Slashdot Mirror
US Coast Guard Ship To Attempt Rescue of 2 Icebreakers In Antarctica
PolygamousRanchKid writes "A U.S. Coast Guard heavy icebreaker left Australia for Antarctica on Sunday to rescue more than 120 crew members aboard two icebreakers trapped in pack ice near the frozen continent's eastern edge, officials said. The 399-foot cutter, the Polar Star, is responding to a Jan. 3 request from Australia, Russia and China to assist the Russian and Chinese ships because 'there is sufficient concern that the vessels may not be able to free themselves from the ice,' the Coast Guard said in a statement. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority's Rescue Coordination Centre, which oversaw the rescue, said the Polar Star, the Coast Guard's only active heavy polar icebreaker, would take about seven days to reach Commonwealth Bay, depending on weather. Under international conventions observed by most countries, ships' crews are obliged to take part in such rescues and the owners carry the costs."
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah!
Along came an icebreaker and there were...
Two blue ships, stuck upon the ice. Two blue ships, stuck upon the ice, along came an icebreaker and there were...
Three blue ships, stuck upon the ice...
I could have sworn Antarctica only has a northern edge.
In one week will we be reading about how country X is sending an icebreaker to free the three stuck icebreakers?
Good thing it's summer down there. Wouldn't want to be stuck all winter. That would be a pain.
Always Ready
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
How's that global warming thing working out for you?
You mean, for us? Not so well. Chaotic weather, not even, gradual warming over the entire globe, is what we can expect for quite a number of years.
Don't say that like you're not in the same boat as the rest of us.
An Western European led research vessel gets stuck in the ice. A Chinese ice breaker comes to the rescue. The Chinese ice breaker gets stuck in the ice. A Russian ice breaker with an international crew comes to the rescue. The Russian ice breaker gets stuck in the Ice. Now we have a US Coast Guard ice breaker on the way to save the day. The moral of the story? When you subtract nasty international politics from the equation, we really can get along.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Given that the Chinese icebreaker got stuck as a direct result of attempting to rescue (successfully in conjunction with an Australian icebreaker) the passengers off the Russian icebreaker, who pays the US icebreaker for the rescue of the Chinese icebreaker?
RTFS
Under international conventions observed by most countries, ships' crews are obliged to take part in such rescues and the owners carry the costs.
Thank you for yours.
This bit here is pretty popular on the internet these days. Taking a single incident of global warming researchers stuck in ice and using the (rather remarkable) irony of that to debunk global warming as a whole.
My reply to that thus far has been something along the lines of me, using that same logic, being able to prove global warming is occurring by pointing out the 19% of normal snow pack in the California Sierra right now.
I am no environmental scientist, but I do know it's going to take just a bit more critical thinking than either of these two thought processes to figure the thing out.
Beware of the Leopard.
To be fair, the hole in the ozone layer only stopped growing because we actually succeeded in not pumping out CFCs.
Why? For situations just like this.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Along came an icebreaker and there were...
Two blue ships, stuck upon the ice. Two blue ships, stuck upon the ice, along came an icebreaker and there were...
Three blue ships, stuck upon the ice...
I don't get it.
I was thinking the ice breaker was along the lines of ... "So, come to Antarctica often?"
Hell, I remember when I was in grade school in the '90s, and we were constantly told of the horrors of the hole on the ozone layer that was going to burn us to death, and the rain forests that would be 100% destroyed by 1995
They didn't happen because people took measures to mitigate them. The ozone layer was disappearing because of CFCs. Now that we don't use them in spray cans and air conditioners any more the hole is shrinking and should be gone in another 100 years.
You're like the people who scoff at the Y2K Armageddon that didn't happen. It didn't happen because a lot of folks did a lot of hard work to keep it from happening.
Had everyone shrugged and done nothing like you propose with global warming the ozone would still be disappearing and the Y2K meltdown would have been serious.
Free Martian Whores!
I think that right wing talking points jumped the shark years ago.
