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  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  Next

Comments 53651 to 53700:

  1. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, um, would you please be a little more specific? Again, I have no idea what you are referring to (nor should I be expected to read your mind). thanks, Sphaerica, (-snip-). (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped. Please ensure all comments comply with the comments policy before posting further.
  2. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider @ 145: Don't you worry, I read the journals. I'm well aware of what is out there. Oh, I haven't been moderated in quite a while. Perhaps this one will be the one that gets me in trouble. If so, I'll understand why. Not supposed to post links without explaining why. (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] You surmise correctly; inflammatory snipped.
  3. It's not bad
    AHuntington1, 1) You have not supplied a single citation which proves your point. 2) It is a "strawman" only because you refuse to address the point. A positive which is outweighed by the negatives is of no value. It is a simple reality. The fact that you want to ignore that reality does not make it a strawman, it makes it an argument you want to avoid because it's one you can't win. Let me state it more clearly, then: Your point that CO2 will provide the benefit of improving mitochondrial respiration, true or false, is irrelevant because it ignores the other greater, negative impacts associated with CO2.
  4. It's not bad
    Ahuntingdon1, you're declaring bankruptcy for your premise. You know that, right?
  5. It's not bad
    doug_bostrom, what attendant risks are you referring to? For humans to be negatively affected by atmospheric CO2 it would have to be over 4% (which is when deleterious effects begin occurring, if I remember correctly). Increasing atmospheric CO2 from 400 ppm to 10,000 ppm overnight would have negative health effects, but this is not very realistic. you asked, "What's the risk/benefit equation here? Be specific. For instance, for a person living in Dhaka, Bangladesh is the payoff worth it?" I have no idea- again it has to do with many other factors. Eg. if someone is starving or dehydrating increased CO2 would probably not be very effective.
  6. Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
    DSL, Hadley-type circulation did exist prior to anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing, this results in deserts with sporadic fluctuations in rainfall over time. As to why Hadley cells are widening, I was under the impression that you thought anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible. Thus the spreading of deserts or desertification would be anthropogenic. you said, " Desertification has occurred as large-scale circulation patterns have shifted in response to major forcings over the course of Earth's history. " 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. Sphaerica, you said, "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." 1. I never said that the Hadley cells weren't an important factor. They are not the only factor however, this is apparent when looking at this graph: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-193/fig5.gif Notice the northern arid regions that are experiencing desertification. 2. I feel like you are missing my argument, but because I have tried to explain myself (and you seemingly ignore my points) and you haven't posed any specific questions re the information I have presented, I will not elaborate further (unless you have specific questions or criticisms of the points I am making, of course). you said, "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." Well good, we are in complete agreement on this point.
  7. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider - consider for moment that it is proved that there is too many errors in the surface temperature record for it to be a reliable indicator of climate. Now how do you explain away the same signal, same trend in satellite MSU readings ( UAH, RSS). How about global glacial mass loss, or OHC? It is the consilience of independent measures that gives strength to the science (and confidence that the surface temperature record is useful).
  8. It's not bad
    Let's rinse and repeat, ahuntington1, since we've been through the citation mill again and still have not heard any specific claims useful for evaluating whether metabolic benefits of increased atmospheric C02 concentration might be worth attendant risks. Can you describe specifically how one's day might be so much better breathing an atmosphere with a higher C02 concentration? What would a subject notice? What would be the impact on mortality and susceptibility to adverse health experiences? What's the payoff outside of a test tube? If you can show in concrete terms how the population stands to benefit from increased C02 respiration, how likely are the specific benefits you've shown? Certain? Sometimes? Almost never? What's the risk/benefit equation here? Be specific. For instance, for a person living in Dhaka, Bangladesh is the payoff worth it?
  9. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale, did you post this at WUWT Is it true? It is possible to post something but forget the exact words later on.. Same question to the mods, did any of you edit Dale's comment here? Do any of you ever edit comments? I can say with certainty that none of my comments have ever been edited here.
    Moderator Response: [d_b] Edits to comments are rare and will be explicitly pointed out by moderators. Such edits might be performed if a comment is of high merit but the author slipped up and was gratuitously rude, that sort of thing, with an eye to cleaning up the comment so as to comport with moderation policy.

