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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Is the denial troll attempting to use the fascist strategy of shutting down any alternative viewpoint?
When the troll sees any legitimate question, he launches into asking dozens of irrelevant questions about Neapolitan ice cream and other nonsensical subjects to bury the question, then he uses his dozens of accounts to report the question he wants to go away. Wouldn't you think if he had any factual basis for his views he would simply respond to the question, rather than trying to censor it?5 AnswersGlobal Warming2 hours 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.6 AnswersGlobal Warming2 days 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 Warming2 days 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 days 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 days 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 Warming2 weeks 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 Warming2 weeks 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 Warming2 weeks 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 Warming2 weeks 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 Singer5 AnswersGlobal Warming3 weeks ago
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 Warming1 month 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 Warming1 month 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 Warming1 month ago
Just watch the trailers that the troll is recommending and you'll see what I mean. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hats!!
In her editorial "Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling", why does Zharkova neglect the albedo and greenhouse gases?
In August 2020 Taylor and Francis Online, Valentina Zharkova predicts that "...the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0°C from the current temperature", but in her analysis, she completely ignores the competing effect of increased radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. Zharkova claims that the Maunder Minimum had about 3 watts per square meter TSI less than today, but other groups that reconstruct TSI find less than half that. Zharkova also neglects to average the TSI over the Earth's spherical, and she neglects to take into account the albedo of the Earth. If you consider both of those things, then the drop in TSI with the GSM would be less than the increased forcing from greenhouse gases. If Zharkova's reconstructed TSI is wrong and the other group's correct, then greenhouse gas forcing would completely swamp any negative forcing from TSI decrease. Why does she attempt to predict temperature while completely ignoring these effects?9 AnswersGlobal Warming1 month ago
Elite Eastern Conservatives like to blame western wildfires on "forest management", do they know that many fires aren't even in forests?
As described in the article "Lessons from the October 2003. Wildfires in Southern California", published in the Journal of Forestry, many of the large fires in California are not in forests at all, so blaming the fires on "poor forest management" shows a real lack of understanding of what's going on. The article also shows that even when fuel management is used by creating fire breaks, those breaks are often ineffective at stopping the fires. Neither do recently burned areas stop the fires. In other words, those very things that these Eastern Conservatives recommend are useless in many cases. Do these elite eastern conservatives prattle on about forest management as a way of avoiding talking about climate change as a contributing factor?4 AnswersGlobal Warming1 month ago
We're already up to Beta, which didn't occur until over one month later in the record season, 2005.2 AnswersGlobal Warming1 month ago