I disagree, we can easily replace a large part of our carbon output by switching from coal power to nuclear power. We can make a further dent in this by using electric and natural gas for transportation.
Compared to replacing CFCs, that's a 10 on the hardness scale.
The same argument could be made for many courses of actions, including wiring $1000 directly to my bank account. Pleases do it, I warn that the universe will be destroyed if you don't, and can point you to scientific papers that prove it.
They had their water treatment plant connected to the internet. That's like putting a banner with the root password, plus leaving the door open with a sign that says, "PLEASE COME IN."
The incompetence here went very deep. If only the NSA were doing something useful like trying to defend this stuff against foreign hostile hackers, instead of trying to spy on citizens.
Acid rain didn't just "go away" either spontaneously, it slowed significantly because humans, back then, actually listened to scientists and were less aggressively selfish and stupid than regarding global warming.
Specifically, we stopped doing stuff like this. Even more specifically, we limited the amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide going into the air.
Hell I even managed to get Dr Judith Curry to agree with me in 2014, that the next few years would tell the story. If temps remained relatively level, then we were missing something.
That's what I thought in 1995. I figured we'd have it all settled by 2000, without a doubt (based on Hansen 1988)
I admire your effort to turn slashdot into a bastion of enlightened discussion, but it's probably futile.
Meh, if I affect one person, then it's worth it.
I'm not smart enough to know if these guys know what they are talking about.
Well, you can, it's not about smartness, it's about diligence and effort reading through heavy prose. It's kind of like a puzzle: we can untangle the web, follow the chain. The paper you linked to is measuring the damage that would be caused if an earlier paper was correct, which was this paper. That paper used a computer model (which I don't trust at all) to fill in the gaps in earlier studies which looked at historical data.
That paper actually has a decent overview of the historical data in the section titled "Paleo." I am fairly certain you can understand it.
That seems rather odd, because a big part of climatology at this point is nailing down just what will happen and the timing of when it will happen.
Yes, and it's no where near certain what will happen. Which is why there is still so much ongoing research.
there are no consequences predicted in climate models, that the millions of tons of CO2 aren't going to alter precipitation patterns and other aspects of regional and global climate?
Consequences from the computer climate models vary dramatically depending on the model. As for altering precipitation patterns and regional climate, the IPCC report estimated that the models are not accurate anything smaller than the continental scale (and in my view that is optimistic. For example, climate models can't predict what AGW will do to El Nino, but that is probably the largest determinant to climate over California). I'm not sure what you mean by 'global climate.'
Also, regarding models, there's this paper which Eunuchswear gets mad at me when I post, but he hasn't made a good scientific argument against it yet.
Oh, you don't like the part where there are consequences?
Whether I like the consequences or not is irrelevant.
I don't like that you're being unscientific in your discussion. Though it does make me smile that you're haranguing other people for being unscientific at the same time.
You shouldn't mod people up based on whether you 'agree' or 'disagree' with them. Rather, mod them based on whether they've read the paper or not, and the quality of their analysis. Scientific thought should be respected.
The author of the paper is Richard Zeebe, his main focus is drilling ocean cores. Here is a nice video of the guy, he seems like a straight-shooter and a reasonable scientist.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Even if you want to be extremely generous in error margins, pre-industrial CO2 was still lower than 320ppm, and now it's at 400ppm. We know from looking at isotope ratios that more than half that difference was from humans. And even if it weren't human CO2, if we really really tried, we have (expensive) strategies that could reduce it back down to 240ppm.
This sounds like a great plan. But why do you think it is going to happen? Is the government of Cuba about to allow free enterprise by its citizens?
In practice, we've seen that as countries go richer, they start to demand more and more political power, and then the people throw off the dictatorship. A pattern followed in S Korea, and Taiwan, for example.
But what I'm talking about is using the historic, one-time-only opportunity of getting something in exchange for lifting the embargo. We don't have any similar embargo on China and Saudi Arabia, so they are not very relevant to my question: why did the Obama administration simply unilaterally drop the embargo without getting anything in return?
That's basically what Donald Trump is saying. That he's the negotiator, and he can get stuff in return for stuff. He even wrote a book about negotiating.
So, it's not worth making even the smallest effort to help out the prisoners of conscience? The one-sided deal where the government of Cuba gets what it wants, and the USA demands nothing, is the best possible deal?
Obama has the idea that the best way to fix Cuba is by making them successful, since decades of embargo have done nothing. That is the strategy he is following. Yeah, he's not negotiating the best deal out of it, but you know, next time elect the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal. Maybe that will go better for you.
It's because of a change in definitions of 'performant.' When CPUs were slow and a system call took a few milliseconds, then doubling the time to do a system call was something serious.
Now that CPUs are faster, most of the time people don't care about the few extra nanoseconds it takes to do a single systemcall.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of them actually look rather luxurious. This one, on the other hand, looks like 3-class on the titanic.
I disagree, we can easily replace a large part of our carbon output by switching from coal power to nuclear power. We can make a further dent in this by using electric and natural gas for transportation.
Compared to replacing CFCs, that's a 10 on the hardness scale.
The same argument could be made for many courses of actions, including wiring $1000 directly to my bank account. Pleases do it, I warn that the universe will be destroyed if you don't, and can point you to scientific papers that prove it.
The original point was qualified If being a scientist requires the ability to look dispassionately at the evidence, which apparently you didn't read.
They had their water treatment plant connected to the internet. That's like putting a banner with the root password, plus leaving the door open with a sign that says, "PLEASE COME IN."
