[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I guess it does put to rest the lie the deniers have been on about the Antarctic not being affected by global warming

A suggestion does no such thing.

You’re not serious are you?

While the numbers are massive and intimidating the fact remains that if true they are a vanishingly small facet of the total amount of ice on the continent.

But with the principle computer model being the RACMO2 then it can be noted that there is an acknowledged and historic bias to the model that was first noted in a study of snowfall in Greenland in September 2015. The researchers in that case noted deviations in the model from actual data ranging from .21% to .99% across nine separate measurements with the balance being weighted from .95% to .99% with .21% as a lone outlier.

After an update to the physics package in the RACMO2 model the observed variance between the model and manually observed measurements 'improved' with the variance across the same nine studies now weighted from .997% to .46% with .46% as the lone outlier and the balance now weighted from .74% to .997%.

tl;dr is that 0.011% is well within the known margin of error of the RACMO2 computer model and therefore the decision to call this a 'suggestion' instead of a 'conclusion' is wise.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering

It's just a BS (Bachelor of Science) and those letters say a lot if you ask me.

Burt Rutan is an engineer too. He's never done comedy stand-up like Bill though. He has built cutting edge, high tech airplanes. He has opinions about climate change too. He's what you would call a "denier."

Explain to me why I need to listen to Bill but not to Burt.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Smug? Trying reading that article where the guy does a percentage operation (a simple division and multiplication operation) and then thinks he's discovered something that has been missed by every PhD on the planet. That's smug.

The post is introduced at the site as "lampooning" so what he's doing is mocking the smug posers who ignored the simple math showing that in context this melt is almost insignificant.

[N_Fiddledog]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Go ahead then science guys, find the actual global sea-rise since 1992. Project it forward to the end of the century. Tell me why we need to be building an ark based on your projections

Wait...

Zip tells me we can't expect you science wizards to do simple math, so I'm going to do it for you.

NOAA tells us:



the sea level rise from 1992 to about 2017 was a little under 80 millimetres. Let's just call it 80.

80 millimetres is 3.149606 inches. Let's round it off to 3 inches.

3 inches over 25 years.

It's 2018. 7 years to 2025. The 75 years from 2025 to 2100 would account for 9 inches. Give it another inch for the missing 7 years.

10 inches. Ok, my estimate of 7 was wrong, but even at a 10 inch sea rise by 2100, tell me why we need to be so scared we need globally governed controls.

Show me the science behind the idea that whatever this global governance is it can adjust the global thermostat to make this "horrific" 10 inches of sea level rise disappear even if we're dumb enough to back such a government.

[PluggyRug]

We are losing too much ice...time to ban ice fishing and let the stocks replenish. Anyone who puts ice in a single malt should be taught a lesson behind the bike sheds.

[Thanos]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Bill Nye is not a science guy (that character was originally created for a standup comedy routine), and the topic of creationism has nothing to do with climate science.

Concerning the thread topic, Zip says "The number itself doesn't mean anything without context," but I don't think he realizes how ironic that is because that was the point of the post from Watts that you two are posing smug as being superior over.

Go ahead then science guys, find the actual global sea-rise since 1992. Project it forward to the end of the century. Tell me why we need to be building an ark based on your projections. Warning: if it's over 7 inches I'm going to be checking your math. Also your data.

And since you're boasting your superior scientific knowledge T, please tell us about the science concerning underwater Volcanoes and southern shifting currents in the Western Antarctic. Explain to me how what you discover means I need to buy an electric car and cross my fingers hoping for a global government to come in and adjust the world's global thermostat. Because they tell us they can do that. It's science, you see.

I don't have "superior scientific knowledge" but I innately trust those who do. Which means I don't trust you at all, in pretty much anything you say on this subject (and most other subjects too) considering your only "scientific" degree is the one you got in Gaslighting, Goal-Post Shifting, and Straw-Manning from Trump University Online.

[bootlegga]

llama66 llama66:

Listen, everything is fine. The North Atlantic current is fine. There is no flooding along the coasts, everything is fine.

I think you're kidding, but just in case you're not:

$1:

In 2017, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that cities around the country experienced a record number of flooding events related to high tides, according to the National Climate Report. More than a quarter of coastal locations tied or set new records for the number of flooding days. And in 2018, flooding on the US coastline is expected to be 60% higher than it was just 20 years ago.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sea-leve ... ies-2018-4

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

I don't trust you at all

Fair enough. You're not where I go for my science info either.

I trust the math though. I notice you're avoiding that bit.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

I don't have "superior scientific knowledge" but I innately trust those who do.

