Science Not Settled

[Wild Cobra]

Most scientific reports are, of necessity, full of what you would call "weasel words" because there are not many certainties in science.

You are leaping to the unjustified conclusion that the author is using "significant" in the technical sense used in mathematics and experimental design.

 

 

I understand their are uncertainties. That's what science is about. My complaint is not the material using words like significant in all cases. It's when a word is used to imply things outside of reality. My complaint voiced here about the word significant is when people change the word to another one, or use a word that likely leads to a wrong impression. Stick with the facts. Don't inflate it by using a word that has a different definition. It's these habbits that are unethical, and warrants. Using such practices is unethical and the people intentionally doing so lose their integrity, or had none to begin with.

 

 

To me the context suggests otherwise.

When they say

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." they mean that those changes will matter to people.

 

 

Are you phychic? Do you know that's what they mean? If they did, why use "significant" which only means it can be seen or measured? Are you not open to the possibility that those writing that sentance purposely used it in that manner to sugest something that in reality is unlikely to matter? This is why I like to see complete context, not these parroted statements out of context.

 

I see I will have to search for the source. No thanks to you. You have the quotes, but don't link the source...

 

Consider this. What if significant disruptions are likely to occur anyway? That's a pretty broad leap to imply the difference is mans involvement since we know natural climate disruptions occur anyway. I will contend that it will be equally accurate to say:

 

significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.

 

 

Will you agree this statement is true anyway? Naturally? Without man's influence?

 

 

Of course, since you claim to know about the technical use of the word "significant", you would understand that where it's used in that sense, it should be accompanied by a statistical significance level (95% is popular) and there isn't one.

And it's not applicable to the case in point is it?

They haven't given a numerical value so they plainly are not talking maths or stats.

 

So, why have you precedented that they are?

 

Oh my God. I used that as an example to what the non math definition means in ways I assume most people use here. I did link the dictionary definition up, didn't I? Now if you have a special climatology definition for "significat" I'm all ears.

 

Maybe you should read the dictionary definition. Pick any dictionary of your choice.

 

Oxford say:

 

Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy:

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." -APS

(American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review; Workshop Framing Document; Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee1, December 20, 2013)

===

 

I hope you didn't give the wrong source intentionally. This is what you sourced:

 

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

 

It does not have that statement. That statement is found here:

 

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

 

If you read the whole, they clearly base this on greenhouse gasses being the major cause of warming. Too bad they are just appealing to the authority of others. I find this interesting, in regards to your quited sentance:

 

The first sentence in the third paragraph states that without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO₂-equivalent [1] concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100. These models have uncertainties associated with radiative response functions, especially clouds and water vapor. However, the models show that water vapor has a net positive feedback effect (in addition to CO₂ and other gases) on global temperatures. The impact of clouds is less certain because of their dual role as scatterers of incoming solar radiation and as greenhouse contributors. The uncertainty in the net effect of human activity on climate is reflected in the broad distribution of the predicted magnitude of the consequence of doubling of the CO₂-equivalent concentration. The uncertainty in the estimates from various climate models for doubling CO₂-equivalent concentration is in the range of 1°C to 3°C with the probability distributions having long tails out to much larger temperature changes.

 

 

In other words, just giving a statement based on the consensus view. How about some original material to base this on? How about mentioning natural changes of TSI of the sun?

 

LOL... models show water vapor has positive feedback...

 

Of course they do, that's how they are programmed!

 

 

"...increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years."

-National Research Council, 2011

===

 

Yep, in the book I downloaded. So?

[John Cuthber]

 

I understand their are uncertainties. That's what science is about. My complaint is not the material using words like significant in all cases. It's when a word is used to imply things outside of reality. My complaint voiced here about the word significant is when people change the word to another one, or use a word that likely leads to a wrong impression. Stick with the facts. Don't inflate it by using a word that has a different definition. It's these habbits that are unethical, and warrants. Using such practices is unethical and the people intentionally doing so lose their integrity, or had none to begin with.

 

 

 

Are you phychic? Do you know that's what they mean? If they did, why use "significant" which only means it can be seen or measured? Are you not open to the possibility that those writing that sentance purposely used it in that manner to sugest something that in reality is unlikely to matter? This is why I like to see complete context, not these parroted statements out of context.

