Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[DJL 235]

airdvr

***OK, but I would give him the same credence as I would a Philip Morris flavor blending botanist. Who published a study that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

I agree. Almost the same as scientists fighting over scraps of federal funding

Exactly the same.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 2,027]

airdvr

****** And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

AND your view is hopelessly wrong.

You really believe in a 340,000,000,000 dollar industry there is no competition for government funding? That the possibility of massaged data to insure grant money isn't a possibility? Here's a list of the Federally Funded Research & Development Centers. What other government program with that budget is squeaky clean? I think you need to step away from the chalkboard and look around.

Long and IRRELEVANT list deleted, since it does not address what was stated in any way whatsoever.



Does not in any way address your previous claim.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

For the second time in just 12 months, scientists have recorded severe coral bleaching across huge tracts of the Great Barrier Reef after completing aerial surveys along its entire length. In 2016, bleaching was most severe in the northern third of the Reef, while one year on, the middle third has experienced the most intense coral bleaching.

“The combined impact of this back-to-back bleaching stretches for 1,500 km (900 miles), leaving only the southern third unscathed,” says Prof. Terry Hughes, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, who undertook the aerial surveys in both 2016 and 2017.

“The bleaching is caused by record-breaking temperatures driven by global warming. This year, 2017, we are seeing mass bleaching, even without the assistance of El Niño conditions.”

The Great Barrier Reef has been dying for twenty five million years.
It has withstood CO2 levels many times of that of today's levels.

[billvon 2,991]

>What would we expect if CO2 levels where to QUADRUPLE.....an ice age perhaps?

Nope. Massive ocean acidification, certainly - and much more warming. You'd also start seeing human health effects.

[billvon 2,991]

>It has withstood CO2 levels many times of that of today's levels.

Not as a coral reef.

[billvon 2,991]

>Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures,
>or could it be the other way around?

Both are true, of course. "Does fire cause heat, or could it sometimes be the other way around?" Depends on the fuel, the circumstances, the temperature etc.

[kallend 2,027]

billvon

>Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures,
>or could it be the other way around?

Both are true, of course. "Does fire cause heat, or could it sometimes be the other way around?" Depends on the fuel, the circumstances, the temperature etc.

You can make a refrigerator powered by a flame (or any heat source).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_refrigerator

The 2nd Law is quite remarkable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

airdvr

And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Please explain what particular problem prompted this SCIENCE investigation?

www.newsweek.com/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-image-583461

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>What would we expect if CO2 levels where to QUADRUPLE.....an ice age perhaps?

Nope. Massive ocean acidification, certainly - and much more warming. You'd also start seeing human health effects.

Then how do you explain the late Ordovician ice age with CO2 at >2000ppm?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

***>What would we expect if CO2 levels where to QUADRUPLE.....an ice age perhaps?

Nope. Massive ocean acidification, certainly - and much more warming. You'd also start seeing human health effects.

Then how do you explain the late Ordovician ice age with CO2 at >2000ppm?

You could read this for one theory:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018210002191

Not sure if Whatupwiththat has a coles notes version for you, sorry.

[brenthutch 444]

SkyDekker

******>What would we expect if CO2 levels where to QUADRUPLE.....an ice age perhaps?

Nope. Massive ocean acidification, certainly - and much more warming. You'd also start seeing human health effects.

Then how do you explain the late Ordovician ice age with CO2 at >2000ppm?

You could read this for one theory:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018210002191

Not sure if Whatupwiththat has a coles notes version for you, sorry.
From your link:
"Here, we follow the hypothesis initiated by Barnes (2004) that an Ordovician superplume event occurred during the Middle to Late Ordovician. Such an event would not only have a large impact on the Ordovician biodiversification (Barnes, 2004) but it would also be responsible for the climatic upheaval during the Late Ordovician"

As Paul Harvey used to say...."now for the rest of the story"

"There is no direct evidence of a superplume event or of basaltic traps and the present study is therefore a hypothetical modelling approach..."

Hypothetical modeling approach......hmmm where have I heard that before?

[airdvr 210]

kallend

*** And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Please explain what particular problem prompted this SCIENCE investigation?

www.newsweek.com/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-image-583461

The "problem" is we don't know enough about black holes. Do we need to know more about black holes? Other than a search for knowledge I'm not sure. We certainly aren't suggesting we change our economic engine model to account for black holes.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DJL 235]

airdvr

****** And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Please explain what particular problem prompted this SCIENCE investigation?

www.newsweek.com/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-image-583461

The "problem" is we don't know enough about black holes. Do we need to know more about black holes? Other than a search for knowledge I'm not sure. We certainly aren't suggesting we change our economic engine model to account for black holes.

According to scientists the Heat Death of the Universe will occur in 10^10^3 years. We should start planning now.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 2,027]

airdvr

****** And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Please explain what particular problem prompted this SCIENCE investigation?

www.newsweek.com/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-image-583461

The "problem" is we don't know enough about black holes. Do we need to know more about black holes? Other than a search for knowledge I'm not sure. We certainly aren't suggesting we change our economic engine model to account for black holes.

So now you're backpedaling and saying that "search for knowledge" is a problem.

R i g h t.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

DJL

********* And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Please explain what particular problem prompted this SCIENCE investigation?

www.newsweek.com/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-image-583461

The "problem" is we don't know enough about black holes. Do we need to know more about black holes? Other than a search for knowledge I'm not sure. We certainly aren't suggesting we change our economic engine model to account for black holes.

According to scientists the Heat Death of the Universe will occur in 10^10^3 years. We should start planning now.

I propose a "gravity tax," we have to try something.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

*********>What would we expect if CO2 levels where to QUADRUPLE.....an ice age perhaps?

Nope. Massive ocean acidification, certainly - and much more warming. You'd also start seeing human health effects.

