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  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  Next

Comments 55101 to 55150:

  1. Global 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!
  2. Global 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!
  3. Global 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.
  4. Global 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...
    and
    Many 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...
    and
    Regression 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.
    and
    Ground-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?
  5. Lindzen, 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).
  6. Global 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.
  7. Global 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.
  8. Global 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.
  9. Lindzen, 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.
  10. Lindzen, 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.
  11. Patrick 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....
  12. The 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).
  13. Global 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?
  14. Global 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")...
  15. Global 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.
  16. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Andy, somewhat tangential, but in line with your post at 12. And The Band Played On I *lived* through those dark years, lost more than a few friends to the inactions of He Who Shall Not Be Named (as documented by Shilts, that name rhymes with Kagan), and now, ever so depressingly (except now I *are* a scientist) I'm seeing he same denialist claptrap about an issue that may well have much further effect on the planets' population, as a whole. Make no mistake, I do not minimize the importance of HIV/AIDS in the entire pantheon of humanity's ills, but if we make the planet hostile to just everyday life, HIV/AIDS will pale in comparison. I find it a ~very~ difficult thing to remain in my scientists' 'face of calm,' when engaging in a debate with a spittle-spewing denialist, irrespective of what verifiable scientific fact or rationale s/he may be railing against. I have found SkS' articles, easily-linkable and -searchable, to be an invaluable boon to my psyche.
  17. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Daniel@17: Taken over to the Dark Side = ostrichcated?...;) I think all forms must have the 'h'!
  18. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Of course, all that is left for debate is the precise definition, spelling and usage of ostrichcised/ostrichsized/ostricheyed.
  19. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    vrooomie, Reply about "ostrichism" posted here.
  20. The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Response to vrooomie from here, about the term "climate ostrich": I like "ostrichism," but the term I actually used was "ostrichitis." Climate deniers suffer from ostrichitis. It causes them to exhibit ostrichism. They are, in fact, climate ostriches. There... the climate ostrich lexicon is complete!
  21. Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    "Perhaps MIT really isn't as good as it would have us believe." Mmmmphft! Mmmmphft! (snipped observation)--amned Beaver rings! >;-) Your point is well-taken; someone posited that shame was likely the only solution but, given the extreme amount of attention they've gotten, methinks the FF-funding smothers that in its volume. Shame seems to be a quaint old idea, these days. It's all a mystery to me how this topic *ever* became such a political football, but...see aforementioned FF funding. What they have to throw against their opponents makes what the tobacco industy used seem like a virtual greenback peashooter.
  22. funglestrumpet at 07:12 AM on 23 August 2012
    Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    Rob Painting @ 28 You are preaching to the converted. I just wonder how many times this site must expose respected climate scientists dishing out myths and falshoods before we get some political action. I have to assume that not all politicians are bought by election donations. Some must be acting on what information they have seen. If that was false, then they need to be made aware somehow or other of that fact. Perhaps the experience of this summer might help some of the brighter politicians look at climate change with an open mind instead of an open mouth. I don't think that there is a cat in hell's chance of Lindzen suing Dana. But wouldn't it be nice for MIT to enquire why he tolerates being describe in such manner. After all, that MIT tolerates a professor who can be desribed thus without reacting does reflect on MIT itself. Perhaps MIT really isn't as good as it would have us believe.
  23. Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    dana@27...a case of 'the [climate change fake skeptic] lady doth protest too much, methinks?" >;-P I, too, am galled at the temerity and hypocrisy seen on WUWT, RC, et al, ad nauseum. It'd be WAY funnier if so many people didn't buy their [self-snipped expletive] version of climate science.
  24. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    FWIW: I drove to the top of Mt. Evans (14,265 ft, 4348 m)this past Monday, in my E Type, and it's the VERY first time I'd done that drive (many, many times, over the years, and saw *not a single bit* of snow, anywhere. That is highly unusual. There are numerous other signs in the state as to warming of the globes... The Global Warmings For fun, if I may be allowed, here is last year's drive. Mt. Evans snow patches 2011
  25. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    But, I NEVER heard them use the *delicious* term, 'ostrichism," Sph! H/T for that term!
