It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty. . ..
Not to mention yours and (haha!) Chosun's.
It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty. . ..
It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty. . ..
Sorry - no PhD in theoretical physics here, nor professorial tenure ...... think of me as the Howard Wolowitz and Amy Farrah Fowler of the group - only better looking like Penny! oNot to mention yours and (haha!) Chosun's.
Yep. Thanks Ed :t: that's pretty much it.J,
As I interpret it, the point Chosun made (which I agree with) is the IPCC modeling enterprise presented in Ch. 8 is loaded with assumptions that potentially effect the credibility of output predictions. Moreover, most paragraphs are devoted to discussing model "improvements" since the TAR, which adds additional uncertainty about earlier predictions, like Hanson's, and as well as future ones. Early modeling efforts by Hanson, et. al. stubbed off water vapor/cloud dynamics, which was commented on by Freeman Tyson, as I mentioned.
Your annoyance at Chosun's rejection of an "in depth scientific [methodology] review," doesn't square with your own dismissive comments about of the Easterbrook paper, which is an in depth scientific review of natural climate cycles.
It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty and what courses you teach.
Thanks,
Ed
Sorry - no PhD in theoretical physics here, nor professorial tenure ...... think of me as the Howard Wolowitz and Amy Farrah Fowler of the group - only better looking like Penny! o
The public profile shows that I'm a retired NASA senior scientist with a specialty in statistical modeling. My Ph.D. is in mathematical psychology. My last 10 yrs. at NASA-Ames were spent researching helicopter vibrations using multivariate time-series analysis, and principal components decomposition. Ten+ co-authored articles in that area can be downloaded in PDF form by searching on "Edward Huff, NASA" using Google Scholar. My co-authors were all experts with a Ph.D. in computational modeling, database management, artificial intelligence, or mathematical analysis.
On an earlier thread I posted the attached article which tested critically the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. My endorsement is the very last one at the end. No newspaper articles will be written about it for obvious reasons. But, if the outcome were different I'm confident it would have showed up in the NYT.
A doctorate in psychology, a degree almost as irrelevant to climate science as mine (Ph.D, prehistoric archeology). But I do thank you for your civil response to my rather snotty question.
I note that the hot spot article hasn't gone unchallenged by later researchers (cf. https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html).
I have to say, however, that your NYT remark is a cheap shot. There's no left-wing plot against natural causation; the politics are all on the other side, with the fossil-fuel interests and "free enterprise" cranks. If there was respectable mainstream research making a serious case against AGW, the Times (and other "liberal" media) would certainly publish it.
The Tropical Hot Spot paper was published in August 2016. The Environmental Research Letter you referred to was published in 2015, and addressed a somewhat different subject. It could hardly have been a "challenge made by later researchers." You obviously didn't read either paper, much less understand them.
Some thought might be given to how someone who feels "irrelevant to climate science," like yourself, can still feel competent to judge someone else's qualifications. Similarly, the last statement is also inane, considering the current polarized political environment.
Goodbye,
Ed
Some of us knew this all along. You've been too busy spell checking or questioning funding to actually read the substance of postings.You are right, of course, about the papers, which I didn't read but simply skimmed over to get the gist, and I apologize for my carelessness in getting the dates wrong. Mea culpa, no excuses! It serves me right, in fact, since I seldom read the primary literature on subjects, particularly highly technical ones....
You are right, of course, about the papers, which I didn't read but simply skimmed over to get the gist, and I apologize for my carelessness in getting the dates wrong. Mea culpa, no excuses! It serves me right, in fact, since I seldom read the primary literature on subjects, particularly highly technical ones, outside my areas of expertise but rely on the consensus opinion of the experts. And this, of course, to return to the practical for a moment--and the causes of GW is a thoroughly practical subject with huge real-world implications--is what the vast majority of responsible voters do when confronted with the necessity of deciding between courses of action involving complex science beyond their capacity (for whatever reason) to properly evaluate. What other sensible option do they (we) have?
You are wrong, dead wrong, however, about "politicization" which as I've already pointed out is entirely on one side. What possible motive could the "liberal elites" have in promoting AGW? Insofar as research supporting your position goes unreported in the NYT and other mainstream media, it's simply because it's so minor in impact as to fall below the radar of general interest publications. But you've made your predilection for conspiracy theories obvious in other posts and I don't expect to change your mind here.
And please no more "goodbyes" and "I'm outta heres" unless you really mean them.
...
Ed, I personally hope you don't allow the personal barbs to discourage and you'll stick around. Those of us without your scientific acumen really appreciate the postings.
Some of us knew this all along. You've been too busy spell checking or questioning funding to actually read the substance of postings.
Perhaps my predilection for conspiracy theory is obvious to you but I have little control over your perception
Your annoyance at Chosun's rejection of an "in depth scientific [methodology] review," doesn't square with your own dismissive comments about of the Easterbrook paper, which is an in depth scientific review of natural climate cycles.
Some of us knew this all along. You've been too busy spell checking or questioning funding to actually read the substance of postings.
Ed, I personally hope you don't allow the personal barbs to discourage and you'll stick around. Those of us without your scientific acumen really appreciate the postings.
Joost, thanks for your reply, courtesy, and links. I will be happy to engage, and give a bit more detail later this w/e, but for now I'm off to wrangle possums out of the ceiling and do repairs ...... grrr
Chosun :gh:
Here is post #61.See, e. g., your post #61, this thread, in which you posit an unholy alliance between self-serving pseudo-scientists and sleazy politicians. Not an actual conspiracy theory, I suppose, but thoroughly discreditable in itself and hardly a model of dispassionate scientific analysis.
You're on a sinking ship, my friend. Time to admit it, don't you think?
Dr. Richard Lindzen described what's going on in climate science several years ago, and I share his view. By definition, 'climate scientists' are not mainstream scientists at all. For one thing they don't acknowledge that science requires predictions to be verified against real world data obtained by independent scientists (not just their academic buddies). We recall that Einstein said that it would take only one experiment to prove his theory wrong; AGW theory (as expressed above) has been proven wrong repeatedly. But research funding comes from politicians, and politicians aren't scientists (with exceptions), and the show goes on.
Some time back, at your request, I posted a very fine scientific analysis, which I officially endorsed, concerning what turned out to be IPCC's non-existent "tropical hot spot." Such materials are ignored by climate scientists. That community is completely insular.
"Fraud," "conspiracy" or "cabals" are unnecessary hypotheses to understand what's happened in this area. In my view the scientists who support AGW theory are quite sincere.
Yes, it does, J.Litebeam, I hope my previous posting will show you that I do actually (try to!) argue based on the content of what is posted here. Scientific acumen works both ways, as it should. Ultimately that's what science is about: a logical framework for examining evidence and presenting arguments, leading to (current) best interpretations of objective reality. I hope you'll stick around for the discussion and keep an open mind about either side's arguments! B
J
Nope. What a mind you have! Not a word (or thought) was said about "conspiracy," "sleazy politicians," or "pseudo-scientists" and it's very consistent with what I said in 2015, which described the academic/political mechanism that gives rise to an insular and polarized situation. You're trying to fit me into some niche like "liberal" or "conservative," and then apply attributes like "conspiracist" or "denier" to demonize everyone in the niche. Unfortunately, that attitude has now come full circle and our collective reward is the present administration.
Hopefully, the liberal party of the future will also be liberal- or open-minded, and its Govt. will go out of its way to meticulously fund both sides of an important scientific debate that has extreme policy consequences.