Climatologists to physicists: your planet needs you

Nature ^ | 4/7/15 | Quirin Schiermeier

[LibWhacker]

Climate scientists highlight cloud mysteries in a bid to compete with astronomy and cosmology.

Clouds are key to understanding climate change, but more-realistic models of their formation are needed.

I wonder which junk science genius came up with that (that random blobs of water vapor floating around in the atmosphere are the key to understanding). And in light of the claims of this article, how did he ever convince himself that it was true, given that he was incapable of doing the science himself? And why should we believe him? In an earlier time, he would've no doubt claimed it was random blobs of phlogiston. This whole article is an admission that climatologists have no clue how to do real science. It's akin to astrologers appealing to mathematicians to prove that astrology is true, or alchemists appealing to chemists to prove alchemy is true, etc. The whole article is full of such revelations. --LibWhacker

Climate science needs more mathematicians and physicists. So say prominent climatologists who are trying to spark enthusiasm for their field in budding researchers who might otherwise choose astrophysics or cosmology. Talented physical scientists are needed to help resolve mysteries that are crucial to modelling the climate — and, potentially, saving the planet — the group says, such as the ways in which clouds are formed.

There is a misconception that the major challenges in physical climate science are settled. “That’s absolutely not true,” says Sandrine Bony, a climate researcher at the Laboratory of Dynamic Meteorology in Paris. “In fact, essential physical aspects of climate change are poorly understood.”

[LibWhacker]

Wow, extremely revealing -- and hilarious -- article. Junk scientists desperately seeking validation from real scientists. Another admission: Only mediocre science students go into climatology, as if we didn't already know that, etc.

[GOPJ]

Real scientists don’t want anything to do with environmentalists. This stuff’s beyond ‘junk science’ - it’s more in the realm of ‘voodoo science’...

[Da Coyote]

What do physicists call their classmates with D averages?

Climatologists.

[G Larry]

The first group of liars has lost all credibility, so they want to recruit some virgins into prostitution.

[FreedomPoster]

I’ve said for a long time that we need a Physicist like Richard Feynman to look into this, similar to how he was tapped to look into the Challenger disaster. If you’re not familiar with Feynman, I heartily recommend his books, he’s quite a character, and led a very interesting life.

The closest person we have similar today might be Freeman Dyson, and he has not been impressed by the Warmist Alarmists.

http://www.noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php

[Pearls Before Swine]

Another admission: Only mediocre science students go into climatology, as if we didn't already know that, etc.

Yeah, after a while drinking the Kool-Aid, they can teach. After all, they're learning indoctrination, not doing research.

[centurion316]

A climatology article without a single mention of the oceans is beyond the meaning of science. The origins of climatology from the study of atmospheric phenomenon elements demonstrate how they are clueless.

[eyeamok]

Climatology is a science?? Kinda like Lesbian Dance Theory is a sport ?
These people are out of their minds.

[eyeamok]

My older brother has that Piled High and Deep set of letters on his Physics Degree from UCLA, He just calls the Weathermen.

[x]

I wonder which junk science genius came up with that (that random blobs of water vapor floating around in the atmosphere are the key to understanding). And in light of the claims of this article, how did he ever convince himself that it was true, given that he was incapable of doing the science himself? And why should we believe him? In an earlier time, he would've no doubt claimed it was random blobs of phlogiston. This whole article is an admission that climatologists have no clue how to do real science. It's akin to astrologers appealing to mathematicians to prove that astrology is true, or alchemists appealing to chemists to prove alchemy is true, etc. The whole article is full of such revelations. --LibWhacker

Whoever wrote this is reporting something, not necessarily advocating a position on scientific issues. Arguing that cloud formation is important isn't so different from arguing that sunspots or any other factor is important.

Who knows? Maybe it is. It's certainly a valid hypothesis that could be studied.

And how could you miss this, possibly an admission that climate change isn't "settled science," right in the article?

The perception that climate science is ‘solved’ is an inadvertent result of pressure on climatologists to convey a simple message to the public — for instance, that all dry regions will get dryer and all wet regions wetter in a warming climate, says Piers Forster, a climate modeller at the University of Leeds, UK. That has made the science “sound somewhat dull”, he says.

[sasquatch]

F

[FirstFlaBn]

They want to replace their cosmetologists with cosmologists?

Sounds like they’re admitting their stupid models don’t work.

[BenLurkin]

budding researchers who might otherwise choose cosmology

[Zeneta]

Cosmology...Cosmetology...?

As long as they mean well.

[BenLurkin]

They’re coming after the deniers and they are chopping off the deniers’ head’s.

[Gen-X-Dad]

Climatologists focus on the small scale of the thin layer we call the atmosphere over a hundred years, where the geologists and astrophysicists focus on the giant spherical rock floating through a hostile vacuum in a spiral arm of an enormous galaxy over billions of years.

Now that the astrophysicists and geologists are helping each other and verifying theories with data, their predictions on climate are working while the climatologists are experiencing epic failure. A good book to read to see the beginning of this battle is the “The Chilling Stars”.

If we ever hope to explore other planets, we need to understand the big long term picture of planetary interaction with it’s surrounding environment, not a panic over cow farts.

[pallis]

It seems like a dangerous move for Climate fanatics to engage real science in the study of their faith. Climate science is the domain of charlatans and sleaze. Real science can only hurt the warming cause.

[justa-hairyape]

They need to just eliminate climate science and replace the entire field with climate physics. How in the world can dryer climates get dryer and wetter climates get wetter in a warming climate ? Those two situations are diametrically opposed. In a warming climate everything gets wetter because of greater evaporation from oceans and large lakes. For example the immense rains in So Cal caused by the 1998 El Nino. In a cooling climate everything gets dryer because of less evaporation from oceans and large lakes. For example So Cal in present day because the earth has been cooling.

[pfflier]

Real scientist would never claim that “the science is settled”.

[TigersEye]

Global Warming Skeptics Question Authority

Princeton Professor Denies Global Warming Theory

31,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Theory to be Named Monday

German scientists reject man-made global warming

Real Scientist Uncover Serious Flaw In Global Warming Data

Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]

‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008

Global Warming Petition Project
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs