Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 Next
Comments 55051 to 55100:
-
Bob Lacatena at 14:04 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Thanks, Eli! I've always said, it's good to have a spare chemist lying around, just in case you need one. And if you can find one that refers to himself in the third person, that's all the better! As an aside, here's more commentary (second hand, in the form of an article) from the UK Royal Society and a Guardian article from 2004. Both explicitly reference increased ozone levels and health impacts in this decade, versus previous periods. Impacts of climate change? You decide. -
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Gee EliRabett, there nothing like someone who knows what they are talking about to ruin a good argument. Thank you for that valuable insight. -
bill4344 at 13:14 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
I was going to suggest that we shouldn't haarp on about this... ;-) -
DSL at 12:54 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
When flying in comment streams, don't poke the HAARPies! -
EliRabett at 12:49 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
The CA Air Resource Board has a very good review of tropospheric ozone chemistry see Chapters 3 and 4 from which most of this argument is taken. WRT this thread there are a few important points to be made. First, while storm driven intrusions of stratospheric ozone can push ozone down into the troposphere, the penetration decreases as the distance from the tropopause increases. There are effects high up in the mountains but the amount that gets down to the ground is miniscule, esp wrt ozone in urban areas during the summer. For the purposes of this thread that is a red herring, a tasty one perhaps, but not more. Second, the discussion has not touched on the role of volatile organic compounds of both natural and man made origin, which are both key, but also complex. The effect on ozone depends on the ration of [VOC]/[NO2]. Starting with NO2 photolysis between 420 and 310 nm NO2 + hν --> NO + O (1) The oxygen atoms react with oxygen molecules O + O2 + M --> O3 + M (2) and NO is converted back to NO2 by O3 + NO --> NO2 + O2 (3) Following the air pollution board, in an unperturbed atmosphere the NO2 concentration will reach a steady state and from reaction 1 and 3 [O3]= k1/k3 [NO2]/[NO] (4) k1, the photolysis rate (which is higher in the summer), is much slower than k3 and normally there is more NO emitted than NO2, so under normal conditions not much ozone will be found Enter VOCs, which can convert NO to NO2 via RO2 + NO --> NO2 + RO (5) (R stands for any organic molecule) altering the balance in Eq 4 and more. The source of the RO2 are the VOCs. From both human and biological sources, this is strongly temperature dependent. Vapor from all sources (solvents/trees) is strongly coupled to temperature. For example consider Atlanta and the Appalachians. Atlanta has a world class tropospheric ozone problem because of the nearby Appalachians, which are primarily a pine forest. There is no major ozone problem in the Appalachians because there are no major sources of NO. In Atlanta traffic and industry produce a lot of NO, which interacts with the VOCs from industry and the Appalachians. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 12:29 PM on 24 August 2012Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
@Steve L #13 At the risk of taking this too far off topic, I recently read that someone nominated Steve McIntyre for a science award. The particular award is for a young scientist who stands up for good science despite harassment. (Katharine Hayhoe would be a good candidate IMO.) McIntyre's nomination is a good example of extreme delusion/confirmation bias. (McIntyre is quite old, definitely not a scientist and partakes in and encourages harassment of scientists eg through frivolous FOI campaigns.) -
John Hartz at 11:06 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale @49: You reference the article, Ozone Layer Depletion - The Importance Of Stratospheric Ozone posted on the Science Encyclopedia by JRank. The operative paragraph from this article is: “In addition, some stratospheric ozone makes its way to the lower atmosphere, where it contributes to ozone pollution. Ozone is an important pollutant in the lower troposphere where it damages agricultural and wild plants, weakens synthetic materials, and causes discomfort to humans. During events of great turbulence in the upper atmosphere, such as thunderstorms, stratospheric ozone may enter the troposphere. Usually this only affects the upper troposphere, although observations have been made of stratospheric ozone reaching ground level for short intervals of time. On average, stratospheric incursions account for about 18% of the ozone in the troposphere, while photochemical reactions within the lower atmosphere itself account for the remaining 82% of tropospheric ozone.” Unfortunately, none of the statements made in the above paragraph are documented by source. I have absolutely no idea who wrote this article and whether or not the statements made in it are actually derived from legitimate scientific resources. -
Alexandre at 10:07 AM on 24 August 2012It's satellite microwave transmissions
This is my pet 'skeptic' argument. I resent the fact that it's so widely ignored. How come WUWT never bandied this out? Not that they would know it was rubbish... -
Daniel Bailey at 10:02 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
