Not the joke I was expecting, Cap’n. I was expecting a joke about me laying bricks.
Extra points for creativity.
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
‘I suppose that anyone who wants to identify as such could be considered an “independent climate scientist.” If I wanted to, I could call myself an “independent climate scientist.””
That’s not my question. Its not what you would call yourself, or what Nic would call himself or what other people have called Nic in the past.
The question is by what definition of scientist do you exclude him?
I would not consider you a climate scientist because you do not do science and you know nothing about the climate. You have no publications in science journals and I’ve yet to see you do a lick of math or test a hypothesis.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
Joshua
“What criteria do you use to distinguish who is or isn’t a “climate scientist?” Independent?
Another description of Nic…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html
Non responsive. I asked for YOUR criteria. I did not ask you to point to other peoples descriptions. Further, I see nothing in that description which entails it is incorrect to ALSO describe him as a climate scientist.
Learn how a proof works
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
captain
“Joshua, ” I sometimes lay brick, but I don’t refer to myself as a mason, and would not expect someone making reference to me to call refer to me as such. Etc.” If you laid peer reviewed bricks, you’ld get stuck with the title.”
Let us suppose that you laid bricks and suppose that the UN commission a report on masonry, and used examples of your brick laying. Seems to me I would trust them over you and your false modesty.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Joshua
OK, so now we have some exclusion criteria. Judging from your commenting style, I suspect that is as close as I will get to inclusion criteria from you, so I’ll work with what I’ve gotten.
My emphasis:
I would not consider you a climate scientist because you do not do science and you know nothing about the climate. You have no publications in science journals and I’ve yet to see you do a lick of math or test a hypothesis.
So utilizing your exclusion criteria, anyone who does science, knows something about the climate, has published in a scientific journal, knows some math and that you’ve seen test a hypothesis is a “climate scientist?”
I’d say that using such criteria, your definition of “climate scientist” is pretty meaningless – and as such, shouldn’t be used in a newspaper article.
So how ’bouts some exclusion criteria for “independent?”
↧
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Joshua
<strong I asked for YOUR criteria.
I figured it was implied. But no reason not to be more specific.
Someone who has research climate as a career, or at least researched climate science (presumably full-time) for a period considerably longer than 5 years.
By your definition, I’d say that a fair number of the commenters here at Climate Etc. are “climate scientists – as quite a few have published articles in journals Should I assume that you would want to specify your criterion of publishing in science journals – to mean, specifically (at least co-authoring) articles in climate science-related journals?
Otherwise, if it is any scientific journal, would it include social sciences as well? So let’s say Dan Kahan is a “climate scientist?” If not,,why not? How about if one of his papers gets published in a climate-related journal?
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Max_OK
Dy – no – mite ! Another BOMBSHELL !
Nah, more like warm-overs. Refried refried beans.
Judith says … “I would be pleased if the IPCC AR5 does as a good a job as John Parker has in terms of assessing the issue of climate sensitivity.”
I would expect AR5 to do better than John Parker. He did a pretty good job, but I thought he should have recognized temperature has plateaued before. Perhaps he did, and I missed it.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Joshua
What is it that you want me to “prove” steven? That Nic isn’t a scientist? I didn’t say that he isn’t? That he isn’t an independent “climate scientist?” I didn’t say that statement was false, I said that in fact, that term could apply to basically anyone by applying arbitrary criteria.
What I asserted is that it is misleading, and as such a “sloppy error.” What I meant is that I think that readers unfamiliar with who Nic is, in the context of the debate,would assume attributes about Nic’s career and work that are not the case.
Anyway – as usual, you seem to want to make this personal and so that’s a good time to jump off (and anyway it’s time for me to “hit my sack”.)
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Edim
Information? Seems like a desperation to me..
↧
↧
Comment on Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat? by WebHubTelescope
Springer claims that all infrared photons hitting the surface of water will cause immediate vaporization of water molecules. He claims that none of the energy will get transmitted to the water.
Well here comes the hammer Springer:
Date: Thu Oct 6 06:45:50 2005
Posted By: Calvin Cole, Faculty, Engineering Physics, Northeastern State University
Area of science: PhysicsLiquid water has a very complex structure and along with that structure
many modes of energy storage and exchange between those modes. The 0.7 X10^-19J that one gets by dividing the heat of vaporization by the number of molecules present represents an average value for the energy needed to free a single molecule from this web of interactions (primarily hydrogen bonding in this case) and put it into the vapor state. It does not represent some kind of limiting value like the ionization potential for electron removal from an atom however. At a given instant a particular water molecule might require more or less than this amount to free it from whatever entanglements it has. While it is possible a single photon could free a molecule if absorbed on the surface layer it is much more probable that the absorbed energy will be rapidly redistributed to the vibration, rotation, and finally kinetic energy of the molecules. Raising the kinetic energy is of course what raises the temperature and gives a greater number of molecules at the upper end of the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution having enough energy to escape from the surface layer. Note too that this energy does not have to be absorbed at the surface to free the molecule but can be absorbed anywhere in the body of water. This rapid redistribution of absorbed photon energy to other modes is exploited in the microwave oven.
