Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

[lynnvinc]

Here’s another RealClimate comment about CO2 and it being heavier than CH4 & thus falling from the sky more:

Actually, I have seen this ill-informed opinion before. To me, it just illustrates that a little knowledge can be dangerous. Others have explained it well enough, but I thought a picture or two might help get the point across.

Easy counter: Measurements show that CO2 does not vary much with altitude; how can you reconcile that with your idea that its molecular weight causes it to sink?

“The observed CO2 concentration is generally high in low altitude and low in high altitude. High CO2 concentration relative to the average CO2 distribution is sometimes observed during the flights. Its difference is about 8 ppmv at most.”
adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2002AGUFM.A62B0151W

The first part actually agrees with the other guy, but 8 ppm/400 ppm is well within my definition of ‘not much’ (2% over the entire measurement range), and that is the maximum difference they found.

For perspective, look at figure 6.1 at
heliosat3.de/e-learning/remote-sensing/Lec6.pdf

or

spectralcalc.com/atmosphere_browser/atmosphere.php
(Pick CO2, H2O, and CH4 as species.)

Comment by Chris G

Hope this helps.

 

[lynnvinc]

The notion that solar activity is constant is false.

For example:

In a 2009 paper in EOS Transactions Livingston and Penn showed a direct correlation between the infrared strength and the size of sunspots and magnetic field strength of the sunspots. I’m not quite sure how the geomagnetic index relates to the magnetic strength of the sunspots.

Geomagnetic has dropped to a new low. I don’t know what the significance of that is.

I don’t have a link, unfortunately.

There was also another recent discovery that undersea volcanic eruptions are hugely significant. Much larger than previously guessed at. Of course, there are many more undersea volcanic “items” than above the surface … as well as “strip volcanic things” … No link for that one either.

I don’t memorize the links. But you could find them by some persistent googling.

Here’s a link about what may happen if the solar activity were to go thru a grand minimum, like the maunder minimum:

And the chart (the solar grand minima would reduce temps by .3C, while AGW would increase them by perhaps 4C by 2100, according to one scenario of GHG emissions); see the broken lines: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s another RealClimate comment about CO2 and it being heavier than CH4 & thus falling from the sky more:

Actually, I have seen this ill-informed opinion before. To me, it just illustrates that a little knowledge can be dangerous.

Ha ha ha ha…So wind - diffusion currant - warmth - creating lift ] doesn’t make CO2 air-born? The Laws of Kinetic energy inertia ] isn’t the force that allows it to resist the LAW of Gravity - The LAWS of resistance - LAWS of weight - LAWS of Time…Laws of decay… don’t exist - don’t commit to duration?

CO2 - AGW defies the LAWS physics…

Others have explained it well enough, but I thought a picture or two might help get the point across.

I must have missed the RealClimate folks papers that REDEFINED THE BASICS OF PHYSICS.

Easy counter: Measurements show that CO2 does not vary much with altitude; how can you reconcile that with your idea that its molecular weight causes it to sink?

Hmmmmmm basic physics? Earth’s Standard gravity is g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 THAT is the FORCE that keeps - ALL - bound to earths atmosphere.

I do hope this VERY intelligent person…admits that CO2 abides within our atmosphere and isn’t outside the LAW of gravity??

“The observed CO2 concentration is generally high in low altitude and low in high altitude.

Ahhhhhh… Wonder why? Could it be LESS kinetic energy wind - currants ] at higher attitudes …???

Without the kinetics to oppose gravity - YOU SINK.

The heavier the object the more energy it needs to defy gravity. The Lighter the object less energy is needed!!!

Atmospheric ENERGY is blind to the object If the wind currant is 2 mph - it’s 2 mph for both objects ] … It does not distinguish between Methane or CO2.

CO2 is much heavier than Methane.

CO2’s Molar mass molecular weight ] is 44.0096 g/mol.

Methane’s CH4 ] Molecular weight : 16.043 g/mol

High CO2 concentration relative to the average CO2 distribution is sometimes observed during the flights. Its difference is about 8 ppmv at most.”
adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2002AGUFM.A62B0151W

Does not refute the LAWS of physics - This is fluff added to confuse the issues. We are NOT talking about HOW MUCH…We are talking Basic Physics on 1 ] Co2 mol.

The first part actually agrees with the other guy,

but 8 ppm/400 ppm is well within my definition of ‘not much’ (2% over the entire measurement range), and that is the maximum difference they found.

Has no bearing…concentration has no bearing on factors of duration. HOW MUCH does not equate to HOW LONG. We have been discussing 1 ] mol of CO2.

