Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings
Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)
This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.
Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.
For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.
These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.
There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.
As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.
Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)
I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.
This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.
r
Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change
Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index
DMI is showing a suspect increase in Sea Ice over the last few days, leading me to question how much of the drop was actually due to melting.
Point taken.
It seems we all want to settle where we have familiar things.
When we first moved from the mountains to Phoenix in the 80's, getting used to the humidity took the longest. LOL
In the meantime, Arctic sea ice area is positioned to set a new record low minimum this year. In fact, it's practically unavoidable at this point.
C lick for larger image:
Far more importantly, however, he--and you--are talking only about air temperatures here, while this entire time, the oceans have continued to warm quite rapidly, as demonstrated by Church et al (2011). Since the oceans take in about 90% of the observed warming, for Christy to not mention that means he's either unaware of it--difficult to believe for a scientist at his level--or he's intentionally ignoring it, knowing that others will, too. The former is forgivable; the latter is not.
Again: what a weasel....
Published: Friday, August 10, 2012, 9:20 AM
Catherine Threlkeld, The Times-Picayune
The Mississippi River is low on the levee in New Orleans. Upriver, the American Queen steamboat is docked in Memphis, unable to continue its trip because of low water.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. The American Queen steamboat is docked in Memphis, unable to paddle on down the Mississippi River because of low water.
A trip that began Aug. 3 at Louisville, Ky., was cut short well before the steamboat's destination of Vicksburg, Miss.
American Queen Steamboat Company's Tim Rubacky tells The Commercial Appeal navigation problems caused by sluggish river flow make it unwise for the Queen to go any further south than Helena, Ark. The decision to lay up at Memphis was made after talking with the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers.
About 58 passengers remained aboard Thursday night. About 240 others went on to Vicksburg by bus.
Low water levels in the Mississippi are the result of a combination of high temperatures and lack of rain and snow further north of Memphis.
Yep, it's likely that Arctic Sea Ice Area will set a new record low on Cryosphere Today, I still think it is questionable with regard to if Extent on the other datasets sets a new record low or not.
I was assuming the words "contrived controversy" were being applied to AGW. If they weren't, then I will apologize and admit that I jumped the gun. However, if it was being applied to AGW, it's a raw nerve dating back to the December 2009 IPCC convention and the concurrently convenient news story about the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia. Back then, the crime of hacking into a server was completely overlooked, and despite no scientific merit to the accusations of falsified data, denialists and conservative news outlets held aloft the cherry-picked e-mails like a holy chalice. The words "contrived controversy" were slung around about the entire discipline of climate change science; a completely fabricated story that hounds legitmate work on AGW today. So, again, if I took your words out of context, you have my apologies. If I took them as intended, then I take you to task on them.
There are many things which influence Sea Level Rise, which is the problem of trying to figure out how much is due to thermal expansion, melting glaciers, and other factors not related to climate change. You can not deny that Sea Level has dramatically slowed in the last few years (Boretti 2011).
This graph from the paper shows the deceleration in Sea Level Rise quite clearly.
The deceleration in the Sea Level Rise can clearly be seen in this chart.
Some scientists argue that 42% of the recent rise over the last 50 years is due to Ground water extraction, a significant portion not related to Climate Change. Natural Variability of the ocean also needs to be taken into consideration when determining the rate of Sea Level Rise (Meyssignac et. al 2012)
So as you can see, Sea Level Rise is much more complicated than simply assuming that a radiative forcing will cause a rise in Sea Level.
And Neapolitan, are you seriously trying to argue that the CMIP3 models were right, when the MEAN of the models overestimated the Global SST warming over the last 17 years by a factor of 6? Come on.
The is the Arctic sea ice tell. How widely the ice is spread, how many holes there might be in the ice are not as critical as the amount of ice left.
Heat goes in. Ice melts. The less ice is there is, the quicker it all melts out during a summer soon coming to our world.
Don't be surprised if this black line makes a jag downward over the next few days. Stuff is melting.
And, notice, due to late season freezing the year actually started with more ice than last year. But that was thin ice and thin ice melts faster.
First, I can't help but notice you've once again dipped into the Deep Ol' Well Of Denialism and chosen a paper that supports your, er, "skepticism".
