Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper

0
0

fan oh fan, if the quality of a poet’s work depended on his living
a conventional model life where would we be? Shakespeare …
‘Fail,’ Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, Robert Burns, all ‘Fail,’
Dylan Thomas, Sylvia Plath, Rimbaud, fail, fail, fail.
Well, fan, at least we’d still have Wendell Berry.


Comment on Obesity (?) of the U.S. scientific research enterprise by curryja

Comment on Obesity (?) of the U.S. scientific research enterprise by curryja

0
0

Bush 41 administration was extremely generous for climate change research.

Comment on Open thread weekend by curryja

0
0

I just received confirmation that Apr 25 is the rescheduled date for the Congressional hearing where I will testify

Comment on Open thread weekend by Bart R

0
0

Jim Cripwell | March 18, 2013 at 9:08 am |

Where am I wrong?

In framing the wrong question.

Suppose a hypothetical saturating atmosphere, where all eligible radiation (ie radiation in the bands absorbed by said atmosphere) could be predicted to be absorbed by height X0 from the surface.

It is unlikely X0 exactly corresponds with the total height of the atmosphere. (We don’t, for the purposes of this exercise, need to know much about X0.)

Treating altitude X0 as equivalent to the surface, we know all eligible radiation could be predicted to be absorbed by height X1 from X0, until like the layers of an onion we reach an atmosphere with some Xn where at least some eligible escapes TOA.

As concentration of absorbing molecules increases in a well-mixed atmosphere, every X demonstrably becomes shorter, and the value of n increases, while the atmosphere warms. Of course concentration is measured in terms of volume while X is height and there is certain to be a surface-area dependency term if you work out the details, but the result is mathematically inescapable.

The saturation that would have to happen in some aphysical way is the opposite of what we do see in physics: a limit on absorbtion that renders the atmosphere increasingly transparent to eligible radiation as concentration increases.

Hence, “at current levels” is a needless condition on proof or measurement of AGW of any variety. And while “The Oxygen Catastrophe” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event) is a real term relevant to science, prefixing “Catastrophic” needlessly to a real phenomenon likewise increases the complexity and ambiguity of a much simpler subject, so too ought be dropped.

Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by WebHubTelescope

0
0

Yes, I reference Sornette’s book on critical phenomena and use it to check math. Citation #271 in my most recent book.

Doesn’t matter to a prank crank like yourself.

Comment on Obesity (?) of the U.S. scientific research enterprise by kim

0
0

Sharper than the serpent’s tooth.
=====

Comment on Open thread weekend by kim

0
0

Log/not on\gol.
============


Comment on Obesity (?) of the U.S. scientific research enterprise by dp

0
0

If the institutions of learning are fearful of losing funding for science research it is perhaps because they spend a good deal of that science research money on things other than science research and they actually fear for the loss of those other things.

Comment on Open thread weekend by climatereason

0
0

We shall all be there, where do we park the charabanc?
Tonyb

Comment on Open thread weekend by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Beth Cooper asks  “Fan oh fan, if the quality of a poet’s work depended on his living a [more-or-less] conventional model life where would we be?”

LOL  Beth Cooper, we’d be “stuck” not only with Wendell Berry, together with Carl Sandberg, Robert Frost, and William Carlos Williams. Not mention Alexander Pope, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Robert Burns, and William Wordsworth!

To use one of Mark Twain’s favorite words: “So-clever so-pretty so-precious academic poetry (like Auden’s) gives me the fantods!”

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries???}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Obesity (?) of the U.S. scientific research enterprise by Bart R

0
0

It’s bloody obvious that no one who comments here has ever done any quantitative research on the political economy of science funding.

Indeed, someone here has.

Scientists vastly undervalue their work (almost universally mistaking the cost of the information for the value of it), are non-collaborative with efforts to add value to their work due adverse incentives in scholarly organizations, and subvert programs to increase the value of the work they do.

