Paris Climate Summit

[-1=e^ipi]

This is completely and entirely wrong. Scientific consensus is very clear on the consequences of climate change, notwithstanding your head-in-the-sand approach to it.

Really, you are going to continue with the convolution of consensus argument?

[TimG]

This is completely and entirely wrong. Scientific consensus is very clear on the consequences of climate change, notwithstanding your head-in-the-sand approach to it.

Some scientists have hypotheses about what the possible impacts might be. So far they have no data that suggests their hypotheses might be correct. The scientific consensus is on the premise that human emitted CO2 affects climate. There is no real consensus on the seriousness of the consequences. Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

What is outrageous is the endless stream of hacks that make claims that have no supporting scientific evidence

You simply dismiss the scientific evidence, so you don't get to fall back on "show me the science" now.

[Smallc]

This is completely and entirely wrong. Scientific consensus is very clear on the consequences of climate change, notwithstanding your head-in-the-sand approach to it.

To be fair, in terms of Canada, it actually isn't so conclusive. It may in fact be good, on balance, if we have a few average degrees of warming.

[cybercoma]

Do warmer oceans produce more powerful hurricanes? I mean, is that even disputable?

[cybercoma]

To be fair, in terms of Canada, it actually isn't so conclusive. It may in fact be good, on balance, if we have a few average degrees of warming.

It's not a Canadian problem. It's a global problem. The problem for Canada is going to be exactly what we're seeing in Syria. Migrants flooding into Europe because they're pushed off their land from climate change. That civil war in Syria is at least in part encouraged by drought out there. There's a lot of problems we will need to address as a result of our inaction on climate change and not all of them are directly environmental problems. Climate change is going to and already has resulted in geopolitical and social problems. Edited October 26, 2015 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

I understand that - I was simply speaking to our relatively good position no matter what happens. One need only look to the recent hurricane in the Pacific - strongest winds ever recorded in this hemisphere.

[Smeelious]

I'm not sure what you mean by outlandish, but the burden of proof lies with the less simple position not the less popular position.

I'm not sure in this case which would be "less simple". Against consensus might be better in this case. Frankly, the less popular position does need more proof, since you have a lot more people to convince. Less simple...I'm just not liking it, being less simple means it is harder to prove, not that it needs more proof. After pondering for a bit I'd say proving climate change is man made and significant is the less simple proposition, but then it also has the majority of evidence. The result of which is that "showing that it is not" requires more evidence.

Smeelious, on 26 Oct 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

In this case: That human created climate change doesn't exist, and/or that it has no significant effect on the global environment.

A strawman. I never claimed otherwise. I simply said there is no evidence of negative effects to date.

I wasn't actually responding to you here directly, and "no evidence of negative.." and "no significant effect" are the same in this case, so I don't see the strawman.

Some scientists have hypotheses about what the possible impacts might be. So far they have no data that suggests their hypotheses might be correct. The scientific consensus is on the premise that human emitted CO2 affects climate. There is no real consensus on the seriousness of the consequences.

Here I'd say it's better to be safe. There is only a 5 degree difference between the ice age and now. Imagine what another 5 degrees north of that will accomplish. And yes, I have no evidence of what that would look like, and I'd rather work to never find out. It's already evident that the 0.7 degree raise has caused significant damage (Here is an article on the cost - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy )

[-1=e^ipi]

To be fair, in terms of Canada, it actually isn't so conclusive. It may in fact be good, on balance, if we have a few average degrees of warming.

Actually for Canada, it looks more conclusive than the world at large. Canada pretty much benefits from any realistic scenario over the next 100 years.

[-1=e^ipi]

Do warmer oceans produce more powerful hurricanes? I mean, is that even disputable?

In terms of the effect of AMO on hurricanes, sure.

But with respect to AGW via greenhouse gases, the increase in surface temperature which causes increased water vapour in air is pretty much exactly offset by the lapse rate feedback. The main difference is that global warming reduces the radiative imbalance between the surface and the tropopause, which means there is less adiabatic instability to cause hurricanes.

[-1=e^ipi]

Migrants flooding into Europe because they're pushed off their land from climate change.

Yeah, it's not like it's due to other reasons...

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/mideast_islamic_state_96569489.jpg

Edited October 26, 2015 by Michael Hardner
replaced image with link

[TimG]

That civil war in Syria is at last in part encouraged by drought out there.

This is perfect example of the fact free nonsense spread by climate alarmists. Syria is a dry country subject to periodic droughts. The fact that one occurred recently cannot be attributed to climate change. More importantly, the conflict is one of many sparked by the Arab Spring where populations rose up against despots which means suggesting that the drought was a relevant factor makes no sense. Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not sure in this case which would be "less simple".

The null hypothesis is the simplest.

Against consensus might be better in this case. Frankly, the less popular position does need more proof, since you have a lot more people to convince.

Okay, prove that god doesn't exist. If you can't prove this, then we should just go along with that belief, since the majority of people believe in god.

