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  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  Next

Comments 55001 to 55050:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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).
  8. 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).
  9. 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).
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    To first order on the [VOC]/[NOx] ratio
  16. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    Andrew Revkin just featured The Escalator at the NY Times Dot Earth blog.
  17. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    I want to point out that I fully agreed with GW increasing the amount of pre-cursors ages ago. I also now accept that heat will increase the rate of the cycle. I'm going to write down how I understand it this morning, and feel free to comment, denigrate whatever. In the cycle of formation/destruction of ozone, heat speeds it up. However heat can't result in more ozone in this process (as in can't create more of something than the building blocks to make them). What heat does do however, is increase pre-cursors. But increasing pre-cursors doesn't translate literally to increased ozone. There's numerous conditions required for the ozone cycle to work which must be in place for the cycle to operate. Is that about right?
  18. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Composer99 @73, the word "denier" has been used in the English language since at least 1532 to mean "one who denies". It has never had any other meaning than that, either as to specific doctrine, belief or facts denied; or as to the psychological processes involved in the denial. It certainly does not derive its meaning form pop-psychology, nor from its very recent use to describe a particular form of denial. "Denialist" is a recent construction which I would consider far more offensive than denier, suggesting as it does that denial is some form of professional activity on the denier's behalf. My view on the use of the word "denier" is that: 1) Once you let a small group declare words off limits for political reasons, you have lost the battle with that group already, as they control the allowable forms of expression; 2) If somebody finds a word offensive, it is up to them to find a suitably descriptive, and non-tendentious substitute. I spent considerable time at WUWT at one stage encouraging them to do that, and it became quite clear that they generally insisted that the only acceptable word to describe them was "skeptic", with the implication that they held a virtue they patently fail to practice. 3) Finally, if a word is offensive because of the behaviour it describes (which appears to be the case), then the behaviour is itself far more offensive; so people who indulge in that behaviour have no grounds for complaint when it is accurately described.
  19. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    David Lewis @11, in Moore's own words, he was not a member of the Don't Make a Wave Committee until April 1971, after he had read about their planning "to sail a boat from Vancouver across the North Pacific to protest U.S. hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska". That is his description of his joining of Greenpeace from his book, "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout". The relevant extract is reproduced below for your convenience: Now, as a matter of logic, Moore did not found an organization he read about in the Vancouver Sun. For him to become aware of it by reading about it, it needed to exist already. Moore did become a member of that committee very early in its existence (within 5-16 months of its formation), and did sail on the first protest voyage organized by the Don't Make a Wave Committee. He was also present the meeting of that committee when the vote was taken to change its name to Greenpeace, none of which makes him a co-founder of Greenpeace, whose organization existed before he joined. Your evidence to the contrary consists only of a quote which states:
    "In 1970, the Don't Make A Wave Committee was established; its sole objective was to stop a second nuclear weapons test at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. The committee's founders and first members included: • Paul Cote, a law student at the University of British Columbia • Jim Bohlen, a former deep-sea diver and radar operator in the US Navy • Irving Stowe, a Quaker and Yale-educated lawyer • Patrick Moore, ecology student at the University of British Columbia • Bill Darnell, a social worker"
    (My emphasis) That quote is entirely consistent with Moore not being a co-founder of the Committee, but a first member (so long as that is interpreted as a member who joined within the first one or possibly two calendar years of formation). The dates however, make it entirely clear that he is the latter, not the former. If you object to revisionist history, then what you should object to is that which exaggerates Moore's role by claiming him as a co-founder. If Moore wanted to emphasize his early connection to Greenpeace accurately he would describe himself as a crew member of Greenpeace's first protest voyage, and as an early president of Greenpeace. But that would not give him an apparent right and authority to claim that Greenpeace has lost its way in the same way that claiming to be a co-founder does.
