Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: As much as I hate Apple (Score 1) 142

by Namarrgon (#47799681) Attached to: Apple Said To Team With Visa, MasterCard On iPhone Wallet

Monocultures can be very successful. They do have associated risks though. Diversity usually wins in the end.

Apple of course are in no immediate danger, they're doing just fine. Though I do wonder why Apple fans point to their huge profits as a good thing.. Good for Apple, certainly; not quite so much for their customers.

Comment: UNCENSORED high-speed internet (Score 5, Funny) 409

I accidentally RTFA'd and realised the fatwa is actually against high-speed internet that isn't government controlled and censored:

All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.

Thus I conclude that internet porn is just fine, so long as it's consumed slowly, scanline by scanline. He clearly wants you to enjoy the anticipation.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 457

by Namarrgon (#47763151) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

I think you're missing my point too. The models are only inaccurate temporarily. They're still quite valid for predicting longer-term trends.

The reason for this is because of the cyclic nature of the ocean warming. ENSO, AMO, PDO etc are all natural cycles that shift heat between the ocean and surface. While heat is being transferred to the ocean (as currently), the models will over-predict surface temperatures. When the cycle reverses, heat is transferred from the ocean back to the surface - and the models will under-predict surface temperatures.

Because heat isn't created or destroyed, only moved around, the net effect of these cycles is zero, and does not affect the longer-term warming trend that the models show. If you take a longer-term running average of surface temperatures, they still come very close to the models' predictions.

Climate scientists already know that the models won't match the short-term noise created by these currently-unpredictable cycles - but that's OK, because they're not intended to. It's only uninformed laymen that insist that any short-term mismatch is a "failure" of the models, rather than simply using them for longer-term predictions only, as designed.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 457

by Namarrgon (#47754307) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

Luckily, the detailed impact of natural ocean cycles like this one (and ENSO, PDO, AMO etc) is not required to be known.

Because they are cyclical, any contributions they make to surface temperatures are by their nature temporary; at the other end of the cycle, the process and temperature contributions are reversed, and the net impact is zero. For the purposes of long-term forecasting, short-term natural cycles are irrelevant.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 457

by Namarrgon (#47754297) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

Global CO2 emissions are tightly locked to economic development

This is only assumed to be true, and only if fossil fuels are your sole source of energy. Investment in other sources of energy creates economic development in itself, as well decoupling this assumption.

it certainly seems insufficient to advocate massive global political and economic reforms.

Luckily we have many thousands of informed individuals in dozens of countries who have studied the matter in depth, and they're telling us very clearly that there is more than enough certainty to warrant reforming our energy sector.

If you don't feel there's enough to go on, perhaps the problem is that you don't have all the information?

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 457

by Namarrgon (#47754259) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

That would be news, yes. While it's quite true that surface temperatures haven't increased much recently, ocean temperatures are still warming at least as fast as ever. Which is exactly what TFA describes - the extra surface heat is being moved into the oceans. All other examples of this effect have been cyclical - in the near future, the process will reverse, moving heat from the oceans to the surface. When that happens, surface temperatures will jump - as they have in the past.

The only observation that would seriously challenge our understanding of anthropogenic global warming would be to see a sustained cooling phase, both surface and ocean, which would indicate that the previous rises were merely part of a larger natural cycle. However, no such cooling has been seen - the opposite is expected, given our calculations of the greenhouse effect.

Comment: Re:In other news... (Score 2) 216

That seems highly excessive, even allowing for fuel and Canadian winter heating costs. I find it hard to believe that energy costs outweigh food and/or housing.

By comparison, in 2012:

Australian households' average expenditure on energy represented 5.3% of total gross weekly household income (2.0% for dwelling energy and 3.2% for fuel for vehicles).

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 457

by Namarrgon (#47726499) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

Well, if everyone could see it, it wouldn't be a study lol

The novel part is they present data to confirm it, and their analysis is peer-reviewed - that's the difference between a real study and something that "everyone can see".

What I was actually referring to was the models being incomplete, which isn't news to anyone. Fyfe et al 2013 just demonstrate this, and suggest some of the likely missing factors. TFA goes further, and gives data on a new factor (the deep-ocean current).

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 4, Interesting) 457

by Namarrgon (#47726337) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

If this paper were to turn out to be correct, current climate models are useless and will need to be completely reworked.

No model, in any branch of science or engineering, is complete and perfect; that doesn't mean they're useless.

I'm curious to see which fundamental assumptions made by current models you believe to be contradicted by this paper. To me it looks like they're simply pointing out a deep-ocean cycle that could soak up heat from the surface - not unlike the well-known ENSO, PDO and AMO cycles, which most models don't attempt to predict. Unless you think that "incomplete" means "fundamentally assumes that no other factors can exist"?

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 4, Insightful) 457

by Namarrgon (#47726303) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

Your linked study really just shows what everyone could already see - the climate models are missing something. This of course isn't a surprise; they're missing lots of things, many of which are called out in the study (ENSO, AMO, volcanic activity, unexpected stratospheric aerosol variation or solar variation, etc). There's a lot of details we can't predict, but climate models are still useful even when we know they're incomplete, just like every other kind of model.

Still, I appreciate the link, even if (as you say) it doesn't invalidate any "sketchy science".

Comment: Re:Space Drive or Global Warming? (Score 2) 315

by Namarrgon (#47628043) Attached to: Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

The verification is crucial though. What happens when two scientists claim they can verify a hypothesis, and two thousand scientists say they cannot?

Either two thousand scientists have screwed up badly, or just two have. Which is more likely? Lacking the skills, time & equipment to verify it yourself, who are you going to believe?

A single person can come up with a major paradigm shift that overturns our old models - but not when their results can't be reliably verified, and certainly not when their claims require simply ignoring decades of observations to the contrary.

One picture is worth 128K words.

Working...