By the way, the Ozone hole was saved by concerted international effort. Too bad that was prevented this time around by a small band of billionaires and their useful idiots.
Umm, yes we do.
Lake Superior, for example, sometimes has 6 to 12 feet of ice, and the Coast Guard opens channels in the spring for shipping to proceed as early in the season as possible.
There can be ice around Alaska coastline as well, and Coast Guard resources are used to free stuck ships.
It will be interesting to see what happens next year.
Tornado activity hits 60-year low
2013 Atlantic hurricane season wrap-up: least active in 30 years
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Here's a graph that shows how you're looking at things. It's called cherry picking your data.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
There are some complex facts that usually don't get dragged into this discussion because they make it so much larger. But some interesting facts to color the warming issue are:
1. We are currently in an ice age. The current Quaternary glaciation (i.e., the current ice age) started 2.5 million years ago.
2. Within that ice age, we are in an interglacial: a period of temporary(?) warming within the ice age. Our current interglacial is the Holocene epoch, which started 11,700 years ago.
But as long as we still have ice caps, we are still in an ice age. If the ice caps melt, we'll know the ice age is over and we're back to what is in fact more normal temperatures for Earth.
However, it can't be said that Earth's normal warm is necessarily good for humanity. After all,
3. Humans, as in the genus Homo, evolved around 2.5 million years ago. The same time as the the beginning of the current ice age. In other words, the adversity of the Earth's freezing put heavy evolutionary pressure on our ape ancestors.
So, cold = good? Well, remember the current interglacial started 11,700 years ago. Now that's interesting. The Old Stone Age begins with the first humans, that ~2.5 million years ago. But...
4. The Middle Stone Age started right around when the interglacial started. That's when humans first began to make more advanced tools, create advanced art, develop spirituality, etc. In other words, when things warmed up a bit, humanity began to flourish.
So what's good? Warm, cold, in-between? What's "natural?" 'Cause that seems to be extremely warm... unless you're talking about humans, then it's extremely cold. Or moderate.
Complex, eh?
Now, apart from global warming, the related issue that always gets short shrift is ocean acidification, which is also caused by an abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere, and which appears to be a huge threat to life on Earth. But it's harder to understand than warming, so let's not talk about it.
it really feels as if over-the-top global warming alarmism has jumped the shark.
It's GLOBAL warming. Not local warming. The fact that some random ship go caught in sea ice carries precisely zero relevance, nor does the fact that they happened to be studying global warming. While amusing and a bit ironic this ship getting stuck doesn't remotely constitute evidence against temperatures rising globally. Last time I checked the Antarctic hasn't thawed and thus it is a very dangerous place to sail regardless of time of year. There always is danger from ice in that part of the world.
We'll look back in 20 years and say, "Remember when that ship got stuck in the ice on their journey to drum up fear about receding ice?"
People who do that will basically be publicly acknowledging their ignorance of science. While it may turn out that fears of global warming end up being overstated to some degree, this incident is not going to be relevant in proving that fact one way or the other. Furthermore a cavalier attitude about something like global warming is incredibly dangerous. We only have the one planet to live on and if we want to keep living on it as a species we would to well to tread carefully.
I've heard rumours that Alaska can get quite cold.
go and look at Ozone depletion and see that the alarmism was worth it because the world did ban CFCs and the charts show the improvement since. What we need is global coordinated action on the issues of today
Icebreakers being stuck in ice doesn't say much about climate change - incidents of such icebreakers stuck in ice over many decades may say something. Don't confuse an incident with a trend
I am sure there are many stupid Americans in New England seeing how amazingly cold it is this week and mocking Climate Change. (I live in Central Europe and we have at the moment one of the hottest Januaries on record). Climate Change predicts weather extremes because there is more energy available in weather systems to push to hotter and colder extremes.
That thick ice in Antarctica could be an example of climate change if, for example, more ice is rolling off the land faster, or climate change has changed currents to push more ice into that bay. Only objective longterm observations can help here.
There are problems with Alarmism, but it was right with Acid Rain in the 1970s, leaded petrol and Ozone in the 80's - those problems were reversed - and the scientific community is in consensus that CO2 today is a far more serious issue and we need alarmism before we reach tipping points.
I would rather take action with alarmism, then do nothing out of cynicism while species go extinct and Africans and Bangladeshis try to emigrate in their millions.
Your facts don't suggest anything because they are in fact false. http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
of people setting out to the pole at summer, to highlight the damage wrought by global warming, and then getting stuck in the ice, and then their rescuers getting stuck in the ice... it really feels as if over-the-top global warming alarmism has jumped the shark. Right here
It would depend on these people's IQ. If you start with for example 20 feet of ice, then no ship is going to get stuck in there because they can't get in. If it melts to 10 feet of ice and breaks up because of global warming, then they get stuck.
Congratulations for what will no doubt be the most idiotic comment attached to this story. Something we've come to expect from right wing science deniers.
1. The Akademik Shokalskiy was retracing the Douglas Mawson expedition conducted a century ago. The glacier in their vicinity was named after Xaviar Metz who died on the expedition. It's notable this original expedition was not by ship. It is the subject of David Roberts's book "Alone on the Ice: The Greatest Survival Story in the History of Exploration"
2. The ozone layer hole issue has been ameliorated because the nations of the world got together and banned the CFCs that were causing it. Amazing how science works, eh?
3. You must have a really bad memory. Or maybe you are just a liar. Nobody was predicting loss of rain forests by 1995. Brazil has 5.4 km sq of rain forest, since 1970 they have lost about 10%. Long term it's an issue, which is being addressed by legislation.
But if you zoom that graph way out you'll see that we're cooling. It's called cherry picking your data. Looking at the data in 5-year increments tells a different story then looking at it in 50 year increments tells a different story then looking at it in 500 year increments, tells a different story then looking at it in 5000 year increments and on and on and on.
We are too dumb to understand climate. Any one who calls themselves a climate expert is a huge liar, unless they put it in the context of being relative to the rest of mankind. That lack of relativity has lead to arrogance and away from science. We've seen that the climate scientists are afraid of being wrong. This is an area where our system of academia is a weakness not a strength. People are too invested in not being wrong and finding new truths. In the climate sciences it should be about being wrong and being able to better understand that. Bad predictions should be more celebrated then correct ones, because it's easier to learn from something that went wrong.
skeptics and supporters are opposite sides of the same coin of wrong headedness. There is learning to be done, and a future that is uncertain. Those are things we should be concentrating on.
Do we know skin cancer is on the rise due to the ozone hole? There are many plausible explanations, so a simple rise in numbers won't cut it.
I don't mean to seem snide but do you really think that same thought hasn't occurred to anyone else? There are ways of testing and controlling for possible causes. Proving causation in cases like this is challenging but not impossible. It's sort of like proving that smoking causes an increase in lung cancer. It's difficult to prove in individual cases but actually much easier in populations. You check a lot of correlations, you test for overlapping, you slowly control for specific alternatives and over time you get a pretty good picture of how much of the problem is causes by the suspect phenomena.
My wife is a skin doctor and her take on the matter is that yes there appears to be some credible evidence that the ozone hole is responsible for at least some of the increase in skin cancer. The exact amount is unknown and realistically unimportant. What is important is that there appears to be a real and measurable (if imprecise) effect on the population.
Yes, and the chlorofluorocarbons, you do remember those don't you, were and still are one of the major contributors to the ozone holes. The Montreal Protocol which started in the late 1980's, got a head of steam in the 1990's, and continues to this day pretty much banished chlorofluorocarbons from production. The expectation is the ozone holes will get back to normal around 2050 when chlorofluorocarbon have left the atmosphere.
And as someone below mentioned, there's been quite a large increase in skin cancer in the S. latitudes as a result of the ozone holes. There's something very susceptible to environmental blinkers, and it takes a really magnificent demonstration of intelligence every generation to snap people out of their blindness towards environmental dangers. This is it!
