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  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  Next

Comments 96201 to 96250:

  1. Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
    There's been so much so-called skeptical diversion and misinformation on here recently that it's a pleasure to see a post and an informative link from someone (Spencer Weart, above) who actually knows what they are talking about !
  2. CO2 lags temperature
    Are there actually any verifiable facts in stephenwv's post ? No doubt it will soon disappear into the ether of denial...
  3. Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
    Kelly, thank you so much. There are many other data files that could be added, of course. My nomination would be sea-level data from U. Colorado.
  4. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    My comments on the article: The connection smoking/lung cancer is a good analogy to show that statistical methods can and should be used to determine connections. It also shows that statistical methods can lead to unambigous conclusions. I would however not give people the wrong impression as if statistics are the only tools available to explain or predict global warming. In case of smoking the biochemical processes that happen in the lungs of a smoker are studied. In case of global warming we study the basic physics concerning the observed phenomena (for instance: higher ocean temperatures in the tropics lead to greater temperature difference with the atmosphere, leading to stronger convection and thus more extreme storms). Statistics only confirm the understanding we have of these physical processes.
  5. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    ratman123, have a look at the link Chemware (above) provided.
  6. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I'm surprised nobody has suggested "Climate Cancer". The problem with the argument above is that the cancer probability distribution as a function of smoking is built from millions of samples and shows a significant rise. The extreme weather distribution as a function of AGW is much flatter, with far fewer cases, and very poor data availability prior to AGW.
  7. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    RSVP at 02:09 AM on 11 February, 2011 Trueofvoice #32 "I come here to learn" "Really? All there is learn is that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. You arent going to learn anything else, except perhaps from others like me who you say are just trolling. Now isnt that curious?" Ahh, now we have it. Now we see. This is entirely about RSVP's sense of persecution and victimhood. Well, let's see what we have learned from you: 1). We're running out of oxygen because . . . we just are. 2) Galileo would have agreed with something you said, you're just not sure what. 3) Science isn't needed. 4) All that is needed to understand that useless science anyway is to buy a loaf of bread (wheat preferrably). So, what do we get when we put it together? The tricksy warmers are keeping secret the destruction of breathable oxygen in the atmosphere. They do so by talking about CO2 so nobody notices Galileo. Can't you people see he's right over there? The only way to combat this is to read Crighton through a whole-wheat filter (sandwich sliced, of course) allowing us to see the Cook-Bailey condensates obscuring the truth. Astounding!
    Moderator Response: [DB] This thread has become painful. Please, everybody, no more.
  8. CO2 lags temperature
    It is undeniable that we have yet to reach the 100,000 year interglacial temperature peaks. CO2 is constantly absorbed and released from the oceans and is the obvious simultaneous prime emitter and absorber of CO2. Who would like to address the statement that so far you ignore: "WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING DOING TO THE OCEANS? It's raising the oceans' temperatures ever so slowly, but also, it's making it easier for the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2). Large amounts of CO2 are absorbed by the ocean, up to a million tons an hour worldwide." click here At some point (as it has been shown else where on this site), the amount of CO2 emitted decreases and the oceans begin to absorb more than is emitted by the oceans and created else where on Earth. Thus the glacial period begins in the natural 100,000 year reoccurring cycle. Hundreds of thousands of years ago, the more prevalent volcanic eruptions emitting vast amounts of global warming gasses appear to have been naturally remedied by the Earth as well. To deny that we will enter into a glacial cycle is ludicrous as I'm sure you would all agree. Those that would attempt to prove man caused as a significant problem go to extreme lengths to re-categorize CO2 emissions. As just one example, adding a lack of CO2 absorption due to deforestation while ignoring reduction of CO2 emission of rotting materials as a result of deforestation. Then statistically choosing the time frames to allow the data to fit the conclusion. The vast majority of the data and statements made here totally disregard recent studies that have shown a much greater correlation between temperature change and sun activity, than exists between temperature and CO2 levels in the short term. The isolation of data types, time frames, thus ignoring the over all picture to fit the desired conclusion, are the studies that are being funded and pushed by the special interests. The statement that cap and trade costs would not significantly cause any economic problem is the same sort of isolation tactic, ignoring the increased cost of business compliance, costs passed on to the consumer, taxes to fund the grants for alternative energy solutions, the higher costs associated with alternative power generation, the taxes required to support the added bureaucracy required to regulate, enforce, and other wise administer policy, etc. For the economic impact, all admit that increased consumer spending is required to drive the economy. The private sector jobs supply that consumer spending. No matter how the consumer is downsized, taxes, or increased costs for goods and services, it hurts the economy. If increased government spending and jobs were real jobs, Greece would be a thriving economy. The macro picture tells the real story. The micro spin creates the hysteria to get the masses to beg government and special interests to take our money.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Sigh. That's a pretty impressive Gish Gallop. I must remind you of the Comments Policy: your above comment violates it in many ways. On the chance you are just genuinely under-informed, I'll leave this up here for a while. If anyone wants to reply to this, please do so one one of the many more appropriate threads than this one. Thanks in advance!
