tisdag 9 augusti 2011

Why Judy Curry Says Nothing

On Jan 31 2011 Judy Curry on her blog Climate Etc. opened to debate with a post entitled Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon with the words:
  • I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless.
  • One of the authors, Claes Johnson expects a serious critique from the climate community.
  • I agreed to host a discussion on Johnson’s chapters at Climate Etc.
After 6 months of debate and more than 2000 comments, I made a sum up and asked Judy to do the same.

But Judy is not eager to do that. Judy stays silent and instead lets the debate or assualt on my work continue for ever with the help of an aggressive mob without scientific credentials.

The following questions present themselves:
  • Why does not Judy want to say anything?
  • Why does not Judy dare to criticize my work, if it should be criticized?
  • Why does Judy allow the mob to continue the assault without ever ending the debate?
  • If Judy knows more than the mob, why does she not express that?
So Judy, isn't it time for you to say something, and not just let other speak for you? Do you have anything to say about my work or not?

Judy answers reminding about her own contribution to the criticism of my work:
  • I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters.
  • As Monckton put it: “I do not propose to contribute further to this . . .: it is not a sensible deployment of my time.”
Again Judy lets other speak for herself, as if she knows less than undergraduate students.
Why Judy don't you let the undergraduate students take over your blog? If you have nothing to say?

10 kommentarer:

  1. Because you have nothing to say...

  2. In any case I am not silent. What we now talk about is why Judy says nothing.

  3. Claes, here's a hint.

    If you want to have a rational discussion in public, you have to either quote the other side precisely, or ensure that however you paraphrase their point *is agreed upon by the other side*. If your starting point is a paraphrase that is nonsense in itself, you're not going to get anybody to take your arguments seriously.

  4. Claes,

    At some point, people need to decide it is no longer worth one's time to argue with others who cannot listen or be educated. There are a lot of crackpot ideas on the internet, including people who think the Earth is flat or that evolution does not happen or that we never landed on the moon. People point out the fallacies in the arguments, and that is really all that can be done. There is nothing here that is confusing scientists or students in the field; it is geared toward confusing the lay person, and even here I think you are failing.

    Having an advanced degree in a field generally gives someone more leverage to be worth listening to even if they advance such a crazy idea, but you have no experience in climatology, so I see no reason why you need to be treated as though you are any different than average member of the above groups.

    You have been proven wrong by a number of commenters but have set up your own personal theory to be unfalsifiable, upon which no observation or theoretical model can prove you wrong. You cannot be educated in the face of criticism. In short, you have only earned the right to be ignored. I'm sure Judith Curry has better things to do with her time as well...

  5. when you state:

    "The algorithm used in GEOLAND computes DLR by (in principle)

    DLR = sigma Ta^4

    where Ta is the measured atmospheric temperature (more precisely a frequency spectrum characteristic of the temperature). The algorithm to compute DLR reflects a Stefan-Bolzmann's radiation law (SB) of the form

    (1) Q = sigma Te^4 - sigma Ta^4,

    where Te is the Earth surface/instrument temperature, expressing the net heat transfer Q as the difference between two-way gross heat transfer back and forth. DLR is then identified with the second term"

    this is not in any way recognizable as a definition of DLR. Find a way to describe DLR in terms that other people agree to, or find somebody else's definition that you can agree to work from, and you may have something to talk about. Otherwise you're attacking straw men of your own invention.

  6. Judith Curry mentions some names who have demonstrated that they have no understanding of the engineering subjects thermodynamics, heat & mass transfer and fluid dynamics, and have vested interest in the AGW hypotheses. One has to wonder if Judith also has less than full understanding and one should pity the undergraduates she mentions. Those undergraduates if they want to have a responsible career should consider to go to MIT (particularly to the Chemical Engineering school) where they may learn something
    Chris Colose above has been described by several well qualified people (was one Judith Curry?) as a "kid" with lots to learn about physics & technology if he opened his mind.

    Claes, I find your posts about fluid mechanics and theory of flight very interesting. Fluid dynamics has relevence to climate & global circulation models. You can rightly call yourself a climate scientist if you wished.

    I would be interested in your views about the Colburn analogy equations using dimensionless numbers (Prandtl, Schmidt, Reynolds, Nusselt ) between momentum transfer, heat transfer (Jh) and mass transfer (Jd) and the representation of these relations by electrical circuits.

    With work input one can convert (or transfer) heat to mechanical or electrical energy. One has osmosis but this can be reversed with work input. Analogies and simulations can make processes clearer and assist with design.

    Keep strong cementafriend

  7. To Arthur: So how is then DLR computed from measurements of temperature/frequency, if not from SB?

  8. Claes, it is not computed from a measurement of temperature, it is *defined* by a measurement of energy received in a detector. Energy can be measured many different ways. You can transform it to an effective temperature via Planck's law if you like (not SB), that's just a mathematical transformation of the measurement.

    But the definition of the measurement itself for DLR is the *energy* received at a given *wavelength*, per unit time, per unit area of the receiving apparatus, per unit wavelength. This has nothing to do with temperature, or SB.

  9. Yes, the detector is sensitive to energy input and in my model can be seen as an oscillator (blackbody) unable to radiate all of incoming energy of a certain frequency and thus heating up. The temp of the sensor could be higher than that of the emitter, if the signal is amplified (as discussed in another comment to you).