Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (Score 1) 308

by jandersen (#47423073) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis

Well said :-)

Of course, the problem we have now is not whether we can avoid climate change - we can't - but whether we can avoid running completely off the tracks. Even if we were to stop burning fossil fuel right now, we are still looking at continued climate change for a least a couple of centuries, and the best we can do is to try to limit the damage. We can adapt to the changes that are already unavoidable, but we would be very hard hit if whole ecosystems were severely disturbed all over the world.

But I really don't understand the hysterical denialism; to me it looks like there are massive opportunities - when there are big changes afoot, there are always more opportunities, if you are clever enough. Isn't that what being American is all about?

Comment: Re: (Score 1) 326

by Rei (#47423005) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

He said ice sheet. So we're supposed to ignore what he actually said and assume he meant something completely different? Um, no.

"I am not well read in this department" - wait a minute, you can give exact cites for research papers on sea ice, but don't even have a *general* conception of what percentage of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining versus what is losing? Something tells me you're just grabbing cites you've never even read from denier websites.

Let me help you out with ice sheet. Pretty much all of the East Antarctic ice sheet is gaining, while pretty much the only area losing is the Antarctic peninsula and surrounding areas in West Antarctica. Now, they're losing *mass* a lot faster per unit area than the east is gaining mass, but in terms of area, the overwhelming majority of Antarctica is gaining ice. Because it almost never gets above freezing there, even in a warming world.

The 2010 paper was evaluating the failed CMIP5 predictions

If you'd actually read the paper, which you clearly haven't, you'd know that they themselves did the CMIP5 runs, it's not CMIP5 runs that had been done earlier. Do you even have a clue what CMIP5 stands for? Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5. As in, "there were four freaking phases that came before this one". CMIP5 is comprised of all of the latest models from all over the world. They didn't even start planning CMIP5 unitl September 2008. Your notion that this is some sort of review of old climate predictions just shows how terrible your understanding is of what you're talking about and how you don't actually read the papers that you cite, that you're just simply grabbing them from whatever denialist trash websites you read.

Comment: Re: (Score 1) 326

by Rei (#47422677) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

First, that's a paper from 2010. How was a paper from 2010 supposed to be "predicting" anything about what scientists in the past thought?

Secondly, and more importantly, I had been responding to Archangel Michael, who was talking about the thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet, not Antarctic sea ice. So your link about pack ice is totally irrelevant.

But hey, let's switch topics totally and talk about sea ice, since you seem to want to. Here's how the IPCC sums up all papers on the modelling of antarctic sea ice, including this one:

Whereas sea ice extent in the Arctic has decreased, sea ice extent in the Antarctic has very likely increased. Sea ice extent across the Southern Hemisphere over the year as a whole increased by 1.3– 1.67% per decade from 1979–2012 with the largest increase in the Ross Sea during the autumn, while sea ice extent decreased in the Amundsen-Bellingshausen Sea. The observed upward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent is found to be inconsistent with internal variability based on the residuals from a linear trend fitted to the observations, though this approach could underestimate multi-decadal variability. The CMIP5 simulations on average simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent , though Turner et al. (2013) find that approximately 10% of CMIP5 simulations exhibit an increasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent larger than observed over the 1979-2005 period. However, Antarctic sea ice extent variability appears on average to be too large in the CMIP5 models . Overall, the shortness of the observed record and differences in simulated and observed variability preclude an assessment of whether or not the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent is inconsistent with internal variability. Based on Figure 10.16b and (Meehl et al., 2007b), the trend of Antarctic sea ice loss in simulations due to changes in forcing is weak (relative to the Arctic) and the internal variability is high, and thus the time necessary for detection is longer than in the Arctic.

Weak trend, short observed record, and high internal variability in the simulations. Which shouldn't be surprising, sea ice is a lot harder to model than ice sheet thickness, which really only has three main parameters - snowfall, melt/sublimation, and outflow, and the short observed record is due to how few people historically have navigated antarctic waters vs. arctic.

But again, to reiterate the primary point: the conversation you jumped into was about ice sheet thickness, not sea ice.

Comment: Re:Forcing some of the costs on others (Score 1) 223

by dbIII (#47422403) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
Personally I think it's like the Sea Sprite (and tank with too short a range to be useful to Australia, and torpedoes that are not made any more and don't fit) rushed deal all over again. A new and naive bunch that see US representatives as rock stars are swallowing whatever deal is shoved down their throats without listening to their own experts.

Comment: Re:Goal Post: Mysticism (Score 1) 166

by dbIII (#47422141) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

This is like looking at obscurity and declaring it a soul

That's the undergraduate view of AI that gets repeated at times in this place.

The measure of intelligence is that we can't understand it?

Not just yet, so instead of waiting until years of work is done understanding the physical basis of thought the impatient want some sort of measure now.

Comment: Re:Global warming is only the start (Score 1) 200

by dbIII (#47421941) Attached to: Dubai's Climate-Controlled Dome City Is a Dystopia Waiting To Happen

It's also hard to explain how the increasing challenge of getting enough oil and gas is a result of a "false" scarcity

Here's the trick, the people who say there is plenty of stuff are throwing coal, shale, tar and anything else they can think of into the mix and pretend it's the same as easy to extract liquid oil. Another common trick is to pretend that all that unsurveyed land in Iran, the arctic, wherever has huge oil basins when we do not know one way or another. There's plenty of fossil fuels. Oil we can get out of the ground - not so much. The only reason I have the job I have is that the more computing power you have the easier it is to find the stuff from survey data.

Comment: Re:More F-35 Hate (Score 1) 223

by dbIII (#47421845) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere

Sorry you feel that way. But if you look at my account I've been active since 2009, rather dedicated for an astroturfing account

That's about when PR companies decided to put money into "social media" and this place started to get astroturfed, but it does appear that your comment was wrongly labelled by Exitar.
Let's consider what is now a very old example of this sort of contraversy. The F111 also had a variety of early problems, as mentioned by others here, yet despite all those problems decades ago they were useful enough in some roles that there were retained in service long enough that I saw one flying the year before last. There are none flying now but nearly 40 years of service is enough for a jet fighter isn't it?

Comment: Re: (Score 1) 326

by Rei (#47421159) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

I'm sorry, I just read through that paper, and nowhere in it does it say that a decline in Antarctic ice is a forecast of AGW. That's one of the worst examples of "proof by ghost reference" I've ever seen. Not to mention that the paper is mainly focused on the Antarctic Peninsula, the one place that actually gets melt on more than super-rare occasions and juts into a different climate zone.

Comment: Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (Score 1) 326

by Xyrus (#47418975) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

None of your links are to peer reviewed research articles. Three of your statements refer to changes in trends BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY. Your fourth statement amount Britain never seeing snow again is just made up BS. That has never been stated in any research paper on climate.

Air pollution is really making us pay through the nose.

Working...