Register to Comment
Page 1480 of 6600 FirstFirst ... 4809801380143014701478147914801481148214901530158019802480 ... LastLast
Results 14,791 to 14,800 of 65999
Like Tree13963Likes
  1. #14791
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    Symphony of Science tackles Climate Change. Best one yet, with Bill Nye "The Science Guy", Professor Richard Alley from Penn State U, and Isaac Asimov who should need no introduction.

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #14792
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    As for your response, I find it without merit.
    Wow, that's a surprise.

    Snark intended ֿ
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #14793
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Nothing wrong with renewable energy, in their opinion!
    There's absolutely nothing wrong with renewable energy if it works and doesn't cause more problems than it's worth.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #14794
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    This won't be well received by anyone who considers a creationist scientist not to be a "true scientist."

    Climate sensitivity clouded with doubt


    From "The Science is Settled" Department. Climate sensitivity is the biggest unknown in climate research. If climate sensitivity is low, then increasing CO2 levels are a non-problem. The IPCC claims that sensitivity is high and that therefore regulating emissions is necessary.

    However, a new paper by Dr Roy Spencer and William Braswell, based on real world observations rather than incomplete models, claims that determination of sensitivity is as yet unsolved, because of the difficulty in distinguishing forcings and feedbacks:
    "While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."
    The paper is technical, but its conclusion shows that anyone who says "the science is settled" is either ignorant or wilfully deceptive.
    Climate sensitivity clouded with doubt | Australian Climate Madness
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #14795
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    This won't be well received by anyone who considers a creationist scientist not to be a "true scientist."

    Climate sensitivity clouded with doubt


    From "The Science is Settled" Department. Climate sensitivity is the biggest unknown in climate research. If climate sensitivity is low, then increasing CO2 levels are a non-problem. The IPCC claims that sensitivity is high and that therefore regulating emissions is necessary.

    However, a new paper by Dr Roy Spencer and William Braswell, based on real world observations rather than incomplete models, claims that determination of sensitivity is as yet unsolved, because of the difficulty in distinguishing forcings and feedbacks:
    "While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."
    The paper is technical, but its conclusion shows that anyone who says "the science is settled" is either ignorant or wilfully deceptive.
    Climate sensitivity clouded with doubt | Australian Climate Madness
    Once again, Earthling, you should take more care with your sources. The site is run and written by one with a Masters in engineering who proudly informs the dense that he is not a scientist but is better qualified to comment than 99.9% of people.

    The study is by a 'creationist' and an ally and, therefore, not credible. It has been thoroughly dissected by actual climate scientists and shown to be the shoddy pretext that it is.

    And, if I recall correctly, (I will not waste the time checking) it was published in a 'Vanity" publication; a publication that invites submissions and allows the submitters to choose reviewers. Published there because no reputable publication will countenance such rubbish.

    It reflects not science, but what Spencer has sunk to.

    "Spencer's model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings. A subsequent study by Dessler (2011) found that Spencer's paper was not a test of climate sensitivity or feedbacks, and his assumptions do not match empirical observational data. "

    Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity
    Last edited by Agnotologist; 13th September 2012 at 03:17 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #14796
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    Once again, Earthling, you should take more care with your sources. The site is run and written by one with a Masters in engineering who proudly informs the dense that he is not a scientist but is better qualified to comment than 99.9% of people.

    The study is by a 'creationist' and an ally and, therefore, not credible. It has been thoroughly dissected by actual climate scientists and shown to be the shoddy pretext that it is.

    And, if I recall correctly, (I will not waste the time checking) it was published in a 'Vanity" publication; a publication that invites submissions and allows the submitters to choose reviewers. Published there because no reputable publication will countenance such rubbish.

    It reflects not science, but what Spencer has sunk to.

    "Spencer's model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings. A subsequent study by Dessler (2011) found that Spencer's paper was not a test of climate sensitivity or feedbacks, and his assumptions do not match empirical observational data. "

    Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity
    Earthling's track record diminishes by the day ....

    .... a post from an Indian quack doctor and politician
    .... a post from American Thinker claiming a certain dead scientist was "revolting". She was misquoted and the whole thing was a fabrication.
    .... and now this!

    What next?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #14797
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    From what I read on the (manufactured cry for help) Denial of Science and History thread, the thread author doesn't have much of a track record on this forum worth consideration.

    Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

    Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.


    I wonder how close his detractors here at Politics.ie come to his standard of excellence.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #14798
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    And Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross for bravery in WWI. Alexander studied under Aristotle. Do you want a long list of those with qualification of some sort whose lives were not exactly exemplary?

    What has Spencer's bio to do with his distortions of science? Singer, Lindzen, Idso and more all were scientists with backgrounds and who have gone rogue.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #14799
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Just in case the last post was for me:


    Agnotologist Politics.ie Regular
    This message is hidden because Agnotologist is on your ignore list.

    View Post
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #14800
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is online now
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    39,637

    Appeals to Authority are pretty lame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    From what I read on the (manufactured cry for help) Denial of Science and History thread, the thread author doesn't have much of a track record on this forum worth consideration.

    Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

    Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.


    I wonder how close his detractors here at Politics.ie come to his standard of excellence.
    Appeals to authority are the weakest argument of all. Especially when the "authority" has been found wanting on a range of issues.

    Over a range of climate scientists in the field, Dr Spencer is of middling eminence only, only of some notoriety for his "unusual" beliefs.

    Global warming skeptic: Roy Spencer

    http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

    In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants." [8]
    Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1mn9B)
    Find out who Andrew Dessler is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dessler
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment