Posts by Rik Myslewski

Weird ideas welcome: VC fund looking to make science fiction factual

Re: Go Fund Me!

Is it brave? Is it little? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092695/

Musk is messing with the Cosmic Dawn. Will alien hunters save the day for all mankind?

Great article

Well-researched, thoroughly explained, and breezily written — very Reg. Thanks!

The real reason why Trump is killing the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawai'i

It must be noted that Mauna Loa is, indeed, an active volcano. However, it must also be noted that it's huge, accounting for a bit over fifty per cent of the entire island of Hawai'i. The 2022 suspension of the measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory was done primarily for reasons of limited access during the road closure, not for fear that the eruptions would endanger the Observatory itself. And may I gently suggest, Mr. Eel, that salting your observations with insults weakens rather than supports your arguments.

Re: "the most abundant and consequential greenhouse gas"

Well, yes, but methane is not only far less abundant than CO2, but its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas lasts only about a dozen years, while CO2 hangs around for hundreds or even a thousand or more years.

Re: More CO2 is good

It’s got electrolytes!

Here's the ugliest global-warming chart you'll ever need to see

Re: Just another alarmist global warming rant

I'm sorry, Art, but quoting an article from Anthony Watts' often debunked and wildly propagandistic "Watt's Up With That?" — self-described quite erroneously and self-aggrandizingly as as "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change" — is hardly to be considered to be citing an unbiased, objective source, wouldn't you agree?

Re: Just another alarmist global warming rant

Señor Anguila:

1) If you're interested in the physical mechanics of radiative forcing, let me point you to some recent research untangling that observable but not yet fully understood physical reality. Here's one from the popular press (https://bit.ly/4idJwjt), and here's the paper from which that article is based (https://bit.ly/4gPP5TT).

b) Y'know, sometime asserting the logical fallacy identified as the "appeal to authority" masks the simple fact that the authority in question is based on verifiable data, solid reasoning, and experimental verification, as is true in this case. Authorities also claim that the Earth is a globe which has a marginally elliptical orbit around the sun — are you dismissing that conclusion merely due to its assertion by an "authority"? No, of course not. You're not an idiot.

iii) You ask, "Any particular reason you chose the heavier line weight and color for your 2024 line?" Sigh ... of course: simply to make the most recent year stand out and thus be easier for readers to identify among all the squiggles populating the chart. Must you find a nefarious intent behind simple attempt at graphical clarity?

§) You also ask, one can only assume snarkily, "Will you be presenting this paper at the next AGU?" Uh ... no ... primarily because it's old news to any self-respecting climate scientist, but also because it's not primary research but instead merely a popular-press discussion of others' research and data-gathering. And, if you don't mind me responding in an equally snarky manner, "Grow the %$#@! up, bro ..."

Re: Just another alarmist global warming rant

A quick favor, Art: Please disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of the energy of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades? Also, if it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, the simple Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations prove that the Earth would be at, oh, about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15ºC. What our rapid addition of more CO2, CH4, and N2O into the troposphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves.

If you have empirical proof that climate change science is "rotten to the core", please give a call to the following folks, and tell them that they can save the time and money they have spent and are planning to spend on the irrefutable reality of human-caused global warming: the vast majority of insurance professionals, the Pentagon, NATO, NASA, NOAA, the US Pacific Command, the US Department of the Navy, the US Coast Guard, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Institute for Defense Analyses, the US Army War College, the United States Joint Forces Command, the DoD Office of Net Assessment, the National Intelligence Council, the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Federation of American Scientists, the Geological Society of America, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the World Health Organization, the World Meteorological Association, plus over 100 major US corporations, including Google, Facebook, Apple, Coca Cola, AT&T, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Walmart, and General Motors. I'm sure they'll all be happy to learn that their efforts are unneeded, and to hear your insightful analyses.

