Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Wow, I guess physicists have nothing to say now about the "physics" of GHGs?....
It wasn't about the physics of GHGs, it was an attempt to refute a meteorological hypothesis with a thermodynamics argument. The scientific literature is littered with many failed attempts to show that something is impossible. A couple that I'll cite from The Daily Galaxy are
“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.
“Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth). Should of talked to an engineer I suppose.
“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project Too bad he wasn't a physicist.
This paper would have been a paper about the physics of GHG if it had been explanatory in nature but it is not. Obviously there is a legitimate need to understand the physics involved in meteorological models, but this just ain't it.
First of all that paper you gave comes from ONE physicist, meanwhile the other paper had two physicist... Someone wise enough once said two heads think better than one...
Are you seriously claiming that the quality of a published scientific paper depends on the number of authors??? What a load of rubbish! Serious scientists prefer to judge a paper based on the content rather than the number of authors or number of pages or how long the equations they use are.
Did anyone ever tell you what ASSUMING proves?.... That's what AGW claims are all about flawed assumptions made by people whose whole career depend on the survival of GCMs nomatter how flawed they are...
Yes you cited a place where the author stated his assumptions for a specific calculation. Due to the complexity of natural systems, we always make assumptions in the development of our models, and it is considered good science to state exactly what those assumptions are. Bad science is where we make assumptions and present them as established fact. As for the rest of your rant, it has absolutely no bearing on anything I stated and seems to be an attempt to use some form of an ad hominem argument to muddy the waters with political rhetoric. Sorry, not taking the troll bait
Originally posted by metamagic
Science is exact, scientists are not.
Really science is exact?.... Obviously you don't know much about science because science is ALWAYS EVOLVING..... Science is neither exact nor is it settled....
From the time of the Egyptians, or the ancient Chinese, or the Greeks til today science has EVOLVED quite a bit, and we keep learning new things, and we keep finding out things that once was thought impossible "because science said so" are more than possible.
This last bit of yours is the funniest part yet. First of all, learn the difference between the words "exact" and "static". Science being exact means that we strive or accuracy, precision and to quantify that which we are working with. We strive to follow a set of rules about inference, deduction and proof that allow us to work productively within a paradigm. Scientists, on the other hand often fall short of ideal of scientific exactness for a variety of reasons, one of which is applying the exactness of the scientific method to phenomena that it should not.. You claim that science is not exact because it is evolving is totally nonsensical, science is evolving because it is exact.
And a final delicious bit of irony, you last line we keep finding out things that once was thought impossible "because science said so" are more than possible. proves exactly my original point... climate change is not impossible just because some scientist said so.
Thank you for an entertaining morning Electric.