olofscience

It's been known for a while in the aviation community that while Russia's air assets seem impressive in air shows, their actual combat record isn't. But the million dollar question is, does the same hold for their nuclear forces?

With Russia closing down western news, independent news, Facebook and Twitter, they won't see any signs of losing for a while. (militarily, at least)

For the Russian civil airlines, blocked from getting Airbus/Boeing spare parts and support, the timescale is about 3 weeks, after that they'll have to start cannibalizing parts. They have about 500 airliners, so it will take years before they run out of operational ones like what happened to Iran under sanctions. For military hardware, I don't know. I'd imagine wear and tear on those to be quite a bit higher than civilian equipment. Probably quite a lot more wear and tear.

They'll need: spare parts to repair and maintain their vehicles. Should be ok for the simplest ones, for the most advanced ones, the sanctions will have a bite. manufacturing capability to replace vehicles destroyed in combat refinery capacity. You don't just pump oil out of the ground and pour it into fuel tanks. Many of these refineries also depend on western technology to operate and maintain. probably many other things. Supply chain and logistics sounds boring, but it's the most difficult aspect that people often underestimate. Heck, companies like Ford are having trouble manufacturing enough cars due to supply chain issues (due to covid), and they're not even under sanctions.

Just keep Ukraine alive for the next few months. Remember all the arguments about how expensive it was for the USA to keep forces in the Middle East for almost 20 years? Resupplying them, getting back troops with PTSD, etc.? That was expensive even for the the biggest economy in the world. And nobody was sanctioning the US then. Russia, with their economy already smaller than Italy before the invasion, will be going bankrupt even without counting the ongoing military expenses. They probably have until June at the latest. They'll run out of ammo, out of money, and out of friends.

Because more capable systems are also more complex and would require lots of training. Ukranian units have only previously operated older Buk systems, so things like Patriot batteries and other anti-aircraft systems are a whole different world to that. But man-portable missiles like Stingers are designed to be easy to operate and require little training.

FIFY. They couldn't even complete the Vostochny spaceport (supposed to replace Baikonur) because the money has been stolen. Then in addition to that, this year Rogozin has gotten a massive salary increase. Whatever money they're using to maintain the ICBMs, it's probably not coming from their space launch service.

Nope, it wasn't. Did NASA say "brent was right, the more sophisticated models get, the more they diverge from reality!" As usual you'll provide a quote from them that says something completely different, so I won't wait around. Stop hanging on NASA's coattails. Their reputation and credibility will never rub off on you and your misinterpretations.

And...I didn't say that they said it didn't work at all. I think you've gotten a thrombosis in your reading skills somewhere. But your conclusion that model sophistication was the cause for more divergence was just wrong.

As usual, you didn't read the article. The article didn't say that, the authors didn't say that. It's just your excuse for not being able to understand anything remotely sophisticated. Anyway, for the rest, the article said of the authors: So they can keep improving the models, and not deny that they work at all

Younger people don't watch TV.

This is Putin's war, ordinary Russians won't support it. Unfortunately their voices are silenced for now. What would they gain? Natural resources? They already have a lot of those - oil and gas remember? Now China just wants western dominance to end, so they'll root for russia to take the west down a peg, but they won't sacrifice anything important for Putin either.

Good point, but given that his actual field is high-energy particle physics, not climate science, I won't be holding my breath waiting for citations. And it shows that it's not his field - relative to the current state of the art in climate science and modelling, his analysis was rather simplistic and in my opinion not very interesting. There's currently a gap between the global climate models and modelling local weather events (like cyclones), but with supercomputers getting faster and faster the gap is getting narrower and narrower. It won't ever be perfect but there are far more interesting things you can do to estimate the actual occurrence of extreme weather in pre-industrial times. And reading the paper it kept making strawmen arguments - as if cyclones and storms are the only thing we need to worry about - that I wasn't really convinced the author wasn't letting emotions guide his analysis.

Finally! Here goes: As I've already mentioned, this article has ZERO scientific citations. Even the author himself doesn't list this article among his publications He acknowledges that the "mean temperature and SSTs show pronounced and statistically significant warming trends". You don't. He pretty much says: "EXCLUDING heat waves, if we look at extreme weather like storms, they haven't increased in frequency according to my analysis" But even with all his denials, he acknowledges that there has been an upward trend: "Therefore, after adjusting the time series to take into account the smaller observational capacities of the past, there remains only a small nominally positive upward trend". So: 1)I hate heat waves, they're annoying and they kill lots of people. Not to mention the wildfires caused by them. The paper acknowledges they have increased in severity and frequency. 2)Even without checking his extrapolation methods to account for lower observational capacity before satellites, he still found a positive upward trend. It depends on the method you use for filling in the data gaps. But if we only include the years where we have complete data, there's actually a more significant upward trend. 3)This paper has zero scientific citations which shows how highly regarded this paper is: not very.

You haven't, as expected well we can't discuss the paper then, can we?

It would advance the conversation if you actually read the contents of the links you actually post...have you read the paper?

The existence of the interview actually introduces the bias already. There's a reason why clinical trials are DOUBLE blind, not just single-blind - because even the medics conducting the trials will have their own unconscious biases. No one is immune to them. To have unbiased hiring, it has to be more like a double-blind process as well - any biasing information needs to be hidden (at least temporarily) from the hiring decision makers. This includes: names (possibly ethnic-sounding), faces, maybe even university names. The only thing you need is to verify the actual knowledge of the subject area. Once the hiring decision has been made then you can unblind the possibly biasing data if there's any legal or technical need to do so.

I think you're mistaking me for someone who cares...

I'm part of the larger left. I cancelled my Spotify subscription because of the antivaxx controversy. I've never even heard of the Joe Rogan episodes you linked, nor the interviewees. But yes, stay scared. We're out to control your thoughts!

Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, who both suffered with polio, removed their music from Spotify because of Rogan's anti-vaccine statements regarding Covid-19. But they were lying, it's because leftist lizard people want to control your thoughts right?

We're also a race of super-intelligent lizard people!

No, it was because of anti-vaccine misinformation...try to keep up.

And random house buyers don't do quite as much risk assessment of rising sea levels...compared to insurers. And guess what, some coastal homes will become uninsurable within the next 15 years. (actually, it's already happening in the UK, and is only expected to become more widespread)

The North Sea running out of oil and gas wasn't because of solar and wind. Fracking was only a recent technology that hasn't had time to take off. Europe is dependent on Russian oil and gas because arguably, they phased out NUCLEAR energy too quickly. They had 3 choices: continue nuclear (expensive), start fracking (pretty difficult with high population density and NIMBYs) or just buy from Russia. Buying from Russia was the cheapest and easiest option at the time but was of course bad long-term planning.

So...you're criticising Europe for buying and using fossil fuels from Russia...because of their rush to stop using fossil fuels? If you can't see the flaw in your argument, there's not much hope is there...