Recent Comments

Prev  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  Next

Comments 54951 to 55000:

54951. R. Gates at 02:32 AM on 27 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       BaerbelW @ 6 - Excellent! Thank You... John Russell said: "When I heard some of the speakers talking on the live feed my jaw dropped. Talk was almost totally about the opportunities presented by an ice-free Arctic." And there's the heart of the matter. Many don't see the pending Dragon King regime change coming to the global climate that has begun in the Arctic. The are taking a business-as-usual approach, believing that nothing is about to change, and life will go on as it has, but now with "greater opportunity" for getting at the fossil fuels in the Arctic. This is akin to the Thanksgiving Turkey who has been well fed for many years prior to the day before Thanksgiving, and assumes this trend will continue forever. Of course, the Turkey's assumption would be wrong as that Turkey's Dragon King event is soon to hit. But This is a conservative mind-set. Not conservative in the political sense, but in the psychological sense that such a mind-set is always the last to even think that change could come and come swiftly. Think about how amazing it is that even just in the 2007 IPCC report, no thought was even given to the possibility of an ice-free Arctic by 2020-- yet that is entirely possible now, perhaps even probable. What should be happening right now are international efforts to prepare to figure out how we are going to feed 7+ billion humans if the NH weather (where the bulk of the food is grown) continues become more disrupted as described by Dr. Francis at Rutgers. And we haven't even begun to see true force of the methane releases that are inevitably coming. In short...this story of the dramatic loss of sea ice in the Arctic this year should be the top science story.
54952. John Russell at 02:01 AM on 27 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       Several things have depressed me in the last few days. First was the smashing of the sea ice extent record in grand style -- though in the last few weeks it became clear it was going to go. The next was the conference which began in Alaska, yesterday. When I heard some of the speakers talking on the live feed my jaw dropped. Talk was almost totally about the opportunities presented by an ice-free Arctic, from the development of oil, gas and mineral resources, to the increase in tourism and opening of new shipping routes. Hardly a word about negative consequences; just a few asides about how to manage 'change' sensitively. No climate change denial here! Then this morning I opened the Sunday Times to see an article about the sea loss by Jonathan Leake, their science correspondent. OK, it started well enough by providing graphs and quotes from key Arctic scientists and NGOs, but then ended with this blatant 'false balance' (taking up about 25% of the copy) ...

       "Some scientists are more cautious and point out that satellite imaging of the Arctic -- the main way of measuring coverage -- only began in 1978. One idea is that the icecap may shrink and grow naturally over decades. Such cycles are common in ocean science, so the recent melt may just be the first time we have monitored it. Professor John Christy director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said the Arctic had indeed warmed, but there was also anecdotal and other evidence suggesting similar melts from 1938-43 and on other occasions. "Climate change is a murky science", he said. "To some it's an easy answer to say it's due to extra green house gasses. To the rest of us, separating natural variability from human impacts remains a wicked problem."

       My blood boils: "some say...", "...but to the rest of us...". Yeh, right, 'the rest of you' -- a tiny, tiny minority in denial. And that thought is left in the minds of the influential people who read, arguably, the UK's most prestigious Sunday paper. [Sorry I can't provide a link, it's behind a paywall].
54953. sandysandy at 01:55 AM on 27 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       I posted 2 comments earlier and they've been deleted? Could an admin tell me what I should edit please, as I am new to the actual website but not new to your facebook posts. I think that I am making some good points and they are on-topic! I agree with Mustermann, the article doesn't even touch on the effects of the Atantic gyre which the Gulf stream is a part of. It runs on water temperature and density and if it halts it will throw Europe into an ice age as the Gulf stream part of the gyre takes water from West Africa underground (I believe) to the Med where it heats it up by trillions of degrees a day which in turn heats the land mass by 5 degrees which is why, even though we're on the same latitude as Russia or New York, we have a milder climate. This should mean that the earth will right herself on her own but I do think that there are things that we should be doing to help her along: Abort all plans to drill for oil in the arctic, it should be disturbed as little as possible and if there was a spill the hazardous conditions would make a clean-up extremely difficult, if possible at all because they would be digging very deep and the climate and isolated location would greatly hinder any clean-up. Almost all travel by boat should be banned or restricted, especially by those huge ice breakers and by those new fangled arctic tourists who are looking to do what very few people can afford to do. Whales from the Pacific along with a lot of other marine life and organisms are finding their way into the Atlantic and vice-versa. We've had Pacific whales here in European waters for the last couple of years. As species have evolved to adapt to their own climate they do not have any immunity to alien species. For example, algae from the Med has migrated to the Red Sea and is threatening its existence, it has also migrated to the Indian Ocean and we do not know of its effects yet nor that of other organisms... A possible solution: I have said for years that we should be spreading or spraying chalk on all parts of exposed earth in the arctic. Basically, for every inch of land that is exposed, it heats up the land a lot more than the parts covered by ice. It absorbs the sun's energy and dissipates it in the surrounding area which is speeding up the melt. Chalk would be an ideal material as it is non-toxic and it is plentiful. (-Snip-)
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] The earlier comments were moderated out due to exceeding the scope of the topic of this thread (a familiarity with this site's Comments Policy, also used on its FB page, is suggested).

       In the interest of furthering discussion, those individual portions of this comment also fitting that description were moderated out.

       It is left as an exercise to readership to address the other remaining portions of this comment.

54954. kampmannpeine at 01:54 AM on 27 August 2012
       Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
       The article compares the Ozone hole issue with climate change and the common effort of mankind to reduce the ozone hole ... I had some time ago the same idea ... however: Ozone hole issue had an alternative: other material instead of the Ozone killer stuff to put into the "icebox" ... whereas Climate Change: I do not know an alternative for energy production at the Terawatt dimension ... We are working on alternative energy production - compared to the terawatt-issue still small ... and therefore it needs TIME ... Also: One thing on the long run to do (possibly): eliminate CO2 from flue gases of the big coal power plants by filtering. Now the only way to do that is by multistage filtering... (it would be nice to do that [the filtering] with normal air - but that is ineffective - at present) Then: what to do with the CO2? Sequestration is one possibility - we had this here at SKS. Another would be: algae growth in the neighbourhood of the power plant which however makes necessary areas about 34 km-squared for algae plants - who has that area except the U.S.? Another would be: the Sabatier Process making CH4 or Methanol (CH3OH) from CO2 with H2 from alternative energy sources ... But that is all far from reality at least compared to the Terawatt issue ... perhaps realized in 10 or 20 years ... However: we have to start ... Let us begin ...
54955. r.pauli at 01:45 AM on 27 August 2012
       Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
       It is time to recall the terrific rant by Michael Tobis at http://init.planet3.org/2011/04/moshers-team.html A half dozen paragraphs down. A year an a half ago. It still holds up well.
54956. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:19 AM on 27 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       Tom @ #4, thanks for pointing out the difference between minimum and monthly average extent. I probably should have looked more closely. It's still dramatic though, isn't it, even if you lift it up a bit. Wonder what the September monthly average will end up being.
54957. Byron Smith at 22:25 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       I recently wrote a post on the various effects of a seasonally ice-free Arctic and came up with precisely the same nine as Neven just mentioned, so I feel pretty good about that. 1. Arctic ecosystem change/habitat loss 2. Arctic (human) communities culture/infrastructure loss 3. Albido change to global energy budget 4. Permafrost melt acceleration 5. Methane clathrates destabilisation 6. Greenland ice sheet melt acceleration 7. Geo-political tensions over Arctic resources 8. Exploitation of Arctic fossil hydrocarbon resources feedback 9. Complex effects on NH wind/weather patterns via polar jetstream effects. 10. I considered a tenth, namely, a further disruption to the global energy budget from the freeing of the latent heat energy that previously was being used to accomplish the phase transition of ice -> water, though my back of the envelope calculations suggest that this is a much smaller issue than albido change (I’d love to see some reputable work on this topic as I’m far from any kind of expert). Now that I think about it a little more, I can think of a further seven issues that neither Neven nor I mentioned. Some of these I’m very tentative about (esp ##15&16). 11. The release of persistent toxins and heavy metals that had become trapped in the ice. 12. The opening up of Arctic shipping routes which (a) reduces fuel needs of global shipping by cutting distances (negative feedback) but (b) brings more diesel fuel into the Arctic region, leaving black soot on glaciers (positive feedback). Not sure which is the larger effect. 13. Reconnection of marine ecosystems previously separated by ice with unpredictable ecosystem changes from invasive species. This is already occurring. 14. Opening up of Arctic fishing grounds to greater exploitation (and noise pollution). 15. Potential effects on thermohaline circulation. I haven’t seen any work on this related to seasonal sea ice loss, so I have no idea whether it is significant. 16. Potential effects on ocean acidification by increasing surface area for atmosphere-ocean gas exchange. Would this make any difference to ocean capacity to act as CO2 sink or rate of acidification? Maybe this is irrelevant. I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere and is just an idea that came to me. 17 . Highly visual and difficult to dispute sign of climate change, representing a potential tipping point in public awareness and concern. If we are waiting for that, however, before we make any serious efforts to slash emissions (esp if it doesn’t occur until 2030 or later), we’ll already have so much warming committed that we’ll pretty much be toast. At best, therefore, this point might consolidate public support for massive rapid emissions reductions already underway.
54958. jsam at 22:15 PM on 26 August 2012
       Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
       One can only presume MIT do not decry Lindzen as (pick as many as apply): he has tenure, he has gone all emeritus, he attracts funding, he is amusing in the coffee room. The rest of MIT seems to be very climate aware: http://globalchange.mit.edu/ and http://cgcs.mit.edu/ and the more personal attacks on Kerry Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/01/mit-climate-scientists-wife-threatened-frenzy-hate.
       Moderator Response: [JH]Correction: Re your final reference, Kerry Emanuel, not Kerry Jones.
54959. OPatrick at 21:41 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       Current Arctic sea-ice extent is about 15% below the previous record for this date - for comparison this would be equivalent to the men's 100m record dropping down to approximately 8.18 seconds - but as far as I can see no significant mention of this in the main-stream media and most people are presumably blissfully unaware.
54960. shoyemore at 20:31 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       There have been two big science stories already this year that made front pages and led TV news bulletins: - the Higgs Boson announcement - the Curiousity Rover on Mars The Arctic Ice story, which will affect millions on the planet far more that these two, should be the science highlight of the year. But it isn't, not to the news media anyway. Even if Arctic Ice Extent falls below 4.0million km^2, as it seems bound to in the next two days, or even if it hits the almost incredible (until now!) 3.5million mark, it seems that major media outlets will keep this story an inside page and not at the top. It is dispiriting. The laughable thing (if it was not so serious) is that many deniers I have met on the web think this is still mainly about polar bears.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text per request.
54961. BaerbelW at 19:44 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       R.Gates @ 1 - Your wish is our command: I just published the German translation!
54962. Bernard J. at 19:04 PM on 26 August 2012
       Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
       I just commented on the latest Arctic sea ice thread about the urgency of humanity's response (or lack thereof) to climate change. To hark to that other great denial of science we're basically at the point where the patient is coughing up blood, and his doctor is telling him that he should have already given up smoking if he doesn't want to die of lung cancer. And the patient continues to smoke, because he doesn't (want to) believe his doctor when said physician tells him that the patient's addiction has already killed him. I'm also reminded of one of the few episodes of The Mentalist to which I (ironically) exposed myself...
54963. Bernard J. at 18:46 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       The events and phenomena described in this thread constitute what I believe are collectively a pivotal point in the whole of humanity's response to human-caused global warming. Quite frankly, if this isn't sufficient to move us to an urgent, global, and extreme response to what we're doing to the planet, nothing will. Certainly not until it's far too late. And if we don't engage in that immediate response, then the future non-viabilities of our global, technological culture, and of a significant proportion of the biodiversity of the planet besides, are guaranteed. Those who have known me for a number of years are probably familiar with my progress toward pessimism over the last two or three. I'm going to stick my neck out now and say that if nothing substantial is achieved around the world in the next 12 months or so, or of things go backwards - for example, if there is a change of government in Australia that results in a removal of a carbon price - then subsequent commentary of the whole subject of climate change will simply be no more fruitful than to speculate on how we best manage our decent back to the stone age... if we're that lucky.
54964. Tom Curtis at 17:49 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       sout @2, in the interests of accuracy, Alex showed a 2012 sea ice extent of just over 4 million km^2, close to its current value. The reconstruction, however, is of August average extent. To compare like with like, we should compare the modern August average extent, which is likely to be around 5 million km^2,or about five dashes above the position shown for 2012 in the graph.
54965. Mustermann at 17:43 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       A good overview but a dire outlook, thank you anyway. I missed the connection between vanishing sea ice and a possible weakening of the Thermohaline Circulation with may in turn influence the gulf stream. Or is this out of the question?
54966. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 17:25 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       In case any reader still thinks this is within the realms of 'normal' - Alex, in a comment on Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog, updated Kinnard with 2012 ice extent and posted a link to this image: Quite a worry.
       Moderator Response: TC: Concern has been expressed privately among SkS authors about the potential for this graph to mislead the unwary. The key concern is that the original graph shows a 40 year running average of mean August extents, which the amended graph compares with the 2012 minimum (to date) extent. That is not an apples to apples comparison. Further discussion can be found below by Kar, Dana, and myself.

       This comment should not be interpreted as indicating we do not appreciate the efforts of Alex, Sou or Kar in preparing and displaying the graphs.
54967. R. Gates at 17:19 PM on 26 August 2012
       Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
       The rapidity of Arctic sea ice loss and the awakening of a the methane "time bomb" across the once frozen regions of the NH is something the 2007 IPCC report didn't take into account at all. Limiting increase in global temps to 2C is out the window and 3C may be impossible to avoid now as well. Those fools who think that a melting Arctic is a great opportunity to plan for further fossil fuel extrapolation fail to understand the various stresses this will placec on a civilization needing to feed 7+ Billion humans.
54968. R. Gates at 17:00 PM on 26 August 2012
       Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
       Neven never fails to amaze me in his broad comprehension of this subject and ability to put it into such well written postings. This post should be required reading for everyone in the world old enough to comprehend it. Can someone please translate this into a few key languages and get this spread to as many blogs around the web as possible!?
54969. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:53 PM on 26 August 2012
       Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
       Idunno. Thanks for the heads up. We had already noticed that thread going a bit feral. Sometimes not a good idea to get into some fights. Doug. No not much cause for optimism no. But a glimmer. A few things. The cost of solar PV cells is plummeting due to mass production in China. Here in Australia people are putting solar panels on new houses based on cost alone. The savings in energy demand mean we have managed to avoid needing to build a new FF power station. The huge decline in sea ice in the Arctic this year has been spectacular to watch and it ain't over yet. All the trend lines are still plummeting. Whats good about that? The silver lining is that if we are going to get far greater action then the mass population has to get behind the need for it. Paul Gilding in his book The Great Disruption had one chapter labelled "When the dam of Denial Breaks". And thats what we need. Dramatic events that will shake the world up and wake it up. The Arctic going ice free a few years earlier than was expected does't matter as much in terms of what the long term consequences of global warming will end up being. Just one brick in the wall falling into place a little earlier than though. But if that gets action happening faster it might be worth the price.
54970. Doug Bostrom at 16:31 PM on 26 August 2012
       Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
       idunno: ...a learned theological discussion of the state of John Cook's soul. Guaranteeing thereby that somebody is entertaining a desperate wish to avoid the actual topic of the Guardian article. Sadly pathetic. Meanwhile, back more or less on topic: Science adviser warns climate target 'out the window' Lack of phase coherence here. From the blog post above: "A failure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly within the next decade will have large adverse effects on the climate that will be essentially irreversible on human timescales." I'd say that the situation in the Arctic is a "large adverse effect" and that it's "essentially irreversible on human timescales," or at least the timescale available to those of us reading this. What's our urgent action item in the Arctic? Engaging in a mad rush to extract for combustion the hydrocarbons newly available thanks to vanishing ice. Can anybody see a reason for optimism? I can't.
54971. villabolo at 12:54 PM on 26 August 2012
       How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
       Where did this Einstinean idea originate from? I give our Lord Monckton the benefit of a doubt - I can't believe he'll stoop that low. Then again...
54972. oneiota at 08:35 AM on 26 August 2012
       Antarctica is gaining ice
       Lifted from The Conversation: "A 364-metre-long ice core record has revealed an unusual pattern of rapid warming across the Antarctic Peninsula over the past 100 years. An Australian National University research expedition produced findings dating back 15,000 years, resulting in the first comprehensive temperature record of the Antarctic Peninsula. Dr Nerilie Abram said the Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming places on Earth and the findings will allow researchers to compare recent and past temperatures in the region for the first time." More here.