South of Australia some ice breakers a stuck in pack ice.
In Australia we have a heat wave unheard of, and the summer has just started 2 weeks ago.
In Finnland we have the "hottest" winter since recorded history. At the northern polar circle, mind that, we still have + temperatures. In a real winter it would be -30 degrees there.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The two graphs use different sets of data. One shows BEST land-only surface temperature measurements, and ther other uses satellite data for land and ocean measurements. In both graphs, you can easily see the warming trend. The one you linked to even has trend lines that show the warming. Don't you see them? It seems that it is you that is still cherry picking data, by ignoring data from before the 1998 temperature spike caused by that year's El Nino.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The problem is that there are quite a bit of instances, most poignant of which is that southern ice has been increasing for decades, /.
I don't get why people still repeat such nonsense on
The ice is retreating since decades, however in winter it grows and in summer it shrinks.
What counts is the long term trend. Long term: every winter it is a bit less than the (or a few) winter(s) before.
If it is not important that Antarctic ice melt is this year the lowest ever recorded,
Never heard about that claim. Any proof? NASA and ESA photos don't confirm this.
The thing about science is that its supposed to be falsifiable. No it is not. It is supposed to be "investigate able" by experiments. That means it is "provable" ... no idea why americans always use the term "falsifiable". Must have a special meaning in some circumstances?
Or, how do you "falsify" the theory of gravity?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If you zoom that graph way out, you can no longer see the warming that is caused by carbon dioxide emissions that began about a century ago because it becomes too small to see. Yes, it's called cherry picking your data.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Three! Three stuck icebreakers!
Muahhhaaaahhaaaahhaaahhaaahhh!
I *love* to COUNT! That's why they call me the COUNT!
Muahhhaaaahhaaaahhaaahhaaahhh!
Why would the US Coast Guard own any icebreakers?
According to a Wikipedia article:
Polar Star has a variety of missions while operating in polar regions. During Antarctic deployments, the primary missions include breaking a channel through the sea ice to resupply the McMurdo Research Station in the Ross Sea. Resupply ships use the channel to bring food, fuel, and other goods to make it through another winter. In addition to these duties, Polar Star also serves as a scientific research platform with five laboratories and accommodations for up to 20 scientists. The "J"-shaped cranes and work areas near the stern and port side of ship give scientists the capability to do at-sea studies in the fields of geology, vulcanology, oceanography, sea-ice physics and other disciplines.
Kind of resembles the NASDAQ
Why simply err on the side of caution, when you can scuttle the entire world economy with superstitious ignorance?
The ocean and land graph also shows the same warming, as long as you do not neglect the data from before 1998. I see that you didn't look at it. Go take a look.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
They are making fun of people like you who every time a piece of ice falls off a glacier anywhere you point out that as proof of global warming. Go ahead and claim you don't, but every time I hear of a tornado in the US, the hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, and on and on, each of those instances people are trotted out on the news as climate experts claiming that this shows AGW is real and we need to do something.
The person making the statement you replied to doesn't believe this single incident proves AGW is false. They are making fun off all the people on your side that use every single instance as proof. The rest of us can look at how far off IPCC predictions are here, or Al Gore's expert opinion about how the arctic would be ice free by 2013 here, or any other time a climate scientists made a prediction that could actually be tested.
They are making fun of you and you are so dumb you don't even realize it and think you can "debate" your way out of the actual truth. The frozen ice in the antarctic isn't listening to your debate no matter how much you try.
I've heard rumours that Alaska can get quite cold.
They just say that to keep the tourists away.
My reply to that thus far has been something along the lines of me, using that same logic, being able to prove global warming is occurring by pointing out the 19% of normal snow pack in the California Sierra right now.
Sadly, someone actually said that exact thing to me two weeks ago. Any time there is anything perceived as unusual, it is taken as a sign (sometimes even by scientists!).
