Uh......have you ever even read a scientific paper in your life? You have a lot of rage there.
I don't know about megion, but I've spent my life around scientists (and, for that matter, published more than a few papers myself, some of them even about atmospheric science, although to be fair, my main planet is Mars, not Earth.)
The discussion seems to have shifted from science to randomly insulting people, though, so I think that this discussion is over.
The paper was about measuring oceanic carbon, but of course the oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This equilibrium is slow by human standards, but they are in equilibrium on a time scale short compared to the geological time scales measured in the paper.
These are classic examples of "straw man" arguments: assert that the people you disagree with said something absurd, and then attack that absurd statement.
Of course, the answer Is to go back to living in a cave like a hunter-gatherer while the Al Gore and the rest of the elites can reign over us on high like the Greek Gods from their Mount Olympus.
People are suggesting a switch to technologies that reduce carbon emissions. Nobody is claiming we need to go back to living in caves like a hunter-gatherer. That's a straw man.
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth,
People are suggesting reducing the rate of population growth. Nobody is suggesting "eradicating 90% of us from the Earth." That's a straw man.
Yes, it's easy to demolish absurd straw-man arguments that nobody makes. It doesn't help the argument.
Except the models have NOT been "proven wrong by observation." I've been graphing prediction versus actual, and the model predictions are still very close to spot on.
You linked the Independent article from yesterday morning, but I notice you didn't link the one from yesterday afternoon: http://www.independent.co.uk/i...
It's not a "wild card," it is considered so unlikely by scientists that after consideration, the IPCC didn't even put it in their report as a reasonable possibility. Nature has a good summary of the research:
That's a good article, thanks. There are other articles, however-- some of them even cited in that one-- that emphasize slightly more the "We don't know" aspect of the clathrate stability.
Methane clathrates are only one of several sources of greenhouse gasses that are currently sequestered in cold traps, primarily in the Arctic. We do know that, in the past, there have been times when warming has released these. We don't know enough about how much is currently sequestered in cold traps, and how much warming is needed to release them, to know what the effect is. Maybe they're stable, and we don't have to worry about them.
I cannot believe how freaked out everyone is about carbon, when it is a basic and abundant element of the planet...
People are "freaked out" about carbon-- specifically, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere-- because it is known to absorb outgoing infrared radiation, so the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the temperature balance of the planet. This is an effect that has been known for a very long time (here's a good review from the American Institute of Physics: https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm), but only recently has the amount of carbon dioxide put in the atmosphere by humans been enough to make the effect visible.
You're correct that it is "basic and abundant", although I'm not sure why that's relevant
the amount in the atmosphere is minuscule to begin with,
Correct. It was the great discovery of Tyndall in 1859 that extremely small amounts of trace gasses can affect the infrared absorption. https://earthobservatory.nasa....
never mind whatever we are adding in being a tiny fraction of what it is already.
Humans have increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by about 45% since preindustrial times, most of that in the last century (graph: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...). Depends on whether you call that a "tiny fraction."
But, indeed, the natural greenhouse effect of about 30C (ref) is about much larger than the human contribution. That's one reason we understand the greenhouse effect; it's large enough to be easily measured.
The entire ecosystem of the Earth is built to process carbon, to consume carbon, to use carbon to sustain life.
Correct again. Over a period of few hundred thousand years, this will undoubtably be removed from the biosphere.
It would be lot faster than that, except we're cutting down trees a lot faster than we're growing trees.
It is so sad to see rational people get lost in a death cult that makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a shred of scientific understanding of the climate, or indeed basic material science...
I will assure you that I have a pretty good scientific understanding of climate, and also of basic materials science. This is how we understand the atmospheres of all the planets, not just Earth. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is quite well understood science, and the absorption coefficients of trace gasses in the infrared are all well measured.
The possibility of a catastrophic feedback is indeed the wild card in global warming calculations: there is a lot of carbon dioxide and methane trapped in frozen soil and in undersea clathrates, and it is indeed possible that there is a threshold above which these will be released, dramatically increasing the temperature. It has happened in the past. When people talk about the uncertainty in global warming predictions, this is one uncertainty that is often left out: the possiblility that the models are accurate about short-term warming but significantly underestimate long-term warming. But this is also extremely hard to model.
The problem is that, somewhat alarmingly, the word "consciousness" is often used in the literature as if it entailed or implied more than just the qualities of experience. Dijksterhuis and Nordgren, for instance, insisted that "it is very important to realize that attention is the key to distinguish between unconscious thought and conscious thought.
So they're redefining thought so broadly that most animals are conscious too by their definition and the pretending they have some revolutionary insight when all they have done is confused themselves about what they are talking about.
Exactly. The problem is that the word "consciousness" is used differently by different researchers. Whether babies are conscious-- or whether animals are-- or even whether you yourself are conscious when you're driving to work at 8am along a road you've driven 1000 times before-- depends on how you choose to define consciousness.
It's an endlessly debatable question, since the word doesn't have an agreed-upon, measurable definition.
Your entire post is a red herring. You're basically saying "I don't think they'd do anything bad because we can trust giant corporations."
You haven't put forth any reason to think that, you just do.
I don't. The entire history of the web tells us that you can't trust corporations with personal information.
And, I really don't care whether they gave my number to Rachel at Card Services (and everybody else in the world) because of a data breach or because they sold it. That's a distinction without any difference to me.
This is the best solution. The incentives are a prisoner's dilemma. Each jurisdiction feels compelled to offer them because others offer them, but they would all be better off if no one offered them. Preventing this sort of self-destructive competition between the states is exactly why the commerce clause [wikipedia.org] exists.
Except this is NOT interstate commerce....
Yes it is. It is about one state bidding against another to win a business that operates across the entire U.S.. That's very clearly commerce.
Having read a lot of 1950s and 1960s science fiction, I can confidently say that the usual fusion drive is operated by an engineer with a slide rule, not by a computer of any kind.
To sell it to Rachel from Cardholder Services, I expect.
What organizations have 2FA that might do this? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of any.
I don't know where Rachel from Cardholder Services got my cell phone number, but she certainly got it from somewhere.
Basically, what you posted in this thread can be summarized "oh, just trust them with the information, they won't misuse it. And anyway, I can't think of how I would misuse it, so obviously some corporation couldn't think of a way either."
...All information about a consumer is also a liability. Lots of organizations haven't figured this out yet,
Right the first time: Lots of organizations haven't figured this out yet.
but I think pretty much all of them savvy enough to be implementing 2FA understand it.
The historical record does not back you up on this.
To sell it to Rachel from Cardholder Services, I expect.
Personally, I think you're nuts. I've been around the security business for the last 20 years, working for and consulting with many organizations that have set up 2FA for their users... and I have never, once, heard anyone suggest that it is useful for phone number harvesting. Moreover, knowing peoples' phone numbers really isn't all that useful.
All information about a consumer is useful information, if you have enough of it. You may not know yet when it will be useful, or what it will be useful for, but if you're a big info corporation harvesting info, you want to harvest all the info you can: it will be useful someday, and once people understand how giving that info to you was a bad bad idea, they will stop giving it to you-- so you want to get it now, before they realize it.
From the Article: " In many countries, groups of students demanded an overhaul in how economics was taught, with less emphasis on free-market doctrines and more emphasis on real-world problems." Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad
To the contrary. For some reason, right-wingers never actually read Adam Smith; they just heard somewhere that he talked about the invisible hand, and they fail to pay attention to all of the many, many parts of Wealth of Nations in which he discusses ways that unregulated free markets fail without government intervention, and that some things can't possibly function well in the free market, so they need to be run by the government for the sake of the greater good.
Can we take into account the last 19 years that show no warming?
We could... if the last 19 years had shown no warming. But the last 19 years show lots of warming. 2016 was the warmest year on record, beating the previous record of global temperature set in 2015, which had beat the previous record set in 2014.
Bullshit. Water is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Correct. And water goes into the atmosphere in the form of evaporation, and leaves the atmosphere in the form of precipitation. This is known as "weather". It's the major factor accounted for in climate science.
CO2 makes up only 4% or greenhouse gasses, and of that 4%, only 4% is attributed to man.
$2500 is certainly better than anything you'd see a class action.
and that's a lower limit. In some states it's up to $25,000.
A class action will hurt Equifax and make the lawyers filthy rich but the $5 check the actual victims may or may not ever see one day isn't even going to compensate for the time it takes them to complain about it on Slashdot.
Yep. I hate class-action lawsuits; the lawyers get rich, and the customers who were cheated get a few dollars.