54973. idunno at 05:48 AM on 26 August 2012
       Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
       Just a brief, entirely off-topic, heads up... The Guardian's thread on sea ice appears to have been entirely highjacked, see pages 14-16 of comments, by a learned theological discussion of the state of John Cook's soul. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/23/arctic-sea-ice-record-low?commentpage=16#start-of-comments I thought perhaps Mr Cook might like to be aware of this, and might even like to comment. I need hardly say that this is extremely sticky ground, and the potential for causing offence probably limitless, but... Please do feel free to remove this comment from this thread.
54974. Daved Green at 04:41 AM on 26 August 2012
       Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
       hey vrooomie , hmmm interesting I live and work in an environment where being homophobic is still ok and because I'm not out I get to see what people are really like and it isn't nice . So i guess my experience colours the way I interpret that paragraph . Suppose i just over reacted sorry Mod TC . Thanks vrooomie for the insights .
54975. WesH at 02:54 AM on 26 August 2012
       Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
       Romm points out that when you're speaking to a critical audience, they're primed to reject facts that contradict their world view. We have to change or shake the world view before we get to facts. That's where priming and metaphor and repetition and stories and questions work. Want to see a good example? Study the entire lyrics of "Like a Rolling Stone." Romm uses some of it, but the whole song is a great tutorial. Most of Dylan's lyrics are easily available online.
54976. vrooomie at 01:00 AM on 26 August 2012
       The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
       And, of course, I just discovered the link leading to the 'how to italicize schtuff', right after hitting 'send.' I'm just a geologist...;-)
54977. vrooomie at 00:58 AM on 26 August 2012
       The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
       When a spade is a MOERRI Sorry, Bernard...couldn't resist! I agree wholeheartedly, and it's this--timidity, for lack of a better term--that science/scientists ofttimes exhibit that allow denialISTS [mod: if you wish, please italicize my caps; not sure how to code for italics] to win the day. I see it over on WUWT *all the time*, where they ~whinge and whine~ about having the terrible, dastardly ad hom term "denier" flung at them, in the same breath the astonishing attacks, verifiably ad homs, get flung at The Inconvenient Data and its Messengers.
54978. vrooomie at 00:20 AM on 26 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       "Ostrichocracy." and the Great Myriad-Plethora Battle...this thread is not only informative, it's fun! To all who are arguing honestly (and I need not point out who isn't) thanks...I learn something new everyday. Sph...."DNFTO?" Terrell Owens is around, summweres?...;-)
54979. vrooomie at 00:10 AM on 26 August 2012
       Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
       Daved@40, I too, am somewhat sensitive to 'code' words that target the GLBT population (said from my ground of being, as a straight man) and I too, like a few commenters, do not read *into* steves's words an anti gay rant. The gay part was parenthetical to a single point, and having a large number of gay friends (even having been made an honorary lesbian, by a GLBT choir to which I once belonged!), I'd say accurate. In no way do I see in Steve's words an anti-gay rant and/or stand, only an observation upon post-modern societal norms, which seem to be quite accurate. I won't deign to speak for Steve--I'm sure he'll chime in soon--but the takeaway for me was the tendency, in this PNS world, to glorify the sizzle, and minimize the steak.
54980. Bob Lacatena at 23:12 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       85, Old Mole, You are repeating Dale's and many a climate ostrich's favorite line of defense, "it hasn't happened yet in a noticeable way, so we don't need to worry about it, ever." That doesn't require any further discussion or rebuttal. It is the ultimate climate ostrich stance, and I will again repeat my favorite parable: A manAn ostrich jumps from the top of a skyscraper. Every time he passes an open window, he is heard to say "so far, so good." Oh, and you might want to go back and read the many, many myriad links that I have provided. A fair number of them directly refute your statements and position.
54981. Bob Lacatena at 23:08 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       Dale,

