Slashdot Mirror
NASA Names Gavin Schmidt Director of the Goddard Institute For Space Studies
First time accepted submitter Graculus (3653645) writes "NASA has named Gavin A. Schmidt to head the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, a leading Earth climate research laboratory. Currently deputy director of the institute, Schmidt steps into the position left vacant after the retirement of long-time director James E. Hansen and becomes only the third person to hold the post."
Climate modelers belong in NOAA.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
If climate science is really worthwhile
You mean our atmosphere, the thing that keeps us alive and will hopefully continue to do so in the future as long as we don't fuck it up? That thing? Yeah, totally not worth the sliver of NASA's small budget.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Yes, how dare they report facts that you don't like.
Here is the man himself giving a TED talk on the limitations and capabilities of climate models: http://www.ted.com/talks/gavin...
Hope they weren't grammer Nazis.
You know what they say about opinions. They're all fabulous!
Good luck, Gavin Schmidt is one of the primary architects of the GISS Model-E, one of the preeminent climate models in the world.
In what sense is "one of the primary architects of GISS Model E" not doing "responsible science"?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Or spelling Nazis (grammar).
Ah, so we're not to use models any more.
That'll make getting into an airplane more exciting in the future.
As for being "correct", Schmidt himself said: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."
Watch this Heartland Institute video
+1 creepy?
In what way was his predecessor not? Only in the minds of the paranoid conspiracy nut. His predecessor was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Schimdt is not doing responsible science, just that JQP's hope is a pipe dream. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Schmidt. He gave a TED talk recently on The emergent patters of climate change that covers the study of climate from the smallest scale up to the big picture.
You can't understand climate change in pieces, says climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. It's the whole, or it's nothing. In this illuminating talk, he explains how he studies the big picture of climate change with mesmerizing models that illustrate the endlessly complex interactions of small-scale environmental events.
I know who Schmidt is, and his personal charisma does not responsible science make. TED is an idea workshop, not a science forum. While it is interesting and even sometimes educational (in the sense that new ideas are often presented), nothing that happens at TED can be accepted as authoritative.
The fact that a purported scientist is resorting to TED to make his point is a tribute to "climate change" propaganda.
Check out this website. The author has made it a duty of his to record the ASTOUNDINGLY MANY injuries to responsible data that have been perpetrated by GISS.
He uses their own data to show how they manipulate the truth. At his own personal cost, on his own time.
In particular, the "adjustments" GISS makes to temperature data is under very serious question.
As for being "correct", Schmidt himself said: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."
And this is EXACTLY why the models are bullshit. Because they have not been JUST consistently wrong, but consistently HUGELY wrong.
I actually DO give credit to the models as being "guesses". But if we are to accept them as science, they are terrible guesses. If you have ever read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, and actually looked at how weel the models have reflected reality (or, more properly, failed to do so), you could only conclude that we are going back to the Stone Age in our understanding of what is correct.
Wrong may be relative, but when it's that wrong, it's just wrong. Period.
Oh lord. I guess every other group studying global temperatures is part of the conspiracy? They all seem to find similar warming, We're supposed to trust some pseudonymous blogger rather than peer reviewed science?
Down with scientific outreach!
Well, could trust a blog, or check the peer reviewed science?
What are the predictions of climate models, should we believe them, and are they falsifiable? Probably the most iconic and influential result arising from climate models is the prediction that, dependent on the rate of increase of CO2 emissions, global and annual mean temperature will rise by around 2–4C over the 21st century. We argue that this result is indeed credible, as are the supplementary predictions that the land will on average warm by around 50% more than the oceans, high latitudes more than the tropics, and that the hydrological cycle will generally intensify. Beyond these and similar broad statements, however, we presently find little evidence of trustworthy predictions at fine spatial scale and annual to decadal timescale from climate models. -- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
That's one way to look at it. You could also say the TED talk is outreach, bringing science to the public.
They distort long known facts as soon as any discrepancy with their CAGW religion surfaces. Whither 1934 being the highest temp temporarily until the fickle fudge factor fingers were placed on the scale, and the Medieval Warming Period. Zealots and frauds.