Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Neutrino Detection? (Score 2) 85

Yes, neutrinos have been detected in this type of detector for many, many years - in 1987 the neutrino's from SN1987A were detected by several of these detectors.

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

For the actual papers, consult the "sources" listing at the end of each Wikipedia entry.

Comment: Re:Yes, because car exhaust warms the earth's cent (Score 1) 130

Keep drinking the cool-aid, their latest report doesn't "admit" what you claim here, not by a long shot - it actually states that they're even more certain now that most of the recent warming is caused by Anthropogenic CO2. What has happened is that the right wing climate denialosphere are spinning like they've never spun before, trying to deform and cherry-pick statements from the report into what they want it to say... And you're clearly lapping it up uncritically, probably because it reinforces what you *want* to hear...

And Dr. Richard Lindzen may be a "climate scientist" (I would certainly dispute the "top" prefix....), but he doesn't walk the walk like he talks the talk - he's always up for yapping away in the media about not trusting models & stuff, but when he actually goes about publishing articles, those recognise the reality of AGW... At this point, he's little more than a paid shill for the Oil industry...

Comment: Re:All the observed data is perfectly normal (Score 2) 130

What Steve Goddard "forgets" to mention is that it's actually only the Antarctic sea ice that is growing, while the land-ice there is melting away ever faster...

And the 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012 still puts 2013 in 6th lowest position for arctic ice-extent in the observational record, curiously together with 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012) - so it is lower than *any* observed ice-extent prior to 2007... Doing better than the single worst year on record is not proof that nothing's wrong, it's just proof of the fact that there are significant annual fluctuations in ice-extent, primarily due to short-term weather.

Average thickness and ice-volume in the Arctic are actually far more relevant measurements (as unlike "extent", they measure the *amount* of ice, not how thinly it's spread out) and those have been dropping almost without fail year after year after year...

Comment: Re:Is the end nigh again? (Score 2) 130

Antarctic *sea ice* is "growing" (most of it actually melts away each summer) - Antarctic land ice is shrinking, in part because it's melting away and in part because it's more quickly flowing to the sea, where it contributes to the sea ice growth.

Sea ice growth around Antarctica is a *consequence* of global warming, not proof against it...

And the situation is profoundly different for the Antarctic then for the Arctic, due precisely to the completely different land/sea configurations at both poles...

Comment: Re:There always has been water flow under the ice (Score 1) 130

uhm - Antarctic *sea ice* is growing (and that only in winter, it mostly melts away in summer), in part because Antarctic land ice is shrinking - some of it is melting, some of it is floating to sea faster than before...

So, no imminent collapse of AGW...

Comment: Re:Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score 4, Interesting) 520

by bdeclerc (#43062119) Attached to: Neil deGrasse Tyson On How To Stop a Meteor Hitting the Earth

The whole idea is conceptually idiotic. You spend a strong force of reaction mass ejection to maintain a weak force of gravity at a constant distance from the target mass producing a microscopic tug on the object. This guy must have received his degree in a box of crackerjack.
Place the reaction mass generator (be it ion jet, or rocket) directly on the mass and divert it.

Amazing that they didn't think of that!!! You must be a genius...

Or... maybe they did consider that, then realised that many, many small asteroids are apparently heaps of weakly bound rubble, just as bad as a solid object when hitting the surface of earth, but impossible to attach a rocket to.

The "gravity tug" concept works the same regardless of the structural integrity of the asteroid, *that* is why this is the proposed mechanism, not because Tyson is stupid...

Bet you feel a lot less like a genius now, smarty-pants?

Comment: Re:No HST ? (Score 1) 225

by bdeclerc (#42750215) Attached to: NASA Says Asteroid Will Buzz Earth Closer Than Many Satellites

They're going to use radar to map the asteroid, which will give us a complete 3D picture of it at much higher resolution than the HST can give - the distances in space are enormous, even supposing Hubble was easily capable of tracking this asteroid (it isn't, the asteroid is moving too fast) the biggest it gets is about 10-15 pixels large. And considering that HST is in an orbit about 550km above the surface of the earth, and the asteroid is passing us by at 25000km it's not even that much "closer" to it than telescopes on earth are.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable, but... (Score 1) 355

"causes CO2 release --> causes more warming." ...and where is that demonstrated, other than in Club of Rome models and their descendants?

Well, basic physics shows that an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere *will* cause more warming - the only thing that might happen in the real world is that some other mechanism would then kick in to counteract the warming caused by increased CO2 - in reality, we see the opposite happening, all sorts of mechanisms add on to the CO2-caused warming, reduction in ice & snow cover caused by the CO2-induced warming decrease albedo, thereby increasing heat-capture, a warmer world has more humidity in the atmosphere, and since water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, that *also* increases heat-capture.

So unless you can "demonstrate" some credible mechanism that counteracts the CO2-induced warming (which, remember, is predicted and easily demonstrated using very very basic physics), the burden of proof lies with you - this is not shown in just the atmospheric modules you so denigrate, this is shown in simple physics experiments *and* in satellite measurements of the energy-flux onto and away from our planet...

The lag in CO2 is not adequately explained by the Milankovitch cycle. The lag occurs in ever piece of the past we can get a handle on, and not just at 800
years--and at every level of detail we can look at. I've looked--you might try it before hanging your hat on this argument.

Previous temperature rises out of ice-ages typically took about 5000 years, with CO2 lagging 800 years from the start of the warming, the change which causes the start *is* Milankovitch cycles, the lag is explained by inherent lag in "the system" (The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents.)

"at every level of detail we can look at" - what does that even mean in this context?

Maybe a little less dismissive, arrogant cocksuredness from the lovers of scientific models and prognostication would be more persuasive.

The dismissive, arrogent cocksuredness comes from the complete and total frustration that denialists always return to the same old tired, disproved crap and no matter how many times you try to explain, point towards the evidence and talk talk talk, they always turn around and spout the same bullshit over and over again (in your case, the old denialist holdfast that all our evidence comes from unreliable computer models - no it doesn't, it comes from basic physics, geology, biology, astronomy, etc... and even if all the "climate models" were to fall off the face of the planet, there'd still be a mountain of evidence pointing to CO2 as the main culprit of current global warming and another mountain of evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is human-induced.

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg

Working...