Finally, here's a convivial invitation: I regularly attend the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, where over thirty-thousand of the world's top geophysical scientists gather to talk shop, many of whom who are deeply involved in actual climate-science research, not mere theorizing. The next AGU gathering will be in The Big Easy in December 2025 — a fun town. I'll be there, and I can absolutely guarantee you a session in which you can present your research, your data, and your conclusions. Afterwards, I'll take you out for a beer on Bourbon Street to introduce you to some of the climate scientists who would be very interested in your research — hell, I'll even buy!

Our world faces 'unprecedented' spike in electricity demand

The IEA seems a wee bit optimistic

An excellent report. Thanks. However, I have to note that at the recent American Geophysical Conference I talked with a number of climate scientists who were not as sanguine about the IEA's prediction of a leveling-off of GHGs, especially in light of the U.S.'s abdication of leadership in transitioning to non–fossil fuel energy sources. I hope the IEA will prove to be correct, but I fear they may be rather optimistic.

Humans brought the heat. Earth says we pay the price

You might be interested in something I wrote for The Reg after AGU23: “Scientists mull Solar Radiation Management – a potential climate-change stop-gap” (https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/30/solar_radiation_management/)

Re: I look forward to . . .

Defending one's own article is a sad admission that said article wasn't sufficiently convincing ... but ... hey ... here I go ...

I’ve got a couple of quick request for you folks who deny the reality of man-made climate change:

First, please disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of the energy of long-wave radiation (IR) by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades. If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you fellow nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15°C globally — though that number has been steadily rising since mid-last century, and the rate of that rise is measurably increasing. What our rapid addition of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves. No argument. Provable. Simple as pie, physically speaking.

Second, also explain how it's meaningless that this warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can't account for the same global temperature rises.

Third, how about irrefutably disproving all of the easily correlated temperature measurements by multiple independent international sources, such as NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more. Y'know, the ones that unarguably prove that global temperatures are rising faster than at any other time that science can determine during the past 800,000 or so years.

You won't be able to answer those questions without conspiratorial silliness or unvetted analyses. Anthropogenically initiated climate change is a problem — a real, quantifiable, demonstrable, and most importantly solvable problem. Luckily, we humans are smart. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it — if we hurry.

We can fix it, that is, as long as we understand, carefully examine, and vet the data-driven science, and don't confuse it with politics. Science is science — it's neither left nor right, neither conservative nor liberal. How we respond to the reality of global warming and its concomitant climate change ... well ... that's policy, not science — and as such it's well within the arguable political arena. So let's argue about that, shall we?

Re: Poor work, El Reg.

Quick question, Lord (author here): How is reporting on scientific work "leveraging a powerful communication channel to propagate a personal viewpoint"? That seems to be an odd definition of a "personal viewpoint". Please explain. Thanks in advance.

Re: I look forward to . . .

“Quoting Mann is like quoting Fauci, these days.”

Exactly. Both are highly experienced, carefully objective men making informed, data-supported analyses.

Glad you see their contributions in such an enlightened … uh … light.

CrowdStrike file update bricks Windows machines around the world

Brilliant “in the moment“ reporting, Simon. Thanks.

Intel, Ampere show running LLMs on CPUs isn't as crazy as it sounds

Damn good article

Thanks for the well thought-through, effectively data-supported article.

You write, “Intel has only shared performance at batch size of one.” Let’s hope that when Xeon 6 is available, some enterprising soul will provide us with more-applicable benchmarks.

Scientists mull Solar Radiation Management – a potential climate-change stop-gap

Re: It is where the measurements are taken.

Interesting. I’m a psychopathic criminal. What’s more, I frequently associate with many other psychopathic criminals. Who knew? I think I’ll spend the evening on a gleeful spree of rape, plunder, murder, and rooting for Real Madrid over Man City. Thanks for the by-your-leave …

Re: Hockey stick

Have fun with your denialist ramblings and silly references to the oft-debunked "Climategate", but to paraphrase Galileo Galilei, "Eppure si riscalda."

Re: Its pretty easy to

Either provide a citation. or we’ll assume you’re being facetious.

Re: Hockey stick

Please support your assertion — with appropriate data, of course.

Re: Denier no more?

Would you please do us the kind favor of detailing — with supportive data, of course — the "plot holes wide enough to drive a beer truck through"? Thanks in advance.