  26. Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    Excellent article Dana -- thanks very much. If I can make a suggestion, it would be extremely helpful if someone would write up a basic tutorial on the physics of drought. In struggling to understand basic climate science, I find that when I read some of the papers, the basic physics is somewhat obscured by the complexity of the models. I found within this site, some very helpful discussion in the comments on Hadley cells and the intertropical convergence zone, but it's not pulled together into a coherent picture for me yet. So for example, I read the very recent Dai (August, 2012) paper and the regions where the models most disagreed with the observational data was in the US and the Sahel -- the observation being that in the recent past the US was wetter than expected and the Sahel dryer. When Dai projects ahead the model then predicts it to be dryer in the US and wetter in the Sahel. What's the physics here? In the quote above from the Revkin article, Dai says it's been colder in the Pacific since 1999 and he expects it to last 20-30 years. But I thought we were entering an El Nino phase where the eastern Pacific should be warmer? And why is the Sahel expected to have more moisture? Is it that the ITCZ is expected to move North from it's present location with increased warming or for some other reason? As I said, a basic tutorial would be immensely helpful for people like me. Thanks.
  27. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    Steve L @8 - that was me who called Linzen the most consistently wrong climate scientist (reposted by Romm). Michaels definitely gives him a run for his money, though as DB notes @9, it's a bit of a stretch to call him a climate scientist these days, since as far as I'm aware he doesn't do serious research anymore. I think it's fair to say that people treat Lindzen as more credible, given that unlike Michaels, Lindzen doesn't work for a fossil fuel-funded think tank. Regardless, both have been quite consistently wrong on climate issues. I'd say Lindzen is more wrong, whereas Michaels' wrongness is primarily due to misrepresenting others' work.
  28. Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    Funglestrumpet - Lindzen repeated the CO2 and plant food myth. Mate, even school children know better than that.
  29. Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    Coincidentally, if you want to see real defamation of climate scientists' characters, stop by WUWT or any climate denialist blog on any day of the week. It really gets funny after they've spent years insulting climate scientists and the entire scientific field, if you even have the temerity to say a word against one of their 'skeptic' heroes, they go ballistic. I once got a nasty email from Anthony Watts for calling Bob Carter a 'fake climate expert'. After the insults he's hurled at Hansen and Mann and any number of climate scientists, that just cracked me up.
  30. Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    Uncle Pete @22 - I think most climate scientists are extremely worried about AGW. However, they also don't see it as their job to be advocates, and they think that if they become advocates, it will harm their credibility as scientists. funglestrumpet @25 - we didn't say anything about Lindzen's character. We said he is quite possibly the most consistently wrong climate scientist on climate issues, which is factually true, as we documented if you click the associated link. If you say something wrong and I point out you have said something wrong (as just happened), I am not defaming your character in any way. You're just wrong.
  31. funglestrumpet at 05:28 AM on 23 August 2012
    Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    So, we have a widely read website dedicated the science of climate change describing Professor Richard Lindzen, a highly regarded climate scientist at MIT, as: "... quite possibly the most consistently wrong climate scientist on climate issues on the planet." I wonder if I am the only one who will see Professor Lindzen as incompetent, or possibly even as a fraud, if he does not sue for defamation of character and be very interested in the outcome if he does. I would have thought that MIT would want to know why if he fails to sue and also be very interested in the outcome of any proceedings if he does.
