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  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  Next

Comments 53951 to 54000:

  1. It's not bad
    AHuntington1 - I believe the issue is that you have made numerous assertions without backing evidence, such as "...increasing the ratio of Co2 to 02 significantly increases the distribution of 02 throughout the body..." and "More atmospheric C02 is beneficial for plants (as has been described in this thread) and animals." I haven't seen the latter in this thread, and in fact if you look at the relevant CO2 is plant food thread you will see that this is actually not the case - heightened CO2 has mixed, and in general negative, effects on plants due to effects such as changes in the hydrological cycle. You have then moved the goalposts - raising separate points (lactate mechanisms, antioxidants, hypoxia) - using references showing that insufficient CO2 is harmful, but not producing any evidence that excess CO2 is helpful. The term "Gish Gallop" applies to the rhetorical tactic of raising many unrelated points without fully addressing (or completing a reply to critiques) any of them, and it does seem to apply to your posts so far. If you are going to make claims, you need to support them. You have not.
  2. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Sphaerica (and chuck101), I answer yes to the following question: ""Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"" If that is not the "97% question" please link to or repeat the correct question.
  3. It's not bad
    For the record, irrational appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy, which is hardly inflammatory (he could easily defend himself and prove me wrong. Why is it ok for Sphaerica to accuse me of logical fallacies without being "snipped" but not vice versa? If this is an inappropriate place for such questions to be issued, I apologize in advance. Also, great site! I really enjoy the comments sections.
  4. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Wyoming - I agree the media is driven by financial interests, which is why I propose trying to change their behavior through their purse strings by driving viewer and readership towards accurate stories. Regarding the best approach, I don't think panic is the way to go. I think the best way to motivate people is through positive messaging (i.e. we can solve this problem) as opposed to fear. The other problem with messaging through fear is that people may just stop listening to you. Many will either dismiss you as "alarmist" (a message facilitated by the climate deniers), or will simply resign themselves to whatever fate comes in the future. This is why I think we have to keep our messaging positive, to engage people and make them believe that we can solve the problem.
  5. Obama, Romney, and Various National Climate Policies Around the Globe
    Gws @39 First I want to say again, I have not abandoned anything. I keep looking for ways to reduce my own carbon footprint and I will not vote for a denier. I support all programs that will reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. I live in California and our state has some strong programs in place to encourage wind and solar and reduce emissions. But I cannot ignore the truth. We are at about 392 ppmv of CO2 and that will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. The science (not models but actual research on the Pliocene warm period) tells me that is sufficient to produce 2 to 3 degrees of warming at equilibrium absent the cooling effects of aerosols. Civilization will only continue to pump out more. Even if all the polluting nations limit emissions, the atmospheric concentration will only go up. For me this does not mean the end of civilization or mankind it means a very difficult future. A very expensive future. A future where freshwater and food become scarce and more expensive in places where it was once abundant and cheap. Places that now find it difficult or impossible to provide those will suffer more. Places that are spending fortunes to move water and irrigate agriculture might find their efforts ineffective to ensure a comfortable future. I have children and grandchildren. Considering their future makes this awful truth very hard to live with. But I have learned that life is full of awful truths. My first awful truth came when I was only five. At school I experienced my first “duck and cover drill.” Mom and Dad had not told me I lived in a world where nuclear annihilation was a possibility. Just because it has not happened yet does not mean we have felt that nightmare in the past. Russia and the US still have thousands of MRV’ed missiles pointed at each other. I wonder if Russia takes as much care with the upkeep of their launching systems as the US? No country matches the US in defense spending and that is part of it. If not sparked by accidental launch we still have a world full of unstable warring people and unstable nations armed with nuclear devices. Other awful truths were discovered as I grew older but I will move on to AGW. Like you I was born into this world where our wonderful civilization was created by cheap fossil fuels and irrigated agriculture; growing in places where nature did not intend for those crops to flourish. I first learned about global warming in about 1980. When I learned that to avoid catastrophic warming we would need to end fossil fuel use I became immediately pessimistic that we would do so in my lifetime. With the advent of much cheaper and more efficient solar cells and much more efficient wind turbines I now believe it is possible to end fossil fuel use immediately for energy production. I really wish the rich nations would immediately switch to those but they are not; not even China where the government really is in charge of energy production. The way I see it civilization will take about 40 more years, maybe longer, to finally get to a place where the majority of our energy is produced by non-fossil fuel technologies and the majority of transportation finally moves to electric or carbon neutral solutions. I fully expect that in 40 years many of the predicted shortages in food and water will be a reality and extreme weather events will become a very common occurrence. Does that mean I have given up all hope? Of course not. Each year very bright and very talented young people go off to university with new ideas and approaches. I cannot believe in something that does not exist yet but I do not abandon the possibility that something completely unknown to us now will come along and change everything, or at least open a door to a new avenue of approach. In the mean time I still work for change but I cannot ignore what science has taught me. If I were to illustrate my dual emotions produced by the awful truths I perceive and the hope I cling to, the despair would be pictured by Durer’s Melancholia because even with all the negative symbolism the angle and the cherub do not seem to have given up completely. For hope I would choose the Flammarion engraving, the one where mankind breaks through into the unknown, because that is what I believe is always possible for mankind while I keep in mind we frequently get unwanted consequences.
