Driver to drive?

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse effect
argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe you
-- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing a
climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going to
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?

Actually, Mr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth of
the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that the
CO2 IR window is totally blocked. You may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming
due to a raise in the sidebars, but you'd also see a decrease due to
CO2's absorption band in the sun's spectral output to the earth.

This is well known - and it is why so many "climate scientist" are
looking for a "positive feedback mechanism" as IR bands alone do NOT
explain the claimed warming (which is due, in part, to the claimed
warming being a big fat lie... a lot of it is UHI and due to not
following their own methodology!)

When someone says something stupid and then backs it up with "I have a
PhD!" all they're really doing is pissing on their own degree and proving
they shouldn't have one. Appeals to authority are a big fail.

What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no
real argument by the tactics they constantly use.

That should be true of the denialist propaganda, but it does seem to
be fooling some of the people - Mickey Langan included - all of the
time.

Nice assertion. Anything to back it up in the way of evidence? Just
point out the fallacious nature of some arguments made.

That is why they have lost and faded into irrelevance.

The denialist propaganda machine has done what it was intended to do -
to buy a little more time for the fossil carbon extraction industries
to make a lot more money.

See, there you go. Conspiracy theories. The "evil carbon-funded denialist
machine". Except no one has ever found the funding -- it doesn't exist.
Now if you want to talk funding which is incontroverible and self-
evident, how about the scientists who have ridden the "climate change"
gravy train for the past three decades. Love this cartoon:

http://duxmail.com/latest.jpg

Perhaps you are subject to that one yourself. I can see the conundrum
of the climate scientist. It must be galling to have studied a long
time only to find out the train you have chosen to ride seems to have
run out of fuel.

It may have done enough to guarantee a human population crash in a
generation or two - it's certainly done enough to make avoiding such
a crash a lot more difficult.

These apocalyptic end-of-the-world forecasts would be more chilling if
the GTA had been cooperating with the dire predictions of the past. So
far, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that apocalyptic end-of-the-
world forecasters are so far 0 for 100,000. Oh, 100,001 now that we
have hit Dec 22.

Doha was a joke, and no one even tried to pretend it wasn't. All
because they use these stupid tactics that a child can see through.

Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the
scientific evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get
the child-minded to under-value it.

See? You prove my point every time you speak. You can't help but make
these types of claims, it seems to be in your DNA.

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[mr_antone]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan
<mickey@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, mr_antone <just@not.here> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:04:36 -0600, Mickey Langan
mickey@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

sniparoo


If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.

You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health

More logical fallacies. In this case, a red herring combined with
a non-sequitur. Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.


Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel?

Religions have gospels. Science just has evidence, and not-yet-
falsified interpretations of that evidence. If you were sensitive to
the scientific content of the propositions that you seem to be
objecting to, you'd identify - and quantity - the variable that was
going to create the 3+ K variation. As a clue, it's usually a doubling
of the atmospheric CO2 level from the pre-industrial 270ppm.

Your enthusiasm for typing out phrases that you clearly don't
understand puts you squarely in the "gospel-pushing" camp.

More ad-hominems. When that's all you have, people don't
believe you. That's your problem; even if you have a winning
argument you have adopted the tactics of a loser. But if you
had a winning argument, you'd advance it. You don't, so everyone
knows you are a loser.

See the problem the warmists have?

There you go again.
Using cheap non-words like "warmists ".


It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush
like "denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

Malarkey.


mr_antone

--

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 22 Dec, 18:04, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

snip

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.

If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/...

It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.

You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health

More logical fallacies.

There no logic involved, merely an exposition of historical fact.

OK, tell me who these "same people" are. And show me the money.
Oh, that's right -- you actually don't have even the slightest
semblance of a fact to back up your vague accusations. Sounds
like a fallacy to me.

In this case, a red herring combined with a non-sequitur.

Dream on.

Yet you can't show how.

Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.

