Comments on: PNAS: Witchdoctors of science

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:32:40 +0000

Do you realise that for three hundred years the Royal Society (RS) official policy (as on its proceedings) was to not make pronouncements about the state of science? They dropped that to push genetically modified foods and now they make all sorts of pronouncements. Basically some trivial study made it into the Lancet (so naturally the study was the word of God) said that GM potatoes affect rats and the Royal Society heads had received considerable GM funding so of course the Royal Society members (applying the idiot principal) had to denigrate the author rather than encourage further science on the area or point out the publishing in the Lancet isn’t magical and the study was of minor value. Before that policy, President Newton proved that his gigantic ego meant that any scientist with an opposing view was a bad person using the RS.

Report this

0 0

By: Kevin Moore

Kevin Moore — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:42:42 +0000

“and not by any opinion or prerogative that they could not err by reason of their numbers.”

Democracy is not the way – Daniel 2:18-22

Report this

0 0

By: Kevin Moore

Kevin Moore — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:17:07 +0000

And it makes headlines that those who boarded a Japanese whaling ship have waisted taxpayers money. The government in their tyrannical style treat the taxpayer with contempt.

Report this

0 0

By: Tel

Tel — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:42:49 +0000

I would guess it’s for the same type of reason that air bubbles come out of water for a while even though you’ve turned the heat off from under a pot of boiled water.

I’ve never seen air bubbles come out of water, I have seen them come out of a plastic hose in a fish tank, is that what you are talking about?

Oh wait, you are talking about temperature momentum again. This is solidly proven physics right, tested millions of times in laboratories over centuries, but I can’t seem to find the formula for temperature momentum in any text books. Maybe you can remind me what it is… sheesh, I’ve even forgotten what units to use.

Have you noticed how much better a typical room heater works if you put it in the freezer the day before. This allows the heater to get a longer run-up, and surprisingly saves electricity so you know it’s good for the planet.

Report this

3 0

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 03:22:09 +0000

George (the correct) @ 279 & 280
thanks for these and I really enjoyed this:

This is how I know when I’ve bottomed out a warmist, when they resort to the precautionary principle as their last line of defense.

I have had them there too I just didn’t realize they were out of ammo. (it won’t happen again!)

Report this

3 0

By: co2isnotevil

co2isnotevil — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:26:05 +0000

I went back to my notes and must correct the previous post. Water vapor absorption must be treated as gain and not feedback, so this too is a mitigated effect. Only the other water related effects can be considered feedbacks. The basic climate system open loop gain arises from the atmospheric absorption spectrum requiring the surface to be warmer than the incident energy and can be quantified as 1/(1-a), where a is the fraction of clear sky surface power absorbed by GHG absorption. The global average for the open loop gain is about 2.2, while the measured closed loop gain is about 1.6 (1.6 < 2.2 is an unambiguous indication of net negative feedback). The gain is modulated owing to the temperature dependence of water vapor concentrations, but varying gain is fundamentally different from varying feedback. As I pointed out before, negative feedback mitigates open loop gain variability. The failure to differentiate between gain and feedback is the Achilles heel of CAGW science. The math they use to quantify feedback assumes that the open loop power gain is 1, which dramatically exaggerates feedback effects, especially since what should be gain is modeled as feedback. Every pro CAGW paper and every supporting CAGW model makes this incorrect assumption.

George

Report this

3 0

By: co2isnotevil

co2isnotevil — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:39:46 +0000

Brian,

The ‘environazis’ you speak of are just opportunists taking advantage of serious mistakes made by the climate scientists responsible for the conclusions of the IPCC. Another group taking advantage of this are those with socialist ambitions, where the idea of controlling energy supply and demand is an appealing lever to have in order to keep a population compliant and as a bonus, it becomes very easy to discriminate when applying it.

Many of the articles on this site refer to these mistakes and misinterpretations. The only way to prevent special interests from using climate change as a justification for their agendas, which otherwise can’t be justified on their own, is to reclaim the science.

There is positive feedback operating on climate science, but not the climate system. This is a result of the overlap between supporting scientists and radical environmentalists and the overlap between the policymakers at the IPCC and radical socialists. These parallel feedback paths reinforce the flawed science and equally flawed policy, which at it’s core, is justified by nothing more than the precautionary principle. This is how I know when I’ve bottomed out a warmist, when they resort to the precautionary principle as their last line of defense.

There is strong negative feedback acting on the climate system, which warmists claim can’t exist, because in their mind, anything warmer than what the Sun without any GHG dictates is caused by feedback. They fail to understand that the feedback is only that which dynamically affects the energy balance of the planet. The only components that fit this are water related feedbacks, which includes water vapor GHG absorption, clouds, evaporation, rain, snow and ice. Atmospheric absorption from GHG’s other than water vapor is more properly accounted as the open loop gain, not the feedback and while they have an effect on the climate, it’s a mitigated effect, rather than an amplified effect.

The mitigation arises when you consider why amplifier designers always use negative feedback. The feedback makes the final, closed loop gain more predictable and less dependent on the open loop gain and other parametric variability.

George

Report this

4 0

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:03:30 +0000

Hi!

Sorry for being naive, but I’m here for a media studies course. Some weird guy called Lubos told me to come here. Is this a joke site? Lubos seemed pretty cool and very knowledgfable about physics. Anyway I support your defence against those socialist environazis.

Thank you, Brian

Report this

3 0

By: Baa Humbug

Baa Humbug — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:36:22 +0000

Speaking of blacklists etc, did you folks know Dr Roy Spencer was a comedian? But of course you did, all sceptics have a sense of humour.
Here is a sample…

What follows is the text of the speech I gave at Townhall Magazine’s 100 Americans Most Hated by the Left awards dinner that I attended last night in Washington, DC.

(loud applause)

“Wow, thank you! Thank you so much!! Thank you!..(applause subsides)…I must say, this was a total surprise to me. There are so many people who are so much more deserving of being hated by the Left in this country. But Townhall has graciously included me….and I am deeply grateful…”

(still more applause)

“As I stand upon the shoulders of those scientists who came before me, who dared to change the direction of science, I will continue to suffer the slings and arrows from the Deniers of Natural Climate Change!”

(LOUD applause)

catch it at the link I provided above

Report this

5 0

By: Baa Humbug

Baa Humbug — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:12:39 +0000

Yes, well said Roy, touche’

Report this

4 0