  6. Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
    Can someone explain this to me? From the temperature and pressure profiles for the Venusian atmosphere, you can confirm that, at the altitude where the pressure = 1000 millibars, which is the sea level pressure of Earth, the temperature of the Venusian atmosphere is 66ºC = 339K. This is much warmer than the temperature at the surface of the Earth (at pressure = 1000 millibars), which is about 15ºC = 288K. (-snip-) Venus is closer to the Sun, and gets proportionally more power from it. Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun, on average, while Venus is only 67.25 million. Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average. Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, (-snip-) in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15ºC = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, (-snip-), should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66ºC, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus. (So, is there no greenhouse effect? Why are the two planets just behaving the same) [Note: The derivation of the radiating temperature above is for absolute temperature, in degrees Kelvin (K), so the 1.176 factor relates the Kelvin temperatures, not the Celsius temperatures.]
    Moderator Response: [DB] Again, reread the Comments Policy regarding all-caps usage (snipped).
  7. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    zinfan - you don't seem to be taking issue with carbon pricing, but rather arguing that carbon pricing alone can't solve the problem. I agree with that. Regarding natural gas, from what I've read, the current low prices are not sustainable. We'll see if that's true, but putting a price on carbon emissions would raise the cost of natural gas with respect to the price of renewables. Their climate impact could further be taken into account by including methane leakage in a carbon pricing system. Regarding transportation, again carbon pricing will raise the cost of petroleum fuels, while the costs of alternatives (e.g. EVs) is falling. Global demand will also make oil prices continue to rise - it's only a matter of time before we transition off of them. Again, a carbon price by itself may not solve the problem (that also depends on how high the price is), but it will speed up the transition.
  8. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Dana I applaud your efforts and commitment. I read your site all the time and find great value here. I have to disagree with the advise found in this post. I do not claim to have a solution to the problem of getting civilization to stop making AGW worse, so I am going to be critiquing your solution without being able to articulate one of my own. Not the best approach perhaps but maybe what I have to say can prove useful. Your approach described above, the "Wedges" approach promoted by folks like Joe Romm and others have two consistent features. They appear to be technically feasible/possible and they have an extremely small possibility of success because they fly in the face of human nature. Success of these types of solutions ride on a global shift in human behavior. A change in human nature on a grand scale. This is not possible in a BAU (or BAU-Green as the case may be) situation as pretty much any expert in human behavior will tell you. Like all creatures, humans are highly programmed by thousands of generations of natural selection. We discount the future at a high rate because we live in the present. Water, food, shelter, security have always been the drivers of survival. Humans cannot be rationally talked into sacrificing their present needs for a future that they will not be living in. Not even for their children and grandchildren. Even the most rational humans cannot do this very well and there are not very many rational humans out there. Perhaps there are none. Large masses of people only change direction quickly when they are in a panic about survival. In addition to requiring the above from people there is an assumption that one can effect the political process by voting. Once again this ignores the fact that political consensus on any subject is almost always impossible and especially on matters that directly impact lifestyles, religion, political ideology and living conditions. These are not trivial differences between us all but fundamental ones. For example, I know a number of people who are very religious who acknowledge in private that AGW is real but simply do not care because; 1) they believe that God will take care of them, 2) that, if anything, AGW is merely one of the factors leading to the End Of Days - which they are looking forwards to. I kid you not. AGW is also, unfortunately, closely associated in many peoples minds with Liberal/environmental/Progressive (i.e. left wing) ideology/religion. Many people have also been led to believe that science is leftist in orientation or a kind of competing religion to theirs. This is not just here in the US either. This group of people is a substantial proportion of the population and it is not going to just shut up or go away. There are those who are poor that feel they have a right to economic development and an equal level of consumption with the rich. Those of opposing political/economic camps do not need to have a majority to stop all meaningful progress along the lines you describe. And they will try to stop you if you propose dramatic government intervention or to restrict their economic growth. Another point is the suggested approach to using the news media. The major print and broadcast media organizations hold anything but a liberal policy bias (which has not existed for a generation). These are big corporations that are almost all under the control of conservative business interests representing the big stockholders. These people are not your friends and will not help you unless it is in their financial interests. In the current environment, accurate reporting is just not the major focus of the media (it is likely entertainment) and educating reporters on science will not change this as they are not in charge of anything. This, of course, leads to the big kicker which is the impact change related to 'fixing' AGW would have on the financial interests of the various very large international businesses involved in the fossil fuels industry, banking and investment, industrial agriculture, etc. These people have trillions of dollars invested and want to recoup their investments and make a lot of additional money from them. Their concept of the future and yours are incompatible. Now while I am not opposed to efforts like the one you detail, I think the time for them to have any substantial effect is rapidly passing. Given the problems with executing those types of solutions there is little chance of meaningful success for at least 10-20 years. That is far too late in time presuming that I actually understand what you have been teaching us. Scientists like yourself, Hansen, G. Schmidt, Mann and others have convinced many of us that we are facing highly probable catastrophic changes in our climate and living conditions. These changes, if they occur, will, for all practical purposes, not allow the continuance of civilization as we know it. And would likely result in a dramatic and quick reduction in world population in the not too distant future. If this is accurate, or even of significant probability, then it is time for leadership, not scholarship, I am afraid. If people should be panicked over the situation we are in then it is time to make them panic. That is the only way you will get the change needed. You need to mass your expertise and marshal the resources you have at hand and start screaming at the top of your lungs to the folks in charge of the various governments. Demand change now and if you do not get satisfaction you start shutting industries and governments down. Force change. You will have many allies and support but you have to lead.