Science funding is largely influenced by the attitudes and behaviors endemic to the science research world, but it is also frequently gamed by cynical experts at obtaining funds rather than producing value for money. Even where funders have every good intention, put into place accounting practices and follow prudent business measures, they are invariably balked by petty empire building, data hoarding, baloney-slicing, refusal to self-administer data management, rejection of data science and noncompliance with documentary and systems disciplines.

If there is political economy of science funding, it is the illegitimate child of accident and cynical manipulation. The forced marriage of scientists and economic efficiency invariably is unhappy and will be cheated on in every petty manner imaginable.

Citation count has indeed been attempted as a system of recognizing merit; friend-citation, clique-citation, citation to the lowest common denominator, citation influenced by publisher.. it is an admirable intention, but it is invariably ignored or gamed as a system.

Nor is influence on other scientists even a good measure in the first place of the value of science, even in pure research. Influence outside of science, assuredly, is a valid measure too, and not only in the obvious case of intellectual property — though that is one that frequently is grossly mishandled through ill-defined expectations and poorly drafted agreements. Look at the University of Regina’s massively mistaken efforts to privatize and obtain royalties from its CCS research.

In short, the political economy of science funding is in about the same state as any other form of funding was in the USA, fifty years ago. The difference is, by and large, every other form of funding has followed an improving trajectory in management of the issues.

Comment on Open thread weekend by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

mosomoso asks “Does earnestness [in poetry] take precedence over quality, accuracy and construction?”

LOL  not “earnestness”, but rather the admixing of “gravitas and levitas” is what chiefly matters in poetry!

Answer  The only people who value poetry chiefly for its quality, accuracy and construction are ivory-tower critics … and their graduate students!

By which academic standard, the BOB is a poetic work of superbly ingenious construction, eh mosomoso? Even though BOB says … nothing?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Obesity (?) of the U.S. scientific research enterprise by patrioticduo

0
0

Eisenhower said it best: “… The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society…”

I firmly believe that the America of 2013 is solidly held in the grip by a conflation formed by greedy/corrupt politicians controlling a scientific-technocratic elite who are their fellow travelers. The former have no conscience and (in the whole) no longer hold to foundational principles of liberty and justice for all. And, the latter know that they cannot exist in the private sector so they support, aid and abet to keep the corrupt in power so that they can continue their work safe in the errant belief that they’re doing it for all of us for our own good. Hello Climate Science.

Comment on Open thread weekend by kim

0
0

Bah, power density. Such fools. Yeah, you.
==============


Comment on Obesity (?) of the U.S. scientific research enterprise by kim

0
0

Hum a few bars and I can fake the rest.
============

Comment on Time for some optimism about the climate crisis (?) by David L. Hagen

0
0

JCH
Savory shows that concentrating herds on agricultural land remarkably improves productivity. The issue is using cattle to manage both grass and crop lands, vs degradation and desertification without.

Comment on Open thread weekend by climatereason

0
0

Fan

You really must read things better. Earlier you attributed a post I made to mosomoso, then proceeded to link to skeptical science and called it Neven.

Ad personum’ What? Do you mean ad personam? So its Ok for you to mention Neven by name but not for me to mention Andy Robinson who was clearly noted in your link as providing the chart, which I duly praised. Perhaps Trish can add ‘hypocrisy’ to her list and you can give yourself a telling off for practising it.

Motivism? How?

Bad science? I have provided a link to Phil Jones piece on Greenland temperatures before. If you think its ‘bad science’ I can provide you with his email address and you can take it up with him. What has Kinnards sweeping and highy generalised graphic covering the last 1450 years have anything to do with two decades in Greenland in the early 20th century?
tonyb

Comment on Open thread weekend by pokerguy

0
0

Just to add, above lines dedicated to Fan who has offered for our reading pleasure, “The LAdy of Shalott”. My apologies of course to Tennyson.

Fan, I’ve a new theory. You’re Steve McIntyre in disguise. YOu’ve become such an effective advocate for the “denialists” that you have to be doing it on purpose.

The world wonders, A Fan of *More* Discourse!!

Comment on Open thread weekend by willard (@nevaudit)

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images