Why did you cherry-pick Algeria, nimrod? Compare North Africa, where it is very hot with Southern Africa, which ain’t so hot. The countries of South Africa and Zambia (formerly Rhodesia) had highly developed medical infrastructures. It’s not the heat that kills off people. It’s the corruption and the poverty.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
You are just throwing crap out there without any thought or facts behind it, yimmy. Really struggling today, little dude.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
That is not what the polls show, AK. It appears that roughly half of the people believe the scare.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by erikemagnuson
To the question of “Can changing the surface properties of anything alter its radiative thermal equilibrium temperature in space?”, the answer is “it depends”. If the thermal radiation is uniform in all directions (very deep space), then the answer is “no”. If a good fraction of the thermal radiation is coming from a source with a higher termperature than ambient, then the answer is “yes”.
The white walls on a Greek house lowers the absorption of energy from visible light, but maintains a high emissivity in the far IR, thus keeping the house cooler. Solar thermal absorbers are designed to have high absorbtivity at visual light energies and low emissivity at IR to improve heat collection.
Some Stanford researchers have developed a material with high emissivity at the wavelengths corresponding to the atmospheric IR windows and are able to cool surfaces to below what achieved with a non-selective surface. This by itself is essentially proof that GHG’s (which includes water vapor) do reduce radiant heat transfer to space.
The question about whether there are positive feedback mechanisms that will exacerbate the ~1.1K increase in temperature has yet to have been answered fully.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
You are the one who keeps talking about Algeria, Don. It has a sparse population due to low resources. They can be helped by countries further north with more beneficial climates, but without them, they are in trouble. Same goes for the oil states who rely on the developed world outside their borders for income. Hot and desertlike alone isn’t much good.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
Good advice – I don’t know how to make the powers that be listen. The political challenge to the EPA as to the priority between reliability and “pollution” probably should come from FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). FERC and EPA are the Federal entities. NERC is a private group that implements FERC policy (NERC is also subject to Canadian governmental authorities.)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Because it’s North Africa, and my wife worked in the Sahara during their Civil War.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
Look at the map, clowns. Discussion over.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Deserts have sparse populations, Don. There is a reason. Think.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
You are pathetic, yimmy. Deserts have sparse populations, because there is almost no freaking water. Not because the people die from the heat. You are a time waster.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
For those who did not notice the twitter note about Dr. Curry speaking at the Oct 30 Cato conference, here is the URL:
http://www.cato.org/events/preparing-paris-what-expect-uns-2015-climate-change-conference
↧
Comment on A perspective on uncertainty and climate science by fossilsage
Great Post! To inject some scientific reasonableness into the consideration of our current political discussion is very useful. Maybe it’s just refreshing to see something other than a re run of those famous Goya prints in which a Jackass replete with mortar board hat in instructing a classroom full of jackasses.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
You can deny that there are large populations vulnerable to climate change, but thankfully the UN doesn’t, and neither hopefully do many of its nation members. There may be billions of people whose livelihoods are threatened or degraded by the new normal and new extremes introduced by a several-degree temperature change that shifts the summer seasonal average at most land locations by many standard deviations over this next century. In a typical location, the coldest summers of the future will match the hottest extreme now. That will leave a mark even on those with a/c. And we haven’t even counted sea-level and ocean acidification yet.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Would you bet the world on the plant food overcoming all the negative factors?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Vaughan Pratt
Oops, delete Pro, the 16 cubic inch model I’m using is just the Gigabye BRIX. The Pro is back home in Palo Alto, twice that volume with 3 TB of storage serving as my home theater PC.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Don Monfort
This is what I am talking about, doc. What made a distinguished, learned and decent chap like yourself get involved in climate science mud wrestling?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Jim D: Would you bet the world on the plant food overcoming all the negative factors?
First, absorb the fact that the evidence supports improved plant growth with increased CO2. Let it sink in. There is no evidence that increased CO2 harms plant growth in any way, and there is evidence that increased CO2 increases crop yields and net primary productivity of natural vegetation.
How much to bet against what other threats there might be can be done after absorbing that fact: the evidence supports the claim that increased CO2 has net direct beneficial effects on plant growth. You don’t want to be an “evidence denier”, do you? The evidence to date supports the hypothesis that increased CO2 increases crop yields and increased primary productivity of natural vegetation.
Second, absorb the fact that the reviews of the evidence, such as the paper by O’Gorman et al, support the hypothesis that increased mean temperatures causes increased rainfall. That follows from models and from empirical studies. It was in the Romps et al paper as well. Once again, you do not want to be an “evidence denier”! Warming increases water vapor and rainfall. That’s the evidence to date. It is within your rights to have beliefs in defiance of the evidence, but you should at least accept what the evidence is, whether you believe it or not. The evidence to date is that increased warming produces increased water vapor and increased rainfall.
CO2 enhances plant growth. Warm increases atmospheric water vapor and rainfall.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Mike Flynn
rebelronin,
I haven’t got any carbon tacks.
Can I sell you some carpet tacks instead?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Jim D: a several-degree temperature change that shifts the summer seasonal average at most land locations by many standard deviations over this next century.
More made up ****. Is it that you don’t know anything?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso
Uber-rich mega-consumer, Russell Brand, has made jet trails to Australia to, er, condemn uber-rich, mega-consuming jet trail makers.
Tonyb can make do all the special offers he likes, but wherever the Sunsilk Kid buys his indulgences…that’s the one-stop carbon shop for me!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