Re: CO2 absorption by iron fertilisation of the oceans

I hope you're being facetious, mevets, otherwise I might conclude that conspiratorial paranoia is possible even among folks intelligent enough to be Reg readers ...

Re: Its pretty easy to

And you might want to read at least the summary of this recent report about carbon removal from the Lawrence Livermore Labs, checking out the part about biomass: https://roads2removal.org

Re: Its pretty easy to

One quick comment about biomass: According to most biomass studies, only a small percentage would be from burning wood, and that wood would largely be waste from industrial logging. The vast majority of biomass energy conversion would be from urban and rural waste — food waste (of which there is an enormous amount) and other waste. Don’t worry about forests; they’ll be fine (and necessary).

Road to Removal: A blueprint for yanking billions of tons of CO2 out of our atmosphere

Re: That's some weapons grade disinformation...

You do know, of course, that your analyses are quite incorrect, and that the vast, vast majority of qualified, objective climate scientists are more than merely aware of your errors, they can pick them apart with precision. I can't help but wonder what your motivations might be. An interesting psychological experiment, to be perfectly honest.

It's be interesting to hear an argument from the other side. How do I get in touch ...?

It's been two decades since Spirit landed on the red sands of Mars

“I don't know how much more of this she can take," said Squyres at the time.

Was it Squyers or was it Montgomery Scott?

Seriously, though, great writing. Thanks.

Shame about those wildfires. We'll just let the fossil fuel giants off the hook, then?

I find it interesting that you make outlandish, unsupported assertions without even attempting to provide data that confirms your theses. Let me join in the fun: You are clearly an Ionesco rhinoceros, interested only in destruction of logic rather than reasonable, fact-based discussion. Prove me wrong, Perissodactyla Rhinocerotida ...

You do know, of course, that your assertions that "he 80s was coldest decade in 1900s" and "Every climate model existing is and has been wrong so far" are utter post-digestive lower-intestinal material, eh? Disagree? Bring on the data.

Re: Wildfires

You miss an obvious point: The ignition point of a fire is not directly correlated to the eventual spread of that fire.

Scientists examine, share, and base their arguments on data and evidence; priests rely on faith.

I can only provide verifiable data for wildfires in the U.S. since 1983 — when such data began to be centralized — but acreage has most definitely increased: https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires

Oh, and you want to talk about how climate science is a "religion"? Tell you what: The next AGU annual conference will be in Washington DC in late 2024. Come meet me there, and I'll buy you a beer and introduce you to some of the better-informed, data-supported scientists studying this challenge, and see whether after an honest discussion you can still dismiss the understanding of the climate challenge as a "religion". My treat.

Oh, and trust me, American beer is vastly improved since the last time you may have visited our shores.

Re: Its all very depressing

Interestingly, many folks who understand the challenges of a well-paced transition from fossil fuels to renewables are embracing — perhaps reluctantly, but embracing nonetheless — nuclear power. It's a growing trend.

Re: We are doomed

Ah, the old "Scientists and rapacious IPCC members are raking in squllions of Euros for telling governments the lies they want to hear!!"

Hmm ... the most recent IPCC report had 270 main authors from 67 countries. How were they paid? By whom? How much did each member of the "IPCC management" receive? And if it''s only those insidious scientists being paid off, exactly who is paying them? How much? And what evidence 'do you have to track the "billions per years" that you claim are being distributed?

You silly, silly man ...

You might investigate this concept called "science" someday. It's based upon data, analysis, and the reasonable intersection of both. Wild-eyed speculation is right out.

You write, "Every climate model existing is and has been wrong so far." I'm sorry, but I do believe that a careful, properly objective analysis of that statement might be best expressed as "Bullshit!"

Do spend a wee bit of time examining the backcasting successes of CMIP6 — or even CMIP5 — and NCAR's CSEM2 (both WACCM6 and CAM6), then get back to me, m'kay?

Hmm ... I'd be interested to see your data on how the recent measurable increases in vapor pressure deficits and their clear attribution to climate change–exacerbated warming and evapotranspiration have had no effect on the increase in wildfires in the western United States and southwestern Canada.