For perspective, look at figure 6.1 at
heliosat3.de/e-learning/remote-sensing/Lec6.pdf

or

spectralcalc.com/atmosphere_browser/atmosphere.php
(Pick CO2, H2O, and CH4 as species.)

Comment by Chris G

Hope this helps.

Here’s a thought - INSTEAD of getting nonsense answers from the likes of RealClimate…

Did you actually think about this persons response before posting? Or just posted it - because you thought it backed your unsupported claim?

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s a link about what may happen if the solar activity were to go thru a grand minimum, like the maunder minimum:

And the chart (the solar grand minima would reduce temps by .3C, while AGW would increase them by perhaps 4C by 2100, according to one scenario of GHG emissions); see the broken lines:

Scenarios…may…could…

I’m almost positive…THE GREATEST DANGER TO MANKIND…
IS PUTTING THE INVENTION OF THE MODEL AND GRAPHS -
INTO THE HANDS OF PREDICTORS…
FROM RAIN-MEN TO ECONOMISTS…- kimmie

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s another RealClimate comment about CO2 and it being heavier than CH4 & thus falling from the sky more:

This is a good example of not comprehending.

What WE YOU AND ME ] were discussing was DURATION time ]…and the ENERGY needed to defy GRAVITY and decent.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s a link about what may happen if the solar activity were to go thru a grand minimum, like the maunder minimum:

When RealClimate AGW’ers ] CAN accurately account for KNOWN history - I might give them some credence at being Seers - Mystics - Predictors - Rain-men.

 

[kimmielittle]

Wigglie - Wigglie Thumbs on the scales

At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean – but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips – higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH – just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) – but not really enough.

So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK

ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2640.txt&search=1940s+warming+blip



COADS - Gray line … Adjusted
ERSST - Brown line…

What they discuss in this email…is FURTHER adjustments.

The 30’s - 40;s and 60’s - 70’s have always been the bane of AGW.

In 2003 They fixed it - How… They deleted the 40’s altogether AND that’s not all.

Remember this is Micheal Mann 2003 The founder of RealClimate.

ENLARGE HERE

See at the tip of the arrow - The orange line WAS the 40’s

Mann et al did not merely delete data after 1960, they deleted data from 1940 on, You can see the last point of the Briffa reconstruction (located at ~1940) peeking from behind the spaghetti in the graph

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11539

climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

climateaudit.org/2005/11/22/mann-on-splices-the-case-of-crowley-and-lowery/

 

[Linda_Marie]

Many perhaps even most bird species are expected to go extinct with our other environmental assaults, including global warming – that extinction process is already underway at a rate higher than any known in history.

since they are dying anyway, it doesn’t matter that our ineffiecient green energy generators are killing them off?

BTW, the study was not biased, but done by a survey company on a random selection over over 2000 Americans. It was not the major focus of the study (that Catholics who are skeptical of AGW tend not to be as environmentally active), we chose whether or not they had installed (or planned to install) compact fluorescent bulbs – since this was the least costly and easiest environmental measure queried in the survey.

:banghead: that’s it??? just based on curly light bulb use??? when there are significant environmental hazards from the mercury inside them so the people choosing not to install them may have made their decision for environmental reasons??? and all of 2000 people…

As for my qualitative information, those Catholics who were AGW skeptics claiming that creation stewardship is important, tended not to give any examples of what that might entail, or just spoke in vague terms about how we (as a society) need to keep the water and air clean, and not dump toxins into the water; they tended to view these problems as point-source industrial pollution; they didn’t mention anything they were actually doing or intending to do to reduce pollution.

some of my personal efforts:
no dishwasher
use a clothesline instead of the dryer. have one but use it rarely
natural gas hot water heater (used to be solar but the panels broke in a freeze and it is not cost effective to replace it. next solar system could be one of these)
natural gas home heating (keep winter temp at 19C 66F)
evaporative air conditioner rather than refrigerative (when temps hit 44C 111F outside, it is not very cool inside maybe 34C 93F and if it is humid, it doesn’t work at all )
used water from the air conditioner is redirected to the lawn
gray water from clothes washer is also directed to the lawn
use cold water as preference for washing machine
use electric lights only when in room and only if necessary, such as night time
go to bed early
recycle paper, plastic, glass using council bins provided
use ‘green’ bags for shopping rather than get plastic (paper not available here)
reuse any plastic bags for home bins or take them to the supermarket for recycling.
don’t litter ever

and this is with believing that AGW is a complete and utter hoax with fabricated evidence and corrupt so-called scientists fiddling their research to produce desired results.

 

[kimmielittle]

since they are dying anyway, it doesn’t matter that our ineffiecient green energy generators are killing them off?