  20. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    I am surprised that my blog has attracted on-going comment and little if any of it related to the subject matter – effects of AGW on health. Commentary largely relates to the following statement: “If global temperatures rise more than 2°C, ozone concentration in the lower atmosphere is likely to rise above 100 ppb”. However this should be read in context. I am not asserting that ozone concentration near the surface will rise to >100 ppb but that if ambient temperature rises by more than 2°C, such an increase is likely. I accept that this claim is imprecise – deliberately so since I do not fully understand the complex photochemistry associated with formation (and destruction) of ozone in the lower troposphere. At comment 17, I tried to clarify that I was referring to regional concentration of ozone, noting that highest levels of O3 were to be expected where the precursors for it were highest. Elsewhere the blog refers to the harmful effects on health as a result of exposure for periods of 8 hours or more, so I am not talking about a persistent increase in O3 but a regional increase resulting in human exposure having adverse health effects. In some major cities there has been a trend to reduction in tropospheric O3 presumably as a result of public policy aimed at reducing the presence of precursors. In other major cities and surrounding areas, tropospheric O3 has been increasing and in some cases has exceeded 100 ppb. One should not be looking for a trend in the global concentration of tropospheric O3 but in the incidence of regional increase for periods of 8 hours or more. The IPCC reports (1) that there is a trend of regional increase in the incidence and frequency of dangerous levels of O3. Claims that It hasn’t happened yet despite an increase in temperature over recent decades (~0.6°C) does not appear to be a valid argument since (a) recent increases in temperature are still a long way from more than 2°C globally and (b) as noted above there have been regional increases for short periods where O3 concentrations have exceeded 100 ppb, levels that are harmful to human and some plant health, including food crops. An assertion made is that temperature does not affect O3 formation but given that the precursors include volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) the claim appears to be that temperature does not affect those substances. Yet VOC’s increasingly enter the atmosphere as ambient temperature rises(2). Rising temperature increases availability and reaction of O3 precursors to sunlight and both the volume and speed with which O3 is formed according to the Technical Appendix of Climate Change and Your Health(2). This is confirmed by the IPCC (3) and has been shown to produce harmful concentrations(4) of O3 in some regions. The chemistry involved is explained with admirable clarity by EliRabett at comment 53. 1. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=572 2. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-and-ozone-pollution-tech-appendix.pdf 3. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=356 4. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=572
  21. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    vrooomie, James has not posted in this forum since January 14th, so it might be quite some time before you get a response...
  22. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Ah yes, FWIW since the 50s there have been numerous laws passed to limit surface ozone, and great technical progress in doing so. Now some, not Eli to be sure, might say that had something to do with the fact that ground level ozone has leveled off. Counterexamples can be found in any Chinese city. See Fallows, James.
  23. Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
    James@25, this silly shibboleth of science-one-does-like being called "religion" is a particualy bothersome one to me. Definition, from Dictionary.com: "re·li·gion   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith" Please point out to me *which* of these generally-accepted definitions ANYTHING in the above referenced paper approaches "religion." When you do that, we can then discuss what, for me, is a matter of simple and purposefully-inflammatory rhetoric. Said another way; science not understood is not religion: it is just science that is beyond your pay grade, as many areas of science are to me. I don't accuse the watchmaker of sorcery or gbeing a religionist, just because I haven't an idea how a watch works: I trust in his/her ability to make watches, which is, last I checked, based on science, no?
  24. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    DL@15: "At this point it is hard for me to understand why it isn't a criminal offense to attempt to undermine climate science in the way Moore does, because of what is at stake." Perhaps it may be, if Michael Mann is successful in his lawsuit against the publication which publically, and with no shame, libeled and defamed him. I would welcome case law to that end, and then let Messrs. Monckton, Moore, McI, Watts, et al--the list is well known--be called into account for the damage they have done to legititmate climate scientists.
  25. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    Nothing excuses Moore's gibberish on climate science in my books. At this point it is hard for me to understand why it isn't a criminal offense to attempt to undermine climate science in the way Moore does, because of what is at stake. Just as it is a crime in some jurisdictions, i.e. Germany, to advocate hatred toward identifiable groups such as the Jews, because of the Holocaust, it will one day be a crime to encourage people to believe lies about what is happening to the planet. It took the deaths of millions for people to understand that such laws were necessary. There is only one planet.
  26. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Composer@73, as long as the book, "Denialism" is out there, I have *no compunction* whatso-[self-snipped]-ever, using the term when I see someone comporting to the the well-defined actions that identify such behavior. Not speaking to their *character*, but rather, to their ~actions~. Fair deal.
