PA, sorry, I was being too quick and made a clumsy facetious statement. One of the ivy leagues produced a report on the detrimental health effects of AGW. As I recall the cost was around $50 million. My point was; is there a comparable investment outlining the benefits of CO2? I’ve never seen one.
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
↧
↧
Comment on Lukewarming by popesclimatetheory
It is logical to assume future warming rates will be less than what we’ve observed in the past.
It is logical to assume future warming rates will not exceed what we have observed in the past.
We have warmed out of the Little Ice Age, we are close to the upper bound of the past ten thousand years.
We only have thermometer data during a warming phase of an thousand years cycle. I
It is perfectly logical that the upper bound for temperature of the past ten thousand years is the same for the upper bound of this modern cycle.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Mike Flynn
human1ty1st,
The Environmentalist apparently want to get rid of CO2. No CO2 means no plants, which means no us. OK, I thought, at the anaerobes can take over. But maybe not.
“Some clinically significant anaerobic bacteria were incubated in pure culture in anaerobic jars containing a range of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Growth of Clostridium perfringens, C. sporogenes and C. septicum was independent of the amount of CO2. Small supplements of CO2 (0.25%) allowed good growth of the majority of anaerobes studied–an observation contrary to established teaching. The exceptions were Fusobacterium necrophorum which showed an absolute requirement for CO2 of at least 1% and B. melaninogenicus which needed an atmospheric content of 10–40% CO2 for optimal growth. The inclusion of CO2 in the anaerobic jar at a final concentration of 10% is to be recommended for all routine isolation procedures.”
Notice “Small supplements of CO2 (0.25%) allowed good growth of the majority of anaerobes studied–an observation contrary to established teaching.”
Experimental observation contrary to accepted teaching? Maybe even a rejection of the consensus? Even some anaerobes requiring CO2 for optimal growth?
It’s obviously worse than I thought! We need more CO2, and we need it quickly – yesterday if possible!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by PA
jungletrunks (@jungletrunks) | November 24, 2015 at 8:23 pm |
PA, sorry, I was being too quick and made a clumsy facetious statement. One of the ivy leagues produced a report on the detrimental health effects of AGW. As I recall the cost was around $50 million. My point was; is there a comparable investment outlining the benefits of CO2? I’ve never seen one.
Thank you for the courtesy, it is appreciated.
And you are sort of making my point. I do not believe that the issue has been well investigated by professionals.
I loathe making decisions in a vacuum if it is unnecessary.
A well funded objective study or studies would inform the IPCC and everyone else.
A debate on an important subject needs information as much as a fire needs fuel.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
I completely agree with you, PA. Major government funding only occurs in attempt to prove negatives unfortunately.
↧
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
Warmist obviously have difficulty with facts. You refused to quote, so I’ll do it myself –
“CO2 is “active in the IR”, as you misleadingly put it, but so is every gas in the universe. All can be warmed, and subsequently emit EMR of the wavelength appropriate to their temperature.”
Pick a gas. Warm it to say 20 C, using a source emitting IR. Try a hairdryer at a low setting, or maybe pass it through water at a temperature above 20 C. Do it in the dark, so there’s no nonsense about shortwave, back radiation or similar.
It is now at 20 C. What wavelengths are being emitted? Would nitrogen at 20 C emit the same wavelengths? If not, what would they be?
What part of my statement are you disagreeing with, and why?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by beththeserf
Someone, Michael, ‘s mired
in the Slough of Despond_
swamped by doomsday
ideological_environmental
dogma_ it’s happened before.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by AK
@Jim D...
Eyes still tightly squinched shut:<blockquote>In his article he attributes 17 TW to undersea volcanoes, which is comparable with all the heat from anthropogenic burning and other heat releases. This works out to be 0.03 W/m2 averaged over the earth’s surface, while emitted CO2 forcing provides something near 2 W/m2 already, possibly rising towards 6 W/m2 by 2100.</blockquote>Doubling down on silliness.<blockquote>Remember, he is thinking of these just in terms of the heating effect, [...]</blockquote>It's hard to believe your reading comprehension is so abysmal. I'm familiar with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor" rel="nofollow">Hanlon's razor</a>, but in this case I find it necessary to make an exception; this looks like deliberate deception.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by ordvic
↧
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
I like that this post says:
<blockquote>As an aside, the decision to adjust buoys up to ERIs or ERIs down to buoys should nominally be trend neutral. Indeed, in their work on HadSST3 Kennedy and colleagues <a href="https://twitter.com/micefearboggis/status/663407726144446464" rel="nofollow">explicitly tested this</a>, and found “no appreciable difference” on trends.</blockquote>
Because it shows Zeke Hausfather has developed a better understanding of the issue since a <a href="https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/662443684894408704" rel="nofollow">tweet</a> he posted earlier this month where he responded to our hostess to say:
<blockquote>@curryja you do realize that adjusting buoys up to engine intakes or engines down to buoys is by definition trend-neutral, right?</blockquote>
Which is false. The choice of which data set to adjust when adjusting two data sets to bring them into alignment is not, by definition, trend neutral. There are cases where the choice can have a non-neutral effect, particularly on regional scales. They may not be particularly common or expected, but the possibility is not something which can simply be dismissed as impossible. That's particularly true given there are a wide variety of possible ways to create temperature records, and what's true for one is not always true for others.
I am, however, a bit confused as to why Zeke chose to cite a tweet mentioning tests and not the <a href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_2_figinline.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper</a> which actually discussed those tests and showed their results. I find it more convincing to actually be able to see the details and results of tests rather than just a 140 character summary of them. Plus, it is kind of interesting to see the (very) minor differences not adjusting the buoys would result in for that data set.
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by climateadj
If I take the trend of the monthly means repeated 10 times I get -0.07C/dec. Looks like this resolves the difference. In this case, perhaps the trend should not be calculated on the monthly anomalies as this adds a spurious value. Maybe it would be ok to do so if the anomalies were calculated by subtracting a trendless sinusoid?
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by John Carpenter
“I believe I have heard of those words before,” – Mike Flynn
Like I said, you never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Peter Lang
Bobdroege,
Calling people non-technical worshippers of the science god, when there are only two things necessary and they are required, to bring down AGW.
Prove we are not putting CO2 into the atmosphere and prove CO2 is not active in the infrared.
Apparently no one has the technical chops to do that.
Strawman!. The argument is not about AGW. It’s about CAGW.
AGW is good. It increases vegetation growth and reduces the risk of an abrupt catastrophic cooling event (which would other wise be inevitable).
↧
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Peter M Davies
The spam filter doesn’t like the word N*zi!
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by jim2
This takes the id-e-o-cy to an entirely new and much higher level. Hope the leftist more-ons are happy now.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by bedeverethewise
Eagles also do better when people don’t shoot them. Also works with polar bears.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Jim D
MF, gases like O2 and N2 emit nothing in the IR. That is why they are not classified as IR active. The special status of CO2, H2O, CH4, etc. is precisely because they absorb and emit in the IR. You only see these gases’ emission/absorption frequencies with IR spectrography. There’s whole field of physics in this area but you must have missed the class when they taught that.
↧
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by Mike Flynn
John Carpenter,
You wrote –
“”I believe I have heard of those words before,” – Mike Flynn
Like I said, you never heard of infrared spectroscopy before.”
If you say so. Psychotic disregard for fact? Denial?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by jim2
Will the current El Nino be greater than those of the recent past?
↧
Comment on Environmentalism versus science by JCH
I never seen a thread deleted on a climate blog. Which ones are you talking about?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