On the contrary, the technique for devaluing scientific information
that was invented by the tobacco companies to preserve their right to
keep on damaging their customer's health for a few more years, are
exactly the same techniques, occasionally applied by exactly the same
people, that are being used to cloud your thinking about anthropogenic
global warming.

You can't help but go for the guilt-by-association semantic tarbrush,
eh? It's cheap and desperate, and more importantly when you can't cite
the specifics chapter and verse people can smell the desperation.

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel?

Religions have gospels. Science just has evidence, and not-yet-
falsified interpretations of that evidence. If you were sensitive to
the scientific content of the propositions that you seem to be
objecting to, you'd identify - and quantify - the variable that was
going to create the 3+ K variation. As a clue, it's usually a doubling
of the atmospheric CO2 level from the pre-industrial 270ppm.

Your enthusiasm for typing out phrases that you clearly don't
understand puts you squarely in the "gospel-pushing" camp.

More ad-hominems.

Scarcely. The phrase he used was scientifically illiterate - not even
wrong, to borrow Dirac's phrase, and there's no way of pointing this
out without belittling him.

So what am I denying? Tell me, O great one. You apparently knew
what I was talking about, yet chose to belittle and attack instead
of make a simple argument. That reeks of a loser.

In fact, it's stupid for you to even do that when you should know
that the central question of CAGW is the sensitivity number. Everyone
with any skin in the game at all knows that, and that is so unambiguous
all you have to do is state a real in the range 0.5 to 6 in this
context and everyone knows precisely what is referenced.

When that's all you have, people don't
believe you.

That's scarcely all I have

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

offers rather more.

I'll post a short paragraph as a disqualifier:

In 2007 the IPCC reported that scientists were more confident than
ever that humans were changing the climate. Although only a small
fraction of the predicted warming had happened so far, effects were
already becoming visible in some regions -- more deadly heat waves,
stronger floods and droughts, heat-related changes in the ranges and
behavior of sensitive species.

Poppycock. Those types of claims are of exactly the ilk I am speaking.
Even were there effects based on warming of the climate, they don't
speak to the *cause* of the warming, which is the question.

Catastrophic. Anthropogenic. Global. Warming. OK, I do deny the
catastrophe, as would any sane person who doesn't buy into a 3+ degree
sensitivity number.

Your theory, by the way, seems to indicate that positive feedback
dominates the climate system. Even if you could convince me that we
understand the powerfully complex and chaotic climate system enough to
predict the action of doubling the concentration of a single trace
gas, you'd still have a hard time convincing me. Because I know one
thing -- if positive feedback could cause such a system to spin out of
control, the system would not be nearly so stable as it has been.
Positive feedback is very rare in nature, and for obvious reasons.

That's your problem; even if you have a winning
argument you have adopted the tactics of a loser.

So, how would a winner have coped with such a fatuous counter-
argument?

But if you had a winning argument, you'd advance it.

I do and did. The AIP web-site gives chapter and verse. If you are too
dim to get your head around it, that makes you the loser, not me.

You are the one using cheap semantic devices in the first sentence of
your replies, not me. That's the question here. Now if you won't apologize
for doing it, then tell me what I am denying. Is it the 3.0+ number?
Is that what I am denying? Am I denying that your statement of "we
can't think of anything else that might have caused this tenths of a
degree of warming we think we are seeing" is less than scintillating?
What *am* I denying?

You don't, so everyone knows you are a loser. See the problem the warmists have?

With people who can't do joined up logic? You do exhibit the nature
of the problem depressingly well.

But once again, I am not the one using the cheap semantic devices
like "denialist". You are.

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[mr_antone]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
<GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Not sure if most people on this side of the big pond know denier
refers to nylons. I didn't.
Googled it.
Very interesting.
Learned something.

Enjoy,

mr_antone

--

 

[Sleepalot]

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 22 Dec, 10:22, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse effect
argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe you
-- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing a
climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going to
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?

Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth of
the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that the
CO2 IR window is totally blocked.

The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is
wavelength dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the
radiation emitted at the wavelength is re-absorbed within the
atmosphere. At that altitude, half of it makes it out into outer
space.

It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount
of IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun,

Night-time.

the
temperatures all the way down to the surface have to warm up to keep
the temperature at the emitting altitude a bit warmer than it used to
be.

You may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming
due to a raise in the sidebars, but you'd also see a decrease due to
CO2's absorption band in the sun's spectral output to the earth.

The sun is lot hotter than the earth, and most of it's energy comes in
above the CO2 absorbtion bands. Look up Plancks Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

This is well known

It isn't, because it doesn't happen to be true.

- and it is why so many "climate scientist" are
looking for a "positive feedback mechanism" as IR bands alone do NOT
explain the claimed warming

Wrong. And water is another greenhouse gas, and makes a significant
difference. As the earth surface gets warmer, the 70% of it covered by
water sustains a higher partial pressure of water in teh atmosphere.
It's one of the positive feedback mechanisms. Everybody - except you -
has known about it for years, so nobody is "looking for it" at the
moment.

(which is due, in part, to the claimed
warming being a big fat lie... a lot of it is UHI and due to not
following their own methodology!)

You obviously haven't got a clue about the physics involved and your
claims about "lies" and "not following their own methodology" are
simply evidence of your ignorance.

When someone says something stupid and then backs it up with "I have a
PhD!" all they're really doing is pissing on their own degree and proving
they shouldn't have one. Appeals to authority are a big fail.

Perfectly true. Sadly for your rhetoric, I haven't said anything
stupid, and you've made lots of stupid errors. I've not been appealing
to authority, I've been exercising it.

 

[RipeCrisbies]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

As to your creation of the word 'warmist' it is precisely a "semantic
tarbrush" (ugh!), http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Warmist



--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-22, mr_antone <just@not.here> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Not sure if most people on this side of the big pond know denier
refers to nylons. I didn't.
Googled it.
Very interesting.
Learned something.

Very funny. But not really pertinent. In fact, the term "climate
science denier" was intended to invoke the idea of denial of an
incontrovertible fact such as the Holocaust. Even ignoring the
pusilanimous nature of such an association, To maintain that denying a
3 degree C climate sensitivity number derived from models growing from
a theory is of that calibre of denial is ludicrous.

To continue to use such devices in lieu of actually discussing
the issues is constant reminder that the CAGW proponents are
losing the battle. Doha is merely the latest nail in the coffin.

I wonder what has been happening to funding? Finding it a bit
harder to get bucks for studying the odd heat-challenged snail,
are we?

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 22 Dec, 23:21, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

snip

What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no
real argument by the tactics they constantly use.

That should be true of the denialist propaganda, but it does seem to
be fooling some of the people - Mickey Langan included - all of the
time.

Nice assertion. Anything to back it up in the way of evidence? Just
point out the fallacious nature of some arguments made.

"What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no real
argument by the tactics they constantly use."

The tactics have no logical connection to the reality of the
arguments.

Sure they do. It is Occams Razor; if there was a simple explanation,
you wouldn't need to use such things.

Most of the people who understand and accept the scientific
evidence

Understand and *accept*? Is this a religious issue?

for anthropogenic global warming are well aware that
the denialists and their gullible disciples couldn't care less about
the scientific evidence, and that educated minority get bored with
knocking down the same nonsensical propositions time and time again.

Find your nonsensical proposition and Ill knock it down for you, but
you'll get your deserved measure of derision in the process.

That is why they have lost and faded into irrelevance.

The denialist propaganda machine has done what it was intended to do -
to buy a little more time for the fossil carbon extraction industries
to make a lot more money.

See, there you go. Conspiracy theories.

Not theories. Facts. Sourcewatch collects it all into a neatly
organised website.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

The "evil carbon-funded denialist
machine". Except no one has ever found the funding -- it doesn't exist.

Numerous journalist have found Exxon-Mobil's contributions in their
published company accounts. There's plenty of other evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

It's not the only book on the subject, but Oreskes and Conway have
documented it better than most.

