Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Neven

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68
1
Here's a really good Jimmy Dore video, published tonight, that explains that according to polls Bernie Sanders is still the most popular politician in the US by far (but still the Democratic Party refuses to follow his lead). Unfortunately they are slightly negative about Elizabeth Warren towards the end, out of disappointment that she didn't stick her chin out enough during some issues. But they don't disapprove of her either.

Sanders and Warren are the most popular politicians right now in the US. What an opportunity there is to really build up a wave to sweep the nation. Both parties are in disarray, but only the Democrats (or a third party) have a real chance of getting power back and push some real change.

I feel Jimmy Dore really explains it very well:

! No longer available

2
There are a thousand areas where Trump is vulnerable. Science, the economy, misogyny, xenophobia, or even climate change, why pick at the one sore that delivers the neo-libs the only opening they need.
My strong impression is that this is exactly why the proverbial white rural inbred voted Trump! May the coastal elite march for science, for economic reason, against pussy grabbing, against hate, all that lefty stuff real men despise. That will just make flyover Americans vote for a trumper prexy next time. And Trump will have made them more miserable, hateful, and stupid enough to want more of the same. (I meanwhile think that Trump is not the worst we will see. How nice were the times of GWB...)

Martin, this is all too simple and black-and-white. And a bit arrogant too. You're painting tens of millions of people with a broad brush, saying they're stupid and evil. My 80-year old neighbour is a racist, but on the whole, I would still say he's a good man. I know misogynists who have their good sides too. There's a lot of ignorance, but that's not the same as straight-out evil.

I've met tons of educated people, liberal-minded etc, who were just as ignorant and easy to dupe as flyover Americans. They are played by the kleptocrats too.

Talking like this won't win any people over. There are a lot of poor, disenfranchised people in America, who used Trump as a gigantic fuck you-finger because they felt that both establishment Republicans and Democrats weren't looking out for them.

I believe that if you offer these people someone who will serve their interests and can explain her/his vision in clear and simple terms, they will vote for her/him. If you alienate people by telling them they are deplorables and stupid, they will vote for someone worse than Trump, a smart Trump who can unite one of the parties and do some real damage, just to spite arrogant pricks like you (I'm talking from their perspective).

"Trump is doing unnoticed"

No one that I know stateside here is missing these things, and many others.

But maybe I just run in a bad crowd!  :)
Based on where all the attention is directed by the mainstream media, I'd say a lot of people are missing these things. You can't talk about Russia, tax forms and those beautiful missiles on Syria more than 50% of the time. That's not a fair distribution.

And it's simply a stupid thing to do. But maybe that's the whole idea. Distract from the real issues, get those ratings up.

3
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 23, 2017, 10:47:04 PM »
Given that Kazakhstan is a former Soviet republic, the Russiagate thread may be more suitable for this. Perhaps this thread can be used for all the stuff that President Trump is doing unnoticed (re-opening pipeline projects, gutting healthcare, giving Wall Street free rein, etc, etc) and how this may be exploited by people who shun empty rhetoric and want to serve the American people.

4
Jimmy Dore has another video in which he applauds Keith Ellison (after being very hard on him a few weeks ago). The video is called Keith Ellison Blames Obama For Democratic Party Collapse:

! No longer available

5
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: April 23, 2017, 11:44:46 AM »
NEVEN:

I think the Thread is not appropriately named. Russia, the people of Russia or the land of Russia  had nothing to do with this. This was executed by a dictator who kills opposition and is expanding through the use of the military. I would call the thread Putingate. Personally I love Russians. Every single one I've met are excellent people.

I fully agree, but this is the name of the meme that was invented by people who want us to return to the Cold War-era and try to make us believe that the only choice we have, is between group of kleptocrats A and group of kleptocrats B.

6
AndrewB, repeating your viewpoints ad nauseam on several threads is one thing, calling people who don't agree with it lukewarmers is something I'm not going to tolerate. Next time you do that, I'm not going to be nice about it.

Because more important on this forum than opinions and truth and all that nonsense no human understands, is a good atmosphere. I don't want it spoiled.

7
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 22, 2017, 10:06:34 PM »
I like a lot of what Chomsky says, politically, anyway.

But I don't follow quite follow his logic here.

Why, just because we have manipulated others' elections, shouldn't we be outraged that others are manipulating ours.

We commit drone strikes on others' soil. Does that mean we should just laugh it off with the rest of the world if another country were to start attacking US cities with drones?