  27. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    numerobis #10, If it rains from time to time....
  28. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    David, I agree that revisionism is not good and I accept that people move on from one thing to another. Nevertheless, none of that excuses Moore's streaming invective of inaccurate to plain wrong long-debunked talking-points. A Gish-gallop it remains, period.
  29. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    To be fair, Philippe, a term can have both descriptive and deprecative content. Certainly it is no compliment to refer to someone as a 'denier' or even a 'denialist' in the context of climate science; however to call someone the former is to describe someone undergoing the psychological process of denial, and the use of the latter term is to describe someone who is engaging in the rhetorical techniques common to the various forms of denialism, without reference to what is being denied. But as long as the terms are being applied accurately, I do not think it reasonable for observers to focus on the deprecative element of terms such as these or such as 'fake skeptic' and attempt to dismiss the use of the terms on those grounds alone.
  30. Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
    As the producer of this video the comments here are constructive and useful. Thank you all. I just stumbled on this string. @hank 3 and jyyh 7 The video was intended as a tribute to Steve and not as a climate science primer for general public on the fence. @JohnRussell 12 I see how this could be shortened and voice over and text sometimes fight each other. Audio of Richard Alley accepting the 2011 Stephen Schneider Award for Climate Science Communication and discussing climate communication is in iTunes here. http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-climate/id296762605 It is podcast #21 "Richard Alley" He talks about listening to skeptics and deniers, and meeting them where they are (I don't claim this video does that). Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. @ Citizenschallenge 48 the transcription is useful.
  31. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    I lived in Vancouver, British Columbia where Greenpeace was formed, at the time it was formed. The "Don't Make a Wave Committee" was the talk of the fishing fleet I worked on in the summers because they rented a boat of the type I worked on. My grandfather knew the owner of the boat. The Amchitka protest the Don't Make a Wave Committee came up with was the talk of the town. Later on I worked with one of the founders of Greenpeace, Jim Bohlen, when I was a Speaker of the BC Green Party. That doesn't say I'm a Patrick Moore, or Greenpeace expert. I was an ozone campaigner and a climate activist starting around 1987 and found I had little in common with the Green types of the time who were more interested in forest preservation. I didn't happen to run into Moore or interact with him anywhere. What I cited wasn't a wikipedia reference. It was an archived no longer available on the Greenpeace website, "The Founders of Greenpeace" webpage, published by Greenpeace and which existed on the Greenpeace website up to at least February 2007. It was created and displayed by Greenpeace to clear up any doubts about their early history, and to answer questions about who, exactly, founded Greenpeace. If you go to the current Greenpeace website and take a look at the politically correct and shiny brand new, "The Founders of Greenpeace" revised webpage you will see what they've done with the page. The name Patrick Moore does not appear anywhere. I don't go in for revisionist history. I can't keep the lies straight. I don't see where it serves anyone's interest, for example, to be seen to be pretending Patrick Moore was not generally known in BC, Canada, and the world as one of the founders of Greenpeace for decades, while attacking, for instance, climate science deniers for their pretense that climate science is a hoax.
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 02:55 AM on 25 August 2012
    Global Warming - A Health Warning
    And Dale, if you hac actually done more work before coming here and saying everybody else has it wrong, you'd meet a different attitude. Then again, if you had done the homework and applied true skepticism, your own attitude would be different...
  33. Philippe Chantreau at 02:52 AM on 25 August 2012
    Global Warming - A Health Warning
    "Fake-skeptic" is truly the best generic name. It is entirely accurate and faithfully descriptive. Considering that it is accurate, it is not pejorative. A pejorative is used to deride, not to describe. Fake skepticism is exactly what is at work here. Considering also the kind of appeal to torture and murder seen on certain blogs (such as Judith Curry's), I would say that even calling someone denier is rather mild...
  34. Renewable energy is too expensive
    JagadeeshA, I had to google CSP. I assume you meant Concentrated Solar Power, and not Convenience Store Petroleum. Not all of us are familiar with all the acronyms. The question of how to implement policies that make perfect sense but don't match the party line is a political one, unique to each nation. Ones hopes that the politics will become more favorable as the climate becomes more unstable.