       Windy

       This has already been discussed (see inversions). I started out by stating that there are certain areas whose whether patterns lend themselves to dangerously high ozone levels (see comment 19).

       Heat == more pre-cursors (as well as faster reactions)

       Okay, I'll take one more stab at this. This is basic chemistry. First, your block analogy fails because there are far more blocks than one needs. Ozone (O3) levels are normally below 60 ppb. That's "parts per billion". The availability of oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere is 210000000 ppb. So you have 210,000,000 "blocks of O2" with which to build 60 "blocks of O3". There is no shortage of blocks, as in your analogy. Second, as I've already explained, everything is competing rates of reaction. If I can make ozone molecules faster than you can smash them, then the number of ozone molecules in the room increases. But it's not one person making ozone and one person smashing it, it's 210,000,000 million molecules of O2 per billion slamming into each other making ozone, and very, very few NO molecules slamming into those 60 ozone molecules and turning them back into O2. VOCs and other reactions turn more NO into NO2. This provides a lessened chance of breaking down O3 into O2, so your ozone smashing is inhibited (less NO mallets to go around). So if you add VOCs, there is less chance of breaking O3 down. If you increase temperatures, VOC reactions become more efficient, they remove even more NO, and the chances skew even further. Now here is the part you don't seem to get. In an atmospheric soup of billions of molecules, these reactions are happening constantly, myriad a plethora many times per second. Ozone is constantly being created and destroyed. How much ozone the atmosphere contains is a question of how fast all of those competing reactions are going. If ozone is being created more quickly, or is not destroyed as quickly, you get more ozone. This is all basic chemistry. If you cannot grasp this, you do not get a seat at the table. From here on out, I declare DNFTT (DNFTO).
54982. EliRabett at 23:04 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       Dale has big trouble with AND. In the case of trop ozone one needs: Heat and Light and an Inversion because it closes the reaction vessel. If you have a lot of wind it dilutes the reactants. There is another role that VOCs play, but it requires NO2, to generate OH which oxidizes the VOCs to forms which can create more NO2. That mechanism is a bit more complex, but it too increases with temperature. Simple stuff first.
54983. John Russell at 22:35 PM on 25 August 2012
       Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
       When people use the popular denial meme, "...life thrived in the Eocene" (or similar), I always like to remind them that it was only some types of life that thrived: like 30-foot snakes, predatory birds with 15-foot wings spans and giant reptiles. Land mammals -- including our own ancestors -- were generally small creatures not much bigger than domestic cats (small being apparently most suited to cope with the heat). [Google 'mammals of the Eocene' to read more.] Humans and other modern species with which we share planet Earth today, thrive best in the atmospheric CO2 concentration in which they evolved -- and to which we are slowly saying 'good bye'.
54984. michael sweet at 22:28 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       Old Mole, A quick Google gives this quote from a New York Times report on water use: "groundwater supplies in the Upper Ganges of India and Pakistan, the Central Valley of California and the North China plain are heavily overexploited, something that was already well known before". my emphasis The abstract of the study is here, but the article is behind a paywall. They mention only four aquifers in this part of the article and one is the central vally. Please provide a reference to support your wild claims that the central Vally aquifer is not overexploited. When you make unsupported wild claims like this people think you are just a troll. Please try to provide evidence to support your wild claims on the ozone thread also.
54985. chriskoz at 20:53 PM on 25 August 2012
       How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
       I found the answer to my post @15 and pointers to the interesting papers on another thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html SkS is an excellent source of knowledge if you know how to search it...
       Moderator Response: TC: Link made live.