It is outrageous that we manipulate elections in other countries and kill their citizens with drones. When either happens on our soil, it should surely be seen as at least equally outrageous, right?

Am I missing something, here?

Yes, what you are missing, is that you shouldn't be manipulating elections in other countries and kill their citizens with cowardly drones. You're turning it around. Did you ever think about why it is that most of the world hates the US?

Get the troops home and leave other countries and their natural resources alone.

I'm almost 100% sure you agree with me on this, but it's an important point I wanted to make.

I believe that we should let the FBI's criminal investigation of potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin take its full, and natural, course.


I fully agree. So, while they're all investigating (it could take 18 months Buddy says), let's talk about all the stupid things president Trump is doing. I would kindly ask the mainstream media to start doing the same thing. There are more pressing matters than squirrels. Or like TerryM says: "There are a thousand areas where Trump is vulnerable. Science, the economy, misogyny, xenophobia, or even climate change, why pick at the one sore that delivers the neo-libs the only opening they need."

I've opened a separate thread to discuss Russiagate.

8
The rest / Russiagate
« on: April 22, 2017, 10:03:30 PM »
This thread is for discussing every aspect of the alleged (and allegedly successful) attempts by the Russian government to influence the last American presidential elections.

Have at it.

9

But my recent comments were meant to bring forward the amount of venom that is being sent my way as a proxy for a good few hardworking decent people I support, and the foul language being used to do so, because I dare to present alternatives.

First of all, if you feel there is venom+foul language sent your way, I want you to be more specific, because I wouldn't tolerate it. In those videos I put up, Jimmy Dore gets very worked up and uses foul language. It's not directed towards you, but to Howard Dean. I find Jimmy Dore's argument convincing, and that's what counts for me, more than some anger and foul language. For me, form almost always follows content/function.

Do you really think eliminating more than half of the existing Democratic party, who are victims not perpetrators of all the things we oppose, is a working idea (even if you're right about "corporate" Democrats, which I don't think you are)?

It's not literally eliminating, I'm not proposing a witch hunt. But I really think it's of vital importance to draw a line, send out a signal, and make clear that the same old tactics are no longer working. The American people comes first, not the donors.

Yes, the (bad) Republicans are horrible. Reagan, Rove, Kochs, I fully agree with you. But fighting them by becoming them doesn't work (ie pleasing big donors for their money to buy smearing advertising time). You can only fight them with truth, transparency and clearly formulated ideas. You call that simplistic, but sometimes things are simple. The problem of Western society is at heart very simple and of all times: Rich people getting richer without limit. People like Solon and Aristotle already knew this thousands of years ago. That's why democracy was created in the first place.

Most of what I see from the Democrats (granted, I'm a European who doesn't see everything) is empty rhetoric. For instance, the Clinton campaign has been an absolute disaster, but there is no introspection, no one gets kicked out or demoted, everyone is holding onto the soft seats.

It's of vital importance to draw a line and send out a signal, or else it's going to be more of the same (but worse).

Since you are not here in the US, and have been otherwise occupied, it surprises me that you assume you know that I am absolutely wrong on this cast of characters

I don't assume that you're wrong, but I don't have to take your opinions as gospel truth either (however much I like and respect you). When you say Howard Dean is a good man, and I see him smear someone from his own party (a veteran even, him being a draft dodger) who says that maybe the sarin gas attack should be properly investigated first before Donny tiny hands shoots of 100 million dollars worth of to-be-replaced missiles and increase tensions with Russia, I see a despicable man who is mongering war. Howard Dean condemns himself by his actions.

The same for Maddow. She's pushing for a return to the Cold War. It's simply insane and laughable, with huge backfiring potential to ensure the Democrats keep losing.

The fact that she is a strong woman or a lesbian has nothing to do with that. On the contrary, I will take women over men any day of the week. I wish we had 100 Warrens, but we're not getting them if we don't stand up.

And I very much share the opinions of Elizabeth Warren, who would say the same thing I am saying about these people.

If I suggest that Elizabeth Warren might be willing to work with people in order to succeed at getting things done, she is evil?

No, but who says she wouldn't be willing to work with other people who want to reform the DNC (making it more transparent, ending the superdelegate BS) and push a progressive agenda like Sanders is doing? I get it that they are practical as politicians, but does that mean they wouldn't prefer it if things were different?