  35. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    I could of course use the term "denier," but that is deemed distasteful in some circles, what with the possible confusion with that Holo thing, so I'm trying to mend my ways.
  36. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    "It is important to point out and note here that Dale is objecting to the usage of the term climate ostrich, which he apparently feels is a pejorative. It is being used as an alternative to fake-skeptic or "skeptic" or climate-denier, and is used to describe someone adhering to agenda over science and evidence to the contrary." Yep...got it. To that, I say...we calls'em as we sees'em. Similar to many of the earlier SkS threads, back in 2007/2008, when moderation was a bit more lax, this thread stands as a testament to the time--*now*--when it is important to use a bit more--ah, how to say this?--forcefulness, in calling out....*ostriches*. Personally, I use the term NOT as an ad hom, per se, but a clearly-understood, useful allusion to the exact behavior seen here, and in so many of the early threads. I think it is WAY past time to do so, and with that, I'll not go further OT. After having done a few days' intensive reading, it's pretty darned clear to me that: -Heat does contribute to O3 production, and; -Heat that stems from GW counts as heat, inconvenient as that fact may be to....ostriches.
  37. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    To all.. Related to this latest in multitudinous references to ostriches burying their heads in sand (which they don't) and why it's such a useful metaphor, despite its inaccuracy, I'd *highly recommend a book, "Standardization or Error," by Vilhjalmer Stefasson. It speaks not only to the usefulness of untrue allusions such as the ostrich meme, but *directly* speaks to how ostriches, like Dale et al, cloud up otherwise clear issues. Standardization of Error
  38. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    I would have thought that the amount of organic material vaporised by nuclear explosions would be more significant than energy released, as it would all convert to CO2. This would still be small on a global scale.
  39. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale@65: You wonder why the insults? Dale@65: "Also vroomie just to clarify, the article talks of tropospheric ozone, and so have I through this discussion." Dale, on your first thread comment: "I've just spent the last hour looking into ozone counts around the world (as I'd heard it was a non-issue in relation to GW). I have to question Agnostic where that information comes from because there are plenty of papers out there showing no trend in ozone in various locations around the world (or a conclusion that no trend is detectable) for decades. Europe especially shows some regions where surface ozone has decreased over the last decade. The only conclusion I can make from looking at numerous papers is that since the mid-70's (when accurate recordings began around the world) it's clear there's no increasing or decreasing trend in surface ozone." What was the queestion, again?
  40. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    #5 Peter - agreed. The Role of Atmospheric Nuclear Explosions on the tagnation of Global Warming in the Mid 20th Century Yoshiaki Fujii Abstract This study suggests that the cause of the stagnation in global warming in the mid 20th century was the atmospheric nuclear explosions detonated between 1945 and 1980. The estimated GST drop due to fine dust from the actual atmospheric nuclear explosions based on the published simulation results by other researchers (a single column model and Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model) has served to explain the stagnation in global warming. Atmospheric nuclear explosions can be regarded as full-scale in situ tests for nuclear winter. The non-negligible amount of GST drop from the actual atmospheric explosions suggests that nuclear winter is not just a theory but has actually occurred, albeit on a small scale. The accuracy of the simulations of GST by IPCC would also be improved significantly by introducing the influence of fine dust from the actual atmospheric nuclear explosions into their climate models; thus, global warming behavior could be more accurately predicted. http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/42589/1/fujii.pdf So atmospheric tests inject aerosols into the stratosphere like a thousand mini-volcanoes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_nuclear_test_exposure.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/US_nuclear_test_exposure.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Worldwide_nuclear_testing.svg
  41. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, Because at comment 20 you disingenuously presented yourself as someone who was "just curious" when you clearly have an agenda and an unwavering position. Because at comment 27 you authoritatively presented incorrect information on chemistry in order to support your own beliefs, when you are clearly not qualified to do so. Because at comment 27 you used the exceptionally annoying and childish tactic of saying "I'm glad you agree" when I clearly did not. Because at comment 36 you resorted to the Gish Gallop technique (see today's post), again in an area where you really have no knowledge, just copying what you could from Google, just to continue to support a position which was by that point clearly wrong. Because at comment 39 you flat out lied about the content of the links I had provided for you, proving that your position was 100% completely and totally wrong. Because at comment 49 you used an amateur's interpretation of a Wikipedia definition to try to claim that NASA, the EPA, the IPCC, and all of science was wrong. Because at comment 65 you continue to distract and dodge and weave (now the problem isn't that the quotes don't say temperature, it's that they don't explain how, as if that makes all of those statements false and inconsequential), despite all of the proof that has been presented to you. Because after 4 days of discussing this, after having been decisively proven wrong, you still refuse to fess up. Because you are a climate ostrich, and climate ostriches are contributing to turning a seriously bad but manageable situation into a catastrophic and unmanageable situation through disinformation and delay.
