lolwot | May 26, 2013 at 6:22 am | “that’s why there is this reversible action to make our blood more acidic or more alkaline to maintain our fine alkaline balance.”
<i>Wow what a slip up Myrrh. You’ve accidentally admitted here the truth that a pH lowering action on something that is alkaline can be described as making it “more acidic”.</i>
Shrug, that's the problem with the damned memes produced by the AGWScienceFiction's meme producing department to push the fake fisics of The Greenhouse Effect Illusion...
<i>Yet here is what you said last year:</i>
Gosh, are you keeping track of all my posts..? And filed for easy reference..? That was a quick reply.
Comment on Open thread weekend by Myrrh
↧
↧
Comment on Mainstreaming ECS ~ 2 C by Michael
Peter,
Better to be honestly in error than delibertly dishonest.
$5000 per KW installed solar PV??
You can’t even begin to defend that tripe.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by AK
@lolwot…
Good catch. This may be the first time I’ve seen you do something of value on this blog. But let me ask you: would it work on the other side?
If some alarmist at one point admitted that technology might advance to the point that we’re pulling more CO2 out of the atmosphere than we’re putting in, then later made reference to how “excess CO2 we put in the atmosphere will last for centuries”, would you even notice? And if you did would you say anything?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by tempterrain
Chief,
There’s no surplus value in the baby sitting circle example. Even so, there can still be a tendency towards capital accumulation which causes the problems as explained.
Add in surplus value. ie add in that each baby sitter is paid less than the cost of the service provided with the remainder going to their employer, then of course the problem of capital accumulation is magnified.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Wojick
On the money side the US created a cross agency research budget document in 1990 called Our Changing Planet (!). Google on USGCRP and you can track it down. Spending started at one billion dollars per year but has grown to two billion. It is said that this is roughly half of world government expenditures.
The rest of your questions are a good book topic.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Wojick
Trenberth is trying to explain how the missing heat got below 700 meters in the ocean. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2
This sort of paper is right up Dr. Curry’s alley. Any comments, Dr. Curry?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2
tempterrain – when the economy relied only on human labor power, we didn’t advance very quickly and had to use slaves to amass enough labor to keep the economy robust. So, the economy isn’t just human labor. Our economic growth owes to cheap energy and machines, along with the human ingenuity that created and melded it.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2
Max_OK – Really?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by AK
<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/29/has-trenberth-found-the-missing-heat/" rel="nofollow">Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat?</a>
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by jim2
The government has the prerogative demand a return of non-fraudulent product in return for tax payer money. If recent studies are to be believed, the elimination of fraud would cut the number of studies and papers by one-third. Besides, the government isn’t the only source of money. Scientists may need to explore other sources of funding.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Myrrh
lolwot | May 26, 2013 at 5:39 am | So if something shows warming you will deny it and if it doesn’t show warming you accept it.
Why should anyone trust you when you admit that?
That’s actually not what has been happening lolwot, we’ve known for a long time that they’ve been adjusting the temperature records to favour the AnthropogenicGlobalWarming scare – this has been going on a very long time because it was planned, look up the NZ court case to retrieve the original data, which science fraud was organised from CRU, we’re all just so amused that they haven’t been able to keep it going and have had to finally admit there has been no warming for 17 years plus.
What this really shows is proof that there has been a concerted science fraud at the highest science bodies level.
This is proof that that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam, during all this time they have have lied and lied and lied that there is global warming and every year getting higher. And they’re still doing that.
It appears not to bother you that there is science fraud going on, you only ever seem concerned when this is pointed out and produce cover up distractions and word play to this end. That’s for your conscience, but the people creating this science fraud by manipulating temperature records and claiming temperatures have been rising when even their own figures show this wasn’t true need to be held accountable if science isn’t going degenerate completely into gobbledegook.
The error made by those who think they are in control of dumbing down science for the general population, is not understanding that our astonishing growth in knowledge is only since education became widespread throughout the general population plebs and communication became more rapid ..
.. “killing the goose which lays the golden egg” is probably too difficult a concept for the self assessed ‘elites’ to appreciate.
↧
Comment on Storm surge hockey stick (?) by John Carpenter
ok Bart, fair enough.
