Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[little grey rabbit]

An interesting graphic of CO2 levels in an Antartic lake deposits

Showing a clear dip in CO2 levels during the LIA (which, did I mention? coincided with a period of low sunspot activity)

This further points to the historical linkage of atmosphere levels of C02 and temperature being driven primarily by temperature (driving a carbon flux between the ocean carbon reservoir and the atmosphere) rather than a straightfoward CO2 causes warming/cooling relationship.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Question: Are there isotope signatures that allow us to determine the probability of a particular Carbon atom in CO2 as being derived from the upper atmosphere, organic carbon deposits, volcanic or oceanic in recent origin?

 

[Pixel42]

This further points to the historical linkage of atmosphere levels of C02 and temperature being driven primarily by temperature (driving a carbon flux between the ocean carbon reservoir and the atmosphere) rather than a straightfoward CO2 causes warming/cooling relationship.

A rise in CO2 can be both a forcing and a feedback. When it results from vulcanism (or from human beings digging up fossil fuel and burning it) it's a forcing; when it results from a rise in temperature due to that forcing or to some other forcing (such as the Milankovich cycles, the main forcing driving the cycle of ice ages) it's a feedback. In both cases the result of the rise in CO2 is a [further] rise in temperature. This is well understood, and is not news. Your graph supports this understanding, but such support is hardly required given how much evidence there already is for it.

Question: Are there isotope signatures that allow us to determine the probability of a particular Carbon atom in CO2 as being derived from the upper atmosphere, organic carbon deposits, volcanic or oceanic in recent origin?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/isotopes/

 

[Warmer1]

[Little Grey Rabbit]
From post #501
"Showing a clear dip in CO2 levels during the LIA (which, did I mention? coincided with a period of low sunspot activity)

This further points to the historical linkage of atmosphere levels of C02 and temperature being driven primarily by temperature (driving a carbon flux between the ocean carbon reservoir and the atmosphere) rather than a straightfoward CO2 causes warming/cooling relationship."


From post #502
Question: Are there isotope signatures that allow us to determine the probability of a particular Carbon atom in CO2 as being derived from the upper atmosphere, organic carbon deposits, volcanic or oceanic in recent origin?

From post #497
"I have no expertise in climate science"

I would like to humbly suggest that you look at the climate science that has been peer-reviewed and published most recently to save yourself a lot of time toying with concepts such at those in post #501 and #502. I believe that once you have read the most current information available that you won't need to try and work through a lot of re-hashed theories to end up arriving at the same conclusions that 97% of the world's leading climate scientists have arrived at. The science is so clear and easy to understand that there are no longer any peer-reviewed publications that debate the science.

Look into the physics of CO2 as a heat trapping gas and Milankovitch cycles.


Why not start with the science that has already been done and then question areas of the science that you don't think are correct?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/default.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations

And look at the excellent links in MacDoc's sig line
http://www.macmagic.ca/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=45753#Post45753

I think if you perouse through a number of these sites for a week or two you will save yourself a lot of time.

Best Regards

 

[BenBurch]

Question: Are there isotope signatures that allow us to determine the probability of a particular Carbon atom in CO2 as being derived from the upper atmosphere, organic carbon deposits, volcanic or oceanic in recent origin?

Not any particular atom, of course, but we can show that the ratio of atoms changes depending on inputs to the system.

Living things take up C12 in a higher abundance than they take up C13, so carbon from burning plant matter or burning fossil fuels (all come from living matter originally) will have a higher C12/C13 ratio than the atmosphere as a whole.

We see the ratio in the atmosphere rising over time, and the CO2 concentration rising too, so this implicates a living source for the additional CO2.

Also in carbon from currently-living creatures is C14, a radioisotope produced by the cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. If the carbon input were from entirely living creatures we would expect to see more C14 than if it were from fossil fuels, which were dead so long that the C14 will have decayed.

And we DO see less C14 than we would expect to see from living matter being the source. And the ratios are consistent with the rise in CO2 and also with the amount of fossil fuel we absolutely can document we have burnt since the beginning of the 19th C.

