Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by ordvic

September 10, 2014, 5:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by curryja

You are making a false dichotomy. It presupposes that the skeptics (Curry) do equally as the alarmists do in complaining about having to deal with dissent. In this case she was simply pointing out the distraction of dealing with an assertion based on an incorrect review of the material that characterized a postulate, that as a possible solution could comprise in part, with the whole of the science presented in the book. Unlike the alarmists whose tactics consist of censorship, ad hominem or distortion, they did in fact allow the discussion and presented a detailed rebuttal under which you were allowed to make your assertion. It’s easy to see right through you guys.

Curry has been subjected to possibly libelous charactization by the very same serial litagator and choose not to sue. So your innuendo as to a future scenario is based on the opposite of what has so far transpired. You seem to be delusional in your rationalizations.

↧

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

September 10, 2014, 5:55 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by ordvic

btw steven, I brought up this situation with mixed phase clouds long ago. When you have a liquid water surface, for whatever reason, you would also have a hiccup in the CC estimation. A liquid water layer, even a very thin one, would change the effective “surface” for several of the approximations.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by AK

September 10, 2014, 6:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

≪ Previous: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

<blockquote>hmm one can observe that there are two types ( broadly speaking) problem creators and problem solvers. or rather that people tend to excell at one more than the other.. </blockquote>I wonder which category you'd put me in? (I know how I'd classify myself.) Seriously, I've made a long career of solving problems, but experience has taught me that if I write a program (develop a system) to solve the "tip of the iceberg" of the problem the business manager brought me, I could easily end up building ten times the system during acceptance testing, on the fly, without initial planning or budgeting. So I (want to) go looking for more: digging up the rest of the problem before trying to build the solution. But I suppose people who don't see the connection could easily see me as one of the "problem creators". Of course, it also depends on how the "problem" is defined. Digging up problems with "the settled science" and the models it depends on (both computer and mental/semantic) might be seen as "creating problems" to people in a hurry to get on with their proposed solution. But if the problem is defined as "a bunch of people wanting to rush through their economic/political agenda on the basis of 'the settled science'," then the very act of "digging up problems with 'the settled science'" represents part of a (hopeful) solution.

↧

Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

September 10, 2014, 6:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by AK

Thanks Markx.

Skepticblog used to have a lot of spirited debates on climate. Lately, I’ve seen that the comment counts on their posts have been pretty low. I think it’s a shame (and I’ll confess a bit amusing) that skeptics can’t handle having their cherished beliefs challenged.

I had an earlier comment rejected in that thread. It may have been a little shrill, but I don’t know of any other way to convey the point:

2. Canman says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm

I don’t trust scientists on environmental issues. They’re too emotionally invested and overly left wing.

This is especially true with climate science. I rarely see any error owned up to or alarming warning dialed back.

And Climategate was a scandal! If someone makes a claim that a quote was taken out of context, they ought to provide an actual context. The word “trick can mean either “a clever trick” or “tricking someone”. “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”, where discordant data is deleted and replaced falls into the latter category, although smoothing at the connecting point might arguably fall in the former. Is there a good context for “deleting all emails”? They claim they were under attack. Why did these emails have to be defended from an attack? From my reading on the subject, they involved surrepticious editing of reviewer comments related to getting papers by Wahl and Ammann into the IPCC AR4. Here’s a post about one of those papers:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/08/caspar-ammann-texas-sharpshooter/

Were the inquirys whitewashes? From this article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/

When Phil Jones asked Mann to delete email records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act and get a colleague, Eugene Wahl, to do the same, he replied “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”. And while PSU investigators never chose to interview Wahl, he later testified to a federal inspector general that he did receive Mann’s message and complied.

If scientists want to be trusted, they can’t just sweep stuff like this under the rug.

Reply

↧

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

September 10, 2014, 6:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by curryja

≪ Previous: Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

Dallas, let me explain my comment this way. I’m not arguing there can’t be exceptions to the calculations per classical physics. I am arguing that if you are going to claim the use of a calculation is wrong as per classical physics you have to be able to show that is possible using classical physics.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by curryja

September 10, 2014, 6:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

Ordvic thank you for this. I provide a forum here for people to criticize whatever they want (including me). I can’t possibly respond to everything. Specifically with regards to something that I publish in a journal or some other academic press, I will respond to critiques. As VK and I have done so in this instance. That does not necessarily mean that we enjoy all such response exercises and find them good uses of our time.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Pekka Pirilä

September 10, 2014, 6:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Ian Folkins

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by curryja

Eli,

My main message was that the fact that normal H2O is a boson and doesn’t really matter for any practical case.

I brought up the dimers in open space as that’s a case where two H2O molecules can share the same state. In addition to the high density of states due to the low energy vibrational modes also the density of states of the relevant rotational modes is high. Therefore it’s not particularly important that bosons exist in symmetrical states and fermions in antisymmetrical, but even so it’s at least possible to have states where the boson/fermion difference counts.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Ian Folkins

September 10, 2014, 6:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Pekka Pirilä

I partially disagree. For example, weather forecast models can’t resolve turbulence, either of the dry or moist variety – both extremely important physical processes which affect the weather. Instead, they parameterize these processes. These parameterizations must be partially successful, since weather forecast models have more predictability with them than without them. Similarly, climate models are not likely to be useless because they attempt to include unresolvable processes, though less predictable to the extent that a model outcome depends on this process. As with all models, you should think of them as having some statistical usefulness for some purpose rather than “right’ or “wrong”. The real problem with climate models, as opposed to weather forecast models, is that it is hard to construct tests of their statistical predictability on the timescales of anthroprogenic climate change, so that the accuracy of these parameterizations on these timescales is hard to assess. A more familiar example to some physicists is BCS theory, a very successful theory of superconductivity which replaces the actual pair potential with a crude parameterization, but which still has significant predictability.