 

I see I will have to search for the source. No thanks to you. You have the quotes, but don't link the source...

 

Consider this. What if significant disruptions are likely to occur anyway? That's a pretty broad leap to imply the difference is mans involvement since we know natural climate disruptions occur anyway. I will contend that it will be equally accurate to say:

 

 

Will you agree this statement is true anyway? Naturally? Without man's influence?

 

You seem to assume that their use of the word "significant" is the technical one- otherwise it wouldn't matter if it were replaced by some other word like "troublesome" or even "serious".

you said "My complaint voiced here about the word significant is when people change the word to another one, or use a word that likely leads to a wrong impression."

That change only matters if you think they are using the word "significant" in a sense other than the ordinary way- meaning "important".

 

No, I'm not psychic.

I explained why I think they are using it in the everyday sense.

Did you not read it, or didn't you understand it?

 

"Are you not open to the possibility that those writing that sentance purposely used it in that manner to sugest something that in reality is unlikely to matter?"

Well, it's certainly possible; but not when you look at the context.

Did you consider that the tone of the sentence is that they have calculated that there will be a difference which is both statistically significant and socially significant?

 

Here it is in context

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."

from here

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

(And, incidentally, it only took a few seconds to find it.)

That's not "weasel wording" it'as pretty clear. It's not talking about some technically statistically significant, but unimportant change is it?

 

And re.

"Consider this. What if significant disruptions are likely to occur anyway?"

Making it worse does not look like a good idea.

 

And, if you tell people to check dictionaries, you should do it yourself first.

you say

" why use "significant" which only means it can be seen or measured?"

And that's not the only thing it means

If you ask Google (one dictionary among many) it says

"significant

sɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/

adjective

1. 1.

   sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."

So did you consider the idea that when they said the effect on climate would be "significant", why have you ignored the idea that they simply meant that the effect was important?

Edited October 25, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Wild Cobra]

"significant

sɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/

adjective

1. 1.

   sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."

So did you consider the idea that when they said the effect on climate would be "significant", why have you ignored the idea that they simply meant that the effect was important?

 

I am not ignoring that. How do you come to such a conclusion? I well repeat.

 

"Significant" does not allow someone to change the intent to "mostly" or "largely."

 

Words have meaning. Does your definition automatically imply either mostly, or largely?

[iNow]

For a man who speaks so often of the logical fallacy, you sure seem to employ an awful lot f them yourself. Red herring now.

[Wild Cobra]

For a man who speaks so often of the logical fallacy, you sure seem to employ an awful lot f them yourself. Red herring now.

 

Are you refering to John or me?

 

I'm not the one trying to change a definition.

[John Cuthber]

 

I am not ignoring that. How do you come to such a conclusion? I well repeat.

 

 

 

Words have meaning. Does your definition automatically imply either mostly, or largely?

OK, here's the word in context

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."

Now I have said that you could replace the word with other word like "troublesome" or even "serious" and not change the meaning of the sentence.

 

Because the meaning stays pretty much the same, I'm clearly not trying to change the definition of words.

Also, I cited a definition- lets see what happens if we substitute that definition into the sentence in question.

 

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."

 

OK, it's clumsy English but the meaning (i.e. If we don't take mitigating actions we will have problems which are worthy of attention.) hasn't changed.

 

 

So your saying

""Significant" does not allow someone to change the intent to "mostly" or "largely.""

just doesn't make sense because nobody had said anything like that.

Nobody suggested they meant

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant "mostly" disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."

because it simply doesn't make sense.

 

It's one of those bizarre things that happened in your head, but not in real life; like the request to email us a library.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, here's the word in context

"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."

Now I have said that you could replace the word with other word like "troublesome" or even "serious" and not change the meaning of the sentence.

 

I disagree with that because "significant" wasn't necessarily meant as "serious." To substitute "serious" may go beyond what the author can account for, and in my opinion, becomes a lie. I believe if the author wanted to use a more pointed word, they would have. I believe anyone substituting a word that doesn't have the definitions suitable to the research results is guilty of disinformation, and integrity is lost.