Eh, that's not the way my chemistry prof described it: there's so much water in the atmosphere that the spectrum that water absorbs is essentially absorbed completely. Thus, more water doesn't make any difference.
The effect turns out to be logarithmic. So, the more you add, indeed, the less effect each additional increment has. But the effect is still not zero.
But, to a large extent your point has merit: Since there is more water vapor IR absorption to start with, adding more has less effect than if you'd been starting from a dry atmosphere.
Except this article you're adding comments to is suggesting Hurricane Irma is directly related to climate change (amongst other things).
The article is wrong. No single extreme event can be attributed to climate change.
The article should have listened to the real climate scientists, and, more importantly, paid attention to all the qualifying words.
And in my experience, this happens every single time there's a weather event that matches the climate change narrative.
Exactly. That's why I am so adamant at repeatedly saying no, it's not. Climate change is long term and global.
But whenever there's a weather event (or lack thereof) that doesn't match the narrative, people are quick to point out it's a global system and you have to look at it in the aggregate.
Exactly. A weather event doesn't fit the narrative, whether it's a hot summer or a cold summer.
You can't have both ways.
And the correct statement is: No single extreme event-- hot nor cold, hurricane nor lack of hurricanes-- can be attributed to climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh......have you ever even read a scientific paper in your life? You have a lot of rage there.
I don't know about megion, but I've spent my life around scientists (and, for that matter, published more than a few papers myself, some of them even about atmospheric science, although to be fair, my main planet is Mars, not Earth.)
The discussion seems to have shifted from science to randomly insulting people, though, so I think that this discussion is over.
Yes, as the previous commentator stated: both.
The paper was about measuring oceanic carbon, but of course the oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This equilibrium is slow by human standards, but they are in equilibrium on a time scale short compared to the geological time scales measured in the paper.
Close.
The scientists are actually hoping that, with enough research, they will be able to find something nobody has seen before.
That's what gives scientists kudos: figuring out something that nobody else has figured out before.
When you increased the partial pressure of CO2, you increase the amount absorbed in the ocean. ("Henry's Law")
It is a very long term process, however.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Solutions_and_Mixtures/Ideal_Solutions/Dissolving_Gases_In_Liquids%2C_Henry%27s_Law
These are classic examples of "straw man" arguments: assert that the people you disagree with said something absurd, and then attack that absurd statement.
Of course, the answer Is to go back to living in a cave like a hunter-gatherer while the Al Gore and the rest of the elites can reign over us on high like the Greek Gods from their Mount Olympus.
People are suggesting a switch to technologies that reduce carbon emissions. Nobody is claiming we need to go back to living in caves like a hunter-gatherer. That's a straw man.
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth,
People are suggesting reducing the rate of population growth. Nobody is suggesting "eradicating 90% of us from the Earth." That's a straw man.
Yes, it's easy to demolish absurd straw-man arguments that nobody makes. It doesn't help the argument.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
Except the models have NOT been "proven wrong by observation." I've been graphing prediction versus actual, and the model predictions are still very close to spot on.
You linked the Independent article from yesterday morning, but I notice you didn't link the one from yesterday afternoon: http://www.independent.co.uk/i...
It's not a "wild card," it is considered so unlikely by scientists that after consideration, the IPCC didn't even put it in their report as a reasonable possibility. Nature has a good summary of the research:
That's a good article, thanks. There are other articles, however-- some of them even cited in that one-- that emphasize slightly more the "We don't know" aspect of the clathrate stability.
Methane clathrates are only one of several sources of greenhouse gasses that are currently sequestered in cold traps, primarily in the Arctic. We do know that, in the past, there have been times when warming has released these. We don't know enough about how much is currently sequestered in cold traps, and how much warming is needed to release them, to know what the effect is. Maybe they're stable, and we don't have to worry about them.
hmm, if only there were these plants that could grow and used carbon dioxide as fuel......
...and if only we weren't cutting them down at a rate of about 13 million hectares a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
I cannot believe how freaked out everyone is about carbon, when it is a basic and abundant element of the planet...
People are "freaked out" about carbon-- specifically, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere-- because it is known to absorb outgoing infrared radiation, so the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the temperature balance of the planet. This is an effect that has been known for a very long time (here's a good review from the American Institute of Physics: https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm), but only recently has the amount of carbon dioxide put in the atmosphere by humans been enough to make the effect visible.
You're correct that it is "basic and abundant", although I'm not sure why that's relevant
the amount in the atmosphere is minuscule to begin with,
Correct. It was the great discovery of Tyndall in 1859 that extremely small amounts of trace gasses can affect the infrared absorption. https://earthobservatory.nasa....
never mind whatever we are adding in being a tiny fraction of what it is already.
Humans have increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by about 45% since preindustrial times, most of that in the last century (graph: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...). Depends on whether you call that a "tiny fraction."
But, indeed, the natural greenhouse effect of about 30C (ref) is about much larger than the human contribution. That's one reason we understand the greenhouse effect; it's large enough to be easily measured.
The entire ecosystem of the Earth is built to process carbon, to consume carbon, to use carbon to sustain life.
Correct again. Over a period of few hundred thousand years, this will undoubtably be removed from the biosphere.
It would be lot faster than that, except we're cutting down trees a lot faster than we're growing trees.
It is so sad to see rational people get lost in a death cult that makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a shred of scientific understanding of the climate, or indeed basic material science...
I will assure you that I have a pretty good scientific understanding of climate, and also of basic materials science. This is how we understand the atmospheres of all the planets, not just Earth. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is quite well understood science, and the absorption coefficients of trace gasses in the infrared are all well measured.
The possibility of a catastrophic feedback is indeed the wild card in global warming calculations: there is a lot of carbon dioxide and methane trapped in frozen soil and in undersea clathrates, and it is indeed possible that there is a threshold above which these will be released, dramatically increasing the temperature. It has happened in the past.
When people talk about the uncertainty in global warming predictions, this is one uncertainty that is often left out: the possiblility that the models are accurate about short-term warming but significantly underestimate long-term warming.
But this is also extremely hard to model.
The problem is that, somewhat alarmingly, the word "consciousness" is often used in the literature as if it entailed or implied more than just the qualities of experience. Dijksterhuis and Nordgren, for instance, insisted that "it is very important to realize that attention is the key to distinguish between unconscious thought and conscious thought.
So they're redefining thought so broadly that most animals are conscious too by their definition and the pretending they have some revolutionary insight when all they have done is confused themselves about what they are talking about.
Exactly. The problem is that the word "consciousness" is used differently by different researchers. Whether babies are conscious-- or whether animals are-- or even whether you yourself are conscious when you're driving to work at 8am along a road you've driven 1000 times before-- depends on how you choose to define consciousness.
It's an endlessly debatable question, since the word doesn't have an agreed-upon, measurable definition.
"What Comes After User-Friendly Design? "
As far as I can tell, user-hostile design does.
Red herring.
Your entire post is a red herring. You're basically saying "I don't think they'd do anything bad because we can trust giant corporations."
You haven't put forth any reason to think that, you just do.
I don't. The entire history of the web tells us that you can't trust corporations with personal information.
And, I really don't care whether they gave my number to Rachel at Card Services (and everybody else in the world) because of a data breach or because they sold it. That's a distinction without any difference to me.
Except this is NOT interstate commerce....
Yes it is. It is about one state bidding against another to win a business that operates across the entire U.S.. That's very clearly commerce.
Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to set state and local tax policy?
Since this is about interstate commerce, that would be Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
Having read a lot of 1950s and 1960s science fiction, I can confidently say that the usual fusion drive is operated by an engineer with a slide rule, not by a computer of any kind.
It is just an excuse to harvest your phonenumber.
For what purpose?
To sell it to Rachel from Cardholder Services, I expect.
What organizations have 2FA that might do this? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of any.
I don't know where Rachel from Cardholder Services got my cell phone number, but she certainly got it from somewhere.
Basically, what you posted in this thread can be summarized "oh, just trust them with the information, they won't misuse it. And anyway, I can't think of how I would misuse it, so obviously some corporation couldn't think of a way either."
...All information about a consumer is also a liability. Lots of organizations haven't figured this out yet,
Right the first time: Lots of organizations haven't figured this out yet.
but I think pretty much all of them savvy enough to be implementing 2FA understand it.
The historical record does not back you up on this.
https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/biggest-data-breaches-in-history/
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/
https://www.csoonline.com/article/2130877/data-breach/the-16-biggest-data-breaches-of-the-21st-century.htm
https://www.techworld.com/security/uks-most-infamous-data-breaches-3604586/
It is just an excuse to harvest your phonenumber.
