidable? That's bullshit, spoken by someone who's too cowardly to take responsibility for stupid choices that cause BAD changes to occur.

While apologists may be too quick to adopt responsibility for things and flagellate themselves and their kin, you're too quick to distance yourself and your kin from any responsibility. Nice "fair and balanced" ya got goin' there.

The martians aren't taking care of the planet by shellster_dude · 2009-04-02 04:22 · Score: 1

It's global warming, man.

That would be a great idea, if... by Overzeetop · 2009-04-02 04:24 · Score: 1

...you had a couple thousand years to gather data. One of the biggest issues is that we're trying to extrapolate a very high order polynomial with poorly defined points which are close together.
And we're trying to do it with many factors contributing. The problem is that everyone wants the answer now, or at the latest in time for Fall sweeps. You just don't get that kind of historic data in such a short period.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:That would be a great idea, if... by erroneus · 2009-04-02 04:42 · Score: 1

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. After all, we can detect all sorts of things such as the presence of water on distant planets and such. I am sure that various observations related to various changes and observations might be used to form some theories.
While it is undoubtedly true that if we had absolutely perfect direct data we could form a more precise determination, but noting other evidence could certainly assist in pointing the way.

Sure but what about the last 35 minutes? by BigAssRat · 2009-04-02 04:39 · Score: 1

Sure, but what about the last 35 minutes? The trend could have reversed by now and we wouldn't know it yet.

But the red spot in Uranus... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2009-04-02 04:44 · Score: 1

is expanding rapidly.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

Jupiter confirms it: Red Storm Linux is dying! by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-02 04:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Another crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Red Storm Linux community today when Jupiter...

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Where is Al Gore when you need him! by whizbang77045 · 2009-04-02 04:46 · Score: 1

What an opportunity for another international prize! Here's a subject that needs increased social awareness. Al Gore, where are you when the galaxy needs you?

Re:Where is Al Gore when you need him! by ChrisMaple · 2009-04-02 05:23 · Score: 1

We are planning to send Al Gore to Jupiter to examine the problem. Since the air here is already polluted, we won't be sending any along with him.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Where is Al Gore when you need him! by whizbang77045 · 2009-04-02 09:58 · Score: 1

You've got my vote. But something as important as this surely needs a contingent. Perhaps we could come up with a list of key political figures who have expertise in this area? Or who at least think they do.

Thinly veiled ad ... by PPH · 2009-04-02 04:50 · Score: 1

... for Clearasil.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Must be global warming... by gillbates · 2009-04-02 04:56 · Score: 1

Surely the Jupiterians are burning too much fossil fuels.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Re:Must be global warming... by rodney+dill · 2009-04-02 06:03 · Score: 1

...whatever it was left a pretty big Hydrogen footprint.

--

Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett

#$%! economy by n1ckml007 · 2009-04-02 05:07 · Score: 3, Funny

No the red spot is shrinking due to wind cut backs.

Re:#$%! economy by Mattintosh · 2009-04-02 05:51 · Score: 1

Actually, I read a story about the current solar minimum just today, and how that has reduced the solar wind pressure. Perhaps that's the cause of the red spot on Jupiter.
Of course, that story's comments had similar "the economy is shrinking the sun" stupidity, and that's what made me think of it just now.

Not so great red spot. by BForrester · 2009-04-02 05:09 · Score: 1

Probably doesn't help that everyone is staring at it, too.
Poor guy has cold shrinkage AND performance anxiety.

Re:Let's celebrate! by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-04-02 05:15 · Score: 1

I think you have to go back and read the sentence you quoted.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

...and by rodney+dill · 2009-04-02 05:16 · Score: 1

Leon is getting larger!

--

Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett

Re:...and by DaveV1.0 · 2009-04-02 05:31 · Score: 1

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.

Re:This brings an interesting, off-topic thought.. by Abcd1234 · 2009-04-02 05:16 · Score: 1

Can't we make some determinations based on data outside of our atmosphere how changes in the sun's state affects other bodies in the solar system?

What makes you think people haven't done just that? And guess what? So far... the answer is 'no', solar variability hasn't resulted in any noticeable changes on the other planets in the solar system (certainly not over the past 50 years, when global warming has accelerated the most).

Now, before you start about Mars, Mars *isn't experiencing warming*. It's experiencing normal, run-of-the-mill seasonal variability. So if Mars, the planet next closest to the Sun, isn't showing signs of any interesting affects, and neither are any of the other planets, why would you conclude that Jupiter is? Sounds an awful lot like cherrypicking to me (which, as it happens, is a fun game that AGW opponents like to play).