Second, since Borreti heavily references the University of Colorado's SL measurements, allow me to go straight to the source and see whether that school shows that the rate of sea level rise is "actually reducing rather than increasing":
Hmmm. Well, I suppose the case could be made that since the 60-day smoothed line is marginally below the black trendline that the rate of SLR is "reducing", but I'm not sure how Boretti looked at that and drew the nutty conclusion that "Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not the driven force for sea level rises".
Third, Boretti is an associate professor of engineering whose primary field of study appears to be fuel efficiency in diesel engines. That doesn't necessarily make him wrong, but it certainly makes one question his credentials in the field of climate science.
Fourth, Boretti is a known denialist, having previously expressed a very Watts-ian notion that the warming observed in, for instance, New Zealand is strictly a byproduct of UHI and the poor siting of measuring statements.
Sound familiar?
Now, I'm sure you'll come back and tell me I'm addressing the man and not the science, to which I will respond ahead of time: there is no science. No honest science, anyway. Can you please provide something credible from someone credible?
My estimate: 2012 will likely replace 2007 as our "Gosh, look at that year!". Right now it's looking like all three ice measurements - extent, area, and volume - will show new records.
We could even see new records set well sooner in the year than in past years. There are more 'bad for the ice' events lining up for the days ahead. (Of course that's weather and weather, unlike climate, is hard to predict.)
Stay tuned....
It might take a moment to figure them out as the Arctic is presented upside down from how we are used to seeing it. That's the north part of Greenland sticking down from the top and shown white.
Link
Start at the bottom right and scroll up and you can see the sea ice loosing thickness over this year. Ice, this thin, is set up for a catastrophic fail. Our winters no longer replace the ice loss, we're drawing our accumulated ice down to zero.
Apparently some cooler weather and moisture is moving into the area, but it's too late for most of this year's corn crop.
Link
Not to be too gloomy, but I saw this:
"The Bremen map tonight is simply awful. The only good news is that the map should be the last really awful map until… well... until next Tuesday/Wednesday when an Arctic Dipole Anomaly should be in place."
posted by Paul Klemencic at Neven's.
Neo, BobWallace, Patrap, Daisyworld, Birthmark, OldLeatherneck, Rookie, et al, please note Snowlover123's standard for "proof" in his response to me in post #199. He frequently demands "proof" in response to your posts, and I wanted to elicit a response that would define his standard. Apparently, the words of one "real" climate scientist (Ben Santer, in this case) and three 17-year graphs are sufficient to "prove" his point about Pacific Ocean warming. Please note, however, that Snowlover writes about of ocean warming, but his "proof" is strictly about SST's (sea surface temperatures). This is a misleading tactic typical of CC denialists that mixes terminology, oversimplifies a subject, and uses the results to promote a very flawed belief. And this provides more "evidence" that he is, indeed, a denialist.
Tropical Pacific Ocean SST's vary regularly with during El Nino and La Nina events. I have not studied mid and high latitude SST variability, and cannot make any definitive statements about that subject. However, it is obvious that the extreme complexity of this subject can be overwhelming. I think that it is possible that the models used for Pacific Ocean SST response to global warming were flawed, but the failure of the models narrowly focused parameters does not that "prove" that heat was not transported elsewhere in the ocean system via atmospheric or oceanic heat transport mechanisms. The gathering of accurate temperature and heat data that might be relevant to the study of possible warming trends in the vast three dimensional realm of the oceans would seem to be a very daunting task. The interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans makes a difficult task even more difficult. Examining global oceanic surface and subsurface current maps, including thermohaline components, as well as atmospheric phenomena, reveals a very complex system. It then becomes obvious that oceanic SST patterns and long-term trends are not at all like a simple freshwater pond where surface temperatures respond predictably to such local influences as insolation, air temperature, humidity and wind. Rather than jumping gleefully on the failure of the models to accurately predict SST trends as evidence of a failure of global warming science as CC denialists like Snowlover123 do, I would question the foundations and design of the models, since there seems to be a significant body of evidence indicating that there should be enough heat going into the oceans to increase the total heat content. The fact that the predicted "warming" of a model did not manifest as an SST should lead to more questions, e.g. "why" did it fail, which Snowlover did mention as a casual remark.