Then trust them when they say they fuck up all the time. That means you're supposed to trust them about the same as you would trust the average used car dealer. That means you check and double check their facts and figures and you NEVER accept them on faith.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... -about-it/

$1:

Failure in Science Is Frequent and Inevitable--and We Should Talk More about It

Science has an inside secret: we fail all the time.

I first met major failure in my third year of graduate school when I discovered my entire thesis project hinged on an experimental anomaly. Early on, I had stumbled on a single, promising finding that could have meant the end of neurodegenerative disease. But try as I might, I could not reproduce that result. Instead, I had uncovered an unanticipated, uninterpretable quirk of experimental design. I was chasing a false lead.

The first encounter with failure is a formative moment in every young scientist’s training. That moment opened my eyes to the relentless troubleshooting and mystifying anomalies that make up the bulk of the scientific endeavor. But that moment came when I was already deep in the trenches of my graduate career. Sure, I had been warned that failure would find me, that it was the norm, that science proceeds in fits and starts. Those warnings, however, lacked weight without any real protagonists or stakes.

Scientists seldom speak of false starts. While we all have stories about failure, the scientific narrative is dominated by bold questions that begat experimental triumphs that fill textbooks and TED Talks. If failure is mentioned, it is only in the past tense, listed as a steppingstone to discovery. The big, heroic failures that make it to the public stage are really successes in disguise. Failure with purpose. There’s even a book about it. But mediocre failures—the mistakes and errors that lead to nothing—have no place.

There’s nothing glamorous about a dead end. But does that mean we should bury them?

Nearly everything that happens in the lab will never make it to print. The Journal for the Banal Failures and Self Doubt that Face Day-to-Day Life in the Lab does not exist. So a huge chunk of science goes unreported. Without failure, we lack a complete picture of science. And, a bigger shame, we lack a complete picture of the scientist beyond the brainy stereotype.

My first brush with failure conjured up a curious combination of emotions: I was anxious to plough forward and paralyzed by fear of further foundering. That emotional cocktail compelled me to investigate the many forms humdrum failure takes and the effects its casualties feel. I wanted to understand how we as a community cope with frequent failure and continue. I wanted to know I wasn’t alone.

So I created a home for humdrum failures. I launched an open-yet-anonymous forum for scientists to confess the false starts and true frustrations, humorous mishaps and serious doubts that come with the practice of science. Part therapy. Part catalogue. A complete picture of banal failure.

And so Science Confessionals was born.

And so it flopped.

Despite an initial flood of support, Science Confessionals never gained traction. Friends shared it with friends, acquaintances messaged with thanks, strangers Tweeted with praise. But hardly anyone confessed.

This outright failure baffled me since, in science, failure abounds. Newly anointed with disappointment, however, I was not satisfied to let it rest. I confronted friends who had shared the website, most of whom had not posted. When I asked why, the overwhelming response was: “I didn’t think my failings were good enough to share.”

The take home message: feeling ill-equipped to confess their struggles, my peers continued to bury their burdens. Some were worried they were whining. Others didn’t even know where to begin. They believed the quality of their trials and tribulations must mirror the prim and polished narratives they shared with the world.

I should have known.

The prevailing culture in science urges us to do all things with intention and innovation. So if we are to fail or feel frustration, we must do so with novelty—preferably with a dash of panache. The struggle must mean something.

But a scientist’s own personal relationship to failure evolves uniquely. To be a scientist requires resilience to unrelenting, unromantic failure. The pursuit of science hinges on the brazen presumption that we mere mortals can uncover the secrets of the universe. When we dare to devote our lives to educated stabs in the dark, science is bound to humble us. And so, the scientist must adapt or perish.

With time, we acquire a Teflon coating that is fortified with every trip around an experimental cul-de-sac. Building that resilience to failure is embedded in our training. But it’s a lesson we rarely see coming and often must learn alone.

Struggle and defeat of unheroic proportions underscore the devotion and tenacity ingrained in the scientist. Not the glory. We accept that struggle because we love what we do. Because it feels worth the struggle. Or because we revel in self-abuse. Either way, our unexceptional failures make us interesting.

Within the current culture of science, that evolution is largely left unchronicled and undiscussed. By abstaining from talk of failure and our feelings about it, we withhold a considerable chunk of what it means to do science. Plus, there’s solidarity in shared struggle. If we’re destined to fail and fail often, why not also fail openly and fail together?

Only by failing yet again did I grasp what we lose by burying all our failures: a more complete, compelling, communal narrative of progress told through the lens of frequent and fortifying defeat.

This is my confession.

[N_Fiddledog]

bootlegga bootlegga:

In 2017, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that cities around the country experienced a record number of flooding events related to high tides, according to the National Climate Report. More than a quarter of coastal locations tied or set new records for the number of flooding days. And in 2018, flooding on the US coastline is expected to be 60% higher than it was just 20 years ago.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sea-leve ... ies-2018-4[/quote]

If there are areas experiencing peculiar tides they should build some dykes for just in case.

