Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  Next

Comments 53351 to 53400:

  1. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    DSL: Hartz claims that trillions of dollars could be spent by the oil industry. Why aren't you yelling at him for saying this without any sources? (trillions????) Even his response to me is without sources.
  2. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    No, AH. It's best to be precise. Small-scale desertification can occur through land mismanagement. Large-scale desertification can occur through climate-scale changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Land mismanagement is at the root of some types of desertification, but not desertification in general.
  3. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    How about a #6: Pretend that the ice has been recovering since the end of August?
  4. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    DSL, the second quote doesn't suggest that I am unaware of such mechanisms (which I already acknowledged, and explained how Hadley cell widening fits into my understanding of desertification). My point is that desertification as we know it is primarily dependent on the biodiversity of a given region, and the extent that humans choose to degrade or enhance the local ecology. Widening Hadley cells are responsible for some changing rainfall patterns, but any environment on earth that already experiences extreme temporal variations in moisture are at risk of desertification via human mismanagement of land (thus desertification spreads far beyond the Horse latitudes). Land management is at the root of desertification.
  5. It's not bad
    All that and still no answer to Dikran's question
    So please answer this question directly and unambiguously: Is there anyone other than yourself that is promoting this hypothesis, yes or no?
  6. It's not bad
    Moderators - At this point, given the large number of recent posts on this thread circling around a single sub-issue, a side-track, raised by (but really, IMO, not supported by) a single poster, perhaps it's time to invoke the Comment Policy stating: "Comments should avoid excessive repetition"?
    Moderator Response: [DB] Agreed. That also constitutes sloganeering/PRATT.
  7. It's not bad
    Philippe Chantreau, you said, "Walker and Winslow showed as early as 1932 the ability of E.Coli to grow in the absence of CO2 on a medium more complex than the very basic one. That's obviously not the kind of depth where AH1 will go. Whatever." Whatever, indeed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065164/pdf/brjexppathol00219-0137.pdf Please cite the article (and medium for that matter) you are referring to. you said, "I had to introduce the concepts of PaCO2 and PaO2 [...]" When I have introduced biological concepts on this thread, I have had to repeatedly describe them in great detail (when wikipedia is available). I didn't want to make extra work for myself by introducing PaCO2. Internal CO2 to O2 ratios are a simple way to describe PaCO2 to PaO2. I am very glad that you wield knowledge of biology, and are willing to criticize my information- thank you, btw. you said, "from a purely physiological point of view, CO2 elimination should be easier at high altitude." Of course it is, this is why adapted organisms have a reduced rate of respiration, thus having higher PaCo2 (and be slightly more acidic) than someone actively adapting. sou said, "If one was suddenly exposed to high levels of CO2 at normal pressure, ventilation would increase in order to restore normal PaCO2, then would stabilize as that goal would be reached and alkalosis would not develop." You are absolutely right. I concede this point, although atmospheric CO2 increasing as a result of burning (of fossil fuels or trees and grass) would cause a reduction in concentration of O2, all else being equal. Reduced atmospheric O2 pressure is a large potential effect of widespread human fires. you said, "I note that this paper represents a change from the previous dominant idea, which was one of chronic alkalosis." Thanks for fixing the link! It is an interesting paper which does change the previous (or current depending on who you ask)dominant theory as to acid/base imbalances at altitude. I am skeptical, though, because the mechanism for lower atmospheric O2 pressure causing alkalosis in Sherpas makes sense. you said, "AH1 made an argument about people's death rates at high altitude. I took the bait and looked at life expectancy," Well you took bait that I didn't provide. I did say mortality rates (as did the wikipedia, and study I posted). you said, "The vascular changes associated with low Co2 and low O2 are currently believed to be the most likley causes of vessel permeability leading to pulmonary edema and cerebral edema" This is an interesting theory, but mortality rates from cardiovascular disease are significantly lower in people adapted to low pressure (whats a bigger problem, edema or heart disease?). this study http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/6/495.full (which I have already posted), shows significantly decreased mortality rates for people with cardiovascular diseases who are exposed and adapted to the low pressure of high altitudes (reduced respiratory rate, increased PaCO2 in relation to a steady PaO2 or higher internal CO2/O2 ratio). you said, "Sherpas limit alkalosis by a more efficient response to hypoxia but still experience it." Of course they do; to quote myself, in post #308 "the more extreme elevation a person is at (everest like), the more alkaline they would be in general (because of a respiratory response to reduced internal O2 levels)" you said, "Dikran, there is no PaCo2 to PaO2 imbalance. " Adaptation to lower pressure increases PaCO2- PaO2 is relatively stable at all altitudes. I am glad that you seem to accept (or at least not reject) the evidence I have presented regarding CO2's antioxidant activity. and again, thank you for addressing the points that I did make, I sincerely appreciate it. gws, thank you for pointing that out (perhaps this is what doug was on about), that totally should have read ~ 0.4% (or ~ 4000 ppm). Remember that 4000 ppm is a tenfold increase in current atmospheric levels. Dikran Marsupial, you said, "You are missing the point. How do you know that the effect is due to the difference in CO2 to O2 ratio rather than to other changes in body chemistry due to lower atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen availability. " Thanks for clearly making the point; The effects of adaptation to high altitudes (increased metabolic rate etc.) are consistent with what one would expect from increased exposure to CO2 (because of its antioxidant activity, and its role in protecting and properly distributing the body's O2 supply) which is one result of adaptation.
