Wag,
??? I normally enjoy your comments but the camel reference is obscure.
I did like the analogy of global average temperature equals the average number of letters per name in the phonebook.
LOL
Scott
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by scotts4sf
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by doug
Data just in: NOAA says September 2015 is the highest temperature anomaly of any month in recorded history. It is now virtually certain that 2015 will break the previous record of 2014 as warmest year on record. (And by a long shot)
Hey, where did my pause go? I knew I saw it around here somewhere!
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Michael Aarrh
Well, the wisdom of crowds is that this is not an important issue at all, pretty much last any time they survey it. Which crowd did you have in mind?
And as a former physics graduate student, when people like Dyson and Steve Koonin show up and say, Someone ought to take you people in hand and make sure that you are doing a competent job, that means a lot to me. Jose Duarte writes a lot about the non-wisdom of crowds in social psychology, and the same thing could apply here.
Anyhow, Curry has written about Italian Flag issues: this is a big complex issue, and deciding to put the world on a drastic CO2 starvation diet requires many things to be true. Weart kind of makes it sound like there are lots of committees in different parts of the field, all of which have come in with their wisdom and all pointing to the same conclusion. That just isn’t true. The further you get away from straight physics and temperature measurement, into biology and geology and even economics and politics, the farther you get away from any type of consensus at all.
↧
Comment on Pink flamingos versus black swans by timg56
RE: “I would think that …”
Actually Joseph the problem is you don’t think. You heard stories in the media and you believe them without an iota of critical thinking. I bet you still believe the one about South Carolina’s recent flooding being a 1000 year flood event. Even when the “scientists” (i.e. USGS – who I interned with back in grad school) come out and correct the misinformation being reported.
As to your regular reference to IPCC. Exactly where in their reports do they actually document the “bad” impacts or quantify how “bad” they will be? If you truly were capable of doing your own thinking Joseph the first thing you should have noticed is whether or not any particular prediction or projection is based on modeled output or empirical observations and data. If you can’t then perhaps you should think twice about commenting on a subject you are not capable of comprehending. Hell you admit to not being able to understand it. Since you don’t, why are you trying to convince people that something needs to be done? Would you offer advice to a surgeon removing an organ? Tell Bill Bellichik how to run a football team?
You state that I am obviously not a climate scientist. Leaving aside just what the specific definition of one is, I can acknowledge that I do not work as a research scientist in climate or any other field. However I do have a couple of graduate science degrees and have studied atmospheric physics and chemistry. Some of my professors are or were very active in the field of climate science. In otherwords I have a sufficient enough basis to recognize what is traditionally thought of as good scientific method and what is basically crap.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by wert
“The globe is warming. Right now, at a very fast rate.”
“Right now” it is not doing much anything. During the last 10 years, you can’t say. During the last 100 years, well it warmed up. During the last 1000 years, probably not. During the last 10000 years, definitely and luckily it warmed a lot. During the last 10,000,000 years, it cooled significantly.
Right now I’m having cold feet. I hoped the landlord turned on the heat, but I guess they rather let me suffer. Luckily, in the so-called ‘worst’ case, my place is gonna warm +10C during the next 100 years. So my children don’t have to work so hard. In the real worst case, my children will be forced to move south.
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by hockeyschtick
edimbukvarevic:
Of course pressure, after density correction, plus SOLAR radiative forcing and NOT “radiative forcing” from GHGs, is what determines surface and atmospheric temperatures. That is what the HS greenhouse equation does, and perfectly reproduces the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere temperature profile and surface temperature from a single equation:
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by wert
Agreed, Don.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by wert
“The only way you get a pause from those facts is by making decisions about what data model ( think linear fit ) to apply to the facts”
Absolutely important to remember.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Wagathon
I meant to say, a LBGTQIA camel, meaning that as a committee we cannot be too careful about being inclusive about what we or they may not be romantically, physically, or emotionally oriented or attracted to or desire to be, or even expected to be based on our or their anatomy and that we should embrace and be allied with the entire variety of preferences, orientations, and habits of other all other options and creatures irrespective of how many legs they may have.
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by hockeyschtick
Steven Mosher | October 21, 2015 at 11:34 am |
“yes pressure determines temperature. its not the radiation .thats why temperature doesnt change when the sun goes down
or clouds pass over.”
Are you really that dumb Mosher to not understand that I’m talking about “radiative forcing” from GHGs, NOT from the only energy source the Sun. Perhaps that’s why the radiative forcing/equilibrium temperature with the SUN appears TWICE in the HS greenhouse equation and “radiative forcing” from GHGs appears ZERO times in the equation, an equation that perfectly reproduces the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere temperature profile, and also for Venus and Titan:
Also note the NASA fact sheet says the diurnal change in temperature on Venus is ZERO, thus “when the SUN goes down,” the temperature DOESN’T CHANGE over the 28-DAY NIGHT. Why do you think that is, Steven Mosher? It’s because the temperature is a sole function of gravity/mass/PRESSURE as I just calculated within 2K of observations in the comment above.
“Its why a cloudy night sky is the same temperature as a clear night sky.”
Here’s why, and it has nothing to do with GHG “radiative forcing”:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/why-are-cloudy-nights-warmer-not-from.html
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Bad Andrew
Wouldn’t you agree?
Baby, you and me
Gotta Peculiar Kinda Science
Andrew
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by catweazle666
JCH: “Fat chance. The globe is warming. Right now, at a very fast rate,”
No it isn’t.
Stop making stuff up.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by sarastro92
David: The NY Times published a detailed poll and confirmed your claims David by 65-35 margin or there abouts. UNFORTUNATELY, when it came to specific actions — such as artificially jacking up energy rates by taxation to discourage usage — the poll numbers reversed.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/29/us/global-warming-poll.html
The message here is that a big chunk of the public (especially the bobo types) will parrot back climate propaganda… but when it comes to dollars and cents, people wise up pretty quickly.
↧
↧
Comment on Pink flamingos versus black swans by timg56
I see that there is no limit on the number of topics Joseph is comfortable commenting on, even though he knows nothing about them or shows any capacity to understand them.
“yes the military budget is most likely bloated …”
How would you know Joseph? Either you know it is or it isn’t. From studying it. Warning Joseph! It’s a pretty complicated issue. For example, with no other single nation currently capable of defeating us in head to head military confrontation, why are we spending hundreds of billions on the next generation of war fighting systems (F-35, improved Virginia class SSN, Ohio class SSBN replacement, etc)? There are some good arguments for not doing so. But cut those programs and guess what happens? Electric Boat and Newport News shut down plants and lay off workers. Highly skilled workers. All one has to do is look at what happened to the commercial nuclear power industry in this country. We can’t manufacture any of the key components needed to build new plants. We are even going to China to learn how they are building the same model plants we are.
“could probably do that with significantly less ” More opinion with zero knowledge or understanding backing it up. Let me try to simplify it down to a level you might understand. You give someone less resources to a job or perform a mission and you may get the same level of performance due to improving processes and becoming more efficient. But that takes you only so far. You prabably have forgotten all about sequestration, but trust me, the DoD hasn’t. The US military has gotten pretty good at running lean. But if cuts keep coming at some point it is muscle not fat that disappears. US strategy currently calls for 11 carriers to support reasonable deployment scheduling. That’s down from 13 just a few years ago. Know how many we have operational right now? 9. I trust you can handle simple arithmatic Joseph. What happens when the President wants to send a carrier to the latest hot spot and they are already deployed or back in port undergoing refit from their last deployment or working up (training) to rotate in for the ships currently on station?
You really shouldn’t comment about stuff you are clueless on.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by catweazle666
JCH: “Yeah, and it has a fever.”
No it hasn’t.
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by catweazle666
doug: “NOAA says September 2015 is the highest temperature anomaly of any month in recorded history.”
Yeah, of course it is.
And next September will be even hotter. And the September after that…
NOAA will keep on claiming that even as the glaciers are rolling over their supercomputer.
It’s all down to the Algoreithms, see?
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by doug
I’m curious about something. For all those who claimed a pause in the temperature data, you had no problem using NOAA’s data right? And now that the same data shows an astonishing rise in temperatures, blowing any “pause’ confusion out of the water, do you suddenly not trust NOAA’s data?
Be careful now. I know deniers don’t like to be hypocrites, (no, of course not) so tread carefully K?
↧
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by KenW
NOAA. Most ridiculous hype recorded history. By a loooong shot.
bonjour
↧
Comment on A peculiar kind of science by Bad Andrew
Didn’t trust NOAA’s data at any point.
Still confused, dougie?
Andrew
↧
Comment on Pink flamingos versus black swans by Joseph
I can acknowledge that I do not work as a research scientist in climate or any other field. However I do have a couple of graduate science degrees and have studied atmospheric physics and chemistry. Some of my professors are or were very active in the field of climate science. In otherwords I have a sufficient enough basis to recognize what is traditionally thought of as good scientific method and what is basically crap.
So you can recognize it, but those who actually understand the science in-depth, can’t see it for what it is? Are they making it up? I am trying understand why your opinion should trump their more informed opinion.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
