Messages

1

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")

« on: December 06, 2017, 06:38:19 PM »

you're the only one I take seriously on this site.... 

for whatever that's worth.

2

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")

« on: November 27, 2017, 11:57:05 PM »

 Hopefully, this thread never gets nuked, as I think I'd very much enjoy reading it again start-to-finish in 2019, right before the primaries. 
 
 

3

The politics / Re: Russiagate

« on: May 18, 2017, 06:22:30 AM »

Wow
A bold move going straight to the heart of the matter.


We, the Democrats, progressives, liberals, environmentalists, or whatever we call ourselves today face a pivotal decision. Do we accept blame for the outcome of the recent election, or do we externalize it, blaming everyone but ourselves and our parties leaders?
Terry

I love Terry a lot.  I wish he would of kept the 2nd post to just this.   

Very profound.

4

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.

« on: November 30, 2016, 09:11:30 PM »

So NASA can study the greenhouse effect on Venus, or on Mars, or even the anti-greenhouse effect on Titan. But they better not look at Earth! Uh uh, no peeking!

maybe we should have the Border Patrol study Climate Change...  They're not very busy.

5

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.

« on: November 30, 2016, 03:29:39 PM »

So... We'll just chop off one finger. You've got 9 more. 

History of NASA
"An Act to provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes." With this simple preamble, the Congress and the President of the United States created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958.


 

6

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.

« on: November 29, 2016, 07:08:53 PM »

WHOA...

The proposal is to put NASA on a track for Space Exploration instead of Climate Change.  I didn't see anything about abandoning USGCRP, NOAA, the NSF, the DOE's work regarding Climate Research, or a host of other money's ear-marked for Climate Research at the University level. 
 

 

7

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: November 17, 2016, 06:44:31 PM »

Your predictions amuse me, Buddy.   

8

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: November 10, 2016, 04:18:05 PM »

when people said "NOT MY PRESIDENT" over the last 8 years, they were labeled as racist. 

I find it rather ironic that if you don't say "NOT MY PRESIDENT", you're likewise labeled a racist. 

Enjoy your Soro's paid protest Buddy.   

9

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: November 09, 2016, 04:38:59 AM »

Calling it Early.

Nate wiffed badly.

10

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: November 03, 2016, 11:55:52 PM »

 


 Your guy Nate has a pretty good sense of humor I believe.

11

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: November 03, 2016, 04:02:09 PM »

What's up with Nate?

12

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 15, 2016, 01:19:09 AM »

How about this for another random (biased) sample.

Facebook friends who like POTUS Candidates:

Trump = 58
Johnson = 36
Clinton = 26
Stein = 4

Does that reflect how people will actually vote?  Of course not.  Its certainly different than what you hear reported though.  Different enough to ponder anyways.

13

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 14, 2016, 09:36:46 PM »

Advice is free, so I'll give you one more piece of advice; You've made your point, and Buddy has made his. What is to be gained by further arguing over this? Nothing that I can see, so let it go. If you want to keep arguing, feel free to argue with yourself.

I will... thanks again budmantis.

When POLLS are conducted by biased media sources, you get biased polls.  When You base your entire statistical analysis off biased data, you get biased results.  This is EXACTLY WHY NATE SILVER WAS WRONG ON BREXIT. 

Let me know if you're comfortable betting on Nate being within 3 points of the "public vote", Buddy.

14

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 14, 2016, 07:47:13 PM »

And by Nate "adjusting polls that HAVE HAD A BIAS HISTORICALLY" (like the Rasmussen Poll)......then he has been EXTREMELY GOOD.....when it is CLOSE TO ELECTION TIME....at picking WHO WILL ACTUALLY WIN.

That...is what I am saying.

except for the RNC Nomination... where Nate whiffed mightily... because the polls were wrong.

15

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 14, 2016, 06:59:06 PM »

The reason that Nate's polls gave Trump almost no chance of winning the Republican primary....is that the POLLS THAT WERE TAKEN EARLY IN THE PROCESS SHOWED THAT.  It had NOTHING to do with any "bias".  This isn't a "FOX NEWS or MSNBC".  It is "statistical science"...PERIOD.

