| General > General Technical Chat |
| Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"? |
| << < (30/39) > >> |
| tomato:
--- Quote from: rhb on February 11, 2019, 04:43:52 am --- Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid? --- End quote --- Of course not. Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant. It isn't their field. |
| rhb:
--- Quote from: tomato on February 11, 2019, 05:24:17 am --- --- Quote from: rhb on February 11, 2019, 04:43:52 am --- Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid? --- End quote --- Of course not. Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant. It isn't their field. --- End quote --- Excuse me, but geology deals with the earth in its totality. A major portion of that is 4.2 billion years of history. Climatology is just a small fraction of that. And there is also the issue that all of the climatology data constitute less than 1 ppm of the earth's climate history. "Climatology" is just a scam invented by a bunch of failed meteorologists who got their PhD because their supervisor wanted to get rid of them. I don't think the field even existed when I got my geology MS in 1982. I have an acquaintance of many years who got his PhD in meteorology. He went to work for the British weather service. He found a major bug in their weather prediction software. He fixed it and went home thinking that the weather forecasts would dramatically improve. It had *no* effect. The last time we chatted about the subject (there are many more interesting topics, so I'm not sure how this drudgery came up) he made the observation that the thermal dynamics of the oceans are largely unknown. The thermal capacity of water is *much* larger than air. And until recently, the climate models assumed a constant ocean temperature. Recently there was a paper by some oceanographers who had detected the cooling effect of the little ice age in the ocean bottom currents, some of which have circulation times of a million years. I think we can reasonably expect that other workers will follow their methods and develop better models of the earth's temperature over time. There are over 30 major changes in sea level on the order of 1000 ft. Where do you think all that water went? It's pretty simple. It turned into immense glaciers which then melted. Except for the last one or two humans did not even exist. Much less alter the CO2 and CH4 content of the atmosphere, So would you state the voltage of a reference from a single microsecond of data? If so, I certainly don't want you doing my metrology or anything else. I don't comment on subjects of which I am ignorant. Perhaps you should consider doing the same. |
| Simon:
There is no denying that the climate is warming and there is no denying that the energy sources we use can contribute end of! |
| Simon:
--- Quote from: rhb on February 11, 2019, 07:34:48 am --- The last time we chatted about the subject (there are many more interesting topics, so I'm not sure how this drudgery came up) he made the observation that the thermal dynamics of the oceans are largely unknown. The thermal capacity of water is *much* larger than air. And until recently, the climate models assumed a constant ocean temperature. --- End quote --- So you have just contradicted yourself by admitting that global warming may be worse than we think because the oceans are soaking the energy up, yea you bet water holds more heat than air: 1'000 Kg/m^3 versus 1Kg/m^3 (at sea level) fancy making a mistake of 3 orders of magnitude..... |
| tomato:
--- Quote from: rhb on February 11, 2019, 07:34:48 am --- --- Quote from: tomato on February 11, 2019, 05:24:17 am --- --- Quote from: rhb on February 11, 2019, 04:43:52 am --- Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid? --- End quote --- Of course not. Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant. It isn't their field. --- End quote --- Excuse me, but geology deals with the earth in its totality. A major portion of that is 4.2 billion years of history. Climatology is just a small fraction of that. And there is also the issue that all of the climatology data constitute less than 1 ppm of the earth's climate history. --- End quote --- By that muddled reasoning, cosmology is better suited to deal with climate change since it deals with the universe as a whole, and the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. --- Quote --- "Climatology" is just a scam invented by a bunch of failed meteorologists who got their PhD because their supervisor wanted to get rid of them. I don't think the field even existed when I got my geology MS in 1982. --- End quote --- Preposterous. Climatology dates back to the late 19th century. --- Quote ---I have an acquaintance of many years who got his PhD in meteorology. He went to work for the British weather service. He found a major bug in their weather prediction software. He fixed it and went home thinking that the weather forecasts would dramatically improve. It had *no* effect. --- End quote --- Meteorology is not not the same as climatology. --- Quote ---I don't comment on subjects of which I am ignorant. Perhaps you should consider doing the same. --- End quote --- You often resort to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you. It doesn't strengthen your argument. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |