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  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  Next

Comments 53401 to 53450:

  1. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    OK Dale - maybe I misunderstood your point. And regarding 'minor bullets' vs 'thermonuclear weapons', I have to admit I'm not versed enough in the science to distinguish one from the other. But I'm skeptical that the Arctic melt rate is accurately described as a minor bullet. And of course to do so is to make that case that there is only minor global warming if/ when it goes the rest of the way and simply disappears...but as the moderator noted above, this Arctic vs Anarctic discussion is deviating from the topic of Dana1981's post - so I'm done with ice here.
  2. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @ Dale #137: I find it rather cheeky of you to ask Sphaerica to summarize the findings of a paper for you because you are so busy. Perhaps if you were to cease bashing SkS on WUWT, you would have the time you need to do your own research. I suspect that you have a hidden agenda in posting comments on SkS.
  3. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Roger D: I'm not trying to push the sceptic msg that Antarctica "cancels things out". It doesn't, I know that, it just reacts differently. What I'm trying to point out is that the REAL global warming story is in the Southern Hemisphere. Due to geographic configuration, the SH is dampening GW presently, due to the oceans. But when it starts to change, it will change in a big way, and very strongly. For instance, if all Arctic ice melts what's it do? No sea level rise, some methane escapes and a little extra ocean heat content absorbed. If Antarctic all melts what's it do? Probably sharply uptick humidity and vapor content, raise sea levels massively and generally destroy life for billions of people. Which is more important? A minor bullet from the Arctic now, or the thermonuclear weapon being primed in the Antarctic? ANY change in the south is massively important.
  4. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    ["Ergo, sea ice loss in the Arctic does not prove global warming - or that it is anthropogenic."] Right - and right. Increasing temperatues in the Arctic prove, umm, that the Arctic is warming. On balance, more places on earth (i.e. the globe) are warming, including the antarctic. That proves global warming. My point was that "skeptics" just want their audience to think everyting just balances out so they will not ask "what do climate scientists think is causing the global warming?"...and see the bigger picture.
  5. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider @142 - There are several studies attributing Arctic sea ice loss to anthropogenic factors. Don't you worry, I read the journals. I'm well aware of what is out there.
  6. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Note that while we haven't discussed this year's barely maximum Antarctic sea ice extent (as other commenters have noted, tamino has), we have compared Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents and trends here. It's even got an animated GIF. fretslider @142 - There are several studies attributing Arctic sea ice loss to anthropogenic factors.
  7. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    ["And more ice does not neccessarily mean cooling just as less ice does not neccessarily mean warming. Sea ice growth in the antarctic does not falsify global warming or somehow balance out the problem."] Ergo, sea ice loss in the Arctic does not prove global warming - or that it is anthropogenic. According to your logic, of course.
    Moderator Response: Please follow the existing discussion of Antarctic versus Arctic ice loss/gain here: How does Arctic sea ice loss compare to Antarctic sea ice gain?
  8. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Let's see: NOAA is undertaking a validation of the surface temperature record, and that is an example of "thou shalt not question?" How does that follow?
  9. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    DSL Nice spin, however, not taken. The general tone is one of thou shalt not question, Galileo went down that path - under duress. Have you forgotten the most basic principle of science, falsifying the null hypothesis. (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.
  10. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale @127, It's not about taking sea ice minimums or maximums "seriously". It is about those who disingenously imply that sea ice growth around the south pole means that the rapid loss of summer ice at the north pole is not of concern. But many "skeptic" blogs, articles, etc say or imply just that - an examle is a current WSJ piece by James Taylor. And more ice does not neccessarily mean cooling just as less ice does not neccessarily mean warming. Sea ice growth in the antarctic does not falsify global warming or somehow balance out the problem. Understanding the bigger picture is crucial to understanding what is really happening, and it is hard to justify the opinion that Watts and other "skeptics" want you to see it. So thanks to sks for for showing that bigger picture.
  11. It's not bad
    305, AHuntington1,
    I am just pointing out that the benefits that Co2 exhibits on organisms should be included in the cost-benefit analysis. Do you disagree? If so, why?
    First short answer: You haven't established benefits that CO2 exhibits on organisms, you've merely claimed them. Second short answer: Because I live in the real world, where imagined minor benefits do not outweigh proven major drawbacks. Beyond this, it is silly to make the presumption that increased CO2 will be beneficial to all species equally. In fact, try reading this article. Bottom line: I find your point to be both worthless and misleading. It adds nothing to the discussion. It's like being given a cyanide capsule and being told "look on the bright side, it tastes like almonds!"
