<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Forecast: 3-in-5 chance of record low Arctic sea ice in 2008</title>
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Shapiro</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11887</link>
		<author>Mark Shapiro</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 22:25:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11887</guid>
					<description>And you can watch it melt here:  

arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And you can watch it melt here:  </p>
<p>arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul K</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11890</link>
		<author>Paul K</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 00:46:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11890</guid>
					<description>Are you going to give 3 to 5 odds on future ice bets?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you going to give 3 to 5 odds on future ice bets?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11893</link>
		<author>Joe</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 01:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11893</guid>
					<description>Still taking bets on ice free by 2020.  Can't seem to find many takers any more, though -- but IPCC says 2080 or later, so I don't know why....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Still taking bets on ice free by 2020.  Can&#8217;t seem to find many takers any more, though &#8212; but IPCC says 2080 or later, so I don&#8217;t know why&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HumansFirst EarthSecond</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11986</link>
		<author>HumansFirst EarthSecond</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 19:16:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11986</guid>
					<description>What has science come to when they start using "probability".  When I went to school, probability and science did not mix.  "What if" scenarios are meaningless.  This "Vegas" style science is necessary to capture the imagination of the uninformed.

[&lt;em&gt;JR:  Rest of post deleted for being repetitive ad hominem disinformation -- I give people one shot at unsupported claims that repeated denier talking points, but that's it.&lt;/em&gt;]
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What has science come to when they start using &#8220;probability&#8221;.  When I went to school, probability and science did not mix.  &#8220;What if&#8221; scenarios are meaningless.  This &#8220;Vegas&#8221; style science is necessary to capture the imagination of the uninformed.</p>
<p>[<em>JR:  Rest of post deleted for being repetitive ad hominem disinformation &#8212; I give people one shot at unsupported claims that repeated denier talking points, but that&#8217;s it.</em>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11988</link>
		<author>Joe</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 19:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/01/forecast-3-in-5-chance-of-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-in-2008/#comment-11988</guid>
					<description>HumansLast --  Do you really know nothing about science, or are you just trying to waste everybody's time?

Let's see, there is quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, which are primarily statistical in nature.  Indeed, QM says the world can only be known probabilistically.

Pretty much all of science related to human health is probabilistic -- e.g. not  everybody who smokes will get sick from it, but a substantial fraction will.

Chaos theory makes clear that all complex systems dependent on myriad initial conditions (such as weather or climate) are inherently nondeterministic -- not because the world is quantum mechanically un-determinable at a large scale, but because the initial conditions can't be measured with sufficient accuracy.

When you went to high school, you were dealing with rudimentary calculations that are all approximations of the real world -- frictionless systems and the like.  Your school ever ask you to calculate something as simple as where a metallic pendulum dangling above 3 magnets will come to rest?  Didn't think so.

Probability ain't the same as "what if."  If  you play Russian roulette with three bullets in the chamber, there is some infinitesimally unlikely chance you will never kill yourself, but somehow  my guess is you understand probability well enough to know that I can scientifically state that doing so is suicidal.

If we keep pouring unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, we're gonna go to 800 to 1000 ppm, and there ain't no model for which that is not an unmitigated human catastrophe for billions of people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HumansLast &#8212;  Do you really know nothing about science, or are you just trying to waste everybody&#8217;s time?</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s see, there is quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, which are primarily statistical in nature.  Indeed, QM says the world can only be known probabilistically.</p>
<p>Pretty much all of science related to human health is probabilistic &#8212; e.g. not  everybody who smokes will get sick from it, but a substantial fraction will.</p>
<p>Chaos theory makes clear that all complex systems dependent on myriad initial conditions (such as weather or climate) are inherently nondeterministic &#8212; not because the world is quantum mechanically un-determinable at a large scale, but because the initial conditions can&#8217;t be measured with sufficient accuracy.</p>
<p>When you went to high school, you were dealing with rudimentary calculations that are all approximations of the real world &#8212; frictionless systems and the like.  Your school ever ask you to calculate something as simple as where a metallic pendulum dangling above 3 magnets will come to rest?  Didn&#8217;t think so.</p>
<p>Probability ain&#8217;t the same as &#8220;what if.&#8221;  If  you play Russian roulette with three bullets in the chamber, there is some infinitesimally unlikely chance you will never kill yourself, but somehow  my guess is you understand probability well enough to know that I can scientifically state that doing so is suicidal.</p>
<p>If we keep pouring unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, we&#8217;re gonna go to 800 to 1000 ppm, and there ain&#8217;t no model for which that is not an unmitigated human catastrophe for billions of people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