 

[CapelDodger]

An interesting graphic of CO2 levels in an Antartic lake deposits

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Law_dome_co2_levels_1000_AD_-_2000_AD.JPG

Showing a clear dip in CO2 levels during the LIA (which, did I mention? coincided with a period of low sunspot activity)

So by LIA you mean the period 1600-1800, give or take. That's relatively precise where the LIA is concerned.

That was also a period of relatively high vulcanism of the climate-influencing type, in comparison to the quiet periods of the early Medieval and the 20thCE on. Also a time of major disruption in the places where such things were being observed.

This further points to the historical linkage of atmosphere levels of C02 and temperature being driven primarily by temperature (driving a carbon flux between the ocean carbon reservoir and the atmosphere) rather than a straightfoward CO2 causes warming/cooling relationship.

On that occasion it wasn't CO₂ that was driving the change even if your "solar activity did it" hypothesis is correct. This time it is the change in atmospheric CO₂ which is driving the climate change.

As Pixel42 pointed out (and no doubt others have before), CO₂ can be a forcing or a feedback : the essential point is that the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere does influence climate. More is warmer. As we make it more, we make the world warmer.

For how much more we've already made it, look at the right-hand end of the graph you posted.

 

[little grey rabbit]

A rise in CO2 can be both a forcing and a feedback. When it results from vulcanism (or from human beings digging up fossil fuel and burning it) it's a forcing; when it results from a rise in temperature due to that forcing or to some other forcing (such as the Milankovich cycles, the main forcing driving the cycle of ice ages) it's a feedback. In both cases the result of the rise in CO2 is a [further] rise in temperature. This is well understood, and is not news. Your graph supports this understanding, but such support is hardly required given how much evidence there already is for it.

I am not sure you understand the terms you are using here. there is no evidence in this graph that CO2 is acting as either forcing (almost certainly untrue in this instance) or feedback (possible, but since the fall and rise in CO2 levels are minor any feedback will be only very marginal)

What it does show is
a. CO2 levels across oceans and atmosphere do seem to be in tight equilibrium- an equilibrium that is dependent on temperature. From the rather simplified link you gave we see this

In contrast to the terrestrial biosphere and fossil fuels, the isotopic fingerprint of the ocean flux is very similar to the atmosphere. The ocean does not fractionate 12C from 13C nearly as much as the terrestrial biosphere, making the ocean flux's fingerprint similar to that of the atmosphere (in this case, the flux is the movement of carbon dioxide into and out of the ocean).

Which again points out that there is a considerable flux between the two pools (since the rarer isotope of Carbon is made in the upper atmosphere by solar radiation).

b. The LIA did exist, was global in its effect - where some posters here were saying it didn't exist, was in a different time frame or was only European based.

c. The fall and rise in CO2 seems to align approximately with sunspot activity, which reinforces the hypothesis that sunspot activity gives a measure of solar activity and this solar activity can have marked and global influences on climate.

The only question is what is the mechanism by which this solar radiation affects the temperature. Is it purely by changes in solar irradiance or some other mechanism?

 

[aleCcowaN]

b. The LIA did exist, was global in its effect - where some posters here were saying it didn't exist, was in a different time frame or was only European based.

You keep insisting in this because it is obvious your argumentation fails if this is not true. As an evidence of you knowing so, your wrote "was in a different time frame...", that is, LIA only is useful to you if you can match it with MM and then use it as a pseudo-evidence of sun spots being a proxy of current 50 years long warming process.

Your argumentation has holes much bigger than that. You imply no calculation is needed to test your hypothesis -so you fail to see that nothing real substantiate them-. A very good example of this is your argumentation in post #501, by ignoring fundamental figures like total CO₂ content in atmosphere, total CO₂ produced by human activities and CO₂ ratio. All those values are known with different error margins and your "linkage of atmosphere levels of C02 and temperature being driven primarily by temperature" falls down quickly just by making 3 or 4 arithmetic operations. Your "driving a carbon flux between the ocean carbon reservoir and the atmosphere" is really a net flux that goes from the chimneys to the atmosphere, and from the atmosphere to the oceans. There's no net flux in the opposite direction (you have to dig specific dates and coordinates to find instances of such thing).