  32. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    MarkR: I am referring to comparisons such as:
    IPCC 1990: "models show a significant equilibrium increase in global average surface temperature due to a doubling of CO2 which ranges from 1.9 to 5.2°C...Most results lie between 3.5 and 4 C...[including other evidence] a value of 2.5°C is considered to be the best guess in the light of current knowledge." Patrick Michaels, 1992: "The mid-1980s’ General Circulation Models (GCMs) for climate change stated, in aggregate, that the planet would warm up some 4.2 C due to doubling of the natural CO2 greenhouse effect"
    or:
    IPCC, 1990: "The areas of warming are generally greater at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere than at low latitudes" Patrick Michaels 1992: "They further predicted that the warming would be greater and sooner in the Northern Hemisphere...The Northern Hemisphere shows none; the Southern Hemisphere...shows more"
    or:
    IPCC, 1990: "The Greenland ice sheet contributes positively to sea level rise, but...the uncertainties are very large" IPCC 1990: "...future increases in temperature and consequently, sea level are unavoidable" Patrick Michaels, 1992: It is also pretty hard to melt the Greenland Ice Cap in winter, so much of the concern[s] about sea level rise vanish." [Emphasis mine.] [I have concatenated the two relevant IPCC quotes for which the same Michaels quote is used.]
    or:
    IPCC 1990: "All three [satellite, weather balloon & thermometer] datasets show a small positive trend over the period 1979-1988...These trends are not significantly different over this short period" Patrick Michaels, 1992: "Since 1979, we have had orbiting platforms that can measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere with an accuracy of +0.01 C, and they have found no warming" [Emphasis mine.]
    Michaels may or may not have been expressing scientifically-minded skepticism in 1992, but it seems clear to me that he was nevertheless incorrectly characterizing such accumulated evidence as was available at the time.
  33. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Alas, I cannot take credit for "ostrich." Dr. Richard Alley and Peter Sinclair have been using the term for a while, and recently Neal King proposed that it be used as a replacement for "denier," since they loathe the term so much -- something I intend to do much of the time, but not all of the time. So please, feel free... call a climate ostrich a "climate ostrich" and make it clear to everyone what they are doing and how they are behaving.
  34. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Sphaerica@29: in any other thread, your response may well have been adjudicated as too ad hom-my, but, in regards to a recent thread, about how and when it's apropos to fight denialism directly and with forthright honesty, I'd say your series of responses to Dale hit ~juuuust~ the right tenor. It's a tenor with which I agree, and have been using for quite some time now. We scientists have been classically risk averse, as regards stomping on untruths, blatant cherry-picks, and outright mischaracterization of the extant data and research. *No more.* It's with this spirit we all must fight, for if anything has been made more clear than we are running out of time for this kind of "ostrichism" (a term you said earlier, and which I'm going to *steal*!), I'm not sure what has. A friend of mine who works at JPL, who is *very* into this field (thermodynamics, heat balance, et al), rightly pointed out once that science is a kind of blood sport: We tend not to go ad hom, but ad argumentum? Katy, bar the door! Larry has the chops... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997ESASP.400..489B Development of a microminiature sorption cooler Well-played, and thanks for the posts. Dale, for your part, if you are actually interested in being an honest skeptic, rather than the fake one you seem to appear to be, please do join in, with rational facts and analysis, and support your assertions. Otherwise, there is no time for this kind of "watch my hands, nothing here to see."
  35. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale (or anyone else): Try going to google and typing:
    ozone ground temperature
    and see what you find. And in the future, ignore kitchen-pseudo-science, like someone who goes to find ozone trends and then mangles that somehow into proof that global warming isn't a problem.