I'm dubbing it HAARP's Law (the equivalent of Godwin's Law):1. As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/new world order (nwo) approaches 1. 2. In other words, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/nwo. 3. Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the HAARP and/or jet contrails/chemtrails/nwo has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
-
vrooomie at 09:58 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Sph, methinks the phrase 'not a True Scotsman' applies...;( Also, by this time in the dialogue, I believe the correct terminology is "will not grasp the concept." I've seen 'spoon-fed' and 'denial' on here before but....at least *I* have learned a great deal about GLO that I didn't know before! If you wanna *trust* all them scientists, that is. {:-) -
vrooomie at 09:50 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Tom@9: HAARP. Oh, and the evil gummint contrails... -
Bob Lacatena at 09:47 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, Let's see... you, through your talented use of Wikipedia could be correct, and NASA, the EPA, and a host of government and non-government organizations and the scientists in their employ could all be wrong, or... ... chemistry and science could be just a little more complex than your (overly-simplistic, Google-based) view allows. There may be other reactants and reactions (see previous comments about pollutants), and maybe the whole thing is just a little more complicated than your five line Wikipedia entry might lead you to believe. In which case, once again, we get back to the fact that, as the entire world except for climate ostrich Dale seems to understand, temperature affects ground-level ozone production and global warming will therefore increase the frequency of hazardous ozone days in some regions. BTW, the Nobel price to which you refer covers the ozone layer and stratospheric ozone formation, which is very, very different from ground-level ozone. You have made that mistake repeatedly here, and cannot seem to grasp the concept. -
Dale at 09:07 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
John @47 Some info: http://science.jrank.org/pages/4974/Ozone-Layer-Depletion-importance-stratospheric-ozone.html Incursions account for 18% of tropospheric ozone according to them. Sphaerica: Interestingly, chemists have had a formula for calculating ozone formation for years. Look up Leighton's Relationship. Formation is reliant on UV-light, thus solar intensity and solar zenith, not temperature. Heat can impact the generation of pre-cursors, but not the formation or destruction of ozone itself. BTW, a Nobel Prize for Chemistry was given in 1995 to three scientists who worked on ozone formation. These folks all say it's UV-light, not heat that determines ozone formation. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to take the word of chemists this time. -
Tom Curtis at 08:59 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
vroomie @4, thanks, and fixed. Byron Smith @1, this is certainly not the loopiest idea I have ever seen from AGW "skeptics". The most bizarre is the idea that it is radar that is causing global warming. The next most bizarre is that not only is geothermal energy causing global warming, but the relatively temperate climate at the Earth's surface is entirely caused by geothermal energy. The theory that nuclear weapons is the cause involves primarily a simple failure to grasp the scale of the energies involved. Consequently it will have an intuitive appeal to the scientifically uninformed; but fortunately only to a very few on the sidelines. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:49 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Fujii link now fixed, apologies. I see Watts criticised it last year, so maybe there's merit to it. -
scaddenp at 07:23 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
John, since by definition there is no convection operating above the tropopause, I would say the "incursions" by diffusion would be too small to be measurable. Furthermore, it is only persistent in cold, dry condition. Within the lower troposphere, its half-life is a matter of days. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:11 AM on 24 August 2012Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
Hi Neven, looks like arctic roos is showing record minimum ice area already, with a couple of melt weeks still to go. -
ranyl at 07:07 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Like the sheep. The world sheep population has fallen by 1% since 1992. http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/AD452E/ad452e2y.htm#TopOfPage They'll be paying farmers to breed pale coloured animals next. Wouldn't want to be black sheep. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 06:56 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Byron et al. "I thought I was familiar with pretty much all the myriad loopy dissenting arguments. This one took me by surprise." I'll bet you don't know this one either. -
Peter Hogarth at 06:48 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
On a more serious note, have a look at the discussion in Fujii 2011, on stagnation of Global Warming in mid 20th Century. Interesting read, and more of a case for cooling due to atmospheric nuclear explosions than warmingModerator Response: [DB] Fixed link. -
Andy Skuce at 06:35 AM on 24 August 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