:banghead: that’s it??? just based on curly light bulb use??? when there are significant environmental hazards from the mercury inside them so the people choosing not to install them may have made their decision for environmental reasons??? and all of 2000 people…

some of my personal efforts:
no dishwasher
use a clothesline instead of the dryer. have one but use it rarely
natural gas hot water heater (used to be solar but the panels broke in a freeze and it is not cost effective to replace it. next solar system could be one of these)
natural gas home heating (keep winter temp at 19C 66F)
evaporative air conditioner rather than refrigerative (when temps hit 44C 111F outside, it is not very cool inside maybe 34C 93F and if it is humid, it doesn’t work at all )
used water from the air conditioner is redirected to the lawn
gray water from clothes washer is also directed to the lawn
use cold water as preference for washing machine
use electric lights only when in room and only if necessary, such as night time
go to bed early
recycle paper, plastic, glass using council bins provided
use ‘green’ bags for shopping rather than get plastic (paper not available here)
reuse any plastic bags for home bins or take them to the supermarket for recycling.
don’t litter ever

and this is with believing that AGW is a complete and utter hoax with fabricated evidence and corrupt so-called scientists fiddling their research to produce desired results.

But but her study isn’t biased

AND someone told her that they are looking into a way to stop a running bird chopper turbine…running full force - from the speed of an approaching raptor or bat…

Wonder if she’s ever been in a car…that met a bird?

 

[jilly4ski]

since they are dying anyway, it doesn’t matter that our ineffiecient green energy generators are killing them off?

:banghead: that’s it??? just based on curly light bulb use??? when there are significant environmental hazards from the mercury inside them so the people choosing not to install them may have made their decision for environmental reasons??? and all of 2000 people…

some of my personal efforts:
no dishwasher
use a clothesline instead of the dryer. have one but use it rarely
natural gas hot water heater (used to be solar but the panels broke in a freeze and it is not cost effective to replace it. next solar system could be one of these)
natural gas home heating (keep winter temp at 19C 66F)
evaporative air conditioner rather than refrigerative (when temps hit 44C 111F outside, it is not very cool inside maybe 34C 93F and if it is humid, it doesn’t work at all )
used water from the air conditioner is redirected to the lawn
gray water from clothes washer is also directed to the lawn
use cold water as preference for washing machine
use electric lights only when in room and only if necessary, such as night time
go to bed early
recycle paper, plastic, glass using council bins provided
use ‘green’ bags for shopping rather than get plastic (paper not available here)
reuse any plastic bags for home bins or take them to the supermarket for recycling.
don’t litter ever

and this is with believing that AGW is a complete and utter hoax with fabricated evidence and corrupt so-called scientists fiddling their research to produce desired results.

You know what’s really funny, is that oil and gas companies get fined huge amounts of money for birds are found dead on their property or where waste water/cleansing ponds are. But if you own a “green” windmill then you don’t have to pay those fines for killing protected migratory birds. Can we say double standard.

We live in an apartment in the cold north, so some of the things you can do, we cannot (or even what my parents do) especially in the winter.
-But my apartment building in LEED certified. And we pay less than $100 for both electricity and gas, especially since we were paying over $250 in NY for electricity only.
-We have 4 people (soon to be 5) in a two bedroom small apartment, which means shared light and heat.

• We take our laundry to my mother’s or MIL’s so we can do less loads (our washers are tiny) and she has a gas dryer.
  -We recycle everything we can and have always had good combined recycling.
  -Some of our light bulbs in our personal lamps are CFLs because we used to live in central NY and our power grid was unstable, and would burn out our incandescent really fast. (It also burnt out the CFLs faster than they are advertised, so I don’t know if it was any better for the environment but it was better to change light bulbs every 6 months rather than every month).
  -We turn off all lights and electronics when they are not in use or don’t need to be on.
  -We keep the temp low in the winter and relatively high in the summer (we live next to a freeway so we can’t open window really, we can’t open bedroom window at all because the children could fall out).
  -take short showers and don’t let the water run without using it.
  -Growing up, my parents composted everything they could, and we had a big garden which grew many of our own vegetables. (They still do in fact and grow enough green/yellow beans to last them all year until next harvest).

*I forgot to mention that our nightlights are LED lights, and light sensored, so they are only on when it is dark.

 

[kimmielittle]

next solar system could be one of these)

My great grandpa was a Natural Historian - they used a smaller type of unit like this in the High Sierras.

 

[kimmielittle]

You know what’s really funny, is that oil and gas companies get fined huge amounts of money for birds are found dead on their property or where waste water/cleansing ponds are. But if you own a “green” windmill then you don’t have to pay those fines for killing protected migratory birds. Can we say double standard.

