tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post4636363582673410144..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56536583823950357462007-04-17T17:58:00.000-04:002007-04-17T17:58:00.000-04:00He also taught us that "If you are dense enough, y...He also taught us that "If you are dense enough, you also attract everything to yourself -- including all the kooks."<BR/><BR/>JunkScience is a singularity. Anything that makes it onto that site never escapes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65909044020654616312007-04-17T14:08:00.000-04:002007-04-17T14:08:00.000-04:00Well, as Einstein told us, if you spin fast enough...Well, as Einstein told us, if you spin fast enough, you drag the frame around with you.<BR/><BR/>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561391.stmHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14160386284578435612007-04-17T10:37:00.000-04:002007-04-17T10:37:00.000-04:00As we all know, for a scientist, the only thing mo...As we all know, for a scientist, the only thing more prestigious than the Nobel Prize is the Milloy Prize.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8353767965235956612007-04-16T21:01:00.000-04:002007-04-16T21:01:00.000-04:00Well, Eli and mice may not be fans, but Roger Piel...Well, Eli and mice may not be fans, but Roger Pielke Sr.'s article is getting picked up on junkscience.<BR/><BR/>http://www.junkscience.com/<BR/><BR/>Who would have ever imagined that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6012963587332691952007-04-15T19:46:00.000-04:002007-04-15T19:46:00.000-04:00"Roger promotes ocean heat content (measured in Jo..."Roger promotes ocean heat content (measured in Joules) as the best measure of global warming, but the database is so short, and the data as yet unreliable, so it is hard to see how this would advance our understanding of the climate, as things stand."<BR/><BR/>Yes, we clearly need ten more years of research on oceans before we can say anything about global warming.<BR/><BR/>By that time, of course, we will be on to a brand new argument in favor of some other type of data collection, based on the premise that "ocean heat content is meaningless, since as everyone (named John, at least) knows that 'not even the smallest drop of water is ever in local thermodynamic equilibrium and thus all water temperatures are meaningless' ". <BR/><BR/>Each time climate scientists discover something about the climate, it seems that the current data sets suddenly become suspect to some. <BR/><BR/>If physics were climate science, instead of building physics from the ground up, scientists would have thrown out data at each stage with the idea that it could not tell them anything useful. <BR/><BR/>Newton would have declined to develop his 3 laws, since he did not yet have data from String Theory (and alas, never would). <BR/><BR/>In other words, we'd still be back in the dark ages. (But hey, at least we'd have our strings to strum.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27706072029021286502007-04-15T16:16:00.000-04:002007-04-15T16:16:00.000-04:00Steve; as they are neighbours (more or less) in So...Steve; as they are neighbours (more or less) in Southampton, I'll give'em a buzz & see what they say.<BR/>Now, stop baiting The good Prof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25951898510562208172007-04-15T15:58:00.000-04:002007-04-15T15:58:00.000-04:00Fergus, from the timing it would appear that those...Fergus, from the timing it would appear that those results would have to be invalidated. OTOH a straightforward fix may be possible with the corrected ARGO data. Would you be willing to just email the lead author and ask, and then post the response? Such folks tend to be gratified that anybody outside a tiny circle of their colleagues cares about their work.<BR/><BR/>As for the use of ocean heat content as a substitute for surface temps, the several obvious flaws have been pointed out to Roger on many occasions. He seemed to see his responses mainly as an opportunity for enhancing his reputation for obtuseness. But for a little fun, try asking him, "So what's the ocean heat content today, Roger?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49070019930887692682007-04-15T10:33:00.000-04:002007-04-15T10:33:00.000-04:00Eli, thanks for this post. There is one other thin...Eli, thanks for this post. There is one other thing which should be emphasized.<BR/><BR/>We have about a century of land based temperatures, but we know very little about ocean temperature, even though that compries around 75% of the earth surface. Hopefully these new sensors will help clear some of that up, but it's going to take time before we have a reliable record.<BR/><BR/>Woods Hole took a basic body of one of these sensors and made it mobile. It's a pretty cool system which can cross large expanses of ocean.<BR/><BR/>http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=1758<BR/><BR/>Mus musculus anonymouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69347399641886680302007-04-15T07:22:00.000-04:002007-04-15T07:22:00.000-04:00I have drawn Roger's attention to this paper, also...I have drawn Roger's attention to this paper, also from GRL: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027691.shtml<BR/>I am left wondering though, whether the results reported here are also compromised by the findings of the Gouretski paper, or if they in fact can be matched with it.<BR/>When I post a reference to this paper on CS, nobody answers.<BR/><BR/>Roger promotes ocean heat content (measured in Joules) as the best measure of global warming, but the database is so short, and the data as yet unreliable, so it is hard to see how this would advance our understanding of the climate, as things stand.<BR/>Regards,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com