For what purpose?
To sell it to Rachel from Cardholder Services, I expect.
Personally, I think you're nuts. I've been around the security business for the last 20 years, working for and consulting with many organizations that have set up 2FA for their users... and I have never, once, heard anyone suggest that it is useful for phone number harvesting.
Moreover, knowing peoples' phone numbers really isn't all that useful.
All information about a consumer is useful information, if you have enough of it. You may not know yet when it will be useful, or what it will be useful for, but if you're a big info corporation harvesting info, you want to harvest all the info you can: it will be useful someday, and once people understand how giving that info to you was a bad bad idea, they will stop giving it to you-- so you want to get it now, before they realize it.
Not many right-wing people believe in absolutely free markets;
And not many left-wing people believe in absolute Marxism.
It was a straw man from the start.
From the Article:
" In many countries, groups of students demanded an overhaul in how economics was taught, with less emphasis on free-market doctrines and more emphasis on real-world problems." Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad
To the contrary. For some reason, right-wingers never actually read Adam Smith; they just heard somewhere that he talked about the invisible hand, and they fail to pay attention to all of the many, many parts of Wealth of Nations in which he discusses ways that unregulated free markets fail without government intervention, and that some things can't possibly function well in the free market, so they need to be run by the government for the sake of the greater good.
Global and Long Term -- Got it.
Can we take into account the last 19 years that show no warming?
We could... if the last 19 years had shown no warming. But the last 19 years show lots of warming. 2016 was the warmest year on record, beating the previous record of global temperature set in 2015, which had beat the previous record set in 2014.
Here's the graph:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.intern...
Get some facts before posting, Mr. Coward.
Bullshit. Water is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Correct. And water goes into the atmosphere in the form of evaporation, and leaves the atmosphere in the form of precipitation. This is known as "weather". It's the major factor accounted for in climate science.
CO2 makes up only 4% or greenhouse gasses, and of that 4%, only 4% is attributed to man.
Basically: wrong. Here's the graph of measured change in carbon dioxide since 1958: https://climate.nasa.gov/syste...
The rise is a lot more than "4%".
It's not a mystery why CO2 and temperatures have shown no correlation.
Again: wrong. Here's a graph of carbon dioxide and temperature over the last fifty years: https://www.e-education.psu.ed...
And here's a graph of carbon dioxide and temperature over the last four hundred thousand years: http://www.dokimiscience.com/u...
Your claim "no correlation" is silly. Get some facts before posting, Mr. Coward.
But it's not politically expedient to point out the obvious.
But it does seem to be politically correct to post false facts if you're an anonymous coward.
$2500 is certainly better than anything you'd see a class action.
and that's a lower limit. In some states it's up to $25,000.
A class action will hurt Equifax and make the lawyers filthy rich but the $5 check the actual victims may or may not ever see one day isn't even going to compensate for the time it takes them to complain about it on Slashdot.
Yep. I hate class-action lawsuits; the lawyers get rich, and the customers who were cheated get a few dollars.
Eh, that's not the way my chemistry prof described it: there's so much water in the atmosphere that the spectrum that water absorbs is essentially absorbed completely. Thus, more water doesn't make any difference.
The effect turns out to be logarithmic. So, the more you add, indeed, the less effect each additional increment has. But the effect is still not zero.
But, to a large extent your point has merit: Since there is more water vapor IR absorption to start with, adding more has less effect than if you'd been starting from a dry atmosphere.
Except this article you're adding comments to is suggesting Hurricane Irma is directly related to climate change (amongst other things).
The article is wrong. No single extreme event can be attributed to climate change.
The article should have listened to the real climate scientists, and, more importantly, paid attention to all the qualifying words.
And in my experience, this happens every single time there's a weather event that matches the climate change narrative.
Exactly. That's why I am so adamant at repeatedly saying no, it's not. Climate change is long term and global.
But whenever there's a weather event (or lack thereof) that doesn't match the narrative, people are quick to point out it's a global system and you have to look at it in the aggregate.
Exactly. A weather event doesn't fit the narrative, whether it's a hot summer or a cold summer.
You can't have both ways.
And the correct statement is: No single extreme event-- hot nor cold, hurricane nor lack of hurricanes-- can be attributed to climate change.