  9. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    @29 1) CC was substituted for GW when it became apparent that many areas were not experiencing warming but rather no change or cooling. You should make that clear or people will think they are being scammed.“ GW is an adequate term because that is exactly what is happening: global temperatures are rising, or to put it another way: the earth is accumulating heat. CC could be used as a term because some people otherwise get the impression that GW MUST imply that every single location on earth is constantly getting hotter. I am still in favor of using the term GW and explain to people that 1) temperature is a noisy signal and that trends therefore only become visible over a longer period – so they won’t see a monotonously rising temperature graph - and 2) that global warming causes weather patterns to shift - so for instance GW actually leads to more snowfall in winter in Europe and the US. but no similar correlation exists or can exist with respect to carbon and global warming and Since there are no low carbon earths with witch to compare our higher carbon earth there is no effective tocacco comparison. Of course the correlation between CO2 and temperature exists and has been proved. We have no low carbon earths, but we have data about past climate changes on earth. These give us a lot of information about how the earth's climate behaves in different circumstances. 3) The quantifiable, observable effects of smoking have been used politically to create draconian, regressive taxes; enrichen trial lawyers; propagandize our children; and spread the reach of government into our lives and even into our homes. The decision to accept/reject AGW theory must be based on plain facts (statistics, science, observations) not on scaremongering about a future world government that is going to take away our freedom. So as an argument to accept or reject AGW this is useless.
  10. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    Can we all agree as to the need to cease dealing with those whose only goal is to derail the dialogue and return to the science? DNFTT (Do Not Feed The Trolls) Thank you all, The Yooper
  11. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    "Climate disruption", "global weirding", etc... are wordplay. Climate change is a valid term that has been used by the scientific community since the 70s; one guess for what the "CC" in IPCC stands for.
  12. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    RSVP, Your recent posts in this thread have been prime examples of trolling. What do you expect anybody to learn from "if there was an endless supply of petroleum, burning it would remove all oxygen from the atmosphere"? It is nothing but worthless wordplay.
  13. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    Trueofvoice #32 "I come here to learn" Really? All there is learn is that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. You arent going to learn anything else, except perhaps from others like me who you say are just trolling. Now isnt that curious?
  14. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    ratman123, this is not my first visit to this site. I suggest threads like /Does-more-extreme-rainfall-mean-more-flooding-Answer-Not-always.html which will help you develop good challenges to the general argument of AGW = catastrophe. I would not argue the event severity/frequency details in this thread only because there are better threads for that kind of discussion.
  15. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    RSVP at 23:09 PM on 10 February, 2011 adelady #28 "...relevant only because of current circumstances" "Just imagine if Galileo said that to the Inquisition." Now you're just trolling, and I for one don't appreciate it. I come here to learn, not to read this passive-aggresive crap.
  16. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Jesse Douglas wrote : "The quantifiable, observable effects of smoking have been used politically to: create draconian, regressive taxes; enrichen trial lawyers; propagandize our children; and spread the reach of government into our lives and even into our homes. Most people think this is what the anti carbon crowd want to do (they are right). The tobacco analogy will forcefully strengthen this thought." What a bizarre paragraph. On the one hand you claim to accept the effects of smoking on health, but on the other you moan about the ways that governments have used to try to stop people smoking, e.g. making cigarettes more expensive, stopping them being widely sold and advertised, and informing people as to the effects, especially to those of a young age. To you, that seems to be some sort of secret government plan to tax you to death and watch what you get up to ! What would you prefer ? Personal choice, a free-for-all, and sod the consequences ? I think your political beliefs stand out strongly but, luckily, you don't speak for the "most people" you mention, because most people accept the restrictions on smoking due to its harmful effects. The globally harmful effects of carbon and carbon dioxide are also accepted by most people.