  42. Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
    A nit: Greenland was inhabited not only in the middle ages, but also long before -- just not by Europeans. I've rarely seen any discussion of how well the Maya and Anasazi did during the MWP. Seems like intellectual honesty would impel climate Pollyannas the resulting resurgence of sagebrush in the southwest US and jungle in the Yucatan. Proof that natural ecosystems thrive in a warmed climate!
  43. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    EliRabett & sphaerica Thanks for the links. I will look when I get a chance. But one question, why the continuous insults? Seriously, is it warranted or mature? Why do you do that? I missed it at 46, but just to point out none of those quotes actually say how temperature ends up causing more ozone. Is it the O2 + O process, then NOx process, other process or even simply because more air conditioners on. They discuss a relationship, but not what that relationship is. That is the question, does GW increase the O3 creation rate, or just it lead to more pre-cursors being available to potentially become O3. Also vroomie just to clarify, the article talks of tropospheric ozone, and so have I through this discussion. I've been very clear on that I thought. I will also state I've learnt a bit more too. I will return when I have done some light reading. (Excuse any spelling errors, its the tablet I'm on currently)
    Moderator Response: [DB] It is important to point out and note here that Dale is objecting to the usage of the term climate ostrich, which he apparently feels is a pejorative. It is being used as an alternative to fake-skeptic or "skeptic" or climate-denier, and is used to describe someone adhering to agenda over science and evidence to the contrary.
  44. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    I second the PRATT.....
  45. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Sounds like we need to declare PRATT and move on...
  46. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    "Ostrichosity".....scribblin' like mad, in my notebook..;) I also nominate the term, "ostrichoid,' for those who, even though they begin by sounding vaguely like true skeptics, start to lapse into full-on ostrichitis, when backed into a logic corner. I suppose it could also be for those who are beginning to get a clue as to the untenebility of their denialatti views, too. The lexicon grows....
  47. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, By the way, please do not take the next logical climate ostrich step, which would be to comb through those papers looking for statements that you can take out of context to make it look like this is not an issue. Please drop this. You are wrong. I don't expect you to admit to that, because it would change your level of ostrichosity, and I know climate ostriches hate to lose their very ostrichness. But the information is there. It's science. It is irrefutable. This debate is over.
  48. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    I also would like to point out--not that the regulars here didn't notice it--that there's been a goalpost shift? Dale, we were talking *primarily* about the formation of ground level ozone (GLO), *not* tropospheric ozone. In any case, temperature there still is an impotant, if slightly less so, factor in its formation.
  49. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, in the face of the *mountains* of PR'd articles, cited references, and ~150 years of understanding of this subject, perhaps you might just do the right thing, and admit that *maybe*, juuust *maybe* you're incorrect about the stand you've taken? The hallmark of a *good* skeptic (nee scientist) is to know when they've been shown to be utterly wrong, and then "man up" and admit that mistake. We all do it, we all will continue to do it (Pauling eventually did it), and, at this point, it seems a bit--pointless--to keep answering your questions, when they've been addressed ad nauseum in this very thread. Just an idea...
  50. How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
    DB@11: I *like* it! Now, who's gonna write it up on Wikipedia? The birth of a new definition is something I'm not sure I've ever witnessed, before!

Prev  1093  1094  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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