The incompetence here went very deep. If only the NSA were doing something useful like trying to defend this stuff against foreign hostile hackers, instead of trying to spy on citizens.
Seriously? Is your knowledge base so small that you can't possibly think of another analogy other than Nazis? I cry for your inanity.
Acid rain didn't just "go away" either spontaneously, it slowed significantly because humans, back then, actually listened to scientists and were less aggressively selfish and stupid than regarding global warming.
Specifically, we stopped doing stuff like this. Even more specifically, we limited the amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide going into the air.
Problem: the costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
That's a hypothesis, but not a very well supported one.
Hell I even managed to get Dr Judith Curry to agree with me in 2014, that the next few years would tell the story. If temps remained relatively level, then we were missing something.
That's what I thought in 1995. I figured we'd have it all settled by 2000, without a doubt (based on Hansen 1988)
They aren't a technology company. They are nothing more than a normal online service.. not special at all.
Do you understand that an online service is technology?
I admire your effort to turn slashdot into a bastion of enlightened discussion, but it's probably futile.
Meh, if I affect one person, then it's worth it.
I'm not smart enough to know if these guys know what they are talking about.
Well, you can, it's not about smartness, it's about diligence and effort reading through heavy prose. It's kind of like a puzzle: we can untangle the web, follow the chain. The paper you linked to is measuring the damage that would be caused if an earlier paper was correct, which was this paper. That paper used a computer model (which I don't trust at all) to fill in the gaps in earlier studies which looked at historical data.
That paper actually has a decent overview of the historical data in the section titled "Paleo." I am fairly certain you can understand it.
Why do you think all that stuff you just wrote? Did you read it on a blog somewhere? Defend your assertions with science.
Then fucking read the science, for fuck's sake. Stop paying attention to the fucking pundits on either side of the debate.
Yes, please.
That seems rather odd, because a big part of climatology at this point is nailing down just what will happen and the timing of when it will happen.
Yes, and it's no where near certain what will happen. Which is why there is still so much ongoing research.
there are no consequences predicted in climate models, that the millions of tons of CO2 aren't going to alter precipitation patterns and other aspects of regional and global climate?
Consequences from the computer climate models vary dramatically depending on the model. As for altering precipitation patterns and regional climate, the IPCC report estimated that the models are not accurate anything smaller than the continental scale (and in my view that is optimistic. For example, climate models can't predict what AGW will do to El Nino, but that is probably the largest determinant to climate over California). I'm not sure what you mean by 'global climate.'
Also, regarding models, there's this paper which Eunuchswear gets mad at me when I post, but he hasn't made a good scientific argument against it yet.
Oh, you don't like the part where there are consequences?
Whether I like the consequences or not is irrelevant.
I don't like that you're being unscientific in your discussion. Though it does make me smile that you're haranguing other people for being unscientific at the same time.
The total amount of CO2 is not the thing to pay attention to. That is a huge number. The thing to pay attention to is the CO2 level in the atmosphere
Unless you think the atmosphere is growing or shrinking, these numbers mean the same thing.
but it is going to cost everyone a fucking shit load of money, and in many cases radically alter living standards for the worse.
(Cuba's got at least ninety miles of water on all sides...)
A statement that is both factually true and utterly irrelevant.
Notice how all dissenting views get modded to -1
Frankly I think it's wrong even trying to divide the world into "dissenting" and "assenting." At least, it's not a very scientific way of looking at it. The author of the paper has a good discussion at the beginning of this paper.
You shouldn't mod people up based on whether you 'agree' or 'disagree' with them. Rather, mod them based on whether they've read the paper or not, and the quality of their analysis. Scientific thought should be respected.
The author of the paper is Richard Zeebe, his main focus is drilling ocean cores. Here is a nice video of the guy, he seems like a straight-shooter and a reasonable scientist.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Even if you want to be extremely generous in error margins, pre-industrial CO2 was still lower than 320ppm, and now it's at 400ppm. We know from looking at isotope ratios that more than half that difference was from humans. And even if it weren't human CO2, if we really really tried, we have (expensive) strategies that could reduce it back down to 240ppm.
This sounds like a great plan. But why do you think it is going to happen? Is the government of Cuba about to allow free enterprise by its citizens?
In practice, we've seen that as countries go richer, they start to demand more and more political power, and then the people throw off the dictatorship. A pattern followed in S Korea, and Taiwan, for example.
But what I'm talking about is using the historic, one-time-only opportunity of getting something in exchange for lifting the embargo. We don't have any similar embargo on China and Saudi Arabia, so they are not very relevant to my question: why did the Obama administration simply unilaterally drop the embargo without getting anything in return?
That's basically what Donald Trump is saying. That he's the negotiator, and he can get stuff in return for stuff. He even wrote a book about negotiating.
So, it's not worth making even the smallest effort to help out the prisoners of conscience? The one-sided deal where the government of Cuba gets what it wants, and the USA demands nothing, is the best possible deal?
Obama has the idea that the best way to fix Cuba is by making them successful, since decades of embargo have done nothing. That is the strategy he is following. Yeah, he's not negotiating the best deal out of it, but you know, next time elect the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal. Maybe that will go better for you.
A president needs to have room to make peace with our enemies. That's one of his jobs.
It's because of a change in definitions of 'performant.' When CPUs were slow and a system call took a few milliseconds, then doubling the time to do a system call was something serious.
Now that CPUs are faster, most of the time people don't care about the few extra nanoseconds it takes to do a single systemcall.