Re: When will Big Oil face the heat?

"Oil companies don't use fossil fuels - people do".

Let me edit that, if you don't mind: "Heroin, fentanyl, and meth dealer don't use drugs - people do."

Sure, let's allow anyone to produce anything they want at any volume they want, and blame their products' ill effects on the users of those products.

Seriously, though, every rational planner working to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change agrees that we humans need the freedom — nay, the necessity — "to be able to travel around, heat their homes and eat food." Duh. The question is how to manage a carefully calibrated transition from today's clearly provable warming-exacerbating GHG flood to a less destructive energy basis.

That's the challenge. Luckily, many members of our species are not only rational, but resourceful.

Greenpeace calls out tech giants for carbon footprint fumble

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

You’re kidding, right? You’ve never done Monte Carlo modeling, nor looked into either the European or U.S. weather modeling? All reasonable modeling groupings work with multiple runs. Get a grip.

Re: Greenpeace is irrelevant and so is carbon dioxide

You are, quite simply and easily provably, incorrect.

A quick bit of ... uh ... science: If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15ºC globally — though that number is steadily rising. Y’see, loosely bound molecules such as CO2 and CH4 are excited by IR radiation reflecting off the Earth’s surface, and thus re-radiate some of that energy back into the troposphere, measurably warming that atmospheric layer while simultaneously cooling the stratosphere, as has been observed for decades. Just true.

What our rapid addition of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves. No argument. Provable. Simple as pie.

Luckily, we humans are smart. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it — if we hurry — and make a boatload of money doing so.

Okay, you clearly don’t understand the simple physics behind the unarguable fact that our addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is warming the world — or perhaps you know something other than that which nearly every competent climate scientist understands to be true. Or perhaps you believe in some whacko conspiracy lunacy such as “They’re trying to control us!” or “The scientists are all in it for grant money!” crapola.

Do you disagree with the “Well, duh …” clear bit of physical reality that underpins climate science? If so, and if you have proof of the errors you see in that experimentally provable reality, perhaps you should share your well-documented findings with the scientific community. I’m certain they’d find your insights of interest and value.

Florida asks Supreme Court if it's OK to ban content moderation it doesn't like

Re: You can either have Free Speech

Uh, no …

The First Amendment merely — and wisely — disallows governmental suppression of speech. Independent entities such as you, me, Facebook, or your local newspaper are perfectly free to present, support, or champion any ideas that they — we — may wish to stand behind or they — we — may refuse to offer them a platform. Compelling you, me, Twitter, or Truth Social to provide a platform for ideas they deem dangerous or utter bollocks is intellectual tyranny.

Boffins don't give a sh!t, slap Trump's face on a turd in science journal

Hey I’ve got a wacky idea!

How about if The Reg starts to detail how Trump’s science denialism is actually hurting us all, and refrains from merely publishing some li’l piece that simply points out his idiocy?

NASA budget shock: Climate studies? GTFO. We're making the Moon great again, says Trump

Re: "Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami" at FauxScienceSlayer (.)com

Not to put too fine a point on it, sir and/or madam, but you are a fact-ignoring, science-misunderstanding, thoughourly moronic idiot.

Just trying to be objective, m’kay?

Facebook posts put Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli in prison as a danger to society

Lovely, lovely man

There are assholes in this world. There are sniveling dickheads. There are embarrassments to humanity. There are worthless wastes of eons of human evolution. There are puke-inducing turdmen who make reasonable folks weep to be members of their species.

And then there's Martin Shkreli ...

Your top five dreadful people the Google manifesto has pulled out of the woodwork

"Overall, it is insulting to pretty much anyone who isn't James Damore."

Beautiful line — that is, if one defines "beautiful" to mean, "My sentiments. exactly."

Damore, as you explain and to which I concur, is not the most subtle, most nuanced sandwich at the picnic, tool in the toolbox, knife in the drawer. He may be able to code and/or architect efficiently, but I — if I were a Google manager — would keep him far, far away from any interactions with Actual Humans™.

