Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by johnfpittman

0
0

Bernie, if you read his blog, you will find several discussions of this. That Kahan accepts the mainstream IPCC version does not make him wrong or unscientific. Does not make him “right” either. the range of IPCC just on ECS is quite large.


Comment on Deforestation in the UK by Stephen Segrest

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Willard

0
0

> you don’t get a ticket to say it is wrong.

Look, Andy. You got no quote from Dan. You have no business telling that he defined consensus in any way. It’s quite simple, really.

Here would be the memetic way to use your trick: say that Chuck Norris defined himself as truth, point to the Internet as proof, and keep telling this as long as nobody can disprove it.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by TJA (@TJA123243453)

0
0

Why? It not only produces CO2 when burned, it produces methane when it rots if you don’t burn it. Better to dump it and replace the ‘lost” CO2 with fossil CO2

Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler

0
0
Mosher: <i>Now you see why Andy is published and you are not. </i> What makes you think I am not published?

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by ristvan

0
0

Stephen, Australia? There is no way forests grow that fast in Wisconsin. And, unless a pine plantation (we have some NWP, no SYP), it is much less expensive to let Mother Nature do the forest’s own reseeding, as the woodlots produce a ‘mast’ crop every year, which my wildlife rely upon when not eating our alfalpha, oats, maize, and soybeans. Not to mention the vegetables in the garden!

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by Peter Davies

0
0

…….(forests)…. are being butchered in the service of an ideology.

Many things are, apart from forests.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by TJA (@TJA123243453)

0
0

That al jazeera reporter ought to fly across North America a few times.


Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by jim2

0
0

Ravetz conflates science and politics. There is no need by science to make policy decisions, that’s in the political realm. Just because policy decisions have to be made in the absence of solid science doesn’t mean science has changed one whit. It doesn’t need to change.

If Ravetz would have just stated some guidelines for making policy decisions in the face of uncertainty, there wouldn’t be a problem. But the problem with his “Post-Normal “Science”” is that he put the “Science” there where it doesn’t belong.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by TJA (@TJA123243453)

0
0

We planted a redwood tree in Norther Pennsylvania 40 years ago. I wonder what that tree looks like now.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by Peter Davies

0
0

There’s something primaeval about a hearty fire which most humans can relate too. It must be hard wired from the genes of our ancestors.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by erwynsenmd

0
0

I don’t think the US Supreme Court said that CO2 was a pollutant but rather that the EPA had jurisdiction to determine whether it was a pollutant or not. The EPA determined it was a pollutant, not the Supreme Court.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by Mike Flynn

0
0

Stephen Segrest,

Diluting gasoline with ethanol is not the smartest thing to do. Its calorific value is lower, it is hygroscopic, can be deleterious to some components in the fuel path, and so on.

Using more expensive to refine components in the gasoline mixture avoids the use of “additives”. 95 RON gasoline costs more than 91 RON gasoline because it has a different blend of alkenes, alkanes, and cycloalkanes, and other compounds.

Adding compounds like tetraethyl lead is just a money saving device, with some side benefits. It also allowed engine manufacturing cost savings relating to valve seats and engine blocks.

Gasoline is pretty toxic stuff. It’s also useful in internal combustion engines. I use PULP 95 RON rather than RON 91 with added ethanol increasing the RON to 95. It is more cost effective for me, as the increased calorific content of the PULP exceeds the cost saving of the ethanol blend. Similarly with normal ULP 91 RON, even though my vehicle’s computerised engine management system automatically adjusts for the different octane rating.

There are other benefits from using the higher priced fuels, relating to their formulation on the basis that they may be expected to perform in efficient engines with high specific power outputs.

So, use ethanol blended gasoline if you wish. Avoid older cars designed to run using leaded gasoline. It may not be cheap to repair damage caused to the engine if valve seats fail due to changed thermal transfer coefficients, resulting in valve seat recession.

I hope I have helped.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by beththeserf

0
0

Hay, likewise, JA, but mainly on the plain and in Springtime.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by ristvan

0
0

Yes. Completely agree. And folks forget that the net consumption is roughly 42%maize -27% distillers grain used to feed dairy and beef.

But speaking as a benefiting farm owner, there is no excuse for a blendwall above 10% ethanol oxygenate, or for E85, or the Flexfuel CAFE standard avoidance thus enabled. Another example of CAGW BS.


Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Danny Thomas

0
0

Simple question. Exactly, and succinctly, in what does the “consensus” agree?

Then anything outside that which is defined, is obviously not in consensus and therefore subject to debate is it not?

“Climate” and it’s components is much too broad of a topic for all to agree about all. Application of the concept of “consensus” is simply a misuse.

Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Peter Lang

0
0

20,000 Gt C in fossil C deposits from Wikipedia:

Coal “reserves” (not “resources”) amount to around 900 gigatonnes with perhaps 18 000 Gt of resources.[45] Oil reserves are around 150 gigatonnes. Proven sources of natural gas are about 175 1012 cubic metres (representing about 105 gigatonnes carbon), but it is estimated that there are also about 900 1012 cubic metres of “unconventional” gas such as shale gas, representing about 540 gigatonnes of carbon.[46] Carbon is also locked up as methane hydrates in polar regions and under the seas. Various estimates of the amount of carbon this represents have been made: 500 to 2500 Gt,[47] or 3000 Gt.[48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Occurrence

It seems like there is no constraint on the amount of C, and it does not seem as if Nordhaus’s limit is unreasonable in the way he uses it in DICE and RICE.

So, that figure is not one I would waste time taking issue with. There are far more significant inputs to be concerned about as I said in my original comment.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by thomaswfuller2

0
0

If they burned dung it would be cheaper still.

Comment on Deforestation in the UK by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Central Florida, Panhandle Florida/Mobile, South Georgia/JAX area. Work has been with Univ. of Florida, Univ. of Georgia, Auburn, DOE and its Labs (NREL, ORNL), EPRI.

UF also has some new hybrid pine that are incredible.

Univ. Wisconsin-Madison is one of my favorite places. Ag Scientists there are just as strange as me (I feel at home). Their Greenhouse Complex is incredible.

Comment on Driving in the dark by Mike Flynn

0
0

Vaughan,

It’s fine.

I presume that’s a picture of you defending to the death my right to say things with which you disagree?

Good on yer, mate!

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images