It's almost like we're still in the dark ages, using weather events as omens, and peering into day-to-day changes in temperature graphs as if they were tea leaves in a cup, determined those signs will tell us that we'll win the battle.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You're like the people who scoff at the Y2K Armageddon that didn't happen. It didn't happen because a lot of folks did a lot of hard work to keep it from happening.
Y2K armageddon was never going to happen. At worst, it would mean some payroll calculations would be delayed, and airline flights would be cancelled. Anyone who thinks we were going to see power plants blow up and raging hordes across the landscape, well, they are deservedly mocked.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Because polar expeditions never used to get caught in the ice in the austral summer.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
At least in principle. The exact details of *weather* are always complex.
Here's a link to an article explaining where the ice in question comes from:
“There's a misconception here – we are not trapped in new ice that's been created because its cold,” said Turney. “This is very old, thick ice that's been re-mobilised. It was attached to another part of the continent and has broken out and, with the south-easterly winds we've had, has pushed it up against the coast and pinned us in.”
The austral sea ice situation is complicated by the fact there's a continent down there and it's not perfectly round. It sticks out into the sea in irregular ways. This means that the extent of sea ice (which is present year round) is dependent on the wind, which in turn is stronger with a more energetic (warmer) atmosphere.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Boy, your grade school sucked.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Stop making things up. It may make you feel smart, but you have no clue what you're talking about.
Yeah, the climate is really complicated. So is the human body, but we can now 3D print working organs and implant them into patients. So is rocket science, but we now have robotic rovers driving around on Mars. If a problem is hard, that doesn't mean we can't solve it. That just means we have to work really hard. And we've been working really hard at understanding the climate for half a century. You have no clue what amazing progress has been made and how deep an understanding we now have of some really complex processes.
So if you want to know what's going on with the climate, what do you do?
1. Learn all about it, recognizing that's a big task and it will take you years of study if you really want to become an expert.
2. Listen to the people who have spent years studying it and are experts on it.
3. Don't do either of the above. Just say, "No one understands this because it's too complicated." After all, if you don't understand it then obviously no one else does either.
Yeah. That's what I thought.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
There's no reason to believe that the use of solar and wind power led to global warming because there's no mechanism to explain it. But carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions was predicted many decades before we observed it. Add to that the fact that no other plausible explanation for the warming has been found, and therefore our best current hypothesis is that the carbon dioixide emissions are causing the warming.
Do you have some other explanation for the observed warming that I haven't heard of?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Do you have some other explanation for the observed warming that I haven't heard of?
The point being debated is that this "observed warming" is actually occurring. As for "other explanation", isn't that what models are supposed to provide?
It seems to me that the most persuasive climate models would be those that account for temperature patterns from prehistoric records all the way to today. Anything less can only be based on an incomplete understanding. Unfortunately, the livelihood of manmade global warming scientists depends on manmade global warming actually existing. For a researcher thus employed to admit that the evidence is untenable not only jeopardises his career, but those of thousands of fellow researchers as well. Given *this* reality, if I were a climate change scientist I would never put my name on a study that promoted a contrarian view.
Von Storch concisely summarizes the dilemma of global warming proponents, as well as the frustration of sceptics. In particular: "It [science] is not just writing a computer simulation and then, when the predictions are wrong, tinkering the parameters (adding more "ocean temperature damping" in this case), and hoping that eventually your program will converge on the truth."
We observe the warming. It's not being debated at all as far as I can tell. I can see people denying that it's happening (i.e. saying it isn't warming), despite umpteen graphs being posted that clearly show it happening. It seems to me that they are simply not looking at the graphs, or not willing to admit that they see the warming when they do see it. I suppose it upsets them too much to admit.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
What did I make up? That if you zoom out far enough the climate is cooler now then the average. Nope I'm pretty sure that's agreed upon by most. The implicit fact that that makes the prior argument invalid? Nope that's just logic. (It should be noted the an argument being logically invalid does not negate or affirm it's conclusion). That we are naive when it comes to climate science? Again, this one I'm pretty sure of, I've heard many climate experts say that mankind is the species that has impacted the environment the most, but I'm pretty sure that that distinction goes to the species of bacteria that evolved into chloroplasts.
