Comments on: scienceofdoom.com

By: bender

bender — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:41:37 +0000

“I would prefer that people discuss this sort of issue at scienceofdoom or elsewhere. I’m not really interested in bandwidth here being spent on very basic issues of infrared radiation and absorption and don’t wish to moderate the discussion. These are interesting issues and worth studying but better to do at a blog that’s covering this sort of thing.”

Guess who said this, on this very thread.

By: Brian H

Brian H — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:03:23 +0000

snip – see bender’s comment.

By: John Kehr

John Kehr — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:40:55 +0000

Hi All,

I have not posted here before, but I keep an eye on it.

I am really looking hard for the proposed total forcing that CO2 is supposed to be having on the climate. I have found countless estimates for the forcing changes as CO2 increases, but not the total estimates.

If I reverse the dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and move the CO2 concentration into the ppb I get about -42 W/m2. This is not really what I need. A reference would be really helpful as well. I am guessing that the total amount of current forcing they will claim is 50-100 W/m2 (closer to 100). That fits with their models, but I simply cannot find it stated anywhere.

Please help out if you have such information.

Thanks,

John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic

By: The Ville

The Ville — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:32:37 +0000

Then you are missing the point Steve.
Education at all levels is extremely important especially as a lot of poorly educated (in science) people support you and believe in what you are trying to do.

I would have thought that discussing the basic stuff is by far more important than criticising the CRU or other issues. Maintaining ignorance just fuels the distrust.

If anything, and the comments on this blog pretty much prove it, the one thing you and climate scientists should be doing at this point, is to educate people in the basics.

By: Mike Ewing

Mike Ewing — Mon, 10 May 2010 04:48:01 +0000

I read most o the various AGW blogs, and id have to disagree;-) It dosnt take a terribly objective person to see what angle that site is shooting from. There is a weeee bit o faith involved in some o the “skeptical” conclusions drawn. Im a fan of the Science Of Doom. Just because it does deal with the “facts” as they are known, and he states the areas of uncertainty.

Dont get me wrong, they have interesting discussions at Skeptical Science at times. But there is a difference between the two sites in how they “interpret/present” the “facts”.

Also been a long time fan of this site, but dont generally comment, as there are enough commentators that my queries are generally asked for me.

By: Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics « The Science of Doom

Sat, 08 May 2010 04:14:41 +0000

[...] May 8, 2010 by scienceofdoom This post will suffer from the unfortunate effect of too much maths – something I try to avoid in most posts and certainly did in The Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics. It’s especially unfortunate as the blog has recent new found interest thanks to the very kind and unexpected words of Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. [...]

By: Bob Brand

Bob Brand — Sat, 08 May 2010 01:27:47 +0000

Good references, indeed. A basic textbook I can recommend highly is “Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry” by Daniel J. Jacob (Princeton). The great thing is, it is 100% free on-line as a PDF:

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/jacobbook/

The relevant chapters are 1, 2, 3 and most of all 7 and 8.

By: toby

toby — Fri, 07 May 2010 07:59:09 +0000

Skeptical Science does this much better. It censors personal attacks and overheated accusations.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

By: DeWitt Payne

DeWitt Payne — Thu, 06 May 2010 18:11:32 +0000

Re: Steve McIntyre (May 5 11:03), I second Dave's comments, more or less. It's the technical stuff that interests me the most. I'm a little surprised you didn't get into the unit root discussion, for example, as that is statistics and originated in econometrics. As far as moderation, keeping the discussion civil, on-topic and no piling on would be all that's needed. I say that without having any idea of how much work that would actually be. Of course, your house, your rules.

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Thu, 06 May 2010 14:00:12 +0000

I’m not really interested in bandwidth here being spent on very basic issues of infrared radiation and absorption and don’t wish to moderate the discussion.

I note your message was still on the Recent Comments list when I started this message, so I decided to comment (actually I did yesterday, but had forgot to enter name and e-mail which doesn’t happen automatically on this site anymore for whataver reason). So the question is what has happened to your bandwidth lately? I think the answer is clearly that you’ve not been posting many scientifically interesting posts, so you don’t get many comments. You don’t like politics to be discussed here, and when you’ve tried it yourself, as in the recent posts, you got so much blow-back that you had to pull a RC and shut off the comments. And while it’s somewhat interesting to dig through the ClimateGate e-mails, they’ve mostly been done to death and few are interested in commenting except concerning politics or personal analysis.

Since both DeWitt and I were being polite to each other, I assume you mean by “moderate” that you feel you’d have to comment on the subject itself and don’t want to. Fair enough, but if you don’t have people commenting regularly in an interesting way, pretty soon you’ll be a 2nd tier science blog. I note you’ve slipped to 7th this morning on the top science blogs, as low as I’ve ever seen you. I don’t want to be a TCO, but you might want to think about getting back to your roots.