Dr. Roy Spencer was on the Tucker Carlson show yesterday, talking about climate change and the attempt to link it to hurricanes. When Tucker asked about “Bill Nye the Science Guy”, Dr. Spencer pointed out that Nye participated in a fraud video on CO2, and mentioned that I “cleverly showed the whole thing was faked”. Watch.
Meteorologist: Climate change not causing more hurricanes
Sep. 14, 2018 – 3:26 – Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that the number of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. has actually fallen since the 1930s.
For those that want to see how I took Al Gore and Bill Nye down, have a look at this post:
Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment
Years later, that video with the fraudulent experiment is still up on Al Gore’s “Climate Reality” website. Clearly for them, the end justifies the means.
Tucker says, at the end of the video, “It’s nice to have someone who actually knows what he’s talking about on the show.” I think Tucker has too many politicians and gov’t officials on his show. 🙂
As this letter section seems to be about faitghs, a exaample from my time in Burma in 11946. We were the Royal Corp. of Signals and had to set up a tent HQ. Poles were provided and we sharpened them, drove into the ground and set up the tents an d moved in. Many months later we had the ussual Moonseen. The poles are spromted with branches and leaves. So was this nature or a belief in the Old Testmon t ?
MJE
Rearding the lack of a gene for the m aking of vitiman C, what wwould happen if v ia genetic engerning a primate was to be so changed by re-activating this gene ?
MJE
Michael,
We probably have the technology now to repair or replace the broken GLO gene. The issue is, should we? Since we now know how to cure the dietary deficiency disease scurvy, the need isn’t pressing.
But for all I know, someone may have tried to do so with a macaque.
Yeah, this would be pretty easy (albeit somewhat expensive) with today’s technology. There are other things more pressing though. I did take a look at PubMed, but struck out on this. Try some keywords …. good luck:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Phil,
I also didn’t find anything on genetic engineering toward reactivating the broken gene.
But searching Pub Med, as per your suggestion, dredged up this 1979 paper, from the era in which Linus Pauling was advocating megadoses of vitamin C (with me among his Stanford undergrad guinea pigs in 1970). It advocates giving humans dosages per body mass comparable to those produced by mammals (such as goats) with intact GLO genes, in order to create “a new and more robust, longer-living, tough human sub-species, Homo sapiens ascorbicus, by the biochemical reversal of a primate mutation occurring some 60 million years ago.”
Homo sapiens ascorbicus, a biochemically corrected robust human mutant.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/491997
A recent paper estimated the date of the disabling mutation for primates at ~61 Ma and for guinea pigs at ~14 Ma.
We might not benefit as much from stressed goat-sized vitamin C consumption as the author imagined, since we make more efficient use of that which we obtain from food than do those animals which can produce ascorbate from blood sugar.
The other “higher” primates–tarsiers, New World monkeys, Old World monkeys and other apes–which share our broken GLO gene also use their red blood cells to compensate for the small amount of vitamin C available.
How Humans Make Up For An ‘Inborn’ Vitamin C Deficiency
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320120726.htm
I didn’t have time to read all of the other comments, but the Dr. Spencer might be careful regarding the temperature change of CO2 vs air in a bottle (Whether or not this experiment has anything to do with climate change). The temperature change in the bottle can be considered a free convection energy transfer over a flat plat (for simplicity) problem. Given q=h.A.dT and we can estimate h from the Nusselt number for free convection. Nu=0.52*Ra^0.2 (Rayleigh Number). Then, for the same energy transfer rate, a little math will show that dT_CO2=[(R_air/R_CO2)*(k_air/k_CO2)]^(1/1.2) dT_air; k=conductivity, R=(beta/(nu*alpha)), beta=thermal expansion, nu=kinematic viscosity, alpha=thermal diffusivity. At 1bar, and 300K, this simplifies to dT_CO2 = 1.42 * dT_air. Conclusion, initially (unfortunately) the Science Guy’s experiment should show a higher temperature increase compared to air if an infinite sized bottle was used. However, since the bottle isn’t infinite and is actually small and sealed. the problem becomes a heat capacity problem. The experiment would have to be conducted with heat lamps exactly aligned, and the heat absorbed and reflected off of the surfaces within the bottles exactly matching (pattern on the globes, colours, the thermometer would actually influence the results, the bottom of the jar, the top of the jar, etc.) My conclusion, the experiment is likely not reproducible, nor does it have any meaning with respect to climate science.
errata, R=((beta/(nu*alpha))^0.2