So? Of course they spend money lobbying. Everyone does. I'll tell you
that the PR budget of the Sierra Club and the UCS puts it to shame,
though. There is money everywhere.

Now if you want to talk funding which is incontroverible and self-
evident, how about the scientists who have ridden the "climate change"
gravy train for the past three decades.

Some gravy train. They get the same kind of university jobs as every
other academic, earn the same kind of money, and get shat on by the
denialism industry. Oreskes and Conway do mention the ways that the
denialism lobby has made itself unpleasant from time to time.

Having trouble getting funding?

Love this cartoon:

? ? ? ?http://duxmail.com/latest.jpg

You would. You are too dim to realise that if greenhouse gases had no
effect, it's not only the climate scientists who'd be out of a job,
but every physicist as well - the laws of physics would have just
renegotiated themselves, and we'd be back to propriating the gods.

Perhaps you are subject to that one yourself. I can see the conundrum
of the climate scientist. It must be galling to have studied a long
time only to find out the train you have chosen to ride seems to have
run out of fuel.

Pity about your grasp of reality.

Yet you can't describe how.

It may have done enough to guarantee a human population crash in a
generation or two - it's certainly done enough to make avoiding such
a crash a lot more difficult.

These apocalyptic end-of-the-world forecasts would be more chilling if
the GTA had been cooperating with the dire predictions of the past. So
far, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that apocalyptic end-of-the-
world forecasters are so far 0 for 100,000. Oh, 100,001 now that we
have hit Dec 22.

You are confused. Anthropogenic global warming doesn't involve the end
of the world, merely a progressive change in climatic conditions. If
you know so little that you can confuse it with the apocalyptic end-of-
the-world forecasts that you get from potty religious sects, you have
to be monumentally dim and ignorant.

So now you aren't claiming catastrophe? Then what do we have to
worry about? We adapt quite nicely to changing conditions. There
are positive aspects to warming, too.

Doha was a joke, and no one even tried to pretend it wasn't. All
because they use these stupid tactics that a child can see through.

Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the
scientific evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get
the child-minded to under-value it.

See? You prove my point every time you speak.

Your point being that you are a gullible sucker for the denialist
propaganda machine? And that you don't like having this pointed out?
What a pity.

You can't do anything but make accusations. How telling.

You can't help but make these types of claims, it seems to be in your DNA.

Actually, it's in my nervous system; the DNA laid the ground work, but
if I'd been fed on junk food and exposed to junk education, the best
DNA wouldn't have been able to put together a nervous system that
could profit from a decent scientific education. You don't seem to
have been as lucky.

So can you answer -- what am I "denying"? Am I denying that you are
wonderful and the fount of all wisdom? What?

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 22 Dec, 23:54, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:04, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

snip

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established.

You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.

If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/...

It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.

You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health

More logical fallacies.

There no logic involved, merely an exposition of historical fact.

OK, tell me who these "same people" are.

"The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition

Surely you can pull a specific example from that. Just provide one.
Don't send me on a wild goose chase.

And show me the money.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Exxon_Mobil

Ditto.

Oh, that's right -- you actually don't have even the slightest
semblance of a fact to back up your vague accusations.

Pity about that.

Sounds like a fallacy to me.

The fallacy is all yours.

In this case, a red herring combined with a non-sequitur.

Dream on.

Yet you can't show how.

I just did.

You did not. You posted a steaming pile of links.

Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.

On the contrary, the technique for devaluing scientific information
that was invented by the tobacco companies to preserve their right to
keep on damaging their customer's health for a few more years, are
exactly the same techniques, occasionally applied by exactly the same
people, that are being used to cloud your thinking about anthropogenic
global warming.

You can't help but go for the guilt-by-association semantic tarbrush,
eh?

The guilt is perfectly real, and well-established.

Yet you can't say what I deny.

It's cheap and desperate,

It might be if it were wrong. It isn't.

Repeated assertion is not a winning tactic, either.

and more importantly when you can't cite the specifics chapter and verse people can smell the desperation.