 

 

 

So your saying

""Significant" does not allow someone to change the intent to "mostly" or "largely.""

just doesn't make sense because nobody had said anything like that.

 

There is an example I gave earlier that did exactly that. In post 112, iNow has a graphic with the bar graphs and uses "largely." This is a lie by the creator of that graph, which turns out to be a liberal activist site:

 

http://www.progressorcollapse.com/98-of-most-published-climate-scientists-argue-climate-change-is-man-made-but-who-cares-what-does-sarah-palin-say/

 

I pointed out that none of the source material can justify the word "largely," and one of the sources explicitly uses "significant."

 

I believed I also pointed out that NASA has a page using three sources and lies the same way with the 97% number by saying "mostly" instead of "significant."

 

Again, words have meaning. When you change the meaning of a conclusion, the conclusion is now unreliable and quite possible a lie. In these two cases, they are lies. I will again contend that anyone purposely manipulating the language of research paper results when referring to it is unethical, and not to be trusted.

 

As for the statement that actually uses "significant," I am only pointing out the it doesn't automatically mean anything more than what "significant" can be at its lowest threshold.

 

Now that I think about it, my choice of words could have been much better. I often struggle myself with using the best words for something. One reason why I no longer do rapid research and development is because of my inability to write well. It often takes me several attempts to write good material. The other, is the corporation I used to work for relocated, and I wanted to stay in Portland.

 

Please, words have meaning. Don't read into anything they mean more or less than their actual definitions.

[John Cuthber]

 

I disagree with that because "significant" wasn't necessarily meant as "serious."

 

In the context of

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. "

yoiu don't think they mean the changes are serious when they say "significant.

 

OK the costs of reducing ghg emission are not trivial.

Why do you think they say we must reduce them if the consequences of not doing so are not "serious"?

 

Why .

[Wild Cobra]

In the context of

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. "

yoiu don't think they mean the changes are serious when they say "significant.

 

OK the costs of reducing ghg emission are not trivial.

Why do you think they say we must reduce them if the consequences of not doing so are not "serious"?

 

Why .

 

I don't know if they mean serious or not. The way the statement uses weasel words, for all I know, they accept significant changes even if we mitigate AGW 100%. I don’t try to assume a biased conclusion to their statement as most people do.

 

Don’t you see, that’s my point about this statement. It cannot be wrong by the pure meaning of the words, but it implies that global warming will cause problems. Then you have those dead set that AGW is the primary cause, deniers of the possibility the outlier 5% or less might be the truth. I do not deny that the <5% might be right, like most of you here obviously do.

 

That statement is too open for interpretations, and it is reason why I deplore the people who write such things. Why can’t they write the material in a strait manner without the built in ambiguity? I know science is uncertain, but then that ambiguity needs to be made as such. Not in a manner that suggests one point within that ambiguity.

 

 

 

 

OK the costs of reducing ghg emission are not trivial.

Why do you think they say we must reduce them if the consequences of not doing so are not "serious"?

 

Why .

 

 

Hmm...

 

Did they say greenhouse gasses must be mitigated? Do we really know in the limited context seen? Did they quantify how much mitigation?

 

See what I mean about assuming things out of the ambiguity? What if they didn't mean the consensus view in this case? What if they meant soot, land use changes, or something else? Are greenhouse gasses the only forcing changes due to man?

 

Why do I think they said it? If I answer you, won't I be chastised for not sourcing my reason?

 

Personally, I think they do mean primarily greenhouse gas emissions, don't limit it to that, and I think they are appealing to authority. The authority of the IPCC. The consensus of hundreds of organizations is real. However, if you ever read their reasons, it comes down to this. Nearly all of them are appealing to the authority of the IPCC. They in effect, become nothing but one big echo chamber.

 

Have you ever taken a list of scientific organizations within the consensus and actually read their statements regarding global warming? In almost every case, they base their reasons on the IPCC assessment reports.

 

So... My final answer...

 

I think they say we need to mitigate warming because that's what the authority says that they listen to. That's my answer.

 

As for the "if not serious" part? I can only guess. I can come up with several reasons but I'm not a mind reader. I think, more than anything else, they will not seem reputable by the consensus if they don't at least appear to support the consensus. What they really believe, I don't know, but maybe that’s why their statement is so ambiguous.