Microwave photons on the order of 10^-24J are readily absorbed because they match the rotational excitation energy spacing. This energy is quickly transferred to kinetic energy as the molecules interact with one another. Similar transfers happen with the absorption of infrared light which tends to excite vibration modes. Our 0.7 X 10^-19J photon falls into the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light, like the green photon, typically excites electronic levels. It turns out water is pretty good at the radiationless transfer of this electronic excitation energy to vibration, rotation and kinetic forms as well. So in short while it is conceivable that photons with energy in excess of 0.7 X 10^-19J could directly free a molecule if absorbed at the surface the molecule would have to do so by somehow converting all this electrical excitation directly to kinetic energy by interacting with neighboring molecules and this is nowhere nearly as likely as having the energy absorbed into the bulk of the sample. We should also note that water evaporates in the dark as well as in the light so light absorption at the surface is apparently not a major factor.
Another acid test is to see if any technologists have devices that can photonically vaporize water molecules without raising its temperature. How about a state-of-the-art high-density femtosecond laser?
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/LASER-PRECISION-NO-HEAT-Petaluma-startup-2586106.php
The time is so short that the temperature is not raised.
So Springer believes that climate change is on the femtosecond level.
Good marketing trick:
Femtosecond climate change: Cold is the new hot
I do understand your game Springer. You always like to thank people for playing, so all I can say is you are welcome.
↧
Comment on Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat? by WebHubTelescope
The first line is all you need to read. That is what is called a demonstration paper. The technology shows promise.
↧
Comment on Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat? by k scott denison
Fan, what percentage of smokers do you think get lung cancer? Hint: it’s less than 25 percent. So while smokers may have a higher risk, there isn’t a 1:1 correlation. Probably because the human body is a tad more complex than inhale and you’ll get lung cancer.
Yet you quote this, just like you do that CO2 will cause CAGW, as if it were a direct, 1:1 correlation. Perhaps complex systems aren’t easily explained with simple correlations.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Max_OK
I’m a chef, cartoonist, dancer, model builder, and cabinet maker. But I’m not very good at most of these things. Just hobby stuff.
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by tempterrain
Well its defined as such in a vacuum so the speed of light in anything else can still be measured , of course.
Before the change of definition the metre was defined in an absolute way , the second still is. So, then, the speed of light could of course be measured. Nothing has really changed. That speed can still be measured but more accurate measurements tell us what a metre actually is – to a greater degree of precision. That is what now isn’t known absolutely.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Chief Hydrologist
I quoted the TAR on climate as a coupled nonlinear chaotical system. I keep doing this because it is slow to sink in.
There is a theory that climate shifted after 1998 – and there is a theory that these things last 20 to 40 years. The shifts suggest that we should be looking at cloud as a factor.
This shows up in a number of places – project Earthshine – ERBS and ICOADS.
In the tropical Pacific there is frequent and intense La Nina giving way to El Nino dominant in 1976/1977 and to La Nina again since 1998 – and cloud changes with ENSO.
So there is a theory that surface temps should be decreasing for 20 to 40 years from 1998. Excluding 1998 to 2001 – in the method of Swanson at realclimate – we do indeed see a recent trend in BEST – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2002/trend/plot/best/from:1970 – that we suggest from initialised models is likely to last another decade – and from the theory of dynamic multiple climate equilibriums another decade or three. I should stress that this is not cherry picking but based on a coherent theory of a coupled nonlinear climate system.
The 1998/2001 event is classed in our theory of coupled, nonlinear climate as a ‘dragon-king’ – extreme flucuations at times of critical bifurcation. So we exclude it as not representative of the new climate state after 1998.
You may not agree with our theory Jim – but you ignore it at your loss.
↧
Comment on Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat? by WebHubTelescope
“Time series of global ocean heat content variability calculated from Argo temperature measurements in the 10-1500m depth layer. The average global warming rate accounts for 0.54±0.1 Wm-2 during the years 2005-2010. Contributed by K. von Schuckmann”
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/guidance/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo
OK, the number of 0.54 is a little bit lower than Lyman of 0.64, which is also about the value I get from my model. The ocean is picking up approximately 1/2 of the effective forcing over the last 20 years.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Generalissimo Skippy
Cause’ I’m a picker
I’m a grinner
I’m a lover
And I’m a sinner
playin’ my music in the sun
I’m a joker
I’m a smoker
I’m a mid-night toker
I get my lovin’ on the run
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh
Whoa there Shibboleth</a – the villagers are revolting.
↧
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Generalissimo Skippy
I prefer tea leaves meself.
Hi ho <a href="http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/blue_horse.jpg.html?sort=3&o=70" rel="nofollow">Shibboleth</a>
He likes to get out of the photobucket now and then.
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by Latimer Alder
@jim d
‘using the unsmoothed data a case can be made for 0.3 C per decade from CRUTEM4 or BEST that agree well with each other for land.’
OK
Make the case.
Your ’0.3C per decade for the last thirty years’ wasn’t supported by the graph you posted.
Will this one be any better?
Somehow I doubt it.
But then, climatology is always full of surprises….disappearing hockey sticks, blunt scythes , no temperature increase for 15 years…….
↧
Comment on UK MSM on climate sensitivity by tetris
Izen: One geologist does not spring make.
Pekka: Why not have another look at the sustained downward slope in the original Marcott study [2011] with no sign of any upward trend -other than the grossly fabricated and fraudulent spike in the Science paper.
In the private sector, Marcott et. al. would have been fired for this and depending on the business context of their fraud, would wind up in prison.
These clowns have -on their own and with the support of the rest of the Team- done more harm to the reputation of [climate] science than anyone else recently.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