  8. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    $79 billion, which includes many things that happen to produce data useful to climate research, such as weather satellites, the synoptic weather network, etc. but are mostly intended for other purposes. You occasionally drive your car to town to see a movie. You mostly use it to drive to work. Does the line item for operating your vehicle go entirely to "entertainment?" What a lousy and porous line of argument UCResearch is offering.
  9. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    I meant to point out also that UCResearch does not provide any kind of sourcing for the figures it claims.
  10. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    SirNubwub:
    According to UC Research(http://www.ucresearch.com/tag/global-warming-research)the US government alone has spend $79 BILLION in the last 20+ years.
    Wow, that's some weapons-grade denial at that site. The "$79 BILLION" figure is given without attribution, but may be from Jo Nova. John Timmer takes the claim apart at ArsTechnica. The point is made:
    None of that money goes to the researchers who are actually generating the results that point to anthropogenic warming, so it can't possibly provide an incentive to them.
  11. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    SirNubWub, what sort of critical thinker are you who accepts the word of a blogger at face value. I say UCResearch is wrong. According to your apparent methodology, my opinion is as valid as that of UCResearch. Upon what basis do you choose one opinion over the other? Further, you would have to establish that the research supported by the government was fraudulent. I know you believe that, but you have no evidence. If the research is not fraudulent, then it has social value within the general human project of science. Even if that value is only worth a whole dollar, it is greater than the value of industry-created doubt. The doubt machine created by industry through entities such as the Heartland Institute constitutes a social cost. Through the products we buy, we pay for a future of diminished food and water security, and we pay to be more ignorant. Our quality of life declines because such organizations cast doubt on the project of science, and the impact of scientifically derived knowledge on democratic choice diminishes. The authenticity of the democracy is thus diminished. You are advocating for the un-hitching of the democracy from the more neutral and controllable mechanism of democratic government, and the re-hitching of the democracy to the interests of private property. You are simply a shill, a bot, within that process, and you probably think you're exercising your freedom and doing everyone a favor.
  12. Record Arctic Sea-ice minimum 2012 declared - it's the Silly Season!
    Another part of Judith Curry's comment is as follows: "Judith Curry said that while global warming is “almost certainly” affecting Arctic sea ice, she cautioned that there is a great deal of annual and decadal variability in sea ice cover. She said that the next 5 to 10 years could see a shift in Arctic sea ice behavior, though exactly in which direction is difficult to predict." If she thinks there will be a "shift in behavior" it can only go up, because we have already seen a shift downward since 2007. In addition, looking at your chart of the IPCC prediction, the red line shows almost no Decadal variability after the initial period. The 9 year average shows no variability.
  13. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    @SirNubwub #30: The fossil fuel industry is composed of multinational corporations doing business in countries throughout the world. Go back to your drawing board and calculate how much money these corporations annually spend on lobbying and bribing the governments of the countries they do business in. While you’rer at it, compute how much money the fossil fuel industry spends annually in the US on greenwashing advertisements (i.e., “clean coal”) and on infomercials designed to motivate voters to support Republican candidates for office. While your at it, compute compute how much money the fossil fuel industry spends annually in Canada on greenwashing advertisements (i.e., “clean coal”) and on infomercials designed to motivate voters to support Conservative candidates for office. Repeat the above calculations for every other major industrialized country in the world. Given the big picture of what happens on a global basis, the fossil fuel industry has spent and continues to spend enornmous sums of money throughout the world to perpetuate the Business As Usual conditions that allow it to generate trillions of dollars annually in revenues.