    Moderator Response: [DB] All-caps converted to lower case.
  9. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    John Hartz @110: I am not up to speed on sociological literature relating to pejoratives, slurs, and the reclamation thereof, so the best I can say is that I do not know whether an attempt to reclaim 'alarmist' will diminish its rhetorical power when used as a pejorative by others.
  10. It's not bad
    Sphaerica, the qualifications of of the people with whom I am communicating are less important than the information they present ( -snip-). Dikran mentioned that obesity rates and Co2 have been rising hand in hand, I pointed out that correlation does not equal causation and mentioned that there are a multitude of other potential contributory factors. As to your second point- the majority of time that organisms evolved on earth (especially during krebs cycle evolution, which was a very early adaptation), Co2 concentrations have been significantly higher than the present day. The fact that neither aerobic nor anaerobic bacteria can survive without Co2 highlights this fact. http://jmm.sgmjournals.org/content/13/4/573.abstract The idea that I cite random mouse studies unrelated to my point is simply wrong. Numerous studies have shown Co2 to be protective against acute hypoxia. I also wanted to point out that Co2 is potentially a potent antioxidant. The lactate paradox ceases to be a paradox when the ratio of Co2 to O2 is considered. It is also interesting that people who live in high altitudes (and are exposed to a higher Co2 to O2 ratio) experience lower mortality rates, in general. High altitudes provide a real life example of a population that breathes a higher Co2 to O2 ratio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_high_altitude_on_humans#Long-term_effects These are factual benefits from increases in atmospheric Co2 concentration, and I'm simply asking for them to be included in the above list of pros and cons.
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped.
  11. It's not bad
    How much C02 is good for us? My car heater can keep me alive in winter. It does not follow that using my car heater in summer is even better for me. As to metabolic processes and C02, simply look up what's been established w/regard to concentrations of C02 in naval submarines and for that matter spacecraft. More does not equal better. In any case, remember: The "C02 is good for us" gambit is a frantic attempt to change the subject of conversation from geophysics to another only vaguely related topic. When nothing more can be done to evade the physical problem of global warming it's imperative to switch conversation to something else. You're seeing that happen right here.
  12. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Anticipated Problems with Carbon Pricing: First, lets try to classify the energy markets for fossil fuels that result in the largest amount of carbon released to the atmosphere. Coal, oil, and natural gas are the largest fossil fuel carbon sources, although burning accumulated biomass from old growth timber sources or peat contributes some carbon, and of course there is the massive carbon flows associated with natural carbon cycles. For the moment, lets ignore the non-fossil fuel carbon sources. The allure of carbon pricing proposals most likely arose because the perception that replacing coal emissions is the key step to mitigating GHG emissions. Coal is actually part of the electricity market for the most part, with coke for steel industry and coal-fired steam plants for building or industrial heat, much smaller markets. No question that placing a reasonable carbon tax or fee would impact coal-fired power plants. A carbon tax of $25 USD per ton raised the fuel cost of coal by about 50%. For the US market using $50 per ton, the cost of fuel increases from about $25 per MWh of electricity to about $38. This causes a shift to natural gas fired power plants, because natural gas fuel cost would rise only from about $25 per MWh to $30 per MWh. A couple of years back, carbon pricing would have raised natural gas fuel cost from $50 to $55, and perhaps opened the door slightly for heavily subsidized green power projects (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass), but not anymore. I have talked to green power companies, and America's extremely low natural gas prices has really put the green power guys on the skids. So now the first unintended consequence rears its head… Not only would we see new utility scale natural gas-fired power plants replacing coal-fired plants, but there is a relatively new kid on the block, that would sweep through America. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generates power from natural gas, and produces building heat or hot water as second product. From a process engineering and thermodynamics standpoint, we love CHP because the process uses the high temperature heat from natural gas much more efficiently. But from an environmental standpoint, CHP plants scattered across the country creates a lot of new carbon emission sources. In effect, we have carbon priced 500 coal plants out of existence, and created potentially millions of new carbon emitting sources. But wait, there's more! Much of the new natural gas is shale gas, and methane emissions of the natural gas used can easily exceed 5%, maybe even 10%, of the gas produced. And some of the gas will be consumed as part of the collection, storage reservoirs, and distribution network. How does the carbon tax hit this source? Of course, we can design the carbon pricing mechanism around these problems… we could place an additional fees on natural gas to account for shrinkage, lease fuel, storage facility fuel use, and fugitive emissions estimates etcetera. But it becomes very complicated very quickly. And what about solar PV installations coupled with CHP? Or with the cheap price of natural gas, how do we justify the high subsidies given to privately owned green power projects (typically over 55% of installation costs), that even then produce electricity at significantly higher cost? One of the biggest problems with carbon pricing