See the problem?

There is only a 5 degree difference between the ice age and now.

LGM-Holocene Optimum temperature difference is 4.0 +/- 0.8 C (95% confidence interval from annan and hargreaves 2013). Of course we are arguably about 0.3 C warmer than the Holocene now.

It's already evident that the 0.7 degree raise has caused significant damage

That doesn't follow, especially given that our current climate is clearly better off than the last glacial maximum. Why do you think it was only after the LGM that agriculture took off? Or would you prefer the world look like this:

All that warming has given us less desert, less tundra, more forest. Clearly warming is a bad thing! *sarcasm*

[TimG]

Here I'd say it's better to be safe.

I would agree if viable alternatives existed. The problem is they don't and all we are talking about is a myriad of scams and shell games designed to create the illusion of action that only suck resources away that will be needed for adaption. Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

This is perfect example of the fact free nonsense spread by climate alarmists.

The fact that you need to resort to name calling should tell you how strong your arguments are.

[TimG]

The fact that you need to resort to name calling should tell you how strong your arguments are.

There is nothing wrong with my arguments. Syria is a dry country and there is no evidence that the current drought is outside of the norms for the country over the last 1000 years or so.

[Michael Hardner]

The fact that you need to resort to name calling should tell you how strong your arguments are.

Alarmism is a real thing, but the onus is on the claimant to prove or disprove whether this is true/alarmism in any case.

[Michael Hardner]

....there is no evidence that the current drought is outside of the norms for the country over the last 1000 years or so.

Are you making a positive claim or reacting to a claim ? Who needs to provide the cite here ?

[Smeelious]

The null hypothesis is the simplest.

Okay, prove that god doesn't exist. If you can't prove this, then we should just go along with that belief, since the majority of people believe in god.

See the problem?

What is your null hypothesis in this case?

The only evidence for God is historically anecdotal. I do see your point, however. Still, I'd argue that the majority of evidence supports the non-exsistance of God, Just as the majority of evidence shows that man made climate change being significant is a real thing. What am I even arguing at this point? I have no idea.

That doesn't follow, especially given that our current climate is clearly better off than the last glacial maximum. Why do you think it was only after the LGM that agriculture took off? Or would you prefer the world look like this:

Actually I don't want it to look like:

[dialamah]

Gee. Given the fact that there next to is zero conclusive evidence of negative effects from climate change to date

Not true.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-change/

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/12/tuvalu_that_sin_1.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/29/1

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/debilt-the-netherlands.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/

I admit, I'm often comforted by reading dissenting opinions by 'experts' that climate change is normal, that it's not that bad, that it's just 'alarmist nonsense', so I can understand people clinging to that - who wants to imagine that the entire human race could be essentially extinct in just a few generations? So I understand why people ignore the Tuvalu, and Northern communities who are already moving due to rising sea levels and melting ice, the videos of huge swaths of ice falling off glaciers, the wilder weather around the world, the poor Bangladeshi who have to keep moving a few feet up the beach every year, as the water laps at their feet. Its not affecting us in the West, and stuff like that always happens, right? It's very comforting to think that way, I agree. And in a few more decades, as the low lying areas become flooded and people begin moving in mass numbers to 'safe' places, our worry about 25,000 Syrian refugess will be laughable.

Anyway, as much as it grieves me, I suspect we're not going to do enough about it quickly enough - too many people prefer to be comforted than realistic.

[Wilber]

[quote name="dialamah" post="1109625" tiAnd in a few more decades, as the low lying areas become flooded and people begin moving in mass numbers to 'safe' places, our worry about 25,000 Syrian refugess will be laughable.

Anyway, as much as it grieves me, I suspect we're not going to do enough about it quickly enough - too many people prefer to be comforted than realistic.

Pretty much the way I see it.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Wilber

[Keepitsimple]

Not true.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-change/

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/12/tuvalu_that_sin_1.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/29/1

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/debilt-the-netherlands.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/06/opinions/sutter-two-degrees-marshall-islands/

I admit, I'm often comforted by reading dissenting opinions by 'experts' that climate change is normal, that it's not that bad, that it's just 'alarmist nonsense', so I can understand people clinging to that - who wants to imagine that the entire human race could be essentially extinct in just a few generations? So I understand why people ignore the Tuvalu, and Northern communities who are already moving due to rising sea levels and melting ice, the videos of huge swaths of ice falling off glaciers, the wilder weather around the world, the poor Bangladeshi who have to keep moving a few feet up the beach every year, as the water laps at their feet. Its not affecting us in the West, and stuff like that always happens, right? It's very comforting to think that way, I agree. And in a few more decades, as the low lying areas become flooded and people begin moving in mass numbers to 'safe' places, our worry about 25,000 Syrian refugess will be laughable.

Anyway, as much as it grieves me, I suspect we're not going to do enough about it quickly enough - too many people prefer to be comforted than realistic.