  17. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    The colloquial usage of the term "Climate Change" was the result of work by Republican strategist Frank Luntz here in the U.S. Back in the 1990's he determined through focus group testing that "Climate Change" sounded less threatening to the public than "Global Warming" and would therefore be useful in manipulating public opinion against action. You can watch for yourself here at the website for Frontline, an investigative new program.
  18. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I agree that “Climate Change” is a bit ambiguous and possibly denotes something positive. I prefer “Climate Disruption”. This more clearly denotes there’s a problem to be addressed.
  19. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    "just because there have always been floods and cyclones doesn't mean their frequency or severity hasn't been increased by climate change." How about you post the stats to show their frequency and severity has increased (Though someone has already shown the frequency is down and not up). As my first visit to this website, I don't find this to be a particuarly scientific argument.
  20. Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
    hohygen "Do you use the agencies normal period, or do you adjust the series to a common period?" I use the agencies normal baseline period. I document this here.
  21. A Case Study of a Climate Scientist Skeptic
    With respect to the "in the pipeline" semantic issue, might "warming debt" in response to thermal inertia be a useful term to employ?
  22. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    A Google Ngram of "climate change, global warming" from 1900 to the present gives some historical usage information. Selecting "American English" then "British English" in the Ngram shows that there are regional differences in the use of the two terms. I suggest the intended audience might influence the term used the most. I would recommend using both terms, however, each where it is most appropriate in context (climate change when talking about 'warm Arctic - cold continents', and ocean acidification; global warming when talking about sea ice or nights warming faster than days). I would love to see graphs showing three sets of data on two graphs: 1) 'doctor acceptance of smoking hazard %', 'general population acceptance of smoking hazard %' and 'laws governing ...' vs. time 2) 'scientist acceptance of AGW/ACC %', 'general population aceptance of AGW/ACC %' and 'laws governing ...' vs. time I think such a presentation would show that our AGW/ACC concerns are on a similar but later curve.
  23. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    29, Jesse Douglas,
    CC was substituted for GW when it became apparent that many areas were not experiencing warming but rather no change or cooling.
    This is a lie, and a frequent denier accusation. No such thing ever happened. There is no controlling body of climate change proponents who votes on this sort of thing, and sends out memos to make sure everyone follows the appropriate policy. The "no change or cooling" is also a joke. Come back in ten years, when the years from 2011-2020 are warmer than 2001-2010, just like 2001-2010 was warmer than 1991-2000, which was warmer than 1980-1990. You have to stop thinking in annual terms, and start thinking in climate timescales (i.e. 15-30 years). But the "it's not warming" joke is over. The punch line is stale, and no one's buying it anymore. The more you recite it, the more foolish you are going to look when it is exposed for the manipulative lie that it is. In fact, I take that back. Keep it up. Keep reciting that meme everywhere you go. It will make the job of discrediting the denial position that much easier when there's never any Arctic ice in summer, and 1/4 of the Amazon burns to the ground to be replaced by savanna, and the American southwest is being abandoned in droves because there won't be enough water to sustain the already unsustainable populations that have migrated there.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Bob, I like the direction you took with this comment, but you're dangerously close to violating the Comments Policy. Perhaps a bit more judiciousness in phrasing can pull you back from the precipice a bit. Thanks!