proposals, is that it doesn't pick, choose, and promote energy substitutes effectively. Contrary to many assertions, not picking and choosing is a weakness, not a strong point for carbon pricing. Carbon emission mitigation is one of many needs that should be fulfilled by systems that provide products and services that best meet customer needs. Improving these systems, and optimizing customer satisfaction requires knowledge and understanding of customer needs and energy systems, and there is no substitute for this knowledge. And moving away from electricity market to the vehicle and aviation fuel markets, the carbon pricing mechanism only adds seven cents per gallon to these fuels. How is this going to substantially help substitute green fuels, green energy sources, and greener systems penetrate these markets quickly, in the timeframe needed to make an impact on AGW? In these markets, and among suppliers to these transportation markets, a massive shift in capital spending must occur, moving investment from fossil fuel sources to vehicle manufacturers and green energy sources. Carbon pricing proposals aren't very effective in causing this shift. And No… that mythical beast, "Mr. Market" has been particularly inept at forecasting changes in the energy markets, and causing the shift in investments (more on this in following comments). Paul Klemencic
  13. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I hope Skeptical Science places posts on environmental and energy policy analysis in a separate section from your main mission. I want to participate in this discussion on a well moderated site, but we can quickly b(l)og down into an impenetrable mass of conflicting commentary in an unorganized mess. Understandable and accurate analyses of policies requires a good system for organizing ideas, analytical discussions, and likely will best organized by energy market or other source market (cement, ag, deforestation, etc.). In the next few comments, I am going to take issue with the very fundamental premises and assumptions behind your post, dana, and I am not doing this to be argumentative. Instead I am driven by my desire to find a workable set of solutions, and my analysis shows that carbon pricing coupled with the assumption that free markets work best… simply doesn't work best. Carbon pricing may end up being part of a successful set of solutions, but the carbon pricing model has some serious flaws, and would likely result in "fixes that backfires" in many markets and situations. The law of unintended consequences hits almost every energy market touched by carbon pricing proposals. I hope that you view the forthcoming discussion as "constructive criticism", because that's how I intend it. I have extensive engineering and business experience in energy markets since the mid-70s, studied system designs for best providing high quality solutions to customers, and have spent the last 6 years working on green energy solutions and evaluating the best means to transition and transform existing energy markets to better meet customer needs. I have come to a somewhat different set of solutions that should work better than carbon pricing mechanisms alone. Paul Klemencic
  14. It's not bad
    Readers, please note that AHuntington1 appears to be a master of both the Gish Gallop and the non sequitur. First, he impresses all with his ability to recite terms in respiratory biology, accompanied with a supercilious attitude ("Dikran Marsupial, it is extremely important not to confuse correlation and causation" and "I'm glad we agree that...") that gives no thought to the qualifications of the people with whom he is speaking. Second, he is able to compile a list of fairly inconsequential papers that show potential effects of elevated CO2 levels in rats, and projects this into the grand idea that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will have positive (and no negative) effects on all living creatures. These papers in no way make the case for his grandiose claim about "the enhanced efficiency of mitochondrial respiration that it would provide to animals via the Bohr effect." So he sets the goal post, then moves it, while with slight-of-hand appearing to support it. He hopes that you don't notice that (a) the papers do not reflect on his original proposition at all (b) they are impressive enough to convince you he is right, (c) they focus on very specific aspects of biology which may or may not have actual, real-life positive effects on the species studied and (d) they have little to do with elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. He closes with the woefully simplistic (and wrong) statement that "Co2 is good for plants and animals" which is all he knows most (uncritical) readers will take away from the discussion.
  15. It's not bad
    Dikran Marsupial, well I missed your last post; I'm glad we agree that the study published in the peer reviewed NCBI which you posted, and its hypothesis, are most likely wrong. You used logic to determine the validity of a study. Peer reviewed does not mean proven. Co2 levels absolutely influence the rate of oxidative respiration via the Bohr effect- this has been well established. When considering the reduced ratio of O2 to Co2 at higher elevations the "lactate paradox" (whereby people accustomed to high altitudes display higher levels of krebs cycle activity[make more ATP] during exercise) no longer is a paradox (evidence for Co2 increasing krebs activity). This study,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7581542 implies Co2 as a potent antioxidant. This study shows Co2 protecting the organism from hypoxia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/720676 Here's another interesting study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9139450 The positive attributes of Co2 on the organism have been well established. The fact that it is hard to find a peer reviewed study on the overall benefits of Co2 and the appropriate atmospheric concentration in which said benefits are maximized, reflects the mentality of most nutrition scientists more than the evidence. Again, Co2 is good for plants and animals.
  16. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    Kevin C @17 My question to John was out of curiosity. IMO post-mil was, at one time, the most pre-disposed to social/environmental concerns. Things have changed radically throughout the past 30 years. (Off topic but worth reading) An example of American fundamentalist thinking on the environment can be found here and this jewel from the Cornwall Alliance.
  17. Dikran Marsupial at 03:22 AM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntingdon1 I asked for a verifiable reference supporting the hypothesis you put forward. A peer-reviewed paper that shows that rising CO2 levels have a significant effect on metabolism in vivo would be fine. I suspect there isn't one, for the reasons I gave in my previous post.
  18. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    M Tucker @6 - I agree, it's a problem that science journalism has declined. That being said, all a journalist has to do to put together a decent science story is to interview qualified experts. Christy et al. do throw a wrench in this approach, as you note, but hopefully journalists will start to recognize their reputation not as "the other side", but rather as the factually inaccurate side. Again I think we can make a difference by trying to drive traffic towards stories that contain good, accurate interviews of qualified experts.
  19. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Depending on “media” is the huge shortcoming of the educational approach. The average reporter, either print, TV or even NPR (here in America), has, for the most part, the same shortfall in science education as Americans in general. Even those reporters who have graduated from prestigious universities are not qualified to investigate science issues. We do have some very good science reporters who have studied science and who regularly report on scientific issues but they are definitely not mainstream. They appear in science magazines or occasionally are printed in newspapers. Even NPR only has one program a week, two hours only, that is not available on all public radio stations and if available they may only run one of the two hour segments. The last time I heard an interview on one of my local public radio stations with Michael Mann a disappointingly large fraction of the callers were parroting the same old denier hogwash we have all heard for years. Michael Mann did a good job of defending the science but the host had little to add and his questions revealed a clear misunderstanding of the science. If he had read “Dire Predictions” the important bits did not sink in. Also we are still dealing with scientists who actually have positions in climate science at universities who reject the scientific consensus. Christy immediately comes to mind. So reporters do not need to use someone like Watts to present the opposing view they can get Dr. John Christy Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama. That sounds pretty impressive to someone, even the reporter, who is not familiar with the debunking of Christy’s opinions. Then we have people like Humlum who manage to get worthless papers published in respected science publications. I listened to a report on NPR today, by a seasoned reporter, who managed to completely miss an opportunity to educate the listeners on a critical piece of the story. I was dumfounded. I will not go into the whole thing but simple important information can be completely overlooked by both the reporter and her editors when reporting on science or, in this instance, health and nutrition. I have no good solution for this other than depending on actual qualified educators and increasing the science requirements in public schools. After all, not everyone will continue with schooling past high school.
  20. It's not bad
    Dikran Marsupial, it is extremely important not to confuse correlation and causation. There are many other, significantly more pertinent factors at work when it comes to the development of obesity in animals. Increased environmental estrogen levels is one example (which would affect wild animals and humans more proportionately than Co2)there are many more. Fascinating study, btw. Although, considering all the other factors at work, it is doubtful that respiratory acidosis causing the firing rate of the orexigen neurons to increase is the major contributing factor to obesity, IMHO. Increased Co2 might also cause weight gain by increasing krebs cycle activity and thereby producing more energy per glucose. Or it could be through increased bone uptake of Co2 (co2 is converted to carbonic acid by the carbonic anhydrase enzyme, and can then can be converted to bicarbonate which is taken up by the bones)- higher bone density. Philippe Chantreau, I'm so used to talking with people who know about nutrition that I assumed people would know what the Bohr effect is- my bad. Here's the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_effect you said " Truly nothing like the real world, these greenhouses... " Isn't a greenhouse an ideal example of the greenhouse effect? A controlled environment is the only way to study a single variable, like Co2. Controlled studies, in greenhouses are the only way to reliably study specific changes in atmospheric gasses. To quote Friedrich Miescher 1885, "Over the oxygen supply of the body carbon dioxide spreads its protecting wings."