    The matter sounds as though it was a misunderstanding on the part of the "victim."
  10. It's not bad
    Sphaerica, you said, "You haven't established benefits that CO2 exhibits on organisms, you've merely claimed them." Well, way to ignore all of the evidence I have supplied so far. Please address my info, or stop posting. you also said, "Because I live in the real world, where imagined minor benefits do not outweigh proven major drawbacks." You are still attacking the same strawman... you say, "it is silly to make the presumption that increased CO2 will be beneficial to all species equally. In fact, try reading this article." Ok, well here's a new strawman, at least. Where did I ever say that elevated CO2 would be beneficial to all species equally? Where are you getting this from, if you don't mind me asking? Bottom line: consistently attacking strawmen and using red herrings does not make a point, nor even come close to proving me wrong. Implying that I do not live in the "real world" and that I am "imagining" things, drawing up bogus comparisons between CO2 and cyanide, using red herringss to distract from my point- these things are not acceptable in a scientific discussion and some of them border on ad hominem attacks. I will not engage in a discussion with you until you display the ability to carry on a respectable, scientific dialogue.
  11. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Roger & skywatcher: A minor bullet can still kill you. But compared to what could happen if Antarctica melts? As bad as the Arctic melt will be, it'll pale in comparison to the change that will occur if Antarctica melts. I will also now follow mods direction and drop the ice discussion. I apologise, I didn't notice the msg till pointed out just now. John @148: I've probably posted what, 5 or 6 times at WUWT in the last couple of months? And in I think two of them I mention this site. Neither inflammatory or derisively. Please get your facts together first.
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] As Eric(skeptic) notes below, your very own words hoist thee by thine own petard.

    Dale says:

    February 9, 2012 at 1:19 am

    As typical of SkS I posted a comment (not insulting, but a summary of Mandia’s review to prove to the dolts I’d actually read the reviews) and it was deleted by John Cook. Asking if my deleted post breached comment policy also got deleted. I also notice my original comment was “amended”. I’d originally said:

    “The book looks to be more about Mann’s sob story than any real science.”

    It now reads:

    “But since the book looks to be more about Mann’s sob story than any real science, I wouldn’t have read it regardless.”

    SkS at its finest.

    Note that when inflammatory comments are needfully moderated at SkS, the offending text is hidden with html text rather than deleted. This makes it possible to later show what the offending, "excised", text actually was in the first place.

    In the interest of full transparency and to illustrate the impoverishment of Dale's position, here is the original comment that Dale made at SkS in its entirety, unedited:

    As a reader of both sites (SkS and WUWT) and having read the Amazon reviews, I must admit to being disappointed by both sides.

    It's obvious that both "sides" are going in and contaminating the waters. The negative reviews slamming Mann and the book in my opinion are the same as the positive reviews literally fawning over Mann like he's a deity.

    To be honest, if I were looking to buy this I would be ignoring all of the reviews as it's obvious posturing by both "sides". But since the book looks to be more about Mann's sob story than any real science, I wouldn't have read it regardless.

    Climate denial at its embodied finest.

    dolt

    A mental retard who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock.

    Nope. Nothing inflammatory nor derisive about that.

  12. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    One interesting takeaway from the upcoming Lars Larson segment will be the opportunity for the "what's that little horizontal bar next to the number" aka "negative and positive: never the twain shall meet" problem to be cleared up. If inability to deal with adding a positive to a negative is repeated on a nationally broadcast radio program that'll be a very sad thing. Listen for "110%," if you bother to listen at all.
  13. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Dale #147: You have some potential to make an interesting point here, but unfortunately with several misconceptions ... namely that you think melting of the Arctic sea ice cap is largely without serious consequences. But what's happening? You are changing a large shiny white and dry part of the Northern Hemisphere to be a large dark absorbant and humid part of the NH. That is extremely likely to significantly change weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere, perhaps very substantially indeed. Meteorologically, the Arctic may become a region dominated by low pressure and rising air, rather than high pressure and descending air. As whether the observed changes in the jetstream will have an impact, in the words of Jennifer Francis, "How can it not?" Of course, you may think that fundamentally altering the weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the world's food is grown, is of little consequence, but I would disagree. And that's without considering the consequences for Greenland (likely enhanced melt and SLR). We need to be very concerned about the Arctic.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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!"
  25. 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
  26. It's not bad
    **Edit # 308- cow heart studies should read, "cow heart study" thanks
  27. 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".
  28. 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)?
  29. Arctic sea ice has recovered
    SkS makes Dot Earth on Arctic sea ice decline.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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."
  36. 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?
  37. 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.
  38. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    fretslider why do you think physicists keep measuring the acceleration of gravity (here for example)?
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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!
  43. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    ... says the person insinuating dishonesty on the part of NOAA.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.

  48. 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."
  49. 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.
  50. 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,

Prev  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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