Don't you want to beat the (bad) Republicans? Why are you so afraid that it can't be done by accepting compromising donations from the mega-wealthy? It's a self-defeating and thus losing strategy, Susan (and ASLR). We don't have time for another wishy-washy Obama/Clinton to mix beautiful speeches and symbolism with pushing TPP, fracking, prisons, wars, massive surveillance, etc, etc.

We need systemic change, not the superficial stuff.

Let's draw a line, let's send out that signal.

PS The mainstream media isn't going to do it for us.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 22, 2017, 08:53:52 PM »

Here is the comparison for 2016 .
Are there any charts that try to gauge thickness or volume for just the main Arctic Basin?
All the charts take into account all the channels and east Greenland, and may not say much about state of main Arctic Basin icepack.
( I took out the thick ice that is pushed up against land masses, as I think some of that would be there anyway, even in a future meltdown, and doesn't tell us too much about the state of the overall icepack in the Arctic Basin. And I took out ice in channels and Fram export, as those are not really part of the main state of the Arctic basin icepack)
I'd say 2017 looks in worse shape than 2016?

Nice comparisons, TB. It's always good to compare years within one dataset, but keep in mind that of all modelled volume distribution maps (besides ACNFS and PIOMAS) this one from DMI is deemed least trustworthy. And I forgot new player ADS/JAXA, which doesn't seem to be very trustworthy either.

But again, it never hurts to compare years, even within not so reliable datasets.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 22, 2017, 08:48:02 PM »
This opening is very unusual up that high. I suspect warm SSTs and atlantification.

It's less unusual than one would think. I believe in the past decade it has happened 2-3 times before. Google 'Nares' and 'Patrick Lockerby' (who occasionally posts here as logicman).

And peruse the Nares Strait thread. And I've written about Nares regularly on the ASIB (and would this year as well if it wasn't for the sabbatical).

12
Oh dear, Serbia. Let's not go there. When I was young and angry I thought they had it coming to them for not standing up to psychopath Milosevic and his Bosnian cronies. But later I understood that in every group you have good people and bad people, and the good ones must not suffer for what the bad ones did. The US and NATO should have bombarded those effing cowards on the hilltops of Sarajevo bombing marketplaces. They should have prevented the Srebrenica massacre and many others. The fact that they let the atrocities go on for so long, is to this day the biggest disillusionment in my life (I was 15-16 at the time).

If the US bombs something, it's either for oil or because it's time to spend billions on new bombs.

But, let's get back on topic. Susan, re Maddow:

But what's with condemning a strong intelligent woman?


I'm not condemning the person, I'm condemning the action. If someone starts to act like Glenn Beck, I don't care if that person is a man or a woman. I don't condemn Sarah Palin because she's a strong woman, but because her actions are those of a madman.

I could tolerate her arrogance and smugness, because as you say her reporting was good and interesting, Maddow has completely lost it. What she's doing, is one of those things that is making sure that the Democrats will keep losing.

Here's why, a video titled Rachel Maddow Has LOst Her Mind & People Are Noticing:

! No longer available


Why is Maddow talking/speculating/insinuating so much about Russiagate, when there are so many other (more) pressing issues) Is she really pushing for a war with Russia? Or is that just a side effect of getting ratings and filling pockets? Either way, it's war mongering.

And as for war mongering: Recently you also said that you believe Howard Dean is a good man. I probably don't have enough information, but this footage of him made my stomach turn:

Howard Dean's Disgusting Smears Of Tulsi Gabbard Call For Peace

! No longer available


Susan, in every group there are good people and bad people. There are good and bad people in the Democratic Party. There are good and bad people in the Republican Party.

You can't side with the bad people on the blue team, because beating the red team (including the good people on that team) is all that matters.

The good people need to stand up to the bad people, irrelevant of which group they belong to.

Sidd is making an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not all or nothing. Warren is bona fide, as are Sanders and Markey. Pelosi, Schumer, Booker, Dean, Perez, Podesta, Clinton, even if they were bona fide (which they aren't, they're compromised), they are responsible for Democrats losing on all levels and should be removed. I don't know enough about US political details, but I'm sure you can get quite some ways with assessing whether politicians are really serving the needs of the people, rather than those of corporations (and I know it isn't clear-cut).

How do the Americans kick the bad people out of the Democratic Party, so that it can then take on the bad people in the Republican Party? How do they get rid of the superdelegate nonsense? How do they set up rules, or something like a Hippocratic oath (do no harm), to make sure politicians keep serving US citizens, and not just the 1%?

Don't tell me that it is now more important to get rid of Trump. That way of thinking is what got Trump there in the first place.