You can agree with that or not.  THAT is up to you..

It appears you and I are saying the same thing;

 Applying statistical analysis to bunk polls will produce bunk. 

16

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 14, 2016, 06:24:52 PM »

Chasing Ice: I would pass on that bet, I'm reasonably sure you'll lose.

I appreciate your thoughtful advice.   

17

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 14, 2016, 06:23:01 PM »

That is why I said....I would take Nate's numbers ON THE MORNING OF NOVEMBER 8TH.....AGAINST YOUR NUMBERS FROM ON LINE POLLING.


He has an EXCELLENT RECORD.  But his excellent record is NOT from the beginning of the process.  It is RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

I'm still up for that bet.....

Sorry, you're trying to tie me to a poll when I've already stated that I don't believe polls are accurately reflecting the real voting public. 

If you're that confident in Nate's predictions (yet to be seen), then how about you take Nate's numbers, and I'll take "he's off by at least 3 points". 

18

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 14, 2016, 03:35:42 PM »

I wouldnt bet on this election for anything.  Its already stranger than fiction.  I dont, however, put much confidence in any poll like you seem to.

I don't put ANY confidence in any ONE poll.  Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com is NOT a poll.  It is a COMPILATION of MANY of the polls (all the polls that meet "scientific criteria").

Applying scientific method to highly subjective polls doesn't really seem much like science to me.  Isn't Nate Silver the guy that said Trump had a 1-in-20 chance of securing the RNC nomination?

19

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 14, 2016, 01:40:21 AM »

I wouldnt bet on this election for anything.  Its already stranger than fiction.  I dont, however, put much confidence in any poll like you seem to.

20

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 13, 2016, 11:01:12 PM »

I would EXPECT that outcome from a Construction Trade magazine.  That doesn't surprise me in the LEAST.

I initially considered that, however, as I peek around, I'm seeing the same thing all over the place. 

here's another one... random google for online polls not associated with a news outlet:

21

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 13, 2016, 10:10:15 PM »

This is from a Construction Trade Magazine's online edition, taken today. There is a REAL possibility of another Brexit-type outcome where the Polls are misaligned with the actual voting Public.

22

The politics / Re: Presidential poll for US citizens on the forum

« on: October 12, 2016, 07:19:42 PM »

This is from a "Football Pool" website I visit, and probably more accurately reflects the shadow votes that Trump is amassing.  Whether they turn out to vote or not remains to be seen.

23

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data

« on: August 18, 2015, 12:26:24 AM »

Dont think sea ice votes.... Nor do I think politics belong in thread about area and extent of sea ice.

24

Science / Re: The Pausers

« on: November 29, 2014, 06:32:35 AM »

I would be very wary of referring to NH sea ice loss, unless you're prepared to also discuss SH ice gain.  I'd also be careful of mixing atmospheric satellite readings with thermometer based measurements because they are different.

25

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season

« on: August 13, 2014, 02:50:11 AM »

Here you go Siffy, one for 2010 as well. You certainly won't find these maps anywhere else on the web though, because they are indeed home brew, but I can always make a map or two on request. I will either way add a forth map from various post-2007-years every week from now on.

love these maps... they're the bees knees.

26

Developers Corner / Re: Reverse Engineering "Goddard's" Real (un)Scientific Method

« on: August 12, 2014, 04:16:57 AM »

ChasingIce - Patrick's method does that, so in the image above ice < 1 m (according to ACNFS!)  is already cropped.

I did the eyeball test while being color blind...lol.   

keep up the good work.

27

Developers Corner / Re: Reverse Engineering "Goddard's" Real (un)Scientific Method

« on: August 11, 2014, 02:31:08 AM »

Jim, Goddard's image purportedly is limited to ice over 1m thick.  You would have to crop out the thin ice in both images 2012 & 2014 before starting the comparison if I'm understanding the whole thing correctly.

28

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season

« on: August 09, 2014, 08:01:28 AM »

Arctic miminums: I'd agree there's no such thing as a recovery... it not in the data.

Arctic maximums: thats a different story.

Antarctic anything: thats a monkey wrench into a global anything too, and I'm totally miffed about things not lining up logically.

29

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season

« on: August 08, 2014, 05:04:47 AM »

Nope, I found it.

I was trying to pull numbers through a filtered pivot table, and obviously don't know enough about excel cuz that didn't work. 

OPERATOR ERROR!

30

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season

« on: August 08, 2014, 04:53:15 AM »

That's not so bad. 

 

Figure 3. Monthly July ice extent for 1979 to 2014 shows a decline of 7.4% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

 

July 2014 is the 4th lowest Arctic sea ice extent in the satellite record, 340,000 square kilometers (131,000 square miles) above the previous record lows in July 2011, 2012, and 2007. The monthly linear rate of decline for July is 7.4% per decade.

 

How strange.  I calculated all the days in the Month of July and show a monthly 2014 average extent of 10.97639 (10^6 sq km), the highest since 2004.  Can someone explain what I'm obviously missing?

31

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)

« on: August 06, 2014, 06:23:56 AM »

The PIOMAS validation page states that their model has a bias that under estimates thick ice and over estimates thin ice. What is the effect of this when the Arctic ice is overwhelmingly thin.

apparently, it would over-estimate thin ice, and under-estimate thick(er) ice. 

32

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season

« on: July 30, 2014, 03:57:10 AM »

Friv will go down as the greatest ice messiah on the planet in 2014, of the biggest wonk in 10yrs. 

33

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con

« on: July 30, 2014, 01:31:38 AM »

this may of been answered, but I don't see the point in engaging Goddard, and giving him more hits in a cool season compared to the average.  If this turns out to be a cool year, you've just fed the fire.

34

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS/JAXA

« on: July 27, 2014, 09:08:29 AM »

when do you think we'll catch up to 2008?

35

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: July 25, 2014, 06:36:08 AM »

there are plenty of people that follow El Nino for all sorts of reasons. 

Being a SoCal guy, I prefer the sciency guys and not the political guys (which is almost all of them).


this is a good thread, and a good site if you like science.

36

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: July 23, 2014, 03:22:51 AM »

To be honest, I'm quite surprised CFSv2 is even still predicting a moderate El Niño, but perhaps they see something in this. I guess if MJO acts as aggressively as the forecasts are suggesting, things could change rapidly once more, towards El Niño.

you and me both. 

perhaps we're still in the prediction phase where things aren't very clear yet, or perhaps the coupling in the Fall season (southern Spring) is stronger than now, and can push weak heat anomalies into a chained event... 

37

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: July 17, 2014, 07:28:23 AM »

ASLR,

We may have to agree to disagree on this matter. After long and careful consideration, I still believe the BOM was incorrect. People make mistakes. That's my final answer.

EDIT: After even longer and more careful consideration, plus a second opinion from someone who would know, You were right. My bad. I stand corrected

Thanks,
Big B

BOM invented the SOI basically.  It was around long before the PDO was ever recognized.

I still think its a reactionary measurement, and nothing whatsoever of a predictor in regards to an El Nino.   IMHO we've been at a dead neutral SOI for a long, long time with "weather" tilting the table in slight directions either way. 

38

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: June 30, 2014, 09:33:28 PM »

The following is MARK SPONSLER's latest ENSO/MJO forecast video, updated JUNE 29, 2014. If you want a good reliable source to bounce your own ideas and observations off, or you are interested in ENSO and the MJO, then you will find this video to be of great use and value. Skip to 10:02 to view the ENSO/MJO forecast.

ChasingIce,

This video WILL clarify any questions about whether we need a WWB or "lull". Also, Mark offers in depth expert analysis on pretty much every single plot, image, diagram, model, etc.. that is posted here in this thread. Just check it out. It cant hurt.   

I've watched 3 of his video's so far.  He does a great job, and mostly echo's what's stated in this thread. 

39

Policy and solutions / Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?