You made a logical fallacy of presumption. You made the presumption that I abandoned the conclusion of the study and we must proceed with ignorance. I never said that. What I said was the data set is poor, despite the method used (which may be a perfectly valid method to analyze data), the results are likely to be flawed with a higher degree of error than a better set of data. They used a set of data that appears to bias the results to higher/more damaging storm surges by not filtering out data points that don’t meet the criteria of coming from hurricanes. They claim this tide gauge data can be well correlated to hurricane damage and from there temperature (which is another whole discussion on its own). Based on this claim they claim we should expect Katrina type events 2x to 7x more frequently with 1 C warming. The upper limit of that range does not appear to be plausible. The paper appears to make an over reaching claim.
I did not say more frequent intense hurricanes would not cause more damage. I did not say there will not be more frequent, intense hurricanes which could cause more damage. For what it’s worth, models predict as much. I did not abandon the most accurate or true explanation. This paper really says nothing new with regard to those topics. The punchline of the article is 2x to 7x more frequent. It’s the 7x that catches ones attention. 7x appears to be implausible. It is ringing the alarm bell yet again based on a biased data set. 2x appears plausible to me, 7x appears to be unwarranted alarm bell ringing.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
You wrote this, Ellison:
Chief Hydrologist | May 25, 2013 at 1:05 am |
Either through reverse osmosis or distillation – pure H2O is very corrosive. Metal salts are added to make it less pure.
It’s not taken out of context and it’s complete. You called pure water very corrosive. I corrected you by saying it depends on the situation. I gave you and example where cars quickly rust out when exposed to salt water but do not when exposed to fresh water. Then you got your panties in a bunch over being corrected. Everyone here who’s ever driven a car in the winter where they salt the roads knows I’m right and that you’re wrong. You refused to respond to that point because you too know it is right. Call me more names now if that helps your poor little bruised ego. It’s water off a duck’s back to me.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by David Springer
I’m a skeptic and I only trust satellite temperature record which, ipso facto, proves your statement wrong. Some skeptics may prefer non-satellite data but I don’t know which ones. Tony Watts for instance is on record saying the only really reliable temperature record is the satellite record. Surely you’d consider Tony a skeptic so that’s two skeptics which prove that your assertion is wrong. Get your head out of your ass.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Beth Cooper
Herewith, Serf Under_ground Journal First E -dish -in.
http://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/the-serf-under_ground-journal/
↧
Comment on Mainstreaming ECS ~ 2 C by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
This deal on the lapse rate, no reason for people like AK to jump on my case and accuse me of “abysmal ignorance of meteorology”. All I am trying to do is find a statistical or mathematical derivation that results in an average lapse rate as that observed.
The average lapse rate is considered a standard and so there should be some reasonable explanation.
Here is the global view of the average
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S003707380300232X-gr2.gif
↧
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by climatereason
David
you exported your relatively clean industry and jobs to China who added a dirty co2 factor
tonyb
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by David Springer
The “sink” is undoubtedly the ocean with biology playing a bit role. Data from ice cores indicates that during interglacial periods 280ppm CO2 is the equilibrium point and during glacial periods 200ppm. I believe these are set by the average temperature of the ocean. The ocean is not close to saturated. Humans are injecting CO2 into the atmosphere pushing it out of equilibrium with the ocean. About half the annual injection is absorbed by the ocean each year. Even as the absolute amount of the injection has grown as rapidly as human population the amount that the ocean absorbs remains a rather constant ratio of 50% each year.
The constant ratio of absorption despite hugely larger absolute amounts being injected into the atmosphere is characteristic of an equilibrium system being driven further and further out of equilibrium. Resistance to change increases as the distance from equilibrium increases.
For all practical purposes the ocean is an infinite CO2 sink. Hulk say puny human can’t saturate the ocean with CO2 there is simply a limit to the rate it can absorb more which is largely set by surface area and partial pressure at the ocean/atmosphere interface. The rate would also be effected by surface turbulence i.e. a frothy surface has immensely more surface area than calm water for dissolving gases into it. Also the mix rate of surface water to deep water would play a role as pressure becomes so great droplets of liquid CO2 were recently observed deep underwater where new crust emerges in the so-called ring of fire which circles the earth like the seams on a baseball. We can probably safely assume that turbulence and turnover is constant enough to disregard changing only so marginally as to be inconsequential.
↧
Comment on Myles Allen: why we’re wasting billions on global warming by willard (@nevaudit)
@richardabetts One does not 'simply' pay an Eco-yuppie to trade anything.—
willard (@nevaudit) May 27, 2013
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