Then how do you explain the late Ordovician ice age with CO2 at >2000ppm?

You could read this for one theory:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018210002191

Not sure if Whatupwiththat has a coles notes version for you, sorry.
From your link:
"Here, we follow the hypothesis initiated by Barnes (2004) that an Ordovician superplume event occurred during the Middle to Late Ordovician. Such an event would not only have a large impact on the Ordovician biodiversification (Barnes, 2004) but it would also be responsible for the climatic upheaval during the Late Ordovician"

As Paul Harvey used to say...."now for the rest of the story"

"There is no direct evidence of a superplume event or of basaltic traps and the present study is therefore a hypothetical modelling approach..."

Hypothetical modeling approach......hmmm where have I heard that before?

Considering you are asking about something that took place approx. 1,000,000 YEARS ago, there is no direct evidence. Hypothetical modelling is all there is.

But more importantly, where is your "direct evidence" that existence of the Ordovician ice age is evidence AGW not being possible. Or any other "direct evidence" related to whatever point you were trying to make with your one liner.

[airdvr 210]

kallend

********* And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Please explain what particular problem prompted this SCIENCE investigation?

www.newsweek.com/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-image-583461

The "problem" is we don't know enough about black holes. Do we need to know more about black holes? Other than a search for knowledge I'm not sure. We certainly aren't suggesting we change our economic engine model to account for black holes.

So now you're backpedaling and saying that "search for knowledge" is a problem.

R i g h t.

I would have thought a perfesser with your edumacation might grasp the written word a little mo' betta.

I never said the search for knowledge was a problem. I said I'm not sure if we need to be doing that. See...the words not sure. I know these 2 words are like a foreign language to most liberals like you sir who are unwaveringly sure of everything you say and do, never entertaining the possibility that you might be wrong, and are unafraid to cram it down people's throats.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 210]

Hmmm...is it this?

Gov. Brown declares California drought emergency is over
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-brown-drought-20170407-story.html

Quote

Startlingly green hills, surging rivers and the snow-wrapped Sierra Nevada had already signaled what Gov. Jerry Brown made official Friday: The long California drought is over.

Or this?

Recovery from the drought may take decades, but large strides were made this year.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/california-drought-worst-450-years

Quote

Over the past five years, California's Central Valley and Southern Coast endured the worst period of dry conditions in nearly 450 years, according to a recent NOAA report.

Locations hit hardest by the drought will likely need decades to recover from the long-term lack of moisture, the scientists said.

While the weather channel held back from blaming the Church Of Climatology the LA Times made sure the collection plate would be full.

Quote

But with climate change expected to accentuate the typically dramatic swings in California weather, the Brown administration is adopting plans to embed conservation in the state’s water ways.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DJL 235]

You're doing the infomercial thing again.

Article 1: The drought is over.

Article 2: There are areas that may take decades to recover.

How is that difficult? They both even cite similar examples; wells are dry, that tree ranges in the Sierra Nevada are browned and dead, the Salton Sea is low, reservoirs are low, basically there is damage that will take some time to recover from even in the face of adequate rainfall in various parts of the state.

As for planning ahead, that's just smart. According to the article you posted global warming will create weather patterns that make droughts more likely. Remember the oil embargo and how it changed fuel usage?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 2,027]

airdvr

************ And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Please explain what particular problem prompted this SCIENCE investigation?

www.newsweek.com/event-horizon-telescope-black-hole-image-583461

The "problem" is we don't know enough about black holes. Do we need to know more about black holes? Other than a search for knowledge I'm not sure. We certainly aren't suggesting we change our economic engine model to account for black holes.

So now you're backpedaling and saying that "search for knowledge" is a problem.

R i g h t.

I would have thought a perfesser with your edumacation might grasp the written word a little mo' betta.

I never said the search for knowledge was a problem. I said I'm not sure if we need to be doing that. See...the words not sure. I know these 2 words are like a foreign language to most liberals like you sir who are unwaveringly sure of everything you say and do, never entertaining the possibility that you might be wrong, and are unafraid to cram it down people's throats.

So it wasn't you that wrote: "And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate"

I guess you've been hacked.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>Then how do you explain the late Ordovician ice age with CO2 at >2000ppm?

The higher albedo caused by the ice sheets required a much higher CO2 forcing to swing the thermal balance to positive.

[billvon 2,991]

>The "problem" is we don't know enough about black holes. Do we need to know
>more about black holes?

Of course not. They are a Chinese plot to destroy the economy of the US. Any scientist who wants to research black holes is just lying to get more government money. Besides, black holes don't exist, and even if they do the science is all wrong, and even if it's not wrong the science is a waste of money.

THERE'S NO CONSENSUS!

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Then how do you explain the late Ordovician ice age with CO2 at >2000ppm?

The higher albedo caused by the ice sheets required a much higher CO2 forcing to swing the thermal balance to positive.

Why did the ice sheets form under those high CO2 levels? And where did those greatly elevated CO2 levels come from given there were no coal fired power plants nor SUVs? And how can there be any life left in the ocean given the acidification that was surely occurring.

[billvon 2,991]

>Why did the ice sheets form under those high CO2 levels?

Because solar output dropped by 4%. That was far more than the CO2 forcing back then.

>And how can there be any life left in the ocean given the acidification that was
>surely occurring.

There's plenty of life that can live in acid (or alkaline) oceans; it's just different than the organisms (fish, coral) that we think of as sea life today. For example, sea urchins adapt quickly to more acidic waters.

[brenthutch 444]

CO2 cannot be a very effective GHG then. And how did we get our CO2 levels back to the "safe" level of 350ppm, carbon tax?