[iNow]

And still wheels continue to spin over semantics when the core point is that human contributions of greenhouse gases remain the primary driver of the currently accelerating warming trend.

[John Cuthber]

I often find myself wondering why people defend the position against the evidence for AGW.

The analogy (and I have used it before so I apologise for repeating myself) seems to be

We know that there were 3 blankets on the bed.

We know that we put another one on.

We know that it's warmer

 

We don't believe that there's a causal relation between our adding a 4th blanket, and the rise in temperature.

[Wild Cobra]

And still wheels continue to spin over semantics when the core point is that human contributions of greenhouse gases remain the primary driver of the currently accelerating warming trend.

 

 

Can you prove that beyond douubt?

 

If so, please do!

 

If the science was settled, there would now be a newer paper saying the sensitivity of CO2 was about 0.43 degrees.

 

[swansont]

If the science was settled, there would now be a newer paper saying the sensitivity of CO2 was about 0.43 degrees.

 

The answer is almost certainly "yes".

 

There's plenty of settled science in other disciplines, and we still see new results, and some of them are wrong. Why would climate science be any different?

[Wild Cobra]

 

 

If the science was settled, there would now be a newer paper saying the sensitivity of CO2 was about 0.43 degrees.

 

 

This should have read:

 

If the science was settled, there would not be a newer paper saying the sensitivity of CO2 was about 0.43 degrees.

[swansont]

 

This should have read:

 

If the science was settled, there would not be a newer paper saying the sensitivity of CO2 was about 0.43 degrees.

 

Then my answer is no, you're wrong, with the same explanation I gave above. (I had assumed it was a question rather than a statement. Same effect)

 

The paradigm of people criticizing climate science seems to rely on an idea of climate science somehow behaving fairly differently than other science, but with no explanation of why this would be so.

[Wild Cobra]

 

Then my answer is no, you're wrong, with the same explanation I gave above. (I had assumed it was a question rather than a statement. Same effect)

 

The paradigm of people criticizing climate science seems to rely on an idea of climate science somehow behaving fairly differently than other science, but with no explanation of why this would be so.

 

I disagree that the climate sciences are being treated like other fields of science. I have expressed why several times already. Just look at how people are attacking the credibility of anyone who disagrees with consensus.

 

Have you read the paper claiming the 0.43 degree sensitivity, or are you just blowing it off because of the dismissals like "it's a vanity publication."

[swansont]

I disagree that the climate sciences are being treated like other fields of science. I have expressed why several times already. Just look at how people are attacking the credibility of anyone who disagrees with consensus.

 

Either you misread what I wrote or omitted a negation in your post, because I agree — they are not being treated as scientists are elsewhere, with one exception. A different standard is being applied to the majority of climate scientists. Even you are doing this, by attaching "alarmists" to many of your posts — poisoning the well. I don't see that sort of behavior in normal discussions about science that has a consensus in e.g. physics. Anti-relativity folks generally don't attack people who say E=mc^2 as being alarmist (though maybe Conservapedia does this. They're a wacky bunch.)

 

I'm familiar with the whole evolution/creation debate from some involvement several years ago. This has a very similar air to it. The same argument tactics (which I am not the only one to note), the same general level of understanding of the material that is being critiqued, the same hypocrisy of distrusting scientists in this one area while trusting them in other areas, right down to death threats and intimidation tactics. The one difference is the motivation; I can't identify the ideology of those who are obviously driven by ideology, while for creationism it's obvious.

 

I also deal with people, including on this site, who disagree with science that has smaller error bars, such as quantum mechanics and relativity. These folks are generally not ideology-driven in any obvious way, but similar issues arise. You have to point out that they have cited other crackpots in support of their thesis in those cases, too. What this says to me is that you may not have looked around very much to see what's going on on the fringe in other sciences if you think the mainstream scientists are being treated the same elsewhere but the dissenters are not.

 

One thing that is different is that outside of crackpottery I haven't seen a lot of non-physicists standing up to say mainstream physics is wrong. But we see this when an ideology is in play — we see lists of scientists who support creationism (countered by project Steve, mentioned in the link) even though many of them are not biologists. (Also mentioned is that such lists are just argumentum ad populum and argument from authority), and we see similar efforts from the anti-AGW crowd.

