Friday, October 26, 2007

The loons take flight



The loons: So how shall we know them?





Generally, their comments are of 3 types

of which the first is

Attacks on established theories, based on distaste


This fits well into Siegel's 16th point

then they attack it because:
Climatologic radiation balance diagrams are nonsense, since they

and Eli's favorite

and then saying that





Marion Delgado said...

if THEY'RE the nuts, why did *I* start ranting out loud when i read that greenhouse paper? Riddle me that, Dr. Science?

Magnus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Magnus said...

Hank Roberts said...

That's a very nice picture of a loon on takeoff run (can we have a pointer to a higher resolution image)?

EliRabett said...

I got that low res picture at Environment Canada. You might ask them if you can get a high res version. As you might expect tho, the birders have taken over the net so there is lots of other stuff including a video clip of one taking wing.

Mike Powell said...

Excellent post. I read through the G&T paper over the past week and kept getting the feeling that this just had to be a practical joke a la Alan Sokal in Social Text. :)

p.s. in the 4th to last paragraph, should it be, "sensible heat (thermal drafts) and latent heat..."?

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

Emptying the ocean of stupidity can be a Sisyphean task. Be to use a large spoon.

Cthulhu said...

This brings back memories of the reams of "crank" I was subjected to early last month on the internet forum circuit when some skeptic found this "greenhouse falsification" paper

I suspect internet skeptics have added this paper to their Catalogue of Nonsense To Randomly Raise. Probably between the Beck paper and the "Closer look at the numbers" website. I expect to see it many times in the future.

What I was amazed about was how the mere existance of the paper seemed to embolden a number of skeptics, with no previous argument against the greenhouse effect, to believe it was now acceptable to argue against even that.

EliRabett said...

Which is why it is important to have sources you can point to that show it to be a "ream of crank". It reduces the whole thing to a Monty Python sketch.

Anonymous said...

OK, so I looked at the paper. Which leaves me with the question: How does one get to be a professor of mathematical physics at a German University?


EliRabett said...

Thanks mike. I corrected that. This was posted way too early in the morning.

Chris said...

I remember having a squiz at this when it first came out. The first chapter started making some bizarre remarks about the thermal conduction of gaseous CO2 (the whole greenhouse effect is based on radative transfer people!!!), with liberal use of the diffusion equation to show the kids that "hey! we know some maths!!!". I also remember at some point they made the statement "the physicist his analysis of the problem..." as though no physicists have studied the atmosphere before.

It was at this point I realised that was not even a genuine attempt at science, and promptly ignored it. Life is too short, although I don't have a toilet to dote on myself.

Anonymous said...

I'm more amazed that those who attack those who attack, don't check to see if there is legitamacy with what is being said. Einstein wrong is a good example. There is growing evidence for this subject so much so that there is a serious documentary coming out on the subject in 2008 world-wide. The documentary is Einstein Wrong and has some pretty damning arguments in it.

guthrie said...

ANoymous 8:25- Einstein was and still is amazingly more accurate than any other model of physics we have. THis does not mean that he was completely wrong. If you know anything, you'll know that Newtonian mechanics is correct within a restricted set of circumstances, and is a subset of Einsteinian physics still.

Marion Delgado said...

anonymous 8:25 pull yourself out of your daze and pay a little polite attention to the numerous patient explanations of why crank stuff is crank stuff. it's not arbitrary.

Marion Delgado said...

whoops, I spoke too soon. Sorry, Eli. I asked the hydrinos and they said Einstein was indeed wrong. I am as shocked as anyone.

Anonymous said...

The documentary is Einstein Wrong and has some pretty damning arguments in it."

Some of us wish we were even 1/100th as wrong as Einstein!

stevesadlov said...

Clearly a sensitive topic. I wonder why?

John Mashey said...

1) Is there a way to get rid of "Anonymous"? Pseudonyms don't bother me, but having multiple anonymice arguing with each other...

2) Einstein was *definitely* wrong...

IF your definition of "wrong" means:

"Is NOT the complete, unchanging description of all truth in this domain, written in stone, and thus obviating the need to do any better."

Clearly, since relativity doesn't do quantum mechanics, it must be "wrong."

By that definition, Einstein spent a lot of his life looking for something "less wrong".

Meanwhile, in the real world, GPS still works. Maybe, after this movie comes out (if it does, who knows, maybe GPS will stop, beging proved "wrong". :-)

But maybe not: given this is a loonie thread (and I am I glad to have invested money in Canada a while ago!), for a nice selection of loons, all in once place, specifically against Einstein, but sometimes disproving Galileo, too.

(Seriously, www, is a terrific, well-organized site, lacking only a global warming section.... oh, I take it back, they point at "world jump day", in which people jumping together would change the Earth's orbit to lessen global warming.")

EliRabett said...

We can get rid of Anonymous, but that (at least in Blogger) requires that people cannot post without registering. I've placed a pretty pleas note on the comment form which may help. . . . . .

Dear Anonymous,


The management.

Hank Roberts said...

Or a different audio file for each of them? Love the loon ...

Dano said...

I miss the loon.


EliRabett said...

Birders, Rabett Run has attracted birders, what can you say.

Anonymous said...

Eli Rabett -

I am one of the authors of the paper (RDT) you are distorting in your blog. If you were comfortable with disclosing your full identity please contact me per E-Mail. Then we can discuss things in detail.

- Ralf

EliRabett said...

Other than the fact that I am not distorting the paper (which anyone can read at Arxiv), I can be reached at Eli Rabett 2003 (take out the spaces) and the server is yahoo. Sorry for not spelling it out but the spam harvesters are getting more and more clever.

John said...

Actualy thought there were some very good points in the paper ..
1) the fact that this was the closest thing I have seen to a basic mathematical desription of the supposed concept of radiative transfer by gases. It is beyond me how the whole AGW theory rests on a concept that doubling(less than 0.03%) of CO2 to the atmosphere can add 3 degrees K to the surface T. This equates to 3.7W/m2 which somehow comes from these CO2 molecules. Do you have any idea how much energy is needed to raise the T by 3K ? Its the same as moving 1 million km closer to the sun ! All these guys are saying is that what is completely missing is a basic mathematical description of how this can happen.
Where is it ?

2) If you read their summary, a key point is about behaviours - reading your blog - both your statements and the vitriol from some of the posted remarks I am just amazed. How have you all become like this ? If this whole AGW is so obvious you would never need to respond with such antipathy.

Mark said...

I'm here on research detail from a battle in the wingnutiverse. Well John, we are amazed at the level some people will go to disprove the obvious! We may have a new acronym: KOO. Keen obliviousness of the obvious!

S_A_Wells said...

@"John": the energy does not "somehow come from the CO2 molecules". It comes from the Sun. If that's your level of misunderstanding, no wonder you have trouble seeing the paper for the dreck it is.

If you barge into a maths class and insist that 2+2=5, people will eventually get quite annoyed with you. This is not evidence that anyone doubts that 2+2=4. If you barge into physics making silly claims about thermodynamics, people will get quite annoyed with you. This is not evidence that anyone has doubts about thermodynamics.