Why Dana 1981 Hasn’t Proved Climate Disruption

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Some of us may be wondering whatever happened to the dana who we all love and miss so much. Well, Lubos Motl at the Reference Frame has a nice little update on the adventures of dana:H/t: Mindert Eiting

Why Dana 1981 Hasn’t Proved…
By Lubos Motl

Dana1981 is a 30-year-old Prius driver and the owner of several other alternative vehicles who has mistakingly received a bachelor degree in astrophysics and a master degree in physics, so he or she became a self-described environmental scientist who is “passionate” about the climate hysteria.

Clearly, such people shouldn’t be admitted as college students because they’re incapable of rational thinking. The presence of people like him dramatically cripples the intellectual atmospheres at the world’s universities…”

Read more!

PS: My advice to you dana is: I wouldn’t mess with Lubos, as he would certainly do physics circles and orbits around you. Dana, you’ve only proved one thing, and you may realize what that is when you get older.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

26 responses to “Why Dana 1981 Hasn’t Proved Climate Disruption”

  1. Ed Caryl

    You know, that degree series doesn’t sound possible. When I went to school it was a BS in Physics, then an MS in Astrophysics.

    1. Brian G Valentine

      The degree sequence is possible nowadays, Ed.

      My own undergraduate institution, Siena College, now offers a BS of astrophysics in addition to a BS of physics.

      Siena College formerly provided the standard undergraduate curriculum in physics as prerequisite for a BS, as developed by the APS, including Physics I-IV, elctrodynamics 1,2, mechanics 1,2, modern optics, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, particle physics, thermal physics, solid state physics, math physics 1,2.

      Most of those have unfortunately disappeared from the curriculum offered, and what is offered is an admixture of “astrophysics” courses without a curriculum set by any educational accreditation entity.

      The problem is that many rather “fringe” subjects such as Planetary Climatology[!] have crept into the curriculum, the product of the curriculum being a dumbed down version of a BS science student.

      There are no standards left in “science” any more, it’s a free-for-all to go do what “feels good” and call it “science”

  2. RCS

    If Dana1981 is the same Dana as appeared on ths blog, I conclude that he produced an anti-scientific rant that could not be justified by proper argument.

    Simply reiterating the idea that there are hundreds of papers that show he is correct and anyone who challenges this is a cretin does not hold the intellectual high ground.

  3. R. de Haan

    What a waste…. of time and effort.

  4. R. de Haan

    He’s driving a Toyota Prius.
    That sucks too.

  5. Green Sand

    I do not doubt the ability of Dana’s brain; the concern is that it is a driven, bordering on a zealot’s brain. I do not mean this in a derogatory way; it is just that as so it closes off options. It is very difficult to view with an open mind presentations that have so obviously been produced by a closed mind.

    There are too many variables in this very emotive subject for anybody to allow themselves the luxury of certainty.

    Also claims of absolute certainty can be seen, rightly or wrongly, as a sign of arrogance, especially to the inquiring sceptic mind.

  6. DirkH

    O/T I was looking for information about the variation of LWIR backradiation and found this fascinating experiment by Dr. Roy Spencer. He’s constructed a box that can only be warmed by IR backradiation during the night to demonstrate the GHG effect. IMHO, there should be some seasonal variation with humidity and sky temperature – does anyone have more information about the extent of this variation?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/first-results-from-the-box-investigating-the-effects-of-infrared-sky-radiation-on-air-temperature/

    1. Brian G Valentine

      There are many such constructions, such as by Arthur Smith.

      None of the constructions provide a means for a cooler atmosphere (stratosphere) to BECOME COOLER and at the same time warm a lower atmosphere (troposphere), at least not if heat transfer is possible (as by conduction).

      Stratosphere has to cool if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and that leads to a contradiction that cannot be resolved within the realm of physical science anyway.

      That is why “global warming” has nothing to do with physical science anyway, there would be howling about “deniers” from the other side if it was physical science. There would be nothing to howl about.

    2. Derek

      I remember Dr. Roy’s series of posts and experiments.
      I did ask him if he took into account the surface heating, retention, and later (varying) release that effected one part of the experiment (over soil and within vegetation), but not the other (because it was insulated).
      He dismissed the suggestion.

      I was not impressed with his experiment in all honesty, in fact, in the respect I mention it seemed to be quite misleading. A seemingly deliberate misdirection of the reader I thought.
      I asked him if he had not taken this into account wouldn’t it more than likely explain most if not all the differences, rather than “back radiation”…
      He did not answer for sometime, and when he did it was “indirectly”.

  7. Green Sand

    O/T but this is just amazing:-

    NASA : “FOSSIL FUELS TRUMP LA NINA”

    “Are the geniuses at NASA unaware that 2010 was an El Nino year, and that 2011 is when La Nina shows up in the temperature record? Why are these people being paid to do science which would flunk them out of most middle schools?”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/nasa-fossil-fuels-trump-la-nina/#comment-39722

  8. Brian G Valentine

    I, for one, would be interested to know who at NASA besides Hansen and his pet poodle Gavin are doing the AGW thing for a living at NASA.

    There’s no way to stop it either, except to re-direct their mission (but unfortunately has been attempted in the past without avail)

  9. mindert eiting

    Well, Pierre, Dana1981 did not follow your advice, and has been severely punished by Lumo in the comments.

  10. Edwin_Adlerman

    If he’s so smart, why does Lubo only cite one paper as ‘proof’ of the solar hypothesis (while not even specifying which Lean et al. he’s referring to…), while ignoring several of the most recent that completely debunk his 1/2 claim?

    Cherry picking of literature is no different than cherry picking of data, especially as Judith Lean’s 2010 review,
    http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WCC18.html
    estimates the solar contribution at 10% or less during the past century.

    Someone is being less than honest here.

    1. DirkH

      “Cherry picking of literature is no different than cherry picking of data” – a reformulation of the litany “98% of climate scientists say AGW is true”… No, Edwin, you don’t understand science. One truthful paper can send a thousand wrong papers to the dustbin.

  11. Edwin_Adlerman

    FYI, there’s a recent review article in the Dec. 2010 Review of Geophysics on ‘Solar Influences on Climate’. It’s quite long, but very comprehensive. Here’s a PDF copy:
    http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/10S1_LGray_SolarInfluencesCLimate.pdf

  12. Edwin_Adlerman

    >No, Edwin, you don’t understand science. One truthful paper can send a thousand wrong papers to the dustbin.

    You completely missed the point. That paper is by the SAME AUTHOR that Lubo dishonestly claimed backed his 1/2 solar fantasy. So, Lubo is either a complete liar or a hack scientist who can’t be bothered with reading the most recent literature.

    So, do you either have a real rebuttal, or can you only attack the messenger with nonsensical personal attacks?

    And yes, I understand science. How many peer-reviewed publications do you have again?

    1. DirkH

      How is it nonsensical to try to explain to you that there is no such thing as “cherrypicking papers”? It has no meaning – that’s like saying i’m cherry-picking a painting when i’m talking about the Mona Lisa; or saying that i’m cherry-picking a piece of music when talking about Beethoven’s Ninth.

      No, you still don’t understand science. Try again.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close