You seem to have refuted my point about how well we understand the environment, with a couple of examples of similarly complicated systems that we are making great strides with. First of all there is the logical fallacy that progress in some complex systems implies progress in others. That's just not a sound way to refute the point. I'm considered an expert in somethings but that doesn't mean I'm an expert in everything. Then there are the examples of complex things that we have "mastered". Let's start at the Human body. Drug companies, who tend to hire some of the people that know the most about the human body end up with a lot of failed attempts at new drugs. Some of the time it happens because of unintended consequences, but a lot of the time it's because a correlation that was thought to be causal turned out not to be. ( Here's a wired article about the phenomena http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/12/ff_causation/all/1 ). The other is space. Sure we have some successes but we also have a number of failures. In late 2011 we were looking at abandoning the ISS because of a string of Souyez rocket malfunctions. Also of the 3 mars missions launched during the 2011 launch window, only 1 (that's 33%) reached mars, so while Curiosity is cool, it's the exception not the rule. So to say that we've mastered either field is also not logically valid. Of course in both of those fields we can perform somewhat rigorous experiments so our progress is also faster.
That's not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with naive science. Our understanding of gravity is still undergoing refinement, but it's force has been part of our engineering for quite some time. But having a naivety of gravity employed in a lot of the engineering hasn't been a downfall. I would say that the goal should be to know when you are doing naive science and respond accordingly perhaps by leaving terms in generic equations abstract, so that they are more readily adjusted if need be or can have more complex expressions plugged in as appropriate (for example gravitational attraction to the earth).
But on the whole your comment as an attempt to refute mine was trash. You start off with an attack, which is not a logically valid method of refutation, and justify the attack with a logically invalid argument that was based on logically invalid arguments. Then you go on talking about climate experts (which I denied the current existence of and you failed to validly refute), which you then use to declare your attempt to refute my comment successful, which does not logically make it so.
My comments were about logical validity, the absolute level of our understanding of the climate, and how the nature of our academic system interacts with fields like the climate that are very hard to study. I'm happy to go off on tangents relative to discussing those topics, but if what you're really trying to do is show me to the curb because you think I'm denying climate change, then you can rest assured that that is not my goal at all.
I was in grade school in the sixties, and we were taught two indisputable scientific consensus facts:
That the great ice age was coming. In the early 70's, this was on the cover of Time Magazine.
Are you sure you remembered that correctly?
http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
And if you think that you were taught in the 1960's that Thomas Malthus essay PROVED we would all starve to death by the year 2000, well, you need to go find that teacher and have your grade changed to "F".
Thomas Malthus wrote that essay in 1798, and it had been debunked long before our great-grandparents were twinkles in our great-great grandparents eyes.
Here are some examples of things you said that are totally false:
We are too dumb to understand climate.
Nonsense. We're entirely capable of understanding the climate.
Any one who calls themselves a climate expert is a huge liar
This is total BS.
That lack of relativity has lead to arrogance and away from science.
Climate researchers are doing fantastic science.
skeptics and supporters are opposite sides of the same coin of wrong headedness.
The two groups are about as unlike as you can get. Climate scientists are dedicating their lives to working really hard, trying to solve really hard problems and figure out how the real world actually works. So called "climate skeptics" are, as a rule, willfully ignorant of the state of knowledge. They've just decided what they want to believe, make no effort to actually study climatology, and just go around making claims that are simply false. LIke, "We're too stupid to understand the climate and anyone who claims to is a liar."
So how much time have you spent actually studying climatology? And no, I don't mean reading books and websites written by self-proclaimed climate skeptics out to expose the massive fraud being perpetuated on an unsuspecting public. I mean actual climate science. Studying basic physics, reading scientific papers, understanding the math behind climate models, studying the experiments used to parametrize and validate those models, and so on. Not so much? Then maybe you should assume that you know less about the subject than people who spend their entire lives doing that.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
I think I'll bookmark that as the difference between a technical viewpoint and an MBA.