  12. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale@137, unless I'm misunderstanding the last sentence in your post, Tamino's blog has answered this, and the link was posted above, in comment #130. Tamino on why the Antarctic is at a maximum http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/#more-5650
  13. It's not bad
    **Edit # 308- cow heart studies should read, "cow heart study" thanks
  14. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Sphaerica @135 With a full time day job, a second business I'm trying to get off the ground, and 3 kids and a wife, I lack the time to fully research something now. :( How about you summarise into an article so I can read it and understand. That way you will benefit not just me, but also the other many readers of this site. And pointing to an old article doesn't really do anything. A report on why the new maximum occurred, debunking denier claims of "it's not global, Antarctica is growing".
  15. It's not bad
    Wow.. I missed this whole page when commenting earlier. Thanks for attacking the information! I really enjoy a good dialogue. Philippe Chantreau, I said high altitude natives have lower general mortality rates, not increased longevity. you said regarding Co2's antioxidant activity, "Further investigation revealed that the changes in chemoluminescence observed were rather a consequence of the CO2 concentration itself than that of CO2 induced lymphocyte inhibition: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12033328" This is a very interesting study! But if you'll notice, it claims that CO2 can enhance chemiluminescence (a sign of oxidative damage [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003986179901024 ]). Studies using chemiluminescence as a factor in determining the antioxidant nature of a substance would show a decreasing rate of chemiluminescence- because it is associated with lipid peroxidation. Furthermore, when you mention "In this study it is found that the effect applies to healthy subjects but to only 30% of subjects with bronchial asthma." you bring up in vivo evidence that supports CO2's role as an antioxidant. The fact that there is a threshold to its protective action is only reasonable. People with COPD or severe asthma already are exposed to higher internal CO2 to O2 ratios. The fact that there is an antioxidant benefit in 30% of asthmatics who participated in this study helps my argument. this study, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9079156 , which you posted is interesting. It could disprove a (minor sub-)theory that I presented regarding the mechanism of mild respiratory acidosis reducing organ damage and thus mortality rates. I would think that 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). But people who are heavily acclimated to any higher elevation will be more acidic than people actively adapting to said elevation. Your study shows this to be true. People acclimated to 6000 ft above sea level would be more acidic in general than Sherpas on Everest. It also shows that the life-long acclimation to hypoxia of the sherpa makes him slightly more acidic (because of increased PaCo2 levels), through depression of respiration. I would expect white boys climbing everest to be hyperventilating like crazy and thus induce respiratory alkalosis. Remember that the rate of ventilation is the major immediate adaptive response to hypercapnia and high altitudes, which is depressed in those heavily acclimated (like the sherpas). you said, "Altitude sickness hypercapnia eh?" Yes, which will cause an immediate urge to hyperventilate changing respiratory acidosis into alkalosis- changing hypercapnia into hypocapnia. you said, "I looked at the life expectancy of various countries and did not find evidence of an advantage to high altitude living:" 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.) you said, "The claim that high altitude leads to higher PaCO2 is not verified in scientific litterature or physiology texts. Sherpas have higher PaCO2 at all altitudes." What?- doesn't this study show that those highly adapted to high altitudes (Sherpas) DO have increased PaCO2, and are more acidic than those who have not adapted as much? What do you think of the cow heart studies I mentioned (as opposed to the plant one you mentioned), which show elevated mitochondrial density in cows adapted to higher elevations (lower internal O2 supply in relation to CO2)?
  16. Arctic sea ice has recovered
    SkS makes Dot Earth on Arctic sea ice decline.
  17. Arctic sea ice has recovered
    SkS is on dot Earth: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/arctic-ice-melt-and-the-path-toward-an-open-polar-sea/ Yah, I know, link only.
  18. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Fretslider, most scientific funding is done quietly. Of course, it's hardly quiet to mention it on PBS in the middle of a big s-storm. NOAA's effort is probably in part a response to the efforts of the doubters. Is it a waste of money? Probably, because the resulting clarity will be insignificant for those who will be using the data, and the professional doubters will continue to claim fraud regardless of the results (unless, of course, the results match the desired message). Watts set the precedent with his response to BEST. All of this is goofy anyway. We're talking about possible small variations in surface temperature measurement for the US. We're not talking TOA energy imbalance. The joules involved in any alleged or real discrepancy (positive or negative) in the US surface temp record pale in comparison to the joules represented in the difference between IPCC sea ice loss projections and the reality. The purpose of Watts' allegations is to cast doubt on NOAA. If it were anything else, Watts would have quietly developed a study and sent it to NOAA as a courtesy before eventually publishing. No fanfare. Why no fanfare? Because ultimately, the alleged errors are insignificant. Adjustments are made all the time, as the publication record shows.
  19. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, Can you, either completely on your own or by doing some research, come up with a plausible explanation whereby, given the premise that global warming is happening and is warming both poles, Antarctic winter sea ice is expanding? Consider it an exercise in skepticism. Let's see where it takes you. When you think you have a good answer, post it on the Antarctica is gaining ice thread.
  20. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Please note I did not advocate one way or the other whether a higher Antarctic ice extent meant anything. I do understand the concepts of how Antarctica will respond to global warming (increasing extent first, then mass melting later). I said that for reporting balance you should have an article on Arctic ice extent AND Antarctic ice extent. That way you will avoid finger pointing at and accusations of biased reporting. In fact, there's on over reporting on Northern Hemisphere items, and me being from the Southern Hemisphere wishes there were more. 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.
  21. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, are you trying to tell us that you think arctic sea ice loss is being compensated for in terms of global climate? Now where would you get that idea? Try looking here for an answer.
  22. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Thanks, Phillipe@130: It's hard to keep up with all the fake skeptics' real hand-waving...;) so noted, for when next I hear of that "fact."
  23. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale did you notice that it's winter in Antartica? And that the continent is isolated from the rest of the planet by oceans and atmospheric currents? And that not that much is going on down there afterall?
  24. Philippe Chantreau at 06:17 AM on 21 September 2012
    PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Re Dale at 127: By all means consider Arctic and Antarctic and work the numbers to see how it compares. Tamino just did that: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/#more-5650 The difference is painfully obvious.
  25. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider why do you think physicists keep measuring the acceleration of gravity (here for example)?
  26. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, that's NOT balance: that too is a false equivalence. The "news" that is the apparent increase in precipitation in the Antarctic *is* an effect that was postulated quite a few years ago. Remember, weather is *not* climate. That one Pole is melting, while the other increases its ice burden, does *not* necessarily mean AGW as a theory is kaput, and that is *precisely* what fake skeptics would like the public to think. I'll go so far as to say that it is likely not a good sign. I'll check Nevin's ice blog to see what the real poop is, for I trust *nothing* Tony posts.
  27. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    vrooomie @112 If you will notice, my comment last night over there pointed out a fact which I particularly noticed missing over here. If you take the Arctic record minimum seriously, you should also take the Antarctic record maximum as seriously. That's balance.
  28. Why we can trust the surface temperature record
    Vis-à-vis fretslider's inquiry on the article discussing the PBS show featuring Anthony Watts: (1) fretslider alleges NOAA "ain't so sure" with reference to a project undertaken to "better understand the thermal impacts of buildings with parking lots on air temperature measurements". [first quoted phrase from freslider's comment, second from NOAA report.] To which it must be said fretslider has failed to demonstrate that there is any reason to doubt that the US temperature record is, for the purposes of global climate science, satisfactorily accurate on the basis of an experiment designed to better understand a phenomenon. In addition, I find fretslider's insinuation of dishonesty on the part of NOAA, given the lack (as far as I can see) of any evidence to support such insinuation, concerning. Finally, I question whether NOAA's project viz. its thermal impacts experiment has anything to do with the "questions" raised (or more accurately, allegations made) by Watts.
  29. Symphony of Science - Our Biggest Challenge
    Remember that to the denialosphere, *we* are the out-group. I only point this out in the effort to show that the communcation breakdown isn't just one side's responsibility, and there was a post a week or so ago, on here, that elucidated upon that concept. I spend a LOT of time thinking how to bridge that gap, because long, *long* ago I tired of the "ultimate test of manhood"** that this dialogue can become/has become. **imagine, if you will, two big burly he-man types, facing one another, holding onto the others' shoulders, then *kicking* the living crap out of each other's left shin. That's what I mean!
  30. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    ... says the person insinuating dishonesty on the part of NOAA.
