English major with delusions of numeracy.
Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Pierre-Normand
“Because O2 is non absorptive according to the Warmists, it couldn’t possibly react with short wave UV to form ozone.”
Ozone is produced from UV interaction with ozone precursors such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Wikipedia has en entry on tropospheric ozone that details the whole chain of reactions. This process has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that O2 is transparent to longwave IR radiation — a fact that everybody also accepts, and not just “warmists”.
↧
Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Pierre-Normand
“When the Montreal Protocol was signed, it was expected that the ozone “hole” would be fixed around the turn of the century,”
Sure, but then the stratospheric CFC concentration unexpectedly remained very high above 1970s concentrations and only fell back a little. So, while the CFC concentrations fell only a little bit, the ozone concentration only increased back a little bit. There still is a perfect correlation.
↧
Comment on What we know with confidence by web page
What’s up everybody, here every person is sharing these kinds of experience, therefore it’s good to read this website, and I used to go
to see this web site every day.
↧
Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Pierre-Normand
David Springer, what I said was that “[y]ou’ve often argued that water vapor can’t provide a positive feedback since humid locations often are colder than dry locations at the same latitude.”
You now say this a a straw man. Here is what you wrote very recently: “Tropical deserts have higher mean annual temperatures than any other tropical climate type. They also have the least water vapor of all tropical climate types. It seems to follow that water vapor is a negative feedback.”
↧
↧
Comment on Asymmetric responses of Arctic and Antarctic by Raving
It can be as alarming as you choose to make it out to be. The threat of AGW is for what comes in the future, as opposed to what already has been.
Its too early for the sky to already be falling now
↧
Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Pierre-Normand
Indeed if, following an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the upwelling radiation from the surface is offset by more back radiation from the atmosphere, and the colder higher layers from the atmosphere radiates less heat to space, then it follows that there will be a TOA imbalance until the surface and troposphere warm enough. In any case, conservation of energy and the fact that the atmosphere has a small heat capacity ensures that the rate of energy gain at the surface will tend to mach the average TOA imbalance over a long enough period.
↧
Comment on Clean(?) Coal by George Turner
The Ericsson and Stirling cycles both get the Carnot stamp of approval. :)
↧
Comment on Clean(?) Coal by jim2
If it takes balls, Congress has lost from the get-go.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate adaptation – Bangladesh style by michael hart
At least the Dutch are in a position (often below sea level) to take the issue seriously when offering help or advice. I wouldn’t buy land-drainage from Greenpeace.
↧
Comment on Climate adaptation – Bangladesh style by Ragnaar
“Farmers practise intensive successive cropping, growing one crop of rice with the flood waters (June-October), a second rice crop with irrigation and finally a third winter crop in the dry season from November to February.”
http://www.new-ag.info/en/country/profile.php?a=1834
Triple cropping. Many farmers would like to have soil as productive as theirs. It seems they are making progress with tripled rice production over the last 30 some years. It’s magic soil, with risks and inconveniences.
↧
Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Faustino
Well, today we can’t blame mixed-up threading on Fan’s emoticons. Was previous blame mis-attributed?
↧
Comment on Climate adaptation – Bangladesh style by jim2
Subsidence may be the issue, but it will be blamed on global warming because there’s money to be made. Always follow the money.
↧
↧
Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by bob droege
Alright I’ll continue making crap up…
That is if you can tell me what crap I have made up
It takes a physically fit person to get their core body temperature up to 108 degrees, I would say Korey Stringer’s fitness had something to do with his death. A less fit person would have passed out before reaching that state. I would look for better than a BMI calculator to determine whether Corey was obese or not. Maybe caliper testing or water weighing to determine total body fat percentage. Though the calculator you cited puts me 1 stinking point form normal.
2 1/2 hours in full pads, second day of practice, in 90 degree heat and high humidity, from weather underground for the day humidity 63 to 94% which is wet bulb 80 to 89 F. In the first practice of the season which he couldn’t complete the wet bulb was 82 to 87.
I think 2 hour or longer practices in those conditions were more responsible for Korey’s death than his unconfirmed obesity.
↧
Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by bob droege
Timg56,
Wet bulb temperatures are usually not reported, nor are relative humidity figures, we usually get the heat index figure, what it feels like.
But wet bulb temp is a metric you can calculate from temperature and humidity, and it give a measure of how easily mammals can shed heat, so in my opinion, it is the one number that tells you how lethal the environment is, and 95 F is the limit.
95 F and 95% relative humidity, please provide cites, so you can convince me you are not making it up.
By the way, I live in the continental climate, the US midwest, where the extremes of temperature and humidity are indeed extreme.
And I won’t claim to have observed 95 F with 95% humidity.
↧
Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by bob droege
yes, because the chips are eventually going to fall.
Don’t rely on luck too long.
↧
Comment on Climate adaptation – Bangladesh style by mosomoso
The 1876 Bangladesh cyclone is one of the deadliest known climate events. While sea level rise is a slow centuries old process with nothing new about it, huge populations living in low lying and hurricane prone locations – like Bangladesh delta and New York – are very exposed to massive events like that of 1876 (or like a Cat 3 at landfall in NY 1938!).
Stopping a coal power plant somewhere or coming up with ingenious ways to tax a fragment of thin air may not be among the best engineering and conservation measures for such places. Hurricanes, natural rises in sea level, natural land/river/estuary change and man-made subsidence/erosion are vast problems. When you have a vast problem, it pays to talk first about the problem and not about something else. Never easy, I know.
↧
↧
Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Joshua
Doug -
==> ‘We are not talking about something with a very low opportunity cost and a very certain and significant safety benefit.”
Of course we aren’t – which is why your simplistic construction doesn’t apply. That was my point.
↧
Comment on How ‘extreme’ can it get? by Matthew R Marler
Antonio (AKA “Un fisico”): Imagine that you appy it and it tells you that, in the next century, 10% of hurricanes will reach a wind speed of 100 m/s. Ok, and what?
Empirically, I doubt you can make a case that some other approach will more accurately model extremes than the generalized extreme value distribution. 100 years in advance? The less gaussian the underlying distributions (like the snub-nosed distributions in the header), the more improvement from using the generalized extreme value distributions.
↧
Comment on Clean(?) Coal by Joshua
Sorry – I meant to say, of course not. We are talking about a complex and dynamic set of tradeoffs, which is why your simplistic construction doesn’t apply.
As for the tradeoffs:
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/resource/full-cost-accounting-life-cycle-coal
↧
