I have also been asked about my age and whether or not I intend to have any more children and will be needing maternity leave as well, which is also totally illegal in Canada. When it comes to academia there are so many people scrounging for every job that they can ask whatever they like, law of no law, and no one will stop them. And there is no way to make the old boy’s network accountable because they can always use excuses like “She isn’t excellent enough, she didn’t publish in the right journals, and other namely pamby side steps. There’s no union to appeal to when you are passed over.
Comment on Industry funding and bias by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by tonyhellerexposed
I say we take a break from it all and just have a good chuckle together, shall we?
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Buddy Dallas
3/4’s of scientific funding comes from private entrerprise…
But somehow when it comes to climate science, you are treated as though your sleeping with the enemy
Give me a break
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by kcom1
Yes, it’s tainted my feelings toward all of science. It’s a shame. I mean I’m hoping the Pluto team isn’t pulling anything over on us (and I have no reason to believe they are) but the uncertainty introduced by the train wreck of much of climate poli-science has far reaching ripples. It’s taken some of the fun out of it when you can’t just look and say, “Hey, that’s cool.” Because climate science has demonstrated that there might be more than meets the eye going on and agenda’s beyond science are in play.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by kcom1
The lack of accountability and self-discipline so clearly on display in this case, makes one wonder about it all. It’s been very disappointing not to see the problems tackled head on, but rather just swept under the rug and ignored.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by David Wojick
Not really, Michael. The natural variability issues are well known and the USGCRP is simply ignoring them. THis is what I call paradigm protection, as originally described so well by Kuhn over 50 years ago.
I am in the middle of a semantic analysis of USGCRP summary reports. Paradigms have core concepts which means that certain words indicate that the paradigm is being invoked. I have one list of CAGW core words, such as carbon, and another of natural variability core words, such as solar. The USGCRP documents are loaded with CAGW centric terms, with virtually no occurrence of natural variability terms. The results are pretty dramatic.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by -1=e^iπ
@ CaptDallas –
What about coverage bias? If I were to use a tropical SST or a NH reconstruction, that will have a different sensitivity than global temperatures (tropical SST will vary less and NH reconstruction will vary more than global temperatures).
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Richard Arrett
tonyhellerexposed | August 18, 2015 at 12:31 pm:
Doesn’t pass the smell test.
Looks like just wishful thinking to me.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by stevenreincarnated
I got a chuckle out of it but only because I’m assuming an adult wrote it. Was it really an adult?
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
pi, “What about coverage bias? If I were to use a tropical SST or a NH reconstruction, that will have a different sensitivity than global temperatures (tropical SST will vary less and NH reconstruction will vary more than global temperatures).”
That is one of the things I was trying to figure out. Tropics have an advantage in they have a greater weight as far as total energy. You can use local instrumental correlation with global and global oceans to get a fairly good idea of how sensitive they are to that region’s reconstructed temperature and estimate an amplification factor. Unfortunately, that correlation isn’t going to be consistent through all regimes, so you have to figure some way to apply reasonable error ranges.
There are plenty of opportunities.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by -1=e^iπ
@ Jim D – It’s not just total radiative forcing that matters to global temperatures, but the distribution of that forcing. By the Stefan-Boltzman law, if the Earth’s temperature distribution becomes more uniform, it’s average temperature will increase; and increase in forcing in polar regions will have a larger impact on global temperatures than an increase in forcing in equatorial regions. Changes in the Earth’s obliquity for example has significant changes on global temperatures, but if you just look at total radiative forcing, nothing will chance.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by -1=e^iπ
The last word in the above post should read change not chance.
Darn post-concussion syndrome. :(
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by aaron
I’ll add that the step-wise temp increase suggest that feedbacks are likely near zero.
The “hiatus” tells us that feedbacks are very likely near zero and not very unlikely that feedbacks are negative.
The quasi-cyclical 60-80yr pattern in the instrumental record suggest that it is not unlikely that feedbacks are negative.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by aaron
Jim D, looking at it another way, it’ll take 57ppm CO2 equivalent for forcing to catch up to current temps.
Or, another 28 years for forcing to catch up to current temperatures at current co2 growth rates.
(Of course this ignores other man made (other gasses, land use…) forcings to date, ie assumes they’re negligible.)
I’ll add that the step-wise temp increase suggest that feedbacks are likely near zero.
The “hiatus” tells us that feedbacks are very likely near zero and not very unlikely that feedbacks are negative.
The quasi-cyclical 60-80yr pattern in the instrumental record suggests that it is not unlikely that feedbacks are negative.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by JCH
Looks like coal companies would profit. The answer is, their scientists largely agree with the science. They went to the same schools, and studied under the same professors. And, their legal departments know the liability of being associated with contrarian science, later proved to be wrong, would be megagigantically hugemongous.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Don Monfort
Your formulaic and gaudy clap trap is way boring, fanny-johnny.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Ragnaar
CD:
Agree with tacking the modern record onto the paleo record. We take insensitive stable data and at the end of that, add sensitive and seemingly unstable data. Probability of a hockey stick is high. The old data should have flatter slopes and modern data may have a steeper slope because of the short time frame. Spencer portrays his monthly data with a 13 month running average I believe, that stops 13 months from the present, I assume for a good reason. Jim D mentioned waiting 200 years to reach a conclusion. We want to say no to that, but what compromises have to be made to not wait the 200 years?
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by justinwonder
The system is broken.
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Joel Williams
DOE Carbon Storage Program advances the development and validation of technologies that enable safe, cost-effective, permanent geologic storage of CO2: http://www.ladailypost.com/content/doe-selects-lans-carbon-storage-research
Partners are the University of New Mexico, Sandia National Laboratory, and Chevron: $1,323,866, of which $1,061,886 will come from DOE, and $267,000 is non-DOE funding.
Other grant recipients:
The University of North Dakota Cost: DOE: $2,507,627 / Non-DOE: $696,600 / Total Funding: $3,204,227
The University of Texas at Austin Cost: DOE: $1,315,873 / Non-DOE: $346,354 / Total Funding: $1,662,227
Archer Daniels Midland Cost: DOE: $2,891,996 / Non-DOE: $728,897 / Total Funding: $3,620,893
Battelle Memorial Institute Cost: DOE: $1,149,327 / Non-DOE: $327,868 / Total Funding: $1,477,195
Montana State University Cost: DOE: $2,000,000 / Non-DOE: $518,750 / Total Funding: $2,518,750
C-Crete Technologies LLC Cost: DOE: $1,999,414 / Non-DOE: $499,960 / Total Funding: $2,499,374
The University of Colorado (Sandia National Laboratories) is a partner in the project) Cost: DOE: $1,038,475 / Non-DOE: $261,525 / Total Funding: $1,300,000
The University of Virginia Cost: DOE: $609,639 / Non-DOE: $167,236 / Total Funding: $776,875
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by hockeyschtick
Curt, YOU are the one who has no grasp of the fundamental thermodynamic concepts, including, but not limited to:
1. False assumption heat can ever be transferred from cold to hot
2. False assumption that any continuous transfer of heat from cold to hot doesn’t cause a net decrease of entropy, forbidden by the second law.
3. Denial that 2 blackbodies in dynamic equilibrium at 255K cannot transfer any net HEAT to each other or raise their /frequency/internal energy/temperatures above 255K
4. Denial that inhibiting CONVECTION, not radiation, is what makes his transistor board warmer.
5. Denial that a theoretical Carnot engine between Curt’s fictitious 283K sphere to 4 space generates a continuous power output ~1.5X higher than the only source of power to the system!
6. Confusion of the difference between HEAT/Kinetic energy and radiation.
7. Confusion that internal energy U of either blackbody does NOT change if their temperatures remain the same, i.e. when both blackbodies are dynamically equilibrated at 255K each, dU [CHANGE OF INTERNAL ENERGY] drops to zero
8. Curt falsely claims: “It is NO defense whatsoever for you to say that your solution works for the full sphere-plus-shell system.” Ah, yes it absolutely is, and your POWER-AMPLIFYING COLD-TO-HOT-HEAT TRANSFER solution clearly violates both the 1st & 2nd laws.
9. Curt falsely claims, “You cannot say that the shell itself is exempt from the 1st LoT” Yet another false strawman, and YOU CURT are the one who claims the shell is exempt from the 1st LoT by “holding the temperature at 217K” and not assuming a dynamic equilibrium with the 255K sphere.
10. etc etc. ad nauseum
I’M DONE, FINISHED, NOT TO RETURN TO THIS HUGE WASTE OF MY TIME WITH CURT’S PERPETUAL MOTION THEORIES. LACK OF FURTHER RESPONSE TO THIS THREAD SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AGREEMENT WITH ANY OF CURT’S CLAIMS.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