  24. CO2 lags temperature
    The second quotation in my previous post is from Stephenwv, not from his link. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
  25. CO2 lags temperature
    @ stephenwv (262) Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture. I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history. Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (given the plethora of posts [I get paid extra for using big words and alliteration :-) ] odds are, there is). Or you can search by Taxonomy. I'm afraid the vast majority of your comment is simply incorrect. The warming of the globe is an accepted fact. That humans are causing a good part of it is accepted at over a 90% scientific certainty level. Only the anthropogenic contribution (which did not exist in the paleo record) completes the picture, explaining the warming we can empirically see and measure in the absence of other forcings. Else we would be measuring a decades-long cooling trend. Which we aren't: Forcings, except for CO2, have been flat for nearly 40 years. Temperatures continue to climb, and that rate of climb is still increasing (as are CO2 levels). Hope that helps, The Yooper
  26. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Second, I'm sorry, but I think it's just way too early for this argument to be made. It's 100% true, but we are at vastly different points in the two debates. For smoking, we've accumulated decades of statistics, with millions of test subjects. The statistical correlation is irrefutable. "Statistical confidence" is an understatement with smoking, and your chances of suffering from it are so proportionally large that no one can refute it. Climate change is different. Climate change is relentless, but slow. We are barely into the first fraction of the journey, and we can't even tell what the effects will be, to what degree, and in what regions. The amount of energy we've actually added to the oceans and atmospheres is relatively small. It's like arguing with smoking statistics in the first five years the tobacco was introduced to the population. Gary Thompson's graph in comment #3 is a perfect example. It demonstrates how much noise there is in the system, how weak some of our observational capabilities are (which is a sin we should rectify), but most importantly how early it is in the game. I'm pretty sure that if you look at that graph 50 years from now, the trend will be obvious. We've only warmed the planet by about 0.5˚C so far, even though we've turned the thermostat up by 1.5˚C. You're just not going to see attributable changes of many sorts yet. Give it time, and you will, but it's too early. So this piece, while it makes a valid point, is too easily dismissed. The people you're trying to convince are going to say "yeah, but we know smoking causes cancer, but we don't know that CO2 causes warming" (false, but they'll say it). They'll also say "there aren't enough strange happenings, and what is happening isn't that extreme" (which is true, for now). If you do go ahead with this, I'd adjust your conclusion. You said:
    What is certain, however, is that the increasing frequency of all those extreme events was predicted by climate scientists long ago [Don't go there... there are just as many false predictions as correct ones in this area.]. And what is almost equally certain is that they would not have happened at all, or would have been more benign, if we hadn’t been emitting all that CO2 for the last 100 years. [This is patently unproveable. Probably true, but far too easily denied.]
    I would instead say:
    What is certain, however, is that things are going to get worse. The frequency and severity of events are going to increase. As the globe warms, the climate is going to change. As the earth picks up energy, and reorganizes the wind and the water, in an angry, unpredictable way, the statistics are going to mount. There will be few specific events that we'll be able to attribute to climate change, but the day will come when you'll wonder which events weren't caused by climate change, rather than which ones were.
    I'd also change the final line. As good as it is, its better to stay with your original analogy.
    As a planet, we're chain smoking eight packs a day, and hoping that all those rumblings from the scientists about the dangers of smoking CO2 turn out to be wrong, because darn it, smoking eight packs a day is so much fun, and it's just so hard to make ourselves stop. But we don't have a neighboring planet who never took up smoking who'll be able to tsk-tsk at our own bad luck as we're laid to rest. The planet can't smoke eight packs a day without expecting severe consequences down the road... without becoming another statistic.
  27. CO2 lags temperature
    Stephenwv, From your link: "As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations. The recent increase matches the increase calculated from the fossil fuel emissions." That would mean the CO2 you believe is due to natural cycles is, in fact, anthropogenic. " Additionally as the oceans warm, significant amounts of CO2 are absorbed starting the glacial cycle" As oceans warm CO2 is released, not absorbed. Furthermore we're not at the beginning of an interglacial, we're roughly in the middle, so natural forcings are for the most part on the cooling side. But we aren't seeing cooling are we? We're seeing an abrupt spike that just happens to perfectly coincide with the industrial revolution. You need to calm down and try to understand the terminology involved. Of course authoritative sources say anthropogenic CO2 contributes (contribute in this context means 50-90% by the way). Land use changes also contribute, and that is also anthropogenic. No scientist is going to say CO2 is entirely at fault without including uncertainty in the mix. Science is inherently conservative, not alarmist. This is why data over the last two years indicates climatologists have been understating the problem.
  28. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    The cancer/tobacco and climate change analogy is excellent because it is one I regularly use when discussing climate change with deniers because it personalizes the debate. In one case, I used that analogy and a denier friend of mine ended up arguing that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer. I challenged him to become a smoker. I pointed out the wonderful taste and how much it helps at keeping weight off. He declined and went on to argue that the scientists are all in it for the money. I think it's a good tactic to try on the right person. Offer to purchase a pack of cigarettes each day for the next ten years for a non-smoker denier and pay him to smoke them, provided he can verify that he smoked them. Get together with your friends to reduce the cost if you like. It is a very revealing way to see deniers squirm. If you're lucky, they might even reconsider their position. But the most likely outcome will be a shift in the argument to something else.
  29. CO2 lags temperature
    @263 stephenwv Do you realize that neither of those links support your claims. In fact they show the opposite of what you are claiming. Must be the Monckton effect.
  30. CO2 lags temperature
    THIS IS the science. From the US Government National Academies of Science. NOAA Paleoclimatology is a branch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center click here Temperature/CO2/Solar chart. And the truth of the ridiculous notion of man caused. There are no longer ANY authoritative sources that state that man caused global warming is significant. ALL state it contributes. DUH. As one tree rots it contributes too. Additionally as the oceans warm, significant amounts of CO2 are absorbed starting the glacial cycle. click here Earth has its equivalent to the human immune system. It has healed itself for billions of years. At some point, the powers that are getting us to beg them to spend trillions to stop the earth's natural inter-glacial cycle, will be getting us to beg them to spend trillions to stop the glacial cycle.
  31. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    First, on CC and GW... the term CC has been around for almost 100 years. CC first shows up in the literature in 1937. Global Warming didn't really show up until the 80s. It became more popular after Hansen's testimony before Congress in 88. Neither term was ever chosen or used by any party in science, or in the debate, for some subliminal hypnotic power. Accusations of such far foolish. That's all hogwash, including the denial paranoid fantasy that the evil scientific socialist cabal that is trying to form one world government switched from GW to CC to trick people. To scientists, it made sense to say climate change in some contexts, and global warming in others, depending on the point under discussion. But scientists understand the difference, and in all areas of science, various terms have specific meanings and are understood in the appropriate way within that field and context. There's always a sort of code spoken in science, even if it's not entirely intentional, or even conscious to the code-talkers. For the layman, GW became more common, I suspect, because it emphasized the direction and key forcing behind climate change. Over time it became overused and misused, and as the population (or at least those that love to follow the blogs and post comments on the subject) became more educated, climate change crept back in, and people started arguing about what was right. The point is... all of these discussions about one term or the other being right or meaningful or whatever are cover the spectrum from paranoid to over-controlling. GW refers to the overall and initial impact of excessive CO2 generation, with more focus on the primary forcing (temperature) and its direction (up). CC refers to anything that swings the planet from one equilibrium climate to another, and encompasses many regional factors beyond temperature (precipitation and storms being the factors under discussion here). Neither one is right or wrong. They're just words, and getting caught up in the whole discussion of the right term is just giving in to more denial track-derailment (i.e. arguing about word choices instead of what the words mean, and arguing about presentation, style and intent instead of facts and substance).
  32. A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
    Ricccardo #40 Quite right. But we are not talking about the point when equilibrium is reached - we are talking about the current purported imbalance and the pathway to equilibriun - particularly the surface temperare rise which will occur to increase the Earth's IR radiating temprature sufficiently to close the forcing gap.
  33. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    1) CC was substituted for GW when it became apparent that many areas were not experiencing warming but rather no change or cooling. You should make that clear or people will think they are being scammed. 2) The science relating deaths due to cancer among smokers is far stronger than the science relating carbon to extreme weather events. I can take just about any population of smokers and compare it to just about any population of non smokers and find deaths due to cancer 10 times higher among the smokers, and everyone I know who has died of lung or throat cancer smoked. It is this certainty that you are trying to tap into to support your thesis, but no similar correlation exists or can exist with respect to carbon and global warming. People accept the science concerning smoking because they see smokers getting sick and dying of certain diseases all around them. People don't learn the science of smoking and then notice that smokers are getting sick all around them. Since there are no low carbon earths with witch to compare our higher carbon earth there is no effective tocacco comparison. 3) The quantifiable, observable effects of smoking have been used politically to: create draconian, regressive taxes; enrichen trial lawyers; propagandize our children; and spread the reach of government into our lives and even into our homes. Most people think this is what the anti carbon crowd want to do (they are right). The tobacco analogy will forcefully strengthen this thought.
    Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Welcome to Skeptical Science! As a new user to SkS, I must point out the Comments Policy. I must ask you to refrain from accusations of deception or making ideological statements. Open dialogue is encouraged here; unsupported personal opinions in violation of the Comments Policy tend to get deleted. Thanks!