Fire him? Well, not a bad idea — although such a decision is, of course, dependent upon who else is in his workgroup, if he plays well with others on a daily basis, or if his skills are commiserate with his salary.

But, all in all, it's Google's decision — and Damore certainly didn't help his case by proving that he's not exactly the world's most cogent thinker.

Hey America! Your internet is going to be so much better this January

Heaven forfend! Do you actually mean to imply that the Republican-controlled FCC and its minon-master Ajit Pai is actually favoring monopoly business over Average Americans™?! Stop the presses! The populace must be informed! I'm sure that once they realize they're being screwed, they'll rise up against their corporate masters, armed with the requisite pitchforks and torches.

Seriously, though, Kieren, thanks for your careful and detailed report about how the GOP is, yet again, screwing us Americans in ... well ... the opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body.

Wowee, it's Samsung's next me-too AI gizmo: The Apple HomePod

Re: Second Home?

"Apple is Doomed."

I've been following Apple since the early 80s, and if I had a buck for every time I read some buffoon saying, "Apple is doomed," well, I might be able to afford one of those iMac Pros announced today.

Hopping the flash stepping stones to DIMM future

Thanks

Chris, thanks for an excellent, readable, thorough, and eminently understandable article. Having left El Reg over two years ago, and having since devoted all my tech energies towards climate-change science rather than computing, it was pure pleasure to catch up on what many of us in the tech world have seen for decades as the Holy Grail — well, one Grail, at least ("He's already got one! It's very nice ...") — of HPC: the eventual merging of mass storage and direct CPU-addressable memory, preferably in multi-server fabrics (is that still a reasonable bit of descriptive prose? [I'm frightfully out of the loop ...]).

Two quick questions, though: you mention phase-change memory — is that still undead? And how's Crossbar and their ReRAM doing, financially?

NASA taps ESA satellite Swarm for salty ocean temperature tales

Re: Astonshing.

Just a quick question, Big John — well, three, actually:

First, please disprove the simple and demonstrable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave (IR) radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades.

Second, please explain how it's meaningless that that warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in, say, the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can in no way account for the same global temperature increases.

Third, challenge and refute all of the easily correlated temperature measurements, such as those by NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more.

Or would simply prefer to ignore the well-vetted and carefully analyzed science created — and thoroughly argued over, trust me — by thousands of researchers from a broad range of countries? Or maybe you would go as far as to imply that all of those thousands of scientists' work is somehow an insanely complex and conspiratorial fraud? Might you be one of the "climate science is political" folks who hide behind ludicrous “lib’ruls wanna steal our freedoms ’n‘ guns” arguments? Or might you desperately latch onto crazy ’n‘ unprovable solar-variability theories, or some other non-empirical claptrap?

It's science, dear boy — measurable, testable, and replicable. And the only reason we of scientific training and practice find a need to defend it is because unscientific folks such as yourself — who in your silliness describe our understanding of scientific results, analyses, and recommendations as a "religion" — are so vociferous in your politicized, unscientific, data-starved attacks.

What do you fear?

Climate change bust up: We'll launch our own damn satellites if Trump pulls plug – Gov Brown

Re: SUBS! ...

Ah, and regarding our president-elect, don't forget "Super Callous Fragile Ego Extra Braggadocious."

Re: "Deniers" a pejorative? I think not

My sincere condolences for your anatomical challenge.

Re: "Deniers" a pejorative? I think not

Please, sir, just go away. Go away. And, might I humbly request, go away quickly. There are other websites that I do believe at which you might find more comfort and cursor: Breitbart? Infowars? World News Daily? The Daily Caller?

You'll be happier there amongst your science-denying peers, those of the "Don't blind me with facts 'n' data!" ilk. And we'll all be happier when you focus your energies there, seeing as how we won't have to deal with you hateful simplicity anymore, and you won't have to deal with our pointing out such silliness as, "It's obvious the science is wrong because the models are complete bullshit."

Silly, silly man ...

G'bye. Be well. And don't forget to write when you find work ...