Since I've cited specifics from the start, which you were too dim to
recognise, it's your desperation that's getting on the nose.

You have done nothing of the sort. You have posted a steaming
pile of links in hopes I'll take the bait.

snip

In fact, it's stupid for you to even do that when you should know
that the central question of CAGW is the sensitivity number. Everyone
with any skin in the game at all knows that, and that is so unambiguous
all you have to do is state a real in the range 0.5 to 6 in this
context and everyone knows precisely what is referenced.

But you don't. And the 0.5 to 6 is way too high these days

Huh? We don't even know the sign for sure. Best estimates seem
to be 1-2, but they are simply estimates and no one can
characterize our chaotic climate system well enough to even
achieve statisical likelihood of their estimate.

When that's all you have, people don't
believe you.

That's scarcely all I have

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

offers rather more.

I'll post a short paragraph as a disqualifier:

? ? ? ? In 2007 the IPCC reported that scientists were more confident than
? ? ? ? ever that humans were changing the climate. Although only a small
? ? ? ? fraction of the predicted warming had happened so far, effects were
? ? ? ? already becoming visible in some regions -- more deadly heat waves,
? ? ? ? stronger floods and droughts, heat-related changes in the ranges and
? ? ? ? behavior of sensitive species.

Poppycock. Those types of claims are of exactly the ilk I am speaking.
Even were there effects based on warming of the climate, they don't
speak to the *cause* of the warming, which is the question.

There's no question about the cause of the warming.

There isn't? Even the IPCC says the chance that humans have caused
significant warming is only 90%. And they aren't likely to be understating
the chance, either.

If you want to
repeal the laws of physics to open the field to other potential
causes, feel free to open negotiations with the deity of your choice,
but don't expect to be taken seriously before you've established
contact.


Catastrophic. Anthropogenic. Global. Warming. OK, I do deny the
catastrophe, as would any sane person who doesn't buy into a 3+ degree
sensitivity number.

By coincidence, since you don't appear to be remotely sane.

More accusations and ad-hominems, nothing in the way of any evidence.
You prove my point by the minute.

Your theory, by the way, seems to indicate that positive feedback
dominates the climate system. Even if you could convince me that we
understand the powerfully complex and chaotic climate system enough to
predict the action of doubling the concentration of a single trace
gas, you'd still have a hard time convincing me. Because I know one
thing -- if positive feedback could cause such a system to spin out of
control, the system would not be nearly so stable as it has been.
Positive feedback is very rare in nature, and for obvious reasons.

Sure. We've only had an alternation of ice ages and interglacials for
the last few million years. The positive feedback it takes to get the
tiny Milankovitch changes in insolation to flip the average global
temperature by about 4K are quite dramatic, and self-limiting, since
the ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere can 't get down to the
equator, and hasn't vanished entirely (yet).

It's an interesting story and we've only recently started to get a
grip on exactly what happened at the end of the most recent ice age.

Oh, we're just starting to get a grip? I thought I was "denying" something
which was certain, silly me.

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 22 Dec, 23:21, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

<snip>

What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no
real argument by the tactics they constantly use.

That should be true of the denialist propaganda, but it does seem to
be fooling some of the people - Mickey Langan included - all of the
time.

Nice assertion. Anything to back it up in the way of evidence? Just
point out the fallacious nature of some arguments made.

"What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no real
argument by the tactics they constantly use."

The tactics have no logical connection to the reality of the
arguments. Most of the people who understand and accept the scientific
evidence for anthropogenic global warming are well aware that
the denialists and their gullible disciples couldn't care less about
the scientific evidence, and that educated minority get bored with
knocking down the same nonsensical propositions time and time again.

Find your nonsensical proposition and Ill knock it down for you, but
you'll get your deserved measure of derision in the process.

That is why they have lost and faded into irrelevance.

The denialist propaganda machine has done what it was intended to do -
to buy a little more time for the fossil carbon extraction industries
to make a lot more money.

See, there you go. Conspiracy theories.