The "crust" is actually the lithosphere, which is not that weak or that thin (100-200km) and the stuff underlying it is not exactly fluid either, being many orders of magnitude more viscous than pitch. Perhaps a better analogy for isostasy would be a water bed filled with peanut butter, overlain by a two-inch thick rubber sheet. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 06:34 AM on 24 August 2012Teaching Climate Change in Schools
Michael Sweet @ 8: "I address AGW by assigning a several reports where the students look up their own data and write reports on sea ice or global temperature." Yes! Do it that way. What is your physics teacher's argument? Is he a "2nd law of thermo forbids downwelling radiation" type? Why on earth is it hard to address the "grant money" argument? That's about the trashyist argument there is, and an opportunity to explain what science and scientists are all about. Grants have been well addressed at RC sometime ago. Obvious factors start with: 1. The first criterion for getting a grant is that the proposed research will advance scientific knowledge. You don't get or need a grant to say what everyone else is saying, nor do you need to do all the work of research. 2. You don't get the money anyway. The money goes to the institution. First they take their "overhead" off the top. Then they disburse the remainder in bits as graduate student or postdoc stipends, or to suppliers for equipment, etc. When you get a grant, what you, the researcher, get is an obligation to do a lot of work. Why would you do that? see below. 3. If it is money you are after, and you are enough of a scientist to do original research in earth science, you can make much more money working for industry. which brings us to what scientists and science are all about: *** Finding things out is what it's all about *** That's the first realization your students need to start understanding scientific methods. Then you get into How to find things out. But you won't get far without a drive to find things out. Michael, learn to take that trash "grant money" argument as an opportunity. ... then finally point out that it is not a scientific argument - is it an implicit admission of not having one? If not, back to your Assign a report method. ======= Steve @ 12: "When we first take physics, we start with Newton. (Don't we?...." Well there's http://www.physics2000.com/. ======= @ 16 "If children *see* a container of C02 getting warmer than one of air, Linda's first co2 experiment ...." search on Linda's first CO2 experiment. As for wanting teachers to cover all those other things you mention, by and large they are struggling to cover what they have to (their state standards) while following the text and preparing the students for standardized tests - three sometimes contradictory aims. -
vrooomie at 05:48 AM on 24 August 2012Massive Arctic storm batters sea ice
One of the continuing issues that drives me *nutsoid* is the dereliction of duty the MSM has exhibited, regarding effective and truthful reporting of this topic. Media Ignore Record Ice Melt -
vrooomie at 05:22 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Tom Curtis, in your third 'graph, under the "Annual Yields" graph, you've mispelled 'from' to 'form.' I understand though, having rented flingers, too..;) Thanks for this article, and to Doug: I'm waiting for bated breath to hear what next the denialisti come up with, for the global warmings, as their cherished 'causes' fall like dominos. Excessive planting of sunflowers, causing too much reflection of yellow light up to the troposphere? Where I live--surrounded by ~25K acres of corn, alfalfa, and *sunflowers*, and in the county in which I live (where I'm one of two, *maybe* ten Progressives--it would be an easy sell. You heard it here, first...;( -
Pete Dunkelberg at 05:22 AM on 24 August 2012New research from last week 33/2012
With polar ice volume decreasing faster than models predict, we had better note the "at least" aspect of the predicted sea level rise. Semi-empirical projections may also not take account of losing our coal-induced aerosol cover, hopefully well before 2100. As for after 2100, what was sea level the last time CO2 went above 400 and stayed there for a good while? Above 450? -
Composer99 at 05:18 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
I certainly can't recall seeing anyone make this claim before online. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 05:16 AM on 24 August 2012Sea Level Isn't Level: This Elastic Earth
The forgotten analogy for a thin crust over a fluid interior: waterbeds ;) -
Doug Bostrom at 04:31 AM on 24 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Tamino usefully digs in to this issue with a new post: Risk. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:23 AM on 24 August 2012Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
Steve from VA:Climate scientists are part of pop culture as well. Not everyone can be a real climate scientist which is why individuals like Pielke and Monckton gain credibility ... I've long thought that Monckton's special influence in the U.S. and Australia hinges in part on atavistic cultural impulses to do with his peerage, plus of course his toff accent and appealingly florid writing. Just because you're no longer a colony doesn't mean you instantly abandon the instinct to knuckle your forehead. Does it help to know that Chris Monckton is a lord only because his grandpa was a politician shunted out of government over disagreements with Anthony Eden and given a consolation prize of peerage, that the current Lord Monckton wasn't even born a peer? Probably not; Brits don't care that Lady Gaga is the child of a NYC city couple of humble origins, but Lady Gaga gets the power of "Lady" in front of any name. -
