The Curry corner

I could, but honestly I'm tired of spoon feeding everyone. And besides you wouldn't believe me anyway. Can't you just look it up?

 

Who has chatted with Dr. Lindzen as I have? Who but me has studied some of his important papers on Climate?

Do not speak of a man unless you communicated with the man. What is your beef with Curry or Spencer?

 

So, you admit you do not know a thing about Dr. Curry.

If during your time here on Earth, you turned on lights, ate food produced in a field, ate crops picked from trees, drove to the food store, took vacations, you sold out to big oil.

Get back to us when you stop selling out to big oil.

 

1. Narcissism.

2. Narcissism.

3. Narcissism.

It was an easy bet.

 

Knowing that Dr. Curry questions the AWG cult is all what is needed for some posters to come and express their contempt and hatred.

Where do they get their feeling from when life is so good and and beautiful?

I don't know.

 

Let Dr. Curry handle Desmog the blog site.

 

When you need loneliness, choose science. When you must have crowds applause, choose politics or acting. Both amount to much the same thing.

 

BFD. Every climatologist knows that climate has changed during periods where humans weren't the driving cause.

In fact, YOU found that out from climatologists.

You can't post some piece of science like that and then claim scientists forgot or something.

 

That's the irony of that argument. They have to use all of that evidence scientists collected to claim that climate has been changing for billions of years. And then they say that same evidence can't be trusted in the very next sentence. Well...which way is it. Do you trust it or not? You can't have it both ways.

 

Feynman is NOT claiming that each scientist must conduct experiments to demonstrate every theory and law upon which their work depends.

That would be profoundly stupid - it would end scientific progress.

 

There is ignorance, there is willful ignorance and then there is this.......

I have explained before about diffusion and WIND, Add movement of the air and the gases MIX.

Mutters to self - dont even GO there with using imperial measures in science - that has not happened since the century before last!!!!

 

You need to be more specific than that.

I don't see any case where notable scientific institutions have unduly denigrated evidence of past climate change.

 

Doesn't this just blow your mind. I mean, I see these statements and I want to pull my hair out. You don't need some elaborate explanation explaining why CO2 doesn't all sink to the bottom. The fact that it doesn't actually do that should tell you there's something wrong with your statement right off the bat. The irony is that the turbulent mixing induced by wind is a simple and mind numbingly obvious explanation. And yet I'm the narcissist for telling someone to go look it up themselves.

 

Your style is a little subtle. I missed it, too, on a post back there. Looking back, I really don't know why!

Sorry -

 

That amounts to an attack on the poster. You have never explained your diffusion concept and how it defines the laws of physics and gravity.

You are talking very very low level. I am talking at high altitude. And you want to credit a minor trace gas as running climate. And more, you blame man. And you call Curry names to try to make you seem her superior. Shame on you.

 

First of all, stick only to claims made by me. Do not add more to my statments than I make.

I will number claims.
1. CO2 is a heavier than air gas. Do you deny this? i am not wrong. i posted from expert sites proving I am accurate.
2. Did i allege no CO2 gets very high? No, know that a trace amount is pretty high. I never deny that. I deny it makes the earth too warm. I deny man is in charge of climate.

You never explain why a heavy gas gets so far up in the atmosphere. If you have, I have yet to see it.

 

You bring this up. So what do you tell yourself?

If you understand crude refining, then you understand that science refines based on the premise that heavier fluids sink and the lighter fluids rise.

Why do you hold to the thinness that a super tiny trace of gas manages climate? Do you see solutions if you accept that premise? Do you see man hauling to high altitude millions of gallons of gases to restore balance?

 

I don't know about you Will, but for me, this topic started seriously in 1980. Does this sound like I recently learned of climate?

Sure, there is a lot known about climate. But once politics is the driver, all that blows out the window. When man gets blamed, it then is politics.

Notice too no politicians have solutions. Could they trap Carbon Dioxide? Sure, so why not do that?
Can they store the trace gas? Sure. What are the Democrats doing about that?

When i bring up the Great Lakes and melting glaciers, none controlled by humans, why is an enormous factor totally ignored, and ignored by Democrats? Science is not ignoring this.