Not theories. Facts. Sourcewatch collects it all into a neatly
organised website.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

The "evil carbon-funded denialist
machine". Except no one has ever found the funding -- it doesn't exist.

Numerous journalist have found Exxon-Mobil's contributions in their
published company accounts. There's plenty of other evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

It's not the only book on the subject, but Oreskes and Conway have
documented it better than most.

Now if you want to talk funding which is incontroverible and self-
evident, how about the scientists who have ridden the "climate change"
gravy train for the past three decades.

Some gravy train. They get the same kind of university jobs as every
other academic, earn the same kind of money, and get shat on by the
denialism industry. Oreskes and Conway do mention the ways that the
denialism lobby has made itself unpleasant from time to time.

Love this cartoon:

       http://duxmail.com/latest.jpg

You would. You are too dim to realise that if greenhouse gases had no
effect, it's not only the climate scientists who'd be out of a job,
but every physicist as well - the laws of physics would have just
renegotiated themselves, and we'd be back to propriating the gods.

Perhaps you are subject to that one yourself. I can see the conundrum
of the climate scientist. It must be galling to have studied a long
time only to find out the train you have chosen to ride seems to have
run out of fuel.

Pity about your grasp of reality.

It may have done enough to guarantee a human population crash in a
generation or two - it's certainly done enough to make avoiding such
a crash a lot more difficult.

These apocalyptic end-of-the-world forecasts would be more chilling if
the GTA had been cooperating with the dire predictions of the past. So
far, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that apocalyptic end-of-the-
world forecasters are so far 0 for 100,000. Oh, 100,001 now that we
have hit Dec 22.

You are confused. Anthropogenic global warming doesn't involve the end
of the world, merely a progressive change in climatic conditions. If
you know so little that you can confuse it with the apocalyptic end-of-
the-world forecasts that you get from potty religious sects, you have
to be monumentally dim and ignorant.

Doha was a joke, and no one even tried to pretend it wasn't. All
because they use these stupid tactics that a child can see through.

Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the
scientific evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get
the child-minded to under-value it.

See? You prove my point every time you speak.

Your point being that you are a gullible sucker for the denialist
propaganda machine? And that you don't like having this pointed out?
What a pity.

You can't help but make these types of claims, it seems to be in your DNA.

Actually, it's in my nervous system; the DNA laid the ground work, but
if I'd been fed on junk food and exposed to junk education, the best
DNA wouldn't have been able to put together a nervous system that
could profit from a decent scientific education. You don't seem to
have been as lucky.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 23 Dec, 00:21, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 10:22, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse effect
argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe you
-- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing a
climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are going to
resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush trying to equate
holocaust denial for denying *that*?

Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is indisputable
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of the warmth of
the earth, doubling it won't have much effect, due to the fact that the
CO2 IR window is totally blocked.

The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is
wavelength dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the
radiation emitted at the wavelength is re-absorbed within the
atmosphere. At that altitude, half of it makes it out into outer
space.

It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount
of IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun,

Night-time.

The earth has quite a lot of thermal mass. The night side of the earth
does cool off a bit during the night, but not enough to make much
difference to the radiative balance.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mr_antone]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:13:38 -0600, Mickey Langan
<mickey@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, mr_antone <just@not.here> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Not sure if most people on this side of the big pond know denier
refers to nylons. I didn't.
Googled it.
Very interesting.
Learned something.

Very funny. But not really pertinent. In fact, the term "climate
science denier" was intended to invoke the idea of denial of an
incontrovertible fact such as the Holocaust.

Nope. You made that up, didn't you.

Even ignoring the
pusilanimous nature of such an association, To maintain that denying a
3 degree C climate sensitivity number derived from models growing from
a theory is of that calibre of denial is ludicrous.

To continue to use such devices in lieu of actually discussing
the issues is constant reminder that the CAGW proponents are
losing the battle. Doha is merely the latest nail in the coffin.

CAWG is denier made term.

You're a denier thru and thru.