Doug Bostrom at 04:08 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Byron: I thought I was familiar with pretty much all the myriad loopy dissenting arguments. Me too. There are a lot of problems with this idea beyond the basic erg deficit. I don't think nuclear weapons release a new form of energy that is unusually subject to gravitational attraction, weapons testing largely ended a long time ago, yet the energy released in those tests is supposed to be lingering? How? Is a bizarre argument like this a sign of hope or cause for depression? Desperate hail Mary or indicator of a receptive audience whose thinking skills have collapsed and dribbled away like ice cream on a a hot summer day? -
Byron Smith at 03:22 AM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
I thought I was familiar with pretty much all the myriad loopy dissenting arguments. This one took me by surprise. There are some very important historical links between nuclear weapons and climate science, since the rapid improvement in atmospheric monitoring and modelling that occurred after WWII was very significantly driven by the desire to learn more about the likely fallout distribution of nuclear explosions. I read a fascinating article drawing many of these links, though can't find it right now. -
John Hartz at 03:10 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
In his comment #36, Dale asserts: "As stratospheric ozone recovers (due to Montreal) we should expect to see increased stratospheric ozone incursions into the troposphere." Is there any scientific evidence supporting this assertion? -
Bob Lacatena at 02:26 AM on 24 August 2012Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
steve from virginia, I disagree. I think the solution is that world leaders -- indeed leaders at all levels -- need to be above falling for denial shenanigans, and to actually lead. If the world leaders (including USA Republican presidential candidates, for example) were united and serious about things -- recognizing their need to be mature and intelligent in everything, especially an issue with such gravity as this one -- you wouldn't have nearly so many people watching the Marx brothers versus the Keystone Kops and getting confused. We don't need scientists pretending to be salesmen or conmen, we need leaderspretending to beacting like leaders. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:50 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
From the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, concerning ozone levels in ice core proxies:The short atmospheric lifetime of ozone (hours-days) together with the spatial variability of its sources precludes a globally or vertically homogeneous distribution, so that a fractional unit such as parts per billion would not apply over a range of altitudes or geographical locations. Therefore a different unit is used to integrate the varying concentrations of ozone in the vertical dimension over a unit area, and the results can then be averaged globally. This unit is called a Dobson Unit (D.U.), after G. M. B. Dobson, one of the first investigators of atmospheric ozone. A Dobson unit is the amount of ozone in a column which, unmixed with the rest of the atmosphere, would be 10 micrometers thick at standard temperature and pressure.
-
steve from virginia at 01:46 AM on 24 August 2012Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
Denial is part of pop culture, part of mainstream industry marketing. The denial approach works because modern culture's inherent false-ness: everything we engage with is fashion, that being trendiness, desire (the latter a business good), frivolousness/triviality and contrariness-for-its-own-sake. Modern, post-WWII culture is 'girlish' and erratic, vamping and gay (homosexual); pornographic, inconsequential and theatrical. Business isn't presumed to behave this way (where is that bottom line, again?) but business is a component of culture -- not the other way around. Business conforms to roles culture sets out for it. One role for business is the gay outlaw: business as misunderstood/evil and all-consuming: businessmen are therefore evil and cannibalizing, they have no choice. Saintly businessmen cannot compete because culture has created a business environment that gives evil businessmen various social and economic advantages over the rest. Climate scientists are part of pop culture as well. Not everyone can be a real climate scientist which is why individuals like Pielke and Monckton gain credibility that eludes actual scientists: they self-create the terms of their own 'success', they are democrats who open up the science process: they 'speak truths to power', they are 'scientists for everyman'. The process of democratization is what matters, not content: in America (and its copycats) every mediocrity can become a great artist (Warhol) a great musician (Snoop Dog), a great writer (EL James) simply by 'flaunting convention' (mom and dad), branding themselves in the process. There is nothing more: anyone can be an 'instant rebel without a cause' in the (fake) tradition of (fake) James Dean. Why not fake scientists? What's so special about scientists? The fake scientists are chosen because of how they look, dress and