We live in an apartment in the cold north, so some of the things you can do, we cannot (or even what my parents do) especially in the winter.

A BIG factor mostly over looked in environmental hype. Like Wind Turbine Power…I wonder if they’ve ever been to places like The Twin Cities or North of them - let alone lived there year round?

 

[jilly4ski]

A BIG factor mostly over looked in environmental hype. Like Wind Turbine Power…I wonder if they’ve ever been to places like The Twin Cities or North of them - let alone lived there year round?

lol! sometimes I wonder. Actually one of the colleges South of the cities has 1 turbine windmill (it is hideous, because it is oddly proportioned, very large blades to small stand). But don’t know if it runs, or if they de-ice it in the winter. It wasn’t running when I drove by this December. Water power doesn’t work in the winter as the Mississippi freezes over during normal winters. We are too far north for solar panels to work optimally. (Not to mention our weather is such that we get weeks at a time with overcast skies).

I think it is interesting that we here in MN, though it is generally colder than in NY, we probably save electricity and power because our grid is newer and more stable. So maybe environmentalist should be focusing on updating the power grid in the East and South where the grid is old, so as to cut total power waste.

 

[lynnvinc]

You know what’s really funny, is that oil and gas companies get fined huge amounts of money for birds are found dead on their property or where waste water/cleansing ponds are. But if you own a “green” windmill then you don’t have to pay those fines for killing protected migratory birds. Can we say double standard.

We live in an apartment in the cold north, so some of the things you can do, we cannot (or even what my parents do) especially in the winter.
-But my apartment building in LEED certified. And we pay less than $100 for both electricity and gas, especially since we were paying over $250 in NY for electricity only.
-We have 4 people (soon to be 5) in a two bedroom small apartment, which means shared light and heat.

• We take our laundry to my mother’s or MIL’s so we can do less loads (our washers are tiny) and she has a gas dryer.
  -We recycle everything we can and have always had good combined recycling.
  -Some of our light bulbs in our personal lamps are CFLs because we used to live in central NY and our power grid was unstable, and would burn out our incandescent really fast. (It also burnt out the CFLs faster than they are advertised, so I don’t know if it was any better for the environment but it was better to change light bulbs every 6 months rather than every month).
  -We turn off all lights and electronics when they are not in use or don’t need to be on.
  -We keep the temp low in the winter and relatively high in the summer (we live next to a freeway so we can’t open window really, we can’t open bedroom window at all because the children could fall out).
  -take short showers and don’t let the water run without using it.
  -Growing up, my parents composted everything they could, and we had a big garden which grew many of our own vegetables. (They still do in fact and grow enough green/yellow beans to last them all year until next harvest).

*I forgot to mention that our nightlights are LED lights, and light sensored, so they are only on when it is dark.

:clapping:

 

[kimmielittle]

Ha ha ha ha

We’ve been visited by RealClimate.
Notice two stars missing since I’ve posted my last posts.

I wonder what in my posts, they didn’t like?

Speaks volumes about AGW post-normal science attitudes.

 

[kimmielittle]

Ahhh The Environmental Friendly Wind Turbans at Work

users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos

See photos

 

[kimmielittle]

More on the “unprecedented” drought of 2011

http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Palmer1934_2011.gif

On a Natural Climate “denier” site I was warned

“Don’t make the mistake of confusing weather change with climate change. They are two completely different concepts”

"Don’t make the mistake of confusing Climate change with AGW. They are two completely different concepts"…was my answer…I wonder how long my comment will stay?

 

[kimmielittle]

:clapping:

I hope this response, by you, means that you revisit your biases?

 

[kimmielittle]

What is the Bases for the Mann Made Climate Change AGW ].?

That pre-industrial CO2 was 280ppm?

Isn’t that the very heart of the claim?

What happens to that claim if the 19th century CO2 averages were approximately 340ppm?

Why would approximately 70% of actual measurements be ignored …for the lower levels?

What if a SLOPE were used / chosen / picked to to promote the hypothesis?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11558

It is clear how only low readings were chosen. Also notice how the slope and trend is changed compared to the entire record.

As Jaworowski notes,

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv.

Beck recently confirmed Jaworowski’s research. A September 2008 article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated the 19th century findings. In a devastating conclusion Beck writes,

Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.

So the pre-industrial level is at least 50 ppm higher than the level put into the computer models that produce all future climate predictions. The models also incorrectly assume uniform atmospheric global distribution and virtually no variability of CO2 from year to year.

westinstenv.org/palbot/2008/12/17/pre-industrial-co2-levels-were-about-the-same-as-today/

 

[exoflare]

More on the “unprecedented” drought of 2011

http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Palmer1934_2011.gif

To be fair, you are comparing a July to a November.