Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« A wind-up | Main | More problems at Skeptical Science »
Friday
Jan202012

Diary date, Notts

The Nottingham Trent University is having a lecture on climate change on 7 March. The speaker is Manoj Joshi of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science.

Climate change is one of the major environmental challenges facing humanity over the next century. Given its importance, the science of climate change encompasses many fields from the natural sciences to the social sciences. This talk will use the latest physical science to discuss three questions: is the world warming up; what are the causes; what will the impacts of climate change be?

Details here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (13)

Bit too early for a definite but I hope to get to this event, dependent upon work commitments.

Jan 20, 2012 at 9:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Manoj Joshi is not from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is in the US. He is from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, which is in the UK. NCAS is geographically dispersed; Joshi is physically at the University of Reading.

[Thanks - fixed]

Jan 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterSuramantine

I think they should rephrase the initial premise from "Climate change is one of the major environmental challenges facing humanity over the next century" to "There is a wild conjecture that Climate change is one of the major environmental challenges facing humanity over the next century".

Jan 20, 2012 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrent Hargreaves

Brent,
That's just the obligatory show of piety.

Jan 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn in France

Perhaps 'Climate change alarmism is one of the major challenges facing humanity..' would be more accurate.

Jan 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Question #1 seems to be redundant when he asks question #3. That aside, I figure a fourth question needs to be added: What if we're wrong? And a fifth: How will we mitigate a cold climate?

Jan 20, 2012 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterSnotrocket

It is well known that academics think excessively highly of their own work. "My work is important. Your work is interesting. His work is rubbish."

Towering self-regard expressed like "[My work is about] one of the major environmental challenges facing humanity over the next century" deserves loud sniggering.

Not even the heart surgeons I know have an ego like that.

Jan 20, 2012 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Could be an interesting lecture


If you think I'm going to discuss personal stuff on a medium read by every nutter from Berkshire to Brisbane, you must be crazy yourself. This web page confines itself to work.

Welcome to Manoj Joshi's personal (ish) webpage

Publications

Jan 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Hawey, man. Hoo aboot aall them nutters in Bishop Auckland and Berwick, like?

Jan 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Bishop,
just for your information this lecture is taking place at Nottingham Trent University

http://www.ntu.ac.uk/

Which is not the same as Nottingham University (University of Nottingham)

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/index.aspx

Jan 20, 2012 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandy

I see that Manoj Joshi is from UEA . I would not trust anything he or any other "scientist" from there without outside independent confirmation.

Jan 20, 2012 at 6:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterLarryT

Have a heart for these newbie climate scientists. When they started this sexy study they weren't to know that four of the five premises upon which the subject is built are fundamentally wrong.

1. 'Back radiation' was a mistake by Arrhenius.

2. The assumption of 100% thermalisation of IR absorbed by GHGs was a mistake by Tyndall.

3. The assumption of 33 K present GHG warming was apparently a mistake by Hansen but no professional physicist should have made it.

4. The assumption that pollution causes significant increase of cloud albedo was a mistake by Sagan but he inherited some of it from van de Hulst. To match past temperatures, the models use double real cloud optical depth and net AIE 3-6 times higher than experiment. Because this physics is broken, the experimental data are also wrong. The bottom line is that no climate model can predict climate.

5. The assumption that part of the 'missing heat' is is from higher thermal diffusivity could be true [heat of mixing as recent Arctic melt water entered the N. Atlantic].

The jury is still out about when the subject descended into fraud. The publication by NASA in 2004 of fake physics [small droplets reflect more because of higher total surface area] was when it became overt as they desperately held the line; -0.7 W/m^2 median net AIE in AR4.

However, I suspect the fraud started in 1997 when the link between CO2 increase and the amplification of tsi change at the end of ice ages was broken. 'The Team' developed fake hock-sticks to exaggerate CO2 climate sensitivity but this was a hostage to fortune when the planet stopped warming.

Hansen's recent claim of ~50% increase of net AIE appears to be a desperate clutching of straws but he could still be right about the oceanic heat transport..

Jan 21, 2012 at 10:13 AM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

I think that Nottingham Trent used to be a Polytechnic, and therefore one can expect it to be rather leftist. Nottingham University is a Russel Group Unni, mind you it is AGW barmy since they are installing solar panels on many (if not mosts) of the roofs of their halls of residence.

Jan 21, 2012 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>