On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:48:46 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:12:50 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:48:44 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:36:24 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


And I question whether you really know what evidence is being
tampered
with. The data and other evidence that's tossed around about
anthropogenic warming is a propagandist's dream. It's too
complex,
and
too easy to obscure, for anyone but an expert to unravel.

Actually the atmospheric energy transport mechanisms are rather
basic
and simple, relative to some of the other thermodynamics we had to
learn.

Climatology is not an exercise in deterministic physics, as you
certainly know.

We student chemists learned about energy transfer in gases
first because it is so much easier to understand there than in
liquids
or solids.

Liquids -- the oceans -- are highly involved in climate.


Climate is extensively very complex but not so difficult
intensively,
at least if you have a good background in physics and chemistry.
The
original "climate scientists" were professional astronomers
investigating the atmospheres of Venus and Mars.

One of the labs in college had a large apparatus set up to measure
the
properties of suspected greenhouse and ozone depleting gases at
the
low concentrations of the upper atmosphere. I spent a summer
operating
and analyzing data from an infrared spectrophotometer, so I became
pretty familiar with the process and the quantum mechanical
interpretation of the squiggles on the spectra.

The real problem is collecting sufficient accurate data from
places
we
don't have continuous easy access to, such as the lower atmosphere
over oceans or the Brazilian rain forest.

The real problem is that the system is fundamentally chaotic. The
models are based on probability-density functions.


"You guys can pluck out some physical phenomenon and debate about
which
way the photons are going, or argue over the methodologies of
measuring temperature, but no one here has any idea how the whole
puzzle fits together."

Those arguments are basic to the dispute over how to collect and
interpret the data.

Yes, and that makes up at least half of the bull**** about climate
propagated on this newsgroup. The other half is about isolating
transport mechanisms as if climate occurred in a bell jar.

You've only shown how little your own opinions
mean.

I have no opinions about the science, except that the real
scientists
are vastly more likely to know what they're talking about than
anyone
here. At around 20:1 agreement, they're the safer bet.

--
Ed Huntress



--jsw

Okay, I get that you are annoyed by attacks on your sacred cow that
you lack the scientific education to directly respond to.

You never know, Jim. Despite the fact that isolating and compoudning
deterministic phenomena for explaining climate was abandoned in the
1950s, you may yet, through application of high-altitude quantum
mechanics and data-gathering, be the first one to solve the problem
with deterministic physics that you learned during your internships.

--
Ed Huntress

Are you warming up to enter politics?

'Just doing the same kind of unblinking analysis I've done for 40
years on my job.

--
Ed Huntress