  36. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, you are purposely not listening and spewing nonsense. The trend is a reflection of greatly reduced pollutants, which overwhelms any GW signal. Any GW signal will probably require temperatures greater than the warming we've seen so far, but that does not make the problem non-existent. The "it hasn't happened yet" denier safeguard is useless. See the skyscraper parable given to you previously. Don't use annoying debate tactics like "I am glad you agree." It's childish. The only thing I agree with is that improvements in pollution are overwhelming any GW effects, and that any such effects will be more pronounced in the future. Chemistry: The creation of ozone increases with increased temperature, so GW will produce more ozone. Secondly, everything in chemistry is competing rates of reaction. When the reaction to produce ozone accelerates (for instance due to increased heat due to GW), then you wind up with a more of that product, meaning a greater concentration of ozone. Thirdly, yes, of course, pollutants affect things. We've discussed this. Ho hum. Fourth, if natural ozone is in balance (always) then why do so many weather and environmental services report on daily ozone levels with warning ratings like "hazardous levels" and public health warnings such as this one. Why is this a big health issue? This ("Natural ozone is in balance as it creates and destroys evenly") is the most ridiculous claim you've tried to make. Temperature does have a lot to do with ozone creation, and you are printing flat out, easily fact-checked lies. NASA: Ozone and climate change What is ozone? Ozone and climate at the surface Tropospheric ultraviolet radiation: Assessment of existing data and effect on ozone formation (Gery et al, 1987) [Note that I earlier stated that the reaction for formation of ozone was endothermic. This was in error. However, increased temperatures do increase photochemical reaction rates and so do affect ozone creation.] So much for your claims of "just being curious." The climate ostrich sticks his head in the sand to get away from the heat.
  37. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    #6 Composer99 I think we can pretty confidently say that nowadays. Michaels deletes inconvenient data from graphs and refuses to acknowledge inconvenient science like the extensive evidence for cooling aerosols, or choosing Hansen's forcing scenarios based on a trick of semantics rather than actual evidence. Knowing that nowadays he's either ignorant or willingly distorting evidence shouldn't affect our judgment of past claims. In 1992 there was a lot less evidence for major human caused global warming and any of his comments were reasonable. Many climate models were running hotter than most modern evidence suggests they should have been. The hemispheres showed pretty similar warming by then (likely because aerosol loading was higher in the north), etc. This post isn't meant as a criticism of being skeptical in the past before we had much of our current evidence. Being skeptical is always the right way to aproach things. But you'd think that new evidence that contradicts a hypothesis would cause you to change your hypothesis. Michaels seems more willing to dismiss inconvenient evidence, than dismiss a convenient hypothesis.
  38. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    The US-based organization, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) has this to say about the connection between global warming and ground-level ozone. “Hotter temperatures will speed the formation of ground-level ozone, the main component of smog.” This statement is contained a summary of how global warming impacts air pollution posted on the PSR website. To access this summary, click here. I do believe that the staff of PSR is more knowledgable about this matter than is Dale.
  39. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    Steve, I think you stretch the definition of climate scientist beyond the structural integrity of the universe by including Michaels. Climate propagandist, yes. Climate scientist, no.
  40. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    Joe Romm seems to think that Richard Lindzen is the most consistently wrong climate scientist around. Perhaps it's Pat Michaels? I think a contest, with campaign-style pageantry, could really be interesting and maybe even get some publicity.
  41. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    Harry Potter may not have been real in 1990, but one of the series of Potter books (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) is an unexpectedly vivid desciption of the authoritarian takeover of a liberal institution. This is the replacement of Dumbledore as Headmaster by the domineering Dolores Umbridge. One of Umbridge's key "innovations" is the denial of Voldemord's return, and the replacement of the "scientific" subject Defence From The Dark Arts by turgid mumbo-jumbo. This comment may be off-topic, but I hope you see where it is going .... When Voldemord does take over the Ministry of Magic, Umbridge becomes one of his leading collaborators. There is a message in the Harry Potter books about free thought and free enquiry, so that it is great to see them so popular.
  42. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Sphaerica You brought up inversions increasing not me. I am curious why you refuse to look at the data I linked. It is max hourly count, not monthly average. We have already agreed this has nothing to do with GW and I am glad you agree. That was the basis of my original post in this thread, that ozone is a non issue in terms of GW. You speak of the chemistry. Firstly, ozone relies on solar intensity, not heat. So GW will not cause more ozone. Secondly natural ozone is created and destroyed just as quickly as the oxygen atom is very fluid in its movements. Thirdly, UV and O2 are the prime building blocks, but pollutants can substitute to create the required O atom. Natural ozone is in balance as it creates and destroys evenly. Human pollutants have increased the number of building blocks, but as I said, if you only have the building blocks to create X ozone, you cannot get X+Y ozone from changing anything except the amount of pollution. Heat has nothing to do with ozone creation, so GW has nothing to do with ozone creation. Thus, ozone is a pollution issue, not a GW issue as this article implies.