  34. Dikran Marsupial at 23:21 PM on 10 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    RSVP@30 It may have to do with combustion, but your point is irrelevant as it would only be true in circumstances that have no chance of actually happening. The effect fossil fuel use has had on atmospheric oxygen concentrations is measurable but not sufficient to have any noticable effect on anything as far as I am aware. Yes if you are being pedantic if we had unlimited fossil carbon to burn and we burnt it at a sufficient rate there would be a point at which there would be insufficient oxygen to allow further combustion. However there is not an infinite supply of fossil carbon, so the point is completely irrelevant. Now *please* give the word-play a rest, it impresses nobody.
  35. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    ...and as far a this thing about oxygen running out... it had to do with the effects on combustion. You do need a certain percentage to get this to happen, although this could lead to more jobs for adjusting carburetors, so maybe its not a problem.
  36. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    adelady #28 "...relevant only because of current circumstances" Just imagine if Galileo said that to the Inquisition.
  37. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    James Hansen suggests we ask "Would this have happened without AGW". The answer for the Queensland floods is almost certainly not. This flips the question of proof onto the deniers. If we ask do you have certain proof this was caused by AGW the asnwer, as you show, is no. Would 100,000 people have died of lung cancer if they did not smoke? No. Would one person have died of lung cancer if they did not smoke? Not certain.
  38. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    #26, not just "slightly" off topic, very off topic.
  39. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    I agree with the term Climate Change as it fits what we observe. Not everyone will experience "warming" (ie Northern Europe) but everyone will see change. Furthermore, it leaves room for healthy scientific testing of the theory of causes. remember science without debate becomes dogma. Slightly off topic, but related. I wonder why we have not seen a global consensus to limit global population as as well as emissions. The two are surely linked and attempts to limit emissions globally will surely fail without population curbs...
  40. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    If Climate Change is good enough for the IPCC, then it should be acceptable as a term, especially as it encompasses Global Warming - which some people get confused by when they see snow outside their homes ! PS Hear, hear to Stephan Lewandowsky's 'Moderator Response' above, and mactheknife's comment - I would add to the list the belief that so-called skeptics think that it won't happen to or affect them or their families, but will only happen to people in far-off countries whose governments are not looking after them properly anyway (supposedly). As for Australia, is there any extreme that they won't be experiencing there (or haven't experienced yet) during the current season ?!
    Response: [John Cook] Well, here in Australia, there's no record snowfall at the moment :-)
  41. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    When has climate not changed? Well, there were several million years of unchanging 'snowball earth' - which only just managed to drag itself out, eventually, by the agency of you-guessed-it carbon dioxide and its GHG friends released from volcanoes. This idea that 'climate always changes' has the flavour of confusing weather with climate. Weather changes with sunrise and sunset, the tides, the seasons. Climate never changes until and unless something forces it to change. As for the theory, remember that CC or AGW is "not" the theory. The theory is the science of climate, CC (AGW) is a mere subset of that theory, relevant only because of current circumstances.
  42. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 21:32 PM on 10 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Forgot to mention the record heat wave in Sydney and the umpteenth record downpour/floods in Melbourne - for local city-based listeners (who might not know where Mildura is) :)
  43. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 21:10 PM on 10 February 2011
    Smoking, cancer and climate change
    The analogy works for me. I'd suggest giving it more 'oomph' by giving more examples of the past few weeks/months; such as landslides in Brazil, record floods in Sri Lanka, record floods in Pakistan, record rain in the Philippines, coast to coast snow the USA, drought in Africa, floods in Egypt, floods in Europe, drought in China, drought and fires in Russia, temps off the scale for a month in Canada; record heat at Casey in Antarctica preventing planes from landing; almost simultaneous 'inland sea' flooding of Victoria, northern South Australia, southern NT, most of Queensland, parts of northern NSW, north west WA and eastern Tasmania - picking just a few examples off the top of my head :)
  44. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    @13 "I think we all need to consistently use AGW or "Human caused Global Warming" rather than CC. Lets call it what it is. None of the arguments for using CC have convinced me." As a layman I might be missing something, but I always view these two concepts as interlinked. AGW brings about CC. Is this too simple?
