tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post6429604920387741289..comments2023-06-07T09:04:36.390-04:00Comments on More Grumbine Science: Unity of science and Turkey VulturesRobert Grumbinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-63937484546076163672009-01-16T18:09:00.000-05:002009-01-16T18:09:00.000-05:00Distinguish weather with a lapse rate, which you c...Distinguish weather with a lapse rate, which you could consider 'organized' turbulence -- that's what gets you thermals, gliders of all sorts circling and climbing then heading off toward the horizon to pick up another thermal further along, and go distance.<BR/><BR/>And there's plain old turbulent weather, "chaotic" weather, which is just messy and treacherous. Smart fliers stay out of it.<BR/><BR/>With climate discussions, there's the kind where there are differences that are productive.<BR/><BR/>And there's the kind where folks get together in fellowship who have utterly incompatible beliefs and contradictory facts. They are, all together, in opposition to climate science. As long as they waste time and confuse people, they're winning in their own terms.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-53812369491856399022009-01-16T14:34:00.000-05:002009-01-16T14:34:00.000-05:00> the vultures like a > turbulent atmosphere...> the vultures like a <BR/>> turbulent atmosphere<BR/><BR/>So do all gliders, especially those of us who can't flap even if we want to. (I began flying hang gliderers about thirty years ago.)<BR/><BR/>I'd bet you or they could look up the lapse rate -- the data is provided by the weather service and much used by sailplane pilots among others -- for this.<BR/><BR/>The monarch butterflies in migration pass over and stop off on my favorite hang gliding mountain; likely tracking them will show the same sort of effect.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-88884005706612623072009-01-16T11:39:00.000-05:002009-01-16T11:39:00.000-05:00Excellent point. The converse of this is the incoh...Excellent point. <BR/><BR/>The converse of this is the incoherence of denial. Those who are closing their eyes and trying to imagine that humans are not causing the climate to change quote three, or four or five mutually contradictory ideas, papers, or imaginings. <BR/><BR/>No better example than what happened recently on Marohasy's blog when the top ten papers (denying climate change) were a <A HREF="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/10/believing-ten-impossible-things-before.html" REL="nofollow">nest of contradictions.</A><BR/><BR/>As a commenter said<BR/>"You have missed the point. On this post(by Cohenite) he has used contradictory science to demonstrate that AGW is not real. You cannot use one paper to falsify one aspect, and then another paper to falsify another, when the two papers are mutually exclusive.<BR/><BR/>He attempted to show that the Greenhouse effect is negligable. He posted a paper he said showed why (Minschwaner), it contradicts earlier an earlier paper he posted (Miskolczi). one claims there is a greenhouse effect due to greenhouse gases, tthe other claims it is due to optical depth. You can’t have it both ways.<BR/><BR/>Skeptics use a scatter shot approach, using one kind of physics to ‘disprove’ one aspect and an opposing kind of physics to ‘disprove’ another. You need to have an internally consistent argument."EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.com