  31. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Fret, I can answer it, and it's up to you to go where it can be answered for yourself. We'll do some hand-holding, for those who truly want to learn; methinks that may not be the case, here. Anyway, hike ye on over to the link the moderator provided, and all ye shall know how utterly *bogus* the claim is, that the surface temperature record is only an "alleged" one.
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 05:27 AM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    "we would all be dealing with hypercapnia as in altitude sickness." Funny, earlier hypercapnia was proposed as a good thing. I guess perhaps you mean to make a dosage dependent distinction. Nonetheless, this is what better sources say on altitude sickness: http://wiki.medpedia.com/Altitude_Sickness Quote: "Although treatable to some extent by the administration of oxygen, most of the symptoms do not appear to be caused by low oxygen, but rather by the low CO2 levels causing a rise in blood pH, alkalosis." Altitude sickness hypercapnia eh? right. I'm sorry AH1, you're full of it. I'm done here.
  33. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #1
    Since the thread is, more-or-less an open thread, I wonder if there have been any announcements about the end of Arctic sea ice melt season and the resulting records in area, extent & volume. I know nothing's come up officially at Skeptical Science yet.
  34. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    vrooomie My smalls have naff all to do with anything here. I never mentioned a conspiracy. Let me restate the question so you can get your head around it. If this assertion - the scientific groups who compile the surface temperature record put a great deal of effort into filtering out these sorts of biases. - is true, (-snip-). (-snip-).
    Moderator Response:

    This is a good topic for the Why we can trust the surface temperature record thread. Please take it there.

    [DB] Imputations of impropriety and off-topic snipped.

  35. Philippe Chantreau at 04:56 AM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    Oh what the heck since we're at it. Here is an interesting study on long term changes of plant mitochondrial metabolism in elevated CO2 environment. http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/145/1/49.full.pdf Quote from the end of the abstract: "However, despite growth enhancement and as a result of the inhibition in cytochrome pathway activity by elevated CO2, total mitochondrial ATP production was decreased by plant growth at elevated CO2 when compared to ambient-grown plants. Because plant growth at elevated CO2 increased biomass but reduced respiratory machinery, activity, and ATP yields while maintaining O2 consumption rates per unit of mitochondria, we suggest that acclimation to elevated CO2 results from physiological adjustment of respiration to tissue ATP demand, which may not be entirely driven by nitrogen metabolism as previously suggested."
  36. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider, appreciate the heads-up on the Lars Larson bit, which you almost undoubtedly got from WUWT's trumpeting of it..I for one, welcome it. It may make a few fake skeptics come over here, and then folks here can steer them to the real story--not the conspiracy, tin hat-fueled one Watts shovels--and maybe learn somce real *science* for a change.
  37. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, you said, "You refuse to specify the benefits you anticipate from additional C02 in the atmosphere." OK, let me clarify a bit. Benefits depend on the rate of increased atmospheric Co2. A very slow, steady build up in Co2 levels would be ideal (allowing for organisms to properly adapt- it would be horrible if Co2 went from 400 ppm to 10,000 ppm overnight, we would all be dealing with hypercapnia as in altitude sickness) within a certain limit. The benefits, after adaptation has taken place (and metabolism is boosted depending on the degree of hypercarbia) are the benefits associated with higher altitude dwellers (because organisms adapting to the higher internal Co2 to O2 ratios of high altitudes are a perfect case study the effects of hypercarbic adaptaion, as I have pointed out). Namely, reduced mortality rates, reduced level of injury (due to the mild respiratory acidosis), and increased metabolic efficiency. Dikran Marsupial, but adaptation to high altitudes does provide a perfect illustration of higher internal Co2 to O2 ratios. Altitude sickness is an adaptive response to hypercapnia. The effects which high altitudes exhibit on adapted dwellers (higher metabolism, lower mortality rates, etc.) is what one would expect from higher exposure to Co2, through the mechanisms I have described (antioxidant, promoter of krebs cycle activity). Sphaerica, on 1. I agree with this statement (again, controlled studies, describing specific mechanisms are required to make the claim). on 2. The use of absolutes renders this statement obviously false. on 3. My argument is not one of ultimate value (in the sense of making a judgement on the overall "goodness" or "badness" of anthropogenic atmospheric Co2); this is the strawman that I identified earlier. 4. I have not made this judgement, because it encompasses literally millions of other factors, and value judgements. I am just pointing out that the benefits that Co2 exhibits on organisms should be included in the cost-benefit analysis. Do you disagree? If so, why? Eric and DSL, I think my point has been misinterpreted a bit, but would you mind if we continue hashing out desertification on the other thread? This one is already quite long and is pretty all encompassing. When we come to some conclusions over there, the issue can be more easily incorporated into this thread. thanks,
  38. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Lars Larson is going to feature Skeptical Science and the claim that ‘…we need a conspiracy to save humanity‘ on his program today. How very scientific! The final nail in the coffin of global warming, again? But where's the climate science part? Do skepticons even do climate science these days? The picture seems to be shifting entirely to cognitive psychology and gossip.
