Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Any materialized predictions? (Re:Sudden?) (Score 1) 232

Manabe was 14 years ago. Conditions have changed rather significantly in that time, as has our understanding of the geology. It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."

In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".

Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect? You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the same thing again.

In a broader context, a single dataset is just part of the picture. That's why I linked to longer-term reconstructions like Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. In both papers, the modern decline in Arctic sea ice is quite clear. It's not clear that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum in Polyak et al.'s Fig. 2(a), either for the minimum or maximum sea ice extent. It's not even clear that this changes if we instead take seriously Jane's previous accusations that scientists "cherry-picked" data from 1979 instead of 1981.

Comment: Re:Any materialized predictions? (Re:Sudden?) (Score 1) 232

...antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.

Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations. Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading. And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

Comment: Re:seems kinda pointless (Score 1) 143

Its not proof that you were knowingly in possession of them. I believe that is the standards to meet too. For instance, i could slip something into your drink or food or have residue on something you are supposed to handle (money, car seat, whatever).

Testing positive is proof of nothing other than you tested positive for some reason.

Comment: Re:The UK, trying to beat China, NK at their own g (Score 1) 118

by sumdumass (#49710571) Attached to: GCHQ Officials Given Immunity From Hacking Charges

Really?? Are you that stupid that you think the only way to change government is via violent revolution? I suppose you also think that whatever warlord replaces it will be the kind and gentle type that will gie you everything you ever wanted too.

I think people like you are dangerous to any thriving society and downright deadly to any less than thriving society. You will attract other idiots and eventually get them killed while justifying the jackboot tactics the government would use in response. Some twit in office will look at your writings and you will convince them that spying on citizens is just and reasonable. They will lower the bar for police killings and make a list of domestic terrorist. You will justify this by your own words.

Let's just hope they think you are little more than a retarded monkey that doesn't need to get on the list.

Comment: Re:The UK, trying to beat China, NK at their own g (Score 1) 118

by sumdumass (#49710101) Attached to: GCHQ Officials Given Immunity From Hacking Charges

Won't happen in the US ever. Won't happen in the UK either. What might happen is an English version of Tiananmen square. Both governments will see it happening before it happens and it will be put down quickly. Thinking otherwise is little more than an invitation to be put down sooner than later.

Comment: Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... (Score 1) 121

When idiots like Ron Paul can rake billions in campain contributions through small personal donations and remain a senator for several terms while not only running for higher office and repeatedly failing yet influencing those who won to some degree, it is proof that what you say is nothing more than crying that it is too hard for you to understand how to do it.

And yes, i say idiots because they failed to moderate their niche message enough to attract mainstream support yet had huge success operating from other people's money. Why is others can do this but in spite of available evidence you think it's impossible?

Rich people do not tend to spend much of their own money to run for office. They spend other people's money. If enough people think the same way you do, getting the money to run will not be a problem. If they do not, then you have to either realize the status quo is what the public wants or convince them of the error of their ways. Either way it can largely be done by donations if you are not some kook. And even if you are, there are a lot of kooks who give it a lot better shot than you seem willing to give.

Maybe it is you who should just go back to bed and lay down. It's obvious that you already have and just want to cry that your doing nothing is not making the change you want. At least if you stay in bed, you wouldn't be polluting the efforts of other good people and maybe they can do what you think is too hard to even try doing.

Comment: Re: Politicans who forget who voted for them... (Score 2) 121

I love it when idiots claim to know the obvious but fail to see it. Ron paul in the states ran verry little tv ads nor sucked up to any corporations and had quite alarge and popular following that generated huge amounts of donations.

All i heard is crying that its too dificuly. But thats just code for not everyone thinks the way you do. You don't start at the top either, You generally start at the bottom or mid level and work up.

But hell, lets just pick impossible goals, go at them in the most difficult ways, then wear our tears of defeat as a badge of honor while crying that its some huge conspiracy by corporations and whatever other boogerman of the month. That way it can always be some others fault and you have something to constantly bitch, moan, and cry about.

Comment: Re:Scary side of US (Score 1) 648

by sumdumass (#49703833) Attached to: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Gets Death Penalty In Boston Marathon Bombing

Nothing escaped anybody. You do not know it was a typo because the poster has never clarified it. For all we know he could be confusing bumfuckistan and Mexico with Canada or something.

And that was my response to it. IS all that made up bullshit like the barbaric and civilized BS. Many Europeans considered it civilized to murder, rape and otherwise kill the uncivilized in the new world all the way from Columbus's discovery to the Native American Indians. That term has been used to bring about so much death that it simply doesn't fit the context.

Comment: Re:The two things that have led me to oppose the D (Score 5, Insightful) 648

by sumdumass (#49702667) Attached to: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Gets Death Penalty In Boston Marathon Bombing

Sigh.. You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. In certain environments, that can also cause or risk your own death/health.

The problem is freedom, you cannot force it onto people and still be free. Sure it is a betrayal but lets be honest or perhaps realistic, it is only a betrayal by this guy and his brother (speed bump or whatever his name was). The rest of his family and all the others taken in as refugees, even if they are sympathetic by circumstance or familiar relation, haven't crossed that ideal of betrayal. This guy was brought in by his parents and likely not of his own choice although I doubt he rejected the idea. So lets be conscious about this enough to not allow corruption of blood.

And no, while a .22 will do the job just fine, I think it is important to give this guy every legal chance possible to dispel the concept of it being a show trial and summery execution. People have already stated they think he was set up. But a good and thorough appeals process along with exhaustive exercising of his rights will show not only that justice is fair, but that what he betrayed is better than him.

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...