More flaming Cirrus; Dark Ages of climate science upon us?

More flaming cirrus this morning, perhaps reminding us of the ascension of the temperature later this morning.  In some photographic razzle dazzle, two photos have BOTH clouds and THE MOON!  The IR sat image loop makes it appear that we may have these kinds of clouds for at least a couple of days.  Below, I also am having a climate issues tantrum due to an unfolding story at Oregon State University.

Later, with more light, Cirrus fibratus.
Cirrus fibratus with hints of floccus elements (more compact, dense areas where Cirrus is forming).
Below some of the interesting patterns seen in yesterday’s Altocumulus/Cirrocumulus clouds.  Most of the Cirrus had long departed by this time.
Cirrocumulus (liquid cloud elements) with moon.
Iridescence caused by the refraction of the sun's light around tiny cloud droplets.
Cirrocumulus at the top of the photo. Elements broaden and thicken some downstream and would be termed Altocumulus where the shading starts. Cirrocumulus clouds can have no shading by definition.
Cirrocumulus with a lenticular-like upstream edge (bottom of photo).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dark Ages of science?

Here are two links below to a disturbing science story that is just unfolding in Oregon:

Watts up with That?

Ice Cap

A senior chemistry instructor was fired without notice APPARENTLY because he did not follow the global warming line. He was a skeptic, posted stuff about his views, and spoke on talk shows in the Oregon area.  The exact details of this firing are not yet known.

Unfortunately the average temperature in the Pacific Northwest has been falling over the past 10-30 years, particularly very lately (see dip at the end of the record), and this has given rise to some skepticism about the effects of global warming since the temperatures are supposed to be INCREASING, not DECREASING. And ESPECIALLY “lately” with all that extra CO2 that’s been pumped into the air in the past 10 years.

Here is a sample temperature plot posted by J. D’Aleo at Ice Cap yesterday.

Now, the ORDINARY person might understand why some skeptics might pop up in view of these data.  What is going on?  But instead of reacting in the ideal way, “Wow, this is interesting data!  I will have some of my grad students look into this for their Masters or Ph. D. dissertations”, it is ignored, it is pretended as though it doesn’t exist, but riles people when it is brought up by those outside their organization/discipline, as has happened here.

Those social scientists who study science and how it works will yawn at such “non-idealistic” science behavior.  They have been telling us for decades that we are a bastion of White Male Culture, and that no science worker can really be objective in his or her work, be disinterested, only care about “truth” and not where the chips fall, but will always be intrinsically influenced, biased by that culture, even those female workers.

Of course, we folk who actually practice science get mad about those kinds of allegations, conclusions; I do anyway.  Those of you who follow this page know that I parody that inability to be “disinterested” by only showing those model runs with the most rain in southern Arizona, because that’s what I want to have happen.

But here again, in the case of Oregon State University, those sociologists who study sceince have been proved correct. Dissenting opinion is not really allowed, particularly by an “outsider” to the climate science social-science cult, even when it is based on contrary evidence that clearly needs explaining.

OK, the Oregon State guy that was fired was not a meteorologist/climatologist. Maybe we should muzzle anyone who speaks outside of his/her trained domain, like Linus Pauling the Nobel Laureate in chemistry who then thought he could cure cancer with vitamin C.

Or Alfred Wegner, the METEOROLOGIST who first proposed the theory of continental drift around the turn of the 20th century but was laughed at by the geologists/geographers of his day. He would have had the last laugh, had he still been alive when they finally accepted his tenet.

The OSU “firee” wasn’t a tenured faculty member, either, and so he wasn’t protected by the golden shield of academia, that shield that once attained allows lifetime employment far beyond productive years.  Perhaps when these lesser persons (research staff, instructors) at a university speak out on something that causes us some discomfort, provide a dissenting opinion on something, they SHOULD be fired immediately!

Yes, that’s it! No dissent!

Think how great things would be if there was no dissent on anything in the scientific realm! Whatever the majority thought, that would be the end of the story. No reporters asking difficult questions, kind of like things are now, , no reporting of any digression in opinions; there would only be the official line.

Think how happy we’d be not having to THINK or be disturbed by contrary thoughts!

Of course, not thinking is appealing, but, its not right.

Dissenting opinions/findings, if they are WRONG, have a way of disappearing quietly.  Remember the NPR story back in the 1980s about the Newman Motor, the motor that produced more energy than it consumed?  NPR gave it a lot of credibility back then, but, of course (!),  it was bogus.

That’s OK.   Mr. Newman tried real hard to get something for nothing, and failed.

Remember, too,  “Cold Fusion”, the promise of endless power generation at room temperature, as reported by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann of the University of Utah?  Hey, they gave it a good shot, but that, like the Newman Motor, its gone, too.

Crackpot ideas have a way of disappearing.  Let the dissenters have their say.  IF the earth’s temperature rockets upward in the immediate future, they, like Henry Newman, Pons and Fleishmann, will quickly disappear.  But don’t fire them!

So, to take action as the Oregon State University did, in my mind is shameful, and is the worst kind of anti-science I have seen lately.  Shame on you, Oregon State!

The End