  39. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider@116; your fake skeptic underwear are showing..;) There is *no* "alleged" taking care of biases in the temperature record: it's well-documented, utterly open to anyone whoc ares to learn about it, and there's simply no 'there' there. If you are truly trying to learn, and not just be a troll, you can find all that info on this website, among many others. There's no conspiracy here...except in some folks' *heads.*
  40. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Vroomie #112: Thanks for the research on Dale's two personas. Thank Goid that not a lot of people can pull it off in a convincing manner.
  41. Philippe Chantreau at 04:37 AM on 21 September 2012
    It's not bad
    Let's take a look now at the high altitude claims. Those were put forth seemingly under the assumption that a high altitude environment presents conditions similar to what will be experienced in an atmosphere with more CO2. For myself, I consider the analogy inappropriate considering how significant the hypoxia is in the examples considered. Nonetheless, let's see what the science says. As I recall, AH1, you argued that high altitude induced a higher than normal PaCO2 to PaO2 ratio, which would be called respiratory acidosis. Educational texts on the subject disagree: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~pe/exs336web/336altitude.htm It is also contradicted by this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9079156 Note that Sherpas do have a slightly higher PaCO2 than Caucasians, but at all altitudes. Note also: "Moreover, in Caucasians sojourning for 3 weeks at 5050 m, PaCO2 kept decreasing whereas pHa, PaO2 and SaO2 remained constant." In caucasian people, acclimatation to altitude led to a lower PaCO2. In fact, the study points to Sherpas having a higher PaCO2 purely as an adaptation to limit the respiratory alkalosis brought by all the other responses to hypoxia. I looked at the life expectancy of various countries and did not find evidence of an advantage to high altitude living: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html Nepal ranks #161, less than low lying countries without well developed health care, like Viet-Nam and many more. Modern advances have brought Sherpas' life expectancy to from 35 to 65. The islands of Sardinia and Okinawa have the highest rates of centenaries in the World. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinia The study on animal hearts cited earlier was given a somewhat selective quote. This study points to cattle heart adaptation to hypoxic conditions and says nothing about CO2. Here is the end of the abstract: "These changes are discussed as an intracellular mechanism which would serve to preserve oxidative metabolism in hypoxia, particularly under exercising conditions. The effective conservation of oxygen pressure head by this means is probably less than one mm Hg." The hypoxic conditions endured by these animals are severe enough to trigger a massive adaptation of the heart, whose sole purpose is to ensure adequate oxidative capability. No doubt that, put at sea levels, these would be some pretty darn athletic cows, at least for a little while, until they adapt to the new conditions. High altitude athletic preparation is well known and practiced because it enhances oxygen transport and oxygen use, not because it raises CO2. It is also well known that the benefits of high altitude preparation fade away pretty quickly when the body lives again at normal altitude. I cited a study discussing the ventilatory response to CO2 and was told that the point was missed. The point is that the brain stem centers that regulate ventilation have sensors that are extremely sensitive to CO2. The moment PaCO2 increases, ventilation kicks in to re-establish normal range. In other words, healthy people will not all of a sudden start to live with a higher PaCo2, altitude or not, higher amospheric CO2 or not. In summary: The claim that high altitude leads to higher PaCO2 is not verified in scientific litterature or physiology texts. Sherpas have higher PaCO2 at all altitudes. Their life expectancy is mediocre by world standards. Response to altitude related hypoxia actually reduces PaCO2. The claim that people living at high altitude live longer has no merit; it is not verified by worldwide demographics. Nepal ranks #161, Bhutan is #158. The top 10 include Monaco, Macau, Hong-Kong, Singapore and Gernsey, where people live pretty much at sea level. In japan (#1) the immense majority of the population resides in the low lying cities. I see no evidence of any altitude related PaCO2 effect on mitochondrial population and efficiency. What was presented instead is evidence of mitochondrial response to hypoxia. Although it was kinda fun to look up, I'm not sure I'm going to continue spend time on this.