  45. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    It is broadly accepted nowadays that smoking is a health hazard and tobacco companies have been forced to put warning messages on packets. Smoking is banned inside public places. However for years misinformation was peddled by vested interests. Below are common strawman arguments peddled by climate change deniers and vested intgerests but phrased in terms of smoking. Drawing comparisons between smoking and climate in this way may be helpful in getting people to see how misguided some of these arguments are. I have included just a few of the associated global warming strawman arguments. There are many more. 1. I know someone who is 90, has smoked heavily all his life and he is as healthy as anyone I know. So if smoking is as dangerous as they say it is why is he alright? There cannot be a direct link. There must be other factors leading to cancer so till we are 100% sure we should not ban anything. This is similar to the argument that how can it be that CO2 increases but some years temps are lower. You cant prove there is warming. 2. Anyway smoke is a naturally occurring substance in the environment. It has been around for thousands of years. Actually fire and smoke is necessary for some plants and seeds to grow in parts of Australia. It is vital for them.- This is similar to the argument that climate has been changing for thousands of years so don’t worry and as CO2 is natural it cant be bad. 3. Waterborne diseases are the largest culprit of death and morbidity in the third world. This puts the whole thing in perspective. There are far more influential factors in causes of death than smoking. Actually old age appears to be correlated with death more so than smoking so what is this nonsense about banning smoking! This similar to saying that there are other greenhouse gases so it is not just CO2! So CO2 is not a problem. 4. They reckon the poisonous chemicals in cigarettes can cause emphysema and bronchitis, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke and cancer. Hearing and vision loss, Arthritis, Diarrhoea, Wrinkles, Peptic ulcers, pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney and liver damage, oesophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, and throat cancers, sudden infant death syndrome. Counter argument: Yes but these conditions have many other causes and people who never smoke get these as well. So there is a failure to prove actual causation. Prove that CO2 causes warming because so many other things influence weather events. 5. By current estimates, tobacco use causes 440,000 deaths per year and costs about $157 billion in health–related losses. An estimated 46,000 adults smoked in 2001. On average, men who smoke cut their lives short by 13.2 years, and female smokers lose 14.5 years. Counter argument: Where is the hard empirical evidence for this? No one knows when they are going to die so how can anyone say their life is shortened by this or that amount? What about the guy who lived over 100? Was his life shortened by 13.2 years? Not likely. This is like saying the models cannot predict detailed scenarios for small regions so how can we take them seriously. And of course these storms could have happened anyway.
  46. Smoking, cancer and climate change
    Three points: 1 (Pedantic - sorry!) "The guy down the street who’s now dying of lung cancer before he had a chance to quit, did he get killed by tobacco?" He has yet to die, so it should be "WILL he get killed by tobacco?" 2 You cannot use this line of reasoning to demonstrate that the warming being experienced is anthropogenic in origin, only that the extreme events are caused by warming, whatever the cause. 3 Related to 2 above, we need to draw people's attention to the fact that, whatever the cause, we can reduce the greenhouse effect, and thus its contribution to the current warming, by reducing the production of greenhouse gases. You could add two final questions: Regardless of the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change, doesn't it make sense to do whatever we can to combat it? Or does the risk of countless deaths from food and water shortages with wars over what little there will be, mass migrations with the collapse of current geopolitical structures, not to mention several meters of sea level rise etc. etc. seem like a good thing for future members of your family?
  47. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    Marcus 24 You refer to this grand old theory, Climate Change, with capital letters, which in the most simplest terms means that all things being equal, the Earth's climate is modulated by the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, it does this with or without mankind's help, as it has for eons and eons, given that in reality it is a natural process...ironically. (exception being in that of course there was a time much earlier when things were driven by other factors, because of other unknowns, but these conveniently fall into "all things were not equal bucket"). You may notice that, so far, I havent said anything relevant, and if so, it is because I have simply paraphrased the entire Climate Change theory, which on the surface is an ambiguous platform upon with only "experts" are allowed to stand. For instance, when has climate not been changing in some way locally or otherwise, etc.??
  48. Dikran Marsupial at 20:29 PM on 10 February 2011
    Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    RSVP@25 You were not put on trial for the standard of your English. Daniel was asking a valid question as it appeared that you did not realise that what you had actually written was inconsistent with your subsequent explanation. If your English is poor, that is no problem, but I would suggest in that case you avoid word games, and stick to explaining your position clearly.
  49. Climate Data for Citizen Scientists
    A series of arctic ice coverage http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (and ice volume: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php) would have been great.
  50. Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
    Re: Daniel Bailey #23 After what you said here, please note post 14 "Dikran Marsupial #14 RSVP@13 Ah I see, word games" On the one hand, I get accused for word games, and on the other, must stand trial for my English.

Prev  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  1925  1926  1927  1928  1929  1930  1931  1932  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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