  21. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I am shooting an 18 minute potential TedTalk video and intend to offer a presentation of the 18 minute talk followed by discussion. In somewhat dramatic fashion I tell my health story of serious disease and personal denial and the consequences (ambulance call, surgery, colon removal, etc.) and, eventually, learning to accept the scientific (medical) consensus and receiving life-saving live liver transplant donation (for a related disease) from my youngest brother. I focus on systems equilibrium (of my liver and colon), progressive forcing out of equilibrium, tipping points, the power of 'stepping into reality' etc. THEN I tell the climate story as analogy. At the end I advocate action- SAY IT! CAP IT! PASS IT! Say It!: (pressure our leaders-especially President- to say it 'AGW is an emergency we need to address NOW'). Cap It! (Pressure for Cap and dividend). Pass It! (Green Apollo type program). I send them off with 1) Letter templates for their representatives 2)A commitment to educate their peers......I am a Stanford Grad and now that I have recovered could be doing other things, but I love me some AGW activism. Story Telling! I can email script of talk if interested: dagold56@hotmail.com
  22. New research from last week 36/2012
    @ Falkenherz at 01:13 AM on 12 September, 2012 re the Washington Times article "Pictures like these cannot be drawn for temperature and CO2 concentration." "In 2005, one of us demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years." "The evidence in BEST’s own data and in other data we have analyzed is consistent with the hypothesis that the sun causes climate change..." Bull Shit. I don't know what sort of fancy mathturbation they went through to show rising TSI during the satellite era on their graph (MSPaint? or "we used a powerful industry standard visual information processing package[Photoshop] to process the data"), and the WT article notes only that the publication was in 2005 but doesn't cite it. Where's the peer reviewed science that shows rising TSI between 1980 and 2012? TSI is just barely above previous solar cycle minima and the long term trend, but this year has broken all measures of Arctic ice melt. If some college dropout dude on a blog(that would be me) can show that their central premise - "it's the sun, not CO2" - is a lie with a few minutes on the web, what do you trust about ANYTHING else they have to say?
    Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width.
  23. Dikran Marsupial at 02:56 AM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    Composer99 It is indeed nice to see a paper not behind a paywall for once! However, I'm rather skeptical about this paper; as I said I very much doubt the CO2 levels have risen in cities as fast as the background level has been rising, and there are many more obvious explanations for obesity in the first world, such as sedentary lifestyles with little physical exertion - I am giving a good example of that right now by sitting on a sofa typing on a computer, rather than going to the gym. Similarly, I'd be very surprised if atmospheric CO2 levels were having a significant, or even measurable, effect on metabolism, and even if it were it is not a given that an increasing metabolic rate is necessarily a good thing as far as long term health is concerned. Essentially I think this is a fine example of "clutching at straws", but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
  24. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    Post dog walk... "Drats! We simply have to stop using the dimmist light bulb in the box."
  25. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    @Composer #99: Thanks for articulating your perspective. If we were to openly embrace and proudly wear the alarmist mantle, do you think we could diminish the ability of the Wattsonians to use the word pejoratively?
  26. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    I got snipped for reasons I do not understand. I would like to know how to refute the information that Venus and earth are similar in temperature profiles, and from that some have asserted that there is no greenhouse effect. What is the approproate place to ask for mthat information?
    Moderator Response: [RH] You might consider this thread: Postma Disproves the Greehouse Effect Please take time to review the commenting policy before continuing, though.
  27. It's not bad
    The paper to which Dikran refers is available (refreshingly, for free) online here.
  28. Philippe Chantreau at 02:16 AM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntington1, your post lacks substantiation with published science articles. The adverse consequences of abrupt climate change and precipitations patterns disturbances likely dwarf any possible benefit from your alleged enhanced Krebs cycle. I am curious to see references for the "CO2 to O2 ratio dtermines the Hgb's affinity for O2" assertion. Links? Furthermore, as we have discussed on this thread the CO2 concentrations used in commercial greenhouses range between 800 and 1200 ppm, far beyond even pre-industrial level doubling, and with all other factors controlled and optimized. Truly nothing like the real world, these greenhouses...
  29. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    With regards to being labelled alarmist, in order for the labelling to be accurate, the framing around it must also be accurate (that is, the person labelled as an 'alarmist' must actually be making unwarranted claims about the dangers of global warming). When the full body of evidence is examined, as well as the positions of the vast majority of scientific societies (but also of third parties such as reinsurers or, say, the branches of the US military), it is IMO unequivocally clear that the circumstances surrounding global warming are genuinely alarming. As such, as long as someone being labelled 'alarmist' is making their case with reference to the scientific evidence, it is IMO best to reject the label and the framing that goes on with it.
  30. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Thanks Sphaerica, That's precisely as I took it. Basically, it's a self contradictory position and I can't believe that Eric can't see that. I was beginning to believe that I was the one who was going nuts!