54986. Old Mole at 18:19 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       "Be it the Central Valley of California or heavily populated N.W. India, sustained food production has become increasingly dependent on unsustainable pumping of groundwater because of diminishing availability of water from rainfall and glacier fed rivers." Another minor quibble ... farmers in the San Joaquin valley haven't been pumping much of their increasingly toxic ground water for about fifty years now. Water for irrigation is provided by the state and federal water projects, piping water from the Sacramento river and its tributaries several hundred miles south.
54987. Old Mole at 17:48 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       "What is not known for certain is the effect of exposure to higher levels of ozone on a longer-term or permanent basis. It is reasonable to assume that those effects would be more severe than indicated at Table 2 – and fatal." No offense to you, but based on my experience as a guinea pig in the large scale laboratory experiment called the Los Angeles Basin in the late 1950's to the late 1960's, I would have to say it was not reasonable to assume any such thing. Let me refer you to a table put out by the South Coast Air Quality Management District: http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/o3trend.html It doesn't present any data prior to 1976 ... but although I can't present any confirming data at the moment, I would bet you paychecks that ozone levels were considerably worse prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, the oil crisis of 1973 and the mandatory installation of catalytic converters in the 1975 model year Even so you will notice that in 1977 and 1978, the maximum eight hour readings, averaged over a basin encompassing several hundred square miles, was over 300 ppb. The hourly average could go as high as 450 ppb. The number of days when a health advisory was issued (over 150 ppb O3) was roughly half the year, every year. How much of a "longer-term basis" were you looking for? Yet I see no evidence of drastic changes in mortality figures that correspond to those highs ... higher, yes, but marginally so. I suggest that you would see similar results looking at the populations of Mexico City and Beijing today, since they are dealing with similar ozone levels now. In short, without rather more evidence from mortality data in the public record to support your claim, I think that "[i]t can kill us all and will do so if allowed to go unchecked." is exactly the sort of alarmism that the ostrichocracy is forever whining about, and does your argument for major changes in public policy no good at all. P.S. Sphaerica@38 'Plethora', and its evil twin, 'myriad' should be avoided like an invitation to a James Inhofe barbecue. Not only are they grossly overused, they lack any precision, and convey to the reader the meaning "a whole shitload, and don't I have an impressive vocabulary?", making you look a pedantic twit.
54988. Bernard J. at 16:44 PM on 25 August 2012
       The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
       Call me a traditionalist, but in my book one who denies a thing is a denier, pure and simple. And if that denial involves actively ignoring, dissembling, and/or otherwise misrepresenting pertinent content of the subject at hand, especially for the purposes of promoting to others the denialism of said subject, then that individual is a denialist. I'm all for enriching lexicons, but not for impoverishing them. As Tom Curtis notes, and as George Orwell classically described in his novel 1984, controlling language provides a tool for controlling thought - there's a decent little essay about it here. Allen Ginsberg observed a similar thing - "[w]hoever controls the language, the images, controls the race". So don't be afraid to recognise and announce a denier or a denialist when one ecncounters such. A spade is a spade, even when it demands to be called a manually-operated earth-restructuring/relocating implement.
54989. bill4344 at 16:17 PM on 25 August 2012
       Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
       Thanks for this patient refutation of a veritable torrent of nonsense John. 'Early member of Greenpeace' - so what? What he's saying now is still nonsense.
54990. jmorpuss at 15:50 PM on 25 August 2012
       How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
       [Snipped of topic comments]
       Moderator Response: TC: jmorpuss, Skeptical Science does not exist for your benefit, and nor do you have a special privilege to ignore the comments policy. If you wish to discuss the absurd theory that microwave transmissions cause global warming, you are entitled to do so where it is on topic, and not anywhere else.