« on: June 29, 2014, 05:33:12 AM »

Discussing unsupportable population growth (to me) is a waste of time without first discussing an unsupportable monetary system based on ever increasing debt that has now entrenched the planet.

But let's not forget that the monetary system is essentially just a figment of our collective imagination, where the human population is a real tangible thing?

Imaginary, like the lines that divide Countries?  Or imaginary gods that divide religions?   

Can you name a significant war that wasn't about land, religion, or money?

40

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: June 29, 2014, 05:21:06 AM »

good surf is his preferred outcome, and rain is my preferred outcome.  Both need an El Nino condition to develop for either of us to receive our Christmas presents. 

Still, I think he somewhat echo's my thoughts on a slacking of trade winds being the minimum requirement for a late season el nino, and I think we're both in agreement that a SUPER EL NINO just isn't coming unless something quickly changes.

41

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: June 29, 2014, 03:28:37 AM »

It is my understanding that we do not need a strengthening of WWB's to reinforce an El Nino, we just need a LULL in trade winds in general to provide the atmospheric reinforcement necessary to continue the current trend. 

Does anyone disagree with that?

42

Policy and solutions / Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?

« on: June 29, 2014, 03:24:05 AM »

Discussing unsupportable population growth (to me) is a waste of time without first discussing an unsupportable monetary system based on ever increasing debt that has now entrenched the planet. 

43

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: June 26, 2014, 06:12:17 AM »

Let this be a lesson to all those getting gung-ho on Super or strong Nino back in April. An EKW does not an El Nino make.

there's a lot of gung-ho, but as a so-cal native that could use some rain, I might enjoy the christmas gift an El Nino might bring.  I won't pretend to be anything other than a guy praying for rain, and have questioned some peoples cheerleading, but I think the majority of people in this thread are rooting for the same thing, although the motives might be a bit different.

44

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: June 20, 2014, 10:51:24 PM »

I miss Unisys.

Something very strange with that AVHRR image.

45

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: June 17, 2014, 01:27:33 AM »

Per the linked data, the final PDO value for May is +1.8, which indicates a strong positive trend:

http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

YEAR      JAN    FEB    MAR    APR    MAY
2014**   0.30   0.38   0.97   1.13   1.80

AbruptSLR, in your opinion how influential is a positive PDO on the formation of an El Nino compared to the SOI?

46

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: May 14, 2014, 08:24:58 PM »

Can this event still fizzle?
Taking the early May situation in 2012 as example, there's not much reason to suppose it does. The surfacing of warmer waters in 1+2 is much stronger, the warm pool in the West Pacific was almost non-existent in '12.
Scrolling back through the Nino-years, '09 doesn't match, the only event comparable is 1997. And that one still had less anomaly in the extreme Western Pacific...

It looks (to me) to be squarely positioned between the 09-10 and 97-98 events in regards to how its shaped up so far. 

47

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS/JAXA

« on: May 02, 2014, 06:53:49 AM »

how far back does IJIS go?

48

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?

« on: May 01, 2014, 11:13:26 PM »

I have finally managed to wrestle NOAA's NOMAD GrADS system into compliance, and managed to get a good apples-to-apples SSTA comparisons out of it.  For anyone interested, here is what I did.

Image 1 is the settings I used (the variables are the key).  The next 2 images are plots from the week of Apr.23 for both 1997 & 2014 (and they are very much more similar than different).

49

Arctic sea ice / Re: Piomas vs. CryoSat

« on: May 01, 2014, 12:52:29 AM »

So decline over the last 33 years is probably more than the 75% to 80% reduction in minimum volume since 1979 (16.855 down to 3.261 K Km^3).

Right Chris, that would be an 80.7% decline Dr. Schweiger refers to. But he goes on to say that the newly published data makes that 80% decline look too conservative. I still don't see that.
Anyone?

Yes, you go from 1979 maximum to 2012 minimum to come up with the ~80%

50

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation

« on: April 27, 2014, 12:59:09 AM »

extraordinary weather has extraordinary results for ice.