  14. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    SirNubwub, money spent on climate research is to measure and understand what's happening to our climate. A key question is how many millions have the oil lobby spent conducting climate research versus funding of PR misinformation.
  15. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Yes that explains why the segment was more about 'why are you a skeptic?' than 'what do you think is wrong with the science?'. It's rather absurd that PBS excludes their science correspondent from climate science stories.
  16. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Intriguing detail. Bud Ward of the Yale Climate Media Forum wonders why regular News Hour science correspondents didn't handle the Watts segment:
    Why not use veteran science correspondent Miles O’Brien, who NewsHour brought in to cover complex science issues after he and the science staff had been let go by CNN? Climate change is an issue on which O’Brien has done substantial earlier coverage, and it’s a subject he says he is eager to continue reporting on. There’s an answer to that question, actually. O’Brien said in a phone interview that he is a freelancer with a contract to do 15 science stories a year for NewsHour … specifically excluding climate science.
    From this article: A PBS ‘NewsHour’ Blog Post and Broadcast Provoke Viewers’ Ire That suggests News Hour has cast climate science completely into the political affairs bucket, a sad mistake because dragging politics into science promotes exactly the sort of cloudy thinking we saw from Watts. Was the segment about politics, or climate science? Impossible to tell.
  17. Philippe Chantreau at 03:29 AM on 22 September 2012
    It's not bad
    Dikran, there is no PaCo2 to PaO2 imbalance. It's rather the opposite. The article by Dr Zubieta-Calleja I cited above has the complete discussion. BTW, the address was damaged, this is the real link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068777/?tool=pmcentrez The tutorial on altitude sickness I cited earlier is also very clear. Hypercapnia is not involved. Hypoxia is the primary cause of hyperventilation that persists to and beyond alkalosis. AH1 has no clue what he's talking about, he really should be ignored.
  18. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Weart's often the first and best answer to many questions. :-)
  19. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    doug_bostrom@163: One knows that one has been away from one's Favorites list a while (or one simply doesn't pay too good attention to it), when one sees a link like yours above (*squirrel!!!*), excitedly adds it to one's favorite's list... ..and gets a pop-up saying "It's already here, dumkopf!" Thanks for posting that link. Again. Squirrel......!
  20. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    Hartz: According to Grist magazine (http://grist.org/article/2010-09-27-oil-companies-and-special-interests-spend-millions-to-oppose-cli/) the oil lobby spends "millions" to defeat AGW legislation. According to UC Research(http://www.ucresearch.com/tag/global-warming-research)the US government alone has spend $79 BILLION in the last 20+ years. I have seen these kinds of numbers from numerous sources.
  21. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Good point from Vroomie on Spencer Weart's book. It's available free, online, from the American Institute of Physics website: The Discovery of Global Warming
  22. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Here’s yet another article hot off the press about the topic du jour. Does the expanding Antarctic sea ice disprove global warming? by Eric Berger, SciGuy Blog, Houston Chronicle, Sep 21, 2012 Berger’s opening sentence: “Ice is a hot topic in the climate science community right now so let’s talk about it.” Berger’s concluding statement: “The bottom line is that scientists generally have predicted that the Antarctic sea ice will not begin substantially melting until the second half of this century.” Berger’s blog post was created in response to the recent pious pontifications about polar ice by non-scientists James Taylor and Steve Goddard.
  23. Antarctica is gaining ice
    @KR #142: Proving once again that Watts hs spent wat too much tiome rattling around in the Climate Denial Spin Machine. He can no longer distinguish between up and down, right and left, forward and backward, etc. What is even sadder is that his minions automtically lap up every pile of poppycock that he deposits.
  24. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    Thanks, vroomie. I did end up reading Tamino's post on sea ice, and of course mere hours after my comment went up SkS had republished the announcement of the end of melt season & the sea ice minimum.
  25. Antarctica is gaining ice
    John Hartz - Watts (at the hometown of denial) has already commented on this paper, dismissing it with "Oh wait, it's modeling, never mind." Golledge et al 2012 actually looks to be a very interesting paper - considering how fast moving peripheral glaciers in Antarctica may respond to warming oceans, with the potential to drawdown ice over very large areas. Essentially, at how speeding up these fast glaciers may "unplug" the ice stores over significant portions of Antarctica, allowing it to drain into the oceans.
  26. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    I believe Tamino and Nevin have both addressed this topic, on their respective blogs, Composer99.