 

Have you read the paper claiming the 0.43 degree sensitivity, or are you just blowing it off because of the dismissals like "it's a vanity publication."

 

I looked at what actual subject matter experts had to say (one should note that the author was not one of these), and they pointed out many flaws. Which kinda explains why it was published where it was

[Wild Cobra]

 

Either you misread what I wrote or omitted a negation in your post, because I agree — they are not being treated as scientists are elsewhere, with one exception. A different standard is being applied to the majority of climate scientists.

 

I am not directing this comment at you. You at least asked for elaboration of the graph I made. You are probably the most intelligent of those I dealt with so far in this forum. There are those who only accuse and don't ask for clarification. That said, you have infuriated me in not accepting my clarification dealing with the 2 degrees, and the word "significant."

 

I'm speaking in general, of others here. Those who always find some attack angle against us labeled as skeptics or deniers, and the sources we use. Isn’t discussion better than blowing something off for an unrelated reason? Am I wrong to call such reasons a logical fallacy?

 

 

Even you are doing this, by attaching "alarmists" to many of your posts — poisoning the well. I don't see that sort of behavior in normal discussions about science that has a consensus in e.g. physics. Anti-relativity folks generally don't attack people who say E=mc^2 as being alarmist (though maybe Conservapedia does this. They're a wacky bunch.)

 

 

OK, the poisoning the well idea I didn't consider on my part. It is a derogatory term I will try to lose in this forum. Am I wrong to say that the wording most climate authors are using could be less ambiguous?

 

I feel alarmist is a correct term to apply to many of these authors when they use so many weasel words in papers.

 

This forum has stricter rules than the others I have participated in. This is a good think in many ways, and I will try to do better.

 

 

 

I'm familiar with the whole evolution/creation debate from some involvement several years ago. This has a very similar air to it. The same argument tactics (which I am not the only one to note), the same general level of understanding of the material that is being critiqued, the same hypocrisy of distrusting scientists in this one area while trusting them in other areas, right down to death threats and intimidation tactics. The one difference is the motivation; I can't identify the ideology of those who are obviously driven by ideology, while for creationism it's obvious.

 

I have my own opinions on the evolution debate, but I disagree with this being similar, and will not address them here. I disagree because we have better sciences to deal with the climate science, and nobody outside of joking is claiming a higher intelligence is in play.

 

 

 

I also deal with people, including on this site, who disagree with science that has smaller error bars, such as quantum mechanics and relativity. These folks are generally not ideology-driven in any obvious way, but similar issues arise. You have to point out that they have cited other crackpots in support of their thesis in those cases, too. What this says to me is that you may not have looked around very much to see what's going on on the fringe in other sciences if you think the mainstream scientists are being treated the same elsewhere but the dissenters are not.

 

I am at a loss as to that graph you pointed out as not being in Gore’s movie. I do my best not to use anything from someone who can be claimed to be a crackpot. When others cite Watts, or any other blog, I search for the source material and make my own conclusions. I agree there are several people I come across who are no better at bringing good information to the table as so many of those I disagree with.

 

I do see the fringe, and every now and then I point out to someone who agrees with my views, that they presented poor information. I just figure that with all the others debating against someone I agree with, that I will only do so in the more blatant instances of poor sourcing.

 

 

One thing that is different is that outside of crackpottery I haven't seen a lot of non-physicists standing up to say mainstream physics is wrong. But we see this when an ideology is in play — we see lists of scientists who support creationism (countered by project Steve, mentioned in the link) even though many of them are not biologists. (Also mentioned is that such lists are just argumentum ad populum and argument from authority), and we see similar efforts from the anti-AGW crowd.

 

 

I agree it should at least raise eyebrows when someone who has no credentials in a field, criticizes it. However, like that 50 page paper I linked being dismissed as a “vanity” publication, this is being dismissed also because he isn’t a climatologist. He does however have credentials better than all but a few climatologists when it comes to analyzing particle physics, which greenhouse gasses act under.

 

How many climatologists do you think fully understand what he brings to the table?