 

[CapelDodger]

I am not sure you understand the terms you are using here. there is no evidence in this graph that CO2 is acting as either forcing (almost certainly untrue in this instance) or feedback (possible, but since the fall and rise in CO2 levels are minor any feedback will be only very marginal)

The latter doesn't follow. Small changes can have significant feedback effects. As for a few tens ppm out of about 270 ppm being minor, that's a judgement call. It certainly is in comparison to the change over the last 150 years or so, which is over 30%. This, of course, is because we've been digging out fossil fuels and burning them in major quantities over that period. The right-hand end of the graph tells the story.

What it does show is
a. CO2 levels across oceans and atmosphere do seem to be in tight equilibrium- an equilibrium that is dependent on temperature.

Evidence from one Antarctic lake tells us all that? I don't think so.

From the rather simplified link you gave we see this

Which again points out that there is a considerable flux between the two pools ...

There is indeed, but since there's no fractionation in the process it makes no difference.

... (since the rarer isotope of Carbon is made in the upper atmosphere by solar radiation).

Sorry, you've lost me there.

b. The LIA did exist, was global in its effect - where some posters here were saying it didn't exist, was in a different time frame or was only European based.

Since by LIA you mean the period 1600-1850 you may well be correct. Not everybody specifies such a precise time-frame.

c. The fall and rise in CO2 seems to align approximately with sunspot activity, which reinforces the hypothesis that sunspot activity gives a measure of solar activity and this solar activity can have marked and global influences on climate.

Since the change in solar output is minor it can surely only have a marginal effect. _irony

The only question is what is the mechanism by which this solar radiation affects the temperature. Is it purely by changes in solar irradiance or some other mechanism?

The question is still if there is an effect other than the obvious one : more solar output means more energy input to Earth's surface. We've had the opportunity to directly observe a period with no sunspots, using the best tools yet available to mankind, and the reduction in solar output has proved to be very slight, on the order of a few tenths percent. Not enough to influence global temperatures without some amplifying factor.

Which would mostly be CO₂. Acting as a positive feedback.

There were a lot of volcanoes in that period to confuse the issue as well, with the same CO₂ feedback. None of which has anything to do with current climate change, of course.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Were the global melters lying then or are they lying now?

I have been following this discussion since it was the coming ice age. At first I liked the idea of warming instead and bought the palm tree franchise for Washington DC. Needless to say I am still not rich.

But starting in the mid to late 1980s the melters started proclaiming we had only ten years to act or else it would be too late. Innocent that I am I expected by 2000 they would have all realized it was too late, bought SUVs and started the last partying before the end.

But instead they kept saying "unless we do something in the next ten years it will be too late". And here we are ten years after 2000 and still we have only ten years to act before it is too late.

So we know they were lying at least until this year else we would have a countdown of only 10, 9, 8, ... years left.

How do we know they are not lying this year?

Is it true the future of global warming is that the "unless we do something" date will always be ten years in the future? If so, why bother?

In any event we have a documented pattern of lying by the "experts" going back to the mid to late 1980s. No question. They lied. Nor has there ever been an explanation as to why the "too late" year has never arrived nor any explanation as to why it has been pushed back every year by one more year so that it is always ten years in the future.

And if the point was to stir a political call to action then it is clearly not science but politics.

We know they have lied. The only question is when these people will stop lying.

 

[The True Scotsman]

I have been following this discussion since it was the coming ice age. At first I liked the idea of warming instead and bought the palm tree franchise for Washington DC. Needless to say I am still not rich.

But starting in the mid to late 1980s the melters started proclaiming we had only ten years to act or else it would be too late. Innocent that I am I expected by 2000 they would have all realized it was too late, bought SUVs and started the last partying before the end.

But instead they kept saying "unless we do something in the next ten years it will be too late". And here we are ten years after 2000 and still we have only ten years to act before it is too late.

So we know they were lying at least until this year else we would have a countdown of only 10, 9, 8, ... years left.

How do we know they are not lying this year?

Is it true the future of global warming is that the "unless we do something" date will always be ten years in the future? If so, why bother?

In any event we have a documented pattern of lying by the "experts" going back to the mid to late 1980s. No question. They lied. Nor has there ever been an explanation as to why the "too late" year has never arrived nor any explanation as to why it has been pushed back every year by one more year so that it is always ten years in the future.

And if the point was to stir a political call to action then it is clearly not science but politics.

We know they have lied. The only question is when these people will stop lying.

Knowledge of "tipping points" is important here. What tipping points are are points at which domino effects take place which cause irreversible or hard to reverse chains of events. An example of this would be methane contain in permafrost. As the earth warms, areas that are usually kept locked up in permafrost begin to melt. As the permafrost melts, the methane contained in the permafrost is released into the atmosphere. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas (even more so than CO2) and so would cause even more warming (as greenhouse gas buildup is the cause of global warming). The warming of the earth could cause previous areas where certain crops could be grown to not be usable for those crops, which may begin to prefer areas of higher longitude due to temperature increases. The areas that may be preferred by the crops for temperature will most likely not have the soil fertility to sustain a large portion of the crops. This could cause major food shortages.

Now, the reason the date seems to be changing all the time is not that climate scientists are lying, but rather because these tipping points are hard to predicts. Climate scientists know that they will happen if current trends continue, but it is hard to predict when. Still, as time passes our knowledge of the environment increases and climate scientists are better able to make predictions.

 

[macdoc]

He denies the the physics of C02 warming ( it's accompanying water vapour feedback ) entirely so this is just an end run trying to postulate some other "unknown mechanism"....
futlle ground, sterile and well tilled..nary a gem of climate science to be found....much coal ash however.

 

[Dimitri]

How do we know they are not lying this year?

Global warming and the mechanism of it is quite complex. I wouldn't say they are lying, I'd say, just as weak kitten, they were/are alarmist. I know that with the "popular" information (read as incomplete) from those days it seemed it would take 10 years.

Is it true the future of global warming is that the "unless we do something" date will always be ten years in the future? If so, why bother?

The truth? We should be safe at least the next 50 years. Some things are just overblown a bit for the reason most people will only "get it" if it is very dramatized. Problems we are facing with GW are real and are on the long run. People have evolved to look at timescales and plan on very short term (like what? 1-4 years as ultimate maximum?). The 10 years-border might have been chosen to make it more digestible. It's within a human life and long enough to make people more aware and let them take action. (leaving aside if the different "green" actions actually do make a change).

And if the point was to stir a political call to action then it is clearly not science but politics.

Which is exactly my problem, the GW-"debate"/topic in media most of the time has a political twist. Especially during election time. Never the less, inform yourself and keep yourself up to date with the discoveries and advancement in the understanding of the mechanism. And don't try to be blown away by certain envirronmentalists who claim to hold the truth and start yelling numbers as soon as you ask a skeptical question. There is many woo around it, and many people who unaware believing it.

 

[Pixel42]

In the 80s/90s when the reality of AGW was first established we had ten years to take action which would prevent a significant (at least 1C) rise in global temperatures. Ten years later that ship had sailed, but we still had ten years to take action which would limit the increase in temperature to less than 2C by the end of the 21st century. Now, with at least 2C unavoidable, we have about ten years to take action to prevent it being a much more potentially catastrophic 3-4C by the end of the century.

 

[Pixel42]

Royal Society launches new short guide to the science of climate change

The Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, has today launched a new short guide to the science of climate change. The guide has been written to summarise the evidence and to clarify the levels of confidence associated with the current scientific understanding of climate change. It makes clear what is well-known and established about the climate system, what is widely agreed but with some debate about details, and what is still not well understood.