  27. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Bernard J@158: that was a *hoot!* Good way to start off my science-y day...tanks! Dale@159: I will accept your apology, such as it was, as an honest effort to mend the error of your previously *doltish* ways..which leads me to... doug_bostrom@160: Indeed, let s/he who is w/o sin, cast the first prosaical stone. I too, occasionally 'fall off the wagon' of polite discourse and revert to Advanced Trolliana. Dale, you seem to have at least begun to listen to, and analyze, the real conclusions and findings of the past 50+ years of climate research. I hope that you continue to add *positively* to the discussion, and perhaps your postings on WUWT will be eventually moderated there, due to your coming over to the Light Side..;) If you've not already done so, I *highly* recommend Spencer Weart's book, "The Discovery Of Global Warming." truly a seminal work in the lexicon of those who want to learn of the history.
  28. Antarctica is gaining ice
    NEWS ALERT: What’s happening to the Antarctic ice sheet doesn’t bode well for the future according to the latest research described in: Warming Oceans Will Start Massive Changes In Antarctic Ice Sheet , by Nathan, PlanetSave, Sep 20, 2012 It will be interesting to see how the results of this new research is spun in Deniersville.
  29. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    @70rn #3: Link fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
  30. Antarctica is gaining ice
    Tamino has another look at Antarctic sea ice based on 2012 data: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/
  31. Dikran Marsupial at 19:17 PM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntington1 wrote: "Dikran Marsupial, but adaptation to high altitudes does provide a perfect illustration of higher internal Co2 to O2 ratios." You are missing the point. How do you know that the effect is due to the difference in CO2 to O2 ratio rather than to other changes in body chemistry due to lower atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen availability. How do you know that the same effect will also be seen at sea level pressure with the concentration of O2 to which we are evolutionarily adapted? Now I suspect that if this were the case, then competent scientists would have performed the experiment to find out (e.g. monitor glucose metabolism in a sealed environment in lab conditions where all other factors can be controlled). The fact that you can't supply a single study where this has been done suggests to me that the scientists who work on this don't suspect that mechanism has a significant effect. So please answer this question directly and unambiguously: Is there anyone other than yourself that is promoting this hypothesis, yes or no?
  32. It's not bad
    one more thing AH1 (@313) is off by a factor of ten regarding harmful CO2 levels: "In summary, OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 0.3% (3,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure [...], and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health. All three of these exposure limit conditions must be satisfied, always and together." available here
  33. Philippe Chantreau at 18:39 PM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    Last detail: "incidental cause" above should be "incidental consequence."
  34. Solar cycles cause global warming
    Has anybody found more details on the source of the TSI data in the graph of the Washington Times, which is named "University of California-Berkeley Earth-Surface Temperature Project"?
  35. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    I don't have anything to add regarding the thorough treatment of misreporting of the NewsHour on climate change, but it should be remarked that its general reputation for fairness, intrepid investigativeness, and veracity should be challenged: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=37 http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/newshour/
  36. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    The link to the NSIDC's Arctic sea ice News and Analysis website in the body of the text (under the final Serreze quote) seems to 404. I think there's something wrong with the URL.
  37. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    That is a fantastic photograph. Nice pick.
  38. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Hey, it's possible to improve. I was chastised and edited several times at RealClimate in times gone by; some of the stuff I wrote there I now feel a bit squeamish over. Takes years to get over bad habits. I still fall off the wagon now and again.
  39. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    John @157 (and DB): Just want to point out, I said "last couple of months". February is not, the "last couple of months". In fact, it's 7 months ago. Also, I will refer people to a recent SkS thread where I admitted my previous prose was not constructive and that I recognised that and wanted to attempt to change. I believe in the "last couple of months" my change of prose has been much more civil.
    Moderator Response: [JH] Thanks for the clarification. I will consider the above comment to be an apology. Other SkS authors may or may not consider it to be such.
  40. Philippe Chantreau at 15:03 PM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    And mods, feel free to snip whatever content above you find inflammatory, as the substance will be unchanged.
