tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post853197830564949088..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Falsifying projections from WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2813260961509010592015-04-29T10:54:06.179+10:002015-04-29T10:54:06.179+10:00Quite correct Bernard we used to have a sign on th...Quite correct Bernard we used to have a sign on the dewar to not enter the lift under any circumstances. I would walk up by the stairs and my colleague would then send the lift up with the dewar and if it did not arrive at the correct time we would go into emergency mode.<br /><br />Most staff knew the protocol. Visitors were the only minor problem.<br /><br />When top up dewars are venting large large amounts of gas your are in great danger without adequate ventilation. BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84484015014314677142015-04-29T10:40:27.003+10:002015-04-29T10:40:27.003+10:00In the oncology lab in which I used to work we had...In the oncology lab in which I used to work we had three ~100 L dewars sitting right next to our biohazard hood. Ventilation was good in that lab although I always mused about the risk, but in hindsight what really should have raised eyebrows is the way the top-up dewars were transported in the elevator - our elevators were notorious for breaking down and staying so for long stretches at a time. There was no protocol (then) for transporting the nitrogen without people present in the elevator, although I suspect that it would take a greater evaporation in those drafty elevators to present a real danger than was occurring.<br /><br />Still...<br /><br />And on the day that the Australians in Indonesia were executed by firing squad, I've always said that the cheapest and most humane way to purposely kill people is by nitrogen asphixiation. Why even the 'civilised' USA persists in barbaric bunglings with electric chairs or often-painful drugs when such a simple alternative is available is completely beyond me.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20030434294696761302015-04-29T10:19:26.070+10:002015-04-29T10:19:26.070+10:00The death of the scientist was at the Geelong Labs...The death of the scientist was at the Geelong Labs where they worked on very nasty animal pathogens. It was not in my lab! BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83734862465827074232015-04-29T10:15:00.874+10:002015-04-29T10:15:00.874+10:00We used to have two 400l liquid nitrogen dewars in...We used to have two 400l liquid nitrogen dewars in our lab. They fed the temperature controlled N2 flow gas that cooled our crystals to close to liquid nitrogen temperatures.<br />Normal air has about 20% O2. We very carefully monitored O2 levels as humans stop absorbing O2 when the O2 levels get to 16%. It has everything to do with partial pressures.<br />The symptoms are very scary as you just fall asleep and never wake up! What is even worse you have no warning you are asphyxiating as this response is CO2 driven.<br />We actually lost a well respected scientist who had passed through an air lock into a lab with a failed ventilation fan belt. Cost considerations had stopped proper maintenance and even the backup system had already failed. He managed three steps before collapsing.<br />I wonder if the deniers would say that 16% O2 is plenty for good mammalian breathing. After all if 0.04% is bugger all 16% is heaps! Bert<br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2962293053705449642015-04-27T15:56:06.610+10:002015-04-27T15:56:06.610+10:00"the AGW side is losing and being caught fudg..."the AGW side is losing and being caught fudging..."<br /><br />The winged monkey has been given its orders from the fossil fuel industry and out it flies into the world to spread its gobshite.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50334383238088247542015-04-27T13:08:09.887+10:002015-04-27T13:08:09.887+10:00This meme really bothers me. After all, if the CO...This meme really bothers me. After all, if the CO2-is-heavier-than-air-and-does-not-diffuse meme had any legs, babies would routinely die from being left on lounge room floors...<br /><br />It takes some seriously unusual conditions to stratify air. Oh, it can be done with care - it's entirely possible to fill an open-topped jar with CO2 - but keeping it separated from the rest of the atmosphere by relying only on stratification is a fraught enterprise. It's actually an interesting experimental project for kids, by having them devise experiments to test the modifying effects of vessel depth, opening area, air movement velocity, duration of contact with the open atmosphere, and any other parameters that they can come up with. It's also interesting to hear what they think would serve as a good detector/surrogate for CO2 presence...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32635539891724753682015-04-27T13:07:04.541+10:002015-04-27T13:07:04.541+10:00OT(ish), but have we seen this, folks? -
https://...OT(ish), but have we seen this, folks? -<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6NfRMv-4OY<br /><br />Be sure you hang around for the punchline...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12110188983342702762015-04-27T12:56:57.395+10:002015-04-27T12:56:57.395+10:00Ladylifegrows echoes the late Tim Curtin's mis...Ladylifegrows echoes the late Tim Curtin's misunderstanding that CO2 cannot diffuse to or from more than several metres above ground level:<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/18/tim-curtin-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-53247" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/18/tim-curtin-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-53247</a><br /><br />It's staggering that these people think thusly. How do they imagine that CO2 ever rises from the surface of the planet? Do they propose that CO2 at altitude only arrives there from trees growing at that same altitude? Is this the <b><i>onion atmosphere hypothesis</i></b>?!<br /><br />I weep for the inadequacies of (non-Scandinavian) educational standards, and for the neurobiological limitations not yet pruned out of the human genonome by evolution. Still, as much as humans seem determined to avoid the former, they appear to be dedicated to urgently expediting the latter...<br /><br />Which only makes me weep all the more.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63615945849020541392015-04-27T12:43:04.336+10:002015-04-27T12:43:04.336+10:00"It's always been about how much of the w..."It's always been about how much of the warming can we attribute to man when all things aren't held equal, after accounting for all of the factors that naturally change and respond to any CO2 increase."<br /><br />You think? Careful, this sounds dangerously like scientific reasoning Anon. You might accidentally find out that this is what science has been doing for the past century.<br /><br />"Now that the AGW side is losing and being caught fudging temp records"<br /><br />LOL. Your conspiracy crankery is showing. You *do* understand that it is impossible to curate a metric like "global mean surface temperature" without adjusting the weather temperature record for joinability, right?<br /><br />This article on skeptical JCurry's blog (as well as the comment discussion) is a good one to read through for those still clinging to the "it's all a mirage caused by fraudulent temperature adjustments" crowd.<br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/<br /><br /><br />waxlibertyhttps://disqus.com/by/waxliberty/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75292319355406721422015-04-27T11:19:45.178+10:002015-04-27T11:19:45.178+10:00It's so weird when people say they don't d...It's so weird when people say they don't deny it's warming, and then say that the temperature records can't be trusted. sushihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09711981747042756571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22835806078571084112015-04-27T09:56:33.590+10:002015-04-27T09:56:33.590+10:00There seems to be a parallel between those deniers...There seems to be a parallel between those deniers who say, "really, we do accept global warming", and the anti-vaxxers who say, "really, we're not against vaccines". Push either of them a little bit, and you'll see their true beliefs.Dan Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12732509347477810998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83421508919583689652015-04-27T08:57:40.865+10:002015-04-27T08:57:40.865+10:00Richard whatever's article was tedious and wro...Richard whatever's article was tedious and wrong, and I nearly didn't even pick him up on the points I covered. I was initially going to concentrate on Terry's mistake about projections and predictions.<br /><br />The points I did cover were pretty well the essence of Richard's article. The rest was padding.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16809952345710975202015-04-27T08:31:47.980+10:002015-04-27T08:31:47.980+10:00Anon2Anon2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22061506795201352982015-04-27T07:43:10.509+10:002015-04-27T07:43:10.509+10:00Why do you need to do an experiment? Opinion is su...Why do you need to do an experiment? Opinion is sufficent. Isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20896955819164629772015-04-27T07:40:22.116+10:002015-04-27T07:40:22.116+10:00@-"The AGW crowd and scientifically illiterat...@-"The AGW crowd and scientifically illiterate always wanted the debate to remain black and white and extreme, yay vs nay. Now that the AGW side is losing and being caught fudging temp records, they have to slowly try and address the real questions...such as how much, not yay vs nay. These are questions the AGW has never been able to answer and never will without admitting their IPCC and associated political lobbying has been a fraud."<br /><br />You have a point, the biggest 'fudge' of the figures was the 'adjustment' to sea surface temperatures, 70% of the surface and 90% of the thermal storage of the Earth had its temperature shifted by half a degree to change the trend.<br />That is not the only thing the IPCC and government funded scientists have managed to get wrong. Sea level rise and ice cap melt has been significantly wrong in all their projections, while their record on predicting the local effects like flooding and drought have been abysmal.<br /><br />It is clear that the IPCC has consistently underestimated the severity of the climate change which we have observed over the last few decades. <br /><br />However to label this consistent underestimation fraud seems a little harsh and cynical. I know some suggest a conspiracy of industry money from the fossil fuel interests has distorted the political process, just because many politicians get most of their funding from such sources, and the industry spends more than anybody else on political lobbying, but to conclude that ALL the science that has come out of the last fifty years of research is therefore fraudulent seems unwise.<br /><br />Certainly the military research on radiative energy transfer in the atmosphere is likely to be accurate as it has to work for missile heat tracking. And that is the basis for climate sensitivity calculations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58844315611019972802015-04-27T07:36:33.587+10:002015-04-27T07:36:33.587+10:00Oh dear Anonymous. Stop projecting.
AGW side? Sc...Oh dear Anonymous. Stop projecting. <br /><br />AGW side? Scientifically illiterate? Black and white? Political lobbying? <br /><br />Stop being such a dupe. <br /><br />Anon2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88392492101116162382015-04-27T06:30:54.549+10:002015-04-27T06:30:54.549+10:00Way to tackle the WUWT article point by point. Wa...Way to tackle the WUWT article point by point. Wait...you didn't. The WUWT guest column was much more compelling than you are. The debate has never been yay vs nay does CO2 cause warming all things being equal. Nope. It's always been about how much of the warming can we attribute to man when all things aren't held equal, after accounting for all of the factors that naturally change and respond to any CO2 increase. The AGW crowd and scientifically illiterate always wanted the debate to remain black and white and extreme, yay vs nay. Now that the AGW side is losing and being caught fudging temp records, they have to slowly try and address the real questions...such as how much, not yay vs nay. These are questions the AGW has never been able to answer and never will without admitting their IPCC and associated political lobbying has been a fraud. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31220830332074594142015-04-27T05:56:23.422+10:002015-04-27T05:56:23.422+10:00Oh I just loved this commenter's line:
"...Oh I just loved this commenter's line:<br /><br />"Personally I am of the opinion that water feedback is quite strongly negative, and the changes will be even less than that."<br /><br />It is such a comfort to know that. Of course, I am assuming that a Wutter can set the properties of water vapour feedback by willpower alone because otherwise I don't see how personal opinion enters into it.<br /><br />Perhaps I shall conduct an experiment later: it is my personal opinion that water boils at 75C (at normal atmospheric pressure ofc).Millicentnoreply@blogger.com