Climate change: a summary of the science, describes how and why the earth is currently warming, and explains the wide range of independent measurements and observations which underpin this understanding. It shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earth’s warming has been caused largely by human activity. It also explains the uncertainty involved in predicting the size of future temperature increases. There are many potentially serious consequences of climate change, so that important decisions need to be made. The guide concludes that, as in many other areas, policy choices will have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge, but that the scientific evidence is an essential part of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.

John Pethica, Vice-President of the Royal Society and Chair of the working group that wrote the document said: “Climate change is an important issue affecting everyone. Much of the public debate on climate change is polarised at present, which can make it difficult to get a good overview of the science. This guide explains where the science is clear and established, and also where it is less certain. It is not a simple guide, as this is not a simple issue. This summary has been produced for all who want to understand the full range of the scientific evidence.”

The guide has been prepared by leading international scientists, mostly drawn from the Fellowship of the Society, and it is based on very extensive published scientific work. The working group drew on input from a wide range of experts and the document was reviewed by both Fellows and others with a broad range of relevant expertise and experience.

The guide, a 19 page PDF document, is downloadable at the link.

 

[aleCcowaN]

He denies the the physics of C02 warming ( it's accompanying water vapour feedback ) entirely so this is just an end run trying to postulate some other "unknown mechanism"....

I know, but I wonder why we are reviewing in this thread old unsubstantiated speculations all over again, being hundreds of posts about the same points in these very fora that were written 1, 2 and 3 years ago.

For the social+scientific side of the "debate", I recommend September 7^th episode of SBS Insight: "The Skeptics" (guest: the late Stephen Schneider) that you can watch online. It contains nothing extraordinary about cutting edge climate science but a very good overlook on basic argumentation and state-of-the-art it's-not-happening/it-could-be-good/it-is-temporary side of the debate.

We may move on and follow the logarithmic lead on it, or debate the benefits (someone promised to offer some figures), or go back to the "H - K" stuff if there's really something new in it.

 

[macdoc]

Were the global melters lying then or are they lying now?
I have been following this discussion since it was the coming ice age. At first I liked the idea of warming instead and bought the palm tree franchise for Washington DC. Needless to say I am still not rich.

You may have been following the discussion - clearly not the science.

Try my signature for current information from the climate science community rather than make foolish accusations in a science forum

Perhaps explain why the fossil fuel company scientists are "in" on your conspiracy.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

and that was over a decade ago. I'm not sure what you expect from AGW but the leading edge of the consequences are here right now.

There is clear evidence all around if you CHOOSE to pay attention...

In Washington, seven of the last 20 Cherry Blossom Festivals have started after peak bloom. This year will be close, the National Park Service predicts. Last year, Knoxville's dogwood blooms came and went before the city's dogwood festival started. Boston's Arnold Arboretum permanently rescheduled Lilac Sunday to a May date eight days earlier than it once was.

...

This year, though, it's the early red maple that's creating buzz, as well as sniffles. A New Jersey conservationist posted an urgent message on a biology listserv on Feb. 1 about the early blooming. A 2001 study found that since 1970, that tree is blossoming on average at least 19 days earlier in Washington, D.C.
Such changes have "implications for the animals that are dependent on this plant," Weltzin said, as he stood beneath a blooming red maple in late February. By the time the animals arrive, "the flowers may already be done for the year." The animals may have to find a new food source.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-03-19-warming-spring_N.htm

and this before the hottest year yet arrived...

Quote:

Summer 2010 hottest on record in Washington

Jun-Aug temperature secures spot by over 1 degree!

