![]() | ||
2011-03-13 07:43:54 | Jo Nova attacks Dana's climate sensitivity advanced rebuttal | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.187.101.78 |
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/unskeptical-science-uses-unitless-fudge-factors/ This “Skeptical Science” post is an excellent choice to show how little credibility there is in the whole feedback house of cards:
So sensitivity is all the same regardless of the forcing, but at the same time, it might be different thanks to an “efficacy” which means whatever you want it to mean, in order for everything to have the same sensitivity. Hmmmm, right I think I’ve got it. So what are the units of “efficacy”? Oh, it doesn’t have any units, it is unitless because all factors are scaled relative to CO2 forcing… except we have some of those forcings being solar radiation, others being a gas, and others as particulate matter. What sort of unitless scaling factor can relate particulate counts to solar radiation? Why, CO2 of course! Is that the LOG of CO2 vs the LOG of solar radiation (presumably giving an answer in decibels)? Maybe it is the small signal gain based on the first derivative about some arbitrary operating point? Who knows, who cares, just blurt some numbers on the table, no one is about to check any of this.
Unless you happen to argue for different “efficacy” factors, in which case you get any result you feel like getting.
So some forcings are more equal than others, makes sense. Solidarnosk comrade, we will outlast them.
Well, the easiest way to explain it would be that the system is nonlinear so there’s no reason to presume sensitivity is the same as it was during the last glaciation. But with all of these excellent “efficacy” fudge factors (all of which probably are also nonlinear) we could comfortably explain anything at all. Really. So let’s go over those units again People write learned papers about this $#!+ such as the following:
You heard it, “per unit of forcing”. Under the IPCC system of units, forcing is a fundamental unit and well established property of all matter (a bit like mass, but only special people can measure it). The units of forcing are CO2’s. By gum, what I can’t understand is why I ever sat through high school science. | |
2011-03-13 07:45:13 | BTW, I'm not saying we respond to this | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.187.101.78 |
I think we've given Jo Nova more than her fair share of attention (my mistake, I admit it). Just posting FYI. | |
2011-03-13 07:54:30 | LOL | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.107.233 |
What's there to even respond to? That was just a pointless ignorant rant. I like the end though - I'm not sure she did sit through high school science class! | |
2011-03-13 08:02:04 | ||
Glenn Tamblyn glenn@thefoodgallery.com... 121.220.78.166 |
But it does suggest Jo is keeping an eye on what we are doing here. Maybe she is running out of fodder otherwise. | |
2011-03-13 09:38:38 | ||
Alex C coultera@umich... 67.149.101.148 |
I answered a question about this in Yahoo Answers - moniker "A Modest Proposal." Actually kind of curious on if I approached this topic right. Yes/No? | |
2011-03-13 09:41:54 | ||
Albatross Julian Brimelow stomatalaperture@gmail... 199.126.232.206 |
She might have sat though science class (not that they would have covered this then anyhow), but she sure was not paying attention! Good grief, the ignorance and idiocy!
| |
2011-03-13 10:56:45 | YA | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.107.233 |
Yes your answer was good, Alex/AMP. This is the first time in ages that a "skeptic" has asked a science-related question, and this is what they choose to go with? No doubt because Ottawa Mike saw that it was an attack on me/SkS. But it's just so stunningly dumb, nothing more than an ignorant rant (efficacy is unitless? gasp!), I'm surprised anyone bothered to pay attention to it. If it hadn't been a "response" to SkS, it would have just been ignored. I thought Motl's "response" to my "how we know recent warming isn't natural" post was bad, but Jo Nova just made Motl look like Einstein. | |
2011-03-13 18:12:20 | In defence of Jo Nova | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 124.187.101.78 |
She didn't actually post that critique of Dana's article, it's a guest post, so perhaps its not fair to criticise for her it. She just posted it on her website... and gave it a glowing endorsement at the top of the post... uh... okay, as you were! | |
2011-03-13 20:19:35 | ||
nealjking nealjking@gmail... 84.151.39.178 |
Isn't the point of posting to generate discussion? | |
2011-03-14 04:51:19 | defense | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 69.230.107.233 |
Yeah it wasn't Jo Nova's comments, but she did give it a glowing endorsement, as you noted John. | |
2011-03-14 07:26:16 | ||
Glenn Tamblyn glenn@thefoodgallery.com... 138.217.147.58 |
At JoNova it isn't discussion. |