You've mentioned Tuvalu more than once so I imagine it really concerns you. Don't fret about it. The Tuvaluans are not sinking but the President of Tuvalu has been on a soapbox to declare his population to be the first Climate Refugees - and thereby extort money from sucker donors. But hey - if you are concerned enough about rising seas - your fears should be with the Florida Keys which are actually a lower land mass than Tuvalu. They are the true "canary in the coal mine". The emperical evidence has been drowned out by the hysterical cries of environmental activists - but here's some reading for you....because if you've been duped on the most prevalent "fib" - you might want to take a closer look at some of the others......

Article One gives the facts as they were in 2010 - but the story was completely drowned out by the Climate Refugee trend...

Article Two is from 2015 and gives grudging acceptance to the fact that Tuvalu and others are not sinking.......but on queue, the alarmists have moved the goalposts.....as their argument devolves into what Climate Change could do to Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.

Article One: http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=4236

There have, however, been occasional voices which have dissented from these alarmist views. The University of Hawaii measurements since 1977 showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades, and found that sea levels fell three millimetres between 1995 and 1997.

Cliff Ollier from the School of Earth and Environment, University of WA, wrote in a paper published in July 2009, "If you ask Google for information on sea level, you get pages of claims that the Pacific Islands are sinking in the sea. If you Google "Tuvalu", you will get messages of impending doom. And yet the best factual data available show that the islands, including Tuvalu, are not sinking. Of course, the climate alarmists will keep this true information out of the literature as long as they can."

In his paper, Ollier cited data collected in Tuvalu by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which showed that there had been no rise in sea levels in Tuvalu over the past 20 years.

These findings have been strikingly confirmed by two researchers, Paul Kench at the University of Auckland, and Arthur Webb, from the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji. Their findings have been reported in the climate alarmist New Scientist magazine. They used historical aerial photos and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of 27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. Of these, only four had decreased in size, and the other 23 had either stayed the same or grown. On Tuvalu, Webb and Kench found that seven of the nine island atolls have increased in size by more than 3 per cent since the 1950s. One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 ha, or nearly 30 per cent of its previous area. On another, a cyclone which hit Tuvalu in 1972 actually deposited 140 ha of sedimentary debris onto the eastern reef, increasing the area of the main island by 10 per cent. They found similar trends in neighbouring Kiribati, where each of the three main islands increased in size.

Yet even these studies made no impact on New Scientist. It quoted Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide who "points out that sea-level rise is already accelerating", and added that "warnings about rising sea levels must still be taken seriously".

Article Two: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27639-small-atoll-islands-may-grow-not-sink-as-sea-levels-rise/

“There is presently no evidence that these islands are going to sink,” says Virginie Duvat of the University of La Rochelle in France. She says that she and other researchers are trying to fight the widespread misconception that sea level rise will mean the end for atolls. However, Kench’s findings do not apply to other types of island, like the volcanic main islands of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.

If atolls are not sinking, could people continue to live there? “Where shoreline changes are rapid, islanders have already had, in some cases, to move to more stable places,” says Duvat. Rural inhabitants commonly adapt in this way as their houses lack permanent foundations, she says. “The lifetime of such houses is short, allowing people to relocate quite easily.” But it would be harder for urban residents to adapt, says Duvat.

[Big Guy]

I wish Trudeau and Canada well. Justin will get his well deserved honeymoon and then reality will set in.

He has set expectations very high and people want things done yesterday. Everyone will be disappointed to different degrees. I find his openness (to this point) refreshing and his promise to let his Cabinet make their own decisions very different and encouraging. Only time will tell if this is good or bad. Inviting provincial leaders and opposition leaders to this environmental summit is a refreshing change in management style from the last guy.

It took Harper 9 years to change the direction in which Canada was going. I am ready to give Trudeau at least 4 to get it going in the right direction. Most people will not.

[TimG]

o I understand why people ignore the Tuvalu, and Northern communities who are already moving due to rising sea levels and melting ice, the videos of huge swaths of ice falling off glaciers, the wilder weather around the world, the poor Bangladeshi who have to keep moving a few feet up the beach every year, as the water laps at their feet.

Except there is no plausible evidence linking these things to climate change given the other, more plausible, explainations. In the case of tuvalu the it is an atoll which basically rises with sea level so any problems are related to local problems such as over population and construction in zones that should be kept free because of the geography of atolls.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738

Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment.

The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images.

I realize that many alarmist treat these claims as the word of god but I took the time to actually look into the scientific basis and in almost all cases there is no scientific justification the religious beliefs. Edited October 26, 2015 by TimG

[hitops]

He has set expectations very high and people want things done yesterday. Everyone will be disappointed to different degrees. I find his openness (to this point) refreshing and his promise to let his Cabinet make their own decisions very different and encouraging.

I also see this as a plus. The more non-Trudeau people making decisions, the better. They do have a deep bench of experienced people. Maybe he is showing wisdom and insight into his lack of knowledge, and willing to let the grown-ups do the work.