  31. Dikran Marsupial at 02:05 AM on 14 September 2012
    It's not bad
    AHuntington1 cen you give a verifiable source to support that hypothesis? I very much doubt rising atmospheric CO2 levels will have a significant direct effect on human health for the simple reason that most of us live in cities, or near places with large CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and terrestrial biota, which swamp the effects of even large increases in background CO2 levels. I did a quick search myself and found: A proposed potential role for increasing atmospheric CO2 as a promoter of weight gain and obesity L-G Hersoug, A Sjödin, and A Astrup Human obesity has evolved into a global epidemic. Interestingly, a similar trend has been observed in many animal species, although diet composition, food availability and physical activity have essentially remained unchanged. This suggests a common factor—potentially an environmental factor affecting all species. Coinciding with the increase in obesity, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased more than 40%. Furthermore, in modern societies, we spend more time indoors, where CO2 often reaches even higher concentrations. Increased CO2 concentration in inhaled air decreases the pH of blood, which in turn spills over to cerebrospinal fluids. Nerve cells in the hypothalamus that regulate appetite and wakefulness have been shown to be extremely sensitive to pH, doubling their activity if pH decreases by 0.1 units. We hypothesize that an increased acidic load from atmospheric CO2 may potentially lead to increased appetite and energy intake, and decreased energy expenditure, and thereby contribute to the current obesity epidemic. Note particularly the point about CO2 levels being higher indoors. Perhaps not so beneficial afterall.
  32. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    John, you are *clearly* better at this than I: however, I have a spark of inspiration, which I'll lay upon you, then you can run with it.... Something along the lines of, 'How many Watts does it take to power a light bulb....' The rest is up to you!
  33. It's not bad
    One major positive benefit of increased atmospheric C02 concentration which has yet to be listed here is the enhanced efficiency of mitochondrial respiration that it would provide to animals via the Bohr effect. Because the Co2 to O2 ratio determines the hemoglobin's affinity for O2 and plays a major role in vasodilation/vasoconstriction (C02 is a vasodilator while 02 is a vasoconstrictor), increasing the ratio of Co2 to 02 significantly increases the distribution of 02 throughout the body, thus enhancing krebs cycle efficiency and general mitochondrial respiration. More atmospheric C02 is beneficial for plants (as has been described in this thread) and animals.
  34. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    One more before I take the dogs out for their long walk... Dang it all, I told Watts not to turn off the lights when he left.
  35. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Eric, Let me try to paraphrase your position: Eric believes what 97% of the climate scientists believe, which is that myriad aspects of the science point to dangerous global warming, except he also believes the models are wrong, and therefore concludes from that position that we should ignore everything else that 97% of climate scientists believe. Have I got that about right?
  36. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    John: As long as I'm role-playing a "climate skeptic", it behooves me to maintain a fairly large degree of self-inconsistency....
  37. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    (-snip-)
    Moderator Response: [DB] Please repost your comment on a more appropriate thread, minus the all-caps and the accusations of dishonesty.
  38. Arctic Sea Ice Extent: We're gonna need a bigger graph
    The Night Before Minimum 'Twas the Night before Minimum and all through the house The windows were leaking, Santa searched for his spouse The foundation was gone, 'twas no chill in the air Santa knew things had changed but he did not despair Santa'd bought a big boat, he knew this day would come He'd seen temperatures rising, seen this "Day in the Sun" He'd put floats on his reindeer, put floats on his shop Now it's time they were moving "'fore there's no place to hop" "On Dasher, on Dancer, on Prancer and Vixen" "On Comet, on Cupid, on Donder and Blitzen" "To the top of the deck, to the deck is my call" "To the deck 'fore this ice flow is nothing at all" "We're off to the South Pole where ice sits on land" "Where there's no need for ice to find some place to stand" They loaded the boat with all in their care They started the engine, they set wind to hair "To all Warm September! To all buy a fan!" "Let's put out the deck chairs it's time for a tan!" "Think of me in your dreams. Think of me and my house" "There's no ice in the ocean, there's no ice 'neath my spouse" "Think of great ways to spin, think of great ways to say" "That the Earth is not warming, it's not warming NO WAY!" "Say goodbye to the Arctic for it's now a warm bay" "And I've just retired.. no sled for Christmas Day."
  39. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    @Bob Loblaw #104: Like the Wattsonians, you excell at tying yourself up in a Gordian knot. Where's Alexander the Great when we need him?
  40. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    This is one of those discussion areas into which I'm chary to wade: As I'm a 'Frisbeeterian," I'm agnostic on the whole topic. IMHO, it only clouds the issue and in the end (game) the only really significant difference is...do we destroy that which was given to us, whether by some omnipotent FSM, or simply a planet on which life evolved to us, now, or in 1000 years? I'm doing all I can to stave off disaster as far forward in the future as that future might exist.
  41. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    @#1 (Wadard) I was a "denier," as in someone who had not read anything close to the science on the matter, but instead stuck to an editorial narrative. Two things happened. I found this site when I was attempting to refute a cliam about AGW. This site works. Also, I saw the reaction of my denier peers to the U.S. political process in 2008/2010, and I was shocked. It reaffirmed my decision to abandon previously held opinions. As for public policy in the U.S., I support firm, immediate action on all fronts, but I will not be suprised if we "burn it all" in our efforts to maintain a slipping standard of living. I think the solutions require a collective effort on the scale of U.S. reaction to WWII. As my parents can attest, nearly everyone was engaged together to reach a desired outcome.