       Please carefully peruse the comments policy before commenting there as well. If you do not have anything new to add to what you have already written, as appears to be the case, simply regurgitating the same tires arguments will result in your posts being deleted for failing to avoid excessive repetition, and sloganeering.
54991. Daved Green at 15:34 PM on 25 August 2012
       Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
       Well that whole Modern, post-WWII culture paragraph makes me feel that gays are having a bad effect on society and that they are part of the problem of our cultural shallowness leading to our willingness to to be duped by Monckton and friends . If steve had just said that the over exposure of gay men in TV and films most of which just follow the same old stereotypes , was an issue I would tend to agree , maybe he should have defined what he meant by gay (homosexual) effect on culture but I get the feeling the intent was to implicate the whole sector of society in the great moral decline of the west . I know I am trying to convince people here with probably 20 or 30 IQ points more than me . But basically I was offended and my poor language skill stop me present a decent cogent argument . so leave it at that then . To keep it on topic you don't need to post this . Thanks
54992. John Mason at 15:22 PM on 25 August 2012
       Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
       Thanks Tom. I think my original description is fair and accurate - Moore was an early member of GP and was involved with it at various levels 1971 through to 1986. I spent some time researching the background to this, as I always do when writing a piece for Skeptical Science, and much that gets read does not end up in the final edition (especially if a ~1000 word gish-gallop has to be reproduced in order to pick it apart).
54993. Andy Skuce at 14:13 PM on 25 August 2012
       The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
       In the way that bovine means "like a cow", the word for "like an ostrich" is struthian (or struthious). May I suggest that when we encounter a climate, er, contrarian putting his head where the light of reason and empiricism does not shine, we now exclaim: "Struth!" (with apologies to our Australian friends).
54994. Dale at 13:31 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       What you are saying to me Daniel, is that heat will create more ozone. An analogy. 5 blocks in a row and you move the first one to the back of the line repeatedly at the same speed. If heat speeds up this process, then you repeat this cycle quicker. What you're saying is that if you add heat, not only does the cycle speed up but suddenly there are 6 blocks. If heat creates more blocks scattered on the floor, as you speed up the first to back block cycle the chance of picking up another block is higher. So through a combination of moving faster and more blocks scattered on the floor, the CHANCE of picking up another block in the line increases. But just because there's more blocks on the floor doesn't guarantee you'll actually pick one up. And, if you don't even start the first to back block cycle you can scatter as many blocks as you want on the floor and you'll never pick them up. So heat !== more ozone. Heat == more pre-cursors (as well as faster reactions).
54995. Daniel Bailey at 12:53 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       Dale is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. And the facts on this thread are inconveniently against him. The ostrichicity is palpable.
54996. Dale at 12:53 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       Hot and cloudy. Hot and windy. Not every hot day will result in high ozone levels. For instance here in Melbourne it's quite common in late Jan-Feb for the temp to be 40C+ with up to 100km/hr northerlies. We know these as our worst bushfire days. So whilst extra heat will result in more pre-cursors, that does not translate directly to increased ozone.
54997. Bob Lacatena at 12:52 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       Dale, In actuality, if you look at Eli's equations, what you see is that VOCs facilitate the conversion of NO to NO2. This leaves less NO to convert O3 back to O2, which in turn shifts the balance towards increasing amounts of O3 (ozone). Everything (well, almost everything) in chemistry is competing rates of reaction. You have two (or more) reactions occurring in balance. In one direction you produce product, in the other product breaks down into reactants. When the system is in equilibrium, you have a concentration of products and reactants that is steady, because the competing reactions are balanced. If you unbalance the reactions (changing the rate in either direction) then the concentration of products changes as well. In our case, a reaction (dependent on temperature) changes the amount of one component of one reaction (the reaction that destroys ozone). This reduces the frequency of that reaction, thereby leaving more of the product of the other reaction (the reaction that creates ozone). The end result is more ozone with increasing temperatures.
54998. Bob Lacatena at 12:45 PM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       Dale, I don't understand how you can say "increasing pre-cursors doesn't translate literally to increased ozone." Yes, it does, hence all of the statements that increased temperatures (from GW) will increase ground-level ozone.
54999. Daved Green at 12:04 PM on 25 August 2012
       Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
       Steve from Virginia , A humans sexual orientation in this case homosexual(gay) does not mean they are "pornographic, inconsequential and theatrical" or even responsible for the " 'girlish' and erratic, vamping " of society . Typical offensive stereotyping which I am surprised got through moderation ?? . It is easy to blame a small minority for the problems of society dealing with Global Warming but maybe you should look to the right wing religious side of politics whom have done more harm to our cause of stopping the looming disaster than anyone . Most people understand there is a problem but are just to busy or poor!! to make changes to their lives with kids, mortgages, work, bills, and this where the role of political leaders need to be strong and not just take the easy way out of accepting the views of a few wrong umm scientists ? or even non scientists (Monckton) . Also why cant I have a car if its powered from batteries charged from my solar panels ?, we don't have to go back to living like Hobbits you know . Well that's my rant . Great work everyone thanks , you all make climate science accessible for society .
       Moderator Response: TC: I do not read Steve from Virginia as saying that humans of homosexual orientation are pornographic, inconsequential, etc. Rather, I read him as saying that these are all distinct archetypes which are dominant in modern culture. Taking "pornographic", it is beyond question that pornographic imagery is a common feature in modern society in a way that it has not been in the modern west before. Full nudity can appear in adds on billboards or TV screens with no apparent concern for decorum. Recognizing this does not commit us to believing that all features of modern culture, the Olympic games, are pornographic in any way.

       Homosexual culture has also become a major feature of modern culture. Gay men, for example, appear to have been elevated as the doyens of style based solely on their sexuality. I doubt that the impact of homosexual orientations is yet commensurate with the actual homosexual presence in society; still less is it compensatory for the massive prejudice, and all to often persecution, against homosexuals that still exists.

       Read as such, there is nothing offensive or stereotyping about Steve from Virginia's comments. They do, however, push the border on relevance. As such, I ask him in future to be more direct in his style.
55000. EliRabett at 11:31 AM on 25 August 2012
       Global Warming - A Health Warning
       To first order on the [VOC]/[NOx] ratio

Prev  1092  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  Next