Anyone with a decent understanding of science and the physical environment is aware that ocean surface temperatures are quite variable, and difficult to correlate with total oceanic heat content. Most of us are familiar with the tropical Pacific Ocean SST "ENSO" cycles that are familiar as El Nino and La Nina. My brain hurts just from trying to simplify the issues in this post without missing some important factors. OTOH, Snowlover123's reliance on a single failed model to bolster his anti-global warming agenda is pathetic for someone who seems quite intelligent.
Daisyworld, I am beginning to agree with you the Dunning-Kruger effect with respect to Snowlover. His statement that "Other places like the Pacific Ocean have cooled over the last 15 years" based on the failure of one older model designed to predict changes in sea SURFACE temperatures displays an immature and flawed understanding of science.
In closing, I think the scientific community and journalists and writers should be more careful about the use of such terms as heat, heating, cooling, and temperature with respect to global warming. (Another of those damned detail and nuance issues!) As a former solar heating system designer (I am not an engineer), I was acutely aware of the difference between temperature and heat. We did "heat" calculations for applications based on BTU's and calories. We considered temperature and temperature differentials, because they were related to heat transfer rates and heat losses in our closed systems. Oceanic warming cannot be simply evaluated by looking at sea surface temperatures, and the casual intermingling of the terms "warming" and "temperature" in discussions of large scale systems as in this discussion without considering heat and heat transport is a fatal error. The transport of "heat" via atmospheric and oceanic mechanisms and the resultant effect on "temperatures" at various locations would seem to me to be extraordinarily difficult to measure on a large scale, yet they are critical components in the science of global warming and climate change.
That was a VERY long post, I congratulate you on that. Unfortunately, the content was sort of lacking, and was more or less a total and complete ad-hominem attack toward myself. OldLeatherneck had posted a chart for SURFACE temperatures on Greenland, and to also comment that some other SURFACE temperatures were either flat or declining, I posted the Pacific Ocean and Southern Ocean temperatures. So you call me a "denialist" without any justification whatsoever.
When I define proof, I define it as being concrete observational proof that no other factor other than CO2 could explain. Unfortunately, the only "evidence" is that CO2 correlates with temperature, since CO2 has gone up and temperatures have gone up, and we know that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, so we should expect some contribution from Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases to the warming.
You want Global Ocean Heat Content? Here are two datasets (one got pulled down but the dataset is nonetheless interesting to look at).
Not only can we notice that the average of the two provides an absolute flat line since 2003 (9 years now), and that the models grossly overestimated how much ocean heat content the upper 700 meters of the ocean should be absorbing.
The deep oceans provide a good excuse for people like you, for why we have not gained Heat Content in the upper 700 meters of the ocean, and that atmospheric temperatures have not risen for 10-15 years, since we have poor data of the deep ocean, and only robust data for the upper 700 meters of the ocean.
I am glad that you are conceding that the models grossly overestimated the warming trend of the Sea Surface. Unfortunately, they have also grossly overestimated the amount of heat content gain over the last 9 years in the upper 700 meters of the ocean (the gain is nearly zero averaging out the two datasets), which leaves you clinging to the possibility that the heat is being transferred to the deep ocean, which is a possibility, but unfortunately, we do not have great enough data down there to determine if the heat is being transfered to lower depths or not. Vertical Mixing as a whole is something that climate scientists are still very uncertain about.
You also are mistaken when I refer to a "single model." I am refering to the CMIP3 MEAN. Which refers to thirty or so highly sophisticated models forming a mean that was totally and completely wrong about sea surface temperature increases.
I am also glad that you are agreeing with me that the climate system is chaotic, and there are literally thousands of things going on in the Climate System at once, it is perhaps one of the most chaotic systems that we know today, since thousands of things are impacting the Climate System.
Again, I was responding to OldLeatherNeck's propostition that Greenland SURFACE temperatures had warmed in the last 10-15 years, but contrarily, some other places have actually cooled (on the Sea Surface, since we are comparing the same thing).
I am saddened to see a obviously well learned person like yourself stoop down to levels like libeling your opponent a "denier," when there is really nothing that I am denying.
Nea,
Sea Level Rise can be an indicative of heat gain, since when something gets warmer, thermal expansion occurs.