Re:This brings an interesting, off-topic thought.. by erroneus · 2009-04-02 05:26 · Score: 1

Mars has a might lighter atmosphere and Jupiter has an extremely heavy atmosphere. It is precisely the interaction between the atmosphere and the sun's energy that creates what we call "weather." Venus experiences lots of interesting weather due not only to its atmospheric content, but also due to the energy from the sun. Mars, on the other hand, is significantly less dense and while there should be some measurable effects, the measurements may not be as dramatic. Jupiter, however, has an extremely dense atmosphere and while it is considerably farther from the sun may still be affected by it in a significant way. Of course it is all speculation since we really don't even know the cause of the spot in the first place... could be some sort of volcanic source that is petering out.

Jupiter-Sun Yay! by up2ng · 2009-04-02 05:28 · Score: 1

There will be 2 suns in the solar system after next year(as per 2010).
Thanks Jupiter-sun !

--
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.

And in Related News... by mandark1967 · 2009-04-02 05:31 · Score: 1

Glaxo Wellcome took credit for the reduction and announced that, thanks to it's "Valtrex" brand of medicine, the spot would continue to shrink and eventually disappear, however, they cautioned Jupiter to stay away from Uranus because outbreaks may still occur even when the Jovian is asymptomatic. Jupiter had no comment, but was said to be quite embarrassed and considering a defamation lawsuit.

--
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain

Another venus is coming! by SnarfQuest · 2009-04-02 05:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Anyone remember Immanuel Velikovsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

Could this be just the preliminaries for another Venus ejection event?

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.

Re:This brings an interesting, off-topic thought.. by drinkypoo · 2009-04-02 05:43 · Score: 1

Gas giants don't have volcanoes, asshole. (Assholes can, however, have gas giants and/or volcanoes.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:This brings an interesting, off-topic thought.. by erroneus · 2009-04-02 05:51 · Score: 1

Are you SURE there is no solid or molten core at the center? The fact that the atmosphere is very dense does nothing to indicate what their core is made of. If you have any evidence or other data to offer to the contrary, I would be happy to read it. But the presumption that a gas giant is highly compressed and cohesive gas only seems... weird.

Valtrex by DanCentury · 2009-04-02 05:53 · Score: 1

Valtrex to the rescue again.

Re:Let's celebrate! by mi · 2009-04-02 06:05 · Score: 1

However, looking at a gas giant is a bit of a stretch. There are basically no points of congruence between a supermassive ball of gaseous, liquid, and metallic hydrogen, and a tiny ball of rock with a thin scrim of water on the top.

The point is, very significant changes can happen to a planet without any human contribution. This much we can all agree on, and the observation in subject is a good illustration.

Back to partisan sniping — has not Barack Obama already fixed the global warming problem some time last year (before even taking office)? The 2008 was, like, the coldest in decades and 2009 is not particularly warm either...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:Let's celebrate! by SatanicPuppy · 2009-04-02 06:23 · Score: 1

It's more accurate to say "Climate Change"; unusually cold years are also possible.

I'm not sold on the doomsayers, but most climate scientists agree that SOMETHING is going on, and CO2 levels are a strong possible cause. I'm trying to be open-minded in the face of the media frenzy.

--
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.

+1, Unintentionally hilarious by Virak · 2009-04-02 06:31 · Score: 3, Informative

-adjective
1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.
2. resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.

The word you were looking for is "anthropogenic".

Re:+1, Unintentionally hilarious by HeadlessNotAHorseman · 2009-04-02 14:11 · Score: 1

Don't anthropomorphise the carving, he hates it when you do that.

--
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.

The Red Spot just needs to eat by PeterM+from+Berkeley · 2009-04-02 06:33 · Score: 1

A few weeks ago I saw a documentary which mentioned the red spot, I think it was one of the 'Naked Science' shows cable. (Geographic channel?)

Anyway, the show aired the proposition that the great spot only persists because it consumes smaller storms, which add energy to it and keep it going.

If you believe that argument, than the red spot will fluctuate in size, shrinking between meals and expanding afterwards, but it's probably going to persist more or less permanently, because Jupiter has so much energy and so many smaller storms to feed the big one.

Shrinkage by argux · 2009-04-02 06:35 · Score: 1

Scientists know about shrinkage, right?

It shrinks?!

Death = more evolution. It's like "earth hour" by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-04-02 06:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Both of these problems will kill people. Which is what makes evolution work.

So isn't this a good thing ? It improves humanity in the "natural" way. Natural is, like, always good man !

(and for a serious reply : the entirety of Holland has an average height of MINUS 2 meters, so there will be exactly 0 things happening, you also pass by on the fact that all of the following 3 problems will become critical long before any noticeable sea level rise occurs : oil (and energy) shortage, water shortage, food shortage due to overpopulation. Global warming is not a crisis. It's not, by a long shot, the first thing that will kill anyone. Overpopulation is already killing millions today (but not quite enough to prevent further population rise). And this is also assuming that none of the destructive ideologies like islam, dictatorships, socialism, ... make a comeback. All of them, of course, seem to be working on a comeback. If we are to live in peace, they need to be stopped).

Re:Let's celebrate! by saforrest · 2009-04-02 07:12 · Score: 1

Apparently, you and a whole bunch of people decided I was somehow telling you to believe or disbelieve based on faith alone.

When I said "isn't it enough just to disbelieve", the alternative was endorsing a wholly unsubstantiated claim which was the diametrical opposite of the one advanced, i.e. the claim that not only is AGW not happening, that carbon released into the atmosphere has no effect at all!

This was completely obvious from my post, you idiots.

Re:Let's celebrate! by saforrest · 2009-04-02 07:24 · Score: 1

Apparently, you and a whole bunch of people decided I was somehow telling you to believe or disbelieve based on faith alone.

When I said "isn't it enough just to disbelieve", the implicit alternative was endorsing a wholly unsubstantiated claim which was the diametrical opposite of the one advanced, i.e. the claim that not only is AGW not happening, that carbon released into the atmosphere has no effect at all!

I think I was pretty clear, so I don't know how you (and presumably most of the people who modded me down).

God, why does Slashdot have so many AGW deniers? I hang out with geeks all the time and I only ever met a handful, one admittedly being one of the smartest people I know. Perhaps it's because I'm not American and most of you are there; I won't be rude and speculate on just why that might be.

Re:Let's celebrate! by notarockstar1979 · 2009-04-02 07:26 · Score: 1

Haha, yeah I misread that one. Sorry about that. Please return to your regularly scheduled Slashdot posting.

Re:meme tag stole my post.. Speaking of Crack... by davidsyes · 2009-04-02 08:24 · Score: 1

I was going to suggest that UrAnus leaked some Anusol onto Jupiter and gave it that "ooh, ahhh" soothing feeling.... of ring contraction...

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

Re:This brings an interesting, off-topic thought.. by TheBig1 · 2009-04-02 08:39 · Score: 1

Due to the pressure and composition of outer layers, I believe that the current theory is that the core of Jupiter is composed primarily of metallic hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen). Regardless of whether this is true or not, the conditions at the core would likely be nothing like terrestrial land and associated conditions (crust, plates, etc)

2010 is calling by 32771 · 2009-04-02 08:45 · Score: 1

I can just hear Curnow yelling "its shrinking, its shrinking"

--
Je me souviens.

Re:2010 is calling by RoboRay · 2009-04-02 10:29 · Score: 1

And almost on schedule. We're only one year early!

Re:Something is going to happen by DamienNightbane · 2009-04-02 08:48 · Score: 1

Nah, I bet it's going to be something awful.

Obviously caused by thestupidwhiteguy · 2009-04-02 10:12 · Score: 1

by human beings! When will we ever learn? http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1a4af347eb/eco-commando-episode-1

Cut it out you guys! by Chris+Burke · 2009-04-02 10:55 · Score: 1

Gawd, it's not funny!

-- Uranus

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:This brings an interesting, off-topic thought.. by ArsonSmith · 2009-04-02 10:57 · Score: 1

There will be no research money granted to anyone that does any research that might cast doubt on the current boogie man.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.

Old pictures? by 4D6963 · 2009-04-02 11:06 · Score: 1

TFA says 19th century photographs of Jupiter show the red spot was huge and elongated like a sausage. Never saw that before, pics please?

Also, in b4 irrelevant and misplaced global warming and politics-related comments. Oh wait, crap, you guys can't help it can you?

--
You just got troll'd!

Re:This brings an interesting, off-topic thought.. by dryeo · 2009-04-02 14:02 · Score: 1

Jupiter (and Saturn and Neptune) puts out quite a bit more energy then it receives from the Sun. So it is hard to say if weather there is driven by solar or internal heat.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Re:Let's celebrate! by mi · 2009-04-03 03:42 · Score: 1

I'm not sold on the doomsayers, but most climate scientists agree that SOMETHING is going on, and CO2 levels are a strong possible cause. I'm trying to be open-minded in the face of the media frenzy.

The most polarizing part of the debate is not whether anything is going on, but whether humans' (negative) contribution to it is significant enough to warrant forcible altering of our behavior — something anti-Capitalists in particular are most fond of. Examples of very significant, visible, rapid changes affecting planets with no occupants (and no media) certainly weaken their (already weak) argument...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:Let's celebrate! by frankie · 2009-04-16 04:43 · Score: 1

Back to partisan sniping — has not Barack Obama already fixed the global warming problem some time last year (before even taking office)? The 2008 was, like, the coldest in decades and 2009 is not particularly warm either...

1: No matter how much people on ALL sides of the debate like to scream about the latest short-term variation, one or two years of air temperature data do not constitute a trend. Decades are probably the smallest useful increment for considering climate change.

2: Everyone knows global temperature has fallen recently because of the valiant efforts of Somali environmentalists. Ramen!

Slashdot Mirror

Jupiter's Great Red Spot Is Shrinking

206 of 270 comments (clear)