speak, where they are from and whom they know rather than any quality of thought or research, 'qualifications' or relationship to 'facts'. Real scientists are boiler tenders who are required to mind to the machines and keep them from blowing up. Because of how pop culture inverts priorities, the fake scientists are real: the real versions lack the social status to get anyone to pay attention to them. Scientists are constrained to the boiler-tenders' role: to invent technology. When scientists speak out, they cease being tenders and technologists, they cease being scientists -- as determined by role -- at the same time. The social role of 'scientists' is determined the fakes then filled by them. Scientists chasing deniers in newspapers is like Marx brothers being chased by Keystone Kops. Uh ... you guys are the 'Kops'. "Ha ha! Very funny. Look at those dumb scientists!" Because the dead-end kids can always outmaneuver the 'kops' in self-created (theatrical) contexts the kids are made out to be smarter in their own (self-created) way than the smarty-pants scientists. The only possible hope to blow this business up is to draft some photogenic, charismatic 'real' fake scientist like Captain Kangaroo or Rod Serling. Put this individual on TV as frequently as possible telling folks as graphically as possible how their grandchildren are going to die because of global heating -- use that term 'global heating'. It's scary, it frightens people. Nothing else will do. Science has to compete with non-science on its own (false) ground and not shilly-shally around. Part of pop-culture is apocalypse: best to start making use of it! Nobody takes anything seriously in America unless there are bodies in the streets. By then it is too late ... Plan B is for the scientists to start preparing for that day: coming up with lists of things to be jettisoned so that some humans might survive the next 500 years. Start with getting rid of the cars, all of them. Step two is getting rid of industrial agriculture. Any possible response to climate change that does not include getting rid of all the cars as the first step has not one shred of credibility. Otherwise, overpopulation -- of cars and humans -- will take care of itself. A question: how many climate scientists have cars, vacation 'homes', flat screens? (sigh ..) Primer on culture/climate here: -
vrooomie at 01:33 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Wow, Sph..it's only been about a ~hundred~ years since I thought of *that* song...might have to give it go! Gosh only knows we need a song to lighten the spirit! -
vrooomie at 01:16 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
"Ostracizing onerous, obnoxious ostriches" as a musician, it seems to me there's a song in there, somewhere...;) DB@41, correct: This gets *extremely* tiresome but a loooong time ago, I committed to ~not~ being worn down by this incessant regurgitation of mis/dis ( a new shorthand!) that emanates from the denialosphere. The stakes are simply too important.Moderator Response: [Sph] A new line for the Carole King song Alligators All Around! -
Bob Lacatena at 00:10 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale,You also didn't explain how proxy O3 records show pre-1800 ozone levels being stable for thousands of years, when if as you say temperature affects ozone production, proxy levels should rise and fall with the temperature proxies over the centuries.
You say this because you don't understand the problem or the chemistry. 1) Do you really think that Greenland or Antarctic ice cores can in any way reflect the frequency of unusually high peak afternoon ozone levels at the surface in specific locations (e.g. Houston or Los Angeles or Sydney)? 2) Anthropogenic pollutants absolutely are a major factor, and I will grant you that those did not exist in the past. I will also grant you that if we could completely eliminate such pollutants, this aspect of global warming might be considered minor, because without the pollutants, ozone levels might rarely reach dangerous levels (I don't know that, I'm putting it out as a possibility). But seeing as how many climate ostriches there are in the world, not to mention pollution ostriches, do you really think that we can ignore global warming because we are going to completely scrub the air of all other pollutants? Come on Dale, you're not even trying. Climate ostrich. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:03 AM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale,The irony of your list of links is that none of them discuss temperature regulating the construction of ozone
Can you read? Are you really in that much denial? You really need to flat out lie in your posts, when anyone who wishes to can check the veracity of your claims? [Note to all participants: In the future, whenever Dale posts lies, please link directly to this thread.] From the Nasa link, under Ozone and Climate at the Surface:In general, an increase in temperature accelerates photochemical reaction rates. Scientists find a strong correlation between higher ozone levels and warmer days. With higher temperatures, we can expect a larger number of "bad ozone" days, when exercising regularly outdoors harms the lungs.
From the EPA link:Many factors impact ground-level ozone development, including temperature, wind speed and direction, time of day, and driving patterns. Due to its dependence on weather conditions, ozone is typically a summertime pollutant and a chief component of summertime smog.