13
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 21, 2017, 09:54:31 PM »
Jimmy Dore's YouTube channel keeps growing, even though they have cut off his ad revenues.

Here's a video about an interview Noam Chomsky did with Democracy Now last week, called Russia Hysteria Is Making US International Laughing Stock:

! No longer available


14
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Bølling-Allerød warming
« on: April 21, 2017, 03:05:29 PM »
Made a summary video of the volcanism ice albedo feedback study

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZbpC2zoklA

Btw can you embed YT videos here somehow?


If you put in the YT link and then remove the S from https, it should show up in some form or other (sometimes just a link to the video saying 'no longer available').

! No longer available

15
It's too bad Warren says she won't run for president in 2020. I'll watch that interview, although I find it very difficult to watch Maddow nowadays.

16
Maybe it was a combination of AMO and lack of aerosols?

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 19, 2017, 09:40:21 PM »
Here's an Uni Hamburg AMSR2 SIC animation of the Beaufort, with some more detail because of highest resolution:

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 19, 2017, 07:33:38 PM »
Seems to be led by NE Siberia, Quebec, and the Western Himalayas:

Keep an eye on those Western Himalayas, especially during summer.  ;)

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 19, 2017, 11:50:09 AM »
NH snow cover shooting up now (mostly due to snowfall in Canada):

20
Welcome to the ASIF, Coffee Drinker, your profile has been released.

21
Arctic Background / Re: Quantifying ice drift
« on: April 18, 2017, 11:04:06 PM »
Nice work, Andreas!

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 18, 2017, 02:36:15 PM »
A stark illustration of how difficult our situation is.

Two daylight captures of the northern Bering, Chukchi, eastern ESS and Western Beaufort.


Over on the Home brew AMSR2 thread Wipneus posted the following animation:



Wip writes: Chukchi-ESS 2017 compared with 2016. Although some characteristics appear similar, the 2017 images show more breaking and "torching".

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: April 18, 2017, 10:53:37 AM »
IJIS:

13,069,913 km2(April 17, 2017)down 24,131 km2 and lowest measured for the date.

Shouldn't that be second lowest? In my spreadsheet 2016 was at 13,059,136 on April 17th.

24
And presto, you can change your vote.  ;)

25
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 18, 2017, 09:57:31 AM »
Good to see you post again, Bob. You always get my spirits up.  :)

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 17, 2017, 11:22:39 AM »
Uni Bremen SIC animation for April 12-16 (two more days after which things will probably slow down):

27
As I've written in another thread that sidd has opened with regards to setting up a private mailing list:

Ever since Qinghua Ding engaged here, the 'abuse' has become even less. On the other hand he does say (based on his research) that the Arctic won't go ice-free for another 50-100 years, so some push-back is to be expected on a forum for people who are worried about AGW.

Okay, so I wrote this before reading the last couple of comments.  ;)

I'm also not sure if there is a lot of value for society (now and in the future) to state that there is some 70-year cycle that will cause the Arctic to go ice-free many decades later than most experts currently think, especially if there is no way of projecting or monitoring the cycle, let alone determining how AGW has influenced this cycle itself. What if this gets a lot of traction, but it turns out to be wrong? At face value, it gives a false sense of security (also caused by the misleading character of the word 'ice-free', which implies that the consequences won't kick into action before then).

But scientifically it's interesting, and we'll have to wait and see whether more groups will continue to build on this research.

Either way, I want to thank Qinghua again for engaging here, being a good sport and realizing that this is the Internet where it's easier to vent frustrations, etc. I would kindly like to ask everyone to refrain from posting, unless there is something new to be said/asked about the science. There is no use in going through the same motions again, and ending with disparaging remarks.

28
The forum / Re: Closed forum or mailing list
« on: April 17, 2017, 10:38:49 AM »
I don't know if it's possible to set up a mailing list or a separate forum for invitees only, but I'm also not sure whether it would be worth the trouble. The 'abuse' was hurled by just a few people, and most of I wouldn't even call abuse. Ever since Qinghua Ding engaged here, the 'abuse' has become even less. On the other hand he does say (based on his research) that the Arctic won't go ice-free for another 50-100 years, so some push-back is to be expected on a forum for people who are worried about AGW.