You too are also a very well educated person yourself. Unfortunately, your analysis is not at all convincing.
You first eyeball the graph and then conclude that Sea Level is decreasing, when the best fit shows the Sea Level decelerating, in the actual published paper.
I agree that I am somewhat suspicious of how he determines that CO2 is not the cause of the Sea Level Rise, I am merely citing the paper that the rate of Sea Level Rise has in fact slowed over the last few years.
Prior to the Storm, I'd been checking in at Neven's every day or two. Since the Storm, I've been over there a dozen times a day at least to get the latest information. It really is fascinating reading, even if it is a little horrifying.
Thanks for the weather report, Snowlover, but I feel compelled to point out that this is a climate blog.
That's not weather Birthmark... weather reports happen on a daily basis and are regional... The deceleration of sea level rise has been observed for several years now.
Your graph comes from Bob Tisdale’s website. Kindly spare us dross from Tisdale’s site.
What does it matter where the graph comes from? He graphs the data himself, and the data itself comes from the leading scientific databases.
Regarding sunspots, cosmic rays and global warming, I'm a bit puzzled. Is there a known mechanism or process of these factors causing the current global warming episode, or simply a mysterious correlation that is unexplainable? I know there's been some work related to cosmic rays and cloud cover, but I thought that was proven to be an inadequate mechanism.
Regardless, I found a web site that supports your beliefs right down the line - The Institute for Creation Research whose motto is "Biblical, Accurate, Certain." They have a genuine climate scientist, Dr. Larry Vardiman, on their faculty. He is a professor in their Department of Astro-Geophysics, and holds a B.S. in physics from the University of Missouri, a B.S. in meteorology from St. Louis University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. His arguments parallel yours nicely, so I guess that means that you have God on your side - lucky you!
Another item I found at the Institute of Creation Research that might be of interest you is Snowflake Bentley, referred to as a "Man of Science, Man of God." Like you, he was apparently a snow lover.
It's fascinating how internet research can lead to such strange, yet eerily relevant information.
Ad hominem tu quoque. I don't believe for a minute that you're a true victim of ad hominem. Point in fact, Xulonn and I both protected your right to have your own opinion, lacking as it is in factual content. What most people have been attacking is the disinformation you're bringing forth, not you personally. So stop acting like the victim here; you're the one that brought this bunk to the table.
The justification is your continued predilection for establishing false facts. You've presented numerous graphs with very little source data or methodology (I'm sorry, but just linking to other papers on the web isn't good enough when you're attempting to re-write the science), made sweeping declarations laced with weasel words and non sequitur statements that don't even follow basic scientific principles, then complain that you're being attacked when your data is rejected. This is not the behavior of a learned researcher, this is the behavior of polemic fluent in the art of disinformation.
Let's see, over the course of about 60-plus comments in this blog entry, you have both (1) rejected the overwhelming evidence based on scientific consensus about climate change and (2) generated controversy by denying said consensus even exists. That fits the very definition of a denialist. It's not libel, it's the truth. I'm very sorry that you find that distasteful, but you earned the label.
Actually there is an abundance of observational evidence that suggests that the link between cosmic rays an cloud cover is robust... I'll post it later when I have the time, as I am on my phone right now.
I see you chose to address absolutely nothing that I brought up in my previous post which doesn't really seem to surprise me.
Unfortunately, for your little conspiracy theory, I don't get paid by the fossil fuel industries at all, and I am an atheist. So your ad-hominem attack, a clear sign of desperation, failed you greatly.
2ND place ouch since 1979. OUCH!!!
2nd place ouch!!!
2nd place ouch!!!!
I am a bit disappointed in you Rookie, I thought you were better than labeling skeptics as people wanting to spread doubt and misinformation.
I was wrong, apparently.
Why should I listen to Tamino's critiques, when Tisdale has rebuttals to each and every one of Tamino's critiques?
Did you miss the graph that Nea posted? If so, go take another look at post 210. The "deceleration" lasted less than two years. That is much, much closer to weather than climate.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to this question, "Got any statistically valid evidence that the {global temperature} trend isn't up (or down) over that time period?"