*

2010 compared to the previous five high summer temperature averages at Washington, D.C. The three-month period was a stunning 4.3 degrees above average.
The broken heat record keeps on playing. Warmest astronomical spring... warmest June... warmest July (tied)... no, not quite there for August... But yes, warmest meteorological (Jun-Aug) summer.
Those who've lived it don't need the Capital Weather Gang to know it has been a toasty one. Still, it's worth noting just how toasty. Washington, D.C. did not only top the previous three-month record, it pretty much crushed it with its 81.3 degree

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/09/summer_2010_hottest_on_record.html

and it ain't local either

NOAA reports 2010 hottest year on record so far « Climate Progress

15 Sep 2010 ... Summer 2010 the second warmest on record; hottest August in RSS satellite record*. September 15, 2010. Following fast on the heels of NASA ...

http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/15/noaa-2010-hottest-year-global-warming/

 

[CapelDodger]

I have been following this discussion since it was the coming ice age. At first I liked the idea of warming instead and bought the palm tree franchise for Washington DC. Needless to say I am still not rich.

But starting in the mid to late 1980s the melters started proclaiming we had only ten years to act or else it would be too late. Innocent that I am I expected by 2000 they would have all realized it was too late, bought SUVs and started the last partying before the end.

It is too late, but a lot of people have children and grandchildren and would like to limit the damage done to them.

But instead they kept saying "unless we do something in the next ten years it will be too late". And here we are ten years after 2000 and still we have only ten years to act before it is too late.

It is too late to prevent a lot of damage.

So we know they were lying at least until this year else we would have a countdown of only 10, 9, 8, ... years left.

Until what? Until everybody's dead or in serious trouble? Until the first billion are? Until the First Russo-Canadian War breaks out?

How do we know they are not lying this year?

Is it true the future of global warming is that the "unless we do something" date will always be ten years in the future? If so, why bother?

Why bother anyway?

In any event we have a documented pattern of lying by the "experts" going back to the mid to late 1980s.

No you don't.

No question. They lied.

No question that the climate denial industry has lied, and still lies. Like that stuff about a "documented pattern of lying" by climate scientists, which is simple slander.

Nor has there ever been an explanation as to why the "too late" year has never arrived nor any explanation as to why it has been pushed back every year by one more year so that it is always ten years in the future.

It has arrived, and passed. A lot of people just don't like to give up completely. It will be bad, but there are things which could be done to prevent it being worse.

And if the point was to stir a political call to action then it is clearly not science but politics.

And the call went unheeded. The political counter-action was much more professional, experienced and focused, and still is. Scientists have jobs to do, whilst politicians, lobbyists and PR professionals lie for a living. They're at it full-time.

We know they have lied. The only question is when these people will stop lying.

We know who lied, and why they continue to lie. For ideology, for profit, for attention.

It seems we are very close to the end-game of denial now. From "it won't happen" to "it's not happening" to "it's happening but not because of us" to "it's a good thing" to "it's too late now anyway". And blame the scientists for not warning us.

Sorry, not the scientists, the "melters". Blame them. The warmers, the alarmists, the melters, those lying scientists - why didn't they warn us ?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Knowledge of "tipping points" is important here. What tipping points are are points at which domino effects take place which cause irreversible or hard to reverse chains of events.
...

We both agree they have engaged in a constant stream of lies. You appear to want to narrow it down to a particular set of lies about the existence of these magical tipping points. Fair enough but I do not see how that changes anything. For the record I have
NEVER read any of the false prophecies tied to anything in particular so I have to ask where you found this particular example.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Global warming and the mechanism of it is quite complex. I wouldn't say they are lying, I'd say, just as weak kitten, they were/are alarmist. I know that with the "popular" information (read as incomplete) from those days it seemed it would take 10 years.
...

You are obviously more polite than I. I have a tendency to calls a 25 year string of the same false statements for the lies they are. It is quite clear the people who recite lies are properly identified as liars.

Now if there had been a specific scientific basis for the ten years to doom statement had been published in the literature. And if after ten years the scientific basis had been reassessed and that reassessment published in the literature it would not be a lie but rather an erroneous prediction which was then reassessed and presumably corrected.

But that is not what has happened. There has never been a published scientific basis for these statements thus making them indistinguishable from prophecy and the people saying such things indistinguishable from "the end is neigh" prophets of cartoon fame.

Possibly they are in fact deluded fools who believe themselves to be inspired prophets but that means they are good only to entertain the masses and the subject of public ridicule.