"Oh let the Moorlocks sort it out while we play in the garden, doing nothing more useful than contributing to the food chain."
As an embedded systems programmer, I worked on at least 100 different systems between 1995 and 1999. Some problems were just cosmetic, others caused overrun buffers, infinite loops, code paths that would no longer run, and of course the usual date comparison and cosmetic problems.
The 'doom' wasn't so much a single system going down, but a sudden coordinated failure of hundreds or thousands of systems at the same time. At least 1 in 5 of the systems we worked on were 'critical' systems that would very likely have caused serious damage, injury and/or loss of life if they weren't fixed. The company I worked for primarily dealt with equipment used in hospitals, power plants / utilities, and industrial equipment. Other companies would audit a facility (eg. a hospital), and we'd be called whenever they found something that hadn't already been dealt with.
Sometimes we didn't have access to source code, and had to recommend replacements or rewrites.
Oh fuck off you spastic. RealClimate is funded by a PR company with links of Al Gore.
As for "not predicted in theory", how does a result from 1902 grab you?
The relatively greater importance of wind over thermodynamics in antarctic sea ice extent was well established over thirty years ago;
[Ackley, S. F., 1981: A review of sea-ice weather relationships in the Southern Hemisphere. Sea Level, Ice and Climatic Change, Vol. 131, I. Allison, Ed., International Association Scientific Hydrology, 127–159.]
If you want a smoking gun, here is one from 2001 (Flato, G.M. and G.J. Boer, 2001: Warming asymmetry in climate change simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28:195-198.:
In summary, the models did not predict a reduction in Antarctic summer sea ice extent, because has been well-established for decades now that wind patterns account for more than 2/3 of the annual variation.
And, *yes*, there have een
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Very hard to get studies that go against the dominant paradigm published.
Yes - the dominant paradigm of requiring evidence must really put a kibosh on this and other similiar theories, such as the moon being made of green cheese. The only surprise is that you are suprised that nobody takes this guff seriously.
We submitted these findings sequentially to Science Magazine, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. The editor of Science Magazine replied that the results were not of sufficient general interest, suggested we submit the work to a specialty journal, and declined to proceed with external scientific review. Nature also rejected the paper without external scientific review, for reasons that we considered spurious. Nature Climate Change initially rejected the paper, but after some discussion the paper was assigned to a senior editor and reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Given the context of their comments, both reviewers appeared to be climate modelers. With reference to analysis of Vostok series. [wattsupwiththat.com]
This is the same Anthony Watts who gets a salary from the Heartland Institute to tell lies about climate, who once claimed that he had personally falsified the HADCM3 model (a claim quickly proven to be utterly wrong), and then later claimed the IPCC AR5 would halve the estimate of climate sensitivity (only to be proven wrong several days later) - and then did not bother to publicly correct his remarks? That guy?
Do you by chance take financial advice from scammers as well?
Still, here's the Vostok temperature graph [rocketscie...ournal.com] and here's the Greenland temperature graph [drtimball.com].
Except that isn't Taylor's or Jacksons graph. It's Easterbrook's graph. It's the infamous graph by Easterbrook that caused a scandal and embarrassed the denialist movement and threw egg in the face of it's oil industry backers.
Read the whole sorry saga here Who told you it was Taylor's graph? If Taylor submitted that graph as his work, he is lucky his paper was just rejected. He could well have been accused of fraud, given the circumstances.
Do you see unprecedented present day warming, or do you see current temperatures being well within the range of natural variation?
In the actual greenland ice core data, rather than a set of data explicitly defined to exclude the last 120 years of climate data? Yes.
With respect to the laws of Thermodynamics, climate sensitivity is low, as the IPCC are slowly admitting.
It's convenient you choose to use the IPCC (AR5) as the source of truth on sensitivity. Since AR5 says that sensitivity is holding steady at 2.1, whereas the uncertainty has decreased. Which makes all your previous statements on the subject a nonsense. Congratulations.