Comments on: Day Four – Al Gore

By: bender

bender — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:59:49 +0000

Re #260
I’m working it out. Meanwhile, any references to back up the statement that polar-equatorial àŽ”T should “surely” increase with GHGW? [I understand your reasoning. I'm just not convinced that your homogeneity assumptions are met on the real Earth, where ocean and land are not distributed equally among polar and equatorial regions, and GHG forcings interact non-independently with other non-homogeneous forcings and feedbacks.]

By: John A

John A — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:26:27 +0000

That’s OK bender. There was me thinking I was perfect….

Can you elaborate a little for us lesser mortals?

By: welikerocks

welikerocks — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:25:49 +0000

#258 Oh ok. gotcha!

By: bender

bender — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:19:55 +0000

Re #256 I realize that, but thanks anyways. Fact is there is a problem in the scenario I presented, but John A's not got it.

By: welikerocks

welikerocks — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:14:12 +0000

#256 Bender, I think that’s a figure of speech. “Problem” is the fun part here. I think John is from England, right? My English friends have a different inflection. I didn’t read it as if you have a problem. I read it as if you -got- the problem. -as in you understood where he was guiding us in the discussion. (??)

#255 Not when you are talking about hot and cold all the time and hurricanes. It is kind of interesting. But good point because Earth is also complicated. Jupiter was the wrong answer to the question about recorded wind speed anyway.

By: bender

bender — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:23:53 +0000

John A says:

There’s your problem. Cold planets behave the same as hot planets just so long as the difference between temperatures is the same. It doesn’t matter what T is, just what àŽ”T is.

No, that’s not my problem. Because I stated that as a presumption myself in #244.

By: Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:16:36 +0000

Comparing Jupiter’s winds to those of Earth is pretty meaningless without also comparing Coriolis and likely some other factors like density.

By: welikerocks

welikerocks — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:58:25 +0000

“The cost of fraud is enormous. Estimated at thirty billion dollar annually, probably three times that. Fraud in science is not rare, and it’s not limited to fringe players. The most respected researchers and institutions have been caught with faked data. Even Francis Collins, that head of NIH’s Geonome Project, was listed as co-author on five faked papers that had to be withdrawn. link added by me

“The ultimate lesson is that science isn’t special at least not anymore. Maybe back when Einstein talked to Niels Bohr, and there were only a few dozen important workers in every field. But there are now three million researchers in America. It’s no longer a calling, it’s a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. Its practioners aren’t saints, they’re human beings, and they do what human beings do-lie, cheat, steal from one another, sue, hide data, fake data, overstate their own importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That’s human nature. It isn’t going to change”

-copied from Michael Crichton’s book, “Next”
Forward of the book says: “this novel is fiction except for the parts that aren’t”
(the typos would be mine if any! And I am not shouting fraud here-just a POV on human nature/modern science)

By: Boris

Boris — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:19:52 +0000

As long as they can remain anonymous, climate scientists will vote safe with the AGWers. But as soon as they must associate their name with a number to quantify their belief, they will vote with the skeptics. To do otherwise poses too much of a credibility risk.

This is a rather absurd, no-evidence statement. And it supposes that climate scientists are weak, unprincipled and inconsistent. It is not so far from a conspiracy theory really.

By: welikerocks

welikerocks — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:09:18 +0000

JohnA: yes! My second and third guess would have been wrong too.