Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Time for a topic on What is going to help prevent Global Warming

Recommended Posts

gator    14

So it's ok for Jaydee to point out a slight 1 year growth in ice coverage to substantiate his side of the argument, and then say that longer term measurements mean nothing.

Man has only been polluting the air with CO2 for a couple of hundred centuries and only for 60 years at accelerated rates. We have only had the capability to measure sea ice coverage for a couple of decades. Yet, there seems to be a direct correlation. It may not be perfect, but I'd say it's a good thing that we have the accuracy do make decisions early in the game.

Deniers have always existed. Deniers said man couldn't wipe out the whales or cause the extinction of the dodo bird. Deniers said the CFC/ozone thing was a hoax. Yet, surprisingly, the ozone layer was being destroyed during the exact same years as CFCs were abundant and has started to recover since their use was phased out. Deniers would say coincidence. They might be right, but had we not done anything where would we be today and in 20 years? My family spends more per year on sunscreen now than it would have cost to fix the problem sooner, had we had the data and will.  

I'm not a big fan of Suzuki or Gore or carbon taxes but I find it funny how deniers focus on 2 lightning rods on one side of the argument who at least have some data behind them while accepting pure opinion on the other. Jaydee suggests that the fact that Gore invests in something that he believes in is somehow nefarious. What should he invest in.... coal? Elon Musk invests in what he believes in, too. And Robert Murray.

And, it's not just them. Some of the largest and forward thinking companies in the world feel that climate change deserves attention, even Exxon/Mobile, Ford and GM. Yeah, they'll make money from it, but they would make more, and more easily, if we just stayed the course.

What's the worst thing that might happen if we actually do something about the amount of GHGs that we produce when alternatives are available? The worst thing is that it might interfere with our precious 1st World, 5%er lifestyle by a dinner out or two per year. If we do smart things on our own, it will prevent idiots like Kathleen Wynne and her predecessor from introducing programs that do waste money and have limited effect. Many of the smart things that we can do ourselves have payback in less than 15 years. It's not going to change how much of our money the government wastes on other programs, but if you can do something to leave a better world for your kids and it's not going to cost you anything, why wouldn't you?

When I was a kid out camping, my Dad always said, "Always leave the campsite in better condition than you found it". 

I don't believe that we are doing that with our big, round campsite.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfhunter    135

I think you’re right. There is simply no question that the climate is changing. In the course of one lifetime you can easily see the physical and geopolitical effects of desertification in North Africa… easy peasy! In fact, over the course of the world’s history, climate change is the only weather constant. Parts of the world were under water before and they will be again; the only question is will you and I be here to see it.

Government targets won’t be met unless you, me and everyone else stop driving to work and turn the thermostats down in winter (way down). Since you can’t persuade people not to text and drive, I don’t see that level of collective cooperation possible. Efforts to limit the amount of household garbage (in my province) simply means that people dump their excess garbage out in the country… AT MY PLACE whilst proclaiming victory in contemporary green living efforts. Pointing this out usually gets me branded as cynical, but there ya go.

This has more to do with methane than C02 anyway (I think). The thought seems to be that by controlling C02 emissions the methane will remain contained. Alas, methane production is a function of sustained growth and, by any measure, sustained growth is simply unsustainable. 

So, the real enemy here is actually worldwide sustained growth. Sustained growth, by nature, leads to exponential growth… in this case, it means exponential methane release. Higher temperatures mean more methane and more methane mean higher temperatures. A bit like a battery overheat and thermal runaway condition on steroids. I say steroids because a methane molecule is orders of magnitude more virulent than C02 as a greenhouse gas.

 No one really knows where the tipping point is but I bet we’ve already blown the back doors off it. When considering exponential growth it’s noteworthy that 50% of our collective resources would still exist at one minute to H hour and anyone pointing out the danger of this would be considered an alarmist.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405

Gator,

I am not a climate denier, but I am definitely a climate tax denier.

I only post on this subject to show there are two sides to this discussion, something that was suppressed for quite some time.

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon The Loon    296
15 hours ago, gator said:

Man has only been polluting the air with CO2 for a couple of hundred centuries and only for 60 years at accelerated rates.

Sorry gator, but that's a pile of malarkey. (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall's...)

CO2 is and for thousands of years, has been a trace element in the earth's atmosphere. It continues to be so. Without CO2, all plant life would die. Any increase in CO2 levels is not due to human creations; it MAY be due to humans obliterating rain forests. Try looking at the problem from the other side of the coin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boestar    600

Nature is a self correcting mechanism.  Just like an immune system.  When the balance is upset the organism (earth) gets a fever (global warming) this in turn will, over time, reduce the infection (humans) to a more manageable number.

Other methods have been seen in the past.  Disease, for example, that killed off millions.  We, however, found a way to prevent diseases that caused the kill off of the infection.  much like antibiotic resistant bacteria we are no longer stopped by mother nature and it gets harder to kill us off.

The Fever increase we are experiencing now will get worse and eventually the infection will be drowned off.  Eventually the balance will be restored and the pendulum will swing the other way until the organism gets the chills and freezes off more of the infection but not before it propagates back to an unmanageable level.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405

 

"It's summer 2017 and the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free, hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more deadly, and sea levels should be rising alarmingly. Al Gore swore in his 2006 science fiction movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," that within a decade there would be a "true planetary emergency."

"Unless we act boldly and quickly to deal with the underlying causes of global warming, our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes," said Gore in the movie's introduction.

The grand storyteller also predicted in 2011 that "there will be no more snows" on Mt. Kilimanjaro "within the decade."

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/global-warming-the-imminent-crisis-that-never-arrives/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405

Carbon taxes are paying off.....Global warming Canadian style....July, traditionally the hottest month of the year.

 

IMG_5005.PNG

IMG_5006.PNG

IMG_5007.PNG

IMG_5008.PNG

IMG_5009.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

When you present a few days of weather in specific cities and suggest that this is indicative of global climate, you underline your complete misunderstanding of the issues and outcomes surrounding man's impact on the environment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405
1 hour ago, gator said:

When you present a few days of weather in specific cities and suggest that this is indicative of global climate, you underline your complete misunderstanding of the issues and outcomes surrounding man's impact on the environment. 

 

(1) There may or may not be a climate problem in the big scheme of things. At present from what I read the jury is still out as to the causes(s) as most of the Climate alarmists predictions appear to be falling flat. 

(2) Canada spans approximately 1/5 of the circumference of the entire world in the northern hemisphere and the "weather" as you call it looks pretty normal to me. If anything it's cooler than a normal summer across the entire country. 

(3) How exactly is the carbon tax Canadians are being FORCED to pay going to impact climate change Globally in Timbucktwo Africa or the Middle East, or India, or China where population growth is totally out of control? Or stop the expanding use of coal in the three of the most populated countries in the world?

If Canadian politicians were truly interested in fixing this so called pending calamity, and if humans really are the cause of the problem, Trudeau should be sending condoms across the world, not  $$$$$.

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405

On one hand Trudeau forces a Carbon tax on all Canadians, on another he delays funding for research. 

" Climate scientists across Canada are preparing to shutter research projects and lay off staff as time runs out on the federal program that supports their work.

The break comes despite the Trudeau government's repeated emphasis on the need for science-based decision-making in response to climate change."

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/scientists-brace-for-cuts-as-federal-climate-funding-expires/article35484709/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&click=sf_globefb

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14
On 2017-6-25 at 10:41 PM, Moon The Loon said:

Sorry gator, but that's a pile of malarkey. (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall's...)

CO2 is and for thousands of years, has been a trace element in the earth's atmosphere. It continues to be so. Without CO2, all plant life would die. Any increase in CO2 levels is not due to human creations; it MAY be due to humans obliterating rain forests. Try looking at the problem from the other side of the coin.

(my post included a double-positive .... it should have been centuries or hundreds of years, not hundreds of centuries)

The decimation of the rain forests is certainly a factor in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But Brazilians are not the only ones who cut down millions of acres of trees. Most of the farmland in Southern Ontario was once covered in trees, as was much of it in the northeastern US.

But that doesn't mean that deforestation is the only cause.

Much CO2 is processed by plankton, but its ability to process CO2 is limited by the amount of iron in the oceans, so it's not just as simple as the population of plankton increasing and we continue to cut down trees. The oceans also help with CO2 absorption by converting CO2 to carbonic acid with its attendant effects on ocean life. And, the oceans can obviously absorb much of the heat that would otherwise be atmospheric heat. But this leads to more evaporation and water vapour is also a heat reflector like CO2.

CO2 in the atmosphere is a trace element and a necessary part of our atmosphere to prevent radiation of planetary heat to space. If there was a reduction from natural levels of this (as Moon implies... insignificant) trace element, the earth would freeze. So, the good news is that, at current levels, we're probably not going to have a glacial age. The problem is that current CO2 levels are 150% of any historic maximum levels and science has proven the increase is man made. There is a direct line correlation between atmospheric CO2 and ice ages and warm periods. So, to suggest that the 0.8 degree global temperature increase over the past 150 years is a natural cycle ignores the facts.

I am no fan of carbon taxes. But, as shown here, people are loathe to give up lifestyle and profit without some kind of penalty. The carbon taxes, especially cap and trade, are a poor method, IMO, but at least it's something to help people realize something has to be done. There were also people who said that seat belt fines and RIDE programs were just taxes and loss of personal freedoms, too.

Finally, "debunking" scientific fact by finding fault in one or two proponents' predictions is not science or any proof that the overall premise is flawed. 

As some have suggested, a big part of the problem is the number of people on earth. The earth could probably cope with the rate/person production of CO2 that we are producing now if there were half as many people. But, in opposition to what Jaydee suggests, much of the problem is not from the 3rd world, where Jaydee suggests we should send condoms. Canada and the US are in the top 4 for CO2 production per person so, perhaps it is we who should be wrapping up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14
56 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

On one hand Trudeau forces a Carbon tax on all Canadians, on another he delays funding for research. 

" Climate scientists across Canada are preparing to shutter research projects and lay off staff as time runs out on the federal program that supports their work.

The break comes despite the Trudeau government's repeated emphasis on the need for science-based decision-making in response to climate change."

On one hand, deniers complain that scientists support climate change theory because their funding depends on supporting that theory (somewhere above in the thread).

Then, deniers complain when the funding is cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boestar    600

Canada is a net NEGATIVE carbon producer.  Our Wilderness cleans more carbon from the atmosphere than the population creates.  The government should be paying us if you do the math.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lakelad    45

.

Increasingly wild weather could lead to rising air travel costs

‘It will get passed along to us as an operational cost one way or the other,’ says climate prof

Wed Jun 28, 2017- CBC News

Be prepared to pay more for airfare if climate change continues to alter weather patterns, increasing the frequency and severity of storms, say climate change and airline industry experts.

Daniel Scott, a climate professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, said travellers should also expect more flight delays and cancellations amid recurring snowstorms, thunderstorms and bouts of freezing rain.

Planes would have to be rerouted more often to avoid bad weather, which would cause them to burn more fuel. Aircraft will also have to be de-iced more often, increasing operational costs for airlines, he said.

"It will get passed along to us as an operational cost one way or the other," said Scott, the university's research chair in climate and society.

"They won't put it as an explicit line item, but it will appear in that fuel surcharge which has never disappeared."

Air Canada started putting in an additional charge in 2007 when oil prices spiked to more than $145 per barrel.

Higher costs could lessen demand for flights

The president and managing director of a Toronto-based aviation advisory firm said airlines would have to increase their fees by at least a few dollars per ticket to cover the additional costs from more stormy weather.

"For customers on, say, a low-cost ticket that don't travel very often, another couple of dollars on top of many other dollars and fees and charges does have a rebound effect and affect demand for travel," said Robert Kokonis of AirTrav Inc.

Brad Cicero, a spokesperson for Porter Airlines, said if an increase in bad weather started costing airlines more money, the decision to pass those costs onto consumers would have to be carefully weighed.

"It's unlikely that any individual airline was going to do that on their own for an extended period of time without seeing everybody else kind of stay in the same ballpark," he said.

"That's what you're comparing to every day — you're watching what everybody else is charging for an individual route. There are so many factors that go into pricing, it's not necessarily going to be influenced by any one thing."

WestJet also said there are numerous factors that go into ticket pricing, and that it wasn't sure how bad weather would factor into what it charges.

'Air Canada denied CBC's request for an interview or information on how severe weather impacts its operations.'

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405
56 minutes ago, gator said:

On one hand, deniers complain that scientists support climate change theory because their funding depends on supporting that theory (somewhere above in the thread).

Then, deniers complain when the funding is cut.

No agenda....Simply showing the hypocrisy from the Trudeau government. Carbon taxation is just another farce forced on Canadians that I guarantee will NEVER disappear if Canadians don't stop it dead in its tracks BEFORE it is law. It will just get buried in general revenues and wasted on some idiotic social issue like most of his government spending.

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boestar    600

I have noticed on the 8 flights I was recently on to the East coast and Florida that there was significantly more turbulence at cruise than I remember.  On several occasions the seatbelt sign was (rightfully) turned on several times during cruise.

It would seem the atmosphere is fighting back.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfhunter    135

I think people need to start getting more concerned about methane production. The notion that limiting (or trying to limit) CO2 as a containment strategy for methane is flawed in my view. Although methane only makes up about 14-15% of emissions globally, a molecule of methane traps about a hundred times more heat than carbon even though it has a shorter life span. And, of course, methane production is closely tied to growth meaning that sustained growth (in any closed system) is absolutely unsustainable as a general premise. 

I’m not sure that anyone here will stop driving their car or turn the thermostat down to 10C in the winter. From that perspective, taxing carbon is simply a tax grab unless you go draconian with it; that would create a host of other problems too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moon The Loon    296
12 hours ago, gator said:

When you present a few days of weather in specific cities and suggest that this is indicative of global climate, you underline your complete misunderstanding of the issues and outcomes surrounding man's impact on the environment. 

On THAT, I agree wholeheartedly!  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405

It is obvious that the sudden rise in temperatures during the most recent El Niño was far too fast to be the result of long-term global warming. After all, global temperatures have risen very gradually by 1°C in the last 150 years or so. Williamson is also wrong in claiming that global temperatures have not dropped since the end of the El Niño spike. Since it peaked last year, they have declined by 0.4°C. They are now almost back to where they were before the start of the El Niño:"

The lesson of the pause is not that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, but rather that the computer models, which predicted an acceleration in global warming, and on which current policy is based, have proved to be inaccurate. "

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/truth-global-warming-pause/#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14

From Sourcewatch (not climate oriented)

David Whitehouse (the author of your statements above):

Whitehouse has a doctorate in astrophysics and was successively BBC Science Correspondent and Science Editor of BBC News Online. He is the author of a number of books on solar system astronomy and the history of astronomy.[1]

David Whitehouse, who has no apparent expertise in climate science, serves on the Academic Advisory Committee for the contrarian Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Failed 2010 Global temperature prediction

In an early December 2010 Global Warming Policy Foundation blogpost, Whitehouse predicted that "2010 will be remembered for just two warm months [March and June], attributable to the El Nino effect, with the rest of the year being nothing but average, or less than average temperature."[2]

According to the NASA and NOAA datasets, 2010 tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record[3]; and NASA's GISS data showed November 2010 as the hottest November on record[4].

And the use of the term "average" in Whitehouse's statement was misleading, as the dataset referenced (CRU, through Oct 2010) actually shows every month in 2010 to be considerably warmer than the corresponding historic (1850+) average.[5] - a pattern evident visually in NASA's GISS data.[6]. Whitehouse later explained (see Talk page) that he meant the "average" for just one decade - a timeframe statisticians consider too short to be meaningful[7] in seeing the underlying trend.[3]

Another of Whitehouse's blogposts [4]at the GWPF was debunked by London School of Economics climate change guru Bob Ward with the epithet "I do not know of any other web page about global warming that is so error-ridden."[8]

If you are going to quote someone, at least quote a credible source.... more likely an organization than a single newspaper reporter (oh yeah... those reporters always get the aviation story right too... even the "aviation specialists" like Richard Quest)

Think about it.... Whitehouse says that the GLOBAL temperature decreased 0.4 degrees in, apparently, less than ONE year. The largest drop on record after an El Nino was just over 0.2 degrees.

And where does his 2010 decrease of 0.4 degrees show up in this data derived from NASA, the Met Office (UK), NOAA and Japan Met?

(couldn't post graphic.... it's on https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

 

Edited by gator
graphic error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FireFox    95

Hello gator.

I found this interesting...

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/no-evidence-is-a-useful-scientific-finding/

Guest essay by Michel de Rougemont

Heretic? You’re welcome!

Hysteric? Please cool down!

We hear that global warming is highly dependent on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this gas that is required to sustain life on Earth and that is also emitted when burning flammable stuff, such as wood, coal, mineral and organic oils, or methane.

If you are told “this depends on that”, you are invited to examine available data observed over time to draw a representation of this on the y-axis vs. that on the x-axis.

So, in all logic, you should be interested in a representation of the temperature evolution in dependence of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Yes, you should, but, looking hard into the latest IPCC Report (the fifth of Working Group I, to be precise), no diagram of that sort can be found among its 1535 pages.

So, asks the judge: what is the evidence that the victim was attacked by the suspect? And the expert is not able, or willing, to provide any evidence. Is he actually an expert, or an incompetent prosecutor?

Among the available observed climate data are the so-called temperature anomalies (Ta), summarized as global monthly means, and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) over the same time span. But time line diagrams show us only that, since the beginning of the industrial era, the global mean temperature went up by 0.8 to 1 °C, and [CO2] increased from 280 ppm to 405 ppm.

So, what? The suspect was there while the victim developed fever, is it enough evidence of culpability? As for any circumstantial fact, the answer must obviously be no. Presence is required, but is not sufficient to prove anything.

The next question is then: how fast was warming going on when [CO2] was low, and when it is now high? If a correlation can be shown, then a stronger case against the alleged culprit could be opened.

Using a simple spreadsheet to calculate these changes, and smoothing them over a 7-year filter[1] so that a cloud of data points can be seen as a trend line, the following diagram is obtained:

roc-vs-co21.png?w=720&h=457

Zero on the y-axis means that neither warming nor cooling takes place.
At high [CO2] some cooling was observed, at lower [CO2] high warming rates were observed.
Honestly, no statistically valid correlation tying warming rate to [CO2] can be derived from it.
Sorry, no statistical significance, no hint of a proof!

Why do the IPCC experts avoid looking at such simple relationship? I can only guess, and my guess is that they are either blinded by their greenhouse assumption, thus faithfully ignoring any other indices, or they deliberately hide what would prevent them to obtain a capital punishment sentence. In any case they behave away from any scientific honesty.
Mainstream yes, but a highly polluted stream.

This is all the available observational data; any other relationships are conjectures, however plausible they might be, no evidence. Therefore, all possible heretical interpretations must be made, for example that one: from all possible known and unknown causes of the observed global warming, the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions may have, or not, a contributing role. No scepticism, no advocacy, no unsustainable allegation, plain factual view.

I have only one questions to ask to all mainstream climate-experts, and their gullible followers in the public, the media, and in the political world:
What observational evidence can you provide to sustain the allegation that temperature is “very likely” and mostly driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?


Notes:

Originally published here: http://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=4150&lang=en
Contrary to almost all mainstream climate scientists whose sustained professional life depends on an on-going climate alarmism, including peer reviewers, I have no conflict of interest in relation with this subject.
My sources are all publicly available data series.
I can provide my spreadsheets to anyone who asks politely via the contact page of this blog.


[1] Why seven years?
Because it’s uneven, large enough but not too long, and it is already documented in a famous book.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fido    380
3 hours ago, gator said:

David Whitehouse, who has no apparent expertise in climate science

and neither do many thousands of climate activists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaydee    405
7 hours ago, Fido said:

and neither do many thousands of climate activists.

Exactly.....like Bill Nye the Science guy?  :P...an engineer, turned comedian, turned television host of a kids program....now quoted an "expert" on Climate.

What all this says is there is no actual believable consensus on Climate Change. Finallly there are two sides to the conversation. For every alarmist, there are an equal amount of people questioning it, not denying it. Credit is due to the spiralling death of political correctness.

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gator    14
7 hours ago, Fido said:

and neither do many thousands of climate activists.

... and neither do many thousands of climate change deniers.

I have no problem with people holding the opposite view to me, but at least put forward rational arguments based on real science and make apple to apple comparisons. I am an "activist", I suppose, because I am trying to "activate" people. But I don't put myself forward as a scientist and try to reference recognized sources of data, presented fairly.

I don't have the underlying data so I can't insert a trend line but what I see in the blue line of Firefox's graph is a gradual increase in warming per century as CO2 increases and, at concentrations above 340 ppm, the temperature change per century is all positive. At below 340 ppm, the temperature change per century seems to be both above and below the zero change line, although anyone who looks objectively at the graph would see a general trend to increase as concentrations increase. So, I would suggest that the graph indicates that 340 ppm might be the "tipping point". The current CO2 concentration is at 400 ppm and increasing at about 2 ppm per year.

The red line seems to be inserted to try to camouflage the clear trend to warming vs CO2 by introducing a completely different source of data. But even the average of even that line shows positive temperature rise for the most part. Remember this is a rate of change graph, not a temperature graph. When the line is just a smidge above 0, even if it is trending down, the temperature is going up. Since CO2 is constantly increasing, the bottom x-axis could almost be considered a time line for recent years. So, yes, there might have been a few months of no increase in temperature coincident with the same months when the concentration was at the 390 ppm level, but this could hardly be considered a long term trend... after all, we just broke the 390 ppm mark (at Mauna Loa) in mid 2015, so I don't know how they got a 7 year trend on that data. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this