↧

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

September 10, 2014, 6:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Ian Folkins

steven, “I am arguing that if you are going to claim the use of a calculation is wrong as per classical physics you have to be able to show that is possible using classical physics.”

Huh? The inequality is >> all you need to do is find the point in the >> range where the break occurs depending on the accuracy you need. That is the no mans land.

↧

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

September 10, 2014, 6:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

Dallas, right and before the break BE and boltzman give the same answer and after the break for a boson you use BE. So using classical physics you can always use BE for a boson as far as I can tell.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Joshua

September 10, 2014, 6:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

ordvic –

==> “In this case she was simply pointing out the distraction of dealing with an assertion based on an incorrect review of the material that characterized a postulate, that as a possible solution could comprise in part, with the whole of the science presented in the book.”

Why is it a “distraction” to respond to scientific criticism – criticism of a sort that quite a number of people highly educated in the related science have said that they learned from thinking about the criticism and discussing it? Why is it a “distraction” to respond to a criticism that was of a nature sophisticated enough that it took some four days of work to respond?

At any point, Judith and her co-author could simply have ignored the criticism if they felt it a “distraction.” They chose not to do so. Their choice. If they felt that discussing the issue was a waste of their time, time not well-spent, they could simply have ignored the issue and everyone would have gone about their lives unaffected. The criticism was in a blog comment, for god’s sake, and in an on-line review at Amazon. At most biggest impact would have been, perhaps, slightly fewer sales of a book on a relatively arcane topic.

The whole notion of “distraction” is hypocritical, because it is a reversal of the typical “skeptical” argument about what “pure science” looks like. It also isn’t logically coherent – as the notion of “distraction” used confuses cause-and-effect, It lacks accountability – as it plays the victim for actions taken that were entirely volitional.

Perhaps Judith should put away the hankies and put on her big boy pants.

↧

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

September 10, 2014, 6:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Joshua

steven, right, but between <> you can have an issue. If you tons of data no problem, but you don’t and you have a number of special cases that occur in the <> range. You are not trashing classical physics by trying to how to get a better fit or probability distribution in the no mans land range.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by David Springer

September 10, 2014, 6:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

“Perhaps an example, if you change the water vapor mixing ratio, nothing happens to the CO2 mixing ratio. OTOH, if you change the CO2 mixing ratio, the water vapor concentration follows as the surface and the atmosphere warm or cool in response”

Incorrect. Changing the water vapor mixing ratio changes CO2 sources and sinks.

↧

Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

September 10, 2014, 7:22 am

≫ Next: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by mwgrant

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by David Springer

I’d put the chances of Ebola spreading to the West as about as likely as the Left deciding to look at the world’s problems through the lens of Christianity instead of Marxism. But just to make sure we probably should put some official disease-watching stations in Parisian coffee shops.

↧

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by mwgrant

September 10, 2014, 7:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

Housekeeping …Housekeeping …Housekeeping (very late)

…this comment was misplaced and re-posted at the correct spot, mwgrant | September 8, 2014 at 9:37 pm |

↧

Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

September 10, 2014, 7:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Neutron-Powered High-Side Sideways Racer

≪ Previous: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by mwgrant

Dallas, I wsn’t arguing that you or anyone else was trashing classical physics. I’m arguing that you can’t say someone is wrong for using BE instead of boltzmann for a boson.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Neutron-Powered High-Side Sideways Racer

September 10, 2014, 7:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by willard (@nevaudit)

≪ Previous: Comment on Thermodynamics, Kinetics and Microphysics of Clouds by steven

Why is it a “distraction” to respond to a criticism that was of a nature sophisticated enough that it took some four days of work to respond? In the sprint of the original 'scientific criticism' in which commenters commented on material in a book that they had not read, mis-representation continues to abound. It did not take four days of work to respond. Instead, there were four days of elasped wall-clock time. And unlike the commenters, the authors' ensured that they completely understood the scientific issues before responding. For how long must the already many times over corrected mis-representations continue.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by willard (@nevaudit)

September 10, 2014, 7:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by RickA

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by Neutron-Powered High-Side Sideways Racer

The alternative, Joshua, is to dismiss all the auditing sciences, as a mere distraction not worth any serious people’s time.

Tough choice.

↧

Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by RickA

September 10, 2014, 7:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by curryja

≪ Previous: Comment on Vitaly Khvorostyanov responds by willard (@nevaudit)

markus said “As if all these sceptics really believe that calling someone a fraud in public is free speech.”

You have your facts wrong.

Steyn called Mann’s hockey stick graph “fradulent” – he never called Mann a fraud.

I think most people would say that there is a big difference from calling a graph fraudulent and calling a person a fraud.

Some might even say calling a graph, which tacks on actual temperature readings to a smoothed proxy reconstruction, fraudulent is an opinion (and the truth).

Hopefully, the lawsuit will grind to its conclusion and we will see whether calling a graph fraudulent is defamation or not.

I happen to believe that what Steyn said in his opinion piece was not defamation.

Markus – I seems like you are biased.

I see right through you.

↧