Solid Science

Finding the humor in (mostly) science related irony and idiocy. Rave reviews above.

[Solid Science @solid_science]

#Trump’s #EPA will no longer use human health studies to decide what’s safe for human health. Yep, you read that right. #WarOnScience https://t.co/zb5colRxjl

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@greg_davies @1000Frolly If you don’t mind me asking - you seem very passionate about this (which is awesome, by the way). I’d love to know why you care and also, given that passion, where do you go for information?

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Surely you accept that smoking causes higher risk of cancer. Yet, there are no studies observing smoke causing a cell to mutate. It’s the weight of evidence. You might wish there was some other data or that the models are perfect, but still, the weight of evidence is clear.

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies I’d be curious, what you think is the single most convincing invalidation. Is it one of the ones you mentioned? Do you have an experiment that disagrees with current climate change thinking (a la your Feynman quote)?

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Wrt your desire for perfect evidence. The ? Is not, is the evidence perfect, it is: what is most consistent with the evidence? Let’s accept your claim that forcing is not perfect data. Yet it is data. Is it more consistent with increased warming or no warming?

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies WRT the poles: even early models were correct about polar amplification; they were wrong about the rate (its been faster than predicted). The relevant question is not whether these models are perfect, it’s: Would a model w/o CO2 do a better job?

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Ok, to make sure I understand: strike 1) there is not enough evidence, and strike 2) predictions about the temperature in the poles have been wrong? (I don’t see strike 2, I think mint got lost in the replies somewhere).
Let’s ignore 1 for now (see your very nice Feynman quote).

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Is it that there is still frost in shade and not frost in the sun?

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies I don’t think you’ll find the answer controversial, it’s just a heat balance calculation. I remain confused abt how you think frost invalidates climate change science (something I never thought I’d say!), given the total amounts (see my comment you thought was irrelevant)

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies If you’re still confused, you can ask any LLM why this dichotomy exists. It is not complicated. Apologies again I was dismissive before, I didn’t realize you were genuinely confused about this.

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Put another way:
Net radiation = (Sdirect + S diffuse)*(1-albedo)+back + emitted, where a direct is direct solar radiation, diffuse is back radiation (shortwave), albedo reflectivity of frost, back is back radiation (longwave), and emitted is radiation emitted by the frost.

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Yes…keep reading…

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@greg_davies @1000Frolly And you’re right, I shouldn’t have been dismissive of the picture of frost. I try very hard to be civil and polite in here, but I can see that could be seems as ridicule. All I can say is that I honestly didn’t realize it was serious… my apologies.

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Interesting - I looked at his 2018 papers and don’t see any quantifying consensus, would be interested to see it if you don’t mind sharing.

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies I hope this clears it up for you. If you’re still unsure, you can look at the fig you sent, and imagine the building making the shade is just like the clouds in that pic, and the frost is temporarily under them. You’ll see a big arrow that is nonlinear hitting that spot

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Now, if you’re asking where has all the additional warming gone, given that the increased energy suggests greater surface temps than seen on land (don’t think you are, but it would have been a good question!) the answer is well known: the oceans, which have absorbed >90%

[Solid Science @solid_science]

@1000Frolly @greg_davies Next, an analogy. You are in a 20ft pool. You come up 19.9 feet. You are still under water. You come up another 0.2 feet. You are out of water. This dichotomy is exactly the same. The additional local absorbed radiation when not in the shade lifts the local temp above frost point

[Solid Science @solid_science]

Me: 97% of climate scientists agree climate is warming caused by human emissions.
Denier: Twitter doctor Ronnie disagrees.
Me: ok, so you trust Twitter Ronnie?
Denier: the sun is getting hotter!