    Moderator Response: [Sph] And that is how one presents a scientific argument and supports it with citations/references, rather than mere declarations of confident knowledgehood.
  42. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Is National Talk Radio in Australia?
  43. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    >115 Conspiracy? See Lewandowsky, he's the, er, expert. (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.
  44. It's not bad
    Eric (skeptic), Of course the expansion is seasonal. That's the nature of the Hadley Cell (it migrates north and south of the equator with the sun). It can't, for the most part, expand only over the ocean and not over land. It doesn't work that way. And with the expansion, the arid areas must expand. This means Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Mediterranean Europe, and other places. There's no getting around this. The deserts will expand in places where human populations will be directly affected.
  45. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    AHuntington, The main cause of deserts is the Hadley Cells (and in a few special cases altitude). This is readily apparent by noting that the latitudes at which deserts occur are the same (above and below the equator) and is readily explained by the mechanics of the Hadley Cells. You may argue all you want to otherwise, and certainly some of those arguments will be valid in some cases, but this does not change the fact that one major, unavoidable and already observed effect of global warming will be the expansion of the Hadley Cells, which will in turn necessarily and proportionally expand the existing deserts poleward. Texas, the American Southwest, Mediterranean Europe and others are in for a very rough ride.
  46. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    @111: NOAA is "quietly funding" it by announcing it in their annual report? How devious! I smell a conspiracy! Seriously? They're researching it because that's what researchers do: research things. Methods can always be refined and there is always room for better understanding. This in no way, shape, or form undermines their statement to PBS. And, as mentioned ad nauseum on this site, including in the big pretty picture at the top of this very article, the theory of global warming does not rest on temperature readings; it is just one of many lines of evidence.
  47. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Have you heard? Skeptical Science to be featured on National Talk Radio.... (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped.
  48. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    AHuntington: "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?" Hadley-type circulation existed before significant human modification of the atmosphere. Hadley-type circulation can be modified by other major forcings (solar, volcanic aerosols, etc.). Desertification has occurred as large-scale circulation patterns have shifted in response to major forcings over the course of Earth's history.
  49. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    John Hartz, I am not disputing the fact that climate change is a driving factor in desertification. The ecosystem's ability to cope with a change in local climate is a bigger causal factor in desertification. When the horse latitudes heat up (whether from anthropogenic emissions sooner, or the sun slowly enveloping the earth later [ http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/feb/26/earth-is-doomed-in-5-billion-years ]) rainfall will become more sparse and sporadic. There are certain ecological mechanisms that have evolved to cope with such sporadic moisture. If humans properly exploited these mechanisms- changed our behavior to fit the changing climate- desertification as we know it (climate change characterized by increasing erosion, destruction of biodiversity, and breakdown of ecosystems) could be avoided to a high extent. You mention burning fossil fuels, and deforestation as potential causal candidates for desertification. I don't disagree, although overgrazing, deforestation, and local ecosystem destruction are also major players. Co2 driven climate change would cause rainfall patterns to change. Whether human management of bio-diverse ecosystems (or lack thereof) can cope with these changes determines desertification. 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? So the only issue on which we seem to disagree (so far as I can tell) is my contention that higher atmospheric Co2 is not as big a driving force of desertification as human promotion or demotion of bio-diversity. Ecosystem management is really the issue here. If humans stopped burning all fossil fuels, the rate of deforestation would probably skyrocket (as deforestation is already primarily a fuel issue in developing countries). Mismanaged cattle would still be roaming around. Biodiversity would likely decrease. Desertification will likely continue, regardless of human Co2 emissions, unless land management is addressed. Ecosystem destruction is at the root of desertification. gws, my argument is more like this: 1. Land management errors cause desertification (undisputed). 2. Therefore, without changing these specific land management issues (eg. overgrazing, deforestation, species extinction, burning the grasslands too much, etc.), desertification will continue to occur, regardless of human emissions of Co2. Human emissions might be a factor in causing the initial climate change, but human land management practices are the primary reason for subsequent desertification.
  50. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    gallopingcamel, 110% is a valid number. See if you can figure it out. Consider it a homework assignment.

Prev  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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