I'm a physicist and atmospheric scientist and currently teach in a university physics department and work for a commercial meteorology company. In previous jobs I've been a defense research scientist, an electrical engineer and a technical writer. You can email me at email@example.com
Which journal will he choose, Nature, Science, or Highlights for Children?3 AnswersGlobal Warming5 days ago
His first day in office, President Biden will rejoin the Paris Climate Accord & WHO, isn't it great to have a leader that respects science?
Under Trump it was like we were sliding back into the Dark Ages, rejecting science, believing in crazy mythology instead of facts. Now we have leadership that will understand that we can't deal with 21st century problems by ignoring them and wishing they'll go away--we have to tackle them with science and technology.6 AnswersGlobal Warming2 weeks ago
The troll keeps posting a plot made using National Interagency Fire Center data going back to 1926, even though the Fire Center says "...the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data." I made this plot just using data since 1983 it clearly shows the burned area increasing.5 AnswersGlobal Warming3 weeks ago
Did you know that global temperatures have risen about 0.5C since David Viner made his statement about future snow in the UK becoming rare?
That's just over the last 20 years, which translates to a rate of 2.5 C increase per 100 years. The animation on the follow website shows that the UK has already had decreased snowfall, and on the south and east coasts it is indeed becoming rare and unusual. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-431585325 AnswersGlobal Warming3 weeks ago
Doesn't the question about Covid that was taken from Wattsupwiththat prove that denial is purely political?
Neither the question nor the story at Wattsupwiththat have anything to do with global warming, but they do fit into right wing politics and its denial of science. Isn't the politics what really motivates deniers?3 AnswersGlobal Warming3 weeks ago
Snow has occurred every month of the year on Mauna Kea, so why do deniers make a big deal of October snow there?
The elevation at the summit is almost 14,000 feet, so I'm not sure why they're so surprised by snow there.7 AnswersGlobal Warming4 weeks ago
For 2020 so far, the U.S. has had about 80% more record highs than record lows, is this the new normal?
23,884 record highs versus 13,213 record lows. It was 84 degrees at my house today.4 AnswersGlobal Warming4 weeks ago
There have been questions recently claiming that there is a paper that states that some "ideal" temperature for life. Presumably they're talking about a temperature when life would be most likely to form on a planet. That has nothing whatsoever to do with our current climate and the problems that might arise from an increase in global temperature. Why is it so hard for deniers to grasp that our infrastructure (buildings, agriculture, etc.) was developed based on mid-20th century climate, and increasing the temperature from that can cause serious harm?? I'd love things to be a bit warmer myself, but should we really sacrifice New Orleans, Miami, Sacramento etc. for that? Should we take our existing agricultural infrastructure and shift it poleward? Should we spend money to build more water storage systems because we have less and less snow pack?
I really don't understand why deniers have such problems with relatively simple concepts, except that they refuse to think about anything except at a superficial level.7 AnswersGlobal Warming4 weeks ago
Did you hear that the Chief Scientist at NOAA was fired for sending out the organization's scientific integrity policy?
I guess Trump's new chief of staff at NOAA didn't like being asked to acknowledge the policy, which requires that scientists follow ethical standards. I guess being asked to be ethical was too constraining.2 AnswersGlobal Warming4 weeks ago
I wouldn't think so, but they keep making the false claim that people they disagree with are paid to post here by conservation organizations, so I was wondering if that's what makes them think that.13 AnswersGlobal Warming1 month ago
According to Solar Wind, "...the greenhouse theory is a theory that has been debunked," is this supported by ANY atmospheric scientist?
Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, etc., all believe in the greenhouse theory, so who has "debunked" it?5 AnswersGlobal Warming1 month ago
I don't want people to do this calculation here, although I recall it has been done here before. I'm curious as to whether the so-called "skeptics" (i.e. deniers) in here could do it. This is the most basic planetary climate calculation that you can do, so if you can't do it, then pretending that you have some sort of scientific expertise that justifies your rejection of AGW is baloney.4 AnswersGlobal Warming1 month ago
Is it because they know they'll lose? I'm blocked by all of the troll's dozens of accounts from answering his questions. He floods the forum with dozens of questions about Neapolitan ice cream because he doesn't want any legitimate dialogue in here. Of course, he's not the only one that's scared--my email is publicly available, but I've never received an email from any of the current deniers. I used to have lengthy exchanges with Kano through email, and early on with Koshka when she wanted more information on posts. The deniers these days are all scared of learning that what they claim is not really the truth, so they just try and shut down dialogue--that's one of the things that shows they're deniers, and not skeptics.5 AnswersGlobal Warming1 month ago
Sir Roger Penrose, new Nobel Laureate in Physics, accepts the science of global warming, so why do deniers doubt the physics?
About two years ago I had the great pleasure of dining with Roger Penrose, who is perhaps the greatest living theoretical physicist. I asked him what he thought of the controversy regarding global warming and he said that he didn't understand why there was any controversy, the effect is clearly real. You have to wonder why the deniers think they know more about physics than Nobel laureates. By the way, the name dropping here is intentional--I know it will just drive the troll crazy that I had dinner with Penrose--and it was much more enjoyable than the lunch I had with Fred Singer
First you need data, which requires a choice of what data to take, when to take it, what instruments to use, etc. Then you need to do quality checks on it, because in the real world there are almost spurious data points and if you don't eliminate those you may get nonsensical results. Then you analyze the data, which means you need to determine averages, standard deviations, correlations--all of those things are "data manipulation". I think data manipulation is a large part of what scientists do. In my dissertation I had one plot with more than 132,000 points on it--each of which was the result of a fairly laborious calculation, in other words, lots of manipulation. These days, I may download 50 GB worth of data to run a numerical weather prediction model that may take several days to run. Lots more manipulation, that's what scientists do.
Isn't claiming a "100% failure rate" for climate models kind of a tip-off that the person has no idea what they're talking about?
So what happened, did they predict the Earth's temperature and the Earth didn't have one? It's about as silly as giving an RMSE in predicting whether a team won or lost a game.
I posted this before and no evidence was presented, but it seems like it's being claimed again with reference to a new paper about polar bears. Although I haven't been obtain a copy of the full paper yet, I have looked at the abstract and I don't think it says anything about how many polar bears there are and whether that number is increasing or not. It does say "...under unmitigated climate change, continued sea‐ice loss is expected to eventually have negative demographic and ecological effects on all polar bears." So again I as, is there any peer-reviewed evidence that shows polar bear population is increasing?14 AnswersGlobal Warming2 months ago
In another question a science denier claims that typhoons are "down" based on data from the Japan Meteorological Agency. Presumably he bases this on what may be a trend line drawn through the data, although he doesn't say that. I took the data and fitted a trend line myself, and found the R-squared value on it to be only 0.02--in other words, the "trend" was meaningless.
Also, if you look at the actual data, you'll see that the recent values are in fact larger than the earliest values, and that six of the previous eight years have been above average. There appears to be no justification whatsoever for his claim that typhoons are "down."4 AnswersGlobal Warming2 months ago
Are the failure of the U.S. to deal with COVID and the rejection of climate change harbingers of the decline of American science?
As of today, over 200,000 Americans have died from COVID, while South Korea has had less than 400 deaths. In addition, the U.S. is the only major country in the world to reject the science of climate change. Even before the pandemic, far fewer foreign students were entering grad school in the United States, and now that's shut down almost completely. Is this the beginning of the end of U.S. dominance in science and technology, which has driven the economic engine of the country?7 AnswersGlobal Warming2 months ago