  41. Philippe Chantreau at 14:57 PM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    How weak of me to be suckered in to this again. For my defense, I have to say that AH1's stuff is really funny in a way. For the sake of the sincere reader examining this thread, here is some more: AH1 gives every indication that he searches the web with the purpose of finding every little bit that could be used to say "CO2 is good for us." In the course of doing so he finds stuff that he does not really understand and makes bold assertions that he later amends by trying to imply that he meant something different. We had this on post#250: "neither aerobic nor anaerobic bacteria can survive without Co2 highlights this fact." With a link to paper that does not exactly say what AH1 says it says. From the abstract: "the observation that relatively low concentrations of CO2 were adequate for satisfactory growth of certain anaerobes was of particular interest." Walker and Winslow showed as early as 1932 the ability of E.Coli to grow in the absence of CO2 on a medium more complex than the very basic one. That's obviously not the kind of depth where AH1 will go. Whatever. Then we get this: "High altitudes provide a real life example of a population that breathes a higher Co2 to O2 ratio", in the same post. When corrected on this, AH1 amended himself by saying that it was a "mis-type", and what he meant was that people living at high altitude have a higher "internal" CO2 to O2 ratio. I had to introduce the concepts of PaCO2 and PaO2, which are very familiar to those of us who really work with this and really save the lives of people in respiratory failure. He showed no evidence of that supposed imbalance. Instead he cites this article: http://jap.physiology.org/content/16/3/431 The article says nothing at all about PaCO2 to PaO2 ratio but only reinforces the well known higher ability of high altitude residents to transport and use oxygen: "The higher O2 consumption per kilogram of FFM, C, or S in the high-altitude resident seems to be one of the many mechanisms developed by the body in its process of adaptation to the low O2 tension." I will add that, from a purely physiological point of view, CO2 elimination should be easier at high altitude. The body processes are unchanged and the PaCO2 resulting from metabolism remains about the same, but the absolute pressure of CO2 in the ambient air is much lower at high altitude, thereby facilitating CO2 elimination in the lungs. The published litterature suggests that high altitude dwellers are in fact in a steady state normal acid-base balance adapted to the lower pressure of CO2, exactly as one should expect from regulatory mechanisms: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P(1)MC3068777/ I note that this paper represents a change from the previous dominant idea, which was one of chronic alkalosis. I showed a study looking at Sherpas that found a slightly higher PaCO2 than other people. AH! AH1 jumped on it with the belief that it proved his point but he missed that part: "(1) respiratory alkalosis was a common finding both in Caucasians and Sherpas." He also seemed to have missed this part: "Apparently a more efficient adaptation to hypoxia allows Sherpas to limit alkalosis through a lower ventilatory drive and to maintain SaO2 at the same PaO2 by decreasing the [2,3-DPG]/[Hb] ratio." Sherpas limit alkalosis by a more efficient response to hypoxia but still experience it. I'll note that Sherpas seem to be unique in this ability; that points to a genetic difference that has not surfaced in other people living at high altitude like those in the Andes. The point is: there is no PaCO2 to PaO2 imbalance in high altitude dwellers. Alkalosis is the initial response and an incidental cause of the reaction to hypoxia. Balance is restored with aclimation. Alkalosis is seen in higher altitude excursions even in highly adapted dwellers. The alkalosis is brought by responses to hypoxia, not hypercapnia. AH1 tries to wiggle out of his gross error on altitude sickness by trying to imply that the sickness is due to alkalosis as an overreaction to hypercapnia and that is what would happen to people exposed to suddenly increased high levels of CO2 at normal pressure. Total nonsense. If one was suddenly exposed to high levels of CO2 at normal pressure, ventilation would increase in order to restore normal PaCO2, then would stabilize as that goal would be reached and alkalosis would not develop. In altitude sickness, hyperventilation persists despite alkalosis because of hypoxemia, leading to further alkalosis. The vascular changes associated with low Co2 and low O2 are currently believed to be the most likley causes of vessel permeability leading to pulmonary edema and cerebral edema. AH1 made an argument about people's death rates at high altitude. I took the bait and looked at life expectancy, which of course did not support his argument. Then he went on to remind us of the distinction in terms and listed all sorts of factors that are more likely to affect mortality rates than life expectancy. Right. Makes sense. It is difficult to devise a good metric for population health. Despite controversy, according to numerous demographics textbooks and the E.U. demographics department, one of the best, if not the best, indicators of population health is the expected number of years without disability or disease: healthy life expectancy. Its detractors have yet to come up with a better one. Let's see how that pans out. This paper has plenty of details, methods, etc, and nifty graphics on healthy life expectancy: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper38.pdf No evidence of special benefit to high altitude locales. Easier to look at: healthy life expectancy ranking http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html Conclusion: AH1 makes all sorts of claims for which he has no evidence, cites papers as evidence of assertions of his that the papers in fact do not support, misunderstands his own cites and that of others, selects quotes in his and others' citations, makes sweeping statements not supported by any evidence existing out there, adjusts his language when he's caught spewing nonsense. Impressive. This time I'm really done. I'd advise all to resist temptation better than me and NFTT.