I was forced to study this when studying the FAA courses to become a pilot. Even had i not wanted to learn this, I had to or not fly airplanes.

Stop to think of it like this.

You line up Democrats and due to their party propaganda, it is mans doing.
We republicans rely on science.

When you cite Hanson. I don't waste my time running the man down. But Democrats trash Dr Curry and Dr. Lindzen and many many more due to them not believing in Democrats credo.

 

There are 4 reasons that I know that cause CO2 to remain well mixed vertically in the atmosphere.

1. The atmosphere is in a constant state of agitation. It is being perpetually stirred. This is the dominating factor.

2. External buoyancy forces cause it to rise. Air that is unstable will rise. Convection can loft surface parcels of air into the stratosphere...think midwest supercells whose overshooting tops can puncture the tropopause. Of course, there are less extreme examples of convection. I just happen to have a passion for the science of supercells.

3. Internal buoyancy forces cause it to rise. The specific heat of CO2 is lower than that of air. That means it will heat faster than it's environment. The molecules will rise to conserve their adiabatic balance with pressure and temperature. Obviously the reverse is true as well. It will cool faster than it's environment and descend vertically.

4. Brownian motion prevents the stratification of gases due to the random motions of molecules induced by their kinetic energy. The higher the temperature the more motion there is. These random motions will loft heavier molecules above lighter molecules naturally. Normal Earth gravity is not sufficient to overcome this force. You can read more about this by searching for gas diffusion.

I don't know a lot about petrochemical science. However, there are a couple of differences here. First, petrochemicals, like many subterranean fluids, aren't typically in a state of perpetual agitation. Second, fluids do not respond in the same diffusive ways as gases. Fluids easily stratify. Gases do not.

I don't think CO2 manages the climate. I think it influences the climate just like the Sun, biological activity, aerosols, other gases, and the list goes on and on. I do not see any easy solutions. And to be frank, I'm not convinced that we even need to do anything about it. For me the debate is not if we are influencing the climate. It's do we need to do anything about it. I don't know. Humans are really good at adapting. Is it better to just adapt than to spend trillions on something that might not even work? Again, I don't know. But, I do think it's irresponsible to have a fat-dumb-and-happy attitude about it all.

 

Why are you pitching this as a partisan issue? Climatology isn't partisan. Climatology is science.

You didn't have to learn about climate change to become a pilot. I'm a private pilot, IFR, Land and Sea. I know the material.

I've said good things about Dr. Curry. She's definitely FAR from the center on climatology, so I do point out that she does NOT represent climatology - in the USA or around the world. However, she has promoted that we need to be taking immediate action on climate change - something Republicans oppose, by the way.

Politically, Republicans are the ones who have worked to strangle science, so your claims there are simply ridiculous. Look at the treatment of the CDC. Look at the Chairmen of science related committees in Congress. Look who Trump appointed to run NASA. Look who he handed the DoE. Look who he put in charge of education. Look at the culling from executive branch departments those working on climate issues. Look at the dumbing down of our intelligence services.

Suggesting Republicans look to science for information on topics of science is just plain silly.

 

I don't really have a big problem with Judith Curry either. I mean she raises some good points. But, on the flip side, how she approaches disputes is ridiculous. For example, she labeled the whole US climate report as deceptive because she wants the sea level rise rate from the last 20 years removed from a single sentence. That's a single sentence among 400+ pages. And the whole report is somehow deceptive because of that? Come on.

 

I've seen that kind of direction from her, too - basically, picking one issue that isn't central and suggesting it invalidates the science as a whole.

 

Oh yes I have. Several times and even if you missed it Dr Google is always available and diffusion is not MY concept but an established principle in physics. Usually taught here in primary school science

 

You have said diffusion probably 2 times and told me i must go look it up. I studied physics in high school and college. I have no clue why you think that explains how man controls climate.

 

She posts her blog. I suggest you read her much more. She has the habit of having other scientists go into some in depth explanations.

You can get all kinds of reports at this site.

If you do not agree with the reports, contribute to her page and show her what kind of whiz kid you are.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/#more-23734