  42. How to Solve the Climate Problem: a Step-by-Step Guide
    Very thought-provoking. As voters we have some clout every three years, on much contested ground. But the most leverage we can bring to bear in influencing the narrative are eye-balls and Twitter. Rewarding factual, accurate, unbiased, not falsely-balanced reporting of the science and news of climate change will bring in the advertisers. They will craft their messages and products to their discriminating audiences. And the corollary then is to not keep feeding the trolls, so I should stop wading into the denier sites and contesting the propaganda. I'm sure I haven't changed any minds.
  43. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Chuck101, I've tried to explain why I can't answer that in #59. My putting such a paragraph in every thread would be pointless and result in clutter. I can expand on my points here if you want me to.
  44. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    Villabolo: Can you present evidence that a) Most US evangelicals are pre-millenial. b) Most US evangelicals are climate skeptical. Even in the 2007 Pew Forum report, the latter was not the case, and things have shifted since then, see for example the Evangelical Climate Initiative. US Baptists (the largest contingent) are split on the issue. SBC seminary staff are certainly predominantly premillenial, although it is not clear if this is reflected in the church as a whole. The millenial obsession is primarily a US one: I expect that outside the US few evangelicals could define their position. In the UK evangelicals are spread across the political spectrum, and views on climate are most strongly shaped by political rather than religious views. Creationism is also a minority view among evangelicals over here.
  45. A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    My point to Eric was that, Given that he says he accepts the 97% scientific consensus, so hence must accept that AGW is happening. Given also, that it appears to be happening faster than most of the estimates. (Nobody predicted that we could have an ice free North Pole by 2020, which we seem to be on course for). So given all this evidence, (which he apparently accepts), why does he make it contingent on the future development of computer models which can model to his arbitrary standards, and which may take twenty years to develop? This is like sitting inside a burning house and fiddling with the air conditioning. The logical and sensible approach would be, 'yes, I accept the evidence, AGW is happening and we need to do something about it now; and by the way, it would be nice to continue to develop the computer models so we can have some advance notice of what may occur'. To continue to insist that the models fit your arbitrary standards before you accept said evidence, (and potentially wait 20 years or so), is just nuts.
  46. Do we know when the Arctic will be sea ice-free?
    Mark-US@80: "Take the made-up example of caribou altering ground cover in such a way that it accelerates albedo loss" FWIW this seems to be the opposite in reality, according to this study. Based on their measurements, the grazed area had a higher albedo than non-grazed. I would hazard a guess, that while this was done in Finland and Norway, and with reindeers, the same result is applicable to caribou too. In regards to your actual point, about what constitutes a feedback, it becomes a bit fuzzy in your example. While the increased CH4-release is very mechanistic in its nature and can be directly linked to the temperature rise*, the caribou-example has a lot of other variables involved. For example, they may move to cooler areas in order to avoid mosquitoes, which will also increase as the temp goes up. This means that the caribou-feedback becomes complicated and depends a lot on external circumstances. * Except that this may not quite be the case, Blok et al. 2010 argues that increased vegetation on top of the permafrost isolates it more efficiently from the heat.
  47. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    DB, I agree. I would say the principle of "on earth as it is in heaven", and frankly the large body of teaching in Gospel on what the reign of God as opposed to a human king would look like, is at severe odds with what Villabola characterises as "pre-millenial".
  48. 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #36
    John Hartz @ 103: ...but if I put it in quotes, then I'd be implying that I'm a denier admitting I'm in denial, which wouldn't work.... and calling myself a denier might violate the comments policy...
    Moderator Response: [DB] Only if used in a self-pejorative sense.
  49. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    As a conservative Christian raised in the evangelical tradition I feel compelled to respond in brief to this. Not all Christians are fundamentalist in the sense that underlies much of today's Republican Party in the US. For those raised under the principles of stewardship, we are governed by the mandate to live our lives under the knowledge that we will one day stand for a final performance review of our lives. And that an accounting will be made for everything that we did do...and everything that we didn't do. For Christians, it is given to none of us to know the day, time or hour; we carry the charge of remaining ready. In that sense, it matters little whether one is Pre-Millennialist or Post-Millennialist. Because under the principle of stewardship, the distinction doesn't matter.
  50. Climate Change and the Weightier Matters: a Christian view on global warming
    scaddenp @#13 No, that's the last thing I would desire as a topic under ordinary circumstances. We have enough to worry about the potential apocalypse of Global Warming without adding mysticism to any rational discussion. But..... Since John spoke from a Christian perspective I thought it would be instructive to point out that there are other perspectives from others who consider themselves Christians. The importance of their opposing beliefs lays in the fact that they are politically powerful in the U.S. Their irrationality is becoming the basis of our public policy. These ‘Christians’ have been demonizing environmentalists and us 'alarmists' and have even slandered John. It's good to know where your opponent is coming from - how he thinks. Know thy enemy.

Prev  1072  1073  1074  1075  1076  1077  1078  1079  1080  1081  1082  1083  1084  1085  1086  1087  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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