Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 Next
Comments 55301 to 55350:
-
Composer99 at 04:44 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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. -
Greg Dalton at 03:33 AM on 25 August 2012Science 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. -
David Lewis at 03:07 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking 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. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:55 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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... -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:52 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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... -
Estiben at 02:28 AM on 25 August 2012Renewable 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. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:59 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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. -
vrooomie at 01:45 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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. -
vrooomie at 01:24 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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 -
monkeyorchid at 01:14 AM on 25 August 2012How 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. -
vrooomie at 01:13 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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? -
r.pauli at 01:09 AM on 25 August 2012How 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 -
Bob Lacatena at 00:38 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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. -
numerobis at 00:34 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking 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! -
Dale at 00:26 AM on 25 August 2012Global 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. -
vrooomie at 00:11 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
I second the PRATT..... -
Daniel Bailey at 00:07 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Sounds like we need to declare PRATT and move on... -
vrooomie at 23:56 PM on 24 August 2012Global 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.... -
Bob Lacatena at 23:48 PM on 24 August 2012Global 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. -
vrooomie at 23:35 PM on 24 August 2012Global 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. -
vrooomie at 23:32 PM on 24 August 2012Global 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... -
vrooomie at 23:22 PM on 24 August 2012How 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! -
Tom Curtis at 23:13 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
David Lewis @1, the Don't Make a Wave Committee was formed in 1970. Patrick Moore joined the committee in 1971. Given that we have not yet developed time travel, that means Moore was not a foundation member of the Don't Make a Wave Committee, and hence not a foundation member of Greenpeace (which was formed by a name change of the "Don't Make a Wave Committee"). This is quite consistent with his being one of the first members of Greenpeace, which is all that is claimed in the link you provide. I think no purpose is gained in inflating Moore's credentials, especially as he is using those credentials to destroy what he once stood for. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:06 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, Climate Change, Tropospheric Ozone and Particulate Matter, and Health Impacts (Kristie L. Ebi1 and Glenn McGregor, 2008) Climate change and allergic disease (Katherine M. Shea, MD, MPHa, et al, 2008) Climate change, ambient ozone, and health in 50 US cities (Michelle L. Bell et al, 2007) A review of surface ozone background levels and trends (Roxanne Vingarzan, 2004) Is that enough (for now)? There are lots more. Lots. -
Byron Smith at 22:38 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
Thanks for the patience work it takes to unpick a GG like this. I started the task on a comment thread elsewhere and offer my comment there (lightly edited) as it contains a few extra pieces of information not covered above. ________________________ This quote [the one with which this post started and which was also quoted on the other thread] is a piece alarmist strawman scaremongering from a paid industry lobbyist with a long history of misinformation on behalf of the mining, logging and pharmaceutical industries. I don't have any particular desire to defend Al Gore, but even in the quote you've included there is an easily demonstrated falsehood. Gore has *not* called for cessation of all fossil fuel use by 2020. Nor has McKibben (who is mentioned immediately before this quote), so the 3.5 billion deaths claim (which itself is highly contestable) is a classic strawman. Gore's proposal was for the USA (not the world) to cease all fossil-fuelled electricity generation (not all fuel use) by 2020 - a very different and more modest goal. The immediately preceding paragraph has a quote attributed to a man who died in 2005 that is not found anywhere else on the web except in this interview and its mirrors. Perhaps he said it in private musings, but we only have Moore's word for it and apparently he has never mentioned this quote before this interview in any forum that has ended up on the web. [The above post doesn't mention the alleged quote from Greenpeace founder Bob Hunter, in which he said that Greenpeace would have to be based on ideology "because not everyone can be a PhD ecologist".] "Oil is responsible for 36% of global energy and is therefore the most important source of energy to support our civilization." Methinks he's forgetting one energy source slightly more critical to our, and all previous, civilisations. [i.e. the sun, especially as mediated by photosynthesis.] "as a scientist who is fully qualified to understand climate change" He's got a PhD in environmental law. "Yet they provide no opinion as to what did cause the warming between 1910-1940." He has clearly not read IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch9. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html "the IPCC does not speak of "catastrophe"" Nope, just of >50% of all species committed to extinction, >20% suppression of crop yields, the end of Arctic sea ice, sea level rise sufficient to cause trillions in damages, millions of refugees, and so on. Oh, and this... https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html "The causes of climate change are first the sun, as it is responsible for the existence of climate." This is much like saying that the cause of most deaths during the Battle of Britain is the iron core of the earth, whose gravity sucked downed pilots to their demise. Almost trivially true, but basically irrelevant to any causal analysis with ethical significance. "global average temperature has now been flat for the past 15 years" The heat content of the earth continues to rise, with most of the energy continuing to go into the largest heat sink (the oceans) and a tiny percentage going into the atmosphere in non-linear ways. "I fear the irrational policies of extreme environmentalists far more that a warmer climate on this relatively cold planet (14.5 C global average temperature today compared with 25C during the Greenhouse Ages." Ah yes, those wonderful times when there were forests across Antarctica, crocodiles in the Arctic and almost no life in the tropics. I can't see any problem heading back there with a world of ten billion people with trillions and trillions of sunk costs in infrastructure built on the assumption of a 14.5ºC world... -
EliRabett at 22:18 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Try B. P. E. Clapeyron, “Mémoire sur la puissance motrice de la chaleur,” in Journal de l’École polytechnique, 14 (1834), 153–190. If you have an open container of VOCs they evaporate exponentially faster when it is warmer. The original reference Eli gave IS refereed BTW and has many citations about the role VOCs play in forming ozone near the surface. Enjoy your reading assignment. -
Alexandre at 21:52 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
I've met people who say the free-market economy can withstand anything: climate disasters, natural resource collapses, overpopulation, you name it - freedom, liberty and private property will take care of everything, even if we don't know how. The one thing the free-market economy cannot survive is low carbon - that's certain doom. Half of the people in a world would die within a year, as we now learn. -
Jonas at 20:29 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
I once had to debunk a similar thing: that time it was microwave radiation. As in the calculation above, the estimation (in favor of the hypothesis by overestimating sender density and strength and handy strength and usage) showed a difference of several orders of magnitude compared to the energy needed to heat the globe as is observed. -- Some arguments can easily be checked ad hoc for validity, but the more advanced biasing, tweaking, cherry picking, falsifying, etc. of science is not so easy to get for me - despite my regular reading on climate here and elsewhere - and I am very thankful to all people here contributing to this fact oriented work. I personally am not a (semi-)professional on the subject, so I only con contribute a little money to the web site each year: one of the best investments I can make in a livable future, I think. -
chriskoz at 19:56 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Looking of nuke test influence over the climate is a joke, however a related topic: the natural radioactive decay in Earth's mantle is not. This wikipedia article provides the real, somewhat signifficant number of 0.1W/m2 as the geo-radiative heat escaping to space currently. It used to be twice higher 2Ga. So, some (within just one order of magnitude-10) portion of this heat, diminishing as the Earth ages, can be attriubuted for recent cooling from hothouse of ancient history. I cannot find any more info about that in climate studies that I've looked at, which IMO cannot be ignored, because 0.1W/m2 should be taken into account if taking about total radiative balance. Or, maybe less geo-heat in recent times can mean that simply plate techtonics are not as fast as they used to be with no change to radiative balance, hopefully some geologist would explain it to me? Thanks. -
John Mason at 17:16 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
#5 - indeed, a very Moncktonian approach. It takes a certain and not particularly common skill-set to bluster in this way. When people like this demand that one debates them live, read, "I challenge you to sit next to me in public whilst I gush for however long I can get away with it for. You can't catch me". Written ones are much more fun, though, as they're easy to demolish even if it's a bit time-consuming. -
Dale at 17:12 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
(-Snip-) EliRabett: Thanks for the info. Can you please describe the role of temperature (heat not light obviously) in the formation/destruction of tropospheric ozone? Sphaerica: Please point me to an actual peer-reviewed paper which supports the premise that GW increases tropospheric ozone formation.Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints snipped. -
chriskoz at 16:25 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
David Lewis@4, our quote: the incoherent rambling of Moore, proves the point of the article that Moore is a classical Gish-Galloper. However, it does not say anything bad about his intelligence. I'd guess rather opposite: good rhetoric and public speaking skills mean Moore be possibly as skilled as lord Monckton. I haven't seen Moore in action but I see his tactics are very similar to Monckton's. -
David Lewis at 15:17 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
He doesn't know anything about climate change. [-snip-] Eg: When he appeared alongside Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Lindzen, Tim Ball, etc., in the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore explained to the world why climate change became a major issue: "The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because by the mid-'80s the majority of people now agreed with all the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now, when a majority of people agree with you, it's pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. And so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions. When I left Greenpeace, it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. Like I said, 'You guys, this is one of the elements in the periodic table, you know. I mean, I'm not sure that's within our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element. The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because Communism fell, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and communists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them, and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than anything with ecology or science"Moderator Response: [RH] Tone it down a bit please. -
macoles at 15:10 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
I had a different interpretation of Moore's statement [2] "The cause of the onset of Ice-Ages, one of which we are presently experiencing, is a puzzle we don't fully understand." I see it as a self-conflicting double whammy: A) that we don't fully understand the onsets of Ice-Ages. B) that we are currently experiencing such an onset into the next Ice-Age. How can he assure us that we are at such an onset while also insisting we don't fully understand them? -
John Mason at 15:01 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
David, thanks for the RS link, within which I found this little gem: "Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long before the human-induced increase in CO2 was evident." He's 'buried' the Little Ice-Age! -
David Lewis at 14:54 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
There's no sense trying to minimize his early role at Greenpeace. George Monbiot in the article you link to identifies Moore as one of the founders of Greenpeace. He was said by Greenpeace itself to be one of its founders for many years, until he became an apostate. See: archived Greenpeace webpage Moore's been at this a long time. He isn't "back". He never goes away. Eg: When the U.K. Royal Society publicly excoriated ExxonMobil's U.K subsidiary Esso because they had broken the promise they made to the Royal Society that they would stop funding climate science denial, Patrick Moore charged to the rescue by writing a letter in support of ExxonMobil. Moore challenged the scientific qualifications of the representative of the Royal Society he was writing to and told them they did not understand what science was. [-snip-]Moderator Response: [RH] Snipped inflammatory. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:23 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
"Chemtrails," not contrails! How can we enact a conspiracy if we can't keep our terms straight? No "Agenda 21 Decoder Ring" for you guys, sorry. -
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.
Prev 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 Next