29
Developers Corner / MOVED: Closed forum or mailing list
« on: April 17, 2017, 10:33:45 AM »

30
If you could understand my thoughts behind our 2017 study, I think it is not hard to understand why I said we probably will see an ice free Arctic summer in 100 years. Actually, I remember that I said "50 to 100 years" to some of the media. Anyway, my point in these interviews is that I believe there is a low frequency mode ( occurs about every 70 years) to partially warm the Arctic in the recent decades and also around 1930-40s and these two warming events may share a similar feature in their dynamics. So when the next one comes after some decades, stronger CO2 forcing and this additional one will cause a much stronger sea ice melting. I only honestly say what I learned from my research. If you don't agree with me, I have no any problem with that.

Qinghua, this suggests that you expect the influence of the 'additional one' to fade soon, warming will lessen, as will the current rate of Arctic sea ice loss. But when I asked whether "we have any way of knowing when this natural variability might switch again and thus slow down the current rapid rate of Arctic sea ice loss", you answered "To be honest, I don't know the answer."

Is it possible that the 'additional one' doesn't flip in the next 10-15 years, and that the Arctic goes ice-free in September (below 1 million km2 area/extent)? Because if it is, I don't understand how you can say you expect the Arctic to go ice-free 50 to 100 years from now.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 15, 2017, 12:59:21 PM »
Things on the move and opening up again in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas:

32
This crack was already known in December last year. I posted an image of it in Reply #438 on: December 01, 2016, 09:39:09 PM »
S1B_20161201_Petermann.jpg (1840.12 kB, 2260x1624 - viewed 79 times.)

I remember that, and I believe Andreas Muenchow has also mentioned it, if memory serves me well.


33
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April)
« on: April 14, 2017, 10:58:36 PM »
From now on I only want to see comments on PIOMAS now/near real-time and nothing about Greenland or other tangential stuff. I have put on my snipping gloves.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April)
« on: April 14, 2017, 03:23:45 PM »
Okay, unless someone has a remark to make about PIOMAS at the end of March, I would kindly suggest you find a more appropriate thread for this discussion (there are several).

35
I was just reading this:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14032017/arctic-ice-melt-climate-change-science

Ding said his findings in no way minimize the role of anthropogenic warming in melting sea ice. "I don't want people to take the wrong message in our study, that we're not to blame for Arctic warming," said Ding. "The message is that it's more complex than we expected. In the long term, maybe 100 years from now, the Arctic will become ice free in summer because eventually this internal variability will be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing."

Dr. Ding, if you're reading this: were you quoted correctly, and if so, what is your assertion based on, or how should it be interpreted?

As far as I know the Arctic could become ice free at the end of summer much earlier than 100 years from now, and ice free during summer probably (or maybe) also quite a bit earlier than 100 years from now.

So what do you mean by "ice free in summer"? Three months of ice free Arctic from June 21st - Sept 21st? Or is one day without ice in those months also ice free in summer?

And what do you mean by "maybe": would that be your best estimate (so should we read "probably"? Or do you mean " maybe as early as 100 years from now"? And does that imply say a 33% chance, or 25%, or 17% or 10%, or even 5%?

In short, what message exactly do you want to give us, the public?

This is a good and simple question, much better than the rehash of points already made.

36
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 14, 2017, 10:33:15 AM »
Wikileaks doesn't write the content of the leaked material. They can't help it when the content is damning.

37

I also mentioned a recent paper about the Barnes Ice Cap. It has survived > 2,000 years (ergo, > 2,000 summers) with practically a constant average volume. But now it's bound to disappear within decades. If anything, that is physical evidence that the present warming of the Arctic is totally unprecedented.


And don't forget the Ellesmere Island ice shelves (hat-tip to Judith Curry).

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 14, 2017, 12:25:21 AM »
Various comments above on Beaufort, but the likely opening this coming week in Chukchi would be quite a rarity for April.  Considerable insolation potential there too, if it holds for any length of time.

Yes, the forecast is quite amazing. Below is the ECMWF forecast from Tropical Tidbits for the coming 8 days. 1041-1046-1049-1049-1044-1042-1038-1036 hPa are pressures not to be sniffed at. So, expect a lot of ice pulling away from coasts in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. And then we'll have to see whether the ice will be pushed back again and/or whether there still is some refreeze possible (which would be entirely cosmetic, of course).

39
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: April 13, 2017, 05:56:40 PM »
This used to go in the Weird Weather thread, but I see no harm in a thread of its own. So, thanks for opening, Archimid.

40
... if we want to have a good understanding while monitoring the comeback of Arctic sea ice. ...
:o
You are joking, right?
We are already committed to the complete and irreversible (on a human time scale) disappearance year round of Arctic sea ice.