From the first IPCC link:...strongly relate to ambient levels of sulfur dioxide and ozone and to temperature...
andMany studies have focused on the relationship between temperature and ozone concentrations (Wolff and Lioy, 1978; Atwater, 1984; Kuntasal and Chang, 1987; Wackter and Bayly, 1988; Wakim, 1989). For example, the large increase in ozone concentrations at ground level in 1988 in the United States and in parts of southern Canada can be attributed, in part, to meteorological conditions; 1988 was the third-hottest summer in the past 100 years. In general, the aforementioned studies suggest a nonlinear relationship between temperature and ozone concentrations at ground level...
andRegression analyses have revealed that high temperatures are a necessary condition for high ozone concentrations at ground level;
From the Union of Concerned Scientists:Here’s the connection: warmer temperatures increase ground-level ozone. That’s why we hear warnings of “bad air days” due to ozone pollution most often during the summer and on cloud-free days.
From the Environmental Literacy Council link:Ozone is not emitted directly into the air; it is formed through a complex series of reactions from nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and sunlight during periods of elevated temperature.
andGround-level ozone levels increase in the spring and summer when there is more sunlight and temperatures are higher. Formation of ozone is lowest in the morning and highest in the late afternoon when sunlight intensity and temperature peak.
From the North Carolina Division of Air Quality link:Ozone is primarily a problem during the summer months, when heat and sunlight are more intense. Ozone levels also vary on a daily basis. Ozone levels peak in the afternoon, when temperatures are higher.
From the government of New South Wales link:Hotter temperatures resulting from climate change can reduce our air quality by creating good conditions for particle pollution and ground level ozone.
From the second IPCC link:Formation and destruction of ozone is accelerated by increases in temperature and ultraviolet radiation.
From the Australian government Dept. of lots of stuff link:Ozone is one of the main photochemical oxidants. ... Environment agencies measure the level of ozone because it indicates the total amount of photochemical oxidants in the air. Cities that have abundant sunshine over periods of time, together with moderate winds and high temperatures, are most likely to experience high levels of photochemical oxidants.
Really? "none of them discuss temperature regulating the construction of ozone?" Really? -
Bob Lacatena at 23:42 PM on 23 August 2012Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
Lazarus, And, of course, following Lindzen's path, we'd double CO2 at least three times and still wind up at 3˚C of warming (or, considering that he's wrong, quite probably 9˚C of warming and the end of all modern civilization). -
Daniel Bailey at 23:40 PM on 23 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
"Dale, it really appears that you are *not* concerned with pursuing scientific truth, but simply engaging in Gish Gallops of mis/disinformation."
Agreed. Indeed, that has long been Dale's MO in this venue. And the focus on the misinformation/disinformation rather than the science grows tiresome. -
vrooomie at 23:34 PM on 23 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, more and more, you are sounding like a troll, and if not, purposely and willfully ignorant, in the sense of ignoring blatant references to what you assert is not said. You: "A couple discuss how temperature can affect the amount of precursors, but none say "temperature increases ozone production." From the North Carolina link: "Ground-level ozone forms when nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight and heat. Sunlight is necessary to start the chemical reactions that form ozone, and heat is important to make the chemical reactions more efficient." Just how do you interpret that statement as 'temperature doesn't cause O3 production? From the same source [asterisks mine]: "Sunlight is necessary to start the chemical reactions that form ozone, and *heat is important to make the chemical reactions more efficient.* Ozone is primarily a problem during the summer months when long days deliver plenty of sunlight and when temperatures are warmest. In most areas of North Carolina, ozone levels peak during mid-afternoon through evening, when temperatures are higher, then drop at night, and are lowest around dawn. However, at high elevations (above 4,000 feet) in the mountains, ozone levels can remain high throughout the day and actually reach their highest values overnight." Dale, it really appears that you are *not* concerned with pursuing scientific truth, but simply engaging in Gish Gallops of mis/disinformation. -
Dale at 22:30 PM on 23 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
The irony of your list of links is that none of them discuss temperature regulating the construction of ozone. A couple discuss how temperature can affect the amount of precursors, but none say "temperature increases ozone production". You also didn't explain how proxy O3 records show pre-1800 ozone levels being stable for thousands of years, when if as you say temperature affects ozone production, proxy levels should rise and fall with the temperature proxies over the centuries. -
Lazarus at 22:06 PM on 23 August 2012Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
Even if Lindzen was right about the 1 degree C, that isn't an insignificant amount of warming. The difference between the LIA and the MEP was less than a degree. And of course some areas, like the poles, will warm much more. -