As I mentioned in my initial postings, I am interested in human nature and the range of human reactions to the science that paints a gloomy future for our civilization. Snowlover reminds me (and this is not an attack, simply an observation) of a patient on the open ward in the psychiatry department at Oakland Naval Hospital when I was training to become a Neuropsychiatric Technician in 1962. USNH Oakland was a resident training facility, and Psychiatry was one of the fields of medicine with several MD residents in training. This patient did not have a mental illness, but was unsuited for enlisted duty in the military. He had an IQ of over 170 and was one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. However, something must have gone terribly wrong for this young man to drop out of college and join the Navy as an enlisted man. I think he had signed up for a Navy electronics field, but he really did not fit in, even with a bunch of enlisted techies. He was more intelligent than the doctors, and soon knew more about psychology and psychiatry than they did. They kept him around longer than necessary before processing him out on a medical discharge just because they were fascinated with him. He finally was discharged from the hospital and the Navy with what was called a "personality disorder" that made him incompatible with military life.
I tell this story because Snowlover is a fascinating character who is obviously very intelligent, but obsessed. He apparently feeds on the challenges he is finds here, and I am guessing that he might be influenced by the previously mentioned first stage of grief - the consequences of what we as a civilization face are likely facing are horribly frightening. The fact that he replied to an earlier post of mine 15 minutes after I hit the "Post" button, with a well written, fairly long response, a graphic and no errors in grammar or spelling was very impressive. I almost began to believe that it had to be a Koch brothers funded professional boiler room denialist internet response crew, and not actually a personally-motivated individual responding to my post. Or perhaps a highly skilled individual on the payroll of an anti-AGW group. We'll probably never know the real story.
Regardless, the "climate" (pun intended) here at Dr. Rood's CC Blog is quite amazing to me, and I am pleased with the civility of most responders to the proponents of discredited science and spouters of anti-AGW myths who pop up here regularly. The goals of educating lurkers, discovering and discussing information about CC/AGW science and countering myths and false information are laudable. Helping each other learn more so that we can at least attempt to counter the AGW denialists we encounter in our day-to-day lives is greatly appreciated, at least by me.
It matters because Tisdale is, um, less than reliable at properly representing the scientific databases. "Based on a true story" is fine for Hollywood blockbusters, but it's inadequate when discussing science.
Tisdale: A guy on the internet, one with a long record of error including many pointed out by... Tamino!
Other than that, no reason.
Snowlover, I am aware that there seems to be a well-established link between cosmic rays and cloud generation. However, I'm not aware of any science that links measured theoretical cosmic-ray induced cloud cover increases to GW in place of anthropogenic CO2 increases as identified by isotropic evidence.
(Sorry, I've never had a good memory for details, and will rely on others who are more adept at finding and posting scientific evidence support or refute my claims. I feel that i still have a role to play, particularly in raising questions that lurkers might also want to have answered.)
Soon. Very soon.
Tamino has a PhD?
Source?
I believe that the PhD claim is in error.
No. 242.1
It's interesting you're not willing to take my word for a widely-known fact.
No. 242.2
That said, you can confirm for yourself by searching under Grant Foster.
No. 242.3
Not just a PhD, BTW, but accomplished and respected in his field.
No. 242.4
That's important to note, as there are plenty of PhDs for whom that isn't the case.
No 242.5
Numbering feels good on some level.
No. 242.6
Maybe I should take it up on a regular basis.
No. 242.7
Numbering individual thoughts like this is especially amusing.
No. 242.8
Don't you agree?
No offense intended. I just don't know you from Adam, and I have no knowledge of Tamino's alleged PhD being a "widely-known fact". Maybe I just don't get around enough.
I know his name is Grant Foster, and a simple search turns up a lot of 'Grant Foster's. I don't see anything showing the 'Tamino' Grant Foster having a PhD. Maybe you're using a different search engine than me.
What field?
Well, it would be most impressive if the field were atmospheric science, but generally I think a PhD is pretty impressive regardless. As far as "accomplished" and "respected", that's kind of subjective. If I knew what field he is an expert in maybe I could form an opinion. Is it statistics? Are you going to make me guess?
It is kind of cool.
Maybe you'll start a trend! Spblooming, anyone?
It beats a wall of text any day.
Actually, I do. I wonder how long it'll be before we agree on something again.
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 — Blog Index