I wonder what has been happening to funding? Finding it a bit
harder to get bucks for studying the odd heat-challenged snail,
are we?

mr_antone

--

 

[Mickey Langan]

On 2012-12-22, mr_antone <just@not.here> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:13:38 -0600, Mickey Langan
mickey@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, mr_antone <just@not.here> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Not sure if most people on this side of the big pond know denier
refers to nylons. I didn't.
Googled it.
Very interesting.
Learned something.

Very funny. But not really pertinent. In fact, the term "climate
science denier" was intended to invoke the idea of denial of an
incontrovertible fact such as the Holocaust.

Nope. You made that up, didn't you.

No, I didn't.

Even ignoring the
pusilanimous nature of such an association, To maintain that denying a
3 degree C climate sensitivity number derived from models growing from
a theory is of that calibre of denial is ludicrous.

To continue to use such devices in lieu of actually discussing
the issues is constant reminder that the CAGW proponents are
losing the battle. Doha is merely the latest nail in the coffin.

CAWG is denier made term.

You're a denier thru and thru.


I wonder what has been happening to funding? Finding it a bit
harder to get bucks for studying the odd heat-challenged snail,
are we?

You're a boring one, with simple contradictions and name-calling.
Bye.

--
Mickey

Why is it more moral for a federal bureaucrat in a state-supplied SUV to
shut down an offshore oil rig on grounds that it is too dangerous for
the environment than for a private individual to risk his own capital to
find some sort of new fuel to power his government's SUV fleet?
-- Victor Davis Hanson

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 22 Dec, 23:54, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:04, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 03:24, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:34, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21 Dec, 15:31, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On 21 Dec, 12:17, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

snip

The Wall Street Journal isn't a person, but an organisation, and their
propensity to publish denialist propaganda is well established..

You still can't do it. Amazing. I bet you don't even know what
the issues in global warming are. All you can do is call names
and appeal to authority.

If you want the scientific chapter and verse, go to

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know enough
about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the greenhouse
effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I believe
you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like "denialist"?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/....

It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
scientific evidence in it's historical context.

You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
actually all that bad for your health

More logical fallacies.

There no logic involved, merely an exposition of historical fact.

OK, tell me who these "same people" are.

"The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition

And show me the money.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Exxon_Mobil

Oh, that's right -- you actually don't have even the slightest
semblance of a fact to back up your vague accusations.

Pity about that.

Sounds like a fallacy to me.

The fallacy is all yours.

In this case, a red herring combined with a non-sequitur.

Dream on.

Yet you can't show how.

I just did.

Smoking has nothing to do with this, and you bringing
it up means you have nothing in the way of a point.

On the contrary, the technique for devaluing scientific information
that was invented by the tobacco companies to preserve their right to
keep on damaging their customer's health for a few more years, are
exactly the same techniques, occasionally applied by exactly the same
people, that are being used to cloud your thinking about anthropogenic
global warming.

You can't help but go for the guilt-by-association semantic tarbrush,
eh?

The guilt is perfectly real, and well-established.

It's cheap and desperate,

It might be if it were wrong. It isn't.

and more importantly when you can't cite the specifics chapter and verse people can smell the desperation.

Since I've cited specifics from the start, which you were too dim to
recognise, it's your desperation that's getting on the nose.

<snip>

In fact, it's stupid for you to even do that when you should know
that the central question of CAGW is the sensitivity number. Everyone
with any skin in the game at all knows that, and that is so unambiguous
all you have to do is state a real in the range 0.5 to 6 in this
context and everyone knows precisely what is referenced.

But you don't. And the 0.5 to 6 is way too high these days

When that's all you have, people don't
believe you.

That's scarcely all I have

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

offers rather more.

I'll post a short paragraph as a disqualifier:

        In 2007 the IPCC reported that scientists were more confident than
        ever that humans were changing the climate. Although only a small
        fraction of the predicted warming had happened so far, effects were
        already becoming visible in some regions -- more deadly heat waves,
        stronger floods and droughts, heat-related changes in the ranges and
        behavior of sensitive species.