 

 

I looked at what actual subject matter experts had to say (one should note that the author was not one of these), and they pointed out many flaws. Which kinda explains why it was published where it was

 

Were they particle physics experts?

 

One of the criticisms I found was it was a simple two layer model. What is it when one layer has over 200 sub layers? Is it still just a simple 2 layer model? Another was he didn’t follow the right formula, but what he did was add more variables to the formula. I see these as rather stupid reasons to claim the paper invalid.

 

As for publishing it like he did, are you considering all possibilities, or just jumping to one conclusion?

 

What if he didn’t want it behind a paywall?

 

What if Nature, or the likes, with their selection process would never entertain a paper that defies consensus? Maybe he tried that angle first?

 

Was his paper a year earlier done at a vanity publisher? I assume you will say yes. However, look at his past works too:

 

http://www.hindawi.com/16572439/

 

Have you ever read the selection process Nature uses? I assume other climate oriented publications are similar. When you read between the lines, they in effect publish papers that their subscribers are willing to pay for. I can find the link if you like, but for now I’m not taking that time. Just ask if you want me to find it, or go to Nature yourself and look for it.

 

That said, I do have a paid subscription to Nature Climate Change, so none of those articles are paywalled to me.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html

 

[swansont]

He does however have credentials better than all but a few climatologists when it comes to analyzing particle physics, which greenhouse gasses act under.

 

No, they do not. Particle physics deals with, well, particles, and what you can find out by smashing them together, usually at high energy in accelerators (MeV or GeV, whereas room temperature is below 0.1 eV). Very little overlap with the processes that greenhouse gases undergo. But in looking at his papers, he's not a particle physicist. The paper lists him as "Experimental Physics and Materials Science"; the former doesn't distinguish a particular discipline, but it tells you he's an experimentalist, not a theorist. Materials science is not particle physics.

 

So no, I did not look to particle physicists as subject matter experts on climate models, because they aren't.

 

(BTW, he's listed under "ehemalige" — which translates as "former" — at H-S U)

 

 

Several of your responses seem to be to matters other than what you quoted. I don't know what to make of that.

[Wild Cobra]

---oops---

Edited October 28, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[swansont]

Would you say he understands the part of particle physics better than the average climatologist that deals with specta?

 

He's not a particle physicist. I can't offer an intelligent response as to how much of an irrelevant part of physics that he actually knows.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "atomic and laser physics" a branch of particle physics?

 

Here is his bio:

 

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1724-7451

 

I have a difficulty with German, but there were several links at the university he studied at when I searched 'atomic and laser physics'

 

Another university link has this about that course with that title:

 

 

PHY332 covers the quantum theory of simple atoms and atomic spectra, and also the basic principles of lasers. The first part of the course covers the physics of atoms and atomic spectra, beginning with hydrogen and then moving on to multi-electron atoms. The second part gives an introduction to laser physics, with emphasis on the basic principles of amplification by stimulated emission.

 

http://www.mark-fox.staff.shef.ac.uk/PHY332/

 

 

Oxford says this about that title:

 

We research the interaction of light and matter over an enormous range of conditions, from high-energy plasmas created by the most powerful lasers in the world, to the coherent manipulation of single quantum particles for implementing quantum information processing, to the creation of exotic states of quantum matter such as Bose-Einstein condensation.

 

http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/research/atomic-and-laser-physics

 

It is obvious to me that his field of study is far more in depth for leaning spectral interactions with molecules than what is required to get a degree in climatology. Ever look at those courses?

[iNow]

Gosh. If only spectral interactions were the sole line of study underlying our understanding of the climate and current warming trend.

[Essay]

It is obvious to me that his field of study is far more in depth for leaning spectral interactions with molecules than what is required to get a degree in climatology.

 

By that logic, it should be obvious that a specialist in brain surgery would be "far more" qualified to treat any metabolic disorder you might have.

 

Climatology is a multidisciplinary study, which is why the online courses to get a certificate in climate science are fairly general.

Do you actually know of any "degree in climatology" offered by an accredited university?

 

~

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, but a brain surgeon doesn't specialize in the underlying medicine of metabolic functions. The physics specific to how photons interact with matter is the science behind greenhouse gasses.

 

I'm going to leave it at that. I am resigned to leaving it to agree to disagree.