Problem solved. No charge.

The shore line by me is doing fine, btw. No additional dykes necessary lately.

Mitigation versus adaptation. Look it up.

[Thanos]

I don't post scientific claims here at all. You do all the time though, on any climate change thread that gets started. Not knowing what you're talking about, except in the loosest layman manner possible, doesn't prevent you in the slightest from being a stalking horse for what's essentially a devious anti-science agenda. See, this isn't even really being pushed by the oil companies anymore, as they've long sought carbon reduction on their own and haven't bitched too much in jurisdictions where carbon taxes have been brought in. When they can make a buck off of carbon they're going to dive into it in with a revenue-generating speed that will spin everyone's heads around. This is all now merely more extremist right-wing fundamentalism, partially done to render science subservient to the disconcern radical apocalyptic Christians longing for the Rapture have because (according to them) the world is going to be destroyed by Jesus in Armageddon long before climate change, or any other massive pollution, will do so. Mostly though it's just the reflexive "anti" the right has for anything they perceive comes from the left. Scientists, by default, are seen as of left even though most of them say they're apolitical and just stating the facts their research has led them too; gravity or electro-magnetism or thermodynamics really doesn't give a fuck what political party or church one goes to. But the "anti" must have it's say, and I guess that's what you're here for. If this suits your needs then whatever but keep something in mind as you keep going down this path. The "antis" also include people who say with absolute certainty the world is flat, or the world is hollow, or the moon landings were faked, or that the Holocaust never happened. If this is the way you want to "think", for lack of a better word, then you should be made aware that you're in the company of some real zanies that have come to some fairly interesting anti-social conclusions of their own.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

While the numbers are massive and intimidating the fact remains that if true they are a vanishingly small facet of the total amount of ice on the continent.

But with the principle computer model being the RACMO2 then it can be noted that there is an acknowledged and historic bias to the model that was first noted in a study of snowfall in Greenland in September 2015. The researchers in that case noted deviations in the model from actual data ranging from .21% to .99% across nine separate measurements with the balance being weighted from .95% to .99% with .21% as a lone outlier.

After an update to the physics package in the RACMO2 model the observed variance between the model and manually observed measurements 'improved' with the variance across the same nine studies now weighted from .997% to .46% with .46% as the lone outlier and the balance now weighted from .74% to .997%.

tl;dr is that 0.011% is well within the known margin of error of the RACMO2 computer model and therefore the decision to call this a 'suggestion' instead of a 'conclusion' is wise.

It's not a suggestion, it's an inference. RACMO2 came out in the early 2000s, not after 2015. Not sure where you are getting that from. And was the variance in reference to total mass (as you imply) or within the time-series? Big diff. And with this study they used four datasets and three techniques (including SMB, which is what RACMO does), with good agreement, which added to the confidence.

But at the end of the day, it's a vast region with limited data

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thanos Thanos:

I don't have "superior scientific knowledge" but I innately trust those who do.

Then trust them when they say they fuck up all the time.

They do. But they fuck up less than alt-right propagandists who know nothing about the subject at all and think that the math involved is about as complicated as calculating a simple percentage. And they admit they fuck up. Again, markedly different than the anti-science crowd who will gladly sacrifice facts to ideological purity.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Thanos Thanos:

I don't have "superior scientific knowledge" but I innately trust those who do.

Then trust them when they say they fuck up all the time.

They do. But they fuck up less than alt-right propagandists who know nothing about the subject at all and think that the math involved is about as complicated as calculating a simple percentage. And they admit they fuck up. Again, markedly different than the anti-science crowd who will gladly sacrifice facts to ideological purity.

All fundamentalists know is to double-down. Like Rorschach in Watchmen - no compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon. Sad really, when you think of it, that so many feel that turning off a perfectly usable brain is the best thing they can do in their lifetimes.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering

It's just a BS (Bachelor of Science) and those letters say a lot if you ask me.

Burt Rutan is an engineer too. He's never done comedy stand-up like Bill though. He has built cutting edge, high tech airplanes. He has opinions about climate change too. He's what you would call a "denier."

Explain to me why I need to listen to Bill but not to Burt.

I don’t pretend Burt has no background in science just because I think he’s wrong on this subject. That’s what makes people like you and Bart different from the rest of us decent people. You don’t like what Bill Nye says therefore you say he must have no background on science. You don’t like the political opinions of John Kerry or John McCain therefore you say they must not have earned their Vietnam War decorations even though that has nothing to do with anything.