Poppycock. Those types of claims are of exactly the ilk I am speaking.
Even were there effects based on warming of the climate, they don't
speak to the *cause* of the warming, which is the question.

There's no question about the cause of the warming. If you want to
repeal the laws of physics to open the field to other potential
causes, feel free to open negotiations with the deity of your choice,
but don't expect to be taken seriously before you've established
contact.

Catastrophic. Anthropogenic. Global. Warming. OK, I do deny the
catastrophe, as would any sane person who doesn't buy into a 3+ degree
sensitivity number.

By coincidence, since you don't appear to be remotely sane.

Your theory, by the way, seems to indicate that positive feedback
dominates the climate system. Even if you could convince me that we
understand the powerfully complex and chaotic climate system enough to
predict the action of doubling the concentration of a single trace
gas, you'd still have a hard time convincing me. Because I know one
thing -- if positive feedback could cause such a system to spin out of
control, the system would not be nearly so stable as it has been.
Positive feedback is very rare in nature, and for obvious reasons.

Sure. We've only had an alternation of ice ages and interglacials for
the last few million years. The positive feedback it takes to get the
tiny Milankovitch changes in insolation to flip the average global
temperature by about 4K are quite dramatic, and self-limiting, since
the ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere can 't get down to the
equator, and hasn't vanished entirely (yet).

It's an interesting story and we've only recently started to get a
grip on exactly what happened at the end of the most recent ice age.

<snipped more irrelevant garbage>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
<GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:17:05 -0800 (PST), RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Perhaps there will be warming, but not overheating:

http://tinyurl.com/wsj-ridley-on-GW

1.6* C seems survivable, maybe even benign.
Ridley isn't a scientist, but he does cite credible
sources.

Of course, we know Sam Wormley will give this
due consideration, famous as he is for rationality
and objectivity and erudition, immune to hysteria
and ego and emotional investment.

PS Epigram from the article: "... given the IPCC's
record of replacing evidence-based policy-making
with policy-based evidence-making..."

Is this dumb or what?

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Weather-warnings-become-reality-4139790.php

apparently AGW waited intil 2012 to hit us all at once. Imagine a US city
hitting 95 degrees in the summer! Outrageous!


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[mr_antone]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:21:07 -0600, Mickey Langan
<mickey@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, mr_antone <just@not.here> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 09:13:38 -0600, Mickey Langan
mickey@perusion.net> wrote:

On 2012-12-22, mr_antone <just@not.here> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Not sure if most people on this side of the big pond know denier
refers to nylons. I didn't.
Googled it.
Very interesting.
Learned something.

Very funny. But not really pertinent. In fact, the term "climate
science denier" was intended to invoke the idea of denial of an
incontrovertible fact such as the Holocaust.

Nope. You made that up, didn't you.

No, I didn't.

Prove it.

Even ignoring the
pusilanimous nature of such an association, To maintain that denying a
3 degree C climate sensitivity number derived from models growing from
a theory is of that calibre of denial is ludicrous.

To continue to use such devices in lieu of actually discussing
the issues is constant reminder that the CAGW proponents are
losing the battle. Doha is merely the latest nail in the coffin.

CAWG is denier made term.

You're a denier thru and thru.


I wonder what has been happening to funding? Finding it a bit
harder to get bucks for studying the odd heat-challenged snail,
are we?


You're a boring one, with simple contradictions and name-calling.

Yikes! My irony meter just rusted to a halt.

Next time I'll use a industrial strength stainless steel model when
around mickey.


mr_antone

--

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw@att.bizzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?

Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?

 

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

there are two main problems that the confirmerists & denierists refuse
to acknowledge: a)
the continuous rise of teh two largest ice sheets,
since the first intl. bipolar year ('57-9), and b)
the matching lack of a rise in sealevel, viz Morner.

 

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

that's OK;
no-one else in these fora is literate enough to bother
to see that there is no such a thing as "global" warming,
other than via passage through the lithosphere, anymore than
there are "holes" in the ozonosphere
(they are simply phenomena).