  42. It's not bad
    AHuntington1, I'll make it easy for you. 1. My statement is that your statement about mitochondrial respiration is irrelevant, because the negative impacts of temperature and water availability will vastly outweigh any possible positive influence on mitochondrial respiration. 2. There is no actual evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 will result in improved health for any fauna through improved mitochondrial respiration. If you are in opposition to either of these statements, you are asked to supply specific references that clearly support your position. You are also asked to paste in the quotes of any segments from the conclusions which support your position (simply providing links to papers and claiming that they support your position will not be adequate, because it leaves you with too much latitude to simply fudge it).
  43. It's not bad
    Oh yea, I'm sure you took all the other potential factors into account as well (such as rates of smoking, drinking, self-flaggelation, empty calorie consumption, intake levels of and quality of fat, average caloric intake, STDs, the fact that many countries vary wildly in internal altitude etc.)
    Oh, the irony...
  44. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale at #13:
    I will admit though, that I found it quite amusing how Jo Nova reported it. "Record minimum Great Southern Ocean extent". You have to admit, that's 'headline brilliance'. Hehehe.
    It's merely eflected brilliance. Codling is slavishly emulating the prior work of real, actual, genuine brilliance.
  45. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @Moderator: Given that Dale characterized all SkS suthors as "dolts" in February on WUWT and has not subsequently aplogized to us for doing so, can he banned from further posting on SkS?
  46. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    What null hypothesis, fretslider? Can you provide one so that we may continue this discussion in more concrete detail? Take the veil off your comments if you're interested in progress. Get down to brass tacks.
  47. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Between the (IMO highly disingenuous) potshots at NOAA, the tiresome reference to Galileo, and rhetoric such as:
    Have you forgotten the most basic principle of science, falsifying the null hypothesis.
    I must say fretslider appears to be trying to frame the discussion on this thread in a manner better suited to climate pseudoskepticism, a framing which I for one categorically reject. The attempt to sidestep the massive body of physics, paleoclimate reconstruction, empirical observation, and experimental support undergirding the mainstream understanding of Earth climate (and supporting the consensus position on climate change) with reference to poorly-defined (at the immediate point of use), much-abused concepts from the philosophy or practice of science (as a process) is a behaviour which I personally find infuriating (as compared to conspiracy-mongering, which is amusing). It is IMO exactly this sort of behaviour that fretslider is engaging in with this sort of nonsense (which also IMO happens to be a personal attack - by oh-so-careful insinuation - against DSL, at least if DSL is a practicing scientist). Bluntly put, the four pillars supporting consensus climate science - theory, paleoclimate, experiment, observations - are of such size and robustness that they handily falsify any would-be "null hypothesis" which attempts to eliminate or minimize the human element in the modern climate change we find ourselves in - a change, I might add, which is occuring at breack-neck pace (however slowly it might be perceived). Many self-styled skeptics have been asked to pony up the evidence to support their positions and have fallen short (or fallen silent). So I appeal to fretslider to dispense with the snide innuendo and empty philosophy and get down to providing evidence.
  48. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    Pardon my confusion, AHuntington. I was responding to this claim of yours @ 47: "From an ecological perspective, desertification is almost strictly a land management problem." and then especially this: "DSL, if you believe that human emissions of fossil fuels, and human errors such as overgrazing, deforestation, etc are causing desertification, you believe that all desertification is anthropogenic. Isn't this correct? What aspects of desertification are not anthropogenic?" and now you give me this: "I agree completely, and add that since humans have existed on earth, we have become a factor that can either rapidly intensify natural desertification and ecosystem breakdown, or promote biodiversity, and ecosystem growth." which I agree with. The second quote suggests that you were not aware of any natural mechanisms for desertification. I'm suggesting that you be a little more precise in your presentation. Your first quote could be excused because you did say "anthropogenic desertification" in the preceding paragraph. The second quote is an inexcusable non sequitur: it does not follow that if I believe the enhanced greenhouse effect can cause desertification that I then must believe that all desertification is human caused.
  49. Arctic sea ice reaches lowest extent for the year and the satellite record
    Jeff Masters Wunderblog for September 20 has an excellent discussion of Antarctic/Arctic temperatures and sea ice. Cross posted at the PBS "Balance.." thread as well.
  50. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Jeff Masters Wunderblog for September 20 has an excellent discussion of Antarctic/Arctic temperatures and sea ice.

Prev  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us