Rob Painting at 18:19 PM on 23 August 2012Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
Joe T - I'll draft up a little blog post with an excellent climate model simulation that explains part of the intensification of drought. -
Steve L at 15:09 PM on 23 August 2012Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
Thanks Daniel and Dana -- my apologies to Dana for crediting the wrong person. At one time Michaels did climate research, presumably. I'm still trying to think of a way to salvage my idea, because I think it would be fun having people outside Lindzen's and Michaels' offices ironically chanting their support for them to win awards for their their independence from reality. I like contests, and I might not be the only one. Who knows, other climate change deniers might want in on the publicity and nominate themselves.... -
Bob Lacatena at 14:37 PM on 23 August 2012The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Ostrichcised is what Pat Michaels and other deniers do to inconvenient data. Ostrichsized is what deniers do to the MCA (MWP for you ostriches out there), the importance of bristlecone pines, or the hockey stick. Ostricheyed is what deniers are when they look at rising temperatures and see natural variation, or they look at melting arctic ice and see natural variation, or they look at an ostrich-load of extreme weather events and they see... you guessed it, natural variation. Ostrichfied is what deniers do to any science that they choose to willfully misinterpret (such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). -
Bob Lacatena at 14:31 PM on 23 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, Follow some references. Learn instead of trying to instruct. Dozens upon dozens of documents, from NASA to the EPA to individual scientists state that increased temperature increases ground-level ozone levels. Basic chemistry, two steps: O2 + uv --> O + O [UV breaks O2 into 2 separate O] O2 + O --> O3 [A collision combines O2 with O to make O3] The first step depends on UV. The second step depends, as is very common in chemistry, on collisions. Increased temperature increases the velocity of the molecules and through that the number of collisions, i.e. the chance of the reaction taking place. Readers can: 1) Believe you 2) Believe a plethora of qualified scientists, chemists, and scientific organizations (NASA, the EPA, the IPCC, the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Environmental Literacy Council, the North Carolina Division of Air Quality, The government of New South Wales, the IPCC again, the Australian government's Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities). Really? You want people to trust the Department of Dale, Ostriches and Questionable Trends? -
Daniel Bailey at 11:23 AM on 23 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, you are welcome to put your head in the sand anytime you want. Some definitions of photolysis: pho·tol·y·sis (f-tl-ss) n. Chemical decomposition induced by light or other radiant energy. photo·lytic (ft-ltk) adj. photo·lyti·cal·ly adv. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. photolysis [fəʊˈtɒlɪsɪs] n (Chemistry) chemical decomposition caused by light or other electromagnetic radiation photolytic [ˌfəʊtəʊˈlɪtɪk] adj Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 photolysis (f-tl-ss) Chemical decomposition induced by light or other radiant energy. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. In the case of AGW, increasing levels of CO2 increase those other forms of radiant energy (i.e., "back-radiation")... -
Dale at 11:14 AM on 23 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Sphaerica (-Snip-) Photolysis is the chemical breakdown due to LIGHT not heat. Heat plays no part in photolysis. This has been experimental proven and is actually a first year chemistry experiment (exposing various gasses to bursts of light and observing). Natural ozone production/destruction is a balanced process. The seasonal variation of biogenic NMVOC's is stable and shown via ice cores and proxies to be stable pre-1800 for thousands of years. And yes, this is during temperature fluxes over time. If heat had anything to do with it, then you would expect ozone to vary with temperature pre-1800. Post 1800 industrial processes have increased ozone production/destruction to the point where anthropogenic and natural sources of precursors are about the same in industrialised areas. In rural areas, NMVOC's are still the main component of the ozone cycle. Two things that can impact the levels of biogenic NMVOC's is CO2 and stratospheric ozone incursions. CO2 causes plants to reduce the openings in the stomata which reduces the amount of biogenic NMVOC's. As stratospheric ozone recovers (due to Montreal) we should expect to see increased stratospheric ozone incursions into the troposphere. So the bottom line is, as I've been saying GW has nothing to do with ozone production. If it did, that would show in ice cores and other proxies pre-1800. Thankfully due to EPA controls and Montreal human based precursors are dropping. But surface ozone is not something that can be completely eliminated because of biogenic NMVOC's. BTW, here's a nice little study which actually states clearly that temperature had no affect on ozone creation in Siberia. And there's plenty more where that came from. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..14.4533S) Here's also another nice PPT which describes the entire process very nicely. (http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~rodenburg/522/photo.ppt) I go back and put my head in the sand now.Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
Prev 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 Next