That kind of makes me want to shut down the blog and forum, and build a big bunker. And so the narrative I tell myself (and hopefully others once I get back to blogging) is that what we need to fight for, is getting Arctic sea ice back after we lose it. Preferably prevent it from going ice-free all year round.

why would you intentionally attempt to assign a value of 'natural variability' to a dynamic system that is in the process of catastrophic collapse?  Is it because the collapse is not what you expected?

If it is all collapsing, there's not much sense in thinking about what the best way to do research is. Or post on a forum. And what I've said in reply to AndrewB.

41
That's a great novel by Camus, but the analogy is false. No one is saying there isn't a plague.

Does anyone wonder why climate risk deniers got so little traction out of this? Because they indirectly admit there is a plague.  That's why Arctic sea ice is such an incredible PITA for them. It's the whole reason the ASIB and then this Forum was set up. So, not too much of a worry there.

Which brings us safely back to the science. First of all, no one has ever claimed that all of Arctic sea ice loss was because of AGW (that's the strawman climate risk deniers use). For scientists and those in the know, it's clear that there may be a natural component causing part of the loss. If there is a natural component, I think it would be extremely useful to know about it. We're not finding out if no one is researching it.

Secondly, it's not just that we want to know this, so we can pinpoint when the Arctic will go ice-free. This is irrelevant, as it is almost certain that is going to happen in 0-15 years from now. We need to increase our understanding of how it all works, and what the contributions from AGW and natural variation (if any) are, if we want to have a good understanding while monitoring the comeback of Arctic sea ice. Either because of some geoengineering, or because we manage to quickly reduce CO2 emissions and then take it out of the atmosphere.

So, attack the science because there are flaws. That's how science advances.

But don't attack the science because you perceive it as some social threat. That energy is better spent elsewhere. In your garden, for instance. And in efforts to change the system.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 13, 2017, 02:22:17 PM »
I've asked why the LANCE-MODIS Arctic Mosaic isn't being updated, and received a swift reply:

We are in the process of making a required Operating System upgrade on our web server and some of the imagery is not available yet.

This gives us an opportunity to say that we are encouraging Rapid Response subset users with good internet bandwidth to consider using our Worldview web client for accessing imagery.  Here is a link to Worldview:

https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/

To access the polar view, click on the "globe" icon in the upper right corner and select "Arctic" or "Antarctic".  Note that the projections used by GIBS differ from those used by the old Rapid Response mosaics.

The Corrected Reflectance imagery is identical to that in Rapid Response but Worldview has many more imagery layers available, including other sensors in addition to MODIS.  The Worldview imagery goes back to 8 May 2012 for most layers.  We are in the process of generating imagery for the entire MODIS record which should be completed in 6-18 months. Additional historical imagery from other sensors is also planned.

In addition, all the imagery in Worldview is also available as a Web Map Tile Service (WMTS) which can be accessed in a variety of ways.  More details on the imagery and access methods are available here:

http://earthdata.nasa.gov/gibs

Let me know if you have any further questions.

We will let you know when the subsets imagery is restored.

43
You're mixing up two issues here, namely the science and the societal debate. We've talked about how this research had a high likelihood of being spun, and how that perhaps could've been spun prevented (edit N.). And we've talked about the science. I understand that people don't like how it was spun (neither do I) and that they then try to find issue with the science. That's all understandable, and I'm not even taking issue with that.

But the way you criticize the research, implies that you know how it could've been done better. If not, you are saying that the research shouldn't have been done in the first place. But don't we want to know the respective contributions of AGW and natural variation to Arctic sea ice loss? That's a legitimate and interesting scientific question, right?

44
So, if you would want to tease out the contributions of AGW and natural variation to Arctic sea ice loss, what would your "designed research paradigm" be? How would you go about it?

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 13, 2017, 08:15:29 AM »
An interesting bit also is that the heat flow from the Atlantic peaked in 2007/2008 and has decreased slightly since.

Where does the time period end?

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 12, 2017, 09:05:25 PM »
Given the forecast, we can expect more of that. I'll try and make an updated animation.

Edit: I still had the template from last year:

48
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 12, 2017, 08:46:05 PM »
I'd love to hear Xi's version.

He said the cake wasn't all that great.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: April 12, 2017, 06:29:07 PM »
Welcome to the ASIF, stonedwaldo. Your profile has now been released, so you can comment freely.

50
Folks, let's not do the re-run of this show, okay?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68