Ken Rice

@theresphysics

Interested in science communication, in particular about climate change. Professor of Computational Astrophysics, University of Edinburgh. Views own, of course.

Edinburgh
Vrijeme pridruživanja: travanj 2013.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @theresphysics

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @theresphysics

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    23. pro 2019.

    The discussion about RCP8.5 has been useful and has clarified a number of important things. However, if actively looking for a narrative to appeal to dismissives, you'd be hard pressed to find something better than the simplistic narrative being promoted by some.

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 12 minuta
    Odgovor korisnicima

    Yes this is approaching the talented undergraduate level

    Poništi
  3. prije 27 minuta

    If ML really cared about the credibility of climate science, he wouldn't have spent months actively trying to destroy it. Judge someone by their actions, not their words.

    Poništi
  4. prije 6 sati

    Yes, yesterday I had a Professor condescendingly tell me that I didn't know how to do a basic database search when - in fact - they were the one who had made the silly mistake.

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 6 sati

    Inaugural Higgs Chair appointed | The University of Edinburgh

    Poništi
  6. prije 17 sati

    Yes, we learn from our mistakes as well as our successes.

    Poništi
  7. prije 17 sati

    This is simply politicising science. There's a reason we typically only retract papers for fraud or plagiarisim; it's to avoid papers being withdrawn/retracted because they make ideologues uncomfortable.

    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 21 sat
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    This reminds me of the time Roger tried to use google to count number of times Michael Mann was mentioned in the news. He forgot that Michael Mann is also the name of a Hollywood director & his estimate was off by nearly 2 orders of magnitude.

    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj
    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima

    They do. They're sometimes called "research software engineers" & (as e.g. sez here) they overlap research & traditional SE. & may have views. Also: "most academic fields are fake" - gee, thanks.

    Poništi
  11. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj

    Scary paper about communicating climate change on . "Ten search terms were employed to search for and analyze 200 videos about climate and climate modification topics, which are contested topics in online media" Majority of videos climate denial

    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    Odgovor korisnicima

    I already gave my response. I know this is disappointing, but since you (and I) both reject the bollox/bad science conclusions, I’m at a bit of a loss as to what else you think we climate modelers should do. https://t.co/hjCEWqhoMH

    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    I got as far as it's second "birthday": And speaking of ad aborted things, don't forget the GWPF's "inquiry":

    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj

    I'm going to go on record right here: I don't believe these very high values of climate sensitivity (> 5 deg C) that some models are getting. If ECS is so large, then we should have seen a lot more warming since the mid-19th century.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    Yes. Getting to net zero by 2100 still requires policy and/or technology progress current RE & EV cost trends. We need to deal with ag, land use, industrial emissions, and aviation. Those ought to be elevated in policy & R&D priorities, as I argued here:

    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj
    Odgovor korisnicima i sljedećem broju korisnika:

    The rationale for using RCP8.5 as a high end emissions scenario can be read here: The authors of the NCA have discussed this a few times.

    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj

    My unicorn paper is out! After 7 years of data synthesis, new conceptualization, and building numerical models, we now have the first estimate of thermokarst (abrupt thaw) carbon emissions. This hotspot process affects small areas but packs a big C punch.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    Odgovor korisnicima

    And because ppl reify numbers over words, it will make it harder to shift peoples beliefs in what could happen , despite the lack of any evidence either way. 2) remember this:

    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    Odgovor korisnicima

    If this is all so obvious, why have ppl resisted probabilistic scenarios (except in a very hand-wavey ways) for years? Lots of good reasons! 1) the future is not random. Probabilistic statements about the likelihood of future policy choices are not frequentist, but Bayesian...

    Poništi
  20. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Great to see featured in this months magazine.

    Poništi
  21. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·