  43. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    Michaels seems to have a habit of incorrectly representing the science, stretching back to the 90's, given his characterization of what "they" (the IPCC, climate models, mainstream climate science) said when compared to the actual relevant text from the IPCC reporting.
  44. Global Warming - A Health Warning
    Dale, First, your chemistry is out of whack. The only building block one needs to create ozone is O2. Pollutants accelerate the production of ozone, but are not necessary. So your statement that "it doesn't matter how much higher the temp is" is completely false. In either a polluted or a pollution free environment higher temperatures coupled with UV radiation will produce more ozone. But for now, in a pollution-intense environment, reducing pollutants is having a notable effect. Your statement on thermal inversion impacts is confusing. Inversions are a local phenomenon, caused by many local factors. What does global warming have to do with more inversions? Inversions will simply help to create an environment where global warming can cause more days of dangerously high ozone levels. I already addressed your statement about trends. Monthly and annual averages are useless because if you double the "dangerous ozone level days" from 2 to 4, your average may still drop because ozone levels other days drop. All the trends now show is that anti-pollution action is helping. It says nothing whatsoever about global warming. At the same time, once again... there are many effects that you will not statistically recognize after 0.6˚C to 0.8˚C of warming, effects that will be very pronounced with 2˚C to 4˚C of warming. You are like the man who jumped from the top of the skyscraper, and was heard to say every time he passed an open window: "so far, so good." Lastly, you previously said:
    I ask because I'm curious (I'm in Australia, so UV and ozone are of concern for me), not to say "ah ha".
    Yet you are insistent on the tired old meme that "it hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen." You should look at this recent post about how Patrick Michaels did the same thing back in 1990. You've been given explanations as to why your logic is flawed, and yet you cling to the hope that this is a non-issue, and you close your eyes to the problem. Sorry, Dale. From what I can see, you're a climate ostrich.
  45. New research from last week 33/2012
    There was a mistake in the "after that" part. I originally wrote the title so that it implied that sea level rise continues at least 200 years after 2100, but as this study period is 2000-2200, the abstract meant that SLR continues at least next 200 years, i.e. at least 100 years after 2100. I have corrected the title for this paper.
  46. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 19:43 PM on 22 August 2012
    Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    This is excellent and shows that not much has changed in regard to misrepresentation of the science of the day. (In the early 90s I was chomping at the bit to get onto the Internet, but all that was publicly available in Australia in those days were private services. I started off with Compuserve. Universities and research institutes were linked early on, but otherwise people had to go through AOL or Compuserve or similar. I recall Gopher, BBS's, and some good people on Compuserve itself who were very willing to share expertise.)
  47. Klaus Flemløse at 19:37 PM on 22 August 2012
    Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    Thanks to MarkR for this summary.
  48. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    The list of examples are rather a minor issue, but since the topic came up .... In 1990, the Internet certainly existed (I was a user back then), but knowledge of it was not that widespread. According to the author herself, she started writing on the first Harry Potter book in 1990 starting with the Potter character from the start, although the book was not published until 1997. As for Michael Phelps, he was born in 1985. So as examples of did-exist-but-were-not-generally-known, these examples are technically correct .... though I don't think this particular passage in the text will go down in history as a great example of convincing and striking rhetoric.
  49. Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
    I've always said that Homo sapiens is a misnomer and that Homo intellectus is more appropriate, but given the commentary here I would suggest that Homo apoptosis is most apt.
  50. Patrick Michaels' 1992 claims versus the 2012 reality
    Harry Potter is a character in a series of real world books and movies.....,but perhaps the example could be more concrete. Nice summary. You guys do great work. Thanks.

Prev  1095  1096  1097  1098  1099